BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 08:29 PM

The whole ethanol concept is flawed. To make an important contribution to fuel needs, forests would be mowed down, production of food grains cut, and the environment impacted.
Small processing plants using waste are feasible, but unlimited allowables would be destructive to the environment.

This thread has digressed from Lonesome EJ's original idea, but not in a destructive way, we all need to think about energy and push candidates to do the same. I wonder about his sugar beets, since the crop in both the U. S. and Canada already has a ready market. The waste, however, may be useful- I don't know about this.

One ton of sugar beets yields 19.5 gallons of ethanol.
Ethanol production from corn costs $1.05/gallon; from sugar beets or sugar cane $2.35-$2.40/gallon.
USDA figures, July, 2006 (Prices in the market for sugar beets has risen since then).
http://www.usda.gov/oce/EthanolSugarFeasibilityReport3.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 08:44 PM

I'm with lox... grow hemp... I gotta little patch up in the mountain that only I kbnow about that oughtta be good and sticky toward the end of September... Yezzir...

But lets get real here folks... What we have is the beginning of the beginning of not only the very real possibility of having a president who isn't locked into any one policy if something else makes sense...

The United States does do one thing very well and that is grow stuff and so farming is very important to our economy... Giving billions of dallars to millionaire agri-business corporations has been the other "third rail" for a long time and, yeah, if you have any chance of being elected you'd better not piss them off so...

...like BillD said, Obama has to walk a tight rope here and he is doing just that...

Now, fast forward to an Obama administration and I think that the tunes will changes... They have to... And Obamas views will cahnge as new information and technology rears it head... That's why I like Obama... We have had 7 long years of dagmatism for the sake of dogmatism and stubbornness for the sake or stubborness and look where it has gotten US???

In the words of the latem great Waylon Jennings, "We need a change" and regardless of Obama's views on ethenol today I am less concerned about him being flexible enough to make changes as needed than my concerns are for McCain's abilities to do so...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 09:23 PM

I have to second Bobert's remarks. The one thing Barack Obama has demonstrated is his ability and willingness to think newly with new information. And he does it well.

I'll back him up until he demonstrates in some concrete way he can't handle the truth. So far, he's been doing better than any one else in he pool, because he shows the ability not only to think fresh thoughts, but also to balance the pragmatic vectors of winning consensus.,

A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:45 PM

Not having done much research on this, I would tend to agree that McCain is on the right side of this issue--and Obama is not.

But the salient question is how significant this issue is against others. For my money, it's nothing compared to the Iraq war.

And there's no question who's on the wrong side there:   McCain.

I cannot imagine anybody basing a vote in the fall on how Obama and McCain view ethanol. Sounds like a parody of a one-issue voter.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 09:52 AM

hemp is a serious alternative.

Produces nearly 5 tmes as much methanol as a cornstalk,

Can grow anywhere,

returns nutrients to the soil,

is perennial,

can be grown with other plants ... in forests for example so no trees need to be cut down ...

Doesn't even need to have THC in it ... there are huge fields full of hemp that won't get you high in the UK that are being grown fr reseearch purposes.

you can make paper, rope, clothes (strongest natural fibre)

doesn't need chemical fertilizers or pesticides.


check this out.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 10:29 AM

Just grow the hemp. I have a few ideas for the THC. (Work with me on this . . . . )

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 11:43 AM

I have a checkbook cover and a tee-shirt which are both made of hemp and have lasted forever it seems like. The shirt is the softest one I own.

McCain's latest tv ad, entitled "Global" is a joke. It brags that he disagreed with the president about global warming five years ago (like wow!) and has a plan to bring us to "Reform, Prosperity, Peace." What a fucking joke.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 11:49 AM

Growth of hemp, like corn or any other source, requires diverting agricultural land or clearing new land, and is ecologically damaging and raises food crop costs dramatically.
Aid agencies estimate that biodiesel-ethanol production has already driven 30 million people closer to starvation (BBC News report).

Hemp seed has 28% oil and as a crop can produce 15 gallons/acre, giving a production cost for biodiesel of $35/gallon, but using special varieties could lower the cost to $5.20/gallon.
Hemp biomass overall is a good source of ethanol, yielding 25-100 gallons/ton (higher figures depending on special varieties and some pie in the sky speculation).

Rice straw (burned in California) has been proposed as a source, but high silica content and high gathering costs make its use unlikely. Rice plants, like a number of grasses, collect silica, which is difficult to remove in refining.

All of this information is on the net, but beware of the cloud nine blogs (in the majority).

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 11:59 AM

Tim Castlemal, of Fuel and Fiber Company, has written a brief summary of use of plant seed and biomass to produce diesel and ethanol. "Hemp biomass for Energy."

http://fuelandfiber.com/Hemp4NRG/Hemp4NRGRV3.htm

Other high oil alternatives also are discussed.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:00 PM

Cellulosic ethanol farm gets started

Switchgrass planted, idea is to avoid fuel vs. food competition

The Associated Press
updated 3:11 p.m. CT, Tues., June. 17, 2008

GUYMON, Okla. - Work has started on the planting of a 1,000-acre switchgrass field in the Oklahoma Panhandle that researchers plan to use in the production of cellulosic ethanol.

The field is being touted as the world's largest for switchgrass, a drought-resistant perennial plant that grows even on marginal lands. Scientists at the Noble Foundation in Ardmore are overseeing the project and hope that switchgrass proves to be a viable substitute for corn in ethanol production.

Hitch Enterprises, a Panhandle-based company, began planting the field earlier this month. Smaller fields of switchgrass also will be planted in central Oklahoma near Chickasha and Maysville.

/quote

Switchgrass has been often mentioned as a potential source material, assuming that the breakdown of cellulosic plants can be made sufficiently efficient. As noted above, there are a few start-up plants planned for the near future.

A problem with cellulosics is that the cellulose has to be broken down to release/extract the sugars which can then be fermented into ethanol - in most schemes considered even remotely viable. Most schemes have accepted the need for a two-step process, with seperate digesters and fermenters.

There has been some progress in improving the biological digesters to breakdown cellulosic plants, but most schemes still require a separate fermentation. At least one startup company (there may be a dozen similar ones) has been claiming for about a year now that they believe that within a couple of years they'll have a "superbug" that can digest the cellulose and ferment it all in one jug.

Obviously a single-step process would have significant cost advantages if the yields are high enough - - but we're still waiting for the big announcement.

(Guyman OK is in the west end of the OK panhandle. I haven't been down there recently, but my recollection of the general area is that it's about as "marginal" as land can get. It's possible I missed the good parts though, since I was driving and had to watch the road occasionally the last time I crossed that end of the P-Handle.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:41 PM

Guymon (note spelling) is a town of about 11,000, employment highs in food processing and agriculture. Over 38% 0f the population is Hispanic, 20% not born in the States.

A little more on the switchgrass project, funded by the Noble Foundation. It is a project of the Oklahoma Bioenergy Center, the Universities of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. It will take three years for 100% crop harvest. Abengoa Bioenergy of Hugoton, Kansas, will complete the refinery for for bio fuels in 2010.
At first, there will be some irrigation to insure that they get a crop which can be experimented with.

The Castleman article, linked previously, discusses cellulosic use.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 05:23 PM

The problem here is that McCain is trying to say that Obama is a one trick pony when it comes to the energy debate.

No one is saying that we should replace gasoline with ethanol. It is something that can be used to add to the gasoline, spreading out the current supply, lessening the demand.

The problem on the McCain side is that once the wells are drilled the environmental damage is done and pretty much can't be undone. The wells sometimes come up dry, and it leaves us in the hands of people who have demonstrated a great ability to manipulate the market.

At least corn, hemp, soybeans, etc. can be grown and regrown to produce both oil and ethanol.

As far as the rest of the world starving, I'm trying to not be shallow about it but how is it that these folks survive in a nation/country/state/continent that apparently can't support it's population? Is it only the United States that can grow crops and feed itself as well as the rest of the world?

If so, along with the U.S. cutting back on it's consumption, shouldn't the rest of the world be putting pressure on the other countries that are heavy consumers of petroleum resources (China and India to name just two others) so that we don't have to use cellulosic ehtanol / bio-diesel?

Shouldn't the rest of the world be putting pressure on the oil rich nations to stop screwing with the world economy and food supply?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 05:55 PM

"...countries that are heavy consumers of petroleum resources (China and India to name just two others)"

Combined population of those two countries is nearing 3 billion people. Their energy needs will not be met any time soon. We have $4 per gallon gas because these two countries need more oil than the world can supply. That and OPEC manipulation of the market. Less than 10% of crude oil is distributed by free market forces.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:10 PM

Who is "screwing with the world economy and food supply?"

U. S. corn subsidies amounted to $56.2 billion dollars from 1995-2006. See http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?flps=00000&progcode=corn
Congress approves $190 billion farm subsidy package. Christian Science Moniter and news agaicies
U. S. Corn subsidies devestating to Mexican farmers- see www.organicconsumers.org/corn_subsidies.cfm
Amazon deforestation and fires are being aggravated by U. S. farm subsidies... See www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/28859
EU joins WTO complaint against U. S. corn subsidies. See www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/22/business/wto.php

McCain blasts U. S. corn subsidies, saying the planting of corn for use in ethanol has added to a sharp spike in global food prices.
Where is Obama, on this?
International Herald tribune-New York Times, June 16, 2008. See http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/15/america/LA-POL-Brazil-US-McCain.php

Canadian corn case- Argentina and Brazil have joined Canada in a WTO complaint against the Unted States over what they claim are illegal government handouts to American corn growers... http://www.farmpolicy.com/?p=106
etc. etc.

What has the U. S. done about the oil and grain futures market other than complain a bit? A lot of speculators have made fortunes. Some may even pay a few taxes on their gains. But they are contributing to starvation and turmoil.
Neither McCain nor Obama say much about this.

Now who is "screwing with the world economy and food supply?" The U. S. as usual, stinks in this regard as much or more than "the oil producing nations."
Canada is the largest supplier of oil and natural gas to the United States. Finally, it is getting a little of its own back in that regard.

End of rant.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:54 PM

"U. S. corn subsidies amounted to $56.2 billion dollars from 1995-2006."

By showing the total for twelve years, you make it look bigger than it really is. The annual farm subsidy could be expressed as 4.68 billion per year which does not sound out of line.

Odd that free market forces are reviled when that suits some people's political purposes and begged for when that better suits the same person's goals.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 07:01 PM

Yeah Q, I give up, your right, it's all the U.S. fault that everyone in the world is paying high fuel prices and that people in the world are starving.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 07:11 PM

We have the world's finest crop land and we are obusing and destroying it in a frantic effort to get food to all the new mouths in the Third World. In 45 years, Nigeria will have over 300 million people, about what the US has now. They will still be shaking an accousing finger at the US for not keeping them healthy and fed. When and where will this end?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 09:15 PM

A free market is one in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. In a free market economy, individuals, rather than governments, make the majority of decisions regarding economic decisions and transactions (Encarta), i. e. free competition (Websters'). Almost a lost concept.

International markets, however, are always controlled to some extent, by agreement between the exporting and importing countries, and moreover by international trade regulations (WTO talks presently stalled).

My statements do not accuse the United States alone; all major producing and trading nations share in the current situation.
Other countries provide subsidies as well. The EU countries Germany and France, Australia-New Zealand, and Brazil etc., all extend agricultural subsidies.

Subsidies enable a corn (or whatever crop) growing country to sell at a price lower than the world price, thus displacing growers that cannot compete at the low price. Subsidized farmers have the advantage in the market.

The U. S. has good crop land, so do a number of other countries playing the same game- Argentina-Brazil, Australia, China, India, etc.
A good article, or slide show, is "Foreign Crop Subsidies and Tariffs," (Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Missouri and Iowa State Univ. and others) which deals with cotton primarily but has a good summary of practices by various countries. Crops included are corn, sorghum, rice, cotton, soybeans, sugar and wheat. Twenty-one countries are included.
The developed countries protect their agriculture by income supplements and subsidies. Developing countries use tariffs or restrict imports.
Other countries have substantial outlays to assist agriculture (2007-2008 figures)-
India $52 billion
China $43 billion
Brazil $26 billion
Pakistan $2.7 billion

Nigeria, mentioned by pdq, has the highest tariffs on agricultural imports, followed by India, Pakistan and Egypt (The U. S. does not keep Nigeria "healthy and fed." They are a major supplier of oil to the U. S., in spite of occasional disruptions, and it is not one of the starving countries).

The article-slide show absolves the developed countries, like the U. S., of blame, a conclusion which I think is flawed. The effect of the subsidies hurts specific crop growers in the 21 countries considered, but more importantly the poorest nations are not considered at all.

Guide to foreign crop subsidies and tariffs, a power point presentation at the Texas Tech. website.
www.aaec.ttu.edu, and click on the link to download "Cotton economics research ..." or
http://www.aaec.ttu.edu/ceri/policy/Crop%20Subsidies%20Handbook/T&S_LayoutFinal.pdf

I know it makes work in getting the websites, but if I make the link, then one cannot decide whether they want to visit that site or not.

(Hemp growing was made illegal in the U. S. in 1938. Canada recently allowed production of industrial hemp, which just makes a bad smoke).

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 09:37 PM

Great post, Q, but you still miss the point about Nigeria. Reliable international sources have predicted that Nigeria will have about 305 million people bt 2050. At that time, we will not be able to supply them with the food they need. They are in no trouble now, thanks to the enormous oil revenue. I pointed out that a crisis will occur between now and 2050.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 10:14 PM

(actually you can see the addresses at the bottom of your screen if you just put your cursor over the blickey. If you can't, you need to adjust the hoozamadigger on some thingamajig in "options." I'm not complaining, cut and paste is easy enough.)

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 10:19 PM

Here's a fact: countries do not have fingers.

A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 12:51 AM

Nigeria's agriculture is a mess, the effects of the recent civil war and long neglect of agriculture depress it.
At least 150 million acres are arable, but only about 30% is cultivated, and that inefficiently. The climate makes it unsuitable for wheat, but rice, peanuts and other crops could be raised. The cropland is there.
The oil billions must be diverted in part to food production.

Nigeria imports about $2.5 billion worth of food per year, but some are luxury goods for the new well-to-do in the cities (such as frozen foods from the U. S. and elsewhere).
20% of the food imports are from the U. S., about $0.5 billion. Europe, the Asean countries and Africa furnish the rest.

If Nigeria uses its money for development, it should become largely self-sustaining. Unfortunately, they have concentrated on oil production and ignored the agriculture sector.

If the ruling parties go crazy, Mugabe in Zimbabwe the horrible example, pdq could well be right.

Some Nigerian politicians are complaining that cropland is being used for biofuel production. The government has been buying massive amounts of rice, to be sold at a 50% subsidized price, says the UN office for Humanitarian affairs. They produce only 20% of their rice needs.

50% of the country is Muslim and 40% Christian, and they don't get along all that well. The government is finally agreeing to talk with the delta people, and that would stop much of the disruption in their oil production.

Set some firebrands loose in the country, and civil war could break out again.

I guess this is a wait and see situation- potential for development and self-sufficiency is there, but yes, so is the potential for destruction.
Our politicians, with the right moves, could help swing the scales- if they are smart enough.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 12:11 AM

"However, as Claudia Cattaneo pointed out in yesterday's Post, U. S. politicians are playing a dangerous and hypocritical game by criticizing oil sands as they are fretting about security of supply. Canada could certainly find other markets for such oil, although it would involve reversing pipelines, or building new ones. This would, ironically, reduce U.S. security and increase greenhouse gas emissions further. Republican candidate John McCain sounds a good deal more sensible on such issues, but even Mr. Obama will have to bow to reality if he reaches the White House."

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=ed54cc78-027b-41cc-8308-f88c8fa12efe

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 02:14 PM

The oil sands are making money for Canada, and housing prices are not affected by the U. S. mortgage problems. Living costs are increasing.
Alberta is still booming, but reasonable housing is scarce, even finding a doctor if one is new to Alberta, is difficult. In spite of the money collected by Alberta in taxes, etc., on the oil sands, hospitals, medical facilities and personnel and mass transportation need extensive additions.

The oil sands are a close and stable source of North American oil. For Canada, the money is desirable but those monster holes and loss of boreal forest are taking a toll on the environment. Much water is needed to process the oil sands. Some aquifers are being contaminated. Little is being planned to restore the environment.

Albertans in the oil sands region are beginning to feel like the Appalachian dwellers who are impacted by coal mining.

Saskatchewan and the Bakken Formation may soon tread the same path.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 07:24 PM

McCain's solution is to feed the oil companies. This is just as bad as ethanol.
He would limit the caps on the industry, their price gouging and their pollution.

Both McCain and Obama have embraced the nuke industry.

I don't see what McCain is right about.

Frank