Brazil is 100% oil independent. Why aren't we?

Brazil has the 5th largest territorial country space in the world. Has the 6th largest economy. With almost 200 million is about 2/3 the size of United States in population. But it is much poorer and has a lot less clout than United States. So,

Why Brazil can use natural gas, gasoline and ethanol (100% of each one of them) in their cars and we can't have the same in America? And you know what is funny? Those cars are american brands, such as Ford and GM.

Because the interests of the american car manufacturers in conluio with the oil interests, which in turn control the media, simply do not want.

We talk so much about democracy and will of the people. Where's the will of the people if no media outlet mentions a single word on the available techcnology found all over the world. Except in America.

In Brazil it happenned because one day, right after the 1973 oil embargo, the Brazilian government mandated the development of the ethanol industry in Brazil to provide a way to escape the high cost of oil worldwide. They succeeded. We got stuck with the giants that keep ripping our money every single day without a single politiian doing anything to change.

What are we going to do about it?

Look at my pictures for details of the Brazilian gas conversions program.

...

Tags: brazil, brazilian, conversion, conversions, gas, natural, ngv, nvg

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mithilesh Kumar on August 13, 2008 at 4:45pm: Brazil's example is note worthy & worth emulating. However a word of caution. I have started using ethanol based impala car & see a number of gas stations selling ethanol. However our ethanol is Corn based which drives food prices high. Brazil's ethanol is Sugar cane based. Which produces Sugar and gives ethanol as a byproduct. Corn based ethanol will not bring energy independance.
Thanks.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Getulio Bastos on August 14, 2008 at 1:50pm: Michael,

Thanks for your comments.

Please read my reply to Mr. Mithilesh, above.

Rgs,

Getulio Bastos; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Getulio Bastos on August 14, 2008 at 1:48pm: Mithilesh,

You are absolutely right. Corn is one of the worst possible choices for ethanol production.

Below is an article found on the web page http://brontossauros.blogspot.com/2008/08/biocombustveis-cana-de-ac... which is in Portuguese, from which I’m translating literally

Quote:

One of the more obvious problems with the ethanol produced from corn is that it contributes directly for the increase in the world prices of foodstuff (which also increases the USA financial crisis and with the increase in the oil prices also increases the prices of fertilizers (oil based), which in turn increases the cost for the cultivation of corn). All the while, the production of sugar cane derived ethanol has not interfered at all with the world prices of sugar.

The World Watch Institute published in 2006 a Report that’s not politically motivated. You can read the report here http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/Annual_Report_2006.pdf -

According to it:

1. In 2006 the cost to produce ethanol from sugar cane was equivalent, in energetic terms, to a litter of gasoline was between US$ 0.25 cents and US$ 0.30 cents while the production of the same quantity of ethanol derived from corn was between US$ 0.40 and US$ 0.60, which was then (2006) very similar to the production of gasoline. Cellulose derived ethanol at the time cost between US$ 0.80 and US$ 1.20.

2. In production terms (the energy cost to produce), when you invested the energy equivalent to 1 litter of gasoline in a production line, you could produce 9 litters of ethanol from sugar cane, only 1.5 litters of ethanol from corn and 0.8 litters of ethanol from Cellulose. In another words, it costs almost as much to produce ethanol from corn as it costs to produce gasoline.

3. It is estimated that in 2006, for each hectare (10.000 square meters or close to 10.000 square yards) of sugar cane plantation, it produced 6000 litters of ethanol, while the same space in corn plantation it produced only 3.000 litters.

In another study published by a Brazilian think tank in 2006 - http://ecen.com/eee59/eee59p/cana_melhor_conversorl.htm – also favors sugar cane in relation to corn for the production of ethanol, as follows:

1. Using another measuring methodology, to produce 1 kcal of energy from corn we have to use 1.29 kcal of energy, which means the energetic value is actually negative. On the other hand, 1 kcal of energy is sufficient to produce 3.24 kcal from sugar cane.

2. This study shows that it is possible to produce 3 times more ethanol from the same geographical area planted with sugar cane then with corn.

3. It is also estimated that ethanol produced from sugar cane contributes 65% more to the reduction of the greenhouse effect than ethanol produced from corn.

4. This same study also concludes that the ethanol industry in the US can only prosper because of the subsidies from the government which in 2006 were of US$ 4.1 billion. The ethanol produced from sugar cane in Brazil no longer have any subsidies from the government.

Unquote; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bruce Randall on August 14, 2008 at 8:07pm: I was once hot and heavy on the ethanol band wagon when I first read about Brazil's success. However, I have now learned that Brazil was successful because sugar ethanol does not require the mashing phase of the distilation process. Corn on the other hand requires this mashing phase which requires alot of energy and water. When visiting relatives in west Texas I asked about all the new oil wells being drilled. I was told they were water wells to support the new ethanol factory and that 1 gallon of ethanol required 10 gallons of water to produce. Does anyone know this to be true. I can't believe people are buying the ethanol thing if we simple end up running out of water.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Getulio Bastos on August 14, 2008 at 8:41pm: Bruce,

The problem is a political one. If the government decides that we should produce ethanol from sugar cane, which is much easier and cheaper to make than corn, all it has to do is to create some kind of subsidy and a lot of people would plant sugar cane, which is simple and does not require prime land to plant. In fact, in Florida sugar cane is planted where almost nothing else will flourish, like sand.

In Brazil, there’s no increase in the cost of anything by producing ethanol from sugar cane, which is not the case here that everything uses corn.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Lou De Frog on August 13, 2008 at 5:28pm: Ethanol is a subsidy for farmers who feed the residue from the process to their animals. Corn is grown on prime agricultural land with oil based fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. It has been calculated that it takes 20 calories of fossil fuel to grow 1 calorie of food, and it takes 1.3 calories of the food to produce 1 calorie of ethanol. I can't see how that fixes anything.

The only way ethanol would fix a national problem is if anyone could set up a still and make the stuff from whatever suitable garden waste they had handy - rotten grapes, potatoes, Jerusalem artichokes ....-that would be a good one. They would grow on compostable garbage and would self-seed from the small tubers left in the ground.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Getulio Bastos on August 14, 2008 at 1:52pm: Christopher,

Thanks for your comments.

Please read my reply to Mr. Mithilesh, above.

Rgs,

Getulio Bastos; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by American in the D.R. on August 13, 2008 at 5:36pm: Well. Let us get some of this in order.

Brazil has a lot more cash then the U.S. at this time. But then again who doesn’t? And more stable.
Brazil has a lot more resources then the U.S., and most of the World that has not been touched.
Brazil manufactures the cars, U.S. names and others, in Brazil with Ford and GM making money for the name. And a lot more.
True, Brazil does have some control over the press. You should have been there in the 1960s. At this time, not as controlled as you think. It is a … modified, if you will, Democracy.
The Military government of the 1960s was a temporary government that has proven true that led to a more Democratic society.
The move to being a self supporting Country started in the early 60s, under the Military government, a mandate. Ethanol and other self reliant measures started then.
Brazil not only learned from World events of the early 1960s, they did things while the rest of the World went in other directions.

How many nuclear power plants does Brazil have? How many more are planned? How much oil is estimated in the new field? How much will they use? How many new refineries are being built?

Look at Inbev that bought your “bud”. Look who manages, major stock owners and where the money goes.

No disrespect Mr. Bastos; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Getulio Bastos on August 14, 2008 at 3:35pm: Av,

You are absolutely right, but then again you have to live the life to understand certain facts.

When Brazil decided to create the Ethanol Program back in 1973, it was not a democracy. It was a dictatorship that commanded the decision and kept it going until the democracy was returned. By then the program was already successful and would be a stupidity not to continue.

If you look at these recent documentaries about the prosperity of China, there’s one that has a billionaire that states very clearly that the only reason he invests his billions in China is because the government is 100% pro-business. Screw the people.

Minimum salary in China is US$ 100.00 per month and the work week goes from 9.00 am to 9.00 pm Monday to Saturday. For everybody. And don’t try to talk to the people about problems in China. They don’t exist (for the populous). A foreigner can only stay in foreign authorized hotels. On these hotels, in the only 4 channels in English (CNN, BBC America, Bloomberg and HBO) available, every time any newscast mentions the word China (which usually happens before the actual broadcasting of the news), the TV becomes black with a big Chinese hieroglyph, returning to normal conditions after the news about China ends. The Chinese people knows everything that goes on around the world, but have no idea of what happens (whatever is bad) inside China. So, they live in heaven.

It is pretty hard to compete with that. And it is also pretty hard to do the same in a democracy, where the minimum salary is US$ 6.55 an hour.

In the 70’s America was going down the drain (just like today). I lived in Canada when the first embargo happened in 1973. Vietnam caused a lot or heartaches and Japan was to become the richest nation in the world. But America, as we say in Brazil, stood up from the fall, cleaned up the pants and returned to the fight, and eventually invented the computer, the laptop, the internet, the chips, the iphone, etc... etc...

The same is going to happen now. The Chinese symbol for the word Crisis can also be used in a phrase that includes the word Opportunity. And every time there’s a crisis in America, our creativity returns us to the top, again and again and again.

And there is a reason for that. It is called FREEDOM. Only freedom brings out creativity. While 95% of businesses in the US are conducted by small to sole proprietorship businesses, in Brazil 75% of the businesses are controlled by the government. Small entrepreneurs are creative by the need to survive. Big government does not function exactly because everybody there knows they can never lose their jobs.

I’ve seen America go down and back up again a few times in my own lifetime. Believe me. America will be back stronger than ever again in the very near future.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Getulio Bastos on August 14, 2008 at 2:48pm: American in the D.R.,

I don't understand the apology (no disrespect). There's no need for it.

At this point Brazil does have more money than the US.

While according to this site - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250313,00.html - Bush's plan predicts a $239 billion deficit for the 2008 fiscal year, Brazil currently have a surplus of precisely US$ 11,370 billion according to this site - http://noticias.uol.com.br/ultnot/economia/2008/07/01/ult1767u12323... -

That does not mean Brazil has a leg on the US. Although you may be right that Brazil at this point may have more natural reserves than the US, this does not mean they know how to properly explore it.

Corruption is rampant. Crime is uncontrolled. Bureaucracy is heavier than in China (I know both fairly well – been there, done that). The wheels of the machine in Brazil still need a lot of oil to perform to the level of the US. And democracy is not exactly happening (although neither is in America today where the top two parties leaders decide who will be the next candidate – they could care less for the populous).

US is, nonetheless, still the most powerful and the richest nation in the world. What we need to do is to close a few taps of waste. Reduce the dependency on international oil, the pork barrel, the size of government, the war expenditures, the subsidies we give to the world that hates us at the same time we provide them with their food (this is called envy).

I’m 100% Republican but although Bush received the government with a surplus (and a big one), and although 9/11 was not his fault and everybody agreed with the war, he definitely made too many mistakes.

If we, somehow, (I really don’t care who) elect someone that puts an end to a number of excesses in expenditures and we become more conscious of our limits, US can easily re-conquer its right position in the world stage and maintain our standard of living, which still is the highest in the world.

And we have to learn from our mistakes and plan for the future, instead of everybody trying to live for today. And that’s exactly why I have to clap my hands and take my hat to Mr. Pickens, that clearly does not need to create more headaches for him, but is acting patriotically anyway, putting his money where his mouth seems to be.

Regarding the ethanol production, Brazil is way ahead of the US and we need to learn from them. For the comparison, please read my reply to Mr. Mithilesh, above.

Rgs,

Getulio Bastos; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by RWC1972 on August 13, 2008 at 9:48pm: Are you serious?

Brazil is a third world country where you either are filthy rich or dirt poor.

Get with the program :/; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by RWC1972 on August 13, 2008 at 9:57pm: Clearly you're an idiot with an agenda. Do you work with Big Daddy Al Gore?; ▶ Reply to This