Kiss the Earth GREEN

Add a Comment

Comment by Kat on December 30, 2008 at 4:19am

Please go to http://change.gov/openforquestions sign-in or sign-up for an account at Change.gov and ask the administration what they plan to do with regard to energy independence and the Pickens Plan.

Comment by Hugh Hemington on December 20, 2008 at 1:52pm

Dan --

Interesting paper. Too bad the tables omitted ethanol. The Delucchi study, referenced as #58 considered only cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass, which somewhat more resource-neutral than the more recent movement to use corn cobs, which will invariably encourage more cultivation of corn.

In section 4, figure 2 tries to represent the CO2 reduction achieved for light and heavy-duty vehicles, but it assumes using electricity, or E85. Heavy-duty vehicles cannot efficiently operate with electricity, and are typically Diesel today, which doesn't use ethanol. The study didn't consider conversion to hydrogen. And yes, the CO2 reduction is greatest using wind-generated electricity in this table.

I guess the "bottom-line" from figure 2 is that corn ethanol isn't an attractive solution relative to electricity produced in any of the ways considered.

Good contribution. Lots of primary sources via links. Thanks.

Comment by dan on December 20, 2008 at 9:30am

In a review of the true costs of energy generation, Mark Z. Jacobson has released a paper that looks at true cost of alternative energy sources. To do this he looked at how these forms of energy are then used to power vehicles. This is the by far the largest need of energy in our society and it has the largest ecological and environmental impacts of our energy use. His conclusion is that we will need a multi-modal approach but wind energy generation is by far the greenest option. That is followed by concentrated solar collection, that is using mirrors/reflection devices to concentrate the heat of solar radiation to heat a liquid to turn energy turbines. This is exactly the type of research that needs to be done to move us into the future.



Actual paper for those inclined
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

dan

Comment by Hugh Hemington on December 17, 2008 at 11:33am

The "Hedge funds" and "credit default swaps" were part of the rich people's game too. The reason they were allowed to play it without regulation or oversight is that the government was assured that it would not impact the economy whatever happened.

You ask how Bernard Mackoff was allowed to do what he did? His "game" was un-regulated. It was secret. Those who invested with him did so with the understanding that there were no guarantees. DO NOT BELIEVE ANYONE WHO SAYS WE NEED TO BAIL THEM OUT!!!

Conventional financial institutions saw the "profits" being made in the game and wanted in, and they gambled so heavily (and AIG insured the bets) that they couldn't afford the losses. So we had to bail them out because the impact on the legitimate economy would have been catastrophic.

They played in a game they shouldn't have, with non-game money, and with no ability to cover the losses. The bailout was wrong, but so was allowing them to play.

Comment by Hugh Hemington on December 17, 2008 at 11:25am

He's got enough money to live on -- not necessarily enough to build the wind farms.

People always wonder how rich people get and stay rich. Well, lesson 1: Never build your wealth using your own money.

Rich people do whatever they do in order to test their success. A measure of that success is to see how much money they can make using someone else's money. That isn't to say that those who supply the capital don't get a return on their investment, just that, to them, putting money into ventures is a game. They don't put their "living" money into the game, only their "game" money.

Comment by Wind4me.com on December 15, 2008 at 6:47am

Why did Boone Pickens NOT build the Wind Farms???? I have never understood the guy after he got on 60 minutes and kept saying ''''its NOT about the Money, I got enough money''''

Comment by Michael on December 6, 2008 at 12:15am

Hello Luis
Thanks for your good work.
I would like to invite the members of your group to join the group Wanted Patents, New products and stay informed in all the new developments in Green Energy.
Hope to see you all there. Let's all continue to work together on PickensPlan.
Michael
coordinator@wantedpatents.com
http://push.pickensplan.com/group/wantedpatentsprototypesnewproductsinventions/a>

Comment by Nathan Campbell on December 3, 2008 at 2:30pm

I drink New Belgium if I am drinking micro-brews, because they are local and their brewery is wind powered.

"Obviously the ethanol producers will never suggest they no longer need a subsidy, so we need a phase-out schedule."
Hugh, that is the plan! Next year the "blenders credit"(I still can't call it a subsidy because gasoline producers qualify) is going to $0.45 from $0.54.

"And why is it that, when oil ran up to $140/bbl, and gasoline sold for $4.00/gal, ethanol STILL couldn't compete?"
Ethanol only still needs government support to compete with low oil prices. When gas was over $4.00 per gallon ethanol blending made gasoline significantly more economical.

When prices on gasoline peaked this summer, E85 prices at my station peaked at $2.89. If ethanol is more than $1 less than gasoline prices, there is no question that it is competitive, even before tax credits.

I know you guys all hate the thought of taxes, even if other taxes get reduced as a compromise, but a variable gasoline tax could be useful to stabilize the price. Something that makes the price of gas never go under $2.50, while the tax rate is reduced as prices go over $3.50 a gallon would be a wise plan. This would help the ethanol industry in a fair way without subsidies by stabilizing the price of the competition.

Comment by Hugh Hemington on December 1, 2008 at 4:28pm

OPEC is a cartel -- it isn't trying to compete with anything. Of all the conspiracy theories going, OPEC is a conspiracy. It doesn't pretend to be anything else! All OPEC countries sell their crude oil onto the market at the cartel price. Lower production costs just translate into higher profits, not lower prices.

Competing with oil isn't a matter of "strength" -- it's a matter of the cost of bringing both fuels to the pump. And why is it that, when oil ran up to $140/bbl, and gasoline sold for $4.00/gal, ethanol STILL couldn't compete? (I'm assuming since it was being subsidized then, it's because it couldn't compete, not because congress was raking out the dough) Obviously the ethanol producers will never suggest they no longer need a subsidy, so we need a phase-out schedule.


"Coors turns their waste beer into fuel ethanol..."

I thought ALL their beer was waste beer! Beer isn't a commodity. There are enough good domestic beers available (Sierra Nevada), that I'm happy I don't have to drink Coors to drink American.

Comment by david epps on December 1, 2008 at 11:36am

The ethanol industry corn, cellulosic or any other kind, is not strong enough to compete with oil that Venezuela can pull out of the ground virtually free because they stole the infrastructure to do it. Or to compete with other OPEC nations who have long since paid for their oil producing infrastructure.

Read my lips no new taxes. And the government should give us 100% tax credit on every alternative fuel Made in America.

"Drink more Made in America Coors beer and do your part to produce over 3 million gallons of ethanol from beer manufacturing waste products."

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last