<p>The saddest part is that such waste of resources provides ammunition to opponents of workable energy solutions. But what can you expect from the combination of a Department of Energy that has been braindead for generations and the siren songs of dirty politicians.</p>
<p>The former head of Archer, Daniels, Midland C. Wayne Andreas said there isn’t a grain of wheat or an ear of corn traded in a free market anywhere in the world, and wouldn’t be if he had anything to say about it. Ethanol is just business as usual. Before you talk about dirty politicians, you need to understand who owns 'em.</p>
<p>Mini, corruption takes many forms. When it comes to manipulation of commodities, it is hard to miss the Andreas family. They probably never met a government they could not buy or get rid off. However, in the case of ethanol, a lot of the financial waste did not end up lining corporate pockets. The primarily role of the DOE is to ensure its own survival by designing and supporting programs that will never reach commercial readiness. In the energy field, we would reach better and faster results by providing incentives to the industry BASED on commercial RESULTS than continue to support a bunch of pseudo-scientists. For instance, using this entire ethanol for the fiscal incentive s to own and operate hybrid vehicles would yield much larger savings. In our country, promoting energy efficiency and conservation is still viewed as too simple to really work. Give us a few years of $5 bucks a gallon gasoline, and we might change our mind about driving four-wheel gas-guzzlers to go buy a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk. The rest of the world seems to do quite well without having families of four owning two to three cars. </p>
<p>No matter the color or flavor of the successive governments, none of them have shown the courage and intelligence to address the real problems. We continue to consume beyond our means and have been lulled in continuing to do so by keeping the prices lower than their replacement value. Our REAL cost of energy is much higher than what we pay the utilities or the gas pump owners as we refuse to account for true environmental costs. It is also not too farfetched to support that the cost of maintaining strong military forces should be allocated in part to our cost of securing sources of petroleum. </p>
<p>“Mini, corruption takes many forms. When it comes to manipulation of commodities, it is hard to miss the Andreas family. They probably never met a government they could not buy or get rid off. However, in the case of ethanol, a lot of the financial waste did not end up lining corporate pockets.”</p>
<p>Oh, there’s always plenty to spread around. But what’s the common denominator? You make such assumptions, like the “goal” (whose goal?) is maximize larger savings, or to promote efficiency, or to produce programs that reach commercial readiness. I don’t see any evidence for it.</p>
<p>You seem to imply that it is lack of courage or intelligence that leads to real problems not being addressed. You think of government leaders as lacking in courage and intelligence. I don’t see any evidence for that view. Who is this “we” who would reach “better” and “faster” results by “providing incentives”?</p>
<p>You make assumptions about how “we” would respond to $5 gasoline. For many families, the lowering of real wages over the past two decades has had the same impact. I don’t see a change in driving patterns, or in the patterns of automobiles sold, except that they are larger.</p>
<p>Your view is quite noble. But I think there are far simpler explanations for the data. Go back to DStark’s original citation, and ask yourself, “Who benefits if we run out of energy 30% faster?” Once you do that, you’ll be a little bit closer to the truth.</p>
<p>My H says he’s going to come back to the states and start The Bicycle Party. His platform will be “Peace through Bicycles.” :)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Part one is building the bike infrastructure. In Germany, bicycle paths are extensive. They aren’t a two-foot side of the highway – they are their own roads – often straighter and more direct. They go through farmer’s fields, etc. They have their own bridges and tunnels, and they are well-maintained. Bicyclists have right of way (often to a maddening degree!)</p></li>
<li><p>Part two - alternative fuel: Fields are full of rapeseed, which is used for Diesel fuel. Same type of fields good for tobacco are good for rapeseed. We subsidize the tobacco farmers to grow rapeseed instead, and produce fuel.</p></li>
<li><p>As need for oil decreases via Diesel and bikes, we can quit fighting over oil fields. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Mini. I am afraid to fail to understand your post. I would not mind answering the many questions you seem to pose, but I am not sure if they are not simple musings. </p>
<p>I’d be very happy to expand on my “noble” -I suppose a kinder way to say naive- views and discuss their relative merits. For what it is worth, the same noble views have been the subjects of many heated and lengthy debates in our home. I listened and tried to understand … and I still do. </p>
<p>A few months ago, I posted lengthy posts on this precise subject. Rest assured that the “we” you seem to qualify as nebulous is very real. There are plenty of enterprises and consumers who would stand to gain by rewarding conservation and efficiency. Simply stated, there is no cheaper energy than the one you do not use in the first place. </p>
<p>As far as our government officials lack of intelligence and courage, you may to read a bit about the history of the wind energy business to discover how the combination of trusting the DOE to lead the US efforts and the shortsightness of our politicians caused the US to lose its leadership despite enjoying a quasi monopoly in manufacturing capability and the best market. While the nitwits at places such as NREL spent time and resources in the development of the turbine for 2020, the Europeans and Asians used simpler methods: direct support of their manufacturers for the short term improvements of EXISTING technology and energy purchase set asides. While we were building castles in the sky, we also let tiny companies from tiny Denmark become world leaders in an industry we created. How about that for american ingenuity? </p>
<p>The marketplace of 2005 could not provide a better indictment of the US policies towards new sources of energy. Just as we did with the technology behind the microwave, we simply let it migrate abroad because we did not think it was important to support. Have you bought a US microwave lately? Percy Spencer must still turn in his grave. </p>
<p>Do you want more examples in the same field? Check how solid the United States is in hybrid or electric engines, fuel cells, solar panels … and the list goes on. </p>
<p>As far as the Dstark question, I have a very simple answer which will be quite different from yours: there are no winners in such a game.</p>
<p>Binx,
You don’t know human nature. When we stop fighting over oil fields, we’ll start fighting over something else- like metal deposits for the bicycles. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I see government as simply the mediator of social interests, nothing more and nothing less. It is a simple, middle-of-the-road view to understanding social policy. To understand policy, one has to understand the extent of, and relative power of social interests that go into making it. </p>
<p>So you simply have to ask what social interests benefit when, instead of workable energy efficient measures being taken, government chooses a modality in which more energy is expended than created. Who benefits when we are “running out of energy”, or that we simply think we are running out of energy? What social power do they bring to the table?</p>
<p>People in government - elected and otherwise - and not unintelligent. On the contrary, they are possessed of remarkable intelligence in understanding and carrying forward the social balance of forces. If they didn’t, in aggregate, they wouldn’t be where they are.</p>
<p>How much water is involved in the corn to fuel process? I am curious for many of these processing plants are going into the small town areas of midwest. Also…what other by products are there? How is the end product shipped to the purchaser? I guess I would like to understand the process more completely so I can form some opinions about the foks who plan to use these funds.</p>
<p>Mini, I agree with your position on government. However, a large percentage of our population seems to think that the government knows what’s best for its citizens. As you know, I share the view that except for specific functions, there ought to be less governmental involvement in our affairs because public officials and public employees have repeatedly shown not to be able to get the job done. You’ll take forever to find a three letter US Department that is well run, efficient, and serves its purported *raison d’</p>
<p>Xiggi, what happened to nuclear fusion? When I was your age (over 30 years ago), a professor in physics promised me that we would have nuclear fusion by the year 2000.</p>
<p>Nuclear energy was supposed to be to “cheap to meter.” The industry seems to have found another source for optimism after years of painfully licking their wounds. If such optimism is warranted remains an unanswered question. The cost of decommissioning plants and disposing of the waste dwarfs the cost of building the plants and makes nuclear one of the most expensive sources of energy. However, not everyone seems interested in calculating the costs of externalities , which we do not do for gasoline use, for instance. A few industrialized countries seem happy to rely on nuclear energy (France for one). </p>
<p>The press releases from the nuclear energy lobbies seem interesting, but the industry does not have much credibility. In theory, nuclear fusion should provide a better solution because of the lesser costs of handling the waste but the issue of controlling the reaction seems to be a hard problem to resolve.</p>
<p>Anyone else watch that episode of West Wing? Ya know the farmers like this too…Anyway, on the show Josh Lyman tells the character played by Jimmy Smits, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, that it will be political suicide if he comes out against ethanol before the Iowa caucus. On the show at least it was an important issue in the Iowa caucus.</p>