$12 Gas and Rationing? Possible, Says Expert

Mea Culpa! you are right the attribution is indeed in the previous post and I did miss it. My apologies. Having said that I have some real questions given the sponsership of the studies.

"Both the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Chief Economist (PDF 53 KB), as well as the National Corn Growers Association, have recently testified to Congress that they do not foresee proposed increases in ethanol production having a negative impact on the availability of corn and other grains for food purposes."

Has anyone involved in this seen what has and is indeed happening to world food prices? I will not feed my car with food so that others may suffer!
I will continue to believe that bio-fuels are only a bridge solution until I am convinced otherwise.

Icarus

 

I posted this article before. It says higher corn and therefore food prices isn't because of ethanol according to these member of Set America Free Coalition.

 

Start-up says it's turning algae into gasoline

I'm not sure why the good professor does not think we can grow enough algae. How does he know?

Here's a link to a story about bio-fuel that could reduce the demand for gasoline and therefore the price of fuel.

Start-up says it's turning algae into gasoline

Start-up says it's turning algae into gasoline | Green Tech - CNET News.com

 

Fibb22: I have read the links from the "set America free coalition"

Just because we have been growing more corn and indeed can grow more corn doesn't mean that it is a good idea in the long run. The statistics of only ~35% of growing land being used is misguided. I suspect that this doesn't include land laying fallow in rotation. Corn, especially GMO corn and Canola put a huge strain on the land, and to continue to keep harvest levels up, they take staggering amounts of energy (including fertilizer energy) to grow and distill. The numbers that I keep reading is that ethanol is a net energy loser in that it takes more energy to get it to final market than it produces.

I still contend that in a world of fragile world fuel balances, burning fuel in our cars, comes at some not insignificant expense of the developing world.

To Ruaqt:

I'm not arguing if bio-fuels are not do-able, I am arguing that they make little sense. As for your algae to fuel, I would like to see some science that tells me how many acres of water or gallons of water for how long etc. does it require to make a gallon of fuel. It would be one thing to grow a years worth of my fuel in your swimming pool, quite another if it takes a football field, still another if it takes lake Erie!

From what I have read and heard (I will attribute when I can) there is not enough biomass grown on the planet every year to REPLACE fossil fuels. As I have said before, along with SERIOUS conservation, they can act as a bridge to new and better technolgies.

Icarus

 

Er, maybe it wasn't suggested as a silver bullet? . . . maybe it'll take lots of little alternatives? Maybe there IS no more 'one-&-only' best source of fuel any more?

 

I think corn ethanol is on balance a bad idea, but not because it raises food prices. It doesn't. Because it doesn't lessen CO2 emissions or improve air quality. We should be condemning it for the right reasons.

The reason food prices are climbing is because of energy and a growing, world-wide middle class wanting to eat grain fed livestock.

 

I do agree that people in the developing world getting an appetite for meat puts major stress on food supplies. Ethanol only exacerbates it however.

Icarus

 

Where the report is coming from and sponsored by can indeed be very important (e.g. CNW and dust to dust).

I tend to agree with you about biofuels. It just seems hard to think that an 18 million barrel a day habit will be taken care of with algae and corn. It would be nice if it did, but this is too important to put all of our seeds into one crop on one field.

 

Yep, where would all that fertilizer, pesticide, and herbicide come from? Hint: it's pumped out of the ground ....

 

I don't think $12 gas is very feasible in the near term future. For one, even the current price of $4 is inflated by speculation in oil futures. That can't go on for much longer.
The price is artificial. For another, we will be deep into alternative energy resources long before $12. We are deep into it now at $4. Heck, they are making synthetic crude in the lab right now from synthesized algae. And it's not expensive at $4.

Right now, I suspect the oil companies are secretly plowing a lot of their huge profits into the most likely energy alternatives. The oil suppliers know they have to get a handle on price or they will be priced out of the market.

 

"They" always blame the speculators but in order to drive the price up, speculators have to hold large quantities of the commodity and according to some oil industry experts, no one is seen to be hoarding oil right now.

This may be a temporary price spike but there is a better chance that it's the result of supply vs demand and just the start of a long, upward trend. Where it will stop, nobody knows. I say, the higher the better. DEATH TO THE ICE!

 

Regarding oil price, the price has risen so fast it must be a bubble caused by futures commodity traders. The demand is their willingness to bid against each other to hold the futures. Big wealth does not keep cash and has been using oil as an anti inflation vehicle much the way gold has been used for many years and now it’s become a rally. The rate of consumption has not changed as quickly as the price. If you see something like this happen with stock, real estate, or any commodity then watch out on the other side because prices can and sometimes will drop quickly just like we see happen in the stock market.

On the other hand, oil prices may not behave the same as other commodities because it is more likely to be manipulated for social economic reasons.

I agree that higher oil prices will cause people to consider fuel economy and when replacing their old car will likely select a smaller car with better technology and in many cases result in a 50% reduction in fuel consumption with respect to their old ride.

My concern is that if fuel prices rise to quickly, the damage to the economy will result in slower progress in development and deployment of new more efficient technologies we need to overcome peak oil.

 

Bingo!

We may disagree on nuance of solution, but we agree on the cause!

Icarus

 

You could argue that small increases in demand result in larger responses from the price. I've heard that a 5% reduction in supply would result in massive increases in the price of oil because of its importance.

I think we're already at a point where petrol prices have raised awareness. Since the recent price hikes have occurred in the absence of natural disasters or major geopolitical turmoil the point that it's demand related has been driven home that much harder.

I too am concerned about radical changes occurring too fast. That's not going to be beneficial in the end. An inexorable climb in fuel prices is a good thing provided the curve ain't too steep.

 

Cost of all goods and services, linked to oil, will go up. We need to get away from the current practice of treating trucks as "warehouses on wheels" for "just in time" supply. Use trucks as a link between rail and the local community. We don't need fresh produce from the opposite side of the world during the Northern Hemisphere winter. Instead, do what is appropriate for the climate, season and geography.

Freshmtt has the idea - live in a location that is close to your work and groceries. You should be able to walk most places, then rely on electric light and high speed rail.

 

For those of you who are solar power fans, you might want to read this Scientific American article if you haven't already:

A Solar Grand Plan: Scientific American

Several key points from the rather lengthy study are:
1. Compressed air storage can help address the concerns of those who are worried about where you'll get your power at night and on cloudy days.

2. HVDC transmission can help alleviate the the need for more power line corridors as well as accomodate the large amount of power required over long distances

3. Almost all of the land required for massive solar plants in the SouthWest is government owned anyway.

Personally, I feel with the current rapid advancement in solar panel efficiencies and the rising cost of crude oil, it won't be long before residential and commercial rooftop solar panels will be commonplace.

However, this needs to be accelerated by everyone encouraging their state and federal legislators to provide more solar panel tax credits.

 

You forgot to add bicycle :amen:

 

Quoted from the above article: "The federal government would have to invest more than $400 billion over the next 40 years to complete the 2050 plan."

Oh we can' afford that! thats $10 billion a year! How many months of Iraq anyone?

Icarus

 

darelldd, I'd like to resurrect your earlier post here about Hydrogen. I had to go looking for the company, but I remembered them from a post on Fark.com a few years back.
Seems that in April, 2006, the Government came in and literally shut this company down, and confiscated all records, computers, and files, etc.. Something to do with "Homeland Security/Patriot Act" (?), and they were shut down for quite a while. As I remember, it was because of some chemicals they use for R & D on their Hydrogen storage cannisters. Some of the chemicals were on a government "watch list". Government thought they were terrorists or something. The headline on Fark.com was... "Company develops solar hydrogen generator for cars. Government responds by raiding their facility and attempting to outlaw the chemicals it uses." I think the headlines on the company website in 2006 was a hint that they thought that the government was purposely trying to shut them down.
I see that they are moving to Michigan, and maybe they have the government stuff cleared up, and then again...maybe not?

Here's a link to their website:United Nuclear - Hydrogen Fuel Systems
An article on the Government raid here:Wired 14.06: Don't Try This at Home

BTW: I think this could be the same "Lasar" fellow that tried to expose stuff on Area 51.

 

Not sure if this has been linked yet. But theoildrum.com just did an article on why oil prices have recently risen. Here's an key excerpt that will 'cheer' you up.