“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Friday, April 15, 2011

Inflation - No problem here?



78 comments:

  1. Unfortunately, I buy more gasoline than I do computers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brent Crude Spot $125.40


    So much for Goldman's big "Brent goes to $105.00" call.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Planting seems to be getting started pretty well. Corn's coming down.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wholesale Ethanol $2.62 and dropping.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I did buy a laptop the other day, though. Hugely better machine than the one I paid $1,100.00 for six or seven years ago.

    $328.00

    Yep, less than 1/3 the price of the old one.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In the subject of the post, let me post this again. I broke out in a horse laugh.

    Hosed

    ReplyDelete
  7. Joe Battipaglia dead at 55 ….
    Keep it real.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks WiO, on the road in thirty days or so.

    You will be hearing from me, maybe from a local Mc
    donald's
    :)

    the boob

    ReplyDelete
  9. WIO , just out of curiosity do you have an old mercedes with a vanity plate with a subject related to something edible? I know what it said but did not want to post it. I followed such a car on Germantown ave, one evening probaly around Lafayette Hills area.

    ReplyDelete
  10. WIO , just out of curiosity do you have an old mercedes with a vanity plate with a subject related to something edible? I know what it said but did not want to post it. I followed such a car on Germantown ave, one evening probaly around Lafayette Hills area.

    And what the hell is that other than some put down?

    I'd fly fish with WiO forever.

    dwrakabobpeterson

    ReplyDelete
  11. If it was Wio, he will understand my code talk. If not, itwas not a put down. Now you can continue to enjoy whatever you were doing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Here is something that I don't think is adequately considered in the inflation models.

    2007 - 2010 Productivity 2.8%

    That is very large for a 4 yr period. You have to go back to '73 to find a similar number.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think
    WiO is a great guy, and I hope to have some coffee with him some day.

    dwr

    ReplyDelete
  14. Love, Rufus, is a damned hard topic around here, best stayed away from.

    dwr

    ReplyDelete
  15. Deuce said...
    WIO , just out of curiosity do you have an old mercedes with a vanity plate with a subject related to something edible? I know what it said but did not want to post it. I followed such a car on Germantown ave, one evening probaly around Lafayette Hills area.


    No vanity plate!

    but it's still running...

    Not allowed to use it for daily usage, so it stays at my warehouse for those times when other cars are in the shop

    If things go south as in street crime, i'll park the new benz in the garage and use the old diesel as a tank ;)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Deuce said...
    If it was Wio, he will understand my code talk. If not, itwas not a put down. Now you can continue to enjoy whatever you were doing.


    Put down? not hardly....

    btw 9mm just 12.99 a brick at Gander mountain, bought myself 12 boxes... Going plinking with my new 9mm Ruger SR9c..

    Got a few boxes of Pow'RBall for the actual carry...

    ReplyDelete
  17. When the government talks about gross national product, does it take into account the rising costs of commodities like cotton, corn, fuel?

    Otherwise, we COULD see an increase in gross sales JUST because prices went up...

    ReplyDelete
  18. When you see the term "Real" GDP, that means it's adjusted for inflation.

    ReplyDelete
  19. .

    These days it's easy to get productivity during recessionary times. You just keep laying off people and/or make those that retain their jobs work longer hours.

    It didn't used to be like that. In the past, there was a lag between a downturn and when people actually got laid off. Employers would tend to put the workers they didn't need to work doing other things even if it was only sweeping up the place. Skill and experiance were valued and the employer also didn't want to have to train new workers.

    Now the trend is reversed. A downturn provides the employer with justification for "rationalizing" the work force. Higher paid experianced workers as well as deadwood are let go, other workers fearing that their job might be the next to go are usually willing to work harder and longer. Productivity goes up.

    Productivity is good for the bottom line; however, it doesn't guarantee jobs, the thing we need most right now.


    On CNBC, they where talking about where American college students ranked internationally on math and science. I missed the actual rankings but based on PISA rankings in December the US was ranked 35th in science (out of 57 countries) and 21st in math. The math was up from 29th place two years ealier. Pretty good improvement but still the ranking was still pretty low imo.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  20. Unbelievable.

    Okay, so they shoot a target missile from Kwajalein, and the Army Radar Station at Wake picks it up. Notifies AF satellites, and they start tracking.

    Wake Radar notifies USS Kane (2200 miles away,) and they fire off Interceptor missile (IN THE BLIND.)

    Now, target missile comes within range of USS Kane Radar. USS Kane directs Interceptor to release "Kill" warhead, and "send it over there."

    Kill Warhead promptly maneuvers over in front of target, and KaSplat.

    Iron Dome? Pshaw. Let Daddy Show You How It's Done.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Army Ground-based Radar, to Air Force Satellite, to Navy Ship, to an intercept of an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile in mid-flight, presumably about 100 miles into space, at a speed of somewhere around 11,000 or 12,000 mph.


    Just another night's work for those guys not bright enough to get a real job, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Here's a very interesting article by Mark Perry, and a great graph, on how little finished consumer food products are influence by wildly gyrating Commodity Prices.

    Carpe Diem

    ReplyDelete
  23. Man calls 999 and says "I think my wife is dead"
    The operator says how do you know?
    He says "The sex is the same but the ironing is building up!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ann Barnhardt is a businesswoman, an American patriot, and a brilliant provocateur of Patton-like intensity.

    She understands who America’s enemies are!

    Here is a link to part 2 of Ann Barnhardt’s video on Youtube.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Interesting, I just saw a Muslim man on TV claiming that the Koran does not say that a raped woman must have four witnesses.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rufus II said...
    Here is something that I don't think is adequately considered in the inflation models.

    2007 - 2010 Productivity 2.8%

    That is very large for a 4 yr period. You have to go back to '73 to find a similar number.

    ---

    When you live in an Ethanol haze instead of the Real World, many things are puzzling, Quirk.

    For Shits and Giggles, ask Rufus and 'Rat to outline the various energy inputs involved in their highly touted "cellulosic ethanol"

    ReplyDelete
  27. Wholesale Buggy Whips are coming down also, Rufus, but my neighbor attributes that to the Federal Subsidy producing an excess supply.

    Who knows?

    ReplyDelete
  28. So all the Pubs voted for Ryan proposal, all the Dems against, but there is not a lick of difference between 'em:

    Rat and Rufie tell me so.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ethanol from wood never seemed like a very efficient process to me.

    Ga. cellulosic ethanol plant shuts down

    Neither does oil shale.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Doug, the link was to a chart giving the productivity numbers from 1947 to the present.

    I assume you didn't look at it before you started trashing me.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The Soperton, Ga fiasco was a big ol' "Gassification" project, the kind the government likes to fund, that I've said for quite some time was doubtful. There are a few other ones like it that will end the same way.

    The ones that work are the "Enzymatic" processes. Inbicon built the first one in Denmark, and it's working like a charm.

    Wood is, at this time, a non-starter. It's just too hard (pardon the pun.) Inbicon, and the future Abengoa plant in Kansas, use wheat straw. It works good, but isn't optimal.

    Switchgrass, Miscanthus, corn stover, and cobs are optimal.

    We'll end up getting about 5 Billion Gallons/yr from corn stover, and cobs, and then move on to switchgrass, miscanthus, etc.

    Sweet sorghum might, also, make a contribution some day.

    If a serious person asked me for the energy/cost inputs into cellulosic I would do it, Doug. But I'm quite sure you are just looking for a chance to be snarky, and aren't the least bit interested. So I'll save myself the trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  32. But, in case someone might be curious, the producer will need a price of about $2.25 - $2.50 to make a decent profit with enzymatic cellulosic ethanol. (Without Any Subsidies)

    Wholesale ethanol is selling for $2.61 gallon, today.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Poet thinks they can get that down to about $2.00/gallon. They are the cream of the crop, and they have Never disappointed; so . . . .

    Dupont Danisco, and Novozymes also think they can get down in this area.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Well, dougo, the Ryan proposal will not pass the Senate. There will be another piece of legislation that will pass.

    It will not be the Ryan Budget Plan, guaranteed. The Ryan Budget Plan is rhetoric, not the finished product.

    $352 million, billed as $38 billion is what passed in a bi-partisan hand holding.

    There is a difference in the rhetoric, not in their work product.

    ReplyDelete
  35. That you buy into the DC theater, just what the producers of the show want.

    Wait for the final credits, not the opening scene, before judging the performances of the actors.

    Tell me, in Polynesia does $353 million really equal $38 billion?

    The Republicans in DC tell me it does.

    ReplyDelete
  36. David Walker, ex Comptroller of the Currency was on Squawk Box this morning. He stated that the Mean Effective Tax Rate for the Top 1% of all earners was 18.2%.

    Last Year, GE made $14 Billion, and paid NO Federal Income Tax.

    When the Republicans start addressing those things, I will start listening again.

    When the first Republican leader stands up and says, "That $100 Billion/Yr in Afghanistan is Stupid" I'll start paying attention to their rhetoric again.

    ReplyDelete
  37. When the first Republican leader says, "Social Security has $2.6 Trillion in the Trust Fund, and is running a Surplus virtually every year, including this one. Why do we continue hammering on That?"

    I'll take notice.

    ReplyDelete
  38. When the first Republican (other than Grassley) says, "Shit, gasoline is at $3.83/gal, and going to God Knows Where, and global oil production is peaking, Why are we still Beating Up on Ethanol?"

    I might start taking them for something besides self-serving fools.

    ReplyDelete
  39. When the first Republican says, "Why did we just cut $220 Million from the Border Fence?"

    I'll fall out of my chair.

    ReplyDelete
  40. When the first Republican stands up and says, "Gentlemen, why are we spending a couple of hundred Billion/yr in the Persian Gulf when 85% of the oil from there goes to Asia?"

    I'll have a stroke.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Doug, the chasm of difference between what You want, and what your Republican heros in congress want is so Wide as to be Unbridgeable.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Why are we still Beating Up on Ethanol?"

    Because Corn Based Ethanol saves no energy, and steals food from a hungry World.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "If a serious person asked me for the energy/cost inputs into cellulosic I would do it, Doug. But I'm quite sure you are just looking for a chance to be snarky, and aren't the least bit interested. So I'll save myself the trouble."


    ---

    I am serious, Rufus,
    ...and don't call me snarky.

    No need to go into details and numbers to start with Rufus:
    Just list some of the significant elements in the process
    that consume energy:

    I'm sure some here would find that enlightening.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Why Doug? As much as I've posted, here, on the positive energy balance of corn ethanol, and the extreme uncertainty of the "hungry world" claims you still post that.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I'll just give you one little tidbit, Doug. After the cellulose is removed, mostly from enzymatic action, there is, left over, an enormous amount of lignin.

    That lignin is burned, or run through an anaerobic digester to produce biogas which is then burned, to provide, not only all of the process energy for the plant, but, also, to produce electricity for sale onto the grid.

    A 10 million gpy plant (approx the size I recommend) will not only power itself, but will sell approx (depending on feedstock, process, etc) 100,000 Megawatt/hrs onto the grid. That would run, maybe, 4,000 homes.

    So, the process would use NO nat gas, or electricity, and would supply 10 Million gallons of ethanol, and enough electricity for a small town.

    ReplyDelete
  46. NOW, before you get the switchgrass to the plant.

    You will need about 10,000 acres in the South East to end up with 10 Million gallons.

    Switchgrass is a perennial, and, after the first year there is very little (usually, no) fertilizing, and there is no cultivating. It's, basically, plant, and harvest every year for nine or ten years.

    No heavy tractors, or machinery - a small, gas-engined tractor (might as well burn ethanol in it,) and light equipment. Maybe one gallon per acre (we're looking at about a 1,000 gal/acre/yr yield, remember.)

    And, that's it.

    ReplyDelete
  47. And, yes, dumbfuck, Corn Ethanol has a Positive Energy Balance. Even the most strident of its critics now recognize a 2.3:1 btu balance. And, those are nat gas btus, not petroleum btus.

    There is only about 1 (often less) petroleum btu in 20 btus of ethanol.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Now, here's what scares the Oil state Republicans to death.

    The corn ethanol plants will, in the fairly near future, have a companion plant processing corn stover, and cobs.

    This companion plant will provide all of the process energy for itself, and the corn ethanol plant (thus taking away the energy balance argument, once and for all, even for the dumbass republicans,)

    but will be selling electricity by the scads all over the Midwest, severely pissing off the coal state Pubs, AND dems.

    ReplyDelete
  49. On CNBC, they where talking about where American college students ranked internationally on math and science. I missed the actual rankings but based on PISA rankings in December the US was ranked 35th in science (out of 57 countries) and 21st in math. The math was up from 29th place two years ealier. Pretty good improvement but still the ranking was still pretty low imo.

    Affirmative action + affirmation of feelings = Negative Correlation Coefficient of Ranking

    ReplyDelete
  50. And, as for the hungry poor peepulz: Let me say it again; Poor peepulz don't eat field corn.

    Poor Cows eat field corn, and are, in turn, eaten by Rich Peepulz.

    Also, the Co-Product of ethanol is Distillers Dried Grains (DDGS)

    You get half of your Feed Value back in DDGS. So, instead of using 4 billion bushels of cattle feed you actually use 2 billion bushels of cattle feed.

    Approx 2% of the world's grain output goes into ethanol.

    However, in the process of going from four cents/lb to eight cents/lb (how many pounds of corn do you think YOU can eat in a day?) you have given 1.7 Billion malnourished subsistence farmers a potential "cash crop,"

    which could very easily lead to "Less" malnourishment, not more.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Well, hell, Deuce, no nation on earth sends as high a percentage of their students to college as the U.S. (at least, as high a percentage of Marginal students.)

    That missile defense system wasn't built in China, or India.

    ReplyDelete
  52. No flowers, no card, nothing.

    I feel so cheap, . . . and used.


    thanks Doug.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Yup, ratto, I just make all this stuff up. Hindus, I like them alot. English is the universal language these days. If I could I'd get out of the rental business, but working with people like these makes it almost worthwhile --

    Hi Bob,


    Thank you so much for renting us your beautiful apartment! :)



    No worries, just take care for now and buzz us anytime you get better. I understand how painful it can be to have infection in mouth, are you able to eat anything?
    Get well soon... :)


    Regards for you and Jennie ( hope to meet her soon, too)
    - Show quoted text -


    On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Robert wrote:
    You have it. I've been a little under the weather with my health, I have an infection in my mouth, either my wife or I will be getting ahold of you. I hope you will be close to your friends there. bob

    On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:19 AM, kritika wrote:
    Hi BoB,

    We take it. Just inform us in advance for signing the lease. Bob, there is one more thing, we can pay you deposit by the end of the month because we are expecting our salaries to come by that time period. If it is fine with you then, here we go. I am excited to move into new apartment for new semester. :)

    Thank you so much.

    On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 9:23 AM, wrote:
    Hit the Space Needle if you can, it's neat. bob

    On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:27 PM, kritika wrote:
    Hi Bob,
    We are still in Seattle and coming back tomorrow night. I will surely email you once we get back here and if we get late tomorrow night then will email you on Thursday for sure.
    Thank you.

    On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Robert wrote:
    Hi - If you want the apartment could you let me know in the next day or two? I have another that is interested. I can get you in around the 15th. Thanks, bob and jennie (hope you had a good trip)


    --
    Regards,
    kritika

    ReplyDelete
  54. I have tried many times to put up an image of Krishna.

    I have wanted to say we owe a lot to the Hindus, beginners of thought concerning the perennial philosophy, my friends.

    dwr

    ReplyDelete
  55. .

    But, in case someone might be curious, the producer will need a price of about $2.25 - $2.50 to make a decent profit with enzymatic cellulosic ethanol. (Without Any Subsidies)

    Wholesale ethanol is selling for $2.61 gallon, today.


    Ruf, you get upset when we question you on your numbers or on whether cellulosic ethanol is currently ready for prime time. Admittedly, no one here puts in the time you do on this subject. Yet every day there are articles put out that dispute one or more aspects of your numbers or view on this subject.

    There is no point in you getting upset when some of us ask to see some evidence, i.e. substantial commercial producion and usage.

    You laughed at my definition of short-term as a year or two. What is your definition of short-term?
    And given that definition, when do you project we will see cellulosic ethanol commercially available and used in large quantities without (as you noted above) subsidies?

    .

    ReplyDelete
  56. .


    You snicker and mock us poor bumkins for 'not getting it'; however, you have to admit it's not all that straight forward.

    For instance, you state "The ones that work are the "Enzymatic" processes. Inbicon built the first one in Denmark, and it's working like a charm." Heck, I might know something about the enzyme guys but didn't know anything about Inbicon so I looked them up.

    Inbicon Commercialization

    From what I can see this paper was put out by Inbicon in October, 2010. It purports to show the path to commercialization for their process. There are 15 slides in the presentation. Slide 4 summerizes the requirements they need for commercialization.

    The first requirement is a ‘proven technology in place’. They say they have proven this through pilot and demonstration plant volumes completed late last year. The second requirement is a 'demand for end products'. The last is 'feasible projects'. These are covered on slides 12, 13, and 15.

    I am going to posts comments on those slides separately because of blogger.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  57. .

    [Ref: Inbicon Commercialization Chart Above]

    From what I can see, Slide 12 is just a general projection chart showing the projected growth in 2G ethanol between 2009 and 2015. You are probably a lot more familiar with what it is saying.

    The only things I noted that were interesting was the the U.S. growth is all projected to be politically "targeted". I assume that refers to the current mandates through 2022.

    Also, of note is that Brazil's total usage drops for some reason and that Inbicon is using BP figures for their baseline projections.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  58. .

    [Ref: Inbicon Commercialization Chart Above]

    The most interesting slide in the Inbicon presentation (for me) was Slide 13 and to a lesser extent Slide 15.

    From what I can see from Slide 13 and Slide 15, Inbicon is looking for subsidies, grants, loan guarantees, tax credits, and R&D/demonstration funding for as far as the eye can see. Maybe I'm missing something here.

    In addition, looking at Slide 15 and Slide 12 together Inbicon seems to be saying that the projected growth in U.S. ethanol usage is driven by government mandate. That's understandable given the mandate is already in place through 2022.

    However, they project a doubling of usage in the EU, that is dependant upon higher incentives being offered. Asia and Brazil also have a question mark next to them.

    Slide 15 is on 'feasible projects'. It outlines ways projects become feasible. It lists the following;

    Feasibility is possible through:
    1.
    Cheap biomass (already collected)
    2.
    Integration with power plant
    3.
    Integration with anaerobic digester
    4.
    Local incentives


    Many of these get back to the problem of NIMBY that I have mentioned before.

    For me there seems to be a lot of questions on the timing for commercial quantities of 2G ethanol. You usually dismiss these concerns as the rantings of a loon.

    So my questions are,

    1. Am I missing something in Inbicon's 'road to commercialization' presentation?
    2. Does the presentation present a viable plan to get to commercialization?
    3. Based on your expertise, when can we expect the commercialization of cellulosic ethanol to be implemented in significant quantities, without subsidies and incentives?

    .

    ReplyDelete
  59. .

    When the first Republican leader says, "Social Security has $2.6 Trillion in the Trust Fund,..

    Don't you mean "in the lock box"?

    :)

    .

    ReplyDelete
  60. "No heavy tractors, or machinery - a small, gas-engined tractor (might as well

    burn ethanol in it,) and light equipment. Maybe one gallon per acre (we're looking

    at about a 1,000 gal/acre/yr yield, remember.)

    And, that's it.
    "

    ---

    Real World Switchgrass yields.
    (5 year yields typically average about 1/3 less than the max yield year)


    Alabama:

    "... the average annual hay yield for Alabama is about 2.5 tons per acre, ..."

    bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switchgrass-profile.html


    IOWA:

    "Switchgrass yields observed in the field range from slightly less than. 1 to more

    than 4 tons per acre per year of biomass."

    www.iowaswitchgrass.com/__docs/.../Costs%20of%20Switchgrass.pdf


    @ 96 gallons per ton, we're talking 100 to 400 gal/acre, not 1,000.


    Test plots managed by the Univ of Georgia averaged 6 tons per acre,
    and required 13 gallons of gas per acre rather than your 1 gallon.

    http://www.agecon.uga.edu/~caed/Pubs/switchgrass.html#plustran

    ----

    Then we have transportation and storage costs, and energy inputs:

    Table 4. Storage.

    Building costs $12 per square foot $360,000
    Yearly costs:

    Land, 2 acres $160
    Building: yearly ownership cost at 12% $43,200

    Storage cost per ton $16.67

    Transportation and Handling

    Assumptions

    • For these estimates, the switchgrass bales are staged along the edge of the field.

    This cost is included in the production budget. A farmer with a typical tractor and

    bale fork can perform these duties.

    • Another transportation cost is collecting, delivering and unloading the bales into

    a storage facility. A semi-trailer holding 20 tons (or 42 bales) is used to haul the

    switchgrass. Estimated times are 30 minutes to load the truck and 20 minutes to

    unload. The charge for the semi is $70 per hour.

    A typical tractor and bale hauler will not work to stack large square bales 20

    feet high. More specialized equipment is needed for this task.


    Estimated costs of such a tractor were $20 per hour and $10.78 worth of fuel per

    hour. The operator charge is $12 per hour.

    http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/pdf/a1-22.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  61. EPA

    tests the 'green' value of ethanol


    Our paper was not by any means to come down on ethanol," said Hill. "But we need to

    be sure that if there are better options out there, that we're taking advantage of

    them."

    Those options include cellulosic ethanol, which is made from other plant sources

    such as crop waste, grasses or wood chips. In most studies it easily passes the

    EPA's greenhouse gases test.

    But no one's figured out yet how to make money on that fuel.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Energy Return on

    (Energy) Investment (EROI) of Corn Ethanol


    Conclusions:

    The debate over the EROI of corn ethanol has been concerned mostly with whether it

    is a net energy yielder. As such, the dialogue has veered away from many of the

    larger implications of EROI analyses. Our results indicate that the EROI of corn

    ethanol is statistically inseparable from one energy unit returned per energy unit

    invested, and it is likely that much of our ethanol production is acting as an

    energy sink, requiring more energy for production than that contained in the ethanol

    product. This conclusion was confirmed in our spatial analysis, where the average

    EROIRG was 0.06 lower than the average calculated from the literature.

    Increasing yields is oft-touted as a way to increase the EROI of corn ethanol, but

    our analysis indicates that the gains in EROI are small even when the average yield

    from 2005 was tripled. Co-product credits, on the other hand, have a large influence

    on the EROI from corn ethanol. There is no consensus within the literature regarding

    an appropriate co-product value, and until one emerges (one way or another), we

    should err on the side of caution when applying credits to co-products.

    Finally, the analysis of ethanol production from biorefineries supports our

    conclusion from the spatial analysis: the EROI is too low in too many locations to

    make an impact on our gasoline consumption. Our best estimate is that the net energy

    provided from ethanol accounts for only 0.8% of the net energy provided by gasoline.

    The evidence provided in this research is clear: we do not know the exact EROI of

    ethanol, but even if we are remotely close (± 0.2), we are still, in the best case

    scenario, gaining an insignificant amount of net energy.

    Furthermore, Hall et al. (2009) estimated that only fuels with an EROI greater than

    3:1 provide the requisite net energy to provide a fuel source and to maintain the

    infrastructure associated with the current U.S. transportation system.

    Fuels that have an EROI below 3:1 require subsidies from other energy sources to pay

    for all of the infrastructure associated with the transportation system of the US.

    The EROI of corn ethanol that we calculated is lower than the 3:1 threshold,

    indicating that corn ethanol requires large subsidies from the general fossil fuel

    economy, and as a result, drains energy from the US transportation system
    .

    ReplyDelete
  63. One Molecule could cure our addiction to oil

    Cellulosic ethanol, in theory, is a much better bet. Most of the plant species suitable for producing this kind of ethanol — like switchgrass, a fast- growing
    plant found throughout the Great Plains, and farmed poplar trees — aren't food

    crops. And according to a joint study by the US Departments of Agriculture and Energy, we can sustainably grow more than 1 billion tons of such biomass on available farmland, using minimal fertilizer. In fact, about two-thirds of what we throw into our landfills today contains cellulose and thus potential fuel. Better still:

    Cellulosic ethanol yields roughly 80 percent more energy than is required to grow and convert it.

    So a wave of public and private funding, bringing newfound optimism, is pouring into research labs.

    Venture capitalists have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in cellulosic-technology startups. BP has announced that it's giving $500 million for an Energy Biosciences Institute run by the University of Illinois and UC Berkeley.

    The Department of Energy pledged $385 million to six companies building cellulosic demonstration plants.

    In June the DOE added awards for three $125 million bioenergy centers to pursue new research on cellulosic biofuels.

    There's just one catch: No one has yet figured out how to generate energy from plant matter at a competitive price.

    The result is that no car on the road today uses a drop of cellulosic ethanol.



    The step that has perplexed scientists is the one involving enzymes — proteins that come in an almost infinite variety of three-dimensional structures. They are at work everywhere in living cells, usually speeding up the chemical reactions that break down complex molecules. Because they're hard to make from scratch, scientists generally extract them from microorganisms that produce them naturally.

    But the trick is producing the enzymes cheaply enough at an industrial scale and speed.

    ReplyDelete
  64. ...but Ruf and Rat say there's nuthin to it but to do it.

    Preferably speeded along with Democrat provided grants and subsidies.

    ...that'll git er done.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "And, as for the hungry poor peepulz: Let me say it again; Poor peepulz don't eat field corn.

    Poor Cows eat field corn, and are, in turn, eaten by Rich Peepulz."

    ---

    Yeah, us dumbfucks can't remember that:

    We're too busy remembering the meaning of the word "fungible" wrt farmers, markets, and use of croplands.

    ReplyDelete
  66. About My Support for Natural Gas

    The truth is, every problem associated with drilling for natural gas is solvable. The technology exists to prevent most methane from escaping, for instance. Strong state regulation will help ensure environmentally safe wells. And so on. Somewhat to my surprise, this view was seconded by Abrahm Lustgarten, a reporter for ProPublica who has probably written more stories about the dangers of fracking than anyone. In a comment posted online to my Tuesday column, he wrote that while the environmental issues were real, they “can be readily addressed by the employment of best drilling practices, technological investment, and rigorous regulatory oversight.”

    The country has been handed an incredible gift with the Marcellus Shale. With an estimated 500 trillion cubic feet of reserves, it is widely believed to be the second-largest natural gas field ever discovered. Which means that those of you who live near this tremendous resource have two choices. You can play the Not-In-My-Backyard card, employing environmental scare tactics to fight attempts to drill for that gas.

    Or you can embrace the idea that America needs the Marcellus Shale, accept the inconvenience that the drilling will bring, but insist that it be done properly. If you choose this latter path, you will be helping to move the country to a fuel that is — yes — cleaner than oil, while diminishing the strategic importance of the Middle East, where American soldiers continue to die.

    It’s your call.

    ReplyDelete
  67. If the EPA was "right" doug, why in the whirled would the Republicans be trying to defund it?

    Oh, I remember, those Republicans think that $352 million equals $38 billion.

    Saw your hero, Karl Rove, tell US that $38 billion really equalled over $100 billion, if figured correctly.

    The way I see it, whether the yields are 400 tons or 1,000 tons per unit, non of the land used or the cash flow required goes to Saudi Arabia.

    Guess you'd rather send money the Saudi princes than to US farmers.

    ReplyDelete
  68. boob writes more fiction, claiming he is a wonderful fella. Why he addressed the messages to me,
    I'm not quite sure.

    Bi-polar projections?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Doug, you're quoting from a "Blog" called The "Oil" Drum.

    I was stating that the oroei of corn ethanol was 2.3:1 about 2 1/2 years before the DOE and USDA decided I was right.

    I didn't say "Iowa;" I said SouthEastern U.S.

    Timing is everything. With the new Ceres seeds I'll stick with my 1,000 gal/acre (and, on Marginal lasnd.)

    Q, Everything is political. Exxon, and Shell own Oil Fields, not Corn Fields. They would Never, ever use a drop of ethanol if not forced.

    ReplyDelete
  70. .

    Q, Everything is political. Exxon, and Shell own Oil Fields, not Corn Fields. They would Never, ever use a drop of ethanol if not forced.

    How does this in any way answer the questions I raised above on the Inbicon post?

    Everything is political? Of course it is. That's why the US is still paying oil companies subsidies they don't need. That is why the East Coast is fighting the West over government dollars for wind. That is why Bush and Obama pushed on electric, mandated it, and now why Obama is talking about taxing it. It is also the reason we have a mandate on ethanol usage. Don't even get me started on the influence of the 'greens' or local NIMBY concerns.

    You proclaim ethanol is the way to go and cellulosic is the wave of the furture. Maybe. But then, you also constantly tell us ethanol is competitive. That it can be so without subsidies. Yet the CEO of the company you mention as an example of it "working like a charm" puts out a paper saying commercialization (if I read it right) is a little iffy and will depend on mandates, subsidies, tax credits, etc., etc.

    When some here raise questions about your rosy perspective they are called dumbfucks and morons. You have a simple answer for everything. When rising food prices and resulting riots in the ME and Africa are mentioned, you talk about the corn content in a box of corn flakes instead of any mention of the supply demand effects of commodity shortages. You assume all that fallow land out there is just waiting to be tilled for switchgrass. You have a simple answer for everything like "we'll just build a generating plant next to it" ignoring local zoning and NIMBY issues.

    When asked if it is so good, so competitive, cheaper than gas, why aren't we doing more of it commercially, you tell us it is "only" because of a plot by the big oil companies and the GOP.

    Sorry, I'm not that credulous. Are some Republicans and big oil against ethanol? Sure. Is that the only problem ethanol has? I don't think so.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  71. Well said, Quirk.

    Rat said:

    "The way I see it, whether the yields are 400 tons or 1,000 tons per unit, non of the land used or the cash flow required goes to Saudi Arabia.

    Guess you'd rather send money the Saudi princes than to US farmers.
    "

    ---

    Just as Quirk complains about Rufus nipping and tucking at the truth to come up with a simple answer, you have done here:

    A careful reading of Quirk's arguments and the articles I posted indicate that cellulosic ethanol is still a work in progress, and specifically awaits the development of industrial scale enzyme production.

    Building out a national infrastructure before a commercial solution is found would be madness.

    ---

    "There's just one catch:
    No one has yet figured out how to generate energy from plant matter at a competitive price.

    The result is that no car on the road today uses a drop of cellulosic ethanol.

    The step that has perplexed scientists is the one involving enzymes — proteins that come in an almost infinite variety of three-dimensional structures. They are at work everywhere in living cells, usually speeding up the chemical reactions that break down complex molecules. Because they're hard to make from scratch, scientists generally extract them from microorganisms that produce them naturally.

    But the trick is producing the enzymes cheaply enough at an industrial scale and speed.
    "

    ReplyDelete
  72. Remember us chiding Matt about his magic batteries?

    ...I also did the same w/Charles who said they were going to save the World with Electric.

    I said they would go bankrupt first.

    Little did I know the Bondholders would get fucked, and the unions bailed out, so we now have the Volt.

    Putting the Edsel far in arrears for the Putzmobile Prize.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "You assume all that fallow land out there is just waiting to be tilled for switchgrass. You have a simple answer for everything like "we'll just build a generating plant next to it" ignoring local zoning and NIMBY issues."

    ---

    Also ignores the fact that unlike breweries and corn ethanol plants, cellulosic is not a simple operation that can be easily downscaled.

    Being that this is the case, transportation and storage of LARGE amounts of feedstock becomes another limiting factor.

    (instead of Rufus's small tractor, specialized equipment is used to stack and store, as is noted above.)

    The Sugarcane Haulers here have tires three times the height of a car!

    ReplyDelete