COLLECTIVE MADNESS
“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."
That's the second time in as many days that I've heard that Obama is arrogant. Another commentator said that while all/most high level politicians are somewhat arrogant, Obama seems to be exceptionally so.
ReplyDeleteAllen West Rules!
ReplyDeleteRufus said...
ReplyDelete"Of course, any state rich enough to burn Oil to generate electricity can afford anything."
---
We could fire a steam plant w/burning dollar bills:
I just paid $4.32 for a quart of skim milk!
...ran out of beer and milk and made a quick run to the liquor store instead of Safeway...
first time in over a decade.
Got a good taste of tourist pricing that I won't quickly forget.
Well, if the President of the US is using the power of the Executive, as a "low level agitator", that's about the "best" we could hope for.
ReplyDeleteJust imagine if he operated at a "high level" of agitation.
I guess it's just because he is a "Natural".
So, whit, the opponents of Mr Obama have had Mr Luntz do his magic. They must have found that "arrogant" struck the proper chord.
ReplyDeleteChances are it'll last a few days, in the spin cycle.
Allen, he is not nearly as entertaining as Adam West!
ReplyDeleteHe was the champion of combating low level social agitation.
That's the second time in as many days that I've heard that Obama is arrogant.
ReplyDeletePride goeth before a fall.
Yep, could be the current talking points/meme. If it comes up again, I'll definitely think so.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, I don't think we'll ever hear anything like we heard during the Cheney "gravitas" days.
Yep, twice is suspicious, 3rd time is, definitely, enemy action.
ReplyDeleteAssad screws up:
ReplyDeleteAt least nine people are killed as Syrian security forces open fire at funerals for anti-government protesters killed on Friday, reports say.
Was Barak's daddy a Sunni, or a Shia Muslim? Anyone know?
ReplyDeleteKenya Travel Packages dot com says most Kenyan muslims are Sunni.
ReplyDeleteOkay, thanks Whit.
ReplyDeleteIn Brazil, the region's top market, more than 3.5 million cars and light trucks were sold last year — up 86% compared with 2006. Its economy is growing fast and wages are rising.
ReplyDelete"In a macroeconomic sense, Brazil has greater stability, more per capita income, more jobs and more credit than before," said a spokesman for Brazil's largest car manufacturers association, ANFAVEA. "And consumer confidence is rising, so people are more likely to join the ranks of car owners."
In percentage terms, car sales are even more impressive in Peru. The market is tiny, with just 116,000 cars sold in 2010. Still, that was triple the number sold in 2006. In Argentina and Colombia, respectively, new-car sales last year gained 50% and 25% over unit sales in 2006.
Latin America Car Sales Booming
With Booming car sales in Asia, the Persian Gulf, and Latin America, there's no way we're not going to need another Two Million Barrels/Day "This year, Next Year, and . . . . . well, until . . . "
ReplyDeleteAnd, our petroleum use is UP by about 8% compared to last year. That's a million, and a half more, right there.
whit said...
ReplyDeleteAssad screws up:
At least nine people are killed as Syrian security forces open fire at funerals for anti-government protesters killed on Friday, reports say.
lol alot more than that killed...
it's all typical events in the arab/islamic world...
only thing untypical is the west's paying attention..
the only good news? moslems are killing one another and using up ammo...
Mississippians lead the nation, again.
ReplyDeleteWe pay a nationwide-high 13.2% of Disposable Income for Gasoline
Pennsylvania 6.8%, Hawaii 5.9%
ReplyDeleteIt's Hell being Poor.
ReplyDeleteDon't say the IEA didn't warn you.
ReplyDeleteIn this scenario, by 2035, three-quarters of the world’s oil production from existing fields will need to be replaced, Mr Tanaka said.
That works out to just over 50 million barrels per day, which is equivalent to about four times the production capacity of Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer.
IEA analysts calculated that this amount of oil is needed to compensate for the predicted decline in production at existing fields, as they pass their peak and their production rates drop. (Crude oil output from fields that were in production in 2009 is expected to fall from 68 million barrels per day in 2009 to 16 million per day by 2035).
IEA Director - The Age of Cheap Energy is Over.
Sunni is right unless the pappa was that other fellow with the long face, name disremembered. Davis? Obama needs a genetic test.
ReplyDeleteI hereby bequeth will and assign the following -
my proxies in any vote are to be assigned as follows
In any action against WiO, my proxie to Wio
In any action against Desert Rat, my proxie to WiO
In any action against Doug, my proxie to Doug
In any action against me, my proxie to Melody
(In fact I'd leave if she stated she desired it)
In any act Quirk, my proxie to Quirk.
In any action against Ash, my proxie to Ash.
In any action against Rufus, my proxie to Rufus.
In any action against Miss T, my proxie to Miss T, whom I hope got my jab at the great one, V.S. with the quoting of No Man Is An Island.....when a clod is washed into the sea.....
Further in any and all other actions, my proxie to Miss T, Quirk, Melody, Whit and WiO, by majority vote between themselves.
That about does that and relieves me from voting. I hate voting and do enough of it already, voting every time. If I ran this gin joint I'd just be the Prince, and call all the shots, like Wretchard. (grandpappa was a monarchist, aunt was a rebulican but with princely leanings, dad a republican, I'm swinging back.)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Does this place have Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws? And approval from an appropriate Secretary of State? If so, I request copies.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Who says the economy is in a slump?
Finding a sustainable niche --Troy man turns home into small business
Roger Brown's business isn't your average retail store - he only sells garments circa 1837 thro 1901and they must rely on steam or spring powered technology or at least look as though they do.
It isn't fashion, it's steampunk.
Steampunk is a science fiction sub-genre based on an alternate history set in the Victorian Era
photo shows a steampunk blaster bracer, whatever that is.
Approximately 1% of the population is interested in this type of product, article says. (If they have any money.)
Go to www.steampunkedout.com
I'm thinking of opening a business Streampunkeddrunkvisionsout, a sub-genre aternative visions business concerning fishing in Idaho without the dams, specializing in Royal Coachman related articles in the recreational fishing field.
( motto - "I crossed over a river. There was a river there. I swear there was a river there. Crystal clear, like pure clear water flowing, cedar scented the sounding of it impossible to describe, lovely." As often described in visions.)
dwr
IEA finally gets it.
ReplyDeleteSustainable Biofuels could lead to MORE Food
Here's how it works:
Let's say, I'm a landowner in Tunica/Desoto/Tate Co, Ms. I own some "marginal" land that will make a nice profit during years like the present one, but would be slightly unprofitable most years.
It's easier just to put it in the CRP, take my $40.00 an acre, and be done with it.
However, if they put a cellulosic refinery in a couple of miles over, and I could get a guaranteed $100.00/acre for my "Stover" it's a whole new ballgame. NOW, I'm looking at a modest profit even in the bad years, and an even bigger Home Run in years like this one.
Once there is a Guaranteed "Revenue Stream" from the Stover I can gamble a bit on the weather and the price of corn.
We Are moving toward Cellulosic from Corn Stover, and that Will, by Econ 101 definition, lead to more corn on the market (and, lower-priced corn on the market.)
Instead of "food for fuel," we'll be looking at "Fuel brings Food."
By far the most cost effective military action we could have taken would have been to roll up Syria's toy tank brigades and other military assets at the outset of OIF.
ReplyDeleteInstead we became the Occupying Force for the expansion of Iranian influence.
...as well as the force behind the introduction of AQ Heads and forces into Pakistan.
Brilliant.
Just Fucking Brilliant.
The present regieme acts like it gets it's marching orders for Syria from Professor Landis.
AKA Assad's Buttfuck.
Notice that Rufus simply ignored Quirk and my points about cellulosic ethanol, and went back to cheerleading for it.
ReplyDeletebtw:
If the corn cob plant proves viable, that in no way will be proof that switchgrass can be economically converted to fuel YET.
It's an enlightened use of an already available free byproduct of corn production.
Fucking Arrogant Low Level Socialist Agitator for the Green Agenda.
ReplyDeleteDoug, I remember waking up, and you, two, had put up a couple of silly, inaccurate comments, so I didn't pay much attention.
ReplyDeleteIf you will restate one, or two, now, I will address them.
An example of the silliness being: one of you quoted someone saying no car had ever run on cellulosic ethanol. Well, shit, that's just silly. ALL of Inbicon's ethanol is being sold into the market. Even "Shell/Iogen" has marketed some in the Canadian market.
Anyway, you ask; I'll answer.
Batman gives kudos to the EB Team:
ReplyDelete"They may be drinkers, Robin,
but they're still human beings."
Already did, you didn't.
ReplyDeleteSilly guy.
ReplyDeleteRobin is Hot
ReplyDeleteVideo Clip of BHO could be better characterised as Jive Ass Turkey Community Organizer Wannbe President.
ReplyDeleteAs for Switchgrass: Genera Energy in Vonore, Tn is producing their cellulosic ethanol (same enzymatic process as cornstalks/cobs) from switchgrass.
ReplyDeleteThe only difference between switchgrass, and corn stover is Availability of the feedstock. Farmers are, Already, growing corn. They Understand That business.
Trying to get a farmer to invest the time, acreage, and money on a brand new crop is Not easy. He's playing with Real money, and paying Real bills.
And, I don't think I'm "cheerleading," Bubba. I just truly believe this is the way we have to go. And, I think we better start "yesterday."
After the Arab oil-export embargo of the 1970s, the Saudis realised that since they were heavily dependent on imported grain, they were vulnerable to a grain counter-embargo. Using oil-drilling technology, they tapped into an aquifer far below the desert to produce irrigated wheat. In a matter of years, Saudi Arabia was self-sufficient in its principal food staple.
ReplyDeleteBut after more than 20 years of wheat self-sufficiency, the Saudis announced in January 2008 that this aquifer was largely depleted and they would be phasing out wheat production. Between 2007 and 2010, the harvest of nearly 3m tonnes dropped by more than two-thirds. At this rate the Saudis could harvest their last wheat crop in 2012 and then be totally dependent on imported grain to feed their population of nearly 30 million.
Peak wheat!
ReplyDeleteSun Sue said...
ReplyDeleteAfter the Arab oil-export embargo of the 1970s, the Saudis realised that since they were heavily dependent on imported grain, they were vulnerable to a grain counter-embargo. Using oil-drilling technology, they tapped into an aquifer far below the desert to produce irrigated wheat. In a matter of years, Saudi Arabia was self-sufficient in its principal food staple.
But after more than 20 years of wheat self-sufficiency, the Saudis announced in January 2008 that this aquifer was largely depleted and they would be phasing out wheat production. Between 2007 and 2010, the harvest of nearly 3m tonnes dropped by more than two-thirds. At this rate the Saudis could harvest their last wheat crop in 2012 and then be totally dependent on imported grain to feed their population of nearly 30 million.
Excellent. I suggest we raise the price of wheat to reflect the same cost to produce/sale price ratio when selling them food and medicines.
Or let them starve,
either way, time to vaporize the black rock of mecca, Ms t can fly in 1st and save all the little moslem babies 1st...
Maybe the Saudis can export their young folks to work overseas and send money home for wheat. There is such a demand for people who have memorized the Koran for 12 years.
ReplyDeleteSun Sue said...
ReplyDeleteMaybe the Saudis can export their young folks to work overseas
Work? You are dumber than you look... Saudi children dont WORK, that's what they make Filipinos for....
At $100.00/bbl, One day of oil exports will pay for 3 Million Tons of Wheat.
ReplyDeleteThere's less than a dime's worth of wheat in a loaf of bread. The plastic wrapper costs more.
ReplyDeleteWheat is cheap.
On average, $2.90 of that $3.00 loaf of bread goes to processing, packaging, and transportation.
ReplyDeleteWheat is cheap.
ReplyDeleteRaise the price to any and all OPEC nations...
Infact? Raise the price of all food & medicine to all OPEC nations.
Oh wait, by devaluing the dollar? We just did...
Work? You are dumber than you look... Saudi children dont WORK, that's what they make Filipinos for....
ReplyDeleteAfter peak oil and peak wheat, when the entire House of Saud has said "See ya!" and moved to Switzerland, there won't be any money left to hire Filipinos.
The famous "Egyptian Wheat Riots" of 2008 weren't caused by any "shortage."
ReplyDeleteThey were the result of the "Bakers going on Strike." The government sent the Army in to Bake the Bread. What could go wrong?
The thing is, even though Saudi Production has "peaked," they will still be producing a significant amount of oil for a long, long time.
ReplyDeleteThe East Texas Oil Field still produces oil, just not nearly as much as it once did.
The fields that completely "go away" are the Offshore fields. Somewhere between 10, and 20 years, their production diminishes to a point where it's no longer economic to keep them going. Then, they're capped, and sayonara'd.
For instance, the first well was drilled in the Kern Co, California field in 1899.
ReplyDeleteI said that, poorly. An offshore "well" is good for somewhere in the 10 to 20 year range. If the "Field" is of any size other, later, wells will still be producing.
ReplyDeleteBut, none of them are "bottomless" milk shakes.
ReplyDeleteThis amazing fact just in. The Clearwater River Defense Alliance has shown that if each household wiped it's asses with cloth each year instead of paper we'd never have to cut another tree from the national forests in 100 million years. And could bring back the textile industry in the USA. Facts are facts regardless of the source.
ReplyDeletedwr
Now was that said with sarcarm, hatred, humour or love? Or a combination thereof, or none of the above?
ReplyDeleteThis is a damn hard media to communicate in, words.
There is a theory, which I'm beginning to believe, that it was the development of language caused the damnable human fall.
Say what you will, we've argued ever since.
dwr
This just in after the last "just in."
ReplyDeleteIt's been proven that if certain anonymous commentors used paper instead of their fingers there would be no trees left standing in the Continental U.S.
And Rufus is a "bottomless" shake of facts, like the perfect beer container.
ReplyDeleteIn what way was that said?
dwr
heh
ReplyDeletedwr
There are no trees in Mississippi.
ReplyDeletedwr
Ah, non, Garcon. Many, many trees in Mississip.
ReplyDeleteIdeeho, and Havaiii are looking kind of barren, though.
(and, I believe, they cut the last tree in Areezonah about 20 years ago, didn't they?)
My fifteen minutes are up, and I've paid my library fine.
ReplyDeleteMy daddy used to say:
"Nothing of any importance was ever said in a bar."
To which I'd reply:
"Nothing of any importance was ever said at the Bar."
To which he'd reply judicially:
"There's some real truth in that, too."
dwr
.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, you ask; I'll answer.
That stream Doug referenced had an awful lot of long posts in it Ruf. And most of the questions were accompanied by lengthy attachments. Doug’s were especially extensive.
I'll just put down one of them that points out my problem with what you post here on cellulosic ethanol, not that you are necessarily wrong but that you are way too optimistic on the timing for a competitive product.
The example I will use is Inbicon. You quoted it as being a company where the cellulosic process is "working like a charm."
When I checked and came across a presentation put out by the Inbicon CEO a few months ago that seemed to raise some questions about the commercialization process, you ignored it. Or at least the only response we got was you indicating that it is all political and the GOP is to blame for us not having enough ethanol.
Subsequently, on the next stream as a rebuttal to Doug's arguments you again referenced Inbicon. And again tonight you mention Inbicon again.
Therefore the following posts while primarily about Inbicon include some of the questions I have. (The italicized comments were yours)
.
.
ReplyDeleteQuirQuirk said...
.
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 production 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?
.
Sat Apr 16, 03:37:00 AM EDT
.
Quirk said...
ReplyDelete.
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 summarizes 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.
.
Sat Apr 16, 03:45:00 AM EDT
.
.
ReplyDeleteQuirk said...
.
[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. (I mention that only with reference to our discussion on sources.)
.
Sat Apr 16, 04:05:00 AM EDT
.
.
ReplyDeleteQuirk said...
.
[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 dependent 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 rants 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?
And I should add mandates.
.
Sat Apr 16, 04:40:00 AM EDT
.
.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the questions I asked on Inbicon, I got a post that ignored the company but included,
Quirk said...
.
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 future. 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.
.
Sat Apr 16, 12:32:00 PM EDT
.
Ask him about this ---
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/epic_green_failure.html
dwr
Here
ReplyDeletedwr
You will not see "unsubsidized" ethanol for a long time (in my opinion.) Just like you won't see "Unsubsidized" Oil for a long time - Okay, actually, Never.
ReplyDeleteAs far as "Large Quantities:" I don't know what You would call "large quantities."
But, There will be, probably, two or three cellulosic operations putting out approx 20 Million Gallons/Yr by the end of next year, or early 2003.
And, I think you're being a little hyperbolic with the "snickering, and bumkins" bit.
Q, you're taking a new technology up against a $4 Trillion/Yr Business. A business that is peopled by the Smartest, Ruggedest, Bravest, Meanest, Most Politically Powerful Bunch of entrepreneurs in the World.
They Own Politicians, and Promote (successfully) Wars.
Will the Bank that lends you a couple of hundred Million to build this plant Demand to see "Subsidies, Grants, and Mandates?" What the freakin' hell do you think?
NIMBY'ism doesn't come too much into play with ethanol refineries, Q. These are, for the most part, located in very sparsely populated rural areas that appreciate the jobs, and the higher commodity prices that go with it.
Several Corn Ethanol plants have had small groups go up against them, but I don't think the "antis" won in more than 1% of the cases. In the one, or two times (out of 200) that the antis did win, the promoters just moved the planned plant over the hill a couple of miles, and went on with their business.
The Range Fuels fiasco is a Big, Old Gasification Process that I've been skeptical on for quite some time.
ReplyDeleteThe guys that were familiar with the Fischer Tropse Process warned early that they didn't think you could gasify that much Wood w/o building up tar.
The Range guys, and Vinod Khosla always ignored the questions and went into their spiel about "Vision," and the "Future." You couldn't get an "Engineer" on the phone, much less for an interview.
Sure enough. Tar started building up, immediately; and that was that.
Everybody Truly wanted Big, Huge, Multi-Million Gallon Deals. The thing is, cellulosic works better with small refineries, working with easier to process feedstocks (ie. grasses = easy Wood = hard.)
Q, you can be as non-credulous as you wish. There are now several good, strong companies with years of experience operating multiple ethanol refineries that are starting to build.
ReplyDeleteThey are tweaking the Enzyme process with lessons learned from Genera Energy at Vonore Tn (Dupont/Danisco - Switchgrass,) and Inbicon (Novozymes, and wheat straw.)
These companies have spent the last two years working with farmers, and building their feedstock supply systems.
Dupont likes the program enough that they paid $5 Billion for their Enzyme maker (Danisco.)
I'm telling you man, you can "incredule" to your heart's content, but this is where the show is going.
Here's what's not immediately obvious to someone who hasn't studied it pretty closely. We had a lousy corn harvest last year, and China, the second largest producer, had a Disastrous corn harvest.
ReplyDeleteThat, plus strong demand from the emerging markets, has pushed corn up to a very high price (around $7.50 bu.)
Barring another very bad weather-year, we should see corn closer to $4.50/bu by the Fall (still, historically, a very good price.) That will put wholesale ethanol down to around $1.80, or thereabouts.
That will give you a pump price for E85 less than $2.00/gal. At a time when E10 is selling for well over $4.00/gal.
Possibly, along about that time, someone will up and say, "hey, guess what, my 2012 Regal gets the same mileage on E85 as it does E10.
Explosion.
.
ReplyDeleteI'm not arguing where ethanol is going. I'm arguing how fast and when. And at what cost.
As for the hyperbolic, the "bumkins" was my own interpretation; the "snickering" and the "dumbfucks' are in the archive and easily pulled up.
As we have discussed the mandates are out there in the US. The amount of corn ethanol that is mandated is limited to about 15 million gallons in 2015. The EPA has set a target of 6.5 million gallons of cellulosic for 2011.
Will the industry meet the targets that are out there, short-term or for 2022?
You have indicated they can be competitive without subsidies soon. When is soon?
I won't even push you on the subsidies issue. I personally don't see the subsidies (or local incentives, or tax breaks, or development grants, etc.) stopping.
You have the mandate through 2022 and ethanol is expected to supply 25% of our fuel needs.
Just tell me,
1. Will the cellulosic ethanol industry meet to 2011 production targets?
2. Will they meet those of 2015?
3. Will they meet the 2022 targets?
.
.
ReplyDelete...The amount of corn ethanol that is mandated is limited to about 15 million gallons in 2015.
s/b ...15 billion gallons
.
No.
ReplyDeleteUnless, of course, they drop them down to, I don't know, way low. The only one that "might" be producing in the low millions of gallons is a company called Fiberight (and, I'm a little skeptical of them.)
Otherwise, all you have for 2011 is a quarter million gallons from Genera, and some small amount from the Poet pilot plant, and maybe a couple of other (maybe Abengoa) pilot plants.
Nah, the first "real" year of production will be 2013, and that will only be, maybe, 75 - 80 Million Gallons.
Once those plants start operating the "proof of concept" will be established, and I expect it to look a lot like 2007 when over 175 Large (55 mgy to 110 mgy) Corn Ethanol Plants went into construction at the same time.
There's a lot that has to get ironed out, politically.
I think Cellulosic will meet the 2022 targets. Any targets before that, not a chance.
ReplyDeleteI'm telling you, Coburn, and the Oil State (mostly) Republicans (mostly) are fighting viciously right now. It's not because of corn ethanol. It's already doing 14 Billion gallons/yr, and it's pretty well entrenched.
They're fighting to slow down cellulosic. Any uncertainty they can engender is a win - potentially another year of no funding, no construction. Hell, it's a crazy situation right now; they may even get lucky and win the whole enchilada.
If they don't, it won't be for lack of trying.
.
ReplyDeleteHere's what's not immediately obvious to someone who hasn't studied it pretty closely. We had a lousy corn harvest last year, and China, the second largest producer, had a Disastrous corn harvest.
Exactly why I have argued against the US mandates. There is no flexibility built into them. They do not take into account poor crops, supply disruptions, the world market. By setting mandates in gallons, the ethanol producers rather than using 15-20% of the crop end up using 35-40% of the crop in a bad year.
Likewise for cellulosic. The EPA sets their targets based on "potential" availability of cellulosic production. If the cellulosic is not produced the blenders are taxed for not blendng the required targeted percentage of cellulosic.
.
I was just reading about Turkey. Amazing what's going on there. Gasoline is selling for $10.49/gal the last I've seen. Car sales are setting records every month. Traffic jams, everywhere.
ReplyDeletePeople are paying more for a month old VW than the "New" selling price, because they don't want to wait the 4 months for delivery of a new one. This shit's going on all over the world.
And, oil production is, basically, what it was in 2005. If you see a chart of "Liquids" production you will see an increase from approx 86 to 88 mbpd, but that two million barrels is Ethanol.
Latin American car sales are booming. Asian (not just China, but Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Korea, and of course India.
Petrol usage is even exploding in the Middle East/Persian Gulf states.
No, if the product's not there, they just lower the mandate like they did this year.
ReplyDeleteYou Have to have the Mandates, Q. The oil companies Will, absolutely, Not use the product, otherwise. I mean, they would be crazy to. You can't honestly believe there's an Oil Co. CEO, or a Saudi Prince that doesn't go to bed every night dreaming that they'll wake up in the morning and the ethanol companies will be gone.
To believe otherwise would have to be to deny the very existence of human nature.
From 2009 to 2010 World GDP Grew by 6.8%
ReplyDeleteThat would probably extrapolate out to about a 2.5 to 3 million bpd increase in demand for oil (somewhere between 3 and 4% growth in energy demand)
There's no reason to think that growth is going to slow down. Remember, the Non-OECD Countries were still booming during this last recession while the OECD countries were gasping for air.
That 6.8% number is probably a little bit high. That's using the World Bank numbers for 2009, and I believe they're a bit low. But, I've seen other "scholarly" sources that put it around 5%, or just a touch less. It's a difference w/o a distinction.
ReplyDeleteHappy Easter
ReplyDeleteThnx
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteNo, if the product's not there, they just lower the mandate like they did this year.
The EPA has aleady lowered it from the 100 million gallons dictated by Congress in 2005 to 5 million gallons for 2010.
Even given the 5 million galon 'potential' available for 2010 some have estimated that there was only 1 million gallons of the cellulosic produced. At any rate, well below the 5 million mandated.
For 2011, the 250 million gallons that were initially mandated were lowered to 6.6 million gallons by EPA.
Cellulosic Mandate
Others argue that the blenders will work around the EPA penalties by importing qualifying feedstocks leaving Brazil the beneficiary.
Brazil Wins With EPA Rules?
Any way you cut it it's the US taxpayer who wil ultimately take it in the ass.
.
.
ReplyDeleteNo, if the product's not there, they just lower the mandate like they did this year.
You Have to have the Mandates, Q. The oil companies Will, absolutely, Not use the product, otherwise...
You don't see a conflict between these two statements?
Usually, a mandate is "mandatory". Otherwise, what is the point?
If it's not to be enforced, it's usually called a target or a suggestion.
.