Ethanol Archives - Page 3 of 4 - Common Sense Evaluation

Amusing

10 Reasons To Blame Democrats For Soaring Gasoline Prices

June 17, 2008 gags

All ‘10 reasons’ are valid. The simple truth is this: We can bring oil/gas prices down by drilling all of our own oil. The justification for going back to President Bush’s 2001 energy package and passing it has never been more obvious.

I believe members of Congress are in for “A Crude Awakening” this coming November. Either that or the second American Revolution is around the corner.

Top 10 reasons to blame Democrats for soaring gasoline prices

This started out as an attempt to create a light and humorous, Letterman-esque Top 10 list. But the items on the list, and the drain Americans are seeing in their pocketbooks because of Democrats’ actions (sometimes inaction) are just too tragic for that.

10) ANWR If Bill Clinton had signed into law the Republican Congress’s 1995 bill to allow drilling of ANWR instead of vetoing it, ANWR could be producing a million barrels of (non-Opec) oil a day–5% of the nation’s consumption. Although speaking in another context, even Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, no proponent of ANWR drilling, admits that “one million barrels per day,” would cause the price of gasoline to fall “50 cents a gallon almost immediately,” according to a recent George Will column.

9) Coastal Drilling (i.e., not in my backyard) Democrats have consistently fought efforts to drill off the U.S. coast, as evidenced by Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s preotestation against a failed 2005 bill: “Not only does this legislation dismantle the bi-partisan ban on offshore drilling, but it provides a financial incentive for states to do so.”
A financial incentive? With the Chinese now slant drilling for oil just 50 miles off the Florida coast, wouldn’t that have been a good thing?

8) Insistence on alternative fuels One of the first acts of the new Democrat-controlled congress in 2007 was an energy bill that “calls for a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel and requires new appliance efficiency standards.” By focusing on alternative fuels such as ethanol, and not more drilling, Democrats have added to the cost of food, worsening starvation problems around the word and increasing inflationary pressures in the U.S., including prices at the pump.

7) Nuclear power Even the French, who sometimes seem to lack the backbone to stand up for anything other than soft cheese, faced down their environmentalists over the need for nuclear power. France now generates 79% of its electricity from nuclear plants, mitigating the need for imported oil. The French have so much cheap energy that France has become the world’s largest exporter of electric power. They have plans in place to build more reactors, including an experimental fusion reactor.

The last nuclear reactor built in the United States, according to the US Dept of Energy, was the “River Bend” plant in Louisiana. Its construction began in March of 1977.

Need I say more?

6) Coal “The liquid hydrocarbon fuel available from American coal reserves exceeds the crude oil reserves of the entire world,” writes Dr. Arthur Robinson in an article on humanevents.com. The U.S. has approximately one-fourth of the world’s known, proven coal reserves. Coal would be a proven, and increasingly clean, source of electric power and–at current prices–a liquified fuel that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Yet Dems and their enviro friends have fought, and continue to fight, both coal-mining and coal plants.

5) Refinery capacity “High oil prices are still being propped up by a shortage of refinery capacity and there is little sign of the bottleneck easing until 2010,” according to Peak Oil News. And, while voters in South Dakota have approved zoning for what could become the first new oil refinery in the United States in 30 years, the Dems’ environmentalist constituency vows to oppose it, just like environmentalists opposed the floodgates that could have saved New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina.

4) Reduced competition With consolidation in the oil industry, has come reduced competition. Remember, most of the major oil company mergers — Shell-Texaco, BP-Amoco, Exxon-Mobil, BP-ARCO, and Chevron-Texaco — happened on Clinton’s watch. The number of oil refiners dropped from 28 to 19 companies during Clinton’s two terms.

3) The Global Warming Myth At a Group of 8 meeting this week, host and Japanese Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Akira Amari “described the issues of climate change and energy as two sides of the same coin and proposed united solutions … to address both issues simultaneously”. As a result of Global Warming hysteria, the Al Gore-negotiated Kyoto Protocol created a worldwide market in carbon-emissions trading. Both 2005 –the year that trading was initiated–and this year –when the trading expanded dramatically — saw substantial and unexpected price spikes in the cost of oil, leading us to reason Number…

2) Speculation “Given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months amid the explosive rise in oil futures prices … it is more likely that as much as 60% of the today oil price is pure speculation,” writes F. William Engdahl, an Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. According to a June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report, US energy futures historically “were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States… The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from (federal) oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.” The bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton, in one of his last acts in office.

1) Defeat of President Bush’s 2001 energy package According to the BBC, “Key points of Bush(‘s 2001) plan were to:

-Promote new oil and gas drilling

-Build new nuclear plants

-Improve electricity grid and build new pipelines -$10bn in tax breaks to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels

A New York Times article, dated May 18, 2001, explained:

“President Bush began an intensive effort today to sell his plan for developing new sources of energy to Congress and the American people, arguing that the country had a future of ‘energy abundance if it could break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.

Mr. Bush’s plea for a new dialogue came as his administration published the report of an energy task force containing scores of specific proposals… for finding new sources of power and encouraging a range of new energy technologies.”

[The Bush plan] “mentions about a dozen areas including land-use restrictions in the Rockies, lease stipulations on offshore areas attractive to oil companies, the vetting of locations for nuclear plants, environmental reviews to upgrade power plants and refineries that could be streamlined or eliminated to help industry find more oil and gas and produce more electricity and gasoline.”

The article went on to quote some rather prescient words from the President, “this great country could face a darker future, a future that is, unfortunately, being previewed in rising prices at the gas pump and rolling blackouts in the great state of California” if his plan was not adopted in 2001.

The Times account continued:

“Mr. Bush talked not only of blackouts but of blackmail, raising the specter of a future in which the United States is increasingly vulnerable to foreign oil suppliers…Mr. Bush was praised by many groups for laying out a long-term energy policy. His report contained 105 initiatives…”

Just as President Bush’s predictions have been born out, the article quoted from that most sage of Democrats, former President Jimmy Carter:

“World supplies are adequate and reasonably stable, price fluctuations are cyclical, reserves are plentiful,” he (Carter) argued. Mr. Carter said “exaggerated claims seem designed to promote some long-frustrated ambitions of the oil industry at the expense of environmental quality.”

But, as a later Times article notes, “the president’s ambitious policy quickly became a casualty of energy politics and, notably, harsh criticism from Democrats enraged by the way the White House had created the plan.”

In other words, Democrats refused the President’s plea to “break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.”

Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump … or the voter’s booth.

Amusing

Congressional Stupidity Is Destroying America

June 16, 2008 gags

This article hits the nail square on the head. By the way… isn’t “Congressional Stupidity” redundant?

To blame anyone other than environmentalists and corruption in Congress for this energy crisis and alternative fuel fiasco is dishonorable and totally off base. We have untapped energy resources which could easily make the U.S. independent.

The solution to our energy crises is simple. Utilize our own energy-producing fossil resources.

Energy Crisis, Congressional Stupidity, And Election 2008

People are angry. Global oil prices have doubled over the past year, sending fuel prices skyrocketing. Diesel fuel, in particular, is outrageously high, putting the squeeze on the farming and trucking industries, and driving the price of nearly everything upward, especially the cost of food. Truckers have even taken to “demonstrating” in the streets of the capitol city.

The elected head of the nation’s government seems unable to do much of anything to alleviate the problem. But appearing as though he’s doing something is better than appearing as though he’s doing nothing, so he schedules a trip to Saudi Arabia for several “high level talks” with oil producers.

Does this sound like a description of the series of events that led up to President Bush’s trip to the Middle East a month ago? You remember that trip, don’t you? It gave us those hideous photos of our current U.S. President holding hands with Saudi King Abdullah, along with the headline “Saudi‘s Rebuff Bush.”

Well, the passage above could very well be used

to describe what was going on here at home back in February, March and April of this year. But it is actually a description of what’s been going on in London the past few weeks, as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced plans last Friday to pay his own special visit to “the King” later this month, on June 22nd.

Same problem, essentially the same description, but a different country. And here’s another difference between the two stories: in the United States, we have the resources to get ourselves out of our dilemma – – at least partially – – in the short-run.

It’s no mystery that the United States is home to its own substantial oil and gas resources. It is also true that oil corporations, themselves, are NOT the villains behind the skyrocketing fuel prices. The problem is, without a doubt, the United States Congress.

Currently, it is a violation of federal law to search for oil in the Pacific Ocean, in the Gulf of Mexico, in the Atlantic Ocean, and in Alaska. Similarly, it is against the law to search for oil shale in the continental United States. Congress has the power to change federal laws that restrict such energy exploration and development, but has chosen not to do this.

And if “Congress” is to blame for these harmful laws, that means that there is plenty of blame to go around among Republicans and Democrats alike. Republicans controlled the Congress for nearly twelve of the last thirteen and a half years, and during that time the stupidity on energy policy remained intact.

Yet for the past seventeen months, Democrats have been in control of Congress. And what has been the response from our nation’s legislative body regarding our most recent energy crisis? For one, the Democrats introduced legislation that would raise taxes on oil companies. Acting as if “companies” actually pay taxes (rather than passing along the additional costs to their customers), the Democrats chose to play – – to borrow a term from my friend and mentor Hugh Hewitt – – a game of “Sesame Street economics.”

Were the Democrats’ corporate tax increase to actually become law, it would do nothing to help expand our nation’s energy resources, and would, indeed, drive our energy costs further upward. But never mind the need for real solutions – – if you’re in Congress and you’re a Democrat, its good to look like you’re being “tough” on oil companies.

And on the point of “looking tough,” Congressional Democrats have also conducted several “investigations” and “hearings” as of late, to determine if oil companies have been doing anything illegal or unscrupulous so as to drive-up the prices of their products. One of my favorite moments from the “big oil hearings” was when Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts demanded to know why the Exxon Mobil Corporation was not investing at least 10% of its profits into the development of alternative, “renewable” energy sources. That’s like demanding to know why the cattle ranching industry is not investing in the development of a soy-based meat substitute product – – it was silly and illogical, yet it was an opportunity for Mr. Markey to look and sound tough in the face of big oil.

So while Congressional Democrats continue to try and appear like they‘re “getting tough” on the oil industry, how about if Congressional Republicans really “get tough” on congressional stupidity? Attitudes and tempers at the pump are already starting to get testy, and gasoline is expected to approach five dollars a gallon by the Fourth of July holiday weekend.

There is a huge opportunity to be seized for the Republicans, if they can figure out how to point-out the foolishness and destructiveness of the Democrats’ proposals, and then propose a real solution to the problem, and then make it happen.

But can the Republican Party, at such a time as this, actually rise to the occasion? And what precisely is the message to voters? And who are the spokespersons for this message? Thoughtful answers to these questions could change the outcome of election 2008.

Amusing

Ford Escape Hybrid Gets 88 MPG

June 15, 2008 gags

This may be just what Ford needs to rejuvenate its product line and help with sales. With the current gas situation and impotence of Congress to do anything about the cost of oil, a vehicle like this may excite lots of people.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY DELIVERS FLEXIBLE FUEL, PLUG-IN VEHICLE TO DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Ford Motor Company broke new ground by delivering its first-ever flexible fuel capable plug-in hybrid SUV to the U.S. Department of Energy.

The Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid, which runs on gasoline or E85, is part of a demonstration fleet Ford is developing in a partnership with Southern California Edison and the Electric Power Research Institute. Advanced testing on the vehicles is underway in California. The Department of Energy will include the Escape Flexible Fuel Plug-in Hybrid in its fleet to showcase the marriage of technologies and obtain real world experience with the vehicle as it continues its support of advanced fuel technologies.

“Plug-in hybrid technology holds great promise to reduce the nation’s dependence on petroleum and reduce CO² emissions related to climate change, both significant issues for America,” said Mark Fields, President of the Americas, Ford Motor Company. “As a leader in both hybrid and flexible fuel technology, Ford is well positioned to bring the two together in a plug-in vehicle.”

The vehicle is equipped with a 10 kilowatt advanced lithium ion energy battery supplied by Johnson-Controls/Saft that stores enough electric energy to drive up to 30 miles at speeds of up to 40 mph. When fueled by E85 ethanol, which has a lower energy content than gasoline, fuel economy can reach up to 88 mpg in urban driving and up to 50 mpg on the highway. Based on current estimates, the vehicle would emit 60 percent less CO² than a conventional gasoline powered vehicle. That CO² reduction could reach 90 percent if cellulosic ethanol is used in place of gasoline.

The flexible fuel Escape Plug-in Hybrid runs up to 30 miles at speeds less than 40 mph in electric mode until the battery’s charge is 70 percent depleted. At higher speeds or when the battery is depleted, the vehicle switches to traditional hybrid mode – a fuel efficient four-cylinder engine assisted by the lithium ion battery. The vehicle leased to the DOE also is equipped with an innovative interactive vehicle display, which shows the driver how efficiently the vehicle is operating and calculates the fuel savings for each trip – part of Ford’s efforts to help our customers drive smart and green.

“There is enormous interest in the country in the electrification of vehicles,” Fields said. “We recognize commercialization of plug-ins, powered by gasoline or biofuels, may represent part of a long-term energy solution, but significant challenges remain to bringing this technology to market.”

This vehicle is one of 20 demonstration plug-in hybrids that Ford is building as part of a collaboration with Southern California Edison and the Electric Power Research Institute to accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids. The partnership’s goals include the development and creation of new business models to make plug-in hybrids possible; development of open architectures, standards and specifications; and a greater understanding of customer demand based on realistic expectations and customer usage needs

“We are moving from an independent set of solutions to an integrated future. With plug-in hybrids, the automotive and utility industries are connected by a common fuel with the potential to significantly change our transportation and energy future,” said Nancy Gioia, director of Ford’s Sustainable Mobility Technologies and Hybrid Vehicle Programs.

The first of the Escape Plug-in Hybrid SUV was delivered to Southern California Edison in December and road testing has begun. The vehicle delivered to the DOE today represents the first flexible fuel Escape Plug-in Hybrid developed as part of the partnership.

Cartoons

Cartoon Of The Day

June 2, 2008September 9, 2012 gags

Amusing

“Green Gasoline” Biofuel Breakthrough

April 27, 2008 gags

If this is true, it would surely stop rising food and fuel prices. But sadly, it will get buried by environmentalists and our corrupt political system.

This Ethanol fiasco has shown us one thing; we should eat our vegetables, and not burn them for fuel. Now is the time to open ANWR and the other drilling opportunities being held hostage by environmentalists and special interest lobby monies. We should build new refineries and end this moronic crap before corrupt Politicians put an end to the greatest country God has ever created.

Researchers Create “Green Gasoline” Ethanol Killer From Biomass

Researchers have made a breakthrough in the development of “green gasoline,” a liquid identical to standard gasoline in energy contant yet created from sustainable biomass sources like switchgrass and poplar trees. The discovery could transform the renewable fuel economy by eliminating the need to grow corn for ethanol and rescue America from importing expensive and dwindling foreign oil supplies.

Reporting in the cover article of the April 7, 2008 issue of Chemistry & Sustainability, Energy & Materials (ChemSusChem), chemical engineer and National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER awardee George Huber of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst (UMass) and his graduate students Torren Carlson and Tushar Vispute announced the first direct conversion of plant cellulose into gasoline components.

In the same issue, James Dumesic and colleagues from the University of Wisconsin-Madison announce an integrated process for creating chemical components of jet fuel using a green gasoline approach. While Dumesic’s group had previously demonstrated the production of jet-fuel components using separate steps, their current work shows that the steps can be integrated and run sequentially, without complex separation and purification processes between reactors.

“It is likely that the future consumer will not even know that they are putting biofuels into their car,” said Huber. “Biofuels in the future will most likely be similar in chemical composition to gasoline and diesel fuel used today. The challenge for chemical engineers is to efficiently produce liquid fuels from biomass while fitting into the existing infrastructure today.”

For their new approach, the UMass researchers rapidly heated cellulose in the presence of solid catalysts, materials that speed up reactions without sacrificing themselves in the process. They then rapidly cooled the products to create a liquid that contains many of the compounds found in gasoline.

The entire process was completed in under two minutes using relatively moderate amounts of heat. The compounds that formed in that single step, like naphthalene and toluene, make up one fourth of the suite of chemicals found in gasoline. The liquid can be further treated to form the remaining fuel components or can be used “as is” for a high octane gasoline blend.

“Green gasoline is an attractive alternative to bioethanol since it can be used in existing engines and does not incur the 30 percent gas mileage penalty of ethanol-based flex fuel,” said John Regalbuto, who directs the Catalysis and Biocatalysis Program at NSF and supported this research.

“In theory it requires much less energy to make than ethanol, giving it a smaller carbon footprint and making it cheaper to produce,” Regalbuto said. “Making it from cellulose sources such as switchgrass or poplar trees grown as energy crops, or forest or agricultural residues such as wood chips or corn stover, solves the lifecycle greenhouse gas problem that has recently surfaced with corn ethanol and soy biodiesel.”

Beyond academic laboratories, both small businesses and Fortune 500 petroleum refiners are pursuing green gasoline. Companies are designing ways to hybridize their existing refineries to enable petroleum products including fuels, textiles, and plastics to be made from either crude oil or biomass and the military community has shown strong interest in making jet fuel and diesel from the same sources.

“Huber’s new process for the direct conversion of cellulose to gasoline aromatics is at the leading edge of the new “Green Gasoline” alternate energy paradigm that NSF, along with other federal agencies, is helping to promote,” states Regalbuto.

Not only is the method a compact way to treat a great deal of biomass in a short time, Regalbuto emphasized that the process, in principle, does not require any external energy. “In fact, from the extra heat that will be released, you can generate electricity in addition to the biofuel,” he said. “There will not be just a small carbon footprint for the process; by recovering heat and generating electricity, there won’t be any footprint.”

The latest pathways to produce green gasoline, green diesel and green jet fuel are found in a report sponsored by NSF, the Department of Energy and the American Chemical Society entitled “Breaking the Chemical and Engineering Barriers to Lignocellulosic Biofuels: Next Generation Hydrocarbon Biorefineries” released April 1 (http://www.ecs.umass.edu/biofuels/). In the report, Huber and a host of leaders from academia, industry and government present a plan for making green gasoline a practical solution for the impending fuel crisis.

“We are currently working on understanding the chemistry of this process and designing new catalysts and reactors for this single step technique. This fundamental chemical understanding will allow us to design more efficient processes that will accelerate the commercialization of green gasoline,” Huber said.