Any lateral thinkers here? What to do with 1000's of cords of 'waste' wood?

[imagineero]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Once you get all the facts, it’s a simple thing to see that Ethanol is not a cheaper-than-oil energy source anywhere on the planet!

You can never get all the facts straight. But if you want to skew them to illustrate your own limited viewpoint then I might as well throw some counterpoints in there to present a slightly more balanced view.

Your arguments seem to be based on crude oil vs other forms of fuel like biodiesel and ethanol. I'll grant that oil is currently cheaper and better value than the other forms of energy for the limited purpose of, say, fueling your vehicle. Lets not assume that oil prices will not be increasing, or assume that alternative energy prices will always rise by the same percentage will.

Oil is arguably the most important factor in every developed nations economy. Every financial collapse in US history was precipitated by a sharp increase in crude oil prices, GFC included. Everyone wanted to talk about the sub prime mortgage market, but nobody wanted to discuss that the price of crude went from $32/barrel in december 07 to $126/barrel mid 2008. Nobody was allowed to even use the phrase 'peak oil' in the whitehouse. It was no surprise to me that Obama's first address from the oval office was partly about the BP oil disaster, and partly about moving america away from reliance on fossil fuels. Have a read of the transcript.

Oil is a great thing, but the happy days are over. Every well in the world is being pumped at full capacity and no new wells are being discovered of meaningul size. The issue isn't "how much is left", it's "how quick can we get it out of the ground?" They're pumping wells as quick as they can and pushing technology to do it quicker. Meanwhile, oil companies are merging, tanker ships are being decomissioned. History shows that demand only needs to outstrip supply by as little as 1% for barrel prices to double, tripple or even more. I'm talking daily demand/supply here. We have already reached daily maximum supply. But now the other 95% of the world has decided they would like to have a car too. Or at least a motorbike. Bicycles aren't as cool as they used to be.

How long do you think it will take for GFC 2? We're pretty much hovering on the brink of it with not much chance of increasing supply of oil, and no chance of reducing demand. So what would you suggest there whitespider? That we should forget about using/researching alternative fuels and keep using oil?

Yeah it costs money, and I agree it's probably a waste of money. I don't think there is a replacement out there to be discovered or invented. But some of these alternatives will make the transition a bit less violent and a bit more livable as we move from being gas guzzlers and go back to stone age living. I know that even if we stopped eating, all the corn in the world wouldn't fuel our cars for a day, but there may come a time in the not too distant future when militarised nations will decide they'd rather have fuel for the warships than food for the people.

I predict a big comeback of wood and forestry. Timber is the only renewable resource we have, at least in the scale of our own lifetimes. You can build with it, cook with it, eat things that grow on it, heat with it and it makes oxygen and eats C02. Needs nothing but sun and water to grow and they're fun to climb too. Last year was the biggest year for wood heater sales in australia in more than 15 years. I can see the coal powered car making a comeback too. Maybe even a pine powered variant for NZ.

Shaun

 

[Whitespider]

Where do you get the idea that, “Every well in the world is being pumped at full capacity and no new wells are being discovered of meaningul size”? Because that’s just flat hogwash!

• Saudi Arabia has never pumped at full capacity… and since the days of Jimmy Carter they have further reduced production whenever oil prices fall in an attempt keep prices high.
• It is estimated that the US has more oil than Saudi Arabia just under the Alaskan North Slope alone… yet the oil companies have not been allowed to drill and pump except in a small area.
• Over the last 10-15 years or so several new Alaskan oil fields have been drilled, proved, and then capped as part of the (so-called) Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That’s right, entire oil fields drilled and capped… not a single barrel of oil ever pumped. And I’m not just talking the ANWR oil field… there are also Gull Island, Kuparuk, and Prudhoe Bay oil fields… Huge fields either totally capped, or with just limited pumping allowed by our government.
• Most of the oil pumped in Alaska never makes it to the lower 48… because of silly trade agreements most is shipped to Japan, and then the lower 48 imports most of its oil.
• There now appears to be just as much oil under the Dakota’s as there is in Saudi Arabia. But again, our government has not allowed more drilling, and has limited the production. The North Dakota wells that have been allowed are proving to be huge producers of (relatively) easily accessible oil.
• It is now believed that the east slope of the Rocky Mountains could hold more oil than the entire Middle-East combined! But our government hasn’t even allowed exploration. At one time this oil would have been difficult and costly to extract… but with new extraction technology it is more than accessible today.
• Off-shore drilling/production are severely limited by our government. Just the amount of oil in the Gulf is mind-bending… yet the oil companies aren’t allowed to exploit it to the full potential. Meanwhile, South American countries are sucking oil from it at a staggering rate (and because their technology and regulations don’t match ours, they spill/leak more oil into the waters every day then we ever have in total).

We are nowhere near full oil production capacity… NOWHERE NEAR IT! We have enough oil just under the lower 48 to easily supply our energy needs (estimated) for 500-1000 years! (Depending on which estimate you read and find more credible)


Oh… and I consider it “brainwashing” to believe anything without first doing your own fact-finding and conformation. As Ronald Reagan said, “Trust, but verify.”


Oh... and don't forget that our current president refuses to allow our friend Canada to build a pipeline that would bring the US huge amounts of relatively cheap fossil-fuel energy. Because he doesn't want to make his "green" friends mad during an election cycle the good of America is thrown under the bus. C'mon, that alone should make you question anything you've been told about energy by government or alternative energy supporters.

 

[woodman6666]

Where do you get the idea that, “Every well in the world is being pumped at full capacity and no new wells are being discovered of meaningul size”? Because that’s just flat hogwash!

• Saudi Arabia has never pumped at full capacity… and since the days of Jimmy Carter they have further reduced production whenever oil prices fall in an attempt keep prices high.
• It is estimated that the US has more oil than Saudi Arabia just under the Alaskan North Slope alone… yet the oil companies have not been allowed to drill and pump except in a small area.
• Over the last 10-15 years or so several new Alaskan oil fields have been drilled, proved, and then capped as part of the (so-called) Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That’s right, entire oil fields drilled and capped… not a single barrel of oil ever pumped. And I’m not just talking the ANWR oil field… there are also Gull Island, Kuparuk, and Prudhoe Bay oil fields… Huge fields either totally capped, or with just limited pumping allowed by our government.
• Most of the oil pumped in Alaska never makes it to the lower 48… because of silly trade agreements most is shipped to Japan, and then the lower 48 imports most of its oil.
• There now appears to be just as much oil under the Dakota’s as there is in Saudi Arabia. But again, our government has not allowed more drilling, and has limited the production. The North Dakota wells that have been allowed are proving to be huge producers of (relatively) easily accessible oil.
• It is now believed that the east slope of the Rocky Mountains could hold more oil than the entire Middle-East combined! But our government hasn’t even allowed exploration. At one time this oil would have been difficult and costly to extract… but with new extraction technology it is more than accessible today.
• Off-shore drilling/production are severely limited by our government. Just the amount of oil in the Gulf is mind-bending… yet the oil companies aren’t allowed to exploit it to the full potential. Meanwhile, South American countries are sucking oil from it at a staggering rate (and because their technology and regulations don’t match ours, they spill/leak more oil into the waters every day then we ever have in total).

We are nowhere near full oil production capacity… NOWHERE NEAR IT! We have enough oil just under the lower 48 to easily supply our energy needs (estimated) for 500-1000 years! (Depending on which estimate you read and find more credible)


Oh… and I consider it “brainwashing” to believe anything without first doing your own fact-finding and conformation. As Ronald Reagan said, “Trust, but verify.”


Oh... and don't forget that our current president refuses to allow our friend Canada to build a pipeline that would bring the US huge amounts of relatively cheap fossil-fuel energy. Because he doesn't want to make his "green" friends mad during an election cycle the good of America is thrown under the bus. C'mon, that alone should make you question anything you've been told about energy by government or alternative energy supporters.

I agree with most of this. I dont want to get into the middle of this but I agree our President is holding us back. Also on the biomass I have a very large tub grinder come in once a year grind my debris and brush here is the routine 1000HP engine on the grinder which runs all day, wheel loader 175HP runs all day and 9 semis with walking floor trailers run all day to support the 27 loads of biomass chips this produces, which when hauled 75 miles away are piled with another wheel loader then loaded with wheel loader into a regrinder to resize the biomass chips then they can be loaded with a wheel loader again into the biomass energy plant. Now when you figure how much energy, oil and pollution all of this equipment uses in that day versus how much energy you actually create at the biomass energy plant from that days grinding, moving and hauling. There is no way they are in the positive. This is just something I have observed. To me any industry or business that needs government subsidy to stay afloat shoule be left to make it on their own through the tried and true profit or loss columns.

 

[Whitespider]

To me any industry or business that needs government subsidy to stay afloat shoule be left to make it on their own through the tried and true profit or loss columns.

woodman6666,
That sentence holds more common sense than everything else posted in this thread... and nearly every form of alternative energy would die overnight, and most remaining withing a year.
Rep on the way.

 

[imagineero]

• Saudi Arabia has never pumped at full capacity… and since the days of Jimmy Carter they have further reduced production whenever oil prices fall in an attempt keep prices high.
• It is estimated that the US has more oil than Saudi Arabia just under the Alaskan North Slope alone… yet the oil companies have not been allowed to drill and pump except in a small area.
• Over the last 10-15 years or so several new Alaskan oil fields have been drilled, proved, and then capped as part of the (so-called) Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That’s right, entire oil fields drilled and capped… not a single barrel of oil ever pumped. And I’m not just talking the ANWR oil field… there are also Gull Island, Kuparuk, and Prudhoe Bay oil fields… Huge fields either totally capped, or with just limited pumping allowed by our government.
• Most of the oil pumped in Alaska never makes it to the lower 48… because of silly trade agreements most is shipped to Japan, and then the lower 48 imports most of its oil.
• There now appears to be just as much oil under the Dakota’s as there is in Saudi Arabia. But again, our government has not allowed more drilling, and has limited the production. The North Dakota wells that have been allowed are proving to be huge producers of (relatively) easily accessible oil.
• It is now believed that the east slope of the Rocky Mountains could hold more oil than the entire Middle-East combined! But our government hasn’t even allowed exploration. At one time this oil would have been difficult and costly to extract… but with new extraction technology it is more than accessible today.
• Off-shore drilling/production are severely limited by our government. Just the amount of oil in the Gulf is mind-bending… yet the oil companies aren’t allowed to exploit it to the full potential. Meanwhile, South American countries are sucking oil from it at a staggering rate (and because their technology and regulations don’t match ours, they spill/leak more oil into the waters every day then we ever have in total).

We are nowhere near full oil production capacity… NOWHERE NEAR IT! We have enough oil just under the lower 48 to easily supply our energy needs (estimated) for 500-1000 years! (Depending on which estimate you read and find more credible)

I don't know whitespider, so much of that just sounds like 'someday'. When your 'believed' oil comes to market maybe it will have an effect. In the meantime, it's just so much 'projected future supply' that may or may not ever be realised. I'm sure all the oil companies hold it all back out or spite and pretend it doesnt exist when they could be tapping and selling it. In the mean time, the very real demand and supply that crippled your economy just recently continues to be in effect.

Oil companys are ramping down, not up. I guess they're all fools, and don't know the future of the market. I guess the government is composed entirely of fools also, and the people that spend their entire lives estimating, predicting and studying trends are also way off the mark, while you continue to hit it every time. I'm amazed that you are merely a poster on a small time internet site, and not a billionaire. Life just isn't fair.

 

[ziggy2b]

be a milionare/growing mushroomson on old wood

All over this small but perky country are Pinus Radiata plantations being harvested and 1000's of cords of 'waste wood' being pushed over the sides of landings and eventually rotting away. It's low value wood at the mo' (costs more to process into anything and then truck it anywhere than what it could sell for) but I can't help but hope there is something that could be done with it.

Perhaps a mobile pellet-making facility could turn it into a high enough value product to justify the costs?
Chipping seems to be uneconomic unless there's a customer nearby.

When are they going to hurry up and invent a feasible mobile wood chip to lignan to diesel facility that can produce way more diesel than a digger needs to keep it fed with wood?

I dunno, just seems a shame to see all that wood with no place to go. Sure, nutrients are merely returning from whence they came but seems like it's crying out for a higher purpose.

win win

 

[ziggy2b]

be a milionare/growing mushroomson on old wood

I would get mushroom spores and plant and harvest on old dead logs!!!!!!!!!!!:msp_smile:

 

[Whitespider]

I'm sure all the oil companies hold it all back out or spite and pretend it doesnt exist when they could be tapping and selling it.

The oil companies have begged for years… but the tree-hugger lobby and their friends in government have continuously blocked those efforts… get your facts straight!

In the mean time, the very real demand and supply that crippled your economy just recently continues to be in effect.

That isn’t what crippled the US economy… get your facts straight!

Oil companys are ramping down, not up.

Oil companies in the US have been asking to build new refineries for years so they could ramp-up production… but the tree-hugger lobby and their friends in government have continuously blocked those efforts… get your facts straight!

I guess the government is composed entirely of fools also…

Well, at least you have one of your facts straight! (Well, maybe not “entirely”, but darn near.)

I'm amazed that you are merely a poster on a small time internet site, and not a billionaire.

How do you know I’m not a billionaire?

Knee-jerk reactionary arguments will get you nowhere… it does nothing to advance your position and only furthers mine.

 

[zogger]

I don't know whitespider, so much of that just sounds like 'someday'. When your 'believed' oil comes to market maybe it will have an effect. In the meantime, it's just so much 'projected future supply' that may or may not ever be realised. I'm sure all the oil companies hold it all back out or spite and pretend it doesnt exist when they could be tapping and selling it. In the mean time, the very real demand and supply that crippled your economy just recently continues to be in effect.

Oil companys are ramping down, not up. I guess they're all fools, and don't know the future of the market. I guess the government is composed entirely of fools also, and the people that spend their entire lives estimating, predicting and studying trends are also way off the mark, while you continue to hit it every time. I'm amazed that you are merely a poster on a small time internet site, and not a billionaire. Life just isn't fair.

--a lot of it is those big companies say something in public, then between the lines reality is something else. they are in no hurry to provide cheap fuels now that they have everyone used to the idea of 100 buck and up a barrel oil. It doesn't matter if every state had a saudi arabia under it. Lot of collusion and cartel action going on.

When I first started driving, gas was under 20 cents a gallon (translated into reality, about five gallons per minimum wage hour), and more importantly, there were gas pump *price wars*. That's right, stations would get into competition with each other and lower prices, offer more and more swag freebies, more service at the pump, etc to get you to come in. Heck, during one price war I filled up at 12.9 cents a gallon.

I can't even remotely remember how long it has been since I heard of a gas station price war any place.


I really don't want to get into it a lot, I'll take one point though (I could address all the points being made, but I just don't feel like it, people who's minds are made up..have made up their minds...), that colorado oil would require like lake michigan worth of water to extract it, right in the middle of an area that is already tapped out for water. Yes, there's buhzillions of theoretical barrels there, it is hard oil shale which requires mass quantities of water to extract. It doesn't exist there, or anywhere even remotely close by. Their natgas fields are better, but this huge "untapped" oil resource is likely to remain that way unless they come up with a radically different way to get to it. The dakotas (Bakken) oil *is* being drilled for and extracted, as much as they can, the alberta tar sands oil *is* being extracted (they have tons of water to use). Still not resulting in cheaper fuel at the pump. Yes, they need a pipeline to bring it down, fine, let capitalism take over and let the landowners for this theoretical pipeline negotiate a contract to cross their land. Every..single..landowner.

And if people want pure stand on their own capitalist feet energy, then let them negotiate with every single landowner for the rights of way for pipelines (liquid and natgas), electric transmission lines, etc. No government eminent domain land seizing and using stuff. Then see if it gets cheaper..my guess if this was to happen..no. That's a pure 100% subsidy right there, "socialism", at the point of a gun, you, anyone you as harry homeowner can't say no. Oh, truck it then by tanker..hmm...same with roads, make all roads revert back to private ownership, then negotiate tolls for transit. Every single road out there. Wouldn't that be fun...

Ya, there's still a lot of theoretical oil out there, but that translating into cheaper fuel at the pump is just never ever going to happen, and it has to do with simple economics. They, the big energy companies "they", ALL of them don't want to work more for less money, they are like every other industry, they want to work less for more money, and a big part of that is they get the government to NOT require capitalism, but to insist on a socialist subsidy.

Myself, I am perfectly willing to pay a bit more for a cleaner environment (oh drat, those pesky enviro regs again), I remember quite well the chunky styled air we used to have before we had any regs. It's a lot cleaner now, although I wish they did it without ethanol.

I think someplace in the middle between these two extreme viewpoints is probably the sweet spot. Just my opinion. We need *some* regs and *some* public input to keep the wheels rolling, but pure unrestricted burn anything you want, pollute anyway you want, anyplace you want, dump anything, no regards for waste products or emissions, etc, etc..I think would be a health/environment disaster in short order.

 

[half]

oil

It does not matter what country you live in There will be no big push for sustanable fuel as long as any govt can tax oil to death. Any other fuel source must fit the same mould. the govt will want the biggest share of the profit or it wont happen.All the sweet talk is all b------t

 

[1project2many]

To me any industry or business that needs government subsidy to stay afloat shoule be left to make it on their own through the tried and true profit or loss columns.

Often it's not whether or not the business is able to make it on their own today, but how long it takes for the business to get to a point where it becomes sustainable at a profit level people want to see. Cities had electricity long before the farmlands because electric companies just weren't interested in the lower profit margins required to electrify the middle of the country. Railroads were localized networks because they weren't able to support the expense of building across the nation and still generate enough profit for investors. These industries became more useful to more people in less time with government subsidies.

Now...
Whitespyder, you're angry with a demographic that you can change at will. When "They" are involved you can make Them live any life, spend any money, back any cause in to justify your hate for the way They affect your world. The simple question was about making something that's currently wasted into something useful and you jumped on "Them." Clearly you're upset with where you think the world is heading but I dunno if you're on the right track.

Subsidies are one way to offset expenses so profit margin stays comfortable. I'm pretty sure you're the guy who schooled us earlier this winter about the low cost of propane in your area thanks to ethanol production. We don't have that benefit here in the northeast so we pay more for our propane. We buy much of the ethanol that's keeping your propane cost down and the larger demographic here will contribute a larger share of any tax money going to the ethanol industry. How would it affect your life if you had to buy heat at our cost?

The fuel you buy at the pump is also subsidized, but it's covered by the oil companies themselves. Its funded with money taken from myself and others living closer to refineries and main oil import points. If your fuel cost represented actual expense to handle and transport can you predict how much more you'd pay and how much I'd be able to save? Whenever you buy oil or fuel we pay twice. It costs me about 1/6th of my pay just to go to work and that chunk is constantly getting larger. Are you even trying to reduce the amount of fuel you use? Are you doing anything substantial to reduce the problem that you're part of?

Some of the push for local biomass plants is plumb easy to understand. When I was a child there were mills and small factories up and down the river in the small towns around where I lived. The cities had plenty more manufacturing and if you didn't have a job it was no one's fault but your own. Now there's nothing equivalent for employment and some of those towns are dying. Giant factories in foreign countries have replaced local employers and there's no work. So why wouldn't folks use the resources they've got to try and put an industry back in town? It's not greenies and treehuggers trying to ruin the world. It's people trying to improve the place where they live. Whether or not these people are playing into the hands of "Them" by building the plant, an opportunity for improvement exists and it's worth trying. Better than refusing to do anything because it might help an imaginary enemy ruin the world.

I agree that the life of today wouldn't be possible without the amount of oil we consume. But I disagree with your implication that no alternative form of energy should be used if it doesn't provide more energy than the profit it returns. It's taken years for oil to become what it is. In the beginning it too was a waste product. Coal producers dominated the energy market in the 1800s and prior to that it was anyone who had property on a river with enough water to power a wheel. Once upon a time it was humans themselves. The dominant form of energy changes over time. I don't believe that we could plant and process enough of anything annually to support the current level of consumption. But I do believe the longer we have people working with alternative energy production the better they'll get at making energy from what we have around us every day instead of relying on what the planet's done for us over millions of years. I also believe using what we have effectively is a skill we're going to need more often in the future. I will not refuse to participate.

 

[StihlKiwi]

Often it's not whether or not the business is able to make it on their own today, but how long it takes for the business to get to a point where it becomes sustainable at a profit level people want to see. Cities had electricity long before the farmlands because electric companies just weren't interested in the lower profit margins required to electrify the middle of the country. Railroads were localized networks because they weren't able to support the expense of building across the nation and still generate enough profit for investors. These industries became more useful to more people in less time with government subsidies.

Now...
Whitespyder, you're angry with a demographic that you can change at will. When "They" are involved you can make Them live any life, spend any money, back any cause in to justify your hate for the way They affect your world. The simple question was about making something that's currently wasted into something useful and you jumped on "Them." Clearly you're upset with where you think the world is heading but I dunno if you're on the right track.

Subsidies are one way to offset expenses so profit margin stays comfortable. I'm pretty sure you're the guy who schooled us earlier this winter about the low cost of propane in your area thanks to ethanol production. We don't have that benefit here in the northeast so we pay more for our propane. We buy much of the ethanol that's keeping your propane cost down and the larger demographic here will contribute a larger share of any tax money going to the ethanol industry. How would it affect your life if you had to buy heat at our cost?

The fuel you buy at the pump is also subsidized, but it's covered by the oil companies themselves. Its funded with money taken from myself and others living closer to refineries and main oil import points. If your fuel cost represented actual expense to handle and transport can you predict how much more you'd pay and how much I'd be able to save? Whenever you buy oil or fuel we pay twice. It costs me about 1/6th of my pay just to go to work and that chunk is constantly getting larger. Are you even trying to reduce the amount of fuel you use? Are you doing anything substantial to reduce the problem that you're part of?

Some of the push for local biomass plants is plumb easy to understand. When I was a child there were mills and small factories up and down the river in the small towns around where I lived. The cities had plenty more manufacturing and if you didn't have a job it was no one's fault but your own. Now there's nothing equivalent for employment and some of those towns are dying. Giant factories in foreign countries have replaced local employers and there's no work. So why wouldn't folks use the resources they've got to try and put an industry back in town? It's not greenies and treehuggers trying to ruin the world. It's people trying to improve the place where they live. Whether or not these people are playing into the hands of "Them" by building the plant, an opportunity for improvement exists and it's worth trying. Better than refusing to do anything because it might help an imaginary enemy ruin the world.

I agree that the life of today wouldn't be possible without the amount of oil we consume. But I disagree with your implication that no alternative form of energy should be used if it doesn't provide more energy than the profit it returns. It's taken years for oil to become what it is. In the beginning it too was a waste product. Coal producers dominated the energy market in the 1800s and prior to that it was anyone who had property on a river with enough water to power a wheel. Once upon a time it was humans themselves. The dominant form of energy changes over time. I don't believe that we could plant and process enough of anything annually to support the current level of consumption. But I do believe the longer we have people working with alternative energy production the better they'll get at making energy from what we have around us every day instead of relying on what the planet's done for us over millions of years. I also believe using what we have effectively is a skill we're going to need more often in the future. I will not refuse to participate.

Very well put post. Thankyou for your view on the issue

Also, my apologies to Kiwibro for leading his thread far from where it started

 

[Whitespider]

Cities had electricity long before the farmlands because electric companies just weren't interested in the lower profit margins required to electrify the middle of the country. Railroads were localized networks because they weren't able to support the expense of building across the nation and still generate enough profit for investors. These industries became more useful to more people in less time with government subsidies.

NOPE! Wrong again...

The Transcontinental Railroad was not built with subsidies. It is true that railroads were given land grants, just like settlers, farmers, ranchers, miners and whatnot. And to raise cash railroads were given government bonds they could resell... but the bonds were paid back, including the interest! They received these grants and bonds as they built, not prior to building… in other words, the faster they built, the more they received. As soon as the last spike was driven the railroads started doing upgrades to the rail infrastructure; which was nothing more than a scheme to collect government subsidies from the new Grant administration (something they were not getting from the previous administration). Of course these subsidies opened the door for corruption… and in 1872 (three years after the Golden Spike) the Union Pacific filed for bankruptcy… … So much for the effectiveness of subsidies!

Rural America was not electrified with government subsidies. The Rural Electrification Administration was set up during the “New Deal” era. The REA helped set up Rural Electric Cooperatives, and to get them started it made available low-interest LOANS! A Rural Electric Coop is not an electric company… every customer is a member by default, and every member owns a piece of the coop. I’m a member of an REC; I can attend board meetings and vote… I have just as much voting power as any other member. Profits are used for infrastructure improvements, and sometimes a portion is credited back to the members.

No, I never said propane was cheaper in my area because of Ethanol… I must’a missed that thread because I would have argued that Ethanol has contributed to the increase of propane prices.

The fuel you buy at the pump is also subsidized, but it's covered by the oil companies themselves. Its funded with money taken from myself and others living closer to refineries and main oil import points.

Say what? A company cannot subsidize itself… A “subsidy”, a “government subsidy” is tax money just given away (with no conditions of repayment... no return of any sort) by the government. That money is my money... it doesn't belong to the government and they do not have the constitutional authority to "give" it away! I can think of no instance in American history when government subsidies (not loans, grants and whatnot) have accomplish what they were intended to… usually subsidies result in corruption, scandal and ultimately financial disaster.

 

[Whitespider]

Are you even trying to reduce the amount of fuel you use? Are you doing anything substantial to reduce the problem that you're part of?

Problem? The "problem" isn't how much oil we use... the "problem" is how much oil the "green" lobby and their friends in government are allowing us to extract. If government would (for example) open ANWR to drilling the prices at the pump would drop substantially overnight... yet it would take at least a couple years (probably longer) before the first barrel of oil was ever pumped. It isn't supply vs. demand that keeps oil prices high... rather it's the "projected" supply vs. demand. As long as government disallows domestic drilling the "projected" supply looks bleak... and prices remain high.

The answer to the problem is more domestic drilling... economics 101.

 

[half]

Say what? A company cannot subsidize itself… A “subsidy”, a “government subsidy” is tax money just given away (with no conditions of repayment... no return of any sort) by the government. That money is my money... it doesn't belong to the government and they do not have the constitutional authority to "give" it away! I can think of no instance in American history when government subsidies (not loans, grants and whatnot) have accomplish what they were intended to… usually subsidies result in corruption, scandal and ultimately financial disaster.[/QUOTE]

The biggest govt subsidy here in NZ was the farmers. Then the govt said no more, Sure all the cockys threw their arms in the air and there was much wringing of hands. But now looking back, it made the industry a lot smarter and the dead wood fell by the wayside. Now most of the farmers are doing very well thankyou, and would be some of the top earners. We export milk products all around the world now, And because of that the downside is we have to pay market price for dairy products, But that could be tied into the supermarket companies, We only have 2 major ones and they control the prices

In saying that subsidys are the main problem for the european downturn, If you have about 10 cows the govt subsidizes the "farmer' its not even a productive unit, and If you have a few million "farmers' on the gravy train. it does not take long to derail

 

[KiwiBro]

So, about that wood...

:msp_biggrin:

 

[Jakers]

Problem? The "problem" isn't how much oil we use... the "problem" is how much oil the "green" lobby and their friends in government are allowing us to extract. If government would (for example) open ANWR to drilling the prices at the pump would drop substantially overnight... yet it would take at least a couple years (probably longer) before the first barrel of oil was ever pumped. It isn't supply vs. demand that keeps oil prices high... rather it's the "projected" supply vs. demand. As long as government disallows domestic drilling the "projected" supply looks bleak... and prices remain high.

The answer to the problem is more domestic drilling... economics 101.

agreed. very well said spidey

also let me be the first to say.......

in before the lock
opcorn:

 

[1project2many]

???

You seemed to be upset that people support developing alternative energy sources even though it won't provide a 100% solution to our energy needs. Then you seemed to get re-focused on arguing about specific forms of aid. If your main gripe is that (specifically) cash payments from the government should not be used to help develop alternative energy sources because they are not effective then I'm not getting into that discussion. I'm not interested in trying to resolve the faults of one form of government aid over another. But the posts that I replied to were very direct in faulting the industry rather than the type of aid as being the problem you can't abide.

So if we replace "subsidy" with "some form of government aid including grants of property, goods, or services which allow the price of the final product to reflect lower cost than the true cost to develop and / or deliver" then little else needs to be addressed. It's clumsy as hell but I'm ok with it. A subsidy is not limited to cash but I'm willing to change the wording anyway. I do want to mention that I misunderstood the role of propane to corn growers which is what led me to associate ethanol with your posts about low propane pricing in your area.

And to a point, cash grants were used to build many of the smaller roads which became the Union Pacific. Without the miles of track from the smaller roads the UP would not have been a player. Without government aid it would have taken many more years for the southern route to have been built, if it ever was. Also, Stories of corruption during the building of the Pacific Railroad are almost legendary. These companies were given land and bonds long before a rail was laid to tie. Roads were built across packed snow, frozen rivers, and poorly built trestles barely able to support the track crews building them while government allowed it to happen. The railroad was run and aided by "bad apples" long before 1870 so it's very inaccurate to blame later cash payments from the government for the recipients misuse of that money.

Now, to the heart of the discussion.

The primary source of energy we rely on is not being replenished. If the problem is simply the current price of fuel then opening up new wells may provide some relief but I can't see US sourced oil being kept in the US voluntarily if the world market is willing to pay more for it than we are (China is now outbidding US companies in Africa). And if we do open up more drilling, there's no guarantee about how much oil we will be able to use, or how long it will take before those wells produce usable oil. We're both smart enough to find vastly different estimates about how much usable oil we actually have here and in the world. Supply side changes are a gamble and the only question is about the odds of success. But we do have some control over demand since we're the primary users.

The real problem is that the rate of consumption is far greater than the rate of replacement. I'm not talking about pumping oil out of the ground. I'm talking about once a gallon of oil is used up it's gone. Changes on the demand side would be far more effective long term than changes on the supply side. At the heart of it, all of our energy is ultimately obtained from the sun. Drilling for oil is just a way of making a withdrawal against a solar savings account with millions of years of accrued interest. Figuring better ways to use the energy available on the surface today along with reducing the amount of energy we use means taking less out of that solar savings account . Opening up more wells only encourages consumption. Whether you believe in evolution or some form of creation by a higher power, it seems as though the smartest species on the planet could come up with a better answer than "use up the oil faster."

 

[treemandan]

Sorry, but this thread burns my butt… Biomass?!?!?!!!!!

Biomass, biodiesel, ethanol, solar, wind, and any other “green” energy cannot replace fuels derived from oil. It’s simply not possible to get a passenger airline jet off the ground without fuel derived from oil… It’s simply not possible to power a large, ocean-going, tanker or cargo ship without fuel derived from oil… It’s simply not possible to maintain our national (or global) economy without fuel derived from oil… It’s simply not possible to replace fuels derived from oil…

As long as any sort of “green” or “alternative” energy (including biomass) requires government subsidies or incentives to keep it alive, those taxpayer dollars spent on it are wasted. Those dollars should be put where they do the most good, put where they will actually work to lower prices of near everything to the American consumer… pumping more oil from United States lands and waters.

Here’s a little publicized fact…
If you figure the average daily energy output of ALL the wind & solar power this country has in place today, it does not quite equal the average daily energy output of just one single average oil well. If you figure all forms of alternative energy, and subtract for the money spent daily on subsidies or incentives… the total becomes less than half the average daily energy output of just one single average oil well. “Green” or “alternative” energy is a poor business investment, guaranteed to lose the investors money… that’s why the only people stupid enough to invest is our government.

I flat refuse to use alternative fuels and energy sources… I flat refuse to be part of the problem. When you buy ethanol blended fuel, or biodiesel, you pay for it twice, once through your taxes and second at the pump… it ain’t no bargain, even at cheaper pump prices it ends up costing you more when you run all the numbers. Our government has dumped trillions of dollars into the wind and solar industries over the years, only to see near every company eventually file for bankruptcy… and then our stupid government just gives more money away, to another entity, so they can start-up the same cycle of idiocy all over again… stupid.

yer right! And to which i say " bring it all down and use yer biomass".

 

[1project2many]

:msp_biggrin:

Yeah, sorry about that.

You could cut it into short sticks and we could knock each other off the heads with it. Seems appropriate.

Did you know you can run a car on wood smoke? Build a portable gasifier and duct the smoke to the air inlet of the vehicle. First time I saw it done was in the '70s.