Biofuel hoax is the cause of recent food inflation and new biofuel bill will skyrocket food prices higher! - Page 2

 Don Klipstein wrote:


I think so too. The current ethanol scheme is mainly a subsidy for
corporations and SUVs.

For example some company wants to build an ethanol plant in my general
area. My buddy is on the planning board for that community and they
first have to approve it before the Federal government can pull the
money out of our pockets.

If approved the government will pull $110 million out of the taxpayers
pockets to build the plant. Then when in production the government will
pull more money out of the taxpayers pockets as an operating subsidy
plus waive liquid fuels taxes so that the ethanol can be sold at a
"competitive" price which is way below its market value.

 
" Meanwhile, Brazil largely runs their ethanol plants on biofuel -
sugar cane scrap."

No.  Brazil is using full SUGAR CANE, which is food that people can
eat, not scrap or waste.  They are not using scrap, which takes a much
higher technology than they have, and which has not been proven to be
economically viable as yet.  Brazil is cutting more and more forests
to grow biofuels and the earth's C02 sponge is shrinking daily.  It is
true that if you have to make ethanol, sugar cane is allot better than
corn, but this is still a band-aid fix on a gaping wound.  Biofuels
will not stop or slow global warming, just speed up the destruction of
the rain forests which absorb C02. Not a good deal at all!  One person
can live for a year on the corn it takes to fill up your gas tank just
once!  Biofuels = food crisis!

Brazil has just discovered a large oil deposit off their coast, so
they are still going to be using and selling lots of oil.  For the
USA, biofuels are not the answer.  We need to go the high-tech route
that uses little land and does not cut down forests.  We can do
nuclear energy better than anyone, and it is clean and safe and we
have all the fuel we need, already paid for.  If we start early, we
can stop global warming in time to save the Midwest breadbasket from
becoming a desert.  But time is short, and biofuels are just a tactic
to reduce foreign oil consumption, not a device to end global warming.

Christopher

see:  http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html  - The biofuel
hoax is causing a world food crisis!

 calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:


scrap.


You're both mangling the story.


Yes they are, as the energy source for the distillation process.

They are ALSO using the sugar cane as the source
of sugar for the fermentation process into ethanol.


Wrong again, its just worth doing when you have the sugar cane available.


Sugar cane isnt reallly economically viable either.


Nope, those arent generally grown on newly cleared forests.


Wrong again, the primary CO2 sponge is the oceans.


Thats isnt the reason for biofuels, its to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels.


Utterly mangled all over again.


It is for a country like Brazil that has no oil of its own.


There is no food crisis. The world has a surplus of food.


Its peanuts compared with the world supply.


Depends on how you define lots.


No one ever said it was.


Wrong again.


The nuke plants havent been paid for and thats a much higher cost than the fuel.


Its never going to become a desert.


They were never intended to end global warming.


There is no world food crisis.

 
***allot of fluff***

You are correct, Brazil burns scap to heat the fermenters.  I was
talking about the fermentation process itself.

Brazil is chopping down its rain forests at an alarming rate, as are
almost all the other tropical countries that have rain forests.
Brazil is currently chopping down forests to grow biofuels of several
kinds, including biodiesel. Of course the bulk is currently produced
on older cleared land parcels, but new biofuel farms are being created
every day on newly cleared land as well.

Yes, the oceans are the main sponge for C02 absorption, but the rain
forests are a major sponge as well.  The oceans are losing their
ability to absorb CO2 as they become more acidic and filled to the
brim with C02.

There is no food crisis in your mind because you have enough food to
feed yourself.  If you lived in Africa or India or a poor neighborhood
in the USA, you might be a little more thoughtful about sky high food
prices.  Just last year you could buy chicken thighs for 50 cents a
pound in 10 pound bags.  Now the cheapest discount consumer price is
about 99 cents a pound in 10 pound bags.  That is a huge increase in
one year, and milk and beef have also risen spectacularly.  Wheat just
hit a record high, and baked good prices are in double digit
inflation.  People are starving and going hungry, but you glibly claim
there is no crisis because you have enough food to feed your own
belly.

You seem to make your arguments by distorting what I have said, and
reading into what I say ideas that I never intended.  You also are not
up on the projections of what  is going to happen to the Midwest as
temperatures climb.  It is a disaster headed our way.

Two new paragraphs have been added to "The biofuel hoax is causing a
world food crisis!", explaining how a nuclear based, hydrogen fuel
economy will make the USA both richer and safer.  The more you
carefully consider nuclear-hydrogen technology, the more positive
benefits you will find.  The more you consider biofuel production, the
more devastating the prospects become.  It is a choice between sanity
and insanity, and our politicians have unfortunately chosen the
politically expedient, shortsighted insane course of action.

at:  http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

     "The economic benefits of a nuclear based, hydrogen fueled
economy are spectacular.  The United States balance of trade deficit
and Federal budget deficit will be greatly reduced by a nuclear
powered economy.  All of the nuclear reactors will be built and run by
Americans in America, who will make high wages and pay taxes to
Federal, state, and local governments, and spend their income at local
American stores.  As the USA currently imports 60% of its oil supply,
all of the dollars we now ship off to Canada (18%), Mexico (15%),
Saudi Arabia (12%), Nigeria (12%), Venezuela (10%), and Angola (6%)
will stay right here in the USA.  In the year 2007, the USA is
estimated to have imported a total of about 3.8 billion barrels of
crude oil, in addition to a tremendous amount of natural gas and other
hydrocarbon products which can largely be replaced by nuclear power.
At $93. a barrel (12/24/07 price), 3.8 billion barrels of crude oil is
worth over 353. billion dollars.  The current Iraq war, which was
fought both for the State of Israel and for oil, will cost United
States taxpayers over 2,000. billion dollars (2 trillion dollars) by
the time all of the long term war costs are paid.  Obviously, a
nuclear based hydrogen economy will make the United States richer in
addition to saving us from desertification of our heartland, coastal
flooding, increased storm damage, and starvation caused by the deadly
combination of global warming and the biofuel hoax.

      Hydrogen fuel produced from nuclear generation will be expensive
at first, but the price will decline over time as the infrastructure
grows and economies of scale lower production costs.  Hydrogen fuel
manufacture and distribution techniques will become more efficient,
and electric car battery technology will also improve, allowing
Americans to drive our highways without guilt that they are burning up
precious natural resources or polluting the environment.  Cars will
pass by leaving behind only a small amount of water vapor if hydrogen
powered, or just a near silent wind if electric battery powered.
Hybrid vehicles that run on both batteries and hydrogen fuel will be
common.  The nuclear based hydrogen economy is a long term investment
in America's future that will pay more benefits every year as opposed
to the biofuel hoax, which will lead to destruction of our
environment, our economy, and our nation."

Merry Christmas,  Christopher Calder
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

.

 calderhome@yahoo.com wrote


Yours wasnt even that.


Wrong again. The heat is used for the DISTILLATION, not the fermenting.


And he was talking about the entire process. You cant
ignore the distillation process thats essential to produce
the ethanol in a form that its usable as a transport fuel.


Pity they aint doing that to produce sugar cane for ethanol production.


Nope, what is chopped down isnt primarily used to grow biofuels.


Yep, so your original mindless rant got it completely wrong, like I said.


In fact fuck all of the newly cleared land is used for growing biofuels.


Nope, a relatively minor one, actually.

The main problem with forest clearing is the RELEASE
of CO2 that that involves with the burning of those forests.


Pig ignorant drivel.


More pig ignorant drivel.


Nope, because I have noticed that we just dont get the famines we used
to see in my lifetime except when the country has degenerated into civil
chaos and civil war anymore now. Nothing to do with biofuels at all.


No such animal. The modern reality is that food prices are the lowest
they have ever been, essentially because of modern industrialised farming
in the first world on a huge scale that has replaced subsistence farming.


Pity that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what the vast bulk of the world eats.

And even in the US, the problem is that most shovel MANY more calories
into their mouths than they burn, and thats why they are so obscenely obese.


And wont keep happening like that. And that is nothing like a WORLD FOOD CRISIS
anyway.


Another bare faced lie.


Just because of drought where much of the world's wheat is grown.


Still nothing even remotely resembling anything like a WORLD FOOD CRISIS.


Only where the country has decended into civil chaos and civil war.

Nothing to with biofuels at all.


Nope, because I have been watching the elimination of famine
world wide due to weather since before you were even born thanks.


Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to.


Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.


You're lying when you imply that there is general agreement
amoungst the scientific community that deserts are inevitable there.


Only in your pathetic little drug crazed hysterical fantasyland.


Repeating that bare faced lie changes absolutely nothing.


No news to me, child. You might just find that I have
been saying that since before you were even born too.


Nope, you might just find I have been rubbing people's
noses in that since before you were even born too.


Only if you are just another mindless pig ignorant hysteric.


Only in your pathetic little drug crazed hysterical fantasyland.


Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.


Nope, just useful.

There might just be a reason why not one country on
earth has changed over to hydrogen as a transport fuel.


Pity about the economic problems with doing that in the transport sector.


You dont know that either.


The transport industry already does that.


Which will continue to sell mostly imported capital goods.


Nope, because no nuke industry can completely replace all of that.


At one hell of a cost.


That money will be pissed against the wall
regardless of what is done with nukes in the future.


How odd that not one country has chosen to go that route.

There might just be a reason why not one has.


Even if the US did change over to nukes entirely
tomorrow, that would not stop global warming.


And it will be a lot more expensive than oil for a long time to come.

Which might just be why not one country has actually been stupid
enough to change over to a nuke based hydrogen economy at this time.


They will still be polluting the environment as part of
the process of producing and replacing their cars.


Pity about whats involved in producing those cars in the first place.

In spades with hydrogen powered cars.


Not any decade soon they wont.


Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.