ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > The perfect line and other riding myths
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-21-2013, 09:52 AM   #361
joexr
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: S.E.
Oddometer: 3,773
What's been left out purposely from your article about GHG life cycle is that the farmers WILL grow something , so to include the crops to make ethanol's Co2 footprint is inaccurate. It also states there are obviously better things than corn.
joexr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 11:26 AM   #362
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 17,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by joexr View Post
What's been left out purposely from your article about GHG life cycle is that the farmers WILL grow something , so to include the crops to make ethanol's Co2 footprint is inaccurate. It also states there are obviously better things than corn.
It depends upon the climate as to whether there are better things than corn. Given the temperate climate of the Midwest, corn is the best crop for that area and consequently the US. The tropical Brazilian climate obviously lends itself to sugar cane production.
__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".
stevie88 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 11:43 AM   #363
Chuck Pryce
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Location: western n.c.
Oddometer: 206
Just put in two pumps,only one will be left without the mandate within six months. Let the market forces work.
Chuck Pryce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 03:38 AM   #364
_cy_
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Oddometer: 5,044
South Africa, Riots and the Price of Food

Rising food prices were an important factor in the riots in South Africa last year. And the US is in a unique position to help combat the problem, say researchers


On 16 August 2012, 34 workers at the Marikana platinum mine in South Africa were killed during violent protests over pay. The incident was the single most lethal use of force by the South African security forces against civilians since 1960.
The background to the protests was the widespread view that the high profits generated by platinum mining were in stark contrast to the low wages of the workers. The miners had downed tools in protest and demanded a fair wage.
Today, Yaneer Bar-Yam and pals at the New England Complex Systems Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, say that another factor plays an important and underrated role in the civil unrest in South Africa.
Bar-Yam’s theory is that global food prices and the likelihood of riots are closely correlated. The bottom line is that when people cannot afford to feed their families, their only way of bringing about change is civil disobedience.
With that in mind, Bar-Yam and colleagues show that worker wages in South Africa have not kept up with the drastic increases in recent years in the price of food. The price of food in South Africa has more than doubled since 2006.
In particular, the New England team show that the 2012 riots coincided with a sharp spike in the price of maize caused in large part by drought in the US. They also show that a similar hike in prices occurred at the same time as other riots in South Africa in 2008.
Readers of this blog will have come across this idea before. Bar-Yam has been tracking the link between food prices and riots for some time, showing for example that the civil unrest in North Africa in 2010, which became known as the Arab Spring, was closely correlated with rising food prices.
Bar-Yam says that it is not food prices themselves that cause riots. The effects are more subtle. Instead, when prices rise above some threshold, this creates the conditions in which riots are more likely to occur, like tinder in a dry forest.
It also leads to the obvious prediction that riots are likely in the near future, particularly in countries that are heavily dependent on maize, if food prices continue to rise. Places at risk include Haiti and Argentina, both of which have experienced food-related protests in recent months.
So what to do? The New England team point to two factors that particularly contribute to rising food prices. The first is the US policy of converting maize to ethanol which removes an important foodstuff from the food supply and pushes up prices. The second is speculation on commodity futures markets that pushes up food prices causing bubbles and crashes.
Bar-Yam and co say that changes in regulation could help reduce the impact of both of these factors, something the US is uniquely positioned to do. In addition, it ought to be possible to mitigate the impact of high and volatile food prices in other ways, such as subsidising certain foodstuffs.
Without this kind of action, the consequences are likely to be dire. Bar-Yam and co are surely understating matters when they conclude that: “Without attention to the global food price situation, more incidents of food-based social instability are likely to arise.”
Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.5268 :South African Riots: Repercussion of the Global Food Crisis and US drought
_cy_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 06:28 AM   #365
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 17,497
So you are advocating that the US end ethanol production which would result in much higher fuel prices and higher CO2 emissions here. It would cause a glut of corn that would drag all major commodity prices to levels below production costs resulting in a agriculture depression that could spread to the general economy or require much higher levels of price support to avoid. All this so South Africa won't have to solve their problems themselves.

Wow, you certainly are magnanimous with the livelihoods of your fellow citizens.
__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".
stevie88 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 08:11 AM   #366
Steve G.
Beastly Adventurer
 
Steve G.'s Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: West is the Best
Oddometer: 6,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Pryce View Post
Just put in two pumps,only one will be left without the mandate within six months. Let the market forces work.

Agree!! Let market forces decide,,,,,I'm sure we'd see the end of this Al Gore initiative.

Just came back from a 3500 mile tour of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming. Carefully kept track of fuel economy. Of course my mileage dropped immediately when we took our first full tank in the U.S., with 10% ethanol. Interestingly, we found a few stations, including big names, with pumps labelled "conventional" fuel, 0% ethanol, that seemed very popular, which increased economy, improved low throttle response, and only 8 cents a gallon more. A no brainer, less than 4% more cost, with 7-8% higher fuel economy.
Steve G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 08:34 AM   #367
_cy_
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Oddometer: 5,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
So you are advocating that the US end ethanol production which would result in much higher fuel prices and higher CO2 emissions here. It would cause a glut of corn that would drag all major commodity prices to levels below production costs resulting in a agriculture depression that could spread to the general economy or require much higher levels of price support to avoid. All this so South Africa won't have to solve their problems themselves.

Wow, you certainly are magnanimous with the livelihoods of your fellow citizens.
with the on going drought .. unlikely there would be a glut in corn.

so you are saying allowing the free market system to seek it's natural price for corn is too risky and doesn't guarantee MASSIVE profits. therefore corn production needs Uncle sam to artificially to prop up prices.

No Africa's problems are not ours and Africa does need to solve it's own problems. but something is just wrong with taking 37% of all corn out of the food chain .. knowing it will cause starvation among world's poorest.

now if the free market system ended up taking out 37% of the total corn production and converted it into ethanol because of public's increasing demand for ethanol. That would be completely different ...

having ethanol shoved down our throats is completely different from free market demand for ethanol. it's my impression that almost NO one by choice will run fuel blended with ethanol vs straight gasoline.

witness market forces at work for CNG .. with prices near $1 gal equal for CNG .. we are in a rush to convert to CNG. especially for fleets that can justify the large upfront costs to convert to CNG. don't get me wrong .. there's tax credits for CNG conversion too, but afterwards CNG costs $1 gal. there's LOTS of folks that would have converted regardless of any tax credits.

for consumers there are NO economic incentives to run ethanol in our vehicles. in fact there's a high probability of high blend ethanol causing damage in older vehicles not designed for ethanol. my BMW R80G/S has plastic floats... needless to say choice of ethanol not entering into my fuel is not an option in USA. As fuel all over has been forced into blended ethanol.

_cy_ screwed with this post 07-25-2013 at 08:54 AM
_cy_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 10:23 AM   #368
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 17,497
So faced with a short term drought the thing to do is destroy the long term investment in ethanol causing an corresponding increase in fuel costs and CO2 emissions in order to protect your plastic floats? Have you looked at corn prices lately? December futures are trading at $4.98 bu right now. That's getting low enough to worry producers.

BTW, as I've corrected you numerous times, the actual percentage of corn removed from the feed equation is 25%, not the 37% number you like to throw about.
__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".

stevie88 screwed with this post 07-25-2013 at 10:38 AM
stevie88 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 11:30 AM   #369
_cy_
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Oddometer: 5,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
So faced with a short term drought the thing to do is destroy the long term investment in ethanol causing an corresponding increase in fuel costs and CO2 emissions in order to protect your plastic floats? Have you looked at corn prices lately? December futures are trading at $4.98 bu right now. That's getting low enough to worry producers.

BTW, as I've corrected you numerous times, the actual percentage of corn removed from the feed equation is 25%, not the 37% number you like to throw about.
37% from the total corn crop is number given in all the information I've seen so far.

correct me if I'm wrong .. this entire forced conversion to ethanol was completely new to me until this thread popped up. still flabbergasted legislation of this magnitude got passed without so much as a single mention in mainstream news.

didn't corn prices triple after this legislation sneaked through? so isn't $5 bu still 2.5x higher than before legislation? same for CO2 emissions ... seems a lot of scientist claim ethanol production produces more CO2/uses more energy than it saves, making it a negative net savings.

seems the only thing not contested are the MASSIVE profits corn producers are reaping!!!!
consumers are certainly not clamoring for more ethanol in our fuel system.

news alert ... I didn't ask for fuel blended with ethanol that could destroy plastic floats in R80G/S and the tens of thousands (millions?) of older vehicles out there that ethanol will destroy part of their fuel systems.

_cy_ screwed with this post 07-25-2013 at 11:58 AM
_cy_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 12:11 PM   #370
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 17,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by _cy_ View Post
37% from the total corn crop is number given in all the information I've seen so far.

correct me if I'm wrong .. this entire forced conversion to ethanol was completely new to me until this thread popped up. still flabbergasted legislation of this magnitude got passed without so much as a single mention in mainstream news.

didn't corn prices triple after this legislation sneaked through? so isn't $5 bu still 2.5x higher than before legislation? same for CO2 emissions ... seems a lot of scientist claim ethanol production produces more CO2/uses more energy than it saves, making it a negative net savings.

seems the only thing not contested are the MASSIVE profits corn producers are reaping!!!!
consumers are certainly not clamoring for more ethanol in our fuel system.

You're using information from sources with a vested interest in killing ethanol. When they bandy about 37% they are purposely ignoring distillers grain and the only reason is to purposely skew the equation. When properly accounted for, the number is 25% of last years corn crop was removed from the feed supply by ethanol. These are also the same sources that put out the false claims that ethanol has a negative energy equation and greater CO2 emissions than petroleum.

Ethanol didn't just happen and it wasn't some forced conversion. It's been a 30 year process to build infrastructure and it's been well covered by the media.

Sure, grain prices are higher because of it. They've largely tracked oil prices as a matter of fact and production costs have increased every year too. Break even for many producers is now above $4 so selling corn for $5 somehow equates to "massive profits" in your mind. Sorry, but that's fucked up. A farmers got to have some good years so he can get through the inevitable bad years that come. One thing you can count on is that farmers will reinvest and spend their profits domestically, usually locally instead of offshoring and hiding their money to avoid taxes.

__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".
stevie88 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 01:56 PM   #371
_cy_
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Oddometer: 5,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
You're using information from sources with a vested interest in killing ethanol. When they bandy about 37% they are purposely ignoring distillers grain and the only reason is to purposely skew the equation. When properly accounted for, the number is 25% of last years corn crop was removed from the feed supply by ethanol. These are also the same sources that put out the false claims that ethanol has a negative energy equation and greater CO2 emissions than petroleum.

Ethanol didn't just happen and it wasn't some forced conversion. It's been a 30 year process to build infrastructure and it's been well covered by the media.

Sure, grain prices are higher because of it. They've largely tracked oil prices as a matter of fact and production costs have increased every year too. Break even for many producers is now above $4 so selling corn for $5 somehow equates to "massive profits" in your mind. Sorry, but that's fucked up. A farmers got to have some good years so he can get through the inevitable bad years that come. One thing you can count on is that farmers will reinvest and spend their profits domestically, usually locally instead of offshoring and hiding their money to avoid taxes.

got news for ya ... ethanol has been a completely artificial ramp up caused by special interest legislation.

without ethanol subsidies costing US tax payers some $$ 6 to 10 $$$ Billion per year depending on who you believe. ethanol would have never ramped up into a mega industry.

sounds like you've confirmed 37% of total corn production mandated by law to be converted into ethanol is correct.

got more news for ya ... don't give a fuck if price of corn tracks oil or not. that's another fucking brought on the American people by our lawmakers. MEGA Oil should have never been allowed to merge into global multinationals with sales size of small countries. giving those mega goliaths an effective monopoly over fuel pricing.

mega oil has been given a legal right to fuck the American public.... they can change fuel prices at will. now the corn growers also have legal rights to give American public a fucking!!

you never did answer how much $$$ per year .. you are personally receiving from corn/ethanol?
trying to establish your personal motivation for championing the fucking, Americans are receiving from the corn lobby.

_cy_ screwed with this post 07-25-2013 at 02:03 PM
_cy_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 02:33 PM   #372
the_sandman_454
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: Coleman, Michigan
Oddometer: 405
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...r-profits.html

What's with this ethanol credits thing, and how does it not hurt us at the pump by causing prices to go up? Remember, businesses don't really pay things taxes or regulatory fees, they pass that along to the consumer. I'm sure the costs of credits are bring passed along to us somehow.

It is amusing to hear people still claiming the ethanol fuel industry is anything but a government mandated monster. The government conjured it up and it would die without the government feeding it, or rather requiring us to feed it. Just let it die.

(I'm still waiting to hear why I'm a racist btw...)
__________________
Tim
09 KLR650
the_sandman_454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 03:30 PM   #373
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 17,497
You guys need some new material. All your current claims have already been rebutted. Come on, I know you can come up with some more crazy shit. I've got faith in you.
__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".
stevie88 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 03:42 PM   #374
the_sandman_454
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: Coleman, Michigan
Oddometer: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
You guys need some new material. All your current claims have already been rebutted. Come on, I know you can come up with some more crazy shit. I've got faith in you.
So somewhere the fact that oil companies have to buy ethanol credits has been rebutted? Someone should let the authors of the article and the oil companies know about that, I'm sure they'll all be relieved by that news. How does forcing companies to but hokey "credits"for a hokey product not increase the cost of fuel to us?

This is just as hokey as "carbon credits".
__________________
Tim
09 KLR650
the_sandman_454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 04:22 PM   #375
_cy_
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Oddometer: 5,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_sandman_454 View Post
thanks for postings ... WTF is this horseshit?
can this crap get stranger yet? what other bat shit crazy legislation has passed without American public knowing about it before hand????

----------

Ethanol-Credits Rally Threatens to Erode Refiner Profits
The soaring cost of ethanol credits may erode full-year profits for U.S. crude-oil refiners by more than 15 percent, said Faisel Khan, Citigroup Inc.’s managing director of integrated oil and research.
The run-up in corn-based ethanol credits known as Renewable Identification Numbers, or RINs, may reduce refiner earnings by more than 15 percent this year, exceeding Khan’s earlier estimate of 5 percent to 15 percent, the analyst said at a Senate hearing in Washington today.
The price of RINs jumped more than 1,800 percent this year to a record $1.35 a gallon today, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Demand for RINs has climbed after the worst drought in eight decades boosted corn prices last year, quashing ethanol output, and refiners grappled with limits on how much of the additive can be safely burned in car engines.
Given the most recent price surge, “costs could move much higher than what we have in our numbers,” Khan said.
Federal law mandates that refiners add specified quantities of ethanol to the gasoline they produce each year, or purchase RINs to cover those amounts.
_cy_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 04:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014