Can voters in Iowa tell the difference?  I wonder.

Democrats have already raised 100 million more than republican presidential candidates.

on the other hand...  can we afford to take the chance of getting another dead from the kneck up administration?  No one thought the chimp could be appointed..twice!!?!

Could Guliani get in if we start complaining about Hillary obviously shilling on ethanol?  If any of US switch to a Bloomberg or a Nader?

This is one very frightening ethical dilemna.  the war on terror could grow 10 fold under a Gulliani-the-911-hero administration.  Oficial Guliani administration GHG talk would fade back to wondering if it's real again.

Do we look the other way for Hillary's Iowa caucas sake?  On issues as blatant as ethanol?  

My personal solution is to remain loyal to the democratic party while insisting in meetings with our representatives that they reconsider energy policy from our point of view.  My congressman has dropped corn ethanol, but he still holds out for cellulosic ethanol.  He has a great excuse, farmers in this diostrict do not raise commodity corn, they feed dairy cows, and their feed costs have doubled.

Pursue these issues on a local, district and state level for now. then strike when we have the votes and the executive branch on the federal level.  It's a strategy.  A compromise for now.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

As the Little Big Woman says, "sometimes the world is too ridiculous to live in" unless you can give back as much as you can take.  

Hillary, transforming dirty political power into clean burning ethanol.

Solar Thermal Troughs have hit as high as 50% efficiency.
http://www.luz2.com/apage/12219.php

But don't think solar photovoltaics will be left in the dust for long.  Quantum dots have the potential to double or triple photovoltaic output.
http://greyfalcon.net/quantum

And it's looking like you can print solar panels out like they were newspaper.
http://greyfalcon.net/pv

http://greyfalon.net/csp
http://greyfalon.net/csp2
http://greyfalon.net/csp3
http://greyfalon.net/csp4

________________

That said, yes the politics is Ethanol.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/56047

http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png
http://greyfalcon.net/sugarsolar

http://greyfalcon.net/e85stations.png
http://greyfalcon.net/truecostofethanol.png
http://greyfalcon.net/biotaxes.png
http://greyfalcon.net/biotaxes2.png

http://greyfalcon.net/brazil
http://greyfalcon.net/brazil2

http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol2
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol3
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol4
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol5
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol6
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol7
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol8
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol9

http://globalpublicmedia.org/the_reality_report_the_myths ...
_____

Freaky complex stuff follows

http://www.tni.org/detail_pub.phtml?know_id=188
http://culturechange.org/cms/index2.php?option=com_conten ...
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07713.pdf
http://venturebeat.com/2006/11/05/why-cellulosic-ethanol- ...
http://www.stopbp-berkeley.org/CellulosicBiofuels.pdf
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/inf_paper_2g-bfs.pdf

-David Ahlport

Is it possible for the winner of the Iowa caucuses to come out strongly against ethanol?  Is there any leading Democratic candidate who can afford to not compete in Iowa?  If you answer no to both questions that pretty much sums up the game this election season.

On a happier note, imagine this sweet and gauzy scene four years from now:  Iowa becomes such a hotbed of solar industry that it has the clout to make every presidential candidate -- Democrat and Republican alike -- bow down at the alter of its legislative agenda.

This raises the question:  In which states has the solar industry gained enough economic muscle to start demanding electoral attention?

I suspect any baseload power concerns could be dealt with by combining solar/wind/ and geothermal power. Remember there is geothermal power under every bit of Earths land mass if you drill down far enough. With solar concentraters low grade geothermal could get boosted to high grade during peak hours.

The Earth stores heat quite well, just ask the residents of Hawaii.

Put the Carbon Back

For cars, the answer lies in hydrogen oxides.

The no footprint hand of future science.  Old science has had its time to find solutions and they were not found, so why expect to find solutions now in old science.

A radical change in attitude must be engendered if there is to be a future for Earth.

omegafour.com

But, do we have to accept all the crap that attaches itself to corn ethanol like loosening the air quality standards at the ethanol plants that burn coal to power the process?  If I am not mistaken, Bush got these lower standards implemented as part of a national security move.  

Plus, local efforts are being fought to prevent the siting of new plants near residential areas where odors can be a problem.  (But, good luck in trying this in the middle of corn states where jobs are scarce.)

And, we don't have to buy the crap if we have a choice.  Some of our local stations still sell unblended gasoline.  

And someone needs to do some photoshopping of Hillary with an ear of corn -- the Queen of Corn.
Nothing dirty, but just her leering at a big ear with a caption like "the home wrecker".

Can we still grow corn when the oil runs out?

I agree with you on most posts, but not this one, for two reasons.  (1) Solar is not a competitor to ethanol.  They are two different markets.  (2) Far too much effort is spent with various shades of greens battling betwixt themselves... and the browns win.  Let's not fuel the fire.

Re: the first one, much as we might wish to believe otherwise, it is really hard to envision a world that doesn't have liquid transportation fuels.   That may or may not include ethanol (and if it does, one hopes it is made from something other than corn), but the ease of transportation, infrastructure issues, storage, etc. make liquid fuels vastly preferable.  Electric cars are inherently range limited.  Hydrogen is a pain in the ass for all sorts of reasons (not the least of which are environmental).  And outside of academia, the solar powered car isn't practical.  

I am not claiming to predict the future - just that we are vastly more likely to shift to a world with different liquid fuels (ideally with de minimus environmental impact) than we are to go to an all electric world.  Moreover, even if we go all electric, let's not present that as being equal to solar.  Solar currently contributes 0.01% of the world's power.  Yes, more would be better but this does not change the world that a shift to an all-electric world today means a world with a lot more coal, nuclear and gas.

So let's not fuel an unnecessary fire.  One can be in favor of renewable electricity and renewable transportation fuels without having to chose between ethanol and solar.  And please, let's stop treating all ethanol as equal.  As I've noted many times before, corn ethanol in a dry mill is not the same as corn ethanol in a wet mill is not the same as cellulosic ethanol.  Rants to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no technical or environmental reason to tar them all with the same brush - especially when to do so serves only to make the perfect the enemy of the good.  And while all us good guys fight amongst ourselves, we simply burn more gasoline.

1. Brazilian biofuels have an energy balance of 8 to 1 (in some cases 10 to 1).

2. Solar energy cannot be stored. In order for it to work, you need mega-investments in storage and breakthroughs in storage tech. They will not come anywhere soon.

3. If you were to use batteries in all cars, that would be a disaster for the environment, far worse than the environmental problems associated with non-corn biofuels.

4. Batteries will not get the energy density of carbohydrate fuels, anywhere soon.

4. Biofuels can be carbon-negative, that is, they can be produced in such a way that they are not merely carbon-neutral, but actually take historic CO2 emissions out of the atmosphere. Solar is carbon-positive, pollutes the planet.

5. The entire life-cycle balance of solar-power-plant+storage+batteries-for-cars is less attractive than that of efficient biofuels, such as those made from sugar cane.

You know, if you put a seed in the ground, give it some water and nutrients, a plant grows that builds its own solar panel manufacturing plant from lignin: you don't need to build a steel factory nor aluminum frames for solar panels. A plant makes this all by itself.

Here's another simple obervation: Photosynthesis happens. Every day. Whether we like it, want it, guide it, whatever. Biofuels made from stuff that grows, be it switchgrass, native perennial grasses, willows, etc. needn't necessarily be input-intensive. We can think outside the intensive agriculture model, can't we? Why not utilize some of the sun's energy that is captured by plants, which are capturing said energy right now as I write this, whether you like it or not?

And before you all pile on, of course the devil is in the details. And I too see the folly in growing corn to fuel Kunstler's "Happy Motoring Utopia". We need to make some changes, and soon. But let's not dismiss alternatives before we have thought them completely through, especially based on simplistic mathematical notions without context. We may need all the alternatives we can get.

But, the overall net energy efficiency of corn ethanol is still very much an issue.  As is the carbon budget.

And the point I raised about corn ethanol -- how do we grow corn when the oil runs out? -- applies to all potential liquid fuels.    

Even in Brazil, the poster country for ethanol, the vast majority of their fuel needs are being met with diesel and gasoline from their own oil production.  And no matter what environmental shine you put on corn ethanol, the consequences of its raising corn and soybean prices are going to accelerate the conversion of tropical rain forests in Brazil into soybean fields.  

Attempting to run this planet's fuel needs on photosynthesis is going to accelerate the domestication of wild landscapes into energy hungry and resource intensive landscapes that are in no way sustainable.  We are going to further degrade natural landscapes that are providing environmental and ecological services of much greater value and importance than our being able to put fuel in our tanks.  

Cheap and liquid oil put us on this energy path.  If we think we have to perpetuate the liquid path we are screwed.  

Hillary is the "Microsoft" of Democratic candidates...anything that gives one of the others a lead -- Hillary is there to copy it.

Expect more Clinton tie ins with diabetes generating food manufacturers and a kiss and hug from Teresa "Heinz" Kerry.

Yes, we need public leadership.  What we are getting is political crap.

Which is why I said 40% "on up". There are occasions when the less efficient means are more economical because they also perform other functions.   But absolutely, concentrating mirrors make sense, and not just for melting steel or driving heat engines.

But let's not dismiss alternatives before we have thought them completely through, especially based on simplistic mathematical notions without context. We may need all the alternatives we can get.

The problem is, of course, that Congress promoted -- by skewing the market and providing billions of dollars in subsidies -- one particular alternative, based on simplistic notions (energy from corn is renewable, promoting it helps farmers, rural communities, and reduces oil imports) without context (only the corn is renewable, livestock farmers are hurt by high grain prices, the oil-displacement benefit is small) before having thought it completely through.

The default, until something changes, is more subsidized corn-ethanol. The longer Congress keeps extending the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit, the more subsidy-dependent investments will be made in the industry (especially for corn planting, cultivating, treating and harvesting), the more soil will be lost, the more atrazine will be sprayed, and the bigger the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico will grow.

So, in short: the thinking through of U.S. ethanol policy should have taken place in the late 1970s, when its foundations were laid. Now is the time for action: pull the plug on the ethanol-subsidy machine.

These are only my personal opinions.

The Gulf of Mexico's so-called Dead Zone is expected to cover a record 8,543 square miles, or 22,126 square kilometers, this year and stretch into waters off Texas, said Nancy Rabalais, chief scientist for a study team at the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium. Researchers are measuring the zone this week from boats.

"This is an area the size of New Jersey or potentially bigger where nothing can live," said Matt Rota, a program director at the Gulf Restoration Network, a coalition of environmental and civic groups. "If this were happening in the middle of the country, people would be outraged."

...

The zone could be catastrophic for the northern Gulf of Mexico's $2.6 billion-a-year fishing industry, Rota said. At some point, he said, the zone might extend too far out for any shrimp or other creatures on the sea floor to escape.

...

A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency task force of scientists, state agencies and federal agencies set a goal in 2001 of reducing the Dead Zone to 2,000 square miles. Little has been done with the group's recommendations, Rota said. Steps should include giving farmers more incentives to cut fertilizer runoff and reducing pollution from wastewater treatment plants, he said.

The drumbeat of support for ethanol, backed by subsidies, puts that goal of reducing the zone further out of reach, Rabalais said. Refiners, fuel distributors and retailers receive a federal tax credit on each gallon of ethanol blended with gasoline, and every state except Alabama offers additional subsidies.

"The rah-rah sort of drowns out the environmental side," she said. "If our federal government subsidizes more corn, they're working against water quality."

So, in order to garner votes in Iowa, politicians are willing to put a $2.6 billion a fishing industry, not to mention a whole marine ecosystem, at risk.

These are only my personal opinions.

The downstream environmental costs of more corn planting will be with us for a long time.  For what?  A delusion that we are now more independent of middle east oil?  So how do we measure our false security?  Higher food costs and ecological degradation?  

How can we express our outrage?  Do you think the Center for American Progress will sponsor some counter videos for our perspective?  

I doubt we can look to the Center for American Progress to sponsor videos expressing contrarian views. It seems they've bought the ethanol dream, hook, line and sinker. (Whoops, fishing metaphor!)

These are only my personal opinions.

I'm sure Gar will have something to say here...

Whiskerfish