| Author |
Message |
Waldemar Sikorski
Samba Member
Joined: June 24, 2005
Posts: 573
Location: EU
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| GeorgeL wrote: |
| Waldemar Sikorski wrote: |
Why is it profitable to produce ethanol in Brasil but not anywhere else? |
1. Cheap Labor.
2. Lots of rainforests to chop down for sugar plantations, creating an much better sugar growing environment than exists in non-tropical countries.
3. Extensive government subsidies and legislation encouraging development and use of ethanol, no matter what the real cost might be.
We could probably emulate Brasil, but which half of our population will willingly give up their lifestyle to become manual laborers in the cane fields? |
1. - yes but we would mechanize.
2. - local crops might be available
3. Why is it that when we find someone doing something better, cheaper than us we speculate dishonesty?
We have people in this country who are rich due to the fact that the government pays them not to cultivate. What is that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Waldemar Sikorski
Samba Member
Joined: June 24, 2005
Posts: 573
Location: EU
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GeorgeL wrote: |
| Waldemar Sikorski wrote: |
Why is it profitable to produce ethanol in Brasil but not anywhere else? |
1. Cheap Labor.
2. Lots of rainforests to chop down for sugar plantations, creating an much better sugar growing environment than exists in non-tropical countries.
3. Extensive government subsidies and legislation encouraging development and use of ethanol, no matter what the real cost might be.
We could probably emulate Brasil, but which half of our population will willingly give up their lifestyle to become manual laborers in the cane fields? |
1. - yes but we would mechanize.
2. - local crops might be available
3. Why is it that when we find someone doing something better, cheaper than us we speculate dishonesty?
We have people in this country who are rich due to the fact that the government pays them not to cultivate. What is that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VisPacem
Samba Member
Joined: July 15, 2007
Posts: 1143
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GeorgeL wrote: |
| Waldemar Sikorski wrote: |
Why is it profitable to produce ethanol in Brasil but not anywhere else? |
1. Cheap Labor.
2. Lots of rainforests to chop down for sugar plantations, creating an much better sugar growing environment than exists in non-tropical countries.
3. Extensive government subsidies and legislation encouraging development and use of ethanol, no matter what the real cost might be.
We could probably emulate Brasil, but which half of our population will willingly give up their lifestyle to become manual laborers in the cane fields? |
Emulate Brazil ? Why should we do such a thing ?
If I understand correctly, we may want to produce alcohol. So the most common answers that come up is corn and sugar cane.
First it would seem that we have more than enough labor to work in the corn fields.
Who cares about sugar cane. Over two hundred years ago, the Emperor (that would be Napoleon Bonaparte for the unadvised) strangled by the British blockade was already producing more than enough sugar without rainforest, sugar cane or slave labor, growing ...beets, sugar beets (Beta vulgaris L).
It grows anywhere, in some regions is a biennial crop and can be easily harvested with machinery, suppressing the need for cheap labor, being really a root very much alike, for handling matters, to a potato.
And that way, the two bolshevik buffoons, down South could not accuse us of conspiring to starve the peones.
Why don't we grow beets ? Ask the lobbyists in DC. Follow the $.
_________________
LG aka VisPacemPB, *The* party Pooper
No Regrets (Nothing to do with Vanagons) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Pike
Samba Member
Joined: December 30, 2003
Posts: 3458
Location: Talos IV, Piedmont Arizona
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
1 plant works better, however the flowering tops can cause some concern 
_________________
LEARN TO SELF RESCUE
59 Panel bus, 1966 Single cab. 73' 181. 73 Westy. 91' H6 Vanagon 3.3L.
....Bad Sneakers.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mightyart
Samba Member
Joined: March 24, 2004
Posts: 6188
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VisPacem wrote: |
Emulate Brazil ? Why should we do such a thing ?
|
Carnival!!!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GeorgeL
Samba Member
Joined: January 16, 2006
Posts: 7346
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GeorgeL wrote: |
| Waldemar Sikorski wrote: |
Why is it profitable to produce ethanol in Brasil but not anywhere else? |
1. Cheap Labor.
2. Lots of rainforests to chop down for sugar plantations, creating an much better sugar growing environment than exists in non-tropical countries.
3. Extensive government subsidies and legislation encouraging development and use of ethanol, no matter what the real cost might be.
We could probably emulate Brasil, but which half of our population will willingly give up their lifestyle to become manual laborers in the cane fields? |
| Waldemar Sikorski wrote: |
1. - yes but we would mechanize.
2. - local crops might be available
3. Why is it that when we find someone doing something better, cheaper than us we speculate dishonesty?
We have people in this country who are rich due to the fact that the government pays them not to cultivate. What is that? |
1. Mechanized agriculture will use the very energy it is attempting to produce. That is the fundamental problem with E85! Brazil has a large labor pool to create (and still be too poor to use) the fuel.
2. They are. our local crop is called "corn". It isn't nearly as efficient as sugar cane, and Brasil has an endless growing season that is ideal for cane.
3. What dishonesty? Governments subsidize people to do the things the government wants them to do, even if it is not practical or profitable. Come to think of it, that's what our government is doing with E85. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
j_dirge
Samba Member
Joined: August 08, 2007
Posts: 4641
Location: Twain Harte, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 8419p27 wrote: |
Thanks for the links. I'll definitely read up. Maybe you can answer a question then. Does the data include clouds (and ozone)? I've read that that is one of the faults. As for that carbon tax. Didn't it just pass in the senate?
Here in Chicago its becoming more and more difficult to afford a car (as in many other places). Public transportation is becoming more expensive too. Sucks that people who can barely get by are being forced to pay more just so they can get to school and work. If they can't afford that, what other options do they have? Not working and not going to school?
But I digress. All I know is that I don't know. Just trying to find the truth.
btw - check out the moon right now! |
'
Missed the moon! ...musta been nice?
I live near the beach in San Fran...too much fog. boo hoo..
The data is "observed". That means that clouds or no clouds the real temperature is increasing and CO2 counts are increasing.
There is no doubt, not even by the naysayers that the temperature is increasing. The only debate is to what degree human's inudstrialization contributes. Even a guy like Lindzen does not deny this.
Regarding "clouds". Many in the scientific community beleive that with more warming, there will be more cloud cover. Many suggest there already IS more cloud cover. All the cloud cover does, however, is slow the rate of warming. Warming is still occuring at alarming rates with no signs of slowing more.. even with increased cloud cover.
There was an observation on cloud cover immediately after 9/11 when all US air traffic was halted. JUST the halt in airline traffic resulted in visibly clearer skies. This is only an anecdote of course, and really doesn't mean much except that with 7 billion people on this planet, projected to get to 20 million by the middle of the next century before the numbers begin to level off or decline.. there simply is NO way that mankind is not altering our atmosphere. It defies logic to think otherwise.
Rgearding a "carbon tax". I am not aware of any tax that is currently levied. California is currently thinking the issue over but any real tax faces tough opposition. A more likely solution will be a "cap and trade" program similar to the type used to control sulfur output from power plants.
Here's a link to a discussion about tax vs cap and trade
http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_ektid29416.aspx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogpilot
Samba Member
Joined: October 03, 2005
Posts: 4205
Location: Flagstaff, AZ
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Having worked the the fellow that created the model, Dr. Jim Lease , while I was at NOAA, I do know the clouds are not in the model. While our observations are correct concerning CO2 and the temp level are correct, the effect and cause are also in question. Clouds effect global heat transfer.
I am a geologist, among other things, many of us see things in a longer picture. If you go to Orlando, Florida and go to Micky Land, you should notice the soil. Within it are loads of non-incorporated marine shell life. This is because in the not so distant past, Florida was a gigantic reef. The continental are of Florida is not being uplifted by tectonic forces. The sea level rose between glacial periods.
Global warming is a natural periodic effect. Our addition of CO2 is a process similar to the addition of CO2 by volcanic processes. CO2, among other gasses is a driving force that expands the volume of magma when the chamber opens. Typical large eruptions put huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is one of the proposed mechanisms that stops our cool cycles.
The oceans, when warmed absorb the CO2, and precipitate it out in the form of limestone, or by reef building by organic methods, much like is going on in the Bahama Banks for instance. This process removes CO2 from the system, eventually going into a balance again. The process is not immediate, it takes a while for the balance of ocean chemistry to respond.
This global heat transfer process that happens also causes another effect, the transfer of heat from South to North. You need to move moisture from the south, where it is warm and evaporated to form the moisture in the atmosphere. Most of the Arctic is a desert, with very low precipitation levels. When you get more precipitation in the north, snow accumulates and the glaciers form again and surge. Glaciers alter local weather. They tend to increase the precipitation increasing the growth. Cycle begins anew.
We have seen a Little Ice Age come and go within the last 500 years. If the ocean patterns continue to change, we may see another. In our lifetime, who knows. Our understanding of the complete mechanism is very incomplete, with roughly 40 different possible mechanisms that contribute to Ice Ages. Either way, yes it is getting warmer but it has been for the last 5,000 years. Do we effect the rate? Yes, in loads of ways. Can we stop the effect? Yes we can, we can commit mass suicide. From what I have personally observed, we most likely will.
Globally we have no leadership. The cream is not rising to the top. We are not becoming a group of better educated people, sensitive to the environment. We are becoming brutish and less sensitive every day. Our own leadership here promotes fantasy. Like we will only funds AIDS prevention programs if 1/3 of the money goes to abstinence education! If we continue to elect here and other places morons to lead, we should solve the warming issue by disappearing. The earth will continue on at its own warming pace then and we will go into another glacial cycle like we should.
In the meantime, keep your van tuned. Fix up its systems, and replace the old sensor that regulate the mixture. A cleaner burning vanagon is a small contribution to our local air quality. A cleaner one will also burn less fuel and not give more money to those greedy oil companies than is necessary.
_________________
Geology with a Syncro rocks!
86 Syncro Westy AKA "The Bughunter"
98 Disco I
08 Range Rover SC
08 VW Rabbit S
1951 O-1G |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
j_dirge
Samba Member
Joined: August 08, 2007
Posts: 4641
Location: Twain Harte, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogpilot wrote: |
The oceans, when warmed absorb the CO2, and precipitate it out in the form of limestone, or by reef building by organic methods, much like is going on in the Bahama Banks for instance. This process removes CO2 from the system, eventually going into a balance again. The process is not immediate, it takes a while for the balance of ocean chemistry to respond.
|
Entire post, well said.
True the ocean does absorb CO2, but the ocean is not what it once was. Very recently, massive dead zones were indentified where once thriving waters were, only a decade or so earlier... off the west coast of the northern US as an example.
There is another interesting factor in the warming of the oceans. The ocean floor is holding massive amounts of methane. I mean MASSIVE.
It is entirely possible that some of this methane can be released as water temps climbs.. this with only a degree or two change... Methane is a true "greenhouse" gas, to a much greater degree than CO2. Added to the atmosphere and not replacing the CO2 already there, it only compounds and accelerates the problem.
If we are to believe in even HALF of what these projections/scenarios suggest as possible, we have some seriously interesting times ahead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mightyart
Samba Member
Joined: March 24, 2004
Posts: 6188
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yea,
like I said before:
CARNIVAL!!!!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Perales
Samba Member
Joined: May 07, 2007
Posts: 2046
Location: Nova Scotia
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mightyart wrote: |
Yea,
like I said before:
CARNIVAL!!!!
|
You mean CarniVanagon!!!!
_________________
-- 1987 Westfalia automatic (Captain Vino) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ValleyHappy
Samba Member
Joined: April 04, 2007
Posts: 251
Location: Walla Walla, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey 
Any a you VANAGON owners happen to have solar or wind power at your house?? Either as supplemental power or even if someone had a place off the grid?? I worked on a project one time where we installed self-sustaining data collection stations. We used both solar and wind to power the units year round. It was quite a few years ago and I have recently wondered what people are trying with there homes or having success with and where. Anyone have any good leads on the topic?
Also did some looking...out of curiosity only.. on some of the newer home constuction and architecture alternatives. I'll try and track down some of the links. I know some of the stuff I've seen is pricey but not all of it....and I know their has to be some people browsing this forum who have some experience on these two topics.
So, any takers??
I was thinking of throwing a Serenity Now into the thread...just to change it up, but this seemed more appropriate...and I like the topic. 
and I did catch the eclipse last night
_________________
09 Suzuki SX-4 Crossover |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jjgray
Samba Member
Joined: July 16, 2007
Posts: 62
Location: Bellevue, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The big problem with ethanol isn't its financial profitability, it's the energy debt from producing and using it. Sugar cane, as mentioned earlier, is far more efficient than corn, in that cane ethanol at least gives more energy than it took to produce it. The same is thought to be true about other cellulosic crops like switchgrass.
But it causes a significant drop in your mileage, so you're using more fuel when you drive. So you're probably polluting just as much -- maybe more -- and at least in the U.S., you're driving up corn prices to do it.
But I agree largely with Dogpilot in that it's not so much the planet that's in trouble, it's us. The planet will fix itself, and a helluva a lot faster when we're not on it.
I also agree with mightyart in that if we had more tanned hot women in sparkly bikinis, we'd at least enjoy the ride a lot more.
¡Viva Caca Fuego!
_________________
"If I'd had more time, I'd have written less."
-------------------------------------------
1991 Carat "Caca Fuego"
smoked & tinted
Converted to 1.9TD running 100% Biodiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jjgray
Samba Member
Joined: July 16, 2007
Posts: 62
Location: Bellevue, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the solar front, I know many states offer rebates/incentives to make it worth your while. Washington and California for sure. And I believe there are federal rebates as well.
Been thinking about that for a while. It's just the cost...
_________________
"If I'd had more time, I'd have written less."
-------------------------------------------
1991 Carat "Caca Fuego"
smoked & tinted
Converted to 1.9TD running 100% Biodiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
klucz
Samba Member
Joined: February 14, 2006
Posts: 1062
Location: Chicago, IL
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| j_dirge wrote: |
Missed the moon! ...musta been nice?
Rgearding a "carbon tax". I am not aware of any tax that is currently levied. California is currently thinking the issue over but any real tax faces tough opposition. A more likely solution will be a "cap and trade" program similar to the type used to control sulfur output from power plants.
Here's a link to a discussion about tax vs cap and trade
http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_ektid29416.aspx |
Thanks for the link. Yes, the lunar eclipse was very nice. Froze my buns off but it was bright and clear.
Regarding the UN carbon tax, after doing some more reading, its in referance to The Global Poverty Act. Looks like its only been introduced.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433
Its supposed to help cut global poverty in half by 2015. Don't get me wrong, I think thats a great idea. However, some say that the tax (most likely a carbon tax) would cost us $65 billion a year (around $1500 extra per family of 4, IIRC). I don't know what to think, except that as the dollar goes down and taxes go up, that means more bad news for the little guy. Some say it will also implement a ban on guns (under a UN treaty). I happen to like the 2nd amendment, but I don't know how accurate these assumptions are so I'll leave it at that.
I also agree wholeheartedly with having more tan sparkly women in bikinis dancing in the streets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
allsierra123
Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2006
Posts: 1462
Location: Tecate, Baja California MX
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My father inlaw just converted his whole house last year to solar. PG&E is actually sending him rebate checks every month. They are not large checks but they are paying him. It cost him about 60k for the whole setup though.
_________________
95 GMC Yukon 6.5 TD 2 Door Tow pig/ Daily driver.
91 Vanagon GL. 1.9TD Conversion Sold
81 Vw rabbit 1.6 Diesel. Sold |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
klucz
Samba Member
Joined: February 14, 2006
Posts: 1062
Location: Chicago, IL
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh, and theres a chain in Chicago called Taco Burrito King, and the owner has begun running mostly off of solar. Lots of methane available there, too! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jjgray
Samba Member
Joined: July 16, 2007
Posts: 62
Location: Bellevue, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 8419p27 wrote: |
| Oh, and theres a chain in Chicago called Taco Burrito King, and the owner has begun running mostly off of solar. Lots of methane available there, too! |
Ha!
_________________
"If I'd had more time, I'd have written less."
-------------------------------------------
1991 Carat "Caca Fuego"
smoked & tinted
Converted to 1.9TD running 100% Biodiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pushkick
Samba Member
Joined: August 09, 2007
Posts: 1366
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: sugar cane and switch grass are political issuess |
|
|
| University of illinois and ohio state have great agricultural departments and there is a book that was published to this topic and the conclusion of the researchers was that sugar beets are the most economical and productive plant (highest yield) at this time, that is known, that could be economically produced and processed into ethanol. now the real question is how many acres of land would need to be farmed to produce the daily gasoline need of the unite states at current yield levels? how many bushels per acre and how many bushels per gallon of ethanol? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
droogvan
Samba Member
Joined: July 29, 2005
Posts: 258
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hemp was widely used for ethanol during WWII it still seems like an obvious choice to me. It can generally thrive without the use of pesticides or herbicides and can be grown on land where corn might not take. There's always the argument that someone could grow marijuana in with a hemp field but its my understanding that this is BS. I've been told by farmers that hemp would cross pollinate and effectively ruin the THC content of marijuana grown anywhere near the vicinity. I'm far from being a botanist so If anybody here can confirm or deny this belief I'm all ears.
I'm not sure how I feel about ruining the marijuana crop though... I've got to think about this and get back to you guys.
_________________
89 Westy zetec
Some ol bullshit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
