Is the end of Ethanol approaching?

Well, Rohan and Danno..... what you say is true. But do you deny the earth's climate works in cycles? And if it does, where does the climate go from here?

But the real question is, and relevant to this thread, does ethanol in our gas really have a favorable impact on global temps?

Slick

texasSlick said:

But do you deny the earth's climate works in cycles? And if it does, where does the climate go from here?

Click to expand...

Everything goes in cycles - even old suits know that...

As for the climate, who knows where it will go. That is the great experiment - and the great gamble.
If all these soothsayers keep spouting that its no problem, and they have no idea what they are talking about,
then future generations are well and truly st*ffed.
We took action on CFC's and the ozone pollution hole, and that is minor in comparison - long term.

I'd comment too that parts of inland Australia had the hottest March day ever recorded, a few days ago.
More like summer than autumn, what is happening....

texasSlick said:

But the real question is, and relevant to this thread, does ethanol in our gas really have a favorable impact on global temps?

Click to expand...

In the half baked scheme of things, very likely not. Its just a farm subsidy scheme at best.

But if we were serious, and brewed up entirely E100 fuel, with ALL transport and inputs done with ethanol fuel and solar energy,
then it may be a different story. With the present political setup and so many vested interests, that is unlikely. Very unlikely.
It must be said that Brazil with ethanol is different - but they are cutting down their jungle to achieve it.
(Brazil ethanol fuel is something like E85 (??)).

It was noted somewhere recently though that the USA currently has more jobs in solar than in petroleum,
which is a sign that change is happening. China supposedly gets 25% of its power from renewables, which is a huge gain in a short time.
The future is here, now, we just haven't caught up to it (?).

I agee that climate is cyclical and that wholesale change and mass extinctions have occurred many times in the past. But if we humans are smart enough to realize some we are pushing things in one direction or another, we should also be smart enough to do something about it regardless of some fat cat's quarterly propectus.

Ethanol is a net loser, environmentally and financially, at least for the majority of folks who are not profiteering from it and will pay increased food costs because of what it takes away from that market and from the soil. That's not likely to change. However, alternative energy sources should be explored and developed, not based on short-term profit, but long-term viability, with an eye towards protecting and improving the environment.

Danno said:

I agee that climate is cyclical and that wholesale change and mass extinctions have occurred many times in the past. But if we humans are smart enough to realize some we are pushing things in one direction or another, we should also be smart enough to do something about it regardless of some fat cat's quarterly propectus.

Click to expand...

That sounds positive, and simple enough. But what do you suggest. ?
At the moment, millions of tons of CO2 are going into the atmosphere every day,
and action to do anything to curb this looks to be somewhat distant.

Climate may have cyclical components to it, but the CO2 level in the atmosphere is heading up into uncharted territory.
Big time.
"Boldly going where no man has gone before".

texasSlick wrote:
But the real question is, and relevant to this thread, does ethanol in our gas really have a favorable impact on global temps?

And Rohan writes

"In the half baked scheme of things, very likely not. Its just a farm subsidy scheme at best."

which is in essence what I said at the start of this thread. A lot of bloviating in between to get back to this point.

So let's get the ethanol out of our gas, save our farm resources for food production, save everyone from the negative effects of ethanol on vintage equipment, as well as newer small engined equipment not yet fully ethanol proof.

And take the discussion on animal migrations, summer temps, and what to do about man's environmental impact over to the Pub, where, if anyone is interested, I will tell you how to turn shit into energy.

Slick

Texas Slick and Danno are correct.

Most of the so called "science" of climate change is so politicized as to be unreliable - especially when it comes to what to do about it - that's where the ideology, the non-science statism, really takes over.

So what, if the latitude of heat/cold slowly moves north or south over the next 500 or 1000 years?
Different peoples, different countries will gain or lose, so what?
All of life on earth has adapted to hundreds of such changes in the past.
So what?

I agree, humanity accelerates the release of CO2 in the carbon cycle.
I agree, there IS a green house effect; and, I agree, the climate, as it always has, is changing.
Beyond those three facts, we enter the land of speculation about the hows and whys.
The "modeling" has already proven itself to be alarmist.

Some individual scientists and scientific organizations have proven themselves whores to their ideology.

xbacksideslider said:

Texas Slick and Danno are correct.

Most of the so called "science" of climate change is so politicized as to be unreliable - especially when it comes to what to do about it - that's where the ideology, the non-science statism, really takes over.

So what, if the latitude of heat/cold slowly moves north or south over the next 500 or 1000 years?
Different peoples, different countries will gain or lose, so what?
All of life on earth has adapted to hundreds of such changes in the past.
So what?

I agree, humanity accelerates the release of CO2 in the carbon cycle.
I agree, there IS a green house effect; and, I agree, the climate, as it always has, is changing.
Beyond those three facts, we enter the land of speculation about the hows and whys.
The "modeling" has already proven itself to be alarmist.

Some individual scientists and scientific organizations have proven themselves whores to their ideology.

Click to expand...

Without any mention of global climate changes, food crops should be used to make food, not fuel, that is the main reason to stop putting ethanol in gazoline. The fact that it is bad for old vehicules is also a good reason to stop putting it in not to mention fuel mileage is worse with ethenal than without it.

Personnaly I think the days of cheap gas in the US are numbered. The Saudis have opened the valves to bring down the price of crude only to make sure THEY are the main suppliers, cheaper crude means the more expensive extraction methods will be abandoned and exploration of newer wells may also be curtailed. The Saudis can play that game for a long time when they are the only suppliers, raise the price until it becomes financialy attractive to search for new sources, then lower it again to nip them in the bud.

With the current low prices, many are looking to buy big gas guzzlers, they will be sorry when the price goes up. I am waiting a couple of years for technology to come of age, but for sure my next 4 wheeled vehicule will be all wheel drive electric.

Jean

xbacksideslider said:

So what, if the latitude of heat/cold slowly moves north or south over the next 500 or 1000 years?
Different peoples, different countries will gain or lose, so what?
All of life on earth has adapted to hundreds of such changes in the past.
So what?

Click to expand...

The climate folks looking at Antarctica and Greenland are saying there is enough ice there
to raise the sea level possibly as much as 9 metres (28 feet) and more.
Quite a lot of humanity, and a lot of (big) cities are (well) below that level.
And the hot/cold movement is potentialy warming a lot of that ice.
If you are higher, someone may eventually want your bit of dirt, forcibly ??
500/1000 years will see a very different world ???

You rarely hear a politician speak knowledgeably about climate change.
They don't want to scare the voters, and pollies rarely think long term, beyond the next election. ?
Its only the thinkers and the think tanks acting long term that are doing anything...

We have missed the point here a little with the intent of ethanol fuels though.
Folks, and machinery are being prepared for alternative fuels, in case it is needed sometime SOON.
Whether through climate change anticipation, or war or other interruptions to petroleum supplies.
Leccy vehicles, combined with solar generation, seem to be coming on leaps and bounds.
Even see a few locally - who'd a thunk.
Electric was also relatively popular back in the 1900s, but they lost out to the newfangled infernal combustion engines...

BTW, the Weather Bureau are taking bets with themselves as to when the 1st Category 6 Hurricane or Cyclone appears.
Several recently have gone close. (The scale currently only goes to Cat 5).
A lot of civilisation will be blown away if or when this happens = big shift in populations required.
Guarding borders with dogs may not be enough....

Well said Jeandr.

And Rohan, the alarmists predictions of 28 feet etcetera are not credible; their models are already way off; they have already proven themselves wrong. And, I repeat, so what? The time scale of any of predicted sea level rise out strips the life cycle for any human infrastructure anyway. Very little that man can build will last forever.

So - even if it is all true - humanity will be moving/adapting anyway.

This is the same thing our ancestors did in response to the ice ages and interglacial warmings of the past - they moved!

Life evolves in response to environmental change.

[quote="xbacksideslider"
And Rohan, the alarmists predictions of 28 feet etcetera are not credible; their models are already way off; they have already proven themselves wrong. And, I repeat, so what? The time scale of any of predicted sea level rise out strips the life cycle for any human infrastructure anyway. Very little that man can build will last forever.
[/quote]

I know someone who spent time in Antarctica, he was involved (peripherally) in measuring ice.
He said, and its been published, that when you realise the ice is miles thick, and on a continent larger than Australia or North America,
there is a LOT of ice there. Many many millions of cubic miles of it.

If there is anyone credible that has better ice thickness measurements or calculations, they would be interested to hear of it.
There are several USA bases on various parts of Antarctica (also Russkies, Chinese, Norway, Italy, UK, France, Argentina, etc)
and they all have done similar measurements. There is a LOT of ice there....

Folks who have been down there for a look say that talk of it all taking centuries to happen are being entirely optimistic,
something is likely to happen within decades. (?) Apparently the entire western antarctic ice sheet is moving and being
melted underneath, and if the entire lot slides into the sea it may be somewhat sudden, and is ~ a metres worth of sea level rise on its own.
Countries with sea frontage may need to be prepared sooner than they think....

Most of the politicizing of science is being accomplished by deniers who would have you think there is nothing that could or should be done to alter our present course because in reality, it eats into profits. They convert those on the fence by claiming those who put forth the real science are trying to get their money by raising taxes to accomplish what the "free market" can't or won't and by claiming it's all an unnecessary money grab. It's a money grab, alright. And just like with the bank bailouts, the populace who has the least to gain will be the ones to foot the bill.

So . . . . . what do you two think we should do ?

About what? Climate change, the politicizing of science or ethanol?

In truth, everyone needs to decide for themselves what to do. In states with strong farm lobbies, the ethanol is in all fuel, so you can't choose otherwise. If you could, it would bring the ethanol subsidies down because less would be used. As far as politicizing science, the only answer is to vote the flat-earth bastards out of office. Current polling shows fewer and fewer politicians are claiming outright denial and the ones that do already have the support of their ignorant constituents. So a little education never hurts. On the subject of climate change, I'm a big supporter of recycling and have been of that mind for over 50 years. No sense dumping something in a landfill (or worse, into the ecosystem) when it can be reconstituted and re-used. We have cut our take-out trash down to two kitchen bags per week by recycling plastic, cardboard, paper and aliuminum. Finally, all sorts of alternate energy sources should be exploited and developed. There's plenty of sunshine, wind and flowing water to fill our energy needs. We only need the will to develop and use them. This will require long-term thinking on the parts of our people and businesses rather than emphasis on short-term profitability.

the trouble with this is the " not in my back yard " types. there was a large wind mill project in the works in NE Tenn that these types had shut down. the worry's were ugly, noisy and what if a bird fly's in to one. than you have hydro electric although non polluting the greenies don't want to see the land covered in water behind a dam. it will kill trees and displace or kill wildlife. than there is solar. as of now IMHO it is not cost effective on an individual home owners basis and I am not fond of all the battery's and there cost in $ and disposal. there is no easy answer and what ever way you look it is going to make someone mad.

Danno said:

There's plenty of sunshine, wind and flowing water to fill our energy needs. We only need the will to develop and use them. This will require long-term thinking on the parts of our people and businesses rather than emphasis on short-term profitability.

Click to expand...

Danno said:

In truth, everyone needs to decide for themselves what to do. In states with strong farm lobbies, the ethanol is in all fuel, so you can't choose otherwise. If you could, it would bring the ethanol subsidies down because less would be used. As far as politicizing science, the only answer is to vote the flat-earth bastards out of office. Current polling shows fewer and fewer politicians are claiming outright denial and the ones that do already have the support of their ignorant constituents. So a little education never hurts. On the subject of climate change, I'm a big supporter of recycling and have been of that mind for over 50 years. No sense dumping something in a landfill (or worse, into the ecosystem) when it can be reconstituted and re-used. We have cut our take-out trash down to two kitchen bags per week by recycling plastic, cardboard, paper and aliuminum. Finally, all sorts of alternate energy sources should be exploited and developed. There's plenty of sunshine, wind and flowing water to fill our energy needs. We only need the will to develop and use them. This will require long-term thinking on the parts of our people and businesses rather than emphasis on short-term profitability.

Click to expand...

Hear, hear! More birth control and less superstition wouldn't hurt either.

xbacksideslider said:

So . . . . . what do you two think we should do ?

Click to expand...

About climate change....
This is THE BIGGY, isn't it, THE ethical and moral issue of our time.

Do we go balls out to leave a habitable planet for all future generations,
or stick our heads in the sand, and hope the problem 'goes away'....

Of all the things that mankind can do bad to this planet, the least influencial or harmful is C02 production on climate change. BY FAR the most harmful is fractional usury money system based on creating money by lending it into existance but never creating enough money to pay the interest on the loans > so built in bankrupcy and collapse. Yoose guys should just ride around on rather inefficient polluting Commandos and stopping worrying about the world, just how much gasoline costs and how long it'll be legal to sell as there's no long term hope with current bankster allowed public technology and their super expensive deadly technology for fun, profit and control. As for sea level rise by ice loss and shift of gravity most the sea level rise would be around N. America not evenly distrubuted world wide. A deeper concern[ not advertised much] is not the ice melt level added to oceans [for under 100 ft level rise] but the imbalance of enough ice mass lost near the poles which can change axis of earth rotation enough to shift the equitorial spin bludge of water band for sudden 100's of feet rise, not to mention the tectonic pressure changes for quakes and volcano's outside man's control. Rejoice as likely we got to live in the best times ever, while they lasted.

All real wealth is created by work and while it's true those in power have allowed too many people to make too much money via manipulation of paper rather than by actual work, if those people can be convinced their grandchildren won't be able to eat the paper money's printed on if the environment is ruined for everyone, perhaps they may be moved to throw their considerable power and influence behind cleaning things up?

In any case, the "Party on Wayne, Party on Garth" attitude won't do anything but make both problems worse. The two biggest problems are apathy and cynicism. Change those and you can change anything else.

NASA has come up with a half clever solution, if the planet goes seriously belly up.
Getting cows onto the moon means folks retreated to there can still have milk in their morning coffee,
all the luxuries of life we take for granted on earth.
Takes serious money to come up with serious solutions....