Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama loves to criticize other people's energy plans because he does not have any realistic plans of his own. He criticized McCain's plans for drilling because "we won't see any immediate results." With that logic I guess there is no reason for people to attend college anymore because it will take atleast four years before they see any results. Why not skip college and get an immediate paycheck by going straight to Taco Bell?
There is, actually. Check under section - "safe and secure nuclear energy".
Obama suggest advancing scientific research about how to safely dispose of nuclear waste... prior to just jumping in headfirst and saying "let's build, build, build" nuclear plants and worry about the waste later.
It won't matter if you get cheaper fuel if you are glowing in the dark and have three arms.
You can read about the rest of his energy proposals here as well if interested.
Interestingly, from Obama's own site (your link) is the following sentiment, which is a very inaccurate portrayal of how we should be funding syn fuels:
Barack Obama will work to ensure that advanced biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol, are developed and incorporated into our national supply as soon as possible. Corn ethanol is the most successful alternative fuel commercially available in the U.S. today, and we should fight the efforts of big oil and big agri-business to undermine this emerging industry.
Even today, it is very well known that sugar based ethanol has a much lower cost and higher yield, and the only thing supporting corn based ethanol is politics. Here are some insights from Cornell University's Dr David Pimentel:
Answer: If I could just kick off the environmental impacts of producing ethanol, and it is #1 -- and using corn of course, corn causes more soil erosion than any other single crop in the nation, uses more nitrogen fertilizer than any other crop grown in the nation, and about 25% of that leaks into the groundwater and surface waters according to the National Academy of Sciences, and corn production -- and then that contributes to that -- it’s a major contributor to that dead zone down in the Gulf of Mexico. Corn uses more insecticides in any other crop grown in the nation, uses more herbicides than any other crop grown in the nation; and those pesticides get into our ground and surface waters and elsewhere, causing major problems. And the production of a gallon of ethanol requires 1700 gallons of water. And then the last item is that when you produce one gallon of ethanol, you produce at the same time, 12 gallons of sewage along with it.
Question: Yeah, and is ethanol worse than oil, at this point in time?
Answer: Oh yeah. Significantly worse than oil, significantly worse than coal --oh! and I should -- I forgot to mention the global warming; of course, because you are using more fossil fuel to produce that ethanol, you are contributing to the global warming problem, you are also, during the fermentation process, contributing even more carbon dioxide, so you get a double whamming of -- contributing to the global warming issue.
Interestingly, from Obama's own site (your link) is the following sentiment, which is a very inaccurate portrayal of how we should be funding syn fuels:
Barack Obama will work to ensure that advanced biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol, are developed and incorporated into our national supply as soon as possible. Corn ethanol is the most successful alternative fuel commercially available in the U.S. today, and we should fight the efforts of big oil and big agri-business to undermine this emerging industry.
Even today, it is very well known that sugar based ethanol has a much lower cost and higher yield, and the only thing supporting corn based ethanol is politics. Here are some insights from Cornell University's Dr David Pimentel:
Science is not absolute. Different studies and methodologies can lead to different results and provide further data for the discussion.
I would not consider dismissing your scientist, however it should be noted that several other scientific studies relative to corn and cellulosic ethanol have been recently conducted. And the Pimental study has by far led to the most negative results. The others all show positive results. and recommend further research in this promising field.
We reviewed six studies published since 1990 that examine the energy return on investment for corn
ethanol. Of the six studies that we compared, all but the Pimentel and Patzek study show renewable returns on
nonrenewable energy investment for corn ethanol. Energy return on investment values for these five
studies ranged from 1.29 to 1.65. The significantly lower energy return contained in the Pimentel and
Patzek study can be attributed to a number of factors. (read link for the details).
We reviewed four studies published since 1990 that examine the energy return on investment for
cellulosic ethanol. Of the four studies we reviewed and compared, again all but the Pimentel and Patzek study show
substantial renewable returns on nonrenewable energy investment to the production process. ( see link for details).
Our analysis determined that both corn and cellulosic ethanol production return renewable energy on
their fossil energy investments, though the results indicate that cellulosic ethanol production will be
preferable to corn ethanol production. On the surface, cellulosic ethanol simply delivers profoundly
more renewable energy than corn ethanol. And considered more closely across the social, economic,
and environmental factors beyond simple energy return on investment, cellulosic ethanol production
promises to consume less petroleum, produce fewer greenhouse gases, and require less land compared
to corn ethanol. However, the corn ethanol industry is the foundation from which a much larger
biofuels economy will grow. As the energy return on investment shows, corn ethanol is providingimportant fossil fuel savings and greenhouse gas emissions reductions today, and it is providing an
even bigger oil savings.
All of the studies show a modest to negative return on corn based ethanol.
Don't you think Obama's statement, in the energy section of his website, is really for the farmers to note that he is "in support of their efforts" in supporting corn based ethanol?
When looking at the yield vs cost for current tradeoffs, such as sugar based ethanol, doesn't corn seem less cost justified? What does Obama state about the impact of corn usage as fuel on food prices?
In an article published Saturday in Science, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute scientists Jörn Scharlemann and William F. Laurance analyzed a study of 26 biofuel crops recently commissioned by the Swiss government.
The Swiss study calculated the merits of each crop according to their greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impact. The best biofuels came from recycled cooking oils and grass- and wood-produced ethanol. The worst came from Brazilian soy, Malaysian palm oil and U.S. corn, all of which are central to their respective countries' biofuel programs.
Actually all of the studies (except the one conducted by your scientist) led to positive results. I would consider 1.65 to be relatively significant, as a layman.
Were I to judge one study over the rest to be perhaps politically motivated it would have to be the one conducted by your scientist, as his results were so drastrically different from the rest of the unrelated scientific studies.
The analysis does say that other cellulosic ethanol studies should lead to even greater benefits, which youe scientist appears to disagree with as well.
I am not a scientist, but I do have to wonder why the rest of these scientific teams all point to positive results except for the studies of Dr. Pimentel.
The 2 biggest corn producing states are Iowa and Illinois. Obama's obsession on corn ethanol is purely for his political gain.
Corn ethanol is responsible for the skyrocketing price of food, and is actually more expensive than gasoline.
The 2 biggest corn producing states are Iowa and Illinois. Obama's obsession on corn ethanol is purely for his political gain.
Corn ethanol is responsible for the skyrocketing price of food, and is actually more expensive than gasoline.
You have any links or is this just a gut feeling?
I guess a lot of the scientific studies conducted in the past 20 years were juryrigged just so Obama can capitalize in the election. Good Lord.
Even the not so intelligent would be able to connect the dots regarding ethanol and the world food shortage/escalating corn prices.
Maybe the not so intelligent need to do a little more research.
Find out what most corn is used for and come back to discuss.
Memphis, Tennessee-based Informa, formerly called Sparks Companies, said a study based on 20 years of price data shows that corn prices have minimal impact on the U.S. Consumer Price Index for food, which has been on the rise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
