Just got back from Cali...

hearingimpared

Huck344 wrote: »

Yeah, us Dodger fans are a bit laid back. . . It is only baseball!

The electricity situation is jacked up because of the politicians and environmentalists. They want all this green energy, so Utilities and other companies build solar fields and wind farms out in the desert. BUT, the environmentalists keep protesting the building of additional transmission lines to get the green energy to the people. It takes about 2-5 years to get a renewable energy facility approved. But, it takes more than 10 to get additional transmission lines. We have a 20% by 2010 RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard), but legislation, regulation etc. makes this impossible to meet. As it is, I believe that the three major utilities in CA (Edison, PG&E and San Diego Gas and Electric) do try. . . Well Edison and PG&E do. SDG&E is lagging way behind at around 5%.

Wow, it really seems like the "environmentalists" care more about the earth than human beings.

steveinaz

...not for all the rice in China.

Huck344

hearingimpared wrote: »

Wow, it really seems like the "environmentalists" care more about the earth than human beings.

Yeah it amazes me at how much "environmentalists" hate people

virtualdean

cheddar wrote: »

Just another bitter California irony. For all the supposedly 'green' bent of the state, all of the complex environmental rules and hoops to jump through actually make it far easier to set up a wind farm in Texas than in California.

There are nutters all over.
TBoone Pickett just bailed out of his GigantorHumongous wind farm plan at the base of the Panhandle of Texas. A region of high winds all year round.
He couldn't get approval for the transmission lines necessary to bring the power to the people. More likely, he couldn't get someone else to pay for them.

tonyb

Speaking of "Green".....just saw a story about meat prices this summer soaring by 20% due to the greenies. Too much corn being used for ethynol, price of corn goes up,meat and milk will go up. Save on one hand,pay more on the other,what have we gained? Now, I haven't researched this, But let me ask, why do they add ethynol to gasoline ? Supposedly it gives less MPG, at a time when we are trying to save mpg?

Ron-P

Let me quote Charlton Heston...

It happened before, IT WILL happen again...it's just a queston of when

...let's all hope it's sooner, rather then later.

Kex

tonyb wrote: »

Speaking of "Green".....just saw a story about meat prices this summer soaring by 20% due to the greenies. Too much corn being used for ethynol, price of corn goes up,meat and milk will go up. Save on one hand,pay more on the other,what have we gained? Now, I haven't researched this, But let me ask, why do they add ethynol to gasoline ? Supposedly it gives less MPG, at a time when we are trying to save mpg?

This started well before the "greenies" were involved. It started when gas prices were at $4/gal and oil was $150/bbl, so the administration wanted to be seen to attempt something ... anything ... that might help stabilize prices before they went even higher. Prices did go down, eventually, but meat prices have remained higher than they were before the crisis ever since.

Enthusiasm for ethanol, for all of the reasons you mentioned, as well as food prices, seems to have dwindled quite dramatically since then.

tonyb

Maybe so....but apparently the demand for ethynol has risen again thus driving up meat and milk prices. With more stringent mpg ratings being put on the auto makers,why add something to the gas that is fighting in the reverse direction?

Huck344

Following up on Kex's response about ethanol, another reason why it is added is that it supposedly makes gasoline burn cleaner. It is a federal law that 10.2% of gasoline have renewable fuel (ethanol) blended in it which equates to 10.6 billion gallons per year. This amount is scheduled to increase to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022. What may come as a big shock to most of you is that this law was initiated by the Republicans.

The problem is that corn ethanol is not economically viable. Corn grown just for ethanol production cannot exist without government subsidy.

A better ingredient for ethanol production is Sweet Sorghum which is a type of sugar cane. What makes it a better source than corn is the fact that it can produce more ethanol per acre and can produce three crops per year (I think corn only produces 1). Additionally, the cost to produce a gallon of sweet sorghum ethanol is substantially lower than the cost to produce a gallon of corn ethanol. Corn ethanol is only breaks even when oil costs around $130-$150 per barrel. Sweet Sorghum makes a profit even when oil is at $70/barrel.

I'm actually working on several Sweet Sorghum ethanol projects right now in Florida. They are having a hell of a time getting financing because the have the "ethanol" name attached to it. So many people got burned by corn ethanol that Investment companies won't even look at an ethanol facility no matter how profitable it is.