GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

1 minute ago, Ron Wagner said:

Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food urges five-year moratorium on food based biofuels, including ethanol, saying its development is a "crime against humanity."

 

 

They make a good point that we shouldn't use food to run cars when people are starving.  You can't eat oil directly, you can eat corn.

[Ron Wagner + 710]

Just now, TailingsPond said:

 

They make a good point that we shouldn't use food to run cars when people are starving.  You can't eat oil directly, you can eat corn.

There is no general shortage of food except in time of war, natural disasters, or political attempts to starve their own populations. There is a much bigger problem of obesity in most nations. Starvation and poor nutrition are common in areas where one group is dominating another as in Ukraine right now, or in Sudan and other parts of Africa. 

 

[notsonice + 1,255]

3 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

Ethanol , at wholesale, now sells for 2.16 per gallon versus 3.31 for gasoline. That is an 84 cent difference. They  need to market it at a price for people to save some money rather than barely equal in value. It can be mixed at much more than 15% and a few pumps offer a choice of higher blends.

ethanol only has two thirds the energy of gasoline on a gallon per gallon basis.......this is why it is worth two thirds that of gasoline. The only reason ethanol has ever been added to gas is it is mandated. Otherwise their would be no ethanol business. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

18 minutes ago, notsonice said:

ethanol only has two thirds the energy of gasoline on a gallon per gallon basis.......this is why it is worth two thirds that of gasoline. The only reason ethanol has ever been added to gas is it is mandated. Otherwise their would be no ethanol business. 

Conservatives hate mandates unless it benefits themselves.

[notsonice + 1,255]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Conservatives hate mandates unless it benefits themselves.

pork barrel government subsidies for corn farmers and ethanol producers. 

The ethanol subsidy, which is commonly referred to as the "blender's credit," offers ethanol blenders registered with the Internal Revenue Service a tax credit of 45 cents for every gallon of pure ethanol they blend with gasoline.

[specinho + 470]

not too sure what has been added into 2022 cooking gas........ the fire started off not so smooth, like stucked, and is burning with much orangy-red flame - a common sign of incomplete combustion....... And a gas tank could finish within a month compared to more than 3 months before...

Not too sure if the observations have any relation to mixing the gas with alcohol?

Ethanol, not too sure if the references here are of any relevance but......

1. Ethanol alcohol is referred to as hygroscopic, which means it absorbs moisture.... It could  upset fuel mix and gumming up the system.

 

2.ethanol fire place.........  bio fire flame could be blue at the beginning and then yellow-red

https://www.biofires.com/content/10-understanding-bio-fires

 

not too sure if it is not a good idea to mix alcohol from biofuel with petrol but leave them burning on their own, respectively?

Refueling bio-alcohol might be peculiar? Thinking in the line of refueling a lighter:

 

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2022 by specinho

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

11 hours ago, Wombat One said:

Yes Indeed to all of the above. However, you may recall that I warned Mr Moutchkine some months ago that any Russian aggression will firstly be met with expulsion from the SWIFT system. I have much much more in store for them, with or without Biden and his useless Secretary of Defence. I did not know it was legal for the Secretary of Defence to hold a seat on the board of Raytheon? Thought that was the kind of conflict of interest that would get some attention at least?!?

One thought on that thread, and watching the Ukraine being swept away.

President Biden’s national security adviser,      "Jake Sullivan"   

 

is referred to in one of the indictments obtained by special counsel John Durham in his investigation into the origins of the Russia probe of former President Donald Trump, Fox News

https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/biden-nsa-jake-sullivans-future-questioned-over-russia-hoax-role/

Edited March 12, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

5 hours ago, specinho said:

not too sure what has been added into 2022 cooking gas........ the fire started off not so smooth, like stucked, and is burning with much orangy-red flame - a common sign of incomplete combustion....... And a gas tank could finish within a month compared to more than 3 months before...

Not too sure if the observations have any relation to mixing the gas with alcohol?

Gas in this case is liquid gasoline not natural gas.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,191]

On 3/10/2022 at 9:44 PM, notsonice said:

Obviously you do not understand how the US Gov does Nuclear research and Plutonium reprocessing  when related to Nukes...it has always been farmed out to Universities

You are right, YOU do not understand.  At beginning of Nuclear testing over 60 years ago you are right.... the world moved on, apparently you did not.  In fact, by LAW, universities are NOT allowed to have ANY testing/research in pretty much ANY radioactive elements and especially in Thorium and above. Only the national laboratories funded by US government are allowed to do this and ALL the employees there are university graduates already and none are associated with universities.  For instance, I have worked with OSU(Oregon State University) on Small nuclear Modular reactors which has traditionally been in charge of nuclear reasearch going on at Hanford... that all stopped and now PNL(Pacific National Laboratories) is in charge along with INL(Idaho National Laboratories) OSU, so called "research" is nothing of the sort as the only thing they are allowed to do is play with the code generated in the 1970's or concepts generated at said time.  

This is why Molten Salt reactors have gone nowhere.  It would have to be funded by congress and why Univserties are not even working on the known chemical side issues to make it happen as they cannot obtain the materials necessary to do the chemical testing which EVERY aspiring PHd student in Chemistry or nuclear engineering would LOVE to be able to do.  They are unable to do so without 1st getting hired by a national laboratory and 2nd getting funding for said research from Congress..... Uh yea... that is not happening. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,191]

21 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

More like a handful of chemists and engineers who developed nitrogen fixation and industrialized it. Without Haber-Bosch the world population would have already stagnated.

No, farmers would just have to build giant air sealed silos to store the stubble from previous crop and learn to biodigest it at the correct time to make the nitrogen fertilizer available next season(sileage pits essentially already do this).  A massive massive massive cost  for said gain in production, but possible.  Of course then you have to haul all of this stubble and then worry about if there is enough left over for the biology in the soil to survive as without this biology, root chemistry dies and now you need to feed your plants the micro nutrients such as iron, zinc, boron, copper, even more potassium, etc.  So, now we are into cover crops and the feeding of said crops to keep the biology alove which are a good thing as drops wind erosion, helps water inflitration, etc, but it is another expense. 

[Ron Wagner + 710]

20 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The article I posted literally says exactly the same thing, that over a third of corn is used for ethanol.

"Of the 92 million acres of corn planted in the United States every year, roughly 40 million acres (1.6% of the nation’s land) are primarily used to feed cars and raise the octane of gasoline."

 

That is a very good use of the land IMHO. It is not your right to make the decision of what a farmer should grow on his land unless it is doing damage somehow. You are one of the few who thinks it is a bad idea. You are welcome to go to congress and try to pass a bill to change it. You are doing it in another way, by reducing the need for gasoline and working for renewables. That is a worthy goal if you can do it for a price close enough to fossil fuels. 

Biden and the rest of the Demoncrats have caused massive inflation with their money printing. That makes costs of everything go up. He has also made it more costly to develop fossil fuels and limited the American sources. I am looking forward to November this year. 

Farmers will be producing less and the smallest will be likely to go out of business. Farmer's prices for fuel, fertilizers, pesticides, weed control, equipment etc. will all be very high if the supply chain even has the needed products. Yet you worry about them producing corn, part of which is used for ethanol. Ethanol is a wonderful product. 

[Ron Wagner + 710]

15 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

No, farmers would just have to build giant air sealed silos to store the stubble from previous crop and learn to biodigest it at the correct time to make the nitrogen fertilizer available next season(sileage pits essentially already do this).  A massive massive massive cost  for said gain in production, but possible.  Of course then you have to haul all of this stubble and then worry about if there is enough left over for the biology in the soil to survive as without this biology, root chemistry dies and now you need to feed your plants the micro nutrients such as iron, zinc, boron, copper, even more potassium, etc.  So, now we are into cover crops and the feeding of said crops to keep the biology alove which are a good thing as drops wind erosion, helps water inflitration, etc, but it is another expense. 

You are correct. The trouble is that farmers are very stubborn and set in their ways. It works for them, but not for the environment. A lot of nitrogen, pesticides, roundup, etc. ends up in the groundwater, the soil, and then the ocean. It needs to be addressed. Right now we have much more pressing problems. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

13 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

That is a very good use of the land IMHO. It is not your right to make the decision of what a farmer should grow on his land unless it is doing damage somehow. You are one of the few who thinks it is a bad idea. You are welcome to go to congress and try to pass a bill to change it. You are doing it in another way, by reducing the need for gasoline and working for renewables. That is a worthy goal if you can do it for a price close enough to fossil fuels. 

Biden and the rest of the Demoncrats have caused massive inflation with their money printing. That makes costs of everything go up. He has also made it more costly to develop fossil fuels and limited the American sources. I am looking forward to November this year. 

Farmers will be producing less and the smallest will be likely to go out of business. Farmer's prices for fuel, fertilizers, pesticides, weed control, equipment etc. will all be very high if the supply chain even has the needed products. Yet you worry about them producing corn, part of which is used for ethanol. Ethanol is a wonderful product. 

The fact that the farmers have to force a government mandate that their crappy product be included in the market and force people to buy it says it all. If corn ethanol is so great why do they need a mandate? 

[Ron Wagner + 710]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The fact that the farmers have to force a government mandate that their crappy product be included in the market and force people to buy it says it all. If corn ethanol is so great why do they need a mandate? 

HA HA HA. I guess you didn't bother to read the history of ethanol. You don't learn much other than what fits into your preformed opinions. You have very little ability to consider other points of view or realities. That limits you and the opinions you hold to. You criticize the farmers who have fed you all your life while wanting subsidies for wind farms to put on their land. You don't like oil and gas yet you haven't even bothered to purchase an electric vehicle. I own a three cylinder car that is far more competitive than any electric vehicle available in the United States. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

HA HA HA. I guess you didn't bother to read the history of ethanol. You don't learn much other than what fits into your preformed opinions. You have very little ability to consider other points of view or realities. That limits you and the opinions you hold to. You criticize the farmers who have fed you all your life while wanting subsidies for wind farms to put on their land. You don't like oil and gas yet you haven't even bothered to purchase an electric vehicle. I own a three cylinder car that is far more competitive than any electric vehicle available in the United States. 

The history of ethanol is irrelevant. It is today and the future that matters. Yes I criticize hypocrites who decry mandates and subsidies unless they benefit from them.

I don't want subsidies for wind, it is farmers who want subsidies for the ethanol production that they force people to buy through a gov't mandate.

A biodiesel blender that is registered with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may be eligible for a tax incentive in the amount of $1.00 per gallon of pure biodiesel, agri-biodiesel, or renewable diesel blended with petroleum diesel to produce a mixture containing at least 0.1% diesel fuel. https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/395

Not wind, solar or EVs have ever had such an incredible gov't subsidy!

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,191]

37 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

You are correct. The trouble is that farmers are very stubborn and set in their ways. It works for them, but not for the environment. A lot of nitrogen, pesticides, roundup, etc. ends up in the groundwater, the soil, and then the ocean. It needs to be addressed. Right now we have much more pressing problems. 

Addressed?  How?  Unless one massively drops crop yields, all variations of "regenerative" ag create far lower yields on a per year basis.  Only reason they can do it is many people will pay ~2X the cost for "organic".

Yes, there are certain ways to drastically reduce herbicide use for instance, but pesticide/fungicide?  There literally is no substitute other than vastly lower yields.  Now walking the cows across the land again instead of feed lots will drastically reduce amount of fertilizer required and ultimately decrease amount of crops to feed said animals but still one needs ~25%-->50% of fertilizer used currently and  those pesky fungicides in the case of soybeans.  Pesticides... will always be required unless we love watching entire regions get consumed in bad years.  Though some have started running Turkey's behind the cows/sheep, but Turkey's are not exactly domesticated quite yet and tend to fly off... or get shall we say... carried off by Wiley Coyote, buster owl and friends. 

[Ron Wagner + 710]

7 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Addressed?  How?  Unless one massively drops crop yields, all variations of "regenerative" ag create far lower yields on a per year basis.  Only reason they can do it is many people will pay ~2X the cost for "organic".

Yes, there are certain ways to drastically reduce herbicide use for instance, but pesticide/fungicide?  There literally is no substitute other than vastly lower yields.  Now walking the cows across the land again instead of feed lots will drastically reduce amount of fertilizer required and ultimately decrease amount of crops to feed said animals but still one needs ~25%-->50% of fertilizer used currently and  those pesky fungicides in the case of soybeans.  Pesticides... will always be required unless we love watching entire regions get consumed in bad years.  Though some have started running Turkey's behind the cows/sheep, but Turkey's are not exactly domesticated quite yet and tend to fly off... or get shall we say... carried off by Wiley Coyote, buster owl and friends. 

I once picked up a maverick white turkey on the side of the road and cooked it. The eyes looked good so I knew it was a fresh kill. 😀

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,191]

7 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The history of ethanol is irrelevant. It is today and the future that matters. Yes I criticize hypocrites who decry mandates and subsidies unless they benefit from them.

I don't want subsidies for wind, it is farmers who want subsidies for the ethanol production that they force people to buy through a gov't mandate.

A biodiesel blender that is registered with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may be eligible for a tax incentive in the amount of $1.00 per gallon of pure biodiesel, agri-biodiesel, or renewable diesel blended with petroleum diesel to produce a mixture containing at least 0.1% diesel fuel. https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/395

Not wind, solar or EVs have ever had such an incredible gov't subsidy!

EV's literally have a ~$7000 credit per car and currently are not charged road taxes currently(will change soon).  This is literally 15% the cost of the car.

Wind has production tax credit that essentially writes off a turbine in ~5-->10 years via tax insentives/subsidies.  This is essentially a 30% cost reduction

Solar, ... Who the Hell are you kidding; heard of Net metering?  If you put it on your roof you get RETAIL rates.  RETAIL to feed into the system.  Wholesale is less than 25% of retail, so 75% subsidy.  Mandates passed by cities etc for % of "renewables" by 'x' date which pays for the solar park and a fixed price. 

And the kicker you are whining about?  No one is making bio diesel even with those subsidies. 

The ethanol isn't technically subsidized, but it is via crop insurance program which forces a farmer to sell ~80% at times to certain ethanol plants to collect.  End result has been massive increases in corn/soy production and far less oil seeds and other grains production.  Heck, I think the USA actually imports barley if I am not mistaken...

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,191]

2 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

I once picked up a maverick white turkey on the side of the road and cooked it. The eyes looked good so I knew it was a fresh kill. 😀

Now that, is renewable!

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

@Wombat One come on man. Dont post that shit on here. Show some respect. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

EV's literally have a ~$7000 credit per car and currently are not charged road taxes currently(will change soon).  This is literally 15% the cost of the car.

Wind has production tax credit that essentially writes off a turbine in ~5-->10 years via tax insentives/subsidies.  This is essentially a 30% cost reduction

Solar, ... Who the Hell are you kidding; heard of Net metering?  If you put it on your roof you get RETAIL rates.  RETAIL to feed into the system.  Wholesale is less than 25% of retail, so 75% subsidy.  Mandates passed by cities etc for % of "renewables" by 'x' date which pays for the solar park and a fixed price. 

And the kicker you are whining about?  No one is making bio diesel even with those subsidies. 

The ethanol isn't technically subsidized, but it is via crop insurance program which forces a farmer to sell ~80% at times to certain ethanol plants to collect.  End result has been massive increases in corn/soy production and far less oil seeds and other grains production.  Heck, I think the USA actually imports barley if I am not mistaken...

 

EV tax credit expires after 200K units and is only useful to the extent you owe 7K in taxes. Tesla  and GM buyers haven't had a tax credit in years.  Toyota and Ford expire this year.

Wind production tax credit ended three months ago, no new projects are eligible and it hasn't been 30% in many years.

$1 per gallon is around 100% tax free!

Renewable mandates are state and local governments deciding what they want to buy. Ethanol mandate is telling the whole country what they have to buy. If Iowa wants to mandate E85 in their state I'm all for it.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 13, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Ford CEO Jim Farley Says Mass EV Adoption Will Start In 2023

By Brett Foote

March 11, 2022 12:44 pm

 

Since Ford CEO Jim Farley took over the top spot at the automaker back in October 2020, he has overseen a major transformation at The Blue Oval as it invests heavily in an all-electric future. Farley has also revealed some grand plans over the past few weeks, including a $50 billion dollar investment in electrification as the automaker aims to produce two million EVs annually across the globe by 2026. And, in spite of a number of obstacles that could prevent FoMoCo from reaching those goals, Jim Farley remains confident that consumers will begin to adopt EVs en masse starting as early as next year.

“So I think the way we’ve thought about it is there’s kind of the first inning, which is the next couple years. And then when we get into a mass adoption, let’s say 2023 through 2026, things change a lot in the first couple years,” Farley said while speaking at the recent Wolfe Research Global Auto, Auto Tech, and Mobility Conference.

https://fordauthority.com/2022/03/ford-ceo-jim-farley-says-mass-ev-adoption-will-start-in-2023/

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

6 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

No, farmers would just have to build giant air sealed silos to store the stubble from previous crop and learn to biodigest it at the correct time to make the nitrogen fertilizer available next season(sileage pits essentially already do this).  A massive massive massive cost  for said gain in production, but possible.  Of course then you have to haul all of this stubble and then worry about if there is enough left over for the biology in the soil to survive as without this biology, root chemistry dies and now you need to feed your plants the micro nutrients such as iron, zinc, boron, copper, even more potassium, etc.  So, now we are into cover crops and the feeding of said crops to keep the biology alove which are a good thing as drops wind erosion, helps water inflitration, etc, but it is another expense. 

All of that would reduce productivity considerably, and hence limit population growth / capacity.   Before chemical fertilization fields had to be "rested or rotated" far more often.  A field at rest is a field not feeding people.

However, I agree soil health should be maintained with natural processes (nitrogen fixing bacteria) as much as possible.

You should accept that a organic farm produces less food per acre than a chemically fertilized one.  Simple

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,191]

37 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

All of that would reduce productivity considerably, and hence limit population growth / capacity.   Before chemical fertilization fields had to be "rested or rotated" far more often.  A field at rest is a field not feeding people.

However, I agree soil health should be maintained with natural processes (nitrogen fixing bacteria) as much as possible.

You should accept that a organic farm produces less food per acre than a chemically fertilized one.  Simple

 

The organic farm next to us get ~66%-->75% of everyone else without fertilizers and without direct manure. No  tilling, cheaper seed cost, no fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and get ~2X cost at payday and they get a side honey business as well.   They are making massive bank compared to everyone else in an area with lots of water.  Organic in dry regions using cattle achieve 25%-->50% superior yield results to monoculture up in North Dakota region. So, that should be massive massive bank in dry regions.

So, its not all doom and gloom. 

EDIT as for population capacity... greenhouses will jump productivity by 3X minimum compared to today and can be put up anywhere even on crap land and can be done organically as well.   The only cap on population is someones willingness to WORK at farming.

Edited March 13, 2022 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 minutes ago, Wombat One said:

Ever heard of that lil thing called energy security? Or food security? World war 3 has just started over the 2 issues ICYMI?

Food security is harmed by using ag resources for fuel.