n012944 wrote: vsmith wrote: Bucyrus wrote: vsmith wrote: - No one, not even me, is going to knock the people who have a legitimate uses for such vehicles,-I ask...what percentage of those big truck/SUVs are actually owned and operated by people who use them as legitimate working vehicles? -I really beleive that you should drive what you like, - It sounds like you really believe that you should drive what you like as long as it is legitimate.I think mostly what we have here, is a failure to understand our perspectives, I'm looking at this from a strickly urban traffic commute viewpoint, others here are looking at it from a more "these are vital work vehicles out here" viewpoint, I said earlier that I know these vehicles have real uses. I'll agree the term "legitamate" is debatable, (legitimate use = real use) but...When you consider that the great majority of these large SUVs nationwide never get more demanding use than taking the kids to a school they could likely walk to, or driven to work by a single occupant. AS I SAID: You can drive whatever you like, Just please dont whine if you buy it and you suddenly realize that you can't afford the car payment, insurance and fuel costs at the same time.Please dont whine about your 2hr one way commute at 9 mpg if you have access to a effective and clean transit alternatives like light rail, employer vanpools or carpools.Please dont whine if gas goes back to $3.50+ a gallon and it cost you $100+ to fill the thing... I think part of the problem here is that unless you've lived in a denser urban area and have had to deal with some of these issues on a daily basis, you'll never "get it" from my perspective...Oh well. I've had to deal with people, who somehow think that its their God given handed to them personally by Jesus in flaming stone tabletes right as an American to pay nothing for the gas needed to fill their enormous big wheeled ego inflaters. Sheesh!Anyway, 'nough said, back to topic...need gas? eat at McDonalds, I get gas everytime I go thereSo what your saying is that is ok for you to whine about someone whining? And I live in a dense ubran area, drive 25 miles each way a day, and deal with the same issues that you are crying about. And I still don't your perspective. Bert
vsmith wrote: Bucyrus wrote: vsmith wrote: - No one, not even me, is going to knock the people who have a legitimate uses for such vehicles,-I ask...what percentage of those big truck/SUVs are actually owned and operated by people who use them as legitimate working vehicles? -I really beleive that you should drive what you like, - It sounds like you really believe that you should drive what you like as long as it is legitimate.I think mostly what we have here, is a failure to understand our perspectives, I'm looking at this from a strickly urban traffic commute viewpoint, others here are looking at it from a more "these are vital work vehicles out here" viewpoint, I said earlier that I know these vehicles have real uses. I'll agree the term "legitamate" is debatable, (legitimate use = real use) but...When you consider that the great majority of these large SUVs nationwide never get more demanding use than taking the kids to a school they could likely walk to, or driven to work by a single occupant. AS I SAID: You can drive whatever you like, Just please dont whine if you buy it and you suddenly realize that you can't afford the car payment, insurance and fuel costs at the same time.Please dont whine about your 2hr one way commute at 9 mpg if you have access to a effective and clean transit alternatives like light rail, employer vanpools or carpools.Please dont whine if gas goes back to $3.50+ a gallon and it cost you $100+ to fill the thing... I think part of the problem here is that unless you've lived in a denser urban area and have had to deal with some of these issues on a daily basis, you'll never "get it" from my perspective...Oh well. I've had to deal with people, who somehow think that its their God given handed to them personally by Jesus in flaming stone tabletes right as an American to pay nothing for the gas needed to fill their enormous big wheeled ego inflaters. Sheesh!Anyway, 'nough said, back to topic...need gas? eat at McDonalds, I get gas everytime I go there
Bucyrus wrote: vsmith wrote: - No one, not even me, is going to knock the people who have a legitimate uses for such vehicles,-I ask...what percentage of those big truck/SUVs are actually owned and operated by people who use them as legitimate working vehicles? -I really beleive that you should drive what you like, - It sounds like you really believe that you should drive what you like as long as it is legitimate.
vsmith wrote: - No one, not even me, is going to knock the people who have a legitimate uses for such vehicles,-I ask...what percentage of those big truck/SUVs are actually owned and operated by people who use them as legitimate working vehicles? -I really beleive that you should drive what you like, -
It sounds like you really believe that you should drive what you like as long as it is legitimate.
I think mostly what we have here, is a failure to understand our perspectives, I'm looking at this from a strickly urban traffic commute viewpoint, others here are looking at it from a more "these are vital work vehicles out here" viewpoint, I said earlier that I know these vehicles have real uses. I'll agree the term "legitamate" is debatable, (legitimate use = real use) but...
When you consider that the great majority of these large SUVs nationwide never get more demanding use than taking the kids to a school they could likely walk to, or driven to work by a single occupant.
AS I SAID: You can drive whatever you like,
Just please dont whine if you buy it and you suddenly realize that you can't afford the car payment, insurance and fuel costs at the same time.
Please dont whine about your 2hr one way commute at 9 mpg if you have access to a effective and clean transit alternatives like light rail, employer vanpools or carpools.
Please dont whine if gas goes back to $3.50+ a gallon and it cost you $100+ to fill the thing...
I think part of the problem here is that unless you've lived in a denser urban area and have had to deal with some of these issues on a daily basis, you'll never "get it" from my perspective...Oh well. I've had to deal with people, who somehow think that its their God given handed to them personally by Jesus in flaming stone tabletes right as an American to pay nothing for the gas needed to fill their enormous big wheeled ego inflaters. Sheesh!
Anyway, 'nough said, back to topic...need gas? eat at McDonalds, I get gas everytime I go there
So what your saying is that is ok for you to whine about someone whining? And I live in a dense ubran area, drive 25 miles each way a day, and deal with the same issues that you are crying about. And I still don't your perspective.
Bert
Have fun with your trains
RRKen wrote: I personally get quite tired of folks spouting off about ADM and ethanol, without knowing what percentage they hold in the market. They only account for 18% of the total production as of today.
what's your point? ADM, Monsanto, et al will undoubtedly benefit the most. just as 85% of farm subsidies go to agribusiness. as if we shoudl be paying for their farms to begin with. let's not bring up folks living in nyc and DC who receive farm welfare.
RRKen wrote:While ADM has been the largest single company involved in Ethanol since the 1970's, they hardly control the market today. They have to compete with other co-ops, farmer/investors, and private companies. When the first plant here opened, it was farmers getting together $50 million to build it. Small towns like Lakota, Iowa have seen millions invested in their community, as well as jobs created. That is a hell of a lot of money being invested from people world wide. Do you really think people would plunk down all that money for a whim or some "goverment conspiracy"? These are normal folks with no more influence than you or I. Do you think that Trinity Industries or Union Tank would make such investments if they were a sham? I doubt it. They are acting upon demand. The same can be said for a lot of smaller companies who are suppliers to the industry, the railroads, and countless others. And believe me, the market is competitive. The industry has added billions of dollars of new revenue that did not exist in 1999. Billions.
who said it was a government conspiracy? or is that your underhanded way of discounting my point? the way the government works isn't a conspiracy, special interests are of act of life. It's always been that way in the US for better and for worse. Ethanol isn;t a sham, it's a market distorted by government subsidies. why a few farmers have benefitted, it will be companies like ADM who win out in the long run at the expense of US taxpayers. ( not that subsidizing an inefficient fuel source or paying farmers' to raise the cost of food production are good ideas).
RRKen wrote: And the last item about family farms. Several other engineers I work with have farms and produce corn and other grains. They own the land (or in some cases, rent more than they own), and produce income from them. Then there are corporate type farmers who own a lot of land. These are people in the community who over the years made a lot of purchases from other familys or other concerns. Just like the single family farm, they take care of their investements, or go broke. They all have one thing in common, when they sell their grain, they look close at the markets for the best offers. In the past, it used to be either ADM, feeder lots in Texas, or the local elevator. Or maybe all three to try and get the best dollar for their crops.
RRKen wrote:It cost them money to ship grain (or the price the elevator was lower because of transportation), as well, they had contracts just in case the market that year went belly up. Now, they can sell they grain to the local ethanol plant, and get a better price without having to pay shipping costs associated with other markets. Prices are usually .15 to .20 cents higher than other markets. So how can they not afford to?
good for them, bad for everyone else. that's okay I guess, for them.
RRKen wrote:And what about other markets? Well they just have to ante up or go out of business. And that is just the point. Demand is up world wide, not just in the U.S. either. Other producing countries have the same opportunity to sell their grain if they are competitive. Do you think for one moment a farmer in North Iowa will sell his grain for less just because other countries cannot compete? Would you? The answer to both questions is, of course not. Who profits? Everyone involved from the producer, the marketer, and the processor.
what's the point? that poor countries that don't have uncle sam subsidizing their crop will have to "up the ante?" Or that american consumers woudl have to pay more so your buddies can make more money? do other producing countries have an opportunity or will the same farmers who push for trade protection on everything they can't produce as well as other countries push for the same subsidies that protect them in such markets as cotton or sugar which they dump on the open market? I realize you have a lot of farm friends, but it seems somewhat contradictory to me for your to espouse the free market and competition but then turn around and praise farm welfare be it in the form of ethanol, parity, or tariffs. Reminds me of this quote
Major Major's father was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age. He was a long-limbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. His speciality was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any...."The Lord gave us farmers two strong hands so that we could take as much as we could grab with both of them," he preached with ardor on the courthouse steps or in front of the A & P as he waited for the bad-tempered gum-chewing young cashier he was after to step outside and give him a nasty look. "If the Lord didn't want us to take as much as we could get," he preached, "He wouldn't have given us two good hands to take it with." And the others mummured, "Amen."
and this one from an environmentalist website
< Reply solzrules Member sinceJanuary 2006 From: SE Wisconsin 1,181 posts Posted by solzrules on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:41 AM derailedtrainofthought wrote: My whole thing on this is as follows: global warming is true and is happening, who cares about the rest of the worlds food reserve when they don't do anything to help us out, the railroads are the most fuel efficient mode of transportation, and the current fuel crisis is all fabricated to justify the high price at the pump. I could expand on everything but it would turn into an even larger political debate then it already is. The one thing I will say is this the US doesn't want to ultimately back Ethanol production too much because all the rich politicians that get their pay checks from the oil industry and every industry that depends on oil. Basically everyone is greasing everyone else to keep profits up and their wallets full (stock owners too). All they want to do is keep the EPA happy and say they are using more environmentally sound methods. But just this last month the EPA has lowered the gas MPG standards by as much as 40% on autos for the first time in what 20 years. Which means that the EPA is helping the oil industry keep the prices where they are currently at by saying that its OK for automakers to make less fuel efficient cars to "justify increased demand at the pumps" Anyone else have any insights in what is going on with the US and its "oil sortage crisis" and what they are doing to balance this with alternate fuel sources. Whoa. I am not even sure how to respond to that one...... You think this is bad? Just wait until inflation kicks in..... Reply Poppa_Zit Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: West end of Chicago's Famous Racetrack 2,239 posts Posted by Poppa_Zit on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:48 AM n012944 wrote: vsmith wrote: AS I SAID: You can drive whatever you like, Just please dont whine if you buy it and you suddenly realize that you can't afford the car payment, insurance and fuel costs at the same time.Please dont whine about your 2hr one way commute at 9 mpg if you have access to a effective and clean transit alternatives like light rail, employer vanpools or carpools.Please dont whine if gas goes back to $3.50+ a gallon and it cost you $100+ to fill the thing... So what your saying is that is ok for you to whine about someone whining? And I live in a dense ubran area, drive 25 miles each way a day, and deal with the same issues that you are crying about. And I still don't your perspective. BertYeah. What he said. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled, however, to their own facts." No we can't. Charter Member J-CASS (Jaded Cynical Ascerbic Sarcastic Skeptics) Notary Sojac & Retired Foo Fighter "Where there's foo, there's fire." Reply RRKen Member sinceMay 2004 From: Mason City, Iowa 901 posts Posted by RRKen on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:35 AM Suburban Station wrote: The Us is not a very good sugar producer, which is why we have both large tariffs on sugar and price supports to keep rural southern sugar farmers wealthy. I'd be interested in Brazil's capacity to actually export sugar and satisfy their own demand if sugar is used for fuel. I'd wager it's not possible, but I don't know that for a fact. Since we grow a lot of beets up this way for sugar, it is more expensive than cane, hence the product to the consumer would cost more. If the market went away, I am sure the producers here would go to another crop, and we would be stuck being a net importer. Suburban Station wrote:Let's face it, the US government didn't all of a sudden get worried about the environment. they saw an opportunity to sell the public a false book of goods because they are worried about the environment and most of us don't know much about supply, demand, or the impact on the environment. the science behind global climate change is about as clear as mud. It's happening but no one knows how much we control or what we can do about it. What the government knows is that it can sell the public on this and make their buddies at ADM (and other interests) rich off of it. Like Farm Aid, they can pretend they're helping family farmers while continuing to distort world markets and destabilize poor countries (the second half of that isn't intended, it's just a consequence). I personally get quite tired of folks spouting off about ADM and ethanol, without knowing what percentage they hold in the market. They only account for 18% of the total production as of today. While ADM has been the largest single company involved in Ethanol since the 1970's, they hardly control the market today. They have to compete with other co-ops, farmer/investors, and private companies. When the first plant here opened, it was farmers getting together $50 million to build it. Small towns like Lakota, Iowa have seen millions invested in their community, as well as jobs created. That is a hell of a lot of money being invested from people world wide. Do you really think people would plunk down all that money for a whim or some "goverment conspiracy"? These are normal folks with no more influence than you or I. Do you think that Trinity Industries or Union Tank would make such investments if they were a sham? I doubt it. They are acting upon demand. The same can be said for a lot of smaller companies who are suppliers to the industry, the railroads, and countless others. And believe me, the market is competitive. The industry has added billions of dollars of new revenue that did not exist in 1999. Billions. And the last item about family farms. Several other engineers I work with have farms and produce corn and other grains. They own the land (or in some cases, rent more than they own), and produce income from them. Then there are corporate type farmers who own a lot of land. These are people in the community who over the years made a lot of purchases from other familys or other concerns. Just like the single family farm, they take care of their investements, or go broke. They all have one thing in common, when they sell their grain, they look close at the markets for the best offers. In the past, it used to be either ADM, feeder lots in Texas, or the local elevator. Or maybe all three to try and get the best dollar for their crops. It cost them money to ship grain (or the price the elevator was lower because of transportation), as well, they had contracts just in case the market that year went belly up. Now, they can sell they grain to the local ethanol plant, and get a better price without having to pay shipping costs associated with other markets. Prices are usually .15 to .20 cents higher than other markets. So how can they not afford to? And what about other markets? Well they just have to ante up or go out of business. And that is just the point. Demand is up world wide, not just in the U.S. either. Other producing countries have the same opportunity to sell their grain if they are competitive. Do you think for one moment a farmer in North Iowa will sell his grain for less just because other countries cannot compete? Would you? The answer to both questions is, of course not. Who profits? Everyone involved from the producer, the marketer, and the processor. In 2007, we will see increased pressure on the corn market as demand increases. Planting intentions will change from traditional crop rotation for some producers using new hybrids designed for "corn-after-corn" promising higher yields. As well, other hybrids just for ethanol will be planted in many fields this year. So they are trying to increase yields both in the field and in the plant with limited increse of plantings. I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming. W. C. Fields I never met a Moderator I liked Reply n012944 Member sinceAugust 2004 From: The 17th hole at TPC 2,283 posts Posted by n012944 on Monday, January 29, 2007 11:26 PM vsmith wrote: Bucyrus wrote: vsmith wrote: - No one, not even me, is going to knock the people who have a legitimate uses for such vehicles,-I ask...what percentage of those big truck/SUVs are actually owned and operated by people who use them as legitimate working vehicles? -I really beleive that you should drive what you like, - It sounds like you really believe that you should drive what you like as long as it is legitimate.I think mostly what we have here, is a failure to understand our perspectives, I'm looking at this from a strickly urban traffic commute viewpoint, others here are looking at it from a more "these are vital work vehicles out here" viewpoint, I said earlier that I know these vehicles have real uses. I'll agree the term "legitamate" is debatable, (legitimate use = real use) but...When you consider that the great majority of these large SUVs nationwide never get more demanding use than taking the kids to a school they could likely walk to, or driven to work by a single occupant. AS I SAID: You can drive whatever you like, Just please dont whine if you buy it and you suddenly realize that you can't afford the car payment, insurance and fuel costs at the same time.Please dont whine about your 2hr one way commute at 9 mpg if you have access to a effective and clean transit alternatives like light rail, employer vanpools or carpools.Please dont whine if gas goes back to $3.50+ a gallon and it cost you $100+ to fill the thing... I think part of the problem here is that unless you've lived in a denser urban area and have had to deal with some of these issues on a daily basis, you'll never "get it" from my perspective...Oh well. I've had to deal with people, who somehow think that its their God given handed to them personally by Jesus in flaming stone tabletes right as an American to pay nothing for the gas needed to fill their enormous big wheeled ego inflaters. Sheesh!Anyway, 'nough said, back to topic...need gas? eat at McDonalds, I get gas everytime I go thereSo what your saying is that is ok for you to whine about someone whining? And I live in a dense ubran area, drive 25 miles each way a day, and deal with the same issues that you are crying about. And I still don't your perspective. Bert An "expensive model collector" Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 29, 2007 10:07 PM It could lead to upheavel, riots and all of the other you mentioned. It depends on how it is handled. As for CO2 being bad, I have to question their methods. If anything burns clean like natural gas the by product is CO2. If the ethenol burns completly then it's by product will be CO2. Am I missing something here?Coal and oil are not renewable which means that in time we will run out. If we don't have an alternative fuel what do we do then?As far as the ethenol operations cutting into our economy, and other nations, I can say that up here in Pennsylvania there are a lot of farmland growing weeds and I am sure that is pretty true across the nation. Reply Edit vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Monday, January 29, 2007 9:44 PM Bucyrus wrote: vsmith wrote: - No one, not even me, is going to knock the people who have a legitimate uses for such vehicles,-I ask...what percentage of those big truck/SUVs are actually owned and operated by people who use them as legitimate working vehicles? -I really beleive that you should drive what you like, - It sounds like you really believe that you should drive what you like as long as it is legitimate.I think mostly what we have here, is a failure to understand our perspectives, I'm looking at this from a strickly urban traffic commute viewpoint, others here are looking at it from a more "these are vital work vehicles out here" viewpoint, I said earlier that I know these vehicles have real uses. I'll agree the term "legitamate" is debatable, (legitimate use = real use) but...When you consider that the great majority of these large SUVs nationwide never get more demanding use than taking the kids to a school they could likely walk to, or driven to work by a single occupant. AS I SAID: You can drive whatever you like, Just please dont whine if you buy it and you suddenly realize that you can't afford the car payment, insurance and fuel costs at the same time.Please dont whine about your 2hr one way commute at 9 mpg if you have access to a effective and clean transit alternatives like light rail, employer vanpools or carpools.Please dont whine if gas goes back to $3.50+ a gallon and it cost you $100+ to fill the thing... I think part of the problem here is that unless you've lived in a denser urban area and have had to deal with some of these issues on a daily basis, you'll never "get it" from my perspective...Oh well. I've had to deal with people, who somehow think that its their God given handed to them personally by Jesus in flaming stone tabletes right as an American to pay nothing for the gas needed to fill their enormous big wheeled ego inflaters. Sheesh!Anyway, 'nough said, back to topic...need gas? eat at McDonalds, I get gas everytime I go there Have fun with your trains Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 29, 2007 8:41 PM Datafever wrote: Some facts published by BNSF -That should read *facts*.On average, railways are more than three times more fuel efficient than trucks.On average, that's correct. But let's not forget modal differentiation..........Nearly one billion gallons of fuel per year could be saved if only 10 percent of the freight that currently moves by truck were moved by rail.But do the railroads really want that traffic? Shorthaul distribution? No.Time sensitive truckload? No.Single load or specialty load OTR traffic? No.Point to point traffic where roads exist but rails do not parallel? No.Bi-modal synchronicity with barge carriers? No.Bottom line: I don't believe there is 10% of any type of truck traffic that the railroads can move better, other than as TOFC/COFC/bi-modal. And the railroads seem fairly cool to the idea of more domestic intermodal service offerings.Freight railway fuel efficiency has risen 74 percent since 1980.In 2004, a gallon of diesel fuel carried a ton of freight nearly 410 miles on the U.S. freight railways. Both true, but remember the kicker - that's mostly due to the loss of shortline, branchline, and intermediate terminalization. The resulting loss in certain types of hauls has defaulted to either truckload or shutdown. The carload branchline service getting that measley 150 ton/miles per gallon may likely have shifted to trucks getting 60 ton/miles per gallon. Thus, in many of the cases the overall supply chain fuel efficiency numbers have dropped rather than improved.BTW - I'm not picking on railroads, just their current modus operandi. I'd personally like to see greater competitive capacity added to the US rail network, and let third party transporters try their hand at those niche markets that have defaulted to OTR truckers. But, some get kinda testy when I bring that up....... Reply Edit Suburban Station Member sinceAugust 2006 72 posts Posted by Suburban Station on Monday, January 29, 2007 8:38 PM CAZEPHYR wrote:Brazil is using Sugar Cane to make their fuel, not corn like we are using. Sugar Cane can be raised in many warmer states and will be probably used in lieu of corn or as a replacement for corn in some areas. The Us is not a very good sugar producer, which is why we have both large tariffs on sugar and price supports to keep rural southern sugar farmers wealthy. I'd be interested in Brazil's capacity to actually export sugar and satisfy their own demand if sugar is used for fuel. I'd wager it's not possible, but I don't know that for a fact. so far this thread has produced the usual "we shoudl address global warming at any cost, regardless of long term impact or sustainability" and "i live in a city, it's SUV driving lumpen idiots causing the whole problem" (AFAIK, the second one is patently false.Let's face it, the US government didn't all of a sudden get worried about the environment. they saw an opportunity to sell the public a false book of goods because they are worried about the environment and most of us don't know much about supply, demand, or the impact on the environment. the science behind global climate change is about as clear as mud. It's happening but no one knows how much we control or what we can do about it. What the government knows is that it can sell the public on this and make their buddies at ADM (and other interests) rich off of it. Like Farm Aid, they can pretend they're helping family farmers while continuing to distort world markets and destabilize poor countries (the second half of that isn't intended, it's just a consequence). PS-government subsidized agricultural output went unchecked from WWI until the Great Depression. Farmers stripped land of its natural cover to cash in on government checks. It caused the "dust bowl" and red rain of the 1930's. do we really want that again? In the long run, are we better off than if that money were used to beef up rail infrastructure nd alternative fuel research? Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Monday, January 29, 2007 8:30 PM Maybe,But I would prefer it to be the other way around....where they have to trade what we want for food credits.No tradie, no eatie the Wheaties... Personally, as long as people, kids in particular, go hungry in this country, regardless of their circumstances or how they got there, the rest of the world can take a hike. Give me one good reason why any child in America should go hungry. TheAntiGates wrote: edblysard wrote: If we choose to lessen our dependence on oil as a fuel for our cars, and substitute ethanol for parts of that fuel, then that's our choice to make...and if it means other countries have to find a better way to feed them selves,...then so be it. Maybe we could trade corn for carbon credits? 23 17 46 11 Reply Poppa_Zit Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: West end of Chicago's Famous Racetrack 2,239 posts Posted by Poppa_Zit on Monday, January 29, 2007 8:30 PM derailedtrainofthought wrote: My whole thing on this is as follows: global warming is true and is happening, who cares about the rest of the worlds food reserve when they don't do anything to help us out, the railroads are the most fuel efficient mode of transportation, and the current fuel crisis is all fabricated to justify the high price at the pump. I could expand on everything but it would turn into an even larger political debate then it already is. The one thing I will say is this the US doesn't want to ultimately back Ethanol production too much because all the rich politicians that get their pay checks from the oil industry and every industry that depends on oil. Basically everyone is greasing everyone else to keep profits up and their wallets full (stock owners too). All they want to do is keep the EPA happy and say they are using more environmentally sound methods. But just this last month the EPA has lowered the gas MPG standards by as much as 40% on autos for the first time in what 20 years. Which means that the EPA is helping the oil industry keep the prices where they are currently at by saying that its OK for automakers to make less fuel efficient cars to "justify increased demand at the pumps" You're right, it's all a huge conspiracy by The Rich & Powerful to keep you poor and unhappy.Man, you really are off the tracks ... "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled, however, to their own facts." No we can't. Charter Member J-CASS (Jaded Cynical Ascerbic Sarcastic Skeptics) Notary Sojac & Retired Foo Fighter "Where there's foo, there's fire." Reply derailedtrainofthought Member sinceDecember 2006 31 posts Posted by derailedtrainofthought on Monday, January 29, 2007 8:22 PM My whole thing on this is as follows: global warming is true and is happening, who cares about the rest of the worlds food reserve when they don't do anything to help us out, the railroads are the most fuel efficient mode of transportation, and the current fuel crisis is all fabricated to justify the high price at the pump. I could expand on everything but it would turn into an even larger political debate then it already is. The one thing I will say is this the US doesn't want to ultimately back Ethanol production too much because all the rich politicians that get their pay checks from the oil industry and every industry that depends on oil. Basically everyone is greasing everyone else to keep profits up and their wallets full (stock owners too). All they want to do is keep the EPA happy and say they are using more environmentally sound methods. But just this last month the EPA has lowered the gas MPG standards by as much as 40% on autos for the first time in what 20 years. Which means that the EPA is helping the oil industry keep the prices where they are currently at by saying that its OK for automakers to make less fuel efficient cars to "justify increased demand at the pumps" Anyone else have any insights in what is going on with the US and its "oil sortage crisis" and what they are doing to balance this with alternate fuel sources. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 29, 2007 8:19 PM vsmith wrote: -I always get this same aurgument from the rural contingient. I live in the urban-suburban zone, where MOST of the country lives and we get a very different perspective of who drives what...Don't forget where ya'll get your food. We in ruralopolis are the ones who work the 16 hour days to feed you folks in urbania. Come to think of it, we're the ones sending you all that cheap hydro electricity as well.And what do we get for our efforts? A bunch of jaded third world wannabes who want to legislate away our pickups and breach our dams.Looks like ya'll are getting the better of that deal, huh? How about you folks in urbania try and be self sustaining for a change? Guess how long that'll last? You can't grow what you eat, you can't even begin to produce what you consume. Yet you have the *expertise* to tell us what and how to function! The opposition to drilling in ANWR et al comes from urbania, not from ruralopolis. The push for those idiotic CAFE standards come from urbania, not ruralopolis. The demand for mandated renewable standards comes from urbania, not ruralopolis. Oxymoronic statements like "Support our troops, oppose the war" comes from urbania, not ruralopolis. Washington Senator Maria Cantwell standing in from of a windmill and proclaiming "These windmills will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil!" Yep, the same MC who opposes increased domestic hydrocarbon development. And apparently she's of the majority in the Senate on that little tidbit of oxymojo!Please understand this - We complain of high fuel prices not due to that little misperception of yours, but because we know intuitively that it is unnecessary if we simply are allowed to develop out own energy resources we have at hand within our own borders.Democracy cannot survive if a majority of the voting public is that mentally addled. Too bad our Founding Fathers didn't hard wire a requirement for minimal cognitive abilities for genuine US citizens before one is allowed the priveledge of voting, let alone the sacred honor of public service. Pretty much anyone with a heartbeat can do either these days!PS - You're right: I don't use my pickup for work related travel, it's strictly for show and comfort. But it does come in handy once in a while to buck a snowdrift or two! Reply Edit beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Monday, January 29, 2007 8:07 PM narig01 wrote:Comment bout why not use coal. Has anyone considered how much diesel fuel RR's use?If the RR's converted to electric power how many gigawatts would they need? And how much liquid diesel fuel would be saved?Could anyone say how much diesel fuel the Railways use in a year? Yes I know look it up on the internet. rgds IGN Well, UP says that they use 3 million gallons per day, BNSF a little less, say NS and CSX about 80 percent as much. Do the math. Reply Datafever Member sinceSeptember 2006 From: Mt. Fuji 1,840 posts Posted by Datafever on Monday, January 29, 2007 7:47 PM narig01 wrote:Could anyone say how much diesel fuel the Railways use in a year?I can't really say, but I know that BNSF is the nation's #1 consumer of diesel. Only the US Navy uses more. I would reckon that UP must be close on their heels.Some facts published by BNSF - On average, railways are more than three times more fuel efficient than trucks. Nearly one billion gallons of fuel per year could be saved if only 10 percent of the freight that currently moves by truck were moved by rail. Freight railway fuel efficiency has risen 74 percent since 1980. In 2004, a gallon of diesel fuel carried a ton of freight nearly 410 miles on the U.S. freight railways. "I'm sittin' in a railway station, Got a ticket for my destination..." Reply greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Monday, January 29, 2007 7:33 PM Andrew Falconer wrote: greyhounds wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Andrew Falconer wrote: Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.Corn is a grass. The type of corn used for livestock feed is planted densely, generates few ears -- less than one per plant -- and is generally harvested prior to the ears even ripening. No one raises corn to feed livestock because of the corn kernels. It is a C-4 grass that generates substantial carbohydrate biomass compared to other temperate zone grasses or, in particular, alfalfa. Makes a good silage which cows and hogs like to eat. Just wanted to make sure this one wasn't deleted.I was just making a broad generalization. Just like everbody else.It was a broad-leaf generalization.Andrew Andrew, you have misunderstood my intention. "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 29, 2007 7:24 PM vsmith wrote: - No one, not even me, is going to knock the people who have a legitimate uses for such vehicles,-I ask...what percentage of those big truck/SUVs are actually owned and operated by people who use them as legitimate working vehicles? -I really beleive that you should drive what you like, - It sounds like you really believe that you should drive what you like as long as it is legitimate. Reply Edit narig01 Member sinceNovember 2005 From: Hope, AR 2,061 posts Posted by narig01 on Monday, January 29, 2007 6:44 PM Comment bout why not use coal. Has anyone considered how much diesel fuel RR's use?If the RR's converted to electric power how many gigawatts would they need? And how much liquid diesel fuel would be saved?Could anyone say how much diesel fuel the Railways use in a year? Yes I know look it up on the internet. rgds IGN Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Monday, January 29, 2007 6:23 PM Dont recall the government forcing Dodge to create or use the MDS system...seems to be a choice on Dodges part, one which sells cars and trucks rather well in fact. Choices do drive the market.I chose the Dodge over all others, for very personal reasons.You choose to drive what you drive for equally personal reasons, in that you like the model, gas mileage, or feel that your choice contributes to helping the world in some manner. At some point in time, the majority will vote with its pocket book, and the makers will answer with waht they market demands.Offer something they dont want to drive, and they wont drive it...that simple. 23 17 46 11 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 29, 2007 6:15 PM edblysard wrote:If we choose to lessen our dependence on oil as a fuel for our cars, and substitute ethanol for parts of that fuel, then that's our choice to make...and if it means other countries have to find a better way to feed them selves,...then so be it. Maybe we could trade corn for carbon credits? Reply Edit Datafever Member sinceSeptember 2006 From: Mt. Fuji 1,840 posts Posted by Datafever on Monday, January 29, 2007 6:14 PM edblysard wrote:How about what food we eat, and where we live?But they are making laws about those things too. For instance, NYC banned trans-fat foods. CA legislators have proposed a bill to make spanking illegal. The list goes on, and gets more personal every year. "I'm sittin' in a railway station, Got a ticket for my destination..." Reply penncentral2002 Member sinceMay 2006 From: Richmond, VA 200 posts Posted by penncentral2002 on Monday, January 29, 2007 6:08 PM The problem with the choice argument is that it is a false argument due to increasing technology. If fuel economy standards were raised, people would still have automotive choice - in fact, the automobiles of today are superior to the automobiles of 20 years ago in almost every respect. Rather than stiffling creativity, government regulation can increase creativity - and the automobile industry is a perfect example - within the CAFE standards they have created more powerful, larger automobiles with the same mileage as the small, weak cars of 20 years ago. The industry would adapt no matter what - and you'd still get to drive what you'd want - and the regulations have historically spurred technological developments. Plus, you can always buy a used car - its a better deal economically anyway Zack http://penncentral2002.rrpicturearchives.net/ Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Monday, January 29, 2007 5:45 PM What aggravates me are the people who, for whatever reason, seem to believe they have a right and duty to protect me from myself, along with the attitude that their opinion/choices are the right ones, and the only ones worth listening too or following. Bluntly put, if someone can afford a H2, the gas, insurance and taxes, (I mean state inspection fee!) then good for them.I happen to think it is one of the ugliest things American auto makers ever let loose, but that is only my opinion. But to assume that any car that is not small, foreign made, or imported is a gas hog, or shoddily built is false.I own a Dodge Magnum....a station wagon with a 5.7 liter Hemi /MDS system.It drops 4 cylinders when the power demand falls into a given set of values, and it gets great mileage. EPA estimates on the window sticker were 17mpg city, 27 highway.Real life figures from today on my way home, 19.3 mpg city and 29.7 highway, with the highway speed at 60 mph. Drove to Nebraska...Houston to Lincoln, 31 mpg on the way up there, 32 mpg on the return trip, and part of the return was at 90 mph...the car weighs 4400 lbs. Dodge was so confident of the quality that it came with a 7 year warranty, with 5 years on the engine and drive train. The idea that a party, or group, through the political process has the right to decide what I have to drive is silly, and dangerous.If we allow any one group to choose our cars for us, what's to stop them from deciding which religion we follow?How about what food we eat, and where we live?Sounds silly on the face of it, but having the right to choose to drive a H2, or a hybrid, or a 32 T bucket is one of the things we, as Americans, have over the rest of the world.It sets us apart by the simple fact that our government is designed to follow our wishes, not the other way around.If Americans wants SUV, why shouldn't we have them?If Europeans feel like they must drive econo boxes, good for them...if they choose to live in a country where the government limits what they can buy, drive, or where they live...then their loss from my point of view...or their gain, from theirs. If we choose to lessen our dependence on oil as a fuel for our cars, and substitute ethanol for parts of that fuel, then that's our choice to make...and if it means other countries have to find a better way to feed them selves,...then so be it.No other country has the right to tell us we must feed them, that too is a choice on our part, and part of our foreign policy, but only in exchange for other considerations.If we value those considerations, then we continue to feed them...if we value our current way of life, and our personal mobility more than the benefits we receive from other countries, then... And to add to this...on ABC World News Tonight, Charlie Gibson reports that GM makes more models of automoblies that get 30 mpg or better than Honda and Toyota combined, and have the same, if not better quality ratings.But they are battling an image problem, the American public thinks "imported" or foreign cars, even if those Hondas built here, are better. 23 17 46 11 Reply penncentral2002 Member sinceMay 2006 From: Richmond, VA 200 posts Posted by penncentral2002 on Monday, January 29, 2007 5:29 PM Bucyrus wrote: There is a direct correlation between vehicle size and safety risk. I am not referring to a size disparity between vehcles posing a greater risk to the smaller vehicle, which is often cited as a reason to outlaw large vehicles. What I mean is that if all vehicles were identical, the risk of injury or death would increase the smaller those identical vehicles were.That is not true at all - some of the largest vehicles on the road had way worse safety records - the Ford Explorer comes to mind. Larger vehicles often have higher centers of gravity which increases the risk of rollovers. And if that was true, how come those behemouth vehicles from the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s had such appalling safety records? Single vehicle accidents often are riskier in large vehicles because they have worse handling - in fact, studies by the automotive industry show that while your risk of injury or death in a multivehicle accident are lower in an SUV - it is more than offset by the much higher risk of death or injury in a multivehicle accident - the worst accidents for injuries and deaths are rollover accidents.Additionally, your risk of being in an accident is way lower with a car that handles better - and lighter, smaller cars handle better. Europeans and many car designers and executives laugh at Americans driving huge vehicles thinking that they are safe when they realize that the best way to survive an accident is not to be in the accident in the first place. A good handling car - and smaller, lighter vehicles tend to have the best handling will avoid accidents in the first place. So, if all vehicles were the same size, the safest vehicles will be smaller and lighter (and they'd get better mileage as well). Weight is the enemy of good handling. They'd also get better gas mileage.The technology is there for a dramatic increase in gas mileage without much sacrifice of vehicle size and functionality - hybrid engines are nice, but the real gains come from high tech materials. There are many lighter materials which can make a car way lighter and improve its mileage, handling, and performance. Many of these materials come from petroleum products - in fact, one of the reasons why people are seeking alternative fuels to gasoline is that they know that gasoline is extremely wasteful - there are way more valuable uses to a gallon of oil than powering your car. That is also why oil companies like BP have invested heavily in alternative fuels - they are positioning themselves for distribution of the new fuels and in the petrochemical market which they know is still going to be valuable even after alternative fuels come on-line. Ironically, the best way to not use oil will be to use oil for lighter, stronger materials to make lighter cars. Zack http://penncentral2002.rrpicturearchives.net/ Reply penncentral2002 Member sinceMay 2006 From: Richmond, VA 200 posts Posted by penncentral2002 on Monday, January 29, 2007 5:11 PM pmsteamman wrote:Global food riots? Gosh folks its legal MOONSHINE!!!!!!I know of at least one judge who thinks that people have a Constitutional right to make moonshine. That's southwest Virginia for you! Zack http://penncentral2002.rrpicturearchives.net/ Reply n012944 Member sinceAugust 2004 From: The 17th hole at TPC 2,283 posts Posted by n012944 on Monday, January 29, 2007 4:54 PM Poppa_Zit wrote: vsmith wrote: I think you missed the sarcastic tone of humor in my original post-Theirs a new word for a new century: Sar-chasm, the gulf between the author of ironic wit and the reader who 'doesnt get it'.Well, I guess I'm one of the many stupids here who "didn't get it.".Sorry, but it is the AUTHOR'S fault if the "ironic wit" isn't communicated properly to the reader.There is a new school for a new century -- the school of "It's Your Fault, Stupid, For Not Understanding My Clever Writing" -- overseen by Professor AG.By the way, I own two American-made SUVs and don't complain about the cost of gasoline. They're what I want to drive and I'm willing to pay for them. I also pay hundreds of dollars a year to support public transportation I never use. My vehicles also have to pass regular emission tests (or be repaired) to operate on the road. Owning my choice of a vehicle is a right some people would like to take away from me. I think those people should mind their own business. I don't need anyone to micro-manage my life. If you want to clean up the Earth, why not start with "smoggy LA?" Except I own one SUV and a Mustang. Bert An "expensive model collector" Reply PBenham Member sinceJuly 2005 From: In the New York Soviet Socialist Republic! 1,391 posts Posted by PBenham on Monday, January 29, 2007 4:36 PM The riots would be caused by protests over the prices we would be paying for the food! Not the lack of it. Remember: Capitalism has worked everywhere it has been tried. All of the alternatives have had fatal flaws that manifest themselves sooner or later. Memo to US government re: Ethanol. BUG OFF! Reply Andrew Falconer Member sinceJuly 2006 From: Vicksburg, Michigan 2,303 posts Posted by Andrew Falconer on Monday, January 29, 2007 3:57 PM Andrew Falconer wrote: The proper way to use corn is for Bio-fuels and for poultry feed. Shift the use of corn from being just a food filler to being a more valuable product. Corn must no longer be a filler ingredient for cat food and dog food. Cats and dogs are always much healthier eating food with vegetables like sweet potatoes and peas. Poultry should be among the main ingredients in cat and dog foods, not corn.Poultry is the only livestock that can properly digest corn.Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.Fast food producers can also reduce their reliance on corn products. Corn syrup variations do not need to be in so many food products. People can survive without a deluge of High Fructose Corn Syrup in their bodies. People who have developed conditions like diabetes can not have all that Corn Syrup in their system.The price the for corn is increasing as more is being used for Ethanol and Bio-diesel production. The land where crops have been grown is now being developed or is proposed for development. Corn supplies are limited by many factors and having less land does not help increase the supply.Mammals do not need so much corn in their diets.Bio-fuels made from corn are needed for autos and trucks. The demands of new transportation fuels must be met with decisive action.AndrewIt is so well edited that it makes sense based on the tight editing. Andrew Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer Reply Andrew Falconer Member sinceJuly 2006 From: Vicksburg, Michigan 2,303 posts Posted by Andrew Falconer on Monday, January 29, 2007 3:53 PM greyhounds wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Andrew Falconer wrote: Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.Corn is a grass. The type of corn used for livestock feed is planted densely, generates few ears -- less than one per plant -- and is generally harvested prior to the ears even ripening. No one raises corn to feed livestock because of the corn kernels. It is a C-4 grass that generates substantial carbohydrate biomass compared to other temperate zone grasses or, in particular, alfalfa. Makes a good silage which cows and hogs like to eat. Just wanted to make sure this one wasn't deleted.I was just making a broad generalization. Just like everbody else.It was a broad-leaf generalization.Andrew Andrew Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer Reply 1234 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
derailedtrainofthought wrote: My whole thing on this is as follows: global warming is true and is happening, who cares about the rest of the worlds food reserve when they don't do anything to help us out, the railroads are the most fuel efficient mode of transportation, and the current fuel crisis is all fabricated to justify the high price at the pump. I could expand on everything but it would turn into an even larger political debate then it already is. The one thing I will say is this the US doesn't want to ultimately back Ethanol production too much because all the rich politicians that get their pay checks from the oil industry and every industry that depends on oil. Basically everyone is greasing everyone else to keep profits up and their wallets full (stock owners too). All they want to do is keep the EPA happy and say they are using more environmentally sound methods. But just this last month the EPA has lowered the gas MPG standards by as much as 40% on autos for the first time in what 20 years. Which means that the EPA is helping the oil industry keep the prices where they are currently at by saying that its OK for automakers to make less fuel efficient cars to "justify increased demand at the pumps" Anyone else have any insights in what is going on with the US and its "oil sortage crisis" and what they are doing to balance this with alternate fuel sources.
My whole thing on this is as follows: global warming is true and is happening, who cares about the rest of the worlds food reserve when they don't do anything to help us out, the railroads are the most fuel efficient mode of transportation, and the current fuel crisis is all fabricated to justify the high price at the pump. I could expand on everything but it would turn into an even larger political debate then it already is. The one thing I will say is this the US doesn't want to ultimately back Ethanol production too much because all the rich politicians that get their pay checks from the oil industry and every industry that depends on oil. Basically everyone is greasing everyone else to keep profits up and their wallets full (stock owners too). All they want to do is keep the EPA happy and say they are using more environmentally sound methods. But just this last month the EPA has lowered the gas MPG standards by as much as 40% on autos for the first time in what 20 years. Which means that the EPA is helping the oil industry keep the prices where they are currently at by saying that its OK for automakers to make less fuel efficient cars to "justify increased demand at the pumps"
Anyone else have any insights in what is going on with the US and its "oil sortage crisis" and what they are doing to balance this with alternate fuel sources.
Whoa.
I am not even sure how to respond to that one......
n012944 wrote: vsmith wrote: AS I SAID: You can drive whatever you like, Just please dont whine if you buy it and you suddenly realize that you can't afford the car payment, insurance and fuel costs at the same time.Please dont whine about your 2hr one way commute at 9 mpg if you have access to a effective and clean transit alternatives like light rail, employer vanpools or carpools.Please dont whine if gas goes back to $3.50+ a gallon and it cost you $100+ to fill the thing... So what your saying is that is ok for you to whine about someone whining? And I live in a dense ubran area, drive 25 miles each way a day, and deal with the same issues that you are crying about. And I still don't your perspective. Bert
vsmith wrote: AS I SAID: You can drive whatever you like, Just please dont whine if you buy it and you suddenly realize that you can't afford the car payment, insurance and fuel costs at the same time.Please dont whine about your 2hr one way commute at 9 mpg if you have access to a effective and clean transit alternatives like light rail, employer vanpools or carpools.Please dont whine if gas goes back to $3.50+ a gallon and it cost you $100+ to fill the thing...
Yeah. What he said.
Suburban Station wrote: The Us is not a very good sugar producer, which is why we have both large tariffs on sugar and price supports to keep rural southern sugar farmers wealthy. I'd be interested in Brazil's capacity to actually export sugar and satisfy their own demand if sugar is used for fuel. I'd wager it's not possible, but I don't know that for a fact.
The Us is not a very good sugar producer, which is why we have both large tariffs on sugar and price supports to keep rural southern sugar farmers wealthy. I'd be interested in Brazil's capacity to actually export sugar and satisfy their own demand if sugar is used for fuel. I'd wager it's not possible, but I don't know that for a fact.
Since we grow a lot of beets up this way for sugar, it is more expensive than cane, hence the product to the consumer would cost more. If the market went away, I am sure the producers here would go to another crop, and we would be stuck being a net importer.
Suburban Station wrote:Let's face it, the US government didn't all of a sudden get worried about the environment. they saw an opportunity to sell the public a false book of goods because they are worried about the environment and most of us don't know much about supply, demand, or the impact on the environment. the science behind global climate change is about as clear as mud. It's happening but no one knows how much we control or what we can do about it. What the government knows is that it can sell the public on this and make their buddies at ADM (and other interests) rich off of it. Like Farm Aid, they can pretend they're helping family farmers while continuing to distort world markets and destabilize poor countries (the second half of that isn't intended, it's just a consequence).
Let's face it, the US government didn't all of a sudden get worried about the environment. they saw an opportunity to sell the public a false book of goods because they are worried about the environment and most of us don't know much about supply, demand, or the impact on the environment. the science behind global climate change is about as clear as mud. It's happening but no one knows how much we control or what we can do about it. What the government knows is that it can sell the public on this and make their buddies at ADM (and other interests) rich off of it. Like Farm Aid, they can pretend they're helping family farmers while continuing to distort world markets and destabilize poor countries (the second half of that isn't intended, it's just a consequence).
I personally get quite tired of folks spouting off about ADM and ethanol, without knowing what percentage they hold in the market. They only account for 18% of the total production as of today. While ADM has been the largest single company involved in Ethanol since the 1970's, they hardly control the market today. They have to compete with other co-ops, farmer/investors, and private companies. When the first plant here opened, it was farmers getting together $50 million to build it. Small towns like Lakota, Iowa have seen millions invested in their community, as well as jobs created. That is a hell of a lot of money being invested from people world wide. Do you really think people would plunk down all that money for a whim or some "goverment conspiracy"? These are normal folks with no more influence than you or I. Do you think that Trinity Industries or Union Tank would make such investments if they were a sham? I doubt it. They are acting upon demand. The same can be said for a lot of smaller companies who are suppliers to the industry, the railroads, and countless others. And believe me, the market is competitive. The industry has added billions of dollars of new revenue that did not exist in 1999. Billions.
And the last item about family farms. Several other engineers I work with have farms and produce corn and other grains. They own the land (or in some cases, rent more than they own), and produce income from them. Then there are corporate type farmers who own a lot of land. These are people in the community who over the years made a lot of purchases from other familys or other concerns. Just like the single family farm, they take care of their investements, or go broke. They all have one thing in common, when they sell their grain, they look close at the markets for the best offers. In the past, it used to be either ADM, feeder lots in Texas, or the local elevator. Or maybe all three to try and get the best dollar for their crops.
It cost them money to ship grain (or the price the elevator was lower because of transportation), as well, they had contracts just in case the market that year went belly up. Now, they can sell they grain to the local ethanol plant, and get a better price without having to pay shipping costs associated with other markets. Prices are usually .15 to .20 cents higher than other markets. So how can they not afford to?
And what about other markets? Well they just have to ante up or go out of business. And that is just the point. Demand is up world wide, not just in the U.S. either. Other producing countries have the same opportunity to sell their grain if they are competitive. Do you think for one moment a farmer in North Iowa will sell his grain for less just because other countries cannot compete? Would you? The answer to both questions is, of course not. Who profits? Everyone involved from the producer, the marketer, and the processor.
In 2007, we will see increased pressure on the corn market as demand increases. Planting intentions will change from traditional crop rotation for some producers using new hybrids designed for "corn-after-corn" promising higher yields. As well, other hybrids just for ethanol will be planted in many fields this year. So they are trying to increase yields both in the field and in the plant with limited increse of plantings.
An "expensive model collector"
It could lead to upheavel, riots and all of the other you mentioned. It depends on how it is handled. As for CO2 being bad, I have to question their methods. If anything burns clean like natural gas the by product is CO2. If the ethenol burns completly then it's by product will be CO2. Am I missing something here?
Coal and oil are not renewable which means that in time we will run out. If we don't have an alternative fuel what do we do then?
As far as the ethenol operations cutting into our economy, and other nations, I can say that up here in Pennsylvania there are a lot of farmland growing weeds and I am sure that is pretty true across the nation.
Datafever wrote: Some facts published by BNSF -
Some facts published by BNSF -
That should read *facts*.
On average, railways are more than three times more fuel efficient than trucks.
On average, that's correct. But let's not forget modal differentiation..........
Nearly one billion gallons of fuel per year could be saved if only 10 percent of the freight that currently moves by truck were moved by rail.
But do the railroads really want that traffic?
Bottom line: I don't believe there is 10% of any type of truck traffic that the railroads can move better, other than as TOFC/COFC/bi-modal. And the railroads seem fairly cool to the idea of more domestic intermodal service offerings.
Freight railway fuel efficiency has risen 74 percent since 1980.In 2004, a gallon of diesel fuel carried a ton of freight nearly 410 miles on the U.S. freight railways.
Both true, but remember the kicker - that's mostly due to the loss of shortline, branchline, and intermediate terminalization. The resulting loss in certain types of hauls has defaulted to either truckload or shutdown. The carload branchline service getting that measley 150 ton/miles per gallon may likely have shifted to trucks getting 60 ton/miles per gallon. Thus, in many of the cases the overall supply chain fuel efficiency numbers have dropped rather than improved.
BTW - I'm not picking on railroads, just their current modus operandi. I'd personally like to see greater competitive capacity added to the US rail network, and let third party transporters try their hand at those niche markets that have defaulted to OTR truckers. But, some get kinda testy when I bring that up.......
CAZEPHYR wrote:Brazil is using Sugar Cane to make their fuel, not corn like we are using. Sugar Cane can be raised in many warmer states and will be probably used in lieu of corn or as a replacement for corn in some areas.
Brazil is using Sugar Cane to make their fuel, not corn like we are using. Sugar Cane can be raised in many warmer states and will be probably used in lieu of corn or as a replacement for corn in some areas.
so far this thread has produced the usual "we shoudl address global warming at any cost, regardless of long term impact or sustainability" and "i live in a city, it's SUV driving lumpen idiots causing the whole problem" (AFAIK, the second one is patently false.
PS-government subsidized agricultural output went unchecked from WWI until the Great Depression. Farmers stripped land of its natural cover to cash in on government checks. It caused the "dust bowl" and red rain of the 1930's. do we really want that again?
In the long run, are we better off than if that money were used to beef up rail infrastructure nd alternative fuel research?
Maybe,
But I would prefer it to be the other way around....where they have to trade what we want for food credits.
No tradie, no eatie the Wheaties...
Personally, as long as people, kids in particular, go hungry in this country, regardless of their circumstances or how they got there, the rest of the world can take a hike.
Give me one good reason why any child in America should go hungry.
TheAntiGates wrote: edblysard wrote: If we choose to lessen our dependence on oil as a fuel for our cars, and substitute ethanol for parts of that fuel, then that's our choice to make...and if it means other countries have to find a better way to feed them selves,...then so be it. Maybe we could trade corn for carbon credits?
edblysard wrote: If we choose to lessen our dependence on oil as a fuel for our cars, and substitute ethanol for parts of that fuel, then that's our choice to make...and if it means other countries have to find a better way to feed them selves,...then so be it.
If we choose to lessen our dependence on oil as a fuel for our cars, and substitute ethanol for parts of that fuel, then that's our choice to make...and if it means other countries have to find a better way to feed them selves,...then so be it.
Maybe we could trade corn for carbon credits?
23 17 46 11
derailedtrainofthought wrote: My whole thing on this is as follows: global warming is true and is happening, who cares about the rest of the worlds food reserve when they don't do anything to help us out, the railroads are the most fuel efficient mode of transportation, and the current fuel crisis is all fabricated to justify the high price at the pump. I could expand on everything but it would turn into an even larger political debate then it already is. The one thing I will say is this the US doesn't want to ultimately back Ethanol production too much because all the rich politicians that get their pay checks from the oil industry and every industry that depends on oil. Basically everyone is greasing everyone else to keep profits up and their wallets full (stock owners too). All they want to do is keep the EPA happy and say they are using more environmentally sound methods. But just this last month the EPA has lowered the gas MPG standards by as much as 40% on autos for the first time in what 20 years. Which means that the EPA is helping the oil industry keep the prices where they are currently at by saying that its OK for automakers to make less fuel efficient cars to "justify increased demand at the pumps"
You're right, it's all a huge conspiracy by The Rich & Powerful to keep you poor and unhappy.
Man, you really are off the tracks ...
vsmith wrote: -I always get this same aurgument from the rural contingient. I live in the urban-suburban zone, where MOST of the country lives and we get a very different perspective of who drives what...
Don't forget where ya'll get your food. We in ruralopolis are the ones who work the 16 hour days to feed you folks in urbania. Come to think of it, we're the ones sending you all that cheap hydro electricity as well.
And what do we get for our efforts? A bunch of jaded third world wannabes who want to legislate away our pickups and breach our dams.
Looks like ya'll are getting the better of that deal, huh?
How about you folks in urbania try and be self sustaining for a change? Guess how long that'll last? You can't grow what you eat, you can't even begin to produce what you consume. Yet you have the *expertise* to tell us what and how to function!
The opposition to drilling in ANWR et al comes from urbania, not from ruralopolis. The push for those idiotic CAFE standards come from urbania, not ruralopolis. The demand for mandated renewable standards comes from urbania, not ruralopolis. Oxymoronic statements like "Support our troops, oppose the war" comes from urbania, not ruralopolis. Washington Senator Maria Cantwell standing in from of a windmill and proclaiming "These windmills will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil!" Yep, the same MC who opposes increased domestic hydrocarbon development. And apparently she's of the majority in the Senate on that little tidbit of oxymojo!
Please understand this - We complain of high fuel prices not due to that little misperception of yours, but because we know intuitively that it is unnecessary if we simply are allowed to develop out own energy resources we have at hand within our own borders.
Democracy cannot survive if a majority of the voting public is that mentally addled. Too bad our Founding Fathers didn't hard wire a requirement for minimal cognitive abilities for genuine US citizens before one is allowed the priveledge of voting, let alone the sacred honor of public service. Pretty much anyone with a heartbeat can do either these days!
PS - You're right: I don't use my pickup for work related travel, it's strictly for show and comfort. But it does come in handy once in a while to buck a snowdrift or two!
narig01 wrote:Comment bout why not use coal. Has anyone considered how much diesel fuel RR's use?If the RR's converted to electric power how many gigawatts would they need? And how much liquid diesel fuel would be saved?Could anyone say how much diesel fuel the Railways use in a year? Yes I know look it up on the internet. rgds IGN
Comment bout why not use coal. Has anyone considered how much diesel fuel RR's use?
If the RR's converted to electric power how many gigawatts would they need? And how much liquid diesel fuel would be saved?
Could anyone say how much diesel fuel the Railways use in a year?
Yes I know look it up on the internet.
rgds IGN
Well, UP says that they use 3 million gallons per day, BNSF a little less, say NS and CSX about 80 percent as much. Do the math.
narig01 wrote:Could anyone say how much diesel fuel the Railways use in a year?
I can't really say, but I know that BNSF is the nation's #1 consumer of diesel. Only the US Navy uses more. I would reckon that UP must be close on their heels.
Andrew Falconer wrote: greyhounds wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Andrew Falconer wrote: Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.Corn is a grass. The type of corn used for livestock feed is planted densely, generates few ears -- less than one per plant -- and is generally harvested prior to the ears even ripening. No one raises corn to feed livestock because of the corn kernels. It is a C-4 grass that generates substantial carbohydrate biomass compared to other temperate zone grasses or, in particular, alfalfa. Makes a good silage which cows and hogs like to eat. Just wanted to make sure this one wasn't deleted.I was just making a broad generalization. Just like everbody else.It was a broad-leaf generalization.Andrew
greyhounds wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Andrew Falconer wrote: Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.Corn is a grass. The type of corn used for livestock feed is planted densely, generates few ears -- less than one per plant -- and is generally harvested prior to the ears even ripening. No one raises corn to feed livestock because of the corn kernels. It is a C-4 grass that generates substantial carbohydrate biomass compared to other temperate zone grasses or, in particular, alfalfa. Makes a good silage which cows and hogs like to eat. Just wanted to make sure this one wasn't deleted.
MichaelSol wrote: Andrew Falconer wrote: Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.Corn is a grass. The type of corn used for livestock feed is planted densely, generates few ears -- less than one per plant -- and is generally harvested prior to the ears even ripening. No one raises corn to feed livestock because of the corn kernels. It is a C-4 grass that generates substantial carbohydrate biomass compared to other temperate zone grasses or, in particular, alfalfa. Makes a good silage which cows and hogs like to eat.
Andrew Falconer wrote: Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.
Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.
Corn is a grass. The type of corn used for livestock feed is planted densely, generates few ears -- less than one per plant -- and is generally harvested prior to the ears even ripening. No one raises corn to feed livestock because of the corn kernels. It is a C-4 grass that generates substantial carbohydrate biomass compared to other temperate zone grasses or, in particular, alfalfa. Makes a good silage which cows and hogs like to eat.
Just wanted to make sure this one wasn't deleted.
I was just making a broad generalization.
Just like everbody else.
It was a broad-leaf generalization.
Andrew
Andrew, you have misunderstood my intention.
Dont recall the government forcing Dodge to create or use the MDS system...seems to be a choice on Dodges part, one which sells cars and trucks rather well in fact.
Choices do drive the market.
I chose the Dodge over all others, for very personal reasons.
You choose to drive what you drive for equally personal reasons, in that you like the model, gas mileage, or feel that your choice contributes to helping the world in some manner.
At some point in time, the majority will vote with its pocket book, and the makers will answer with waht they market demands.
Offer something they dont want to drive, and they wont drive it...that simple.
edblysard wrote:If we choose to lessen our dependence on oil as a fuel for our cars, and substitute ethanol for parts of that fuel, then that's our choice to make...and if it means other countries have to find a better way to feed them selves,...then so be it.
edblysard wrote:How about what food we eat, and where we live?
How about what food we eat, and where we live?
But they are making laws about those things too. For instance, NYC banned trans-fat foods. CA legislators have proposed a bill to make spanking illegal. The list goes on, and gets more personal every year.
The problem with the choice argument is that it is a false argument due to increasing technology. If fuel economy standards were raised, people would still have automotive choice - in fact, the automobiles of today are superior to the automobiles of 20 years ago in almost every respect. Rather than stiffling creativity, government regulation can increase creativity - and the automobile industry is a perfect example - within the CAFE standards they have created more powerful, larger automobiles with the same mileage as the small, weak cars of 20 years ago. The industry would adapt no matter what - and you'd still get to drive what you'd want - and the regulations have historically spurred technological developments. Plus, you can always buy a used car - its a better deal economically anyway
What aggravates me are the people who, for whatever reason, seem to believe they have a right and duty to protect me from myself, along with the attitude that their opinion/choices are the right ones, and the only ones worth listening too or following.
Bluntly put, if someone can afford a H2, the gas, insurance and taxes, (I mean state inspection fee!) then good for them.
I happen to think it is one of the ugliest things American auto makers ever let loose, but that is only my opinion.
But to assume that any car that is not small, foreign made, or imported is a gas hog, or shoddily built is false.
I own a Dodge Magnum....a station wagon with a 5.7 liter Hemi /MDS system.
It drops 4 cylinders when the power demand falls into a given set of values, and it gets great mileage.
EPA estimates on the window sticker were 17mpg city, 27 highway.
Real life figures from today on my way home, 19.3 mpg city and 29.7 highway, with the highway speed at 60 mph.
Drove to Nebraska...Houston to Lincoln, 31 mpg on the way up there, 32 mpg on the return trip, and part of the return was at 90 mph...the car weighs 4400 lbs.
Dodge was so confident of the quality that it came with a 7 year warranty, with 5 years on the engine and drive train.
The idea that a party, or group, through the political process has the right to decide what I have to drive is silly, and dangerous.
If we allow any one group to choose our cars for us, what's to stop them from deciding which religion we follow?
Sounds silly on the face of it, but having the right to choose to drive a H2, or a hybrid, or a 32 T bucket is one of the things we, as Americans, have over the rest of the world.
It sets us apart by the simple fact that our government is designed to follow our wishes, not the other way around.
If Americans wants SUV, why shouldn't we have them?
If Europeans feel like they must drive econo boxes, good for them...if they choose to live in a country where the government limits what they can buy, drive, or where they live...then their loss from my point of view...or their gain, from theirs.
No other country has the right to tell us we must feed them, that too is a choice on our part, and part of our foreign policy, but only in exchange for other considerations.
If we value those considerations, then we continue to feed them...if we value our current way of life, and our personal mobility more than the benefits we receive from other countries, then...
And to add to this...on ABC World News Tonight,
Charlie Gibson reports that GM makes more models of automoblies that get 30 mpg or better than Honda and Toyota combined, and have the same, if not better quality ratings.
But they are battling an image problem, the American public thinks "imported" or foreign cars, even if those Hondas built here, are better.
Bucyrus wrote: There is a direct correlation between vehicle size and safety risk. I am not referring to a size disparity between vehcles posing a greater risk to the smaller vehicle, which is often cited as a reason to outlaw large vehicles. What I mean is that if all vehicles were identical, the risk of injury or death would increase the smaller those identical vehicles were.
There is a direct correlation between vehicle size and safety risk. I am not referring to a size disparity between vehcles posing a greater risk to the smaller vehicle, which is often cited as a reason to outlaw large vehicles. What I mean is that if all vehicles were identical, the risk of injury or death would increase the smaller those identical vehicles were.
That is not true at all - some of the largest vehicles on the road had way worse safety records - the Ford Explorer comes to mind. Larger vehicles often have higher centers of gravity which increases the risk of rollovers. And if that was true, how come those behemouth vehicles from the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s had such appalling safety records? Single vehicle accidents often are riskier in large vehicles because they have worse handling - in fact, studies by the automotive industry show that while your risk of injury or death in a multivehicle accident are lower in an SUV - it is more than offset by the much higher risk of death or injury in a multivehicle accident - the worst accidents for injuries and deaths are rollover accidents.
Additionally, your risk of being in an accident is way lower with a car that handles better - and lighter, smaller cars handle better. Europeans and many car designers and executives laugh at Americans driving huge vehicles thinking that they are safe when they realize that the best way to survive an accident is not to be in the accident in the first place. A good handling car - and smaller, lighter vehicles tend to have the best handling will avoid accidents in the first place. So, if all vehicles were the same size, the safest vehicles will be smaller and lighter (and they'd get better mileage as well). Weight is the enemy of good handling. They'd also get better gas mileage.
The technology is there for a dramatic increase in gas mileage without much sacrifice of vehicle size and functionality - hybrid engines are nice, but the real gains come from high tech materials. There are many lighter materials which can make a car way lighter and improve its mileage, handling, and performance. Many of these materials come from petroleum products - in fact, one of the reasons why people are seeking alternative fuels to gasoline is that they know that gasoline is extremely wasteful - there are way more valuable uses to a gallon of oil than powering your car. That is also why oil companies like BP have invested heavily in alternative fuels - they are positioning themselves for distribution of the new fuels and in the petrochemical market which they know is still going to be valuable even after alternative fuels come on-line. Ironically, the best way to not use oil will be to use oil for lighter, stronger materials to make lighter cars.
pmsteamman wrote:Global food riots? Gosh folks its legal MOONSHINE!!!!!!
I know of at least one judge who thinks that people have a Constitutional right to make moonshine. That's southwest Virginia for you!
Poppa_Zit wrote: vsmith wrote: I think you missed the sarcastic tone of humor in my original post-Theirs a new word for a new century: Sar-chasm, the gulf between the author of ironic wit and the reader who 'doesnt get it'.Well, I guess I'm one of the many stupids here who "didn't get it.".Sorry, but it is the AUTHOR'S fault if the "ironic wit" isn't communicated properly to the reader.There is a new school for a new century -- the school of "It's Your Fault, Stupid, For Not Understanding My Clever Writing" -- overseen by Professor AG.By the way, I own two American-made SUVs and don't complain about the cost of gasoline. They're what I want to drive and I'm willing to pay for them. I also pay hundreds of dollars a year to support public transportation I never use. My vehicles also have to pass regular emission tests (or be repaired) to operate on the road. Owning my choice of a vehicle is a right some people would like to take away from me. I think those people should mind their own business. I don't need anyone to micro-manage my life. If you want to clean up the Earth, why not start with "smoggy LA?"
vsmith wrote: I think you missed the sarcastic tone of humor in my original post-Theirs a new word for a new century: Sar-chasm, the gulf between the author of ironic wit and the reader who 'doesnt get it'.
Well, I guess I'm one of the many stupids here who "didn't get it.".
Sorry, but it is the AUTHOR'S fault if the "ironic wit" isn't communicated properly to the reader.
There is a new school for a new century -- the school of "It's Your Fault, Stupid, For Not Understanding My Clever Writing" -- overseen by Professor AG.
By the way, I own two American-made SUVs and don't complain about the cost of gasoline. They're what I want to drive and I'm willing to pay for them. I also pay hundreds of dollars a year to support public transportation I never use. My vehicles also have to pass regular emission tests (or be repaired) to operate on the road.
Owning my choice of a vehicle is a right some people would like to take away from me. I think those people should mind their own business. I don't need anyone to micro-manage my life. If you want to clean up the Earth, why not start with "smoggy LA?"
Except I own one SUV and a Mustang.
The riots would be caused by protests over the prices we would be paying for the food! Not the lack of it. Remember: Capitalism has worked everywhere it has been tried. All of the alternatives have had fatal flaws that manifest themselves sooner or later.
Memo to US government re: Ethanol. BUG OFF!
Andrew Falconer wrote: The proper way to use corn is for Bio-fuels and for poultry feed. Shift the use of corn from being just a food filler to being a more valuable product. Corn must no longer be a filler ingredient for cat food and dog food. Cats and dogs are always much healthier eating food with vegetables like sweet potatoes and peas. Poultry should be among the main ingredients in cat and dog foods, not corn.Poultry is the only livestock that can properly digest corn.Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.Fast food producers can also reduce their reliance on corn products. Corn syrup variations do not need to be in so many food products. People can survive without a deluge of High Fructose Corn Syrup in their bodies. People who have developed conditions like diabetes can not have all that Corn Syrup in their system.The price the for corn is increasing as more is being used for Ethanol and Bio-diesel production. The land where crops have been grown is now being developed or is proposed for development. Corn supplies are limited by many factors and having less land does not help increase the supply.Mammals do not need so much corn in their diets.Bio-fuels made from corn are needed for autos and trucks. The demands of new transportation fuels must be met with decisive action.Andrew
The proper way to use corn is for Bio-fuels and for poultry feed. Shift the use of corn from being just a food filler to being a more valuable product.
Corn must no longer be a filler ingredient for cat food and dog food. Cats and dogs are always much healthier eating food with vegetables like sweet potatoes and peas. Poultry should be among the main ingredients in cat and dog foods, not corn.
Poultry is the only livestock that can properly digest corn.
Fast food producers can also reduce their reliance on corn products. Corn syrup variations do not need to be in so many food products. People can survive without a deluge of High Fructose Corn Syrup in their bodies. People who have developed conditions like diabetes can not have all that Corn Syrup in their system.
The price the for corn is increasing as more is being used for Ethanol and Bio-diesel production.
The land where crops have been grown is now being developed or is proposed for development. Corn supplies are limited by many factors and having less land does not help increase the supply.
Mammals do not need so much corn in their diets.
Bio-fuels made from corn are needed for autos and trucks.
The demands of new transportation fuels must be met with decisive action.
It is so well edited that it makes sense based on the tight editing.
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.