G2G: Recent Comments

Comment on Ethanol's Crush Spread Plunges/Bush Praises Ethanol Yet Shows Concern

Pat Foster — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:28:25 GMT

I picked up your articles on E*Trade and started reprinting them on the business section of the West Michigan News Company. I drive a 1983 VW Rabbit pickup with a diesel engine, and it runs on grease. I've been recommending Isuzu who has the best 3 cylinder diesel engine in the world. They have stated they cannot sell in the US, but 60% of Europe's cars last year were diesel. Bio-diesel does not need to use food products, just like the US does not need the oil companies running our government.

Comment on Corn Skyrockets/Verenium Wins Grant

poetryman69 — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:21:24 GMT

Stop funding the terrorists!

No more Oil Wars!

Energy Independence Now!

Drill in Anwar.

Build more nuclear power plants

Use More coal.

Use more natural gas

Turn trash into energy

Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.

If France can do nuclear power so can we.

If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.

If Australia can do LNG power so can we.

Domestically produced energy will end the recession and spur the economy.

Stop paying oil dollars to those who worship daily at the alter of our destruction.

Preserve our Civil Rights and defend our Freedom by ending dependence on foreign oil.

Comment on Ethanol-Pipelines Soon to Come?

Hal Puchalski — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:50:03 GMT

Hip Hip Hooray on the pipeline development!
Unfortunately however,in spite of continued scientific and technological improvements in many areas of the ethanol industry, the oil supporters will continue to deem it "bad fuel" whose increased use is causing the worlds hungry to starve.
When will credit be given to those who see a serious problem...continued dependence on oil..and much worse foreign oil.. get the respect they deserve.

Comment on Oil's True Energy Balance

JJ — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:12:52 GMT

The problem with this counter-argument has two main areas, I think

1. The first one is fuzzy because it involves politics and motive. This is the cost of military action in the midddle east and its relationship to oil. The argument that we invaded Iraq for the oil fails the reality check; the easiest solution would have been to warmly embrace Saddam as a secular dictator who opposes extremists (much as we have done with Musharaff), in the same way we warmly embraced him in the 1980's as a secular dictator who opposed Iran. A PR campaign rehabilitates his image, he apologizes and compensates Kuwait, and we get preferential oil deals. The average voter, I've discovered, has absolutely no idea that Saddam was considered a Reagan ally in the 80's and a supervillian in the 2000's. It is fairly easy to position a dictator as a friend or a threat depending on the storyline being fed to the press. So the short answer is I think we must assume the cost of military operations in the mideast has very little that can be attributed to oil production or consumption.

2. The second one should be easier to calculate. In calculating the 'oil cost of oil', we can't use just the dollar$ spend on oil production, but the oil component of the $ spend on oil production. This line of reasoning suggests that those workers who are building humvees or making drilling equipment or whatever would still be alive and consuming resources and working somewhere if not involved in the oil or military business. It should only be the oil component of the production of oil that factors in to oil efficiency.

Granted, the 'cost per barrel' definitely should include the economic non-oil cost of drilling equipment and possibly the cost of military support, but that is an economic issue and not an oil's-cost-of-oil issue.

Comment on Oil's True Energy Balance

Geoff — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:38:23 GMT

You are quite right that the EROEI for crude oil will continue to decline, as we have to go to greater lengths to find it and extract it from deepwater deposits, oil sands or shale. Your figure of 3:1 is on the low end of estimates for the current state of this indicator; 4:1 or 5:1 would be more typical, reflecting the 0.8 efficiency figure used by Argonne Labs in their well-to-wheels studies.

There's also hope that as ethanol facilities improve--or when cellulosic ethanol finally becomes possible on a commercial scale--the EROEI of ethanol will increase from 1.3:1 toward 2:1 or beyond. The energy advantage of oil over ethanol will thus gradually erode.

The real issue, however, isn't whether ethanol might not be as much worse than oil as it looks, but that we really need an energy source with a higher EROEI to create the large energy surplus required to run our economy, without devoting a huge portion of it to this activity and crowding out the valuable uses of energy downstream.

I think the present engineering calculations on both sides are adequate to highlight that concern, without dragging in the geopolitical costs of oil (which aren't really expressed in energy, unless you want to start tallying the fuel burned in the tanks, ships and planes involved in the wars you cite) or the escalating food-competition costs of biofuels, which are affecting large numbers of low-income people, globally.

Comment on Hold Your Horses, Brazil

nick gogerty — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:13:13 GMT

If valid argument, then the question isn't if Tariffs should be in place, but how quickly should they be phased out. Considering it takes 12-18 months for a plant to be online. how about 36 months? Of course if there is a valid domestic ethanol market, most producers could easily find debt finance that thinks longer than 36 months. My argument would be that if ethanol is a legitimate option it doesn't need the subsidies or tariffs, they both skew the price signal from the market.

Comment on Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)

Charlie Peters — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:08:29 GMT

Does corn ethanol fuel policy increase oil use and oil profit?

* Some folks think so

* Clean Air Performance
Professionals

Comment on U.S. Gas Prices Expected to Rise After Devastating Flood in Mexico

Hal — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:20:48 GMT

Thanks posting the "adjusted" price of E85 along with the other more mainstream fuels.
I enjoy these articles.

Q-What additional tax incentives do you feel will be coming down the pike to assist the Ethanol industry in the US?
Q- What do you think would happen in the US and in Brazil if the current tariff on imported ethanol was lifted ?

Thanks...an ethanol user

Comment on Years Remaining Till...

Zach — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:28:57 GMT

You forgot to mention... OPEC lies about their reserves... they have much less than they tell us about..

Thanks for this website.. I enjoy reading it.

Comment on Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)

Bruce H — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:20:38 GMT

Fighting oil wars is unsustainable. Subsidizing wind power so it can compete with subsidized oil and coal companies is stupid. Ron Paul wants to stop subsidizing all energy. the result would be conservation and lower taxes to pay for the viable development of wind, batteries, and other technologies now held back by government policies. Evaluating Ron Paul on how he voted to expand government pork doesn't accurately measure his policies.