General Question Regarding Food Prices and Oil

Food are in over supply in most of the countries and outlets are sought. there are plenty of land left to increase production.

Now looking at it from the farmers perspective. Farming is a commercial activity with high input costs, with nature also sometimes going against him he has to sell his produce at a good price to make a living. It can therefore not be expected from him to give food away for charity.

In some countries they are heavily subsidised and I agree that it may be immoral for them to use it for biofuel.

Another problem is to get the food to where it is needed (political and other problems) I believe food donated to Africa do not reach the man in the street.

Sometimes it is a health issue. because rejected food that could still be used cannot even be donated to the poor.

You Wrote: "If fuel is in short supply why make food scarce using rice, soy etc. to produce fuel. Is it better to ride than to eat? The solution would be to stop all car racing, save the gas, clean the air at the same time. Too simple?"

Although I completely agree with your sentiment, I'm afraid your solution is indeed too simple. Car racing, in the big picture, isn't using enough oil to make a difference. The food shortage is a result of subsidized ethanol compounded by higher oil prices (fertilizer) and subsequent commodity speculation. Eventually the price of food will come down again when the speculation bubble bursts, of course that doesn't help people starving and rioting in the third world today.

There is no doubt that making fuel from food may be one of our worst ideas in a long time (I'm talking humanity here). There is a general ignorance of scale that pervades society in many matters that is well illustrated in this issue. Even were we to use every piece of arable land to create ethanol, we still couldn't hope to match even half our oil needs today. Couple that with the inevitable growth in energy consumption and we see that ethanol is no solution at all.

The only means I know of that can meet not only todays energy demands but tomorrows as well would be fusion power, but too little is being invested in the research necessary to make this technology happen. There is a misconception that fusion technology is impractical or impossible, even as we have operating fusion reactors today (For research purposes, they aren't energy positive yet).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

Please note that fusion is different than nuclear power plants. Also please note that we are decades away from a successful fusion reactor. In the mean time I would suggest we immediately stop subsidizing ethanol in this country which would reduce the demand on grains and thus chase the speculators out of the market which would create a downward pressure on food costs. Of course in an election year, I might as well ask the sun to rise in the west.

I totally agree with your comments Roger.

Actually, you would likely have more success with the sun rising in the West this election year.

I haven't read in this discussion that our government is paying producers to make ethanol from corn. Our taxes are going to support the making of food prices even higher. It's the good old Americian way, raise and misuse our tax dollard so we can pay more for food and livestock feed

If our representatives in Washington are not going to open up restricted areas where we know there is oil then they need to introduce some form of gasoline rationing. and support some form of mass transportation in many areas that do not have access to public transportation.

Gasoline rationing was an absolute disaster in the 1970s. I don't think that is a viable solution.

You are absolutely correct. No matter which party prevails in the next presidential election , he is going to need a lot of chickens, as there are a lot more pots to fill now than there was in the last full blown depression. And then there will be the freebies for the illeagles.

Toomuchfn

Reply to johnfotl's comments;

I certainly agree with much of what John has said; But not all of it. I consider myself a little bit on the light green side. But not so much that I would trash the economy to save a minnow or a mouse. So long as the poor are willing to be denied food and a decent place to sleep, and continue to re-populate themselves beyond even the remotest possibility of improving their conditions, nothing will change. I am not a revolutionary. I would not support attacks on our government by fire arms or similar force. However: there peaceful ways to bring about change. Example: Every parent who drives their children to school, ALL stay home for one day each week for as long as it takes to get their attention. Every one who can take their work home with them for a couple of days per week, DO IT, everyone who can avoid going to the market or Mall for as many trips as you can DO IT! Can you imagine how much gasoline will not be sold because of this lack of activity and how much gasoline will back up in the pipeline. Everyone who can avoid using their automobiles for as long as they can DO IT. When the government looses its ASS because the population is lawfully avoiding paying the taxes that are attached to the selling price of this fuel source, they will quickly get the message. The only thing Government understands is that today we do this, PEACEFULLY. Tomorrow we will get your replacements to take your jobs. If that doesn't work we will revolt, and nobody wants to see that. The American people have done it before. The American Revolution, the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Civil War. Nobody wants to see that happen, but until the American population takes a stand their Government will continue to abuse them. The poor people of the third world must take the steps necessary to change their condition. These steps begin with lowering their reproduction. When there are fewer people to work the fields and to do the bidding of the wealthy, and especially to compete for the available resources, manual labor will be sold by the individual for a living wage. As long as the poor continue to breed themselves beyond reasonable replacement of mankind they will be treated lower than livestock.

As for the petroleum industry, no sale means no profit. As for the folks on Wall Street that continue to run up the cost of a barrel of oil there will be no relief at the pump. When their investments go bottom out because the public isn't running to the pumps to buy what they have invested in, they will find something else to invest in, or go broke.

Toomuchfun

Don't put words into the mouths of "Greens". Perhaps "some" greens support biofuels, but many could see the folly from the beginning. The big pusher of biofuels is Dubya, and he AIN'T no green.

Anyone with a brain can see that every arable acre of land in this nation is growing food for people or animals and has been for many years. It is VERY clear that using farmland to grow fuel for gas-hogs is not viable.

Not only is every arable acre growing food, but a significant fraction of the acreage that is growing food is only able to do so because of irrigation. Eventually the water is going to run out and then where will we be? Not in a good place that is certain.

Biodiesel is used to make people who drive gas-hog diesels feel good about themselves.

This nation will institute strict conservation measures or it will fail fairly quickly.

The Green Official Doctrine is so old, it is embedded in the general conscious. If you would be a long term participant, you would by now know I discuss with all of them including the densest ones. And I would not dream putting words into their mouth. They do it themselves, very well arguing their points.

I do not consider, you consider "Dubya" to come up with such a brilliant idea on his own. He had to be pushed to it. And lo and behold, it is a longstanding Official Green Demand. Well, buddy, you got it, now you own it. And I am a "told you so". And feel free to work hard and openly to undo it.

I have not recall your voice in objection before now. So, when you decide to log in properly, your voice can be raised in objection from now on. Until then you are just a GUEST.

In the meantime I thank you for the gem delivered: "This nation will institute strict conservation measures or it will fail fairly quickly". Thank you for shoving, you did not read any of the foregoing messages back and forth, and not grasping any, even to the extent to formulate any sensible arguments for / against them.

Buddy, it may come as a surprise: this is an ENGINEERING site. People have their own opinions, not easily swayed. A few slogans here and there is just summer breeze here. Factual and thinking incoherence is taken apart with a sharp scalpel. But you just may, just may learn something by it.

HOO-RAY! YOU GOT IT RIGHT! SWITCH GRASS WAS HERE BEFORE WE PILGRAMS LEFT EUROPE. If the taxpayers have to support the corn farmers with subsidies we should be able to deny them the opportunity to bankrupt the nation while they fill their corn pickers with cash. Every ethanol production facility can be modified to produce bio-fuel with switch grass. Marginal lands will grow the stuff handily. Dolomite is cheap and Florida has plenty of it. We need places to put our own natural bio-degradables, and switch grass can use it with the minimum of processing.

Call or write your Congress person, maybe we should start a national petition and demand that it be a subject placed on the national ballot. With some irrigation the lands that are suitable for having billions of cubic ft of natural gas might be convertable for the growth of switch grass, and the gas is right there beneath them. NO HAULING! thinkaboutit! Who is going to begin a forum in that subject.

Toomuchfun

Psst, Toomuch. It is wonderful about switchgrass. But - and in this I want to be wrong, badly - searching around I found no trace of it. I looked a two National Laboratories and two others, expecting them to know best, what is going on. They are working on the bacteria, which just might, just might with the proper genetic modifications do the trick. In plain english, as of today: ne nada. But do not give up hope. In 10, 20, or 40 years they just might get someplace.

I would like to put down here a back of the envelope type calculation about switchgrass: let's assume 10% sun to fermentable conversion. If it turns out to be different, feel free to substitute your own.

textbook: 260 Watts/ square meter, year around. Nothing by night, more by summer day. So I would be willing to go for 750 Watts/m2 in summer daytime. It is conveniently 1 horsepower.

10% efficiency = 75 watts = 0.1 hp /m2 while the sun shines, during growing season.

Let's assume 10 growing hours / day. Stretching it badly, but what the heck.

that would amount to 750 Watthours = 1 hphours / m2 every day

Assuming 100 day growing season: 75kWatthours = 100 hphours / m2 per season.

So a square meter may drive an 100 hp engine full throttle for an hour for every growing season.

People size up land in metric countries in hectares, in english in acres.

10000m2 = 1 hectare = 2,5 acres

So, assuming 50% for production costs:

1 hectare may drive a 100 hp engine full throttle for 5 thousand hours every season, 1 acre may drive it for 2 thousand hours. Not shabby, not at all.

How does this works out on a national level? I do not have the numbers at my fingertip, nor care to search for it now.

Now, if this idea ever surpasses all the hurdles.... Just check my math, that I did not miss a decimal point or two.

"Not shabby, not at all."

Well, from all I've read, switchgrass will outproduce (and for less input of fertilizer and pesticides) corn (maize) or any grain, and possibly even bagasse. So if switchgrass is a marginal choice, what is corn? Big agribusiness at work is what...

leveles----------------------------- Guess What? I live in Highlands County Florida It is a long way from the High plains and the middle plains states where Switch grass is a native plant. BUT we need a new way to get along. SOOOOOO! a local farm that produces flowers year round for the flower market , and it ain't no small enterprise has decided to build an ethanol plant that uses switch grass as its raw materials, It will use the left overs to provide heat for the flower operation in the winter when they are now having to buy thousands of cu ft of propane. I don't care what kind of grass or weeds you plant in Sunny Humid Florida, It will grow as if it belonged there all along. They expect to get at least two cuttings per year and wet years will likely yield three. GOOD BY CITRUS HELLO SWITCH GRASS. Expect Florida to become the Brazil of this country. Big oil kiss my sunny grits!

Toomuchfun

Toomuchfun,

My concern with this switch grass idea is that the nutrients the switchgrass uses to grow, nitrogen, carbon, etc., some of it comes from the soil (the rest from water and air). When switchgrass is "harvested" (for lack of a better word), those nutrients that used to return to the soil with the decay of the switchgrass now are removed. That means the nutrients have to be returned to the land through fertilizer, which of course cuts into the energy savings. The other problem is it takes a lot more switchgrass to make ethanol that sugarcane or corn, so the yield will be much lower.

Think of it this way. Lets say you were a bootlegger and decided the cost of corn was too high to make whiskey. Would you say to yourself "I should use switchgrass"?

I mean, there is a part of me that is all for these guys making giant silos filled with whiskey, but then there is the part of me that can't stomach the idea of burning it.

You need to take another look at the results of comparing switch grass to corn and sugar's by products vs the energy used vs possible salvaged animal feed vs production cost vs water used for the growing of said crop and the water to used create the ethanol and the possible reuse of the waste water as the portion that doesn't become ethanol is recycled back to irrigate the crop. AND WHEN YOU GET IT STRAIGHT IN YOUR MIND, get back to us, for now your conseption is way off base. Nothing is more misleading than only telling the part of the story that supports a sour opinion when the rest of the story leans another direction.Clearly you do not understand that this sand pile where we live has little in regard to nutrients in it. Not much different than the high mountain desert's of the central plains that will grow grass and weeds profusely but little in the way of food crops with the addition of fertilizer.

Toomuchfun

You guys are forgetting about using switchgrass pellets to replace heating oil, a far more efficient use, as there is no conversion to liquid fuel. Gasification pellet stoves and furnaces push 90% efficiency. The biggest hurdle is delivery infrastructure, which would be best accomplished using a farmer's co-op model. Back to the future!

As to fertilizer, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of livestock manure, in fact its disposal is an issue, so I don't really see the problem there. Again the old ways are making the most sense.

My Grandfathers farmed using horse and mule power, with the occasional steam-driven threshing machine, and one of the horse-drawn implements in wide use was the "lister" or manure spreader. The horses and mules, along with cattle, hogs, etc. provided the fertilizer from the grain and hay they ate in a lovely cycle. Worked well for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. Then, somebody thought of a way to make money from artificial guano and called it "progress". Hmmm...

Well, well Toomuch. Kudos for you.

Isn't that interesting, that while the Big Boys fiddle with the microbes to get it "right", somebody, grassroots figures they can make a go of it, on a most likely low tech level. It will be quite interesting to see details about this experiment in the future from time to time! Because, when somebody fires it up as the first of its kind, it is an experiment. Then, when the better fermenting microbes come along, that is just gravy. And all the other questions will be answered along the way, in good time.

So, since you know about it, would you be our ears and eyes, reporting back from time to time? Nothing fancy, just a website here, a newspaper article there (its webadress).

Would you be willing to do it for us?

I certainly will keep folks informed. However I think that with the prices we are paying for gasoline to day it will be front page news.

By the way the issue with switch grass isn't new news. This has been around for quite some time. This was found out when those engineers who were testing for the cellulose production vs crop production of ethanol decided to use something that was readily available that would not impair the food supply. The only concern has been the environmental impact that a run away switch grass might have on the natural fauna of Florida. Personally, The citrus industry is in deep doo doo here, Med flies, citrus greening and who knows whats next.

Much of the South Florida citrus acreage is needing to find another crop for replacement. The citrus growers have denuded the area of all natural vegetation and there isn't much that grows on a sand pile with no nutrients in it. It just might be a great move.

Toomuchfun

Plus, where I grew up (Iowa, once the apple capital of the US back in the late 1800s) all of the orchards had orchard grass planted as a ground cover. Switchgrass grows considerably taller, but seems to me a water-holding ground cover might be a pretty good idea given our rainfall shortages here lately.

I do not disagree with water conservation, and there will certainly be at least some moisture in the switch grass, but right now they are putting hundreds of thousands of irrigation gallons into producing citrus. I cant see a plant as hearty as switch is promoted to be needing anything near that. This flower producing operation will be reusing the treated water from the ethanol production to irrigate their production. Seems like it at least has a chance to be a win win issue to me! Your comments are respected.

Toomuchfun

First of all, bio-fuel has been a TERRIBLE idea as others have already said.

Second, supply and demand will ultimately control the situation; price goes up- demand goes down. It just takes the soccer moms with Hummers a while to come to grips with it. They will however. When the demand for fuel goes down, the price of food will also. JMHO.

-John

Agreed, but I think our government is compounding the problem rather than help solve it when they subsidize the agricultural businesses growing corn, subsidize transportation of ethanol products and then ALSO restrict the importation of ethanol from Brazil with high tariffs so the US agribusiness and ethanol refiners dont have to compete with lower cost foreign ethanol. Thank smacks of governmental corruption (or just plain stupidity).

lets not forget that part of the problem if perhaps most of the problem is the fuel and food now consumed by newly developing countries ie China and India. Consider that when the population has been riding bycycles and small motor bikes and they become affluent enough to buy a car. Fuel consumption dramatically rises. Unlike a change in wealth in such countries as the US, Germany and France where fuel consumption will not show that significant of a rise with increased wealth.

I don't think it's a food shortage problem so much as it is an equitable distribution problem. Obviously increased fuel costs drives up freight charges, but the fuel prices seem to be artificially rigged. We haven't built a new refinery in the U.S. for what, some thirty years? In fact, many have closed down. We have, I believe I read, 42% of the refinery capability available 30 years ago, and something like 5X demand for gas. And who benefits from THAT?!? Give you a clue, 'tain't ME...

I support your distribution/re-distribution comments and the obvious example of no new refineries in many years. I also recognize that as third world countries develop it becomes worth while to build refineries locally rather than import the finished product from the good ole US of A. However I wish to add this comment to the discussion.

Back in the 70's when we had the fruadulent gasoline shortage, I found that less than 100 miles from my home in Florida that just about every barge and ship any where around that transported fuel was loaded and standing by in Tampa Bay to be unloaded . However this was not possible as all of the storage tanks were already filled. The gas shortage was BS. The petroleum producers wanted to raise the price of gas to more than one dollar per gallon. and this was the method they used to get it done. Opec is doing the same thing on a world wide basis, but for much greater value. When the gas shortage hit I was a General Superintendent for a large construction company. I was out of work for three years. I finally found work in East Texas. While the rest of the USA was locked into a downward spiraling depression, those folks were just building more Texas. They didn't know the rest of us were loosing our homes, our families falling apart from the stresses that they caused, and folks who otherwise wouldn't think of breaking the law were doing so to feed their families. Get ready! Here we go again.

Toomuchfun, aint having all that much fun right now!

I'm doing all that I can to get off the grid and out from under the control of energy producers of all forms, including OPEC and homeland petrol producers.

I doubt that the rising costs of food stuffs is due many to use of grains to make bio-fuel. Its more likely due to the high transportation costs due to oil prices.

The car racing industry provides a test ground for many of the automakers. What you would save in shutting them down. Would then be spent directly by the automakers in testing.

Nothings that simple.

One thing that most people don't realize that the barrel price for oil only applies to a very small percentage of th crude oil that is used. The only crude that is trading at these ridiculous prices per barrel are West Texas Intermediate, New Mexico Sweet,Low Sweet Mix, North Texas Sweet, South Texas Sweet, and Oklahoma Sweet which are extremely pure grades of crude and are primarily used for the low emission fuels that are used in certain cities across the U.S.

As we all know there is no magic bullet that is going to "fix" the growing problem of "peak oil". We as American use more energy than most other countries combined.

The question is how do we lower our demand?

There are many reasons that we use so much oil for transportation.

1) we have dismantled our rail systems.

2) we like to live many miles form were we work.

3) we produce and drive vehicles that get poor mileage.

Many technologies are finally coming to the forefront because of the high price of fuel, its just too bad that we did not develop these technologies 8 years ago when the presidency was in question.

Schools and busses operate 5 days a week during the coldest months of the year. why not institute a 4 day week with longer days to save on fuel for busses and heating of the schools?

Why not give incentives to people who buy cars that get over a certain mpg?

There are many things that can be done by each and everyone of us to help, having 43 cars not race 400 miles on a Sunday is like grain of sand compared to a mountain.

As long as our government is influenced by the oil companies and other super strong lobbies, we will have to count on ourselves to put our own little dent in the mountain.

"...But taking well over 70% of the money from the top, rolling in the money, having a perverse interest in higher prices, and providing exactly what for that???? is not my idea of any kind of efficiency...."

I dunno, seems a pretty efficient way to feather a nest to me. In fact, it sounds an awful lot like the skimming of casino profits the mob (Mafia) used to engage in in Las Vegas back in the days before the Nevada Gaming Commission thought they put a stop to it. They slowed it down a lot...but who'll slow down the government? Big Oil and Big Agribusiness also have vested interests involved here, and if we don't get in all their way pretty soon, it'll be too dang late!

OOps, in #24 I did a mistake in the calculations leaving out the engine's efficiency close to the end. Correction is noted item by item. Still, not shabby.

Psst, Toomuch. It is wonderful about switchgrass. But - and in this I want to be wrong, badly - searching around I found no trace of it. I looked a two National Laboratories and two others, expecting them to know best, what is going on. They are working on the bacteria, which just might, just might with the proper genetic modifications do the trick. In plain english, as of today: ne nada. But do not give up hope. In 10, 20, or 40 years they just might get someplace.

I would like to put down here a back of the envelope type calculation about switchgrass: let's assume 10% sun to fermentable conversion. If it turns out to be different, feel free to substitute your own.

textbook: 260 Watts/ square meter, year around. Nothing by night, more by summer day. So I would be willing to go for 750 Watts/m2 in summer daytime. It is conveniently 1 horsepower.

10% efficiency = 75 watts = 0.1 hp /m2 while the sun shines, during growing season.

Let's assume 10 growing hours / day. Stretching it badly, but what the heck.

that would amount to 750 Watthours = 1 hphours / m2 every day

Assuming 100 day growing season: 75kWatthours = 100 hphours / m2 per season.

Correction: diesel engine max. 36%, gasoline max.28%. So, for convenience, assume 25%.

Correction: So a square meter may drive an 100 hp engine full throttle for a 1/4 hour for every growing season.

People size up land in metric countries in hectares, in english in acres.

10000m2 = 1 hectare = 2,5 acres

So, assuming 50% for production costs:

Correction: 1 hectare may drive a 100 hp engine full throttle for 1250 hours every season, 1 acre may drive it for 500 hours. Still not shabby, not at all.

How does this works out on a national level? I do not have the numbers at my fingertip, nor care to search for it now.

Now, if this idea ever surpasses all the hurdles.... Just check my math, that I did not miss a decimal point or two.

This note is #24, corrected by engine efficiencies.

My 2 cents on your back of envelope calc: sources listed below.

Your 10% conversion may be high. Searching the net I get 5%. See several sources below. Thus, 1 acre will power a 100 hp engine for 250 hours per year or roughly one passenger car per year. There are 250,000,000 passenger cars in the US. Assume 10% are to be ethanol powered, or 25 million. Thus 25,000,000 acres are required. There were 300 million acres of "harvested cropland" in the US per last stats. Thus, 8.3% of the harvested cropland would be required to run 10% of the cars, if they are all 100 hp cars. Hmmmm......that's better than I figured. This back of envelope calc could be off easily by a factor of 2 or 3, but perhaps there is a possibility that ethanol could help the fuel problem, but it obviously isn't going to solve it at current consumption levels. This all ignores the water usage problem, food prices problem, dwindling petroleum supply problem, stupidity of todays gas guzzlers, stupidity of the rightwing failure to promote energy conservation since the first energy "crisis" of the 1970's, etc. I have to agree with other posts that ethanol is an idea that many "greens" would NOT support. Greens generally are more receptive to conservation as step number one in the energy problem and they have presented that message consistently since the early 1970's. I think their thinking is correct.

The assinine stupidity represented by the gas guzzlers on the highways of the US today is beyond belief. Petroleum based fuels are precious and to intentionally waste them as many in this country do is not only exceptionally stupid but is also immoral and criminal. We need those fuels to power aircraft, large power intensive machines such as the ones that grow our food, the ones that defend our nation, etc.

I'm afraid the rightwing stupidity on energy may have put our nation in a position from which we cannot recover, but I hope that is not the case. Only time will tell the tale.

My sources:

4.6 to 6 percent efficient: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRV-4S9R4K5-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d5765c1c54a03be6b821c39433029323

250,000,000 passenger vehicles in the U.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

There is a lot of land which can be used profitably to grow fuel crops, in addition to crops grown for food. Farmers want to make money too. Also science needs to develop plants which will produce fuel and grow where food crops fail. Still, biofuels can only make a small dent in the energy market. As long as more money is paid for crops to be made into fuel than is paid for the crops as food, then people will be hungry and riot, making themselves worse off. Most countries are capable of growing enough food to feed their people, but their governments and corrupt politicians prevent it. Well-fed people are hard to control

What is needed for the short term is more oil production by ignoring the obstructionist environuts and going ahead with the cleanest possible exploration for and production of oil in our own country. Until commercial fusion power hopefully develops to make electricity as cheaply as other methods there is always the centuries-worth supply of coal which can be made into synthetic gasoline. Sure, go ahead with alternative sources of power to make the biggest dent in the energy market possible, but they are not enough to completely replace nuclear, hydro, coal and oil as major energy sources. Any attempt to forbid the use of oil and coal would destroy our standard of living and technological civilization. A lot of people would die or be forced to live as pre-industrial people lived.

For the most part what you have stated is the norm. And for the most part I do not disagree. However, the technology exists today to run small engines on HHO alone. And these engines are proven powerful enough to power alternators. Already some ambitious types like me are looking to create enough power from a small on board like I have just described, to provide for continuous recharge while running, for cars with electric motors and batteries. Forklifts generally are rated for 8 hours of continuous use. That is the batteries are rated for that much use. They typically are 24 or 36 or 48 volts. On ebay to day there are available for purchase automotive alternators that have been altered to produce these voltages. Isn't it reasonable to presume that a small ice powering one of these alternators could be able to recharge two or three of this type of battery to extend the distance that an EV would normally be able to travel.

You are correct regarding bio-fuels to some extent. However I see every day tons of wood chips being taken to the local landfill by the tree trimmers employed by the local utility. I see the local refuge collectors pick up yard trimmings that go to the same landfill this is only touching on this part of the subject. There are many other substances that could be utilized as fuel to generate electricity, that is wasted. As long as the American public is willing to be walked upon by the system, it will be. As for the employment issue you are correct. Eventually society is going to have to address that issue too. However the enterprising individuals who will not roll over for this continually abusive socialistic activity will find ways to bring about change. If not for the masses, at least for the individuals who demand the exception to the rule.

Tomuchfun

You Wrote:"What is needed for the short term is more oil production by ignoring the obstructionist environuts and going ahead with the cleanest possible exploration for and production of oil in our own country. Until commercial fusion power hopefully develops to make electricity as cheaply as other methods there is always the centuries-worth supply of coal which can be made into synthetic gasoline. Sure, go ahead with alternative sources of power to make the biggest dent in the energy market possible, but they are not enough to completely replace nuclear, hydro, coal and oil as major energy sources. Any attempt to forbid the use of oil and coal would destroy our standard of living and technological civilization. A lot of people would die or be forced to live as pre-industrial people lived."

I completely agree. I would add that we should be sure to set aside a large "stragic oil reserve" for our armed forces. Much of our modern armed forces are fossil fuel based, we must always maintain a sizeable, defensable, oil reserve. I'm not talking for wars like the Iraq war, I'm saying wars like "some lunatic just became the leader of China/Russia/Germany/France/England etc. and is looking of trouble". I know that doesn't seem likely, but we must be prudent and prepare for the worst so we can continue to be a strong country.

See, we can agree on some things. I heard that there was an offer made by the US military to purchase as much synthetic fuel made from American coal as could be made by American companies. With oil prices as they are synthetic fuels are economically feasible. I suspect that Big Oil doesn't like that idea.

STOP CAR RACING!!! How about unplugging YOUR computer.

There are lies, there are damn lies, and there is statistics. Mark Twain.

Smart people solve problems, geniuses avoid them entirely, morons try to mess them up, as soon as you take your eyes off of them. Me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is mostly an expansion on notes #20 and #21 in the debate of the Green demanded biofuels and their consequences, still unfolding.

1,. Breakdown in the world corn production consumption. US is the biggest producer and exporter.

http://www.grains.org/page.ww?/section=Barley%2C+Corn+%26+Sorghum&name=Corn

2,. The bloody fight between lobbyists and others. Revealing, that a partial implementation of the Congress's mandate already soaked up the customary US grain export to the world.

http://www.manufacturing.net/News-Farmers-Ethanol-Not-To-Blame-For-High-Food-Prices.asp

3,. World fertilizer prices soar as food and fuel economies merge.

http://www.ifdc.org/i-wfp021908.pdf

4,. The british took a quite sharp and detailed look at it: "How the rich starved the world." Some blog notes are downright nasty with suspicions.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200804170025

5,. The World Bank assessment: "World Bank says food prices hit by biofuels." Many useful links.

http://media.cleantech.com/node/2694/print

--------------------------------------------------

I told you so. Me.

While I agree with almost all of what you are saying here, I don't understand why you seem so intent on blaming 'greens' for all of this. Are all people (~75% of the US) who are concerned about our impact on the environment 'greens', or are the 'greens' just a subset of that group, perhaps a lunatic fringe?

I willingly admit that many of the folks who are deeply concerned about the environment are not very technically savvy, or even particularly smart. Lots of Sociology and English majors to be sure, with limited or no interest in or ability for critical thinking. But when you say 'greens' do you also include the large number of scientists and engineers who are working on practical solutions? Do you include good folks like Willie Nelson, who runs his bus on waste cooking oil?

Maybe I'm not fully catching your drift, and if that's the case then I'm sorry, but it seems like you are painting a large and disparate group with a pretty broad brush. As I mentioned earlier, it seems to me that the ethanol program was cooked up by the agribiz lobby and some farm state legislators as a get rich scheme, and then tarted up in 'green' to sell it to the public.

To blame the environmentalists as a whole for this seems like an attempt to discredit the whole movement, just because within that 75% of the population there is a sizable contingent of people who are just smart enough to know there is a problem, without being quite smart enough to produce a solution. In my little mind these people are still a hell of a lot smarter than the other 25% who don't even see a problem. Am I reading you wrong?

"To blame the environmentalists as a whole for this seems like an attempt to discredit the whole movement, just because within that 75% of the population there is a sizable contingent of people who are just smart enough to know there is a problem, without being quite smart enough to produce a solution. In my little mind these people are still a hell of a lot smarter than the other 25% who don't even see a problem. Am I reading you wrong?"

Check my user name. I am a genuine, bona fide, card-carrying, degreed environmentalist. Possibly the only "real" one that hangs out here a lot. Excepting for the last sentence quoted above, I concur with, and could have written that paragraph. You saved me that effort, thanks. Yes, there are many, many people who call themselves "environmentalists", who wrap themselves in green, hug trees, and buddy up to bunny rabbits. Some of them belong to Greenpeace (along with some "real" ones), some support PETA (along with some "real" ones), there are lots of them (along with some "real" ones) that are members or wannabes of organizations that turn a few people on, a few people off, and a lot of people around on some buzzword issues.

I'm not one of any of them. I AM an environmental biologist/chemist with 30+ years in the ES&H field, a skeptic, a cynic, a freethinker, and a registered independent politically. I regard it as my duty as a citizen to question authority, because my mind is not for sale or rent to any god or government. It is also a civic duty to do my part to keep things from getting worse, to educate whomever is willing to learn, and to sound my misgivings whenever my personal BS alarm goes off. This corn-o-line/gas-o-hol controversy has it ringing me awake some nights.

I regard it as everyone else's duty to pay as much attention to what I have to say as they can stand, and not a single word more (fair IS fair). Do not accept what I or anyone else tells you about "the environment" at face value unless you have sufficient experience to recognize it as fact. Do your own research. There is just a pot-load of things we do NOT know about how our planet, and the thin surficial scum of biological material it supports, works. We learn more every year. Hopefully we have enough years left as a viable species to learn what it will take to keep us from spoiling the deal.

As an ecologist, I am supposed to try to be part of that solution, so please just bear with me. OBTW, ecology and economics share the same root word, the Greek eco, meaning "home" - the study of, and management of, our home, respectively. Our "home" is of course, the Earth.

Ranting and raving stops (for now) now.

Enviroman, Toomuchfun here!

I fully agree with much that you have said. We don't always see a subject with the same view point. Subsidizing the farming of corn, that is paying big ag not to grow the stuff and then promoting this very same crop as the ethanol future was about the dumbest thing this Govt. has done in many years On that we certainly do agree. That is why I and a small group of folks that I only know through our internet communications and phone conversations are working diligently to create a HHO booster that is explosion resistant, and functions as well as many of the scammers say their products will do. As far as the engineers and scientist go I do respect their opinions regarding the law of thermodynamics. However I point out that if Edison was willing to accept the fact that no one could create a long life light bulb we would still be living with gas light. I don't ask you or anyone who doesn.t believe that HHO/hydrogen is the future to change your opinion but I am well aware that there are engineers and scientists that do. Some of them are trying to accomplish the same goal as we other inventer types. I am not an environmentalist, nor am I a naturalist, nor am I a skeptic, unless after having thought a subject through and found that it just can't possibly be. Even at that point all I ask is that you offer sufficient evidence to support a change of my mind and it will be changed.

Regarding the issue of the bountiful production of HHO I have done it. Regarding the point of view that you cannot get more energy out than you put in, I say one must evaluate the various forms of energy and compare their potential for energy production.

Use a little electricity to create hho and can it and compress it. Then ignite it and measure the energy released. Compare that to your electrical input, and then tell me that I can't get out more than I put in.

Toomuchfun

Hallo John

And thank you EnviroMan. You did a 99% job there, and I am exactly along you in all you said.

For our thread(s) I distinguish between greens, Greens and GREENS.

1,. I am a green (if anything) doing the responsible thing, accessible to arguments, and at times arguing my (or our) point. But, all the time maintaining my independence and respecting other's all the time. Is this a difficult environment? Yes, and it is called democracy. And it is not even worth calling it green, except as an abbreviation, after all it is grownups doing the responsible things.

2,. Then there are Greens. A fellow recently argued (as a GUEST) that unless the government enforces mandatory savings in energy, we all are going down the tube. These clowns want to enforce whatever halfbaked ideas they can cook up. The ethanol fuel mandate and CO2 sequestration comes to mind as prime examples. These people cannot help, but enforce, because even they have to know, it is idiocy they promote. An they have already failed in the open market of convincing others.

3,. And there are GREENS. ELF Environmental Liberation Front is high on the FBI list, for good reason. Then there is an aussie fellow here, but on a different thread, who recently spelled out, that he is for energy development, except for coal, oil, gas and nuclear. What?!? And he want to enforce it all. And never mind nohow, that recent technology does away with the objections to the nuclear power. Never mind that coal gasification is a 50-70 years old technology. NONONONO, NEVER, NOHOW, NOT THIS, NOT THAT, NOT NOTHING. I close my ears, my eyes, my mind, NOHOW. These are your GREENS. These people give a bad name to Luddites.

I have a difficult time to distinguish between Greens and GREENS. As it is obvious, that GREENS are a lunatic fringe, interestingly Greens not only do not forcefully repudiate them, but seem to be protective of them. So, until that happens, I on occasion just lump them together, and do not hold my breath. Now, I do not mind at all, if these pesky people settle in their own country and SHOW US, how brilliant they are. It strikes me, that honest work (and the failures associated with it) is the furthest thing from their mind, IMHO. It is so much more fun hectoring us.

I am for a responsible progression. Some folks are for an irresponsible regression(and at times homicidal). That is my shorthand for them.

Hallo Guest #44 welcome. Please become a regular here.

Interestingly, I agree with you most of the way. In particular, I have argued too, from time to time, that using the most precious forms of energy, eg. oil and natural gas is immoral, bordering on criminal, as it is standard practice today.

On the other hand, it was Green and NIMBY (not in my backyard) push, that caused power plants fueled by natural gas. It is borderline criminal. Baseline (industrial and home) energy demands are best satisfied by atomic power, thereby saving other forms for chemistry, transportation and home heating. And no, I did not mean the antiquated (but well working) first generation plants. I meant third generation mixed / thorium plants. Look them up, they are light years away from the very first prototypes.

Thank you for your contribution. Just one request: here we do not use right / left political labels. They are constraining. We frequently argue north / south, sweet / sour or whatever fits our argument at the time.

And I am confident, that we can recover and soar, given the right will and attitude.

Welcome.

Hallo Guest #44.

I wanted to comment on your note's specifics, as I consider it as a subject in its own right.

First of all, I set up - as a readily understandable example - a 100 hp engine full throttle consumption in my calculations. The consumption is known, the efficiencies are well known. But, nobody runs an engine full throttle, except, maybe in water pumping and power generation application. On the highway, maybe 20% power is used with (maybe) 12,5% half of the stated engine, now engine to road) efficiency. So, for whatever it is worth, my stated times got to be restated for real life as:

20% of the consumption, 50% less the efficiency.

So: a square meter may drive a 100 hp engine in real life highway conditions for a time of 0.25 x 5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = roughly 0,4 hours. The last 0.5 is your corrective factor of lesser efficiency.

On the other hand, I gathered from the info at the national laboratories, that they hope to develop better cellulose converting bacteria.

So in our dreamland: a square meter may be good for 0,8 or 1,2 hours, almost three or five time of the original estimates. If and when, I do not have a clue. But it would be good for our cropland.

Folks, I and my friends are not meandering meaninglessly all over the landscape. What you see here is the very nature of research. Guesstimate, estimate, correction time and time again. If we would know, where we want to arrive, we would go there straightaway. As soon as Toomuch reports back on his friends efforts, newspaper reports, website, it will be incorporated in the guesstimates / estimates too, as the story developes.

Un-fortunately this forum seems to be going nowhere worth where worth while. It seems to have degenerated into Greens and NIMBYs vs Know it alls with no experience spouting Law of thermodynamics wearing blinders preventing them from expanding their knowledge, against folks with the vision and desire to create change that will benefit all society. It started as a General question regarding food prices and oil and has fallen into session of tit for tat. I'm going back out to my shop and continue to build an explosion resistant container to house my very efficient HHO Booster. Unlike others I have experienced the power of just a little oxy-hydrogen (only less than 4 cubic inches) exploding something that I presumed would be safe for just a little experimentation. For those of you who are desperate for relief from the high prices at the pump and are rushing out to spend any where from 0ver $1,000.00 down to $49.00 for a jelly jar, I wish you good health and good luck. I have something more to do, MAKE IT HAPPEN! WHILE HAVING A LITTLE FUN.

KINDEST REGARDS

TOOMUCHFUN

Dont just do that Toomuch!!

If you can handle it, and willing to stand it , please let us have the fun (and aggaravation) of sharing with you your trials and tribulations. We might or might not agree with you in every detail (but you would not be here, if that would be your aim), but we would not be here without positive aims for the future.

Going back to the point of the original question: Would ending all auto racing help the gas price situation? I suspect it would since not only is fuel used in the race, it is used to test the cars, it is used for practice racing for the drivers, it is used to transport the cars to the track and to transport the drivers and spectators to the track. This occurs in many places throughout the country many times per year. Also, building and maintaining the track takes fuel. Thus the quantity of fuel used is significant.

There are appx 75,000,000 NASCAR fans alone: http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-06/2005-05-26-voa2.cfm

The price of gas is theoretically driven by the economics of supply and demand. By eliminating all the fuel consumption associated with auto racing, the fuel demand in the US would drop slightly. What would be the net effect? I have no idea, but it might have a 1 or 2 cent per gallon effect. That's a total SWAG and I encourage calculations to show different results.

The racing world is trying to look more green. From this website you'll find an article about 100% ethanol burning race cars from Honda. http://www.autoracingtoday.com/

It's laughable to see every corporation on the planet clamor to LOOK green and yet we hear the constant whining about the awful "greens" including from some on this website.

On the ethanol debate in this thread, the problem is that the ethanol is mixed with gasoline. This causes vehicles to use 10-20 percent more fuel than without the ethanol. So, there is actually no savings from ethanol and it is actually driving the demand for oil higher, leading to higher prices. That is the hidden error in the "back of envelope" calcs in this thread.

On the "democracy" issue and on greens wanting to "force" things onto people, as some have mentioned: To have a successful democracy requires responsibility from citizens. Responsibility in the US is sorely lacking - it is a huge problem. A citizen choosing to drive a vehicle that gets 20 mpg when vehicles that get over 50 mpg are available is not acting responsibly. The "market" has failed due to the lack of responsibility of the people. This is the same problem that got us into the mortgage crisis: irresponsible people signing up for homes they could not even come close to affording AND irresponsible lenders encouraging them to do it, etc. These are just two examples of irresponsibility. The market has failed and the nation stands on the brink of total financial collapse due to irresponsible citizens and politicians. This is also due to a very significant degree by irresponsible trade agreements agreed to by our irresponsible government that allow irresponsible corporations to ship American jobs overseas.

You can allow the irresponsible morons to destroy the nation AND the world or are you can "force" things that will prevent them from doing that. Step one in the energy crisis is conservation and it will only occur if it is "forced" on people due to their lack of personal responsibility. That is a sad statement, but it is ABSOLUTE FACT.

Don't forget fertilizer production for football, baseball,soccer, golf, etc. turf. And the fuel use associated with with those spectating and participating in those activities. No more little league all around the world. I can go on. You get the idea. If we attack one, we must attack all. What a world that would be.

This is a valid argument only if you accept that people are irresponsible and stupid. The 'slippery slope' is one of the weakest possible forms of argument. There is a huge difference to most people between encouraging active sports participation in children who actually benefit from the exercise, and the expenditure of huge amounts of resources on passive spectator activities for adults. I could mention in passing that as a kid I was perfectly happy playing baseball, football and soccer in the dirt. Most kids in the world still do. The grass is there to make the grownups happy.

There are close to a 800,000,000 (800 million) passenger cars in the world today. There couldn't be more than 100,000 race cars in the world, counting every conceivable level of competition in every country. That means that race cars represent .01% of all the cars in the world. So what you're saying is that by eliminating .01% of the cars in the world, we could make an environmental impact. Sure, there would be an impact, maybe a .02% (since race cars are less efficient than regular cars) impact. But wait, we haven't even considered planes, trains, and tanks and boats and ships, so that .02% is actually more like a .005% impact on gas. If we want to talk carbon emissions we have to talk power plants as well which means the impact is more like .001% if your lucky if you eliminate racing.

Please, when proposing solutions to global environmental problems, make sure you consider scale.

Well actually I thought my comment was concerned with the classic logical fallacy of the slippery slope argument. I don't remember proposing that we eliminate auto racing. But since I'm being accused of opposition to car racing I'll give it a shot, so that at least your kind words will not have been wasted.

1. It's not just the fuel burned by the racers, which I think is being underestimated here, but also the fuel burned by the fans driving to and from the racetrack. Sure they could just as easily burn that gas driving to a football or basketball game, but they aren't. So if for some reason we need to calculate the carbon footprint for auto racing, surely this should count, as of course should the mileage for the camera crews, pit crews, the truckers who bring in the race cars and all their gear, the tons of asphalt needed for the race track and parking lots, and the equipment needed to build and maintain them, and of course the other track workers who have to drive to work. An of course the racetrack is usually not located in town, because of land costs, noise pollution, etc., so everyone has to drive farther. Still, when all the gasoline is paid for, and the carbon dioxide and other emissions are tallied, it is in fact still a drop in the bucket.
2. The bigger problem is probably that this fosters in some segments of the public an attitude of reverence for powerful cars, and I have no doubt that if you wanted to do the research, you would find that as a group auto racing fans drive bigger, less fuel efficient vehicles then say, oh just about any other group you could name except perhaps for farmers and construction workers who need big vehicles for their jobs (I drive a 6-cylinder myself - maybe 6,000 miles per year). Come to think of it there is probably a lot of overlap here between these groups (here is the obligatory ad homnium attack). I would also bet that if you looked into the political attitudes of auto racing fans you would find much greater opposition to fuel efficiency standards, or any other sissy environmental stuff.

So you are right, and car racing is only a minor blip on the graph of petroleum usage. But 'car culture', of which car racing is a part almost certainly provides a kind of incentive to keep cars big and powerful, and keep mileage standards weak. Well if I thought about it some more I could probably think of more bad things to say about car racing, but I really don't much give a rats tailpipe about the subject. If I have an ax to grind here, it is that overuse of fossil fuels is a serious problem and requires a rational discussion. Slippery slope and ad homnium arguments don't add much.

My reply #54 was meant for the original post. It was not my intention to reply to your comment.

Since you don't care about democracy and want to force things, let's outlaw vacations since they use fuel. Let's start with ocean cruises, then all airplane trips (including business). The airlines are going bankrupt anyway, and we have the web to conduct business.

S

P.S. please show us a picture of the 50mpg vehicle that you drive.

Car racing makes only a small dent in the fuel issue. If you cease to race cars , why not boats and why not stop all recreational fishing and hunting, and why not stop all recreation altogether, and we can stop going to the movies, and out to diner, no more high school and college sports, no more professional sports, there will not be any need for more than 70% of our public transportation as every body will be staying home, getting on each others nerves, fighting ,leading to more divorces, and family arguments, or possibly leading to more pregnancies and more children and more folks to be fed, more family stresses as food becomes in short supply. with more children we will need more schools , and teachers, and sooner than later we will be involved in world war again as the increased number of folks inhabiting the planet will continue to create even greater shortages, AND ON AND ON AND ON! --- If you don't like auto racing, don't watch it. But when it comes to the economy, Get real, There is far more gasoline wasted every day by people driving when there is no need to even been on the road.

Toomuchfun

Oil prices have made food prices rise. The production of ethanol is from extra grain grown just for that purpose. The food grain production has actually risen in the last few years. Farmers plant what they can sell, a larger market means more is planted. Since only 1/3 of the farmland is actively farmed anyway, any new market can mean more profit for farmers without cutting back food production.

Who is hurt by ethanol? Big Oil, OPEC. Could the media be wrong? Who pushed for ethanol in the first place, for a renewable fuel? Environuts and politicians after the harmful fuel additive debacle in California.

There have been studies that show the "food shortage" may not be real.

Hallo Guest #80. Interesting writings.

But before going into that, I would like to thank to Toomuch # 53 for handling the underlaying fundamental understanding so absolutely to the point. You left me just a few things to say.

The world is divided between those, who generally believe the working in the markets. And those, who distrusting the aggregate wisdom of the market, prefer top down command and control economies, or worse, command and control societies. I lived in both, and vastly prefer the first, based on personal experience. Until you -MEANING YOU YOURSELF - have adequate and personal experience, you have no standing to voice opinion beyond theory, and even that only, when loudly marked. The famous command and control societies - starting with Hitler and Mussolini - have all failed. But you still can observe them in the glittering jewels of North Korea and Cuba, for example. Their leaders were ALL impatient with the sluggishness of their "unwashed masses".

GUEST, One can have one's opinions, BUT one cannot have one's facts. That distinction have clearly and demonstrated escaped you. Some time ago the Congress in its infinite wisdom, in a fit of pique demanded lenders to hand out mortgages to people with bad chances, or else. Not just some credit, but the full enchilada, or else. (Do you see the top down wisdom in action here?!?). So, some by ignorance, others by greed took mortgages they had absolutely no business to take, nor granted. Now the Congress try to smell like roses, and behaves like a dog, who does not sees its poop by looking the other way. The lenders, the borrowers, including YOU boobie are left holding the bag. The second timely top down screwup of the Congress (and do not even dare to go near to that, or else) is the global <expletive deleted> of the "ethanol mandate". This again is a glowing, prime example of a top down, command and control attempt at economies by people fluently and utterly ignorant.

And I do not ask you to like all of this.

And then this glittering jewel:

"You can allow the irresponsible morons to destroy the nation AND the world or are you can "force" things that will prevent them from doing that. Step one is the energy crisis is conservation and it will only occur if it is "forced" on people due to their lack of personal responsibility. That is a sad statement, but is ABSOLUTE FACT."

What force elevated you over the rest of us peons, and who granted you the infinite wisdom expressed in your statements? For your exceptionality proof is required.

And who are those irresponsible morons?!? As their definition may widely differ between us?

------------------------------------------------------------

I rather be ruled by the first 100 of the Boston telephone directory, but by the Harvard University faculty. Or some such.

Per another user's request, an expletive was deleted from comment #60.

Yup that's how I remember it. Well said.

Just to be fair and not make this about party politics, It was a bill passed in the Republican Congress signed by a Democratic President (Clinton) which took the first deregulation steps.

Here's a reminder:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml

George W. Bush is not truly conservative, he just seems that way when compared to Bill Clinton and wife. During the past 8 years the Republicans began to act more like Democrats to bribe people to vote for them. One such "bribe" was easy home ownership by minorities, many of whom were financially unqualified. The Democrats version of the "bribe" was more public housing projects plus pushing for more minority ownership. Both were unrealistic, pandering to those who wanted, but weren't willing or able to afford what they wanted.

Unfortunately there are persons in every political party, in every kind of business, who will do things that are bad in the long term, in order to get short term gain. We need "reasonable" regulations, not too strict or too lax. The problem is in defining "reasonable". Some would have no restrictions on mortgage finances, arguing that the businesses should have enough sense to do it right or suffer the consequences. Some would have very strict governmental controls, dictating every move of a financial institution. Laissez faire or complete governmental control are both wrong.

There were some overly restrictive regulations and there still are, while other areas were deregulated too much or not regulated at all. It is not the fault of any political party or business group alone, they all had a hand in creating the problem, even while some in government and business opposed them. To be realistic, not everyone is able to own a home, which is why everyone seems to want to own one and will vote for whomever seems to make it easier for them to own a home. Greed is a factor too. "Flip this house" became the newest way of getting rich quick in the constantly inflating housing bubble. That alone should have signaled that there was a problem coming, but neither political party had the courage to call for cooling the housing market.

This, added to the raising of the minimum wage and by default all wages, coupled with rising oil prices and the cost of attempting to bring peace and freedom around the world, has been one of the major factors in raising U. S. food prices. The production of ethanol has had little or no effect on food prices or grain supplies, as grain production has increased to meet the demand, much to the delight of farmers.

Curiously, I tend to agree with the two preceding notes commenting on my strongly worded assessment on the top down working, and high handed actions of the Congress. I rather see them - in general - as a fleshing out from differing points of views.

But, in looking up some things dimly remembered I experienced a "six degree of separation" event. That theorem states -but is unproven - that all people on Gods green earth are no more, than a 6 person personal acquitance apart. Hard to get the mind around, but just happened to me. I was looking for the person explaining the governmental origin of famines.....Well, a former professor of mine, Gyula Germanus (a multi, multilingual orientalist) and his wife, Rozsa Hajnoczy (a writer of some stature) figure in this experience. He was the only one who made the hajj from the modern time old country and met the founder of Saudi Arabia, king Abdul Aziz. He was also a professor at Rabindranath Tagore's Santiniketan Indian (bengali) ashram / university he founded after he won the very first Nobel Price by any Indians. She, at the same time observed the end of the rajahs, the British rule, the beginning of the freedom movement, and wrote a book, translated many time, still available: The fire of Bengal (1944 Dhaka). If you do not know, what I am talking about, ask any Indian colleague of yours, and you get a colorful earful of it, including Mahatma Gandhi too. So, I can now claim - for what it is worth - a mere 2 degree of separation from Rabindranath Tagore, a 3 degree from Gandhi, and a 3 degree Amartya Sen. Who, you say??

Well, this Nobel Price winning fellow was born in Santiniketan, the University founded by the poet and was named by him too. He is very strong on the government's meddlig in the food prices and availability. And claims, that being the major cause. That is a strong indictment against government meddling and strong support for the working of the free market.

John, my only disagreement comes at the end of you piece. Let me explain. I argued before, time and again, that the goverment's role is a level economical playing field, a common defense (and not all that much else). I argue - and I stick to my guns on this one, - that, a cow (worth maybe 2500$) can be traced back to a particular feed lot and a particular herd in days, in case of a mad cow disease. That is good, that is how it should be. But....

When the banking system and Congress plead ignorance (and arrogance) being unable to trace a 500thousand dollar mortgage to its origin, something is absolutely wrong with these clowns. How come, that a cheap cow is traceable, but not the expensive mortgage? It grieves me, but I am compelled to agree with a socialist rag on its description of this highway robbery.

So allow me to correct you:

I see people, who are willing to agree on democratically settled and adjusted, minimal playing field rules.

I see people, who do not trust people, and want to do all top down (mostly dictated by their particular phobias).

And I see people - as old fashioned mafia - want to take advantage of any situation, no matter how it arose. And they will, never mind the flag they happened to run under.

Well I'm glad to hear that we have more agreement than disagreement. I concede that in may times and places the biggest crooks gravitate towards government because that's where the power and get rich quick opportunities are. But I think that right now and right here (in the US at least) the biggest crooks are in business (not all or even most businesses), because that's where you can make a killing now. They have their stooges in place in government (congress, the pentagon, regulatory agencies, etc.) because in the US right now the biggest business opportunities are (1) looting the government and (2) screwing the middle class.

So while I agree with you to some extent about limited government and reasonable regulations, I think that at this moment 'reasonable' regulations need to be fairly strict. That we have laws that allow the USDA to track one particular side of beef back through the feed lot to the farmer is not surprising - a safe food supply in in the interest of just about everybody. But the fact that the origins of mortgages are largely untraceable is to be expected - it is in fact entirely intentional. Until the last year or so the subject has been off the radar screen for the voting public, and the details of what has been going on are a lot harder to understand than the consequences of eating a sick cow.

By the same token, the fact that no one can determine what happens to the billions of dollars spent on say the Katrina clean-up, or the hundreds of billions funneled to the pentagon is no surprise - the people running these shows don't want anybody poking around in their nasty business. So unless and until there is some clear movement towards ethical reform in the business world (I'm not holding my breath), I personally have decided to reluctantly view government as a the only possible ally with the power to stand up against the 'mafia'. If the government can be persuaded to do the job, I have not doubt that they will not do it well, but short of divine intervention they are the only sufficiently powerful player in sight.

Wow, John, you downright frighten me. I am actually agreeing with you on most things you mentioned. What is going on here?

So, allow me to list a couple (incomplete) items, we at least should be at loggerheads:

!,. Atomic power for baseload should be produced by third generation nuclear / thorium power sources.

2,. Water should be produced by the same means.

3,. We all should be prosperous along the same lines.

4,. Somebody, at least should complain about the wind yields.

Well I have to admit that I haven't kept up on the nuclear power issue. My feelings against nuclear came about when I lived near the star crossed construction of the power plant at Diablo Canyon in California, the one they had more or less built backwards before they discovered their errors. I was working as a musician at the time, and most of the big spenders in the local bars were the workers building the plant. They had some stories to tell, and none of them reflected well on the management. But that was a long time ago and maybe things have changed. My concern though would not be with the technology, it would be with the fact that new plants are likely to be built by the usual suspects: Haliburton, Bechtel, GE, etc.. But thank you for reminding me that I need to keep up with new developments.

Water is going to be the big item on our plates from now on. If nuclear can be made to work, then I assume you are talking about major new de-sal plants. This will probably be an absolute necessity. I have just moved from California to Oregon, and one of the big reasons was that Oregon gets more rain, and if the global warming (climate change) models are at all accurate, we will be getting even more. I like to grow my own vegetables, chickens, etc., and I hate dragging hoses around to water everything.

I hope that we will all 'live long and prosper'. I hope that the developing world can prosper without making all the same mistakes that we in the west have made. I hope that those of us in the west can learn to feel prosperous without demanding such a huge piece of the pie. My guess is that the engineers in China and India are just about as smart as their counterparts in the west, and are rapidly catching up in terms of experience. Since they currently work for maybe 1/4 as much money, we in the west need to be at least 4X as productive. It's not likely to happen.

As for wind power, here in Oregon we have massive amounts of wind blowing in off the Pacific through the Colombia River gorge. Wind power makes excellent sense here. I think many other locations (Altamont, CA) are more iffy. This one seems to be one to decide on a local basis. One thing I do like about the wind power is that the technology is small scale, and there is a chance that at least some people will be able to get their power without paying the 'usual suspects'.

So, unfortunately it seems like we agree at least partly on this stuff too. What do you think about peace on earth, and children on the moon?