Olfart2011

Veteran Author
Huntsville
Posts:257 Points:49,145 Joined:Feb 2011
|
Message Posted: Feb 13, 2011 6:41:12 PM
Jacksfan : fwiw the GAO stated in 2007 after doing a series of studies on this topic that: " the corn needed to significantly increase ethanol production will come from planting more acres of corn by putting pastureland and idle land into production, planting corn where other crops were previously grown, or using corn that is currently exported or used as feed for livestock or other purposes. Concerns exist about the potential impacts of such actions on FOOD PRICES and the enviornment. For example, using more corn for energy production will likely exert additional upward pressure on corn prices, potentially influencing livestock feed markets and meat prices. Furthermore, environmental concerns exist regarding greater water use and impacts on wildlife if land set aside for purposes such as water conservation or wildlife habitat is put into production....." id be glad to provide references but i read Journals report and i dont see anything in their premise that is significantly contrary to GAO's--- so whom do I believe???.
|
jacksfan

Champion Author
Lincoln
Posts:2,556 Points:1,245,595 Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2011 9:57:52 AM
"I see, you don't care what information is included in a report, just as long as the "ultimate conclusion" (erroneous as it is) agrees with the corn farmers association's propaganda..."
I see, you ignore the conclusions of a study when they don't support your extremist agenda, but you cherry pick material from the study that does and try to spin that as supportive of your extremist position. And you claim to be some sort of university teacher. Yeah, right.
|
Shockjock1961

Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,380 Points:2,212,860 Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2011 10:35:45 PM
"If you don't like the conclusions, shocky, submit a peer review"
I see, you don't care what information is included in a report, just as long as the "ultimate conclusion" (erroneous as it is) agrees with the corn farmers association's propaganda...
[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 2/6/2011 10:36:09 PM EST]
|
jacksfan

Champion Author
Lincoln
Posts:2,556 Points:1,245,595 Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2011 1:20:19 PM
If you don't like the conclusions, shocky, submit a peer review.
BTW, it's 2008 all over again, and you're a big enough sucker to buy into it all over again: Tyson profit up 86 percent
|
Shockjock1961

Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,380 Points:2,212,860 Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 5, 2011 2:04:59 PM
"So now citing the ultimate conclusion of a study somehow is cherry picking"
If you actually read the study, you would see that the "ultimate conclusion" contradicts what is reported within...
So, yep, it's cherry picking...
|
jacksfan

Champion Author
Lincoln
Posts:2,556 Points:1,245,595 Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 5, 2011 12:31:00 PM
So now citing the ultimate conclusion of a study somehow is cherry picking?
And you claim to be a university teacher? There's a word for that, too, shocky ... starts with a b, ends with a t.
|
Shockjock1961

Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,380 Points:2,212,860 Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 5, 2011 11:14:36 AM
Talk about cherry picking Jackie....
Yet another time when you use idioms to criticize while doing exactly the deed you are criticizing. There is a word for that...
[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 2/5/2011 11:16:02 AM EST]
|
GrumpyCat

Champion Author
Alabama
Posts:2,757 Points:810,870 Joined:Jun 2009
|
Message Posted: Feb 5, 2011 12:12:50 AM
These are the same guys who reported no correlation between the size of the cat population and the rat population?
|
jacksfan

Champion Author
Lincoln
Posts:2,556 Points:1,245,595 Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2011 9:33:35 PM
So if you believe the bits and pieces you cherry picked, shocky, then surely you also must believe in this:
"That leads to the ultimate conclusion that the argument, that recent increases of biofuels production has a significant impact on feedstocks prices, does not hold."
Good to have you finally admit it.
|
pgerassi

Champion Author
Milwaukee
Posts:11,041 Points:2,160,970 Joined:Apr 2007
|
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2011 9:21:24 PM
The journal is wrong in one respect, we can be satisfied with biofuel production for the needed use in transportation. Because mnuch of the consumption is not really needed as fuel. Most of it can be satisfied by PIHEVs in electric powered only mode. And the current power plants can supply all of the needed energy to do that. The needed fuel use for long range travel is just about 10% of the average car's use. Multiply that by all of the cars, pickups, vans, and SUVs and we could run the personal vehicles off current ethanol production.
As for the big trucks, we could also supply their needs, if the typical use is to/from a multi-mode rail yard or ship dock. The energy needed by rail could be handled by electrification. So we are left with less than 10% of the diesel used in the larger trucks, buses and semis. Again we could have enough biofuel to meet that need as well.
While we can't just produce enough biofuel to sustain the current fleet the way they are used now, doesn't mean we could change the use pattern to make it able to be sustained from non crude oil sources. Later we can make it able to be sustained from non fossil fuel sources.
|
Shockjock1961

Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,380 Points:2,212,860 Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2011 4:12:24 PM
The journal also points this out:
"There are also problems of environmental benignity, sustain- ability and social implications with respect to biofuels production. Environmental problems such as soil erosion and water pollution from fertilisers and pesticides could become worse with increasing biofuels production.The fact is that even if all available crops, forests and grasses were used for biofuels, we could not become independent of fossil fuels"
|
Shockjock1961

Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,380 Points:2,212,860 Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2011 4:06:02 PM
Yes, energy prices do indeed affect food prices, but that in no way means that biofuel production has no effect on them itself, as the journal points out...
|
Hannie59

All-Star Author
Appleton
Posts:650 Points:17,725 Joined:Apr 2010
|
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2011 3:28:58 PM
The argument that ethanol is a food price increaser is emotional appeal that "appears" logical.
But the bulk of the cost of the stuff you consume is in what it costs to get it to the point of purchase. DIESEL FUEL, whics has skyrocketed along with oil is the reason for food inflation.
The bad wheat crop in Russia caused speculators to pour into corn and soybeans this year, not ethanol.
If we never figured out how to mass produce corn into alcohol and begin to burn it as a fuel, and create cattle feed as a by product which we now export, we'd still be looking at the same food prices today. Ethanol and food do not correlate at all.
SS is correct.
[Edited by: Hannie59 at 2/4/2011 3:32:41 PM EST]
|
Shockjock1961

Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,380 Points:2,212,860 Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2011 3:17:32 PM
No connection?
The journal, energy, seems to disagree with you...
They claim that biofuels can indeed be responsible for higher food costs AND they are uncompetitive with fossil fuels without taxpayer handouts...
"In years with high agricultural yield increasing demand for feedstocks for biofuels production does not have significant impact on food prices.But in the years with low agricultural yield food price increase could be significant due to biofuels production (like this year perhaps?) The current biofuels production is relatively low,mostly due to high biofuels costs. Biofuels are generally not competitive with fossil fuels without subsidies with Brazil being the only exception."
[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 2/4/2011 3:17:56 PM EST]
|
SilverStreaker

Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:12,077 Points:2,244,120 Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2011 2:04:00 PM
Energy prices have the largest effect on food prices.
|