[KYHeirloomer]

I wonder how many cheered passage of the new energy bill? Me, I was against it right from the start, primarily because it all but kills any alternative energy source not based on ethanol. No matter what the topic, putting all your eggs in one basket is foolhardy. And with energy, it isn't the fuel that's at fault, but the inefficiency of the basic operating tool.

Unheeded in all the hoopla is what this is going to do to the cost of food. Many people, even professionals, don't seem to realize how deeply we are a corn-based society.

Last year along, food prices rose faster than any time in the previous 15 years, approaching as much as 4%/month. Although there were other factors contributing, economists say the primary cause was the high demand for ethanol, which pushed up the price of corn.

As of right not, Americans are paying about 10% more for breakfast foods than they did a year earlier, according to a USDA spokesman quoted by the Los Angeles Times.

With the much lauded energy bill now a reality, I shudder to think what will happen to food prices in 2008.

[phatch]

Besides which ethanol isn't a very good choice for a general fuel for the US. There isn't enough arable land to source enough ethanol for general US consumption.

This is not to say that ethanol should be ignored, but that it should compete on the market there is for it.

The government's only role should be to shepherd ethanol to those niches where it would be meaningful. Corporate and government fleet vehicles for example where they fuel and maintain their own vehicles for daily short travel distances without concern over distant ethanol sources.

Same for biodiesel where it could be funneled to diesel trains and or OTR trucking as it has the same issues. There isn't enough land to produce generally viable quantities of biodiesel either.

If the government used it's power to help develop appropriate niche markets, that's one of the better interim energy policy steps it could take that would contribute to important domestic energy production, recycling and pollution issues. But to try and force these small production fuels into the general market is not economically viable and doesn't help address our energy issues.

Let alone the food inflation these subsidies drive.

Phil

[KYHeirloomer]

Phil, while you're on the right track, the basic problem is that we shouldn't be worrying about fuels at all. Not in the conventional sense.

The most inefficient machine ever invented is the internal combustian engine. No matter what it is fed, the net effect is the same. A fuel is burned to produce an exothermic reaction, which is used to do work. But 95% of the reaction is vented away. Indeed, a large percentage of automobile engine problems have, historically, been traced to the need to vent that "excess" heat.

Meanwhile, we've been sending rockets into space for nearly half a century. Fuel cell production is (or, rather, should be) a mature technology, and there is no rational reason why fuel cells cost as much as they do. Other than the fact that production is severly, and artifically, limited.

Similarly, by this point in time, nuclear power should be the primary fuel of almost everything. A sane nuclear policy would negate the need for any fossil fuel usage or other combustibles. Nuclear would also solve certain other looming problems, including solid waste disposal and desalinization of sea water.

But that's not going to happen, either, because too many in the gubmint are financially wedded to live fuels.

Meanwhile, I'm getting pretty tired of having to cry mea culpa when nothing is done to control emmissions from trucks, and government vehicles such as busses.

[phatch]

[quote=KYHeirloomer;203269]

Oh I largely agree. Oil is what supports the value of the US dollar. If the Arabs decide to accept another currency for oil, the US is hosed.

[foodpump]

You're on the right track Phatch.. The US gubmint weaned the dollar off of gold and based it on oil quite a while ago. It used to be that ALL oil was traded in US dollars, but, with the emerging Russian oil, Iraq and Iran oil, and the Euro currency, things just ain't what they used to be......

[shel]

[quote=phatch;203276]

Originally Posted by KYHeirloomer

Oh I largely agree. Oil is what supports the value of the US dollar. If the Arabs decide to accept another currency for oil, the US is hosed.

It may not be so far off - times, they are a'changin'

The Dollar Steps Down as the World's Currency

Three of the world's biggest oil exporters, Iran,
Venezuela, and Russia, are demanding payment in euros
rather than dollars. Last week a Chinese central bank
vice-director, Xu Jian, gave voice to the suspicion of
others, saying that the dollar was "losing its status as
the world currency."

shel