The Observation Deck

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/fe ... s-come-to/

The push to replace oil with biofuels has led to farmers growing more corn and less wheat. This, crop failures, and trading the commodities on a more global market have lead to the price of wheat flour more than doubling. The price of Hops and Barley have also increased greatly.

It creates an interesting dynamic. corn based ethanol makes motor fuel cheaper, so it doesn't cost as much to deliver a pizza. But now the pizza and beer costs a lot more. it is hard to enjoy the new 4 foot hi-def tv without pizza and beer.

ryan costa wrote:http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/feb/28/wheat-watching-whole-wheat-price-woes-come-to/

The push to replace oil with biofuels has led to farmers growing more corn and less wheat. This, crop failures, and trading the commodities on a more global market have lead to the price of wheat flour more than doubling. The price of Hops and Barley have also increased greatly.

Democrats and Republicans signed on to this biofuels nonsense for a lot of reasons that had nothing to do with energy independence.

It turns out that tax subsidies for biofuels are damaging to the environment and the economy. Don't look for those idiots in congress to change course.

This is going to change my long term plans. I wanted to eat a lot more pizza and drink more beer.

Algaculture has the potential to produce 7 to 20 times the biofuel per acre as terrestrial crops

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

The difficulty may be producing enough translucent plastic or glass to grow it all under.

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

Iron Fertilization may convert vast swaths of the ocean into much more productive ocean. It could also suck an enormous amount of C02 out of the atmosphere. We may even need to burn more coal to offset all the C02 being sucked out of atmosphere.

Bill you confuse me. In previous posts you have opposed the development of local passenger rail because it benefits not just Lakewood, but communities west of here. And you have opposed the conversion of the Shoreway to a boulevard because it would increase somewhat the downtown commute time of Lakewood residents.

Yet you oppose biofuels presumably because they are less efficient than petrol-derived fuels.

So tell me, instead of telling us all what you oppose, tell us what do you support. Is it transportation as usual, with long commutes accomplished with single-occupant vehicles, using conventional oil-derived fuels, or is it something else? I am presuming the former. Do you believe that long commutes in single-occupant-vehicles can be sustained forever?

Personally I am opposed to biofuels too, because I am for energy conservation. Shorter commutes. Smaller homes. So that maybe we can use our topsoil for food instead of for motoring.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Tim Liston wrote:Bill you confuse me. In previous posts you have opposed the development of local passenger rail because it benefits not just Lakewood, but communities west of here. And you have opposed the conversion of the Shoreway to a boulevard because it would increase somewhat the downtown commute time of Lakewood residents.

Yet you oppose biofuels presumably because they are less efficient than petrol-derived fuels.

Do you believe that long commutes in single-occupant-vehicles can be sustained forever?

I am opposed to the use of the rail line in Lakewood as a passenger line serving Westlake and Avon Lake unless there are substantial development dollars made available to Lakewood. Otherwise the rail line becomes just another freeway through Lakewood. The City has a lot of leverage before the line is built and no leverage after it is built.

I always supported the conversion of the Shoreway into a Boulevard.

Some biofuels make some sense. The programs supported by Congress enssentially turn food into gasoline and do a lot of damage and make no sense.

Forever is a long time but some version of the passenger car will be the primary means of transport for quit a while.

Let's not forget the problem with using corn to produce ethanol. Most of the corn in the us is fertilized with nitrogen based compound. That in turn takes many gallons of petroleum to produce. As long as people are still sold on the hoax of corn for ethanol we are still going to use just as much oil. It is just a matter of in what stage of production do you use that oil.

Any use of food for fuel is insane. Add what Jim noted about the extra added attraction of extra petrol needed for corn and throw in corn's footprint on topsoil.

There are other choices.

Congress does a bad job of thinking. Particularly when it comes to stuff like food, fuel and farms. I'm wondering how they explain farm subsidies to Ted Turner.

We keep electing or re-electing dolts. Heck we keep thinking our elected officials are going to "fix" things and in a sense, they do.

dl meckes wrote:Congress does a bad job of thinking.

Ahmen