Only 281 Chevy Volts, 67 Nissan Leafs sold in February

[Little-Acorn]

To no one's surprise except GM's, it turned out that a $40,000 car with four seats and no interior heater was NOT what millions of Americans had in mind for their next car. Neither was a $35,000 car that couldn't make it from Denver to Colorado Springs in winter without stopping at a kindly Good Samaritan's house for half a day to recharge, as Nissan has now painfully found out after sinking $millions into design, construction, and marketing.

(Government rebates that allow you to take $7,500 from your neighbor's pocket to pay for a car he doesn't get to drive, didn't help either. Perhaps because dealers are marking the cars' prices up by nearly that amount?)

Various "green" advocates have been strident in their insistence that these cars would be a Wonderful Thing. Perhps Nissan and GM (Govt Motors) should send the bill to them, for all the ones that haven't sold?

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

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/03/01/gm-sells-281-chevy-volts-february-nissan-67-leafs/

GM sells just 281 Chevy Volts in February, Nissan only moves 67 Leafs

by Sebastian Blanco
Mar 1st 2011 at 7:47PM

Peruse Chevrolet's February sales release, and you'll notice one number that's blatantly missing: the number of Chevy Volts sold. The number – a very modest 281 – is available in the company's detailed data (PDF), but it certainly isn't something that GM wants to highlight, apparently. Keeping the number quiet is a bit understandable, since it's lower than the 321 that Chevy sold in January.

Nissan doesn't have anything to brag about here, either (and it didn't avoiding any mention of the Leaf sales in its press release). Why? Well, back in January, the company sold 87 Leafs. In February? Just 67. Where does that leave us? Well, here's the big scorecard for all sales of these vehicles thus far:

Volt: 928
Leaf: 173

Ouch. The big questions, of course, revolve around one word: "Why?" Is ramping up production and deliveries still a problem? Is demand weak? Are unscrupulous dealers to blame? When will sales start to climb? And what are these numbers doing to plug-in vehicle work at other automakers?

[fj1200]

(Government rebates that allow you to take $7,500 from your neighbor's pocket to pay for a car he doesn't get to drive, didn't help either. Perhaps because dealers are marking the cars' prices up by nearly that amount?)

So the rebates don't go to the consumer as incentive to purchase the wunder car? Color me shocked.

[Little-Acorn]

Only 281 Chevy Volts, 67 Nissan Leafs sold in February


Don't worry.

As soon as the Supreme Court announces that the Obama administration DOES have the Constitutional authority to force us to buy things we don't want (like Obamacare)...

Barack Obama will simply order each of us to buy a Chevy Volt.

Then you'll see the market for these cars explode.

One way or another.

[revelarts]

Both the GM and the Nissan seem like crappy cars. No Heater?!? what the heck were they thinking?


Tesla Motors has about 3500 reservations for their electrics cars.
So I'm not sure the electric idea is the problem it's just the combo of factors that have to click IMO.


...Tesla is currently developing the Model S, an all-electric family sedan. Tesla unveiled the car March 26, 2009 with an anticipated base price of US$57,400 (or US$49,900[13] after a US federal tax credit). The Model S will have three battery pack options for a range of up to 300 miles (480 km) per charge.[14] As of January 2011, Tesla has taken about 3,500 reservations for the Model S and expects to begin delivering cars to customers in 2012.[10] Tesla currently employs more than 500 people and is aggressively recruiting employees for positions in the headquarters in Palo Alto, California; at its European headquarters in Maidenhead, UK; and at an increasing number of sales facilities throughout North America and Europe.[15] Tesla plans to build the Model S in 2012[16] in Fremont, California in an assembly plant formerly operated by NUMMI, a now defunct joint venture of Toyota and General Motors.[17] Tesla purchased a stake in the site in May 2010 for US$42 million,[16][18] and opened the facility in October 2010 as the Tesla Factory....

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Tesla_Motors

[Little-Acorn]

an anticipated base price of US$57,400 (or US$49,900[13] after a US federal tax credit). The Model S will have three battery pack options for a range of up to 300 miles (480 km) per charge.
Is the longest-range battery pack option, the one that costs $57K?

Or is that the shortest-range one?

How much does the longest-range one cost?

BTW, how much does it cost to replace those batteries, and how often must it be done? On a Prius (which doesn't use its batteries as heavily as the Tesla will) it has to be done every other year, at a cost of around $5,000 or more every time.

(It costs less the replace the ENGINE in a Ford Taurus, every two years!)

Inquiring minds want to know.....!

[NightTrain]

I was talking with my girlfriend about that the other day when the subject of electric cars came up... with no cooling system for the engine, how are you going to heat the interior of the car? Electric element heaters are inefficient at best and would kill the battery power fast.

I know there's a degree of heat generated by the electric motors while they're working, but I wonder if it'll be enough to do the trick at 30 below. Or even at 10 degrees above.

[Monkeybone]

probably figured that they didn't need a heater since most of the buyers live in Cali

[Thunderknuckles]

The problem with the cars in general is their cost to the average middle class buyer. The only people that buy them are people who are passionate about being "green" and will spend the money because it makes them feel good about themselves.
The Tesla is a bit of an exception in that it is a high end, exotic sports car. I strongly suspect the folks lining up for that one are those with money to burn and desire the car for the "cool" factor rather than its green appeal.

As for me, I'd buy a "green" car at the drop of a hat as long as it offered advantages that outweighed those of a traditional car at a competitive price point. That's just not the case now. We shall see if there will be enough early adopters to fuel growth of these vehicles.

[Psychoblues]

While that report is probably true I think the assumtions are all wrong. Electric vehicles are without a single doubt a large part of the future of the world. I live in a golf cart community and I own one myself. The gas units are a a goddamned maintenance nightmare, labor intensive, expensive to keep running, noisy, filthy and generally obnoxious pieces of shit as compared to their electric counterparts. I own a 48v 2005 Club Car and other than charge, clean and service my batteries I have never done one single thing for maintenance or repair. We will get to similar comparisons in highway automobiles and future technologies. My great grandchildren will see a day when the mere sight of a gas automobile will be an unusual thing and more likely to happen in a museum rather than on any roadway. This is as it SHOULD be.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

While that report is probably true I think the assumtions are all wrong. Electric vehicles are without a single doubt a large part of the future of the world. I live in a golf cart community and I own one myself. The gas units are a a goddamned maintenance nightmare, labor intensive, expensive to keep running, noisy, filthy and generally obnoxious pieces of shit as compared to their electric counterparts. I own a 48v 2005 Club Car and other than charge, clean and service my batteries I have never done one single thing for maintenance or repair. We will get to similar comparisons in highway automobiles and future technologies. My great grandchildren will see a day when the mere sight of a gas automobile will be an unusual thing and more likely to happen in a museum rather than on any roadway. This is as it SHOULD be.

Psychoblues

$40,000 plus for one these pieces of crap - who would pay that kind of money for an electric car that goes 40 miles before needing a charge?

PB one day I hope liberal like you are in a museum and great grandkids have no idea what the hell a liberal is

Their lives and world would be so much better

[Psychoblues]

$40,000 plus for one these pieces of crap - who would pay that kind of money for an electric car that goes 40 miles before needing a charge?

PB one day I hope liberal like you are in a museum and great grandkids have no idea what the hell a liberal is

Their lives and world would be so much better

More whining, refusing to change or see the future or appreciate the benefits of increasing technologies that save the environment, our health, our bottom line dollars, etc., red? This technology that you seem to be so afraid of is the future. No question or doubt about it whatsoever.

What do you do with all that fear, hate, anger and ignorance while you're out trying to put in an honest day's work?

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

While that report is probably true I think the assumtions are all wrong. Electric vehicles are without a single doubt a large part of the future of the world. I live in a golf cart community and I own one myself. The gas units are a a goddamned maintenance nightmare, labor intensive, expensive to keep running, noisy, filthy and generally obnoxious pieces of shit as compared to their electric counterparts. I own a 48v 2005 Club Car and other than charge, clean and service my batteries I have never done one single thing for maintenance or repair. We will get to similar comparisons in highway automobiles and future technologies. My great grandchildren will see a day when the mere sight of a gas automobile will be an unusual thing and more likely to happen in a museum rather than on any roadway. This is as it SHOULD be.

Psychoblues

And they have their place. Like DisneyWorld, the electric buses work fine. Same as your carts. There are certainly applications. The truth of the matter is they aren't ready for those of us that have to drive more than a few miles per day. They aren't good for areas that can't handle the chargers.

Better batteries are needed, but I don't see them on the horizon. A goldmine for the company that produces them, but it won't be the US gov't.

[fj1200]

The gas units are a a goddamned maintenance nightmare, labor intensive, expensive to keep running, noisy, filthy and generally obnoxious pieces of shit as compared to their electric counterparts. I own a 48v 2005 Club Car and other than charge, clean and service my batteries I have never done one single thing for maintenance or repair.

Yup, and the gas ones suck on the golf course too.

[Psychoblues]

And they have their place. Like DisneyWorld, the electric buses work fine. Same as your carts. There are certainly applications. The truth of the matter is they aren't ready for those of us that have to drive more than a few miles per day. They aren't good for areas that can't handle the chargers.

Better batteries are needed, but I don't see them on the horizon. A goldmine for the company that produces them, but it won't be the US gov't.

Kath, this is a world wide environmental and energy catastrophe and it is certainly the responsibility of our federal government to assist in research and development of the environmental and energy considerations and technologies for at least future generations and possibly to improve the status quo dynamics immediately or as close as possible to immediately.

Psychochoblues

[Psychoblues]

Yup, and the gas ones suck on the golf course too.

Dig it, fj!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2:

Psychochoblues

[logroller]

So the rebates don't go to the consumer as incentive to purchase the wunder car? Color me shocked.

For what its worth, rebates have a similar effect upon all sectors of auto purchases-- not just wunder cars.

[logroller]

The issue here is, the necessity of more efficient personal transportion is outpaced by the creature comforts. I mean, it doesnt have a heater but, im willing to bet, it has a combination mp3, bluetooth, navigation system. :lame2:



Better batteries are needed, but I don't see them on the horizon. A goldmine for the company that produces them, but it won't be the US gov't.
Sadly, you're probably right-- my money's on China! They're already stockpiling rare-earth metals which are necessary for current (no pun intended), and likely new battery technology.


$40,000 plus for one these pieces of crap - who would pay that kind of money for an electric car that goes 40 miles before needing a charge?

PB one day I hope liberal like you are in a museum and great grandkids have no idea what the hell a liberal is

Their lives and world would be so much better

One day I hope you can heal that chip on your shoulder.

[DragonStryk72]

While that report is probably true I think the assumtions are all wrong. Electric vehicles are without a single doubt a large part of the future of the world. I live in a golf cart community and I own one myself. The gas units are a a goddamned maintenance nightmare, labor intensive, expensive to keep running, noisy, filthy and generally obnoxious pieces of shit as compared to their electric counterparts. I own a 48v 2005 Club Car and other than charge, clean and service my batteries I have never done one single thing for maintenance or repair. We will get to similar comparisons in highway automobiles and future technologies. My great grandchildren will see a day when the mere sight of a gas automobile will be an unusual thing and more likely to happen in a museum rather than on any roadway. This is as it SHOULD be.

Psychoblues

Well, yeah, it's the same idea of why you don't see horse and buggies any more outside the movies or Amish country. Actually, it'll likely be before your great-grandchildren. However, the first step is hybrids, as the electric batteries clearly still need work, plus a total 180 on the fuel infrastructure for our interstates and highways.

Until electric cars have a proper heating system though as a standard item, I think they're pretty much gonna just sell down south, where northern winter doesn't live. Now, I do think that solar panels on the roof could probably help a little in getting some extra power for the heating system, but we'll see.

[red states rule]

More whining, refusing to change or see the future or appreciate the benefits of increasing technologies that save the environment, our health, our bottom line dollars, etc., red? This technology that you seem to be so afraid of is the future. No question or doubt about it whatsoever.

What do you do with all that fear, hate, anger and ignorance while you're out trying to put in an honest day's work?

Psychoblues

Sorry PB I do see the "benefit" of buying an overpriced car that gets 40 miles per charge when I have a one way drive 0f 64 miles to work

Of course I am not a liberal so I see things much more clearly then you do

[red states rule]

The issue here is, the necessity of more efficient personal transportion is outpaced by the creature comforts. I mean, it doesnt have a heater but, im willing to bet, it has a combination mp3, bluetooth, navigation system. :lame2:


Sadly, you're probably right-- my money's on China! They're already stockpiling rare-earth metals which are necessary for current (no pun intended), and likely new battery technology.



One day I hope you can heal that chip on your shoulder.

No chip on the shoulder - just pointing out all the problems we have today are the fault of liberalism

If the comes where liberalism goes the way of the Dinosaurs, the country will be so much better off

[fj1200]

For what its worth, rebates have a similar effect upon all sectors of auto purchases-- not just wunder cars.

True, except when the private sellers use a government rebate to increase the cost of the car.

[red states rule]

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1010/obamas-green-car-liberal-car-political-poster-1287847156.jpg

[Psychoblues]

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1010/obamas-green-car-liberal-car-political-poster-1287847156.jpg

That horse is gorgeous and obviously well cared for.

Psychochoblues

[red states rule]

That horse is gorgeous and obviously well cared for.

Psychochoblues

Probably paid for with "stimulus" money for another shovel ready job

[Psychoblues]

Probably paid for with "stimulus" money for another shovel ready job

I know these wealthy Mississippi farmers stay very privy to stimulus and subsidy monies and are buying whatever they like with it. Have you ever ridden on a horse and buggy, red? My younger brother, the only one that is still alive, makes a living buying antique wagons, brand new Mennonite wagons and re-selling them. He is also big into draft horses and mules. Just one pair of the Belgian Mules can stomp a 5 acre pasture into a 5 acre mud-hole in one season!!!!!! But he has everything he needs to address all that!!!!!!!

Psychochoblues

[red states rule]

I know these wealthy Mississippi farmers stay very privy to stimulus and subsidy monies and are buying whatever they like with it. Have you ever ridden on a horse and buggy, red? My younger brother, the only one that is still alive, makes a living buying antique wagons, brand new Mennonite wagons and re-selling them. He is also big into draft horses and mules. Just one pair of the Belgian Mules can stomp a 5 acre pasture into a 5 acre mud-hole in one season!!!!!! But he has everything he needs to address all that!!!!!!!

Psychochoblues

Maybe you can write a ltter to your buddy Obama and have a government paid class on how to ride a horse and buggy PB

It can fall under alternate modes of trasportation and save Mother Earth from gloabal warming

after al PB the stimulus so far as been a total and complete watse of moeny - why not continue the losing streak?

[Psychoblues]

Maybe you can write a ltter to your buddy Obama and have a government paid class on how to ride a horse and buggy PB

It can fall under alternate modes of trasportation and save Mother Earth from gloabal warming

after al PB the stimulus so far as been a total and complete watse of moeny - why not continue the losing streak?

I might teach that class, red, I am certainly well qualified and get one of those enormous government salaries with benefits for it!!!!!!!! Thanks for the tip, red!!!!!!

Psychochoblues

[red states rule]

I might teach that class, red, I am certainly well qualified and get one of those enormous government salaries with benefits for it!!!!!!!! Thanks for the tip, red!!!!!!

Psychochoblues

YOu would be perfect PB!' When I hear the word horseshit I think of you

[Psychoblues]

YOu would be perfect PB!' When I hear the word horseshit I think of you

The lord knows I've smelled and shovelled my share of it and I wasn't even aware that you could "read" it but lo and behold every time I see one of your posts I can almost smell it before I open it!!!!!!!!!

Psychochoblues

[red states rule]

The lord knows I've smelled and shovelled my share of it and I wasn't even aware that you could "read" it but lo and behold every time I see one of your posts I can almost smell it before I open it!!!!!!!!!

Psychochoblues

That is such a fitting lob for you PB

You shovel and toss the the s*** around here as well

[Psychoblues]

That is such a fitting lob for you PB

You shovel and toss the the s*** around here as well

This is what I hate about talking to you, red. Your humor is not humor. It's denigration in the 1st degree. You cannot stay on topic, you cannot win any argument except by simply tiring your opponent to the point they just disappear in disgust because the OP points have been so distorted and forgotten by you so far back in the conversation (debate) that revival is nearly impossible and any attempt to revive is made even more impossible by you, red. You resort to insults to the opponent, to the subject, to the genuine reflecting articles and information presented to you. Do you think that makes you look smart?

Psychochoblues

[red states rule]

This is what I hate about talking to you, red. Your humor is not humor. It's denigration in the 1st degree. You cannot stay on topic, you cannot win any argument except by simply tiring your opponent to the point they just disappear in disgust because the OP points have been so distorted and forgotten by you so far back in the conversation (debate) that revival is nearly impossible and any attempt to revive is made even more impossible by you, red. You resort to insults to the opponent, to the subject, to the genuine reflecting articles and information presented to you. Do you think that makes you look smart?

Psychochoblues

PB you can dish it out but you have a sever issue of taking it

I guess after the 2010 election you are still licking your wounds and your temper is more short then usual

You can toss out the onliners and cheap shots but everyuone must be respectful towards you.

Those are the rules you demand of others PB

[Psychoblues]

PB you can dish it out but you have a sever issue of taking it

I guess after the 2010 election you are still licking your wounds and your temper is more short then usual

You can toss out the onliners and cheap shots but everyuone must be respectful towards you.

Those are the rules you demand of others PB

There you go with your projections again, red. Really, you need to get help with that condition and competent help IS available. Check in under the Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act and I bet you can be seen quickly, especially if they understand that you pose a threat to yourself and society.

Psychochoblues

[BoogyMan]

So the electric car is good because you are too lazy to maintenance a car that burns gasoline? Too funny.


While that report is probably true I think the assumtions are all wrong. Electric vehicles are without a single doubt a large part of the future of the world. I live in a golf cart community and I own one myself. The gas units are a a goddamned maintenance nightmare, labor intensive, expensive to keep running, noisy, filthy and generally obnoxious pieces of shit as compared to their electric counterparts. I own a 48v 2005 Club Car and other than charge, clean and service my batteries I have never done one single thing for maintenance or repair. We will get to similar comparisons in highway automobiles and future technologies. My great grandchildren will see a day when the mere sight of a gas automobile will be an unusual thing and more likely to happen in a museum rather than on any roadway. This is as it SHOULD be.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

There you go with your projections again, red. Really, you need to get help with that condition and competent help IS available. Check in under the Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act and I bet you can be seen quickly, especially if they understand that you pose a threat to yourself and society.

Psychochoblues

What is realy bothering you PB is that my opinions are with the majority. and even worse for you - we vote

2012 will be a great year for conservatism and a total nightmare for Obama lapdogs like you

[fj1200]

So the electric car is good because you are too lazy to maintenance a car that burns gasoline? Too funny.

If that is the extent of the functional difference between the two, as it likely is for golf carts, then yes.

[red states rule]

If that is the extent of the functional difference between the two, as it likely is for golf carts, then yes.

Golf carts with bucket seats - the car of the furutre according to libs

Except they will still be in their limos and private jets. You can't expect libs to live by the rules they impose of the rest of us

[Kathianne]

Sounds like Ford is abandoning electric and going with what I think is likely for future, hydrogen:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/03/bill-ford-sounds-ev-retreat/


Bill Ford Sounds EV Retreat
By Bertel Schmitt on March 4, 2011

When, in a former life, I wrote speeches for top execs at Volkswagen, I never made my guy admit failure. Bad for his career and my business. The secret phrase for full retreat was: “This is one of the many options we are looking at. We are in a changing world and must change with it.”

I must have a less circumspect colleague at Ford.


“Electric is a focus of investment,” Ford CEO William Ford said yesterday at The Wall Street Journal’s ECO:nomics Conference in Santa Barbara. And then he dropped the bombshell:


“We still don’t know what the winning technology is going to be…We’re continuing to invest in hydrogen, we’re continuing to invest in biofuels.”

Ford bluntly reminded us that EVs had been tried before and failed:


“Prior to the Model T, a third of all vehicles in this country were electric… this isn’t a new technology. The reason it died away was the ubiquity of charging. Today, we have the same issue.”

According to a Wall Street Journal report, Ford
“has no certainty that an electric grid will be developed that is capable of supporting droves of electric vehicles on the roads.”

Here is a nugget which I would have never dared to put into a speech, and as my victims will attest, I never was shy:


“We’ve made a big bet on electric… but the pace at which that develops, I think anyone who can tell you that is lying.”

What is most significant is the choice of venue for these choice words. It was like preaching Satanism to a nun’s convent. According to a survey conducted at the ECO:nomics conference, half of the respondents said they planned to buy an electric car in the next decade. Most likely, they lied also.

[Psychoblues]

So the electric car is good because you are too lazy to maintenance a car that burns gasoline? Too funny. I still drive gas guzzlers, booger. I am no longer able to do my own mechanics work but that's none of your fucking business. If and when a suitable highway electric vehicle comes along that can compare in any way to the maintenance free and extremely cheap operation of my electric golf car you are damned right, I'll be first in line to buy one. In fact, if I could get my hands on one of the old General Motors EV-1's I would buy it in a heartbeat. Do you know what happened to them? Watch the movie/documentary, "Who Killed The Electric Car" Have you paid an auto mechanic lately? It's about time we got something that is more maintenance and trouble free, don't you think?

Psychochoblues

[actsnoblemartin]

I may get flack for this but here goes.

On the one hand we wont have oil forever

On the other hand, you cant have a car that is 40k plus, if it doesnt have the amenities were used/bad technology.

Sounds like were between a rock and a hard place, until we get electric cars that are cheap, well made, and easy to recharge.

[actsnoblemartin]

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

Brazil is the world's second largest producer of ethanol fuel and the world's largest exporter. Together, Brazil and the United States lead the industrial production of ethanol fuel, accounting together for 89% of the world's production in 2009.[1][2] In 2009 Brazil produced 24.9 billion litres (6.57 billion U.S. liquid gallons), representing 37.7% of the world's total ethanol used as fuel.[1]

[actsnoblemartin]

Brazil (seems like a cool country, heck id visit)

if they can find a way to run cars that dont need oil, why cant we?

Why cant we, the one's who put a man on the moon in ten years, find a way to make an electric car that works, or something else?

will someone explain to this simple man what is going on?

[logroller]

True, except when the private sellers use a government rebate to increase the cost of the car.

Well yea! that's what i was talking about, the govt isnt selling the cars, electric or gas. Do rebates promote sales, yes; increase the burden on taxpayers, obviously; off-setting the cost to consumers--no. I think there's a mastercard commercial in the works here:laugh:

[logroller]

No chip on the shoulder - just pointing out all the problems we have today are the fault of liberalism

If the comes where liberalism goes the way of the Dinosaurs, the country will be so much better off

Perhaps you're right (punintended), but I don't see how your response to PB was warranted-- he'd said nothing "liberal", merely said he liked his electric golfcart and explained why. I like fresh homegrown tomatoes because they have better flavor-- therefore, I'm liberal. Makes sense, right?

[logroller]

Brazil (seems like a cool country, heck id visit)

if they can find a way to run cars that dont need oil, why cant we?

Why cant we, the one's who put a man on the moon in ten years, find a way to make an electric car that works, or something else?

will someone explain to this simple man what is going on?


Oh yea, I'd visit Brazilian beaches all right!!!:boobies:
Ethanol is a fun subject. It will indeed be integral into reducing our dependence on petroleum oil, but its no end-all solution. Two funfacts: ethanol is a third less efficient as motor gas and maximum sustainable US ethanol production is estimated to be around 90 billion gallons, the equivalent of 60b gal of gas, enough to last us almost a month. --eeek, not so overwhelming when put in perspective, not to mention current production is like way less than the estimated max.

[Kathianne]

Ethanol in particular, biofuels in general are not the panacea that many thought. It's not just in their inefficiency, but in the more important farm land available for food. This is just one of the most recent:

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2251


11 Mar 2010: Opinion
The Case Against Biofuels:
Probing Ethanol’s Hidden Costs
Despite strong evidence that growing food crops to produce ethanol is harmful to the environment and the world’s poor, the Obama administration is backing subsidies and programs that will ensure that half of the U.S.’s corn crop will soon go to biofuel production. It’s time to recognize that biofuels are anything but green.
by c. ford runge

In light of the strong evidence that growing corn, soybeans, and other food crops to produce ethanol takes a heavy toll on the environment and is hurting the world’s poor through higher food prices, consider this astonishing fact: This year, more than a third of the U.S.’s record corn harvest of 335 million metric tons will be used to produce corn ethanol. What’s more, within five years fully 50 percent of the U.S. corn crop is expected to wind up as biofuels.

Here’s another sobering fact. Despite the record deficits facing the U.S., and notwithstanding President Obama’s embrace of some truly sustainable renewable energy policies, the president and his administration have wholeheartedly embraced corn ethanol and the tangle of government subsidies, price supports, and tariffs that underpin the entire dubious enterprise of using corn to power our cars. In early February, the president threw his weight behind new and existing initiatives to boost ethanol production from both food and nonfood sources, including supporting Congressional mandates that would triple biofuel production to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

Congress and the Obama administration are paying billions of dollars to producers of biofuels, with expenditures scheduled to increase steadily through 2022 and possibly 2030. The fuels are touted by these producers as a “green” solution to reliance on imported petroleum, and a boost for farmers seeking higher prices.

Yet a close look at their impact on food security and the environment — with profound effects on water, the eutrophication of our coastal zones
from fertilizers, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions — suggests that the biofuel bandwagon is anything but green. Congress and the administration need to reconsider whether they are throwing good money after bad. If the biofuel saga illustrates anything, it is that thinking ecologically will require thinking more logically, as well...

[Psychoblues]

I may get flack for this but here goes.

On the one hand we wont have oil forever

On the other hand, you cant have a car that is 40k plus, if it doesnt have the amenities were used/bad technology.

Sounds like were between a rock and a hard place, until we get electric cars that are cheap, well made, and easy to recharge.

Well, tiggerman, that is and has been the goal for as long as I have been hearing about the modern version of the electric vehicle. You do know that over a hundred years ago that 2/3rd's of auto's on the road were electric, don't you? There are all kinds of ideas about why they were left to the scrap heats but the two that make the most sense to me are that the batteries were difficult to charge as there was no electrical grid at that time and the availability of cheap oil was tremendous. In addition, a good mechanic was easy to find and worked for a reasonable wage and back then if you drove a gasser you definitely needed a good mechanic as those cars were always needing adjustments, parts replacements, general upgrades and repairs, etc.

Psychochoblues

[Psychoblues]

Ethanol in particular, biofuels in general are not the panacea that many thought. It's not just in their inefficiency, but in the more important farm land available for food. This is just one of the most recent:

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2251

Like you, Kath, I am concerned about all of those issues that Dr. Runge talks about in his opinion piece. Here is a little more on the biofuels from a broader source of information.


Source: Wikipedia

Biofuels are a wide range of fuels which are in some way derived from biomass. The term covers solid biomass, liquid fuels and various biogases.[1] Biofuels are gaining increased public and scientific attention, driven by factors such as oil price spikes, the need for increased energy security, and concern over greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.

Bioethanol is an alcohol made by fermenting the sugar components of plant materials and it is made mostly from sugar and starch crops. With advanced technology being developed, cellulosic biomass, such as trees and grasses, are also used as feedstocks for ethanol production. Ethanol can be used as a fuel for vehicles in its pure form, but it is usually used as a gasoline additive to increase octane and improve vehicle emissions. Bioethanol is widely used in the USA and in Brazil.

Biodiesel is made from vegetable oils, animal fats or recycled greases. Biodiesel can be used as a fuel for vehicles in its pure form, but it is usually used as a diesel additive to reduce levels of particulates, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons from diesel-powered vehicles. Biodiesel is produced from oils or fats using transesterification and is the most common biofuel in Europe.

Biofuels provided 1.8% of the world's transport fuel in[update] 2008. Investment into biofuels production capacity exceeded $4 billion worldwide in 2007 and is growing.[2].................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .......
snip

Issues with biofuel production and use:

There are various social, economic, environmental and technical issues with biofuel production and use, which have been discussed in the popular media and scientific journals. These include: the effect of moderating oil prices, the "food vs fuel" debate, poverty reduction potential, carbon emissions levels, sustainable biofuel production, deforestation and soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, impact on water resources, as well as energy balance and efficiency........................................ .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .........

Lots and lots more with lots and lots of links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel

This is a terrific subject and very timely for a healthy discussion!!!!!!!!!!!

Psychochoblues

[logroller]

Here's an article I wrote on the subject. kinda long, but on subject.

By far the greatest consumption of petroleum oil comes from the transportation sector. As an alternative to oil there has been an effort by government to encourage the production of biofuels, ethanol and biodiesel, through government subsidies and mandatory blending with traditional fuel. Though these fuels attract hope for a sustainable future, the benefits from such production fail to address the inherent inefficiencies of their production and end-use. Diamond describes how a society which has gained much of its success from one practice will continue to pursue such practices despite falling efficiency. Our society has flourished as a direct result of personal transportation; made possible by the incredible energy stored in petroleum fuels. As petroleum fuels become increasingly scarce and less efficient to bring to market, we seek first a replacement of fuel source, rather than transitioning our society to be less dependent on intermodal transportation. The inefficiencies of our civilization are the problem, not the fuels which make it function.

There are several reasons why biofuel investment is unsustainable. The first is the impact production methods have on the environment. Unlike petroleum fuels, biofuels are produced from agricultural sources. Agricultural can result in environmental problems from changes in land-use, such as deforestation and erosion. Brazil is one of the leading biofuel producers, taking advantage of the country’s favorable growing season. However, new research indicates the carbon offset from the transition from fossil fuels is much less than originally hoped. Large tracts of grazing land would be converted for biofuel production in a concerted effort to avoid deforestation, but displaced cattle ranchers cut down trees to increase pasture. This indirect land-use change would account for nearly half of the 121,970 km2 (47,080 mi2) of deforested areas expected by 2020 (David MLapola, et al., 2010). Though my discussion is on domestic ethanol production, it is reasonable to infer that as US ethanol production increases, the feedstock for biofuel production will need to be diverted away from traditional uses such as feed for animals. Much as the Easter Islanders utilized their timber to raise the mighty statues instead of canoes for fishing, so too may the US divert precious resources to subsidize the indulgences of our society.

Another consideration on biofuel production is the anticipated benefit of carbon offsets to global warming and climate change. It has long been assumed that production of biofuels would be, at worst, carbon neutral. Lapola et al indicates that conversion of grassland and deforestation in Brazil may well serve to delay the carbon offset of ethanol production versus fossil fuels, as it may take up to 250 years (David MLapola, et al., 2010). This isn’t to say there aren’t benefits to biofuel production, only that we must do so with some trepidation, so that we mitigate the problems associated with fossil fuel use, rather than merely swap the energy source – six of one, half a dozen of the other.
In the global markets which exist today, fossil fuels play a dominant role. With this in mind, and when considering the US’s dependence on foreign sources, it becomes a logical extension to assume alternative fuels too would be a heavily traded commodity. Trade agreements with friendly countries would allow us to engage in trade and take advantage of others’ production efficiencies. Though some contend the need for producing our own biofuels, quantities demanded simply can’t be met by current production. According to the US Energy Information Agency, 2009 ethanol production was 11 billion gallons; though this may seem substantial, given the average daily consumption of motor gas was 371 million gallons, ethanol wouldn’t meet demands for a month (EIA, Administration, & DOE, 2009). Adding to the disparity ethanol is a third less efficient, and with sustainable levels of domestic ethanol production suggested at a maximum of 90 billion gallons, equivalent to 60 billion gallons of gasoline, the maximum sustainable ethanol production would account for about one third of the current transportation demand (Sandia Labs; General Motors, February 2009). Much as we are dependant upon foreign sources of petroleum oil, so too can we become dependant upon foreign feedstock and biofuel producers.

Decisions we make in response to the environmental damages from ethanol production reflect heavily upon the damages done by petroleum consumption. There is a belief in our culture that innovation can solve any problem, bigger and better solutions are just over the horizon; but just as Mayan chiefs and kings were worshipped for the promise of rain, do we too worship technological innovation for solutions to our energy needs? Though alternative fuels hold promise for alleviating some of our dependence on petroleum and other fossil fuels, there needs to be a change in the culture of our society; broadly, a shift away from the personal car. Many among us are unreceptive to the need for such change; preferring instead to carry on enjoying the benefits whilst they last, ignorant to the fact that our consumption is far more than what the global environment can sustain. There will be difficulties in this shift as much of our daily life is determined by the freedom and speed of mobility across 4 million miles of roads in this country (FHA, Federal Highway Administration, 2009). Surely automobile manufacturers, road maintenance companies, drive through restaurants and a multitude of other automobile- dependant beneficiaries will provide opposition to any paradigm shift away from personal cars as the primary means of transport; but without a voluntary reduction I fear an involuntary reduction will occur nonetheless, only with a now lower quantity of petroleum by which to expedite sustainable social habits. In today’s society we have become isolated from the world around us; which is ironic considering the informational technology which exists today allows near instantaneous communication around the world, while neighbors we drive by for years we may never meet. The republic by which we, as a country, stand was born of the understanding that a bottom-up organization would be the check to overzealous powers. Too often we look to government, corporations and technology for solutions to problems which, if we stopped and looked at, we alone have the capacity to solve and not just drive by. So walk to the store, ride a bike to a friend’s house, carpool to work or use public transportation; a sustainable lifestyle is closer than we think – we need not drive there.
Works Cited
Diamond, Jared. (2005). Collapse: why societies choose to succeed or fail. Viking Publishers, New York.
Lapola, D. M., Schaldach, R., Alcamo, J., Bondeau, A., Koch, J., Koelking, C., et al. (2010, February 8). Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. PNAS, Social Sciences - Sustainability Science: , pp. 3388- 3393.
EIA, Administration, U. E., & DOE. (2009). Annual Energy Review 2009. online at www.eia.doe.gov.
FHA, Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Federal Highway statistics 2008. Table HM-12.
Sandia Labs; General Motors. (February 2009). Executive Summary, 90-Billion Gallon Biofuel Deployment Study.

[fj1200]

will someone explain to this simple man what is going on?

They use sugar cane to convert to biofuel. A more efficient starting point than corn and easier to grow in Brazil.


Well yea! that's what i was talking about, the govt isnt selling the cars, electric or gas. Do rebates promote sales, yes; increase the burden on taxpayers, obviously; off-setting the cost to consumers--no. I think there's a mastercard commercial in the works here:laugh:

cost lowering rebates promote sales. These are not those, based on the article at least.

[PostmodernProphet]

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1010/obamas-green-car-liberal-car-political-poster-1287847156.jpg

no heater....I'm not buying one for my commute in Michigan winters....

[PostmodernProphet]

Ethanol in particular, biofuels in general are not the panacea that many thought. It's not just in their inefficiency, but in the more important farm land available for food. This is just one of the most recent:

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2251

sorry, Kath, but this guy is unrealistic....the truth of the matter is, the cost of the fuel used to get your products to market contributes more to the cost of what you buy than does the cost of corn used to make the ethanol that replaces it.....the largest use of corn in the food industry is the corn syrup that goes into a can of soda.....if the cost of corn triples, the cost of your can of Coke is going to go up three cents.....most of the corn we produced used to go into animal feed.....and the brewer's mash that is a by product of ethanol production is actually a more efficient food source for cattle than raw corn is, since the cow's digestive tract can't digest sugars (hence the methanol given off by cattle)......shucks, it's better for global warming if we feed all our cows with brewer's mash......

in addition, it is NOT more important our farm land be available for food......prior to ethanol production we used to subsidize our farmers with tax dollars just to keep them alive, because we had huge surpluses of corn.....we had schemes paying farmers not to PLANT their fields....

ethanol should be produced with whatever biomass we have that goes to waste.....in Florida they make it out of the orange pulp left over after making orange juice.....in Oregon they make it out of the sawdust left over in the lumber industry.....in Iowa, they make it out of corn......because of ethanol plants, you don't see this any more....
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/141/341702865_3673932fd8.jpg

[PostmodernProphet]

They use sugar cane to convert to biofuel. A more efficient starting point than corn and easier to grow in Brazil.



but we don't live in Brazil.....we need to utilize what is more efficient for us.....and sugar cane does not grow well in the US, except perhaps in the Everglades area of Florida....

some states are even exploring making ethanol from grass cut from highway medians and ditches.....

[Kathianne]

but we don't live in Brazil.....we need to utilize what is more efficient for us.....and sugar cane does not grow well in the US, except perhaps in the Everglades area of Florida....

some states are even exploring making ethanol from grass cut from highway medians and ditches.....

Switch grass? More efficient than corn, but still doesn't get away from the basic problem of land for fuel. The need for real alternatives exists and is growing.

[fj1200]

but we don't live in Brazil.....we need to utilize what is more efficient for us...

That's what I said.


in addition, it is NOT more important our farm land be available for food...

We shouldn't have policies that incentivize ethanol based corn production over food production. If ethanol can make it on its own, that's another issue.


ethanol should be produced with whatever biomass we have that goes to waste...

If it can be done efficiently.

[Psychoblues]

Here's an article I wrote on the subject. kinda long, but on subject.

That is a great article, lr. Thanks for sharing!!!!

Psychochoblues

[PostmodernProphet]

Switch grass? More efficient than corn, but still doesn't get away from the basic problem of land for fuel. The need for real alternatives exists and is growing.

we don't have a land for fuel problem in the US.....we already have corn growers and a surplus of corn, that's why they use corn for ethanol......if we had switch grass farms and no one was buying switch grass it would be the perfect solution.....and obviously, if the corn growers switched to growing switch grass it wouldn't solve your perceived 'land for fuel' problem.....

[PostmodernProphet]

We shouldn't have policies that incentivize ethanol based corn production over food production. If ethanol can make it on its own, that's another issue.

we don't have a food production problem.....without ethanol we were producing food that was going to waste, farmers who couldn't earn a living on the land they had and a government subsidizing them to keep them from starving....incentivizing ethanol has solved all three, not to mention reducing our dependence on imported oil....why on earth would you complain about it?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

If it can be done efficiently.

do you mean more efficiently than drilling for oil on the other side of the world, shipping it to the US and refining it into something vehicles can use?......the only reason ethanol needs subsidies is because the infrastructure is not already in place....we currently subsidize the building of new oil refineries, why not subsidize the building of ethanol and biodiesel refineries?......

currently the Japanese are working on the best idea ever.....ethanol made from seaweed harvested from floating farms on the ocean....

[BoogyMan]

I still drive gas guzzlers, booger. I am no longer able to do my own mechanics work but that's none of your fucking business. If and when a suitable highway electric vehicle comes along that can compare in any way to the maintenance free and extremely cheap operation of my electric golf car you are damned right, I'll be first in line to buy one. In fact, if I could get my hands on one of the old General Motors EV-1's I would buy it in a heartbeat. Do you know what happened to them? Watch the movie/documentary, "Who Killed The Electric Car" Have you paid an auto mechanic lately? It's about time we got something that is more maintenance and trouble free, don't you think?

Psychochoblues

Touchy aren't we? :)

I have paid a mechanic and it is just a part of life. My Corvette needs maintenance from time to time just like any car and most I do myself but from time to time I have to take it in.

It is about time that liberals stopped telling me I shouldn't be happy with my own choices and mind their business.

[Psychoblues]

Touchy aren't we? :)

I have paid a mechanic and it is just a part of life. My Corvette needs maintenance from time to time just like any car and most I do myself but from time to time I have to take it in.

It is about time that liberals stopped telling me I shouldn't be happy with my own choices and mind their business.

And just what liberal has told you anything like that and caused you to whine so?

Psychochoblues

[PostmodernProphet]

more about seaweed and ethanol....
http://www.goodcleantech.com/2009/01/seaweeds_could_be_used_for_eth.php


and check this out...
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israeli-firm-seaweed-could-be-used-to-solve-energy-crisis-1.215553

The new technology unveiled by the firm at an international conference on marine biotechnology that opened on Sunday in Eilat, allows the industrial cultivation of seaweed through the use of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Instead of allowing the polluting gas -one of the main contributors to global warming- to escape into the atmosphere, the gas passes through a filtration process and enters a pool, where it feeds microscopic seaweed. The seaweed is used to produce fuel.

According to the scientists who developed this technology, it is possible to produce a liter of fuel for every five kilograms of seaweed.


http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2010/06/02/seaweed-asias-magic-bioenergy-feedstock/

First Seaweed-Based Biofuel Plant Goes Ahead In Chile

The Chilean economic Development Corporation (CORFO) has announced an investment of 7 million US dollars towards a seaweed-based bio-ethanol project spearheaded by the Seattle-based Bio Architecture Lab (BAL), in collaboration with the Universidad de Los Lagos and Chilean oil company ENAP. The project’s ambitious goal is to produce an annual 165 million litres of bio-fuel, equivalent to 5% of Chile’s petrol consumption. Plans to install a small test plant in Puerto Montt are set for this year.

http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2010/04/09/salt-water-the-tangy-taste-of-energy-freedom/

According to SES, growing seaweed in farms covering an area of just less than 0.05 percent of Europe’s coastal regions would yield a yearly production of 75 million tons of seaweed. This biomass could be converted into an estimated 846 Mgy (3.2 billion litters) of ethanol.

[NightTrain]

According to the scientists who developed this technology, it is possible to produce a liter of fuel for every five kilograms of seaweed.

1 liter out of 11 pounds of seaweed sounds pretty ambitious.

[Psychoblues]

more about seaweed and ethanol....

It looks to me like you know a lot about biofuels and alternatives, pimp, and I appreciate you for that. We need many many more like you that tend to support the technology as it shows at least as much promise and more in some respects as anything else. One solution does not and should never be our energy salvation. Thanks again, pimp. I'm reading through your links and comments and doing my best to fully grasp all that you are sharing.

Psychochoblues

[fj1200]

we don't have a land for fuel problem in the US.....we already have corn growers and a surplus of corn, that's why they use corn for ethanol......if we had switch grass farms and no one was buying switch grass it would be the perfect solution.....and obviously, if the corn growers switched to growing switch grass it wouldn't solve your perceived 'land for fuel' problem.....


we don't have a food production problem.....without ethanol we were producing food that was going to waste, farmers who couldn't earn a living on the land they had and a government subsidizing them to keep them from starving....incentivizing ethanol has solved all three, not to mention reducing our dependence on imported oil....why on earth would you complain about it?.....

You mean a product that the government subsidized led to an overproduction of the subsidized product? The history of farm subsidies goes back much farther than the relatively recent history of ethanol subsidies.

Subsidies are an economic distortion and lead to less than perfect outcomes. Let's let the panacea of ethanol stand on its own. Did you see the article about cellulosic ethanol that was going to be coming out of middle GA? The government is never getting that money back.

http://zfacts.com/p/63.html

That's quite a bit when you figure it only made us 1.1% more energy independent and only reduced US greenhouse gases by 1/19 of 1%.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/08/ethanol-subsidies-energy-opinions-contributors-matt-kibbe.html

All consumers are harmed by ethanol subsidies. The protectionist tariff prevents lower-priced ethanol from entering the United States, and the cost of these tariffs is passed onto consumers in the form of higher gas prices at the pump. Since the gas mileage is poor compared to regular gasoline, the Congressional Budget Office finds that ethanol has cost consumers an extra $1.78 per gallon of gasoline. That can add up fast.

Moreover, ethanol subsidies have been responsible for raising food prices. Last month the price of corn reached a two-year high as ethanol production consumed 40% of the nation's corn crop. At a recent Chicago Mercantile Exchange ( CME - news - people ) conference, panelists said that "increased use of corn-based ethanol is driving up the price of food, while the fuel continues to rely heavily on government support." Who can forget the tortilla riots in Mexico?

[fj1200]

do you mean more efficiently than drilling for oil on the other side of the world, shipping it to the US and refining it into something vehicles can use?......the only reason ethanol needs subsidies is because the infrastructure is not already in place....we currently subsidize the building of new oil refineries, why not subsidize the building of ethanol and biodiesel refineries?......

currently the Japanese are working on the best idea ever.....ethanol made from seaweed harvested from floating farms on the ocean....

Yes, more efficient and more cost effective............... Let ethanol rest on its own laurels without the subsidies.................. We don't subsidize oil refineries to the relative extent of ethanol refineries.....

Good for the Japanese, I hope it works........... If the US is going to be in the alternative fuels market then let them fund research but let the market do the funding of truly innovative and long term options. The government shouldn't be forcing the markets to the political winds.

[PostmodernProphet]

You mean a product that the government subsidized led to an overproduction of the subsidized product?

no.....corn is grown in places like Iowa for the purpose of crop rotation, swapped every other year for the more profitable crop of soy beans.....you cannot grow soybeans in consecutive years without seriously depleting the soil or replace nutrients with expensive fertilizers.....by growing corn in rotation you add vegetative matter from the stalks to the soil....even though it resulted in surplus quantities of corn, it was still a cheaper alternative than chemicals or non-cash crops....ethanol production provided a profitable use for the corn without eliminating use of the stalks to replenish the soil.....

[PostmodernProphet]

You mean a product that the government subsidized led to an overproduction of the subsidized product? The history of farm subsidies goes back much farther than the relatively recent history of ethanol subsidies.

Subsidies are an economic distortion and lead to less than perfect outcomes. Let's let the panacea of ethanol stand on its own. Did you see the article about cellulosic ethanol that was going to be coming out of middle GA? The government is never getting that money back.

http://zfacts.com/p/63.html


http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/08/ethanol-subsidies-energy-opinions-contributors-matt-kibbe.html

I just read the two linked in this post.....both are inaccurate.....where's the one about Georgia...

you mean this one?...
http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2011/02/08/ga-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-shuts-down.html

bit of confusion on the part of the reporter it seems...

The plant went into service about a year and a half behind its original schedule. Then, when it did begin operations, it produced methanol, a simpler form of alcohol than ethanol.

[PostmodernProphet]

Yes, more efficient and more cost effective............


????...but it isn't....

true, when oil is under $70 a barrel, ethanol can't compete....but then, oil isn't under $70 a barrel often anymore, is it.....

[PostmodernProphet]

It looks to me like you know a lot about biofuels and alternatives, pimp, and I appreciate you for that. We need many many more like you that tend to support the technology as it shows at least as much promise and more in some respects as anything else. One solution does not and should never be our energy salvation. Thanks again, pimp. I'm reading through your links and comments and doing my best to fully grasp all that you are sharing.

Psychochoblues

its because I grew up on a farm in Iowa, have family still raising corn and soybeans in Iowa, selling their corn to an ethanol plant built a few years ago about ten miles away from where I grew up....things have changed a lot in Iowa over the years.....it's almost impossible to get out of sight of either a wind farm, an ethanol plant or a huge self contained hog or chicken feeding operation.....GPS systems on the tractors even steer the machinery pulling equipment that plants 24 rows of corn at a time.....went to a parade in Iowa last 4th of July and they had one of the newest tractors in it.....four lane main street in the town and the tractor needed all of them.....

[PostmodernProphet]

I just read the two linked in this post.....both are inaccurate.....where's the one about Georgia...

you mean this one?...
http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2011/02/08/ga-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-shuts-down.html

bit of confusion on the part of the reporter it seems...

it is true that wood chip ethanol is more difficult than other sources....ethanol is produced from sugar and there is very little sugar in a tree.....

[fj1200]

no.....corn is grown in places like Iowa for the purpose of crop rotation, swapped every other year for the more profitable crop of soy beans.....you cannot grow soybeans in consecutive years without seriously depleting the soil or replace nutrients with expensive fertilizers.....by growing corn in rotation you add vegetative matter from the stalks to the soil....even though it resulted in surplus quantities of corn, it was still a cheaper alternative than chemicals or non-cash crops....ethanol production provided a profitable use for the corn without eliminating use of the stalks to replenish the soil.....

OK, then it would seem that there is no need to subsidize corn yet there it is.


I just read the two linked in this post.....both are inaccurate.....where's the one about Georgia...

you mean this one?...
http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2011/02/08/ga-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-shuts-down.html

bit of confusion on the part of the reporter it seems...

That's not the article I saw but the info is the same. Either way it seems Range Fuels is not living up to promise:

Ethanol Plant in Soperton, GA to Temporarily Close
01/15/2011

Range Fuels, Inc. plant is temporarily shutting down after producing its first batch of fuel this summer. Range Fuels hopes to reopen the plant in several months. The facility turns pinewood waste into fuel. The plant has not been able to get enough money to expand. The facility is too small to compete in the market. The facility plans to lay off a handful of employees and search for new investors.
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=28689318


????...but it isn't....

true, when oil is under $70 a barrel, ethanol can't compete....but then, oil isn't under $70 a barrel often anymore, is it.....

I know. Take away the subsidies and the Federal requirements and then where is it competitive?

[logroller]

On the subject of biofuels, Rudolf Diesel, known best for his namesake compression-ignition engine, sought to give the commoner, farmers,craftsmen and the like, the ability to be more productive in a self-sufficient manner, by running on vegetable oils which could be produced locally, thereby diminishing dependance on industry. Similarly, Ford engines ran on ethanol until Prohibition made ethanol's production illegal; and even after its repeal, ethanol production is highly regulated (not just anybody can do it legally).

Now everybody loves a good conspiracy theory right;); it isnt unfathomable to think the petro-industry may have wielded a bit of their influence to further their own interests, at the expense of the common citizen's independance. Now I don't think subsidies have, nor did they intend to, retain the freedoms of the commoner (quite the opposite, IMO); but the petroleum-industry juggernaut is not a force to which any independant group can oppose.

How, as a society, can we implement technology which challenges the sacrosanct dominion of petroleum based fuels? Certainly, we can try, but just as moonshiners had to outrun the opposition, so too must alternative fuel proponants pursue their endeavor by any means necessary for their survival-- subsidies, fuel-mix requirments, decreased drilling permits be damned, they're good for the ethanol biz!:coffee:

[PostmodernProphet]

OK, then it would seem that there is no need to subsidize corn yet there it is.

corn was subsidized when it sold for under $3.89 a bushel.....then ethanol came along and corn is selling for more than that.....as you say, there is currently no need to subsidize corn.....and we aren't.....thanks to ethanol.....



That's not the article I saw but the info is the same. Either way it seems Range Fuels is not living up to promise:
and what does ethanol from wood chips have to do with ethanol from corn.....or from seaweed.....or from anything other than wood chips?



I know. Take away the subsidies and the Federal requirements and then where is it competitive?

when oil is $104 a barrel?.....everywhere.....

[PostmodernProphet]

the Renewable Fuels Association points out that over 400,000 American jobs have been created in the ethanol industry since 2005......

[fj1200]

corn was subsidized when it sold for under $3.89 a bushel.....then ethanol came along and corn is selling for more than that.....as you say, there is currently no need to subsidize corn.....and we aren't.....thanks to ethanol.....

Sounds like corn is still being subsidized, albeit indirectly.


and what does ethanol from wood chips have to do with ethanol from corn.....or from seaweed.....or from anything other than wood chips?

That would be government subsidy for $1000 Alex.


when oil is $104 a barrel?.....everywhere.....

Do I hear the death of ethanol subsidies?

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/end-ethanol-subsidies-senators-say/

[PostmodernProphet]

Sounds like corn is still being subsidized, albeit indirectly.

it is a subsidy of ethanol.....which is paid to oil companies, and is applicable to ethanol made from anything....not simply corn...



That would be government subsidy for $1000 Alex.

taken in context, that sentence is related to the failure of producing ethanol from wood chips profitably.....as such, the existence of the government subsidy is irrelevant.....



Do I hear the death of ethanol subsidies?

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/end-ethanol-subsidies-senators-say/
yes.....senators are notorious for taking the wrong action at the wrong time....their reasoning might have been accurate when oil prices were under $80 a barrel.....now is when we need to wean ourselves from imported oil, more than ever.....

[fj1200]

it is a subsidy of ethanol.....which is paid to oil companies, and is applicable to ethanol made from anything....not simply corn...

Hence the "albeit indirectly."


taken in context, that sentence is related to the failure of producing ethanol from wood chips profitably.....as such, the existence of the government subsidy is irrelevant.....

Except that it was subsidized.... by the government..... and it was less than successful.....


yes.....senators are notorious for taking the wrong action at the wrong time....their reasoning might have been accurate when oil prices were under $80 a barrel.....now is when we need to wean ourselves from imported oil, more than ever.....

Like granting the subsidies and imposing the tariffs in the first place? What does the price have to do with it? You said it's competitive at $104 per barrel so the subsidy can be removed.

[logroller]

Like granting the subsidies and imposing the tariffs in the first place? What does the price have to do with it? You said it's competitive at $104 per barrel so the subsidy can be removed.

Businesses operate with a profit mtive, not government; whose role is stability. I think its important to recognize that while the mechanisms of market manipulation involve prices, supply/demand etc, the goal of such mechanisms are stability, not profit.
It's actually counterinutuitive to justify subsidies and tariffs from a profit standpoint, as they actually accept a decrease in potential profits to be necessary to prevent systemic losses. Rather or not this is acceptable, from a public standpoint, is obviously dependant on the relative health of the market. When times are good most prefer the free-market and big profits; when they turn for the worse, especially catastrophically, people ask why the regulatory protections weren't in place or enforced. The proverbial 'have one's cake' comes to mind, as we can't have it both ways, not sustainably anyways. Same goes for gov't, we can't suppress business profits and expect them to grow, increase profits and thus generate taxrevenues to support the very policies which suppress their profits; which should lead to a repeal of such policies--unless of course if it increases stability. With gas prices soaring and oil stocks reaping massive profits, now dems are flipping on offsore drilling??? I believe the proof is in the pudding. Gov't is again encouraged by the profit motive to offset the foolish practices of the past-- as stability goes up, profits do too, but not sustainably. Same goes for subsidies and tariffs, it works really well, for a while! We've learned nothing from the '08 crash. Another 10 years and they'll be turning a blind eye to toxic investments and shoddy drilling techniques.
What we need is the public to realize the damages some companies will do in the name of profit and that gov't intervention doesn't stop this. Govt regs and market manuipulation limit every company, not just the bad ones; and their survival is then guaranteed by the same regs and actions-- totally ludacrous.

[fj1200]

Businesses operate with a profit mtive, not government; whose role is stability. I think its important to recognize that while the mechanisms of market manipulation involve prices, supply/demand etc, the goal of such mechanisms are stability, not profit.
It's actually counterinutuitive to justify subsidies and tariffs from a profit standpoint, as they actually accept a decrease in potential profits to be necessary to prevent systemic losses. Rather or not this is acceptable, from a public standpoint, is obviously dependant on the relative health of the market. When times are good most prefer the free-market and big profits; when they turn for the worse, especially catastrophically, people ask why the regulatory protections weren't in place or enforced. The proverbial 'have one's cake' comes to mind, as we can't have it both ways, not sustainably anyways. Same goes for gov't, we can't suppress business profits and expect them to grow, increase profits and thus generate taxrevenues to support the very policies which suppress their profits; which should lead to a repeal of such policies--unless of course if it increases stability. With gas prices soaring and oil stocks reaping massive profits, now dems are flipping on offsore drilling??? I believe the proof is in the pudding. Gov't is again encouraged by the profit motive to offset the foolish practices of the past-- as stability goes up, profits do too, but not sustainably. Same goes for subsidies and tariffs, it works really well, for a while! We've learned nothing from the '08 crash. Another 10 years and they'll be turning a blind eye to toxic investments and shoddy drilling techniques.
What we need is the public to realize the damages some companies will do in the name of profit and that gov't intervention doesn't stop this. Govt regs and market manuipulation limit every company, not just the bad ones; and their survival is then guaranteed by the same regs and actions-- totally ludacrous.

I'm sorry but that didn't make any sense.

[logroller]

I'm sorry but that didn't make any sense.

Allow me to simplify- just because prices are high doesn't mean the subsidies need be removed! Obviously when the price is high, suppliers rush in, creating excess product which drives down the supply P&Q lower than before. Subsidies serve to subvert this activity in the interest of stability, regardless, and often in spite of, profit concerns.

Hence, you can't justify subsidies with profit, they simply don't mix. HIgh price or low, subsidies moderate production swings for a more predictable return, and this is beneficial to society, not necessarily the market.

[fj1200]

Allow me to simplify- just because prices are high doesn't mean the subsidies need be removed! Obviously when the price is high, suppliers rush in, creating excess product which drives down the supply P&Q lower than before. Subsidies serve to subvert this activity in the interest of stability, regardless, and often in spite of, profit concerns.

No, subsidies are not about stability and if they are it's an utter failure. But I guess you missed where I stated my opposition to subsidies in the first place.


Hence, you can't justify subsidies with profit, they simply don't mix. HIgh price or low, subsidies moderate production swings for a more predictable return, and this is beneficial to society, not necessarily the market.

Subsidies are about behavior modification, altering the market not stabilizing it. What's beneficial to society is free people making free decisions, besides if the goal is to reduce oil consumption there are far better ways to do it. A gas tax would be far more effective but legislatures are far better at giving away money to special interest groups, read ADM, than taxing.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk031011dAPC20110310024535.jpg

[logroller]

No, subsidies are not about stability and if they are it's an utter failure. But I guess you missed where I stated my opposition to subsidies in the first place.

I beg to differ.


Subsidies are about behavior modification, altering the market not stabilizing it. What's beneficial to society is free people making free decisions, besides if the goal is to reduce oil consumption there are far better ways to do it. A gas tax would be far more effective but legislatures are far better at giving away money to special interest groups, read ADM, than taxing.

Name one completely free-market that delivered a higher std of living than we enjoy in this country.

[fj1200]

I beg to differ.

I can see where you're coming from regarding agricultural subsidies related to food production, I was referring to the ethanol subsidies in particular which is about market alteration. Ethanol is not only subsidized, we have protectionist policies against importing foreign ethanol, and there are Federal requirements on usage. Besides if ethanol becomes competitive on its own at what point do you eliminate the subsidy? The arguments against subsidies today are that they are paid not to the small family farmer but to the large agri-businesses and are no longer necessary.


Name one completely free-market that delivered a higher std of living than we enjoy in this country.

Hmm, a subjective freer market with a subjective higher standard of living... How about Australia and New Zealand based on this (http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#2010_report). I'm not sure of the import of the question however.

[fj1200]

To no one's surprise except GM's, it turned out that a $40,000 car with four seats and no interior heater was NOT what millions of Americans had in mind for their next car.

Or not???


Chevrolet is 'selling as many Volts as it can build'

With gas price climbing and all the hype, the Chevrolet Volt wonder car is the most in-demand car that General Motors sells, the automaker said today.

That's partly because affluent customers want one of the $41,000 extended-range electric cars. And it's partly because there are so few to go around.

With Volt on sale for three months, GM says it sold 982 Volts through Feb. 28. Sounds paltry so far as far as car sales go, but the numbers will grow as the year wears on.

"Chevrolet is selling as many Volts as it can build, and the automaker expects to continue selling them as soon as they come off the assembly line. Some 10,000 cars are anticipated to be made this year with a ramp-up in production in subsequent years", GM said.

The Volt, North American Car of the Year, can be plugged-in to charge batteries good for 25 to 50 miles of driving. After that, a gas engine kicks in to recharge the batteries so the Volt has no electric-car range limitation.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/03/chevrolet-is-selling-as-many-volts-as-it-can-build/1

[fj1200]

http://insideevs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2014-sales-chart-Dec-vfinal6-750x530.png
http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

:dunno: