Hillary says OPEC can no longer be a cartel

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I am not sure we should use anything that grows. Though switch grass may be more efficient than corn at producing ethanol, it still uses land that we could be growing feed corn and other food product crops.

I think we should focus our move toward hybrids that involve electricity, hydrogen, or both.

Land isn't a scare resource at the current time.

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I am not sure we should use anything that grows. Though switch grass may be more efficient than corn at producing ethanol, it still uses land that we could be growing feed corn and other food product crops.

I think we should focus our move toward hybrids that involve electricity, hydrogen, or both.

Brazil seems to be pulling it off ok, plus we've got plenty of land and we're paying farmers to NOT grow crops, I think we could make it work but it needs to be better coordinated than "hay, let's turn corn into gas!".

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Land isn't a scare resource at the current time.

But thats also why food is really cheap. People are already complaining food prices are increasing. Its because of fuel costs and feed corn demand.

Using up land that would normally grow the food isn't going to help things like food prices. We would simply reduce the overhead fuel costs but at the same time decrease supply on the food side of things. We might save 10 cents a gallon but everything else at the grocery store costs 10 cents (or) more to buy.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I am not sure we should use anything that grows. Though switch grass may be more efficient than corn at producing ethanol, it still uses land that we could be growing feed corn and other food product crops.

I think we should focus our move toward hybrids that involve electricity, hydrogen, or both.

Solar Power

I know we can achieve very good efficiency in the next 5 years, if we put the money into it

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

Brazil seems to be pulling it off ok, plus we've got plenty of land and we're paying farmers to NOT grow crops, I think we could make it work but it needs to be better coordinated than "hay, let's turn corn into gas!".

Brazil also had to clear thousands of acres of amazon rain forest. Sugar is more efficient that switch grass or corn, but they have the climate that better supports that crop.

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Solar Power

I know we can achieve very good efficiency in the next 5 years, if we put the money into it

You're putting the cart before the horse, you need a viable electric car before you can have a solar powered car.

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Brazil also had to clear thousands of acres of amazon rain forest. Sugar is more efficient that switch grass or corn, but they have the climate that better supports that crop.

IIRC switchgrass should be more efficient than sugar.


edit: I'm mistaken, it's not

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

You're putting the cart before the horse, you need a viable electric car before you can have a solar powered car.

Not car, I mean just power in general

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Not car, I mean just power in general

I would agree, but we also need to do it via wind, water, nuclear, and clean coal. We need to get rid of oil based power plants entirely.

Perhaps some tax incentives on the state or federal level to have people install solar panels for their homes, etc.

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I would agree, but we also need to do it via wind, water, nuclear, and clean coal. We need to get rid of oil based power plants entirely.

Perhaps some tax incentives on the state or federal level to have people install solar panels for their homes, etc.

Get solar and wind generators out there and turn rural and suburban areas into power plants.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

Get solar and wind generators out there and turn rural and suburban areas into power plants.

These hypocritical republican farmers would love it too, because they could get even more welfare (aka subsidies) from the govt. via using their land for wind generators. They could litter them through acres of fields and just have the tractors steer around them come harvest time.

Funny thing, they are ok with getting welfare just as long as it doesn't go to help the inner city.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I am not sure we should use anything that grows. Though switch grass may be more efficient than corn at producing ethanol, it still uses land that we could be growing feed corn and other food product crops.

I think we should focus our move toward hybrids that involve electricity, hydrogen, or both.

electricity that comes from what though? most of the electricity in this country comes from coal doesn't it?

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

These hypocritical republican farmers would love it too, because they could get even more welfare (aka subsidies) from the govt. via using their land for wind generators. They could litter them through acres of fields and just have the tractors steer around them come harvest time.

Funny thing, they are ok with getting welfare just as long as it doesn't go to help the inner city.

At least the farmers are working for their money and are doing something for the economy.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

Brazil seems to be pulling it off ok, plus we've got plenty of land and we're paying farmers to NOT grow crops, I think we could make it work but it needs to be better coordinated than "hay, let's turn corn into gas!".

productive? at least using their land to generate power they are allegedly not using is better than paying them to not grow crops thus not contribute anything to the economy.

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

productive? at least using their land to generate power they are allegedly not using is better than paying them to not grow crops thus not contribute anything to the economy.

They still have to maintain the land and grow cover crops and what not to keep the soil fertile. They're still WORKING the land, they're just being paid to not harvest and sell the crop to help maintain prices.

I'm not going to argue that that land shouldn't be used used for growing ethanol crops or solar/wind power, but trying to insinuate that they're still not working is laughable.

But hey...while we're making insinuations....welfare recipients on the other hand...

[Ardentfrost]

We're the fifth largest sugar producer in the world. Surely we could get on with some sugar ethanol using our own crops.

Of course, we need to get rid of the bullshit tarrifs and shit preventing foreign sugar from coming into our country. Our sugar prices are outrageous compared to the rest of the world.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

We're the fifth largest sugar producer in the world. Surely we could get on with some sugar ethanol using our own crops.

Of course, we need to get rid of the bullshit tarrifs and shit preventing foreign sugar from coming into our country. Our sugar prices are outrageous compared to the rest of the world.

First I have an issue with free trade that causes job loss here because its marginally cheaper to import something, which happens frequently when we bring free trade to the table. If its $0.69 cents a pound to be made in the USA instead of $0.49 cents to be made in some other country, whoopy. We should keep the jobs here. Secondly, see below.

No our sugar prices are not outrageous. We are about right in the middle of the pack compared to the rest of the world.

Sugar Prices in America

Granted its a few years old, but it is not old enough to be invalid.

Further, some other things from the site include:

America is the 2nd largest net sugar importer in the world.

The U.S. imports from 41 countries regardless of need.

Only America has ever granted substantial sugar market access to another major sugar-producing country through a bilateral or regional free trade agreement.

The average retail price for sugar in the developed world is 30 percent higher than in America.

Each year, the government estimates sugar consumption and subtracts from that the amount of foreign sugar the U.S. is forced to import. American sugar farmers supply the remainder.

Candy companies in other developed countries pay, on average, 65 percent more for sugar than U.S. companies. Add wholesale sugar prices from the world’s poorest countries into the equation, and sugar prices in the U.S. are still nearly identical to world averages.

Based on that kind of thing, particularly the bolded area, I would say we do our fair share of importing. It also sounds like we do much of it through free trade agreements.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Solar Power

I know we can achieve very good efficiency in the next 5 years, if we put the money into it

what you need to do is fund research and not subsidize an industry. The feds get it wrong ALOT when they try to predict the next innovative thing, and just waste money.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

First I have an issue with free trade that causes job loss here because its marginally cheaper to import something, which happens frequently when we bring free trade to the table. If its $0.69 cents a pound to be made in the USA instead of $0.49 cents to be made in some other country, whoopy. We should keep the jobs here. Secondly, see below.

No our sugar prices are not outrageous. We are about right in the middle of the pack compared to the rest of the world.

Sugar Prices in America

Granted its a few years old, but it is not old enough to be invalid.

Further, some other things from the site include:

America is the 2nd largest net sugar importer in the world.

The U.S. imports from 41 countries regardless of need.

Only America has ever granted substantial sugar market access to another major sugar-producing country through a bilateral or regional free trade agreement.

The average retail price for sugar in the developed world is 30 percent higher than in America.

Each year, the government estimates sugar consumption and subtracts from that the amount of foreign sugar the U.S. is forced to import. American sugar farmers supply the remainder.

Candy companies in other developed countries pay, on average, 65 percent more for sugar than U.S. companies. Add wholesale sugar prices from the world’s poorest countries into the equation, and sugar prices in the U.S. are still nearly identical to world averages.

Based on that kind of thing, particularly the bolded area, I would say we do our fair share of importing. It also sounds like we do much of it through free trade agreements.

I have no idea where you got your numbers. Let me give you some graphs:





We don't export our sugar because the sugar industry will not lower their prices, so they bring up the prices of foreign sugar (by way of the gov't for the past nearly 200 years) so that it isn't economically viable to import sugar in the US.

From the first graph you see that our prices are a good deal higher on average, usually sitting 2 - 4 times that of what could be imported from the world market.

The second graph shows that our cost of producing sugar is some of the highest. Relatively high cost of production + subsidies + tariff fences to foreign sugar = massive waste of economic power. Whereas we COULD be using all that money for shit we're good at, we waste it on producing sugar which we're obviously not good at.

I doubt we could supply our entire sugar demand with foreign sugar since we're the 7th highest consumer of sugar, however accentuating our free sugar industry with lower cost, free market sugar would spell nothing but a win for America. All that money we currently spend on sugar would be reduced, we would free up land to grow other crops we need more of (currently corn like whoa), we would spend less in subsidies which means lower taxes.

The benefits would be incredible.

And yet people think the sugar industry needs saving.