April 25th, 2008
In an overview of why oil prices are high that surveys the supply situation in various oil producing countries, we find this:
Exports of Kirkuk crude from [Iraq]‘s north are stabilizing as the system recovers from technical problems that had mostly idled the pipeline since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
emphasis added. Don’t think we’ve heard “technical problems” used as a euphemism for terrorist attacks before.
Lots of euphemisms going around lately:
Federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, are telling their people not to describe Islamic extremists as “jihadists” or “mujahedeen,” according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. Lingo like “Islamo-fascism” is out, too.
Well, the memo apparently didn’t get to the jihadists themselves, who do, indeed, believe that jihad means holy war and in this video promise to “slit the throats of Americans and Jews” (watch.)
Didn’t get to this Islamist cleric either.
Nor to Al-Qaeda Leader Abu Yahya Al-Liby:
Jihad, which is the highest form of dissociation from non-Muslims, should be waged against the Jews, like it should be waged against the Christians, the Zoroastrians, the Hindus, and the apostates. [...]
We fight all the polytheists, just like they fight us all. We do not limit ourselves in this. We do not restrict ourselves to one type [of infidels] or to one region. This [Jihad] will continue until they all submit to the religion of Allah, yield to its laws, and surrender to its rule. [...]
Yes, we believe that the entire world must be ruled by Islam, and no grain of soil should be made an exception, because the Prophet Muhammad was sent to all people without exception. This does not mean, however, that we must fight all peoples of the world at once, in order to subject them to Islamic law. Islam did not command us to do so. Islam commanded us to fight the closest and then the next, from among the people who refuse to submit to the rule of Islam. We should move from the closest to the next, and widen the circle, until all people submit to the rule of Allah. We are now at the beginning of the road, when we try to regain the lands taken over by the infidels, from among the Jews, the Christians, their apostate supporters, and treacherous rulers.
What would our government, in its infinite wisdom, like us to call jihadists? “Banana”?
Something tells me bin Laden is laughing in his cave.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed
April 24th, 2008
CNN’s Jim Boulden reports on the direct link between oil and food prices. Click to watch.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed
April 24th, 2008
Roger Cohen in the New York Times:
The supposed crimes of biofuels are manifold. They’re behind soaring global commodity prices, the destruction of the Amazon rain forest, increased rather than diminished greenhouse gases, food riots in Haiti, Indonesian deforestation and, no doubt, your mother-in-law’s toothache.
Most of this, to borrow a farm image, is hogwash and bilge.
If Asian rice prices are soaring, along with the global prices of wheat and maize, it’s not principally because John Doe in Iowa or Jean Dupont in Picardy has decided to turn yummy corn and beet into un-yummy ethanol feedstock.
Much larger trends are at work. They dwarf the still tiny biofuel industry (roughly a $40 billion annual business, or the equivalent of Exxon Mobil’s $40.6 billion profits in 2007). I refer to the rise of more than one-third of humanity in China and India, the disintegrating dollar and soaring oil prices.
Hundreds of millions of people have moved from poverty into the global economy over the past decade in Asia. They’re eating twice a day, instead of once, and propelling rapid urbanization. Their demand for food staples and once unthinkable luxuries like meat is pushing up prices.
At the same time, the rising price of commodities over the past year has largely tracked the declining parity of the beleaguered dollar. Rice prices have shot up in dollar terms, far less against the euro. Countries like China are offloading depreciating dollar reserves to hoard stores of value like commodities.
Food price increases are also tied to oil being nearly $120 a barrel. Fossil fuels are an important input in everything from fertilizer to diesel for tractors.
Another myth that needs nuking is that the Amazon rain forest is being destroyed to make way for Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol. Almost all viable cane-growing areas lie hundreds of miles from the rain forest. Brazil has enough savannah to multiply its 3.5 million hectares of cane-for-ethanol production by ten without going near the Amazon ecosystem.
Brazilian rain forest is burning, as it long has, for a complex mix of economic reasons. Brazil’s successful ethanol industry — 80 percent of new cars run on ethanol or gasoline and all gasoline comprises 25 percent biofuel — is not one of them.
He calls for removing the 54cent a gallon tariff on ethanol imports.
Posted in biofuel, ethanol | Comments Closed
April 23rd, 2008
See if you can spot the mistake in the following statements (hint -it’s the same mistake):
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), House Republican Whip: “clearing the way for clean alternatives such as nuclear energy to take root [...] would have a downward impact on our [oil] dependence, and a stabilizing effect on price.”
Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming: “said alternative sources such as wind, energy and solar were the only long-term solution to get around soaring oil prices.”
Bigger hint:
Even bigger hint:
Memo to Reps. Blunt and Markey – we use very little oil to generate electricity, and conversely only a tiny fraction of our electricity is generated from oil. So you may have all sorts of reasons to favor solar, wind, and nuclear power, but please get your facts straight — increasing their use will do nothing to reduce U.S. oil dependence. And please note that the Department of Energy has reported that even today’s grid has sufficient reserve off peak power generation capacity to fuel over 70% of the US vehicle fleet should we have a massive shift to plug-in hybrid vehicles. You may have various reasons to wish to further diversify what electricity is generated from, but let’s keep the facts straight — it’s 98% not oil.
UPDATE: More pols making the same error:
New Jersey Republican candidates] for U.S. Senate used the record price of oil as a backdrop for all that is wrong with the U.S. economy.
During their first debate, the candidates — Dick Zimmer of Hunterdon County, Joseph Pennacchio of Montville and Murray Sabrin of Fort Lee — invoked Ronald Reagan’s free-market philosophy, saying that private enterprise got America through tough times before and it must do the job again, with oil at $119 a barrel.
“When our backs were against the wall, Americans were able to split the atom,” said Joseph Pennacchio, a dentist and state senator. He suggested that the country put the same fervor into nuclear, wind and solar power research.
Dick Zimmer, the former congressman and state legislator, suggested easing some regulations on the nuclear industry and taking other steps to lessen dependence on foreign oil.
[...]Murray Sabrin, a Ramapo College professor, decried what he called “anti-nuclear hysteria.”
“Of course we need nuclear energy,” he said.
Like we said – lots of reasons to support a variety of sources of electricity – but since we essentially no longer generate electricity from oil, reducing oil dependence isn’t one of them.
Have other examples of politicians or columnists making this same mistake? Add them to the comments.
Posted in plug in hybrids | Comments Closed
April 23rd, 2008
While the defenders of the status quo, the no-energy-of-any-type, and the blame-America-first crowds propagate the myth that biofuels production (and specifically US ethanol production) is driving up food prices, some people are setting the record straight:
[Capt Dr Samai Jai-in, an alternative fuel specialist with the Royal Thai Navy] said calls to limit biofuel development to help keep food prices low were misplaced.
He said recent price increases for rice and other staple grains were due to speculation by commodities traders as well as higher costs for key farm inputs such as fertiliser and pesticides.
Global oil prices have risen by 742 percent over the past decade, compared with 161 percent for cassava, 117 percent for rice, 158 percent for palm oil and 115 percent for sugar…
Capt Samai said it was wrong…to blame rising food prices on alternative fuel production.
In Thailand, he noted that ethanol was primarily generated from byproducts of palm oil, cassava and molasses. “The UN should consider the root cause. Crude oil prices are the main problem, as it hurts all sectors,” he said.
“Given that fact, the UN should be calling on oil-producing countries to help curb food prices by cutting oil prices. But cutting biofuel development is totally the wrong idea. … Wealthy oil producers, who have already benefited significantly from high oil prices, should allocate some of their money to help poor countries, such as Africa.”
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed
April 23rd, 2008
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed
April 21st, 2008
Last Thursday, Set America Free held an educational briefing in the House of Representatives on China’s very rapid progress on alternative fuels and advanced vehicle technology.
Greg Dolan of the Methanol Institute spoke about China’s progress on massive expansion of production and use of the alcohol fuel methanol
Dr. Paul Werbos of the NSF spoke about China, Japan, and Korea’s advances in battery technology and plug ins.
The bottom line: the Chinese are moving much more rapidly than the U.S. Alternative fuels and advanced vehicles are a top priority for the Chinese government.
Batteries for plug in hybrids are cheaper in China by factors of two, three, and more than comparable batteries in the U.S., and Chinese firms are expecting to have plug in hybrids ready for the mass market this year and next.
Posted in Blogroll, Flex fuel vehicles, methanol, plug in hybrids | Comments Closed
April 11th, 2008
It’s official. Right from the top. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia hates biofuels. Out of concern for the environment and world energy security, of course. At the International Oil Summit in Paris Saudi Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Ali Al-Naimi promised that fossil fuels will supply the bulk of global energy needs for at least the next 50 years. He said that “ethanol and other biofuels do not meet environmental and energy security goals” and that “their cultivation eats into the human food supply, reduces the absorption of carbon dioxide as forests are cut down, has not improved the security of energy supply and has not reduced petrol prices.” Biofuels also enjoy “financial favouritism†from governments, according to the minister.
“we have to look beyond biofuels… and concentrate instead on truly renewable sources of energy,” he said, flagging solar energy as “perhaps the best source” of alternative energy, predicting researchers will succeed in making solar cells “more effective†to expand use. What the Saudis omit is that we no longer produce electricity from oil so solar power is no threat. This cannot be said about alcohols which directly displace oil and snatch petrodollars from the Saudi coffers.
Merrill Lynch analyst Francisco Blanch just told the WSJ that without biofuels, the price of oil would be about 15% higher than it now is. This means at least $13 higher. This year the US will import 5 billion barrels. At $13 saving for each barrel, that adds up to a saving to the country as a whole of $65 billion in foriegn oil payments due to current biofuel programs.
That shows that our biofuels program has cost the Saudis billions. No wonder they are opposed to it. It just needs to be taken further.
Posted in Saudi Arabia, biofuel | Comments Closed
April 9th, 2008
Here is some interesting data that shows that the food vs fuel argument is false.
| Â |
2002
|
2006
|
2007
|
2015 (Projected)
|
|
Harvested corn
acres & yield
|
69.3M
(129.3 bu/A)
|
70.6M
(149.1 bu/A)
|
86.5M
(151.1 bu/A)
|
85.0M
(180 bu/A)
|
|
Total Corn Supply
Available
(prod = carry in)
|
10,573 Mbu
|
12,512 Mbu
|
14,393 Mbu
|
17,232 Mbu
|
|
|
350 gal/A
|
404 gal/A
|
435 gal/A
|
575 gal/A
|
|
|
2.96B gal
|
5.8B gal
|
8.3B gal
|
15.3B gal
|
|
Corn used for
ethanol
|
1,093 M bu
(10%)
|
2129 M bu
(17%)
|
3010 M bu
(21%)
|
4,695 M bu
(27%)
|
|
Corn Supply
(Less Used for Ethanol)
DDG Disp (M bu eq)
Total
|
9,480
189
9,669 M bu
|
10,383
515
10,898 M bu
|
11,383
792
12,175 M bu
|
12,537
1,452
13,989 M bu
|
Â
Note the bottom line. AFTER corn crop removal for ethanol production the US produced a net of 9.7 million bushels in 2002, 10.4 million bushels in 2006, and 12.2 million bushels in 2007.Â
Thus despite the growth of the corn ethanol industry (or actually because of it, as I’ll explain below) the net corn food product of the USA increased 17% between 2006 and 2007, and 26% since 2002. Overall, US farm exports are up 23%.
The reason why this is so is because agriculture is not a zero sum game. Only about 30% of US arable land is actually being farmed (it’s more like 15% in the third world). As a result of the ethanol program, the price received by farmers increased over the past year from $3.50/bushel to $5 per bushel. (There are 56 pounds of corn in a bushel – that’s actual grain, not corn on the cob. So $5/bu corn is $0.09/lb). By increasing the price the farmer gets from $0.07/lb to $0.09/lb, the program caused a great increase in the amount grown, both by increasing acreage and intensity of effort, and thus yield. This puts more corn on the market, and actually acts as a factor to decrease the price that grain merchants can charge for the corn, since they need to sell it all. (Adam Smith discusses this very issue in The Wealth of Nations.)
However, the retail price of corn, as well as all other food commodities, is being driven up an average of 4% by increased fuel prices, which are up 40% this year, as well as increased demand from China and India. The increased fuel prices affect retail food prices by increasing the price of production (of both agricultural products and especially fisheries), transport, wages, and packaging, which are the majority of cost of retail food. (At $5/bu, a $2.50 box of cornflakes, which contains 15 oz or corn, contains corn that cost 8 cents when bought from the farmer.
Robert Zubrin
author “Energy Victory”
Posted in FAQ, biofuel, ethanol | Comments Closed
March 31st, 2008
On March 25, I challenged Robert Bryce, author of “Gusher of Lies,” a book saying we don’t need to do anything for energy independence, to public debate. He accepted the same day. The Set America Free Coalition immediately stepped forward and offered to host a debate in Washington DC at the end of April. However, today his publicist called me to say that he was chickening out of the DC debate. She said he couldn’t make it to DC. So I offered to meet him in NYC instead. Not possible. Chicago? No. Denver? No. Los Angeles? No. I offered to travel to any other city to do the debate at any place of his convenience. She answered that he could not make it there, either.
So for now, the “Gusher of Lies” continues, in hiding from refutation.
The challenge remains open.
Robert Zubrin
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed