| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Energy Forum » Why Biofuels are Important
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Bob Eld |
 Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
New commodities market analysis by Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. proves the
point the Center for American Progress has been making for a while now-that
the boom in biofuels production is reducing the cost of oil around the
world.
That conclusion may seem improbable given the dramatic run up in oil prices
over the past five years. But the analysis by Merrill commodities market
strategist Francisco Blanch (as reported today by the Wall Street Journal)
says that:
"Oil and gasoline prices would be about 15 percent higher if biofuel
producers weren't increasing their output. That would put oil at more than
$115 a barrel, instead of the current price of around $102. U.S. gasoline
prices would have surged to more than $3.70 a gallon, compared with an
average of a little more than $3.25 today."
This is precisely the point made by the Center for American Progress in its
recently published Progressive Growth series of economic papers,
particularly our Capturing the Energy Opportunity paper, as well as in our
earlier report, Fueling the New Farm Economy. In both papers, we explained
the link between diversifying our nation's sources of energy and the
corresponding fall in energy prices that would follow from diversification.
This is also why it is critically important that new sources of renewable
energy, for biofuels and for alternative electricity such as wind, solar and
ocean tides, need to be further developed with targeted federal funds
alongside already rising private sector investment. Next-generation biofuels
developed, for example, from jatropha, a tough shrub that grows in arid soil
unsuited for agriculture, and inedible grasses such as switchgrass in the
United States and miscanthus in Europe, hold the promise of new sources of
clean fuels that will not require the divergence of food crops into energy
production.
We of course need to ensure that the production of these new biofuels have
lower life-cycle greenhouse gas emmissions than gasoline, that they are
produced sustainably, and that they do not raise food or feed prices. The
Center has developed a Renewable Fuel Certification Program to deal with
these key issues.
To provide the funding necessary to bring these and other clean, renewable
energy sources to market swiftly to combat global warming, the Center for
American Progress supports the introduction of a carbon cap-and-trade
program. This program would provide tens of billions of dollars to build a
green economy and offset the cost of rising energy prices for lower- and
middle-income Americans.
Congress next month will renew debate on this cap-and-trade program
alongside the 2008 Farm Bill, which also contains critical provisions to
jumpstart the growth of next-generation biofuels. Members of Congress from
both sides of the aisle should take note of the Merrill Lynch analysis and
our policy analysis during those debates.
Kit Batten is Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy. Jake
Caldwell is Director of Policy for Agriculture, Trade and Energy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Bloomquist |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bob Eld wrote:
Quote: New commodities market analysis by Merrill Lynch & Co...
"Oil and gasoline prices would be about 15 percent higher if biofuel
producers weren't increasing their output....
I would really like to know how they get this number. There is maybe a
quad _gross_ of biofuel production world wide. Less than a half a quad
net. The world demands 175 quads/year of oil.
Articles without _real_ numbers are a dime a dozen. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| daestrom |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:6cdGj.530$NU2.216@news01.roc.ny...
Quote: Bob Eld wrote:
New commodities market analysis by Merrill Lynch & Co...
"Oil and gasoline prices would be about 15 percent higher if biofuel
producers weren't increasing their output....
I would really like to know how they get this number.
Probably some arm-chair economist noted that 15% of the gasoline sold in
their state is ethanal and so figured without ethanol would need 15% more
gas, therefore 15% more cost.
Dumb, dumb, dumb... That's wrong on so many levels......
daestrom |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Bloomquist |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
daestrom wrote:
Quote:
"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:6cdGj.530$NU2.216@news01.roc.ny...
Bob Eld wrote:
New commodities market analysis by Merrill Lynch & Co...
"Oil and gasoline prices would be about 15 percent higher if biofuel
producers weren't increasing their output....
I would really like to know how they get this number.
Probably some arm-chair economist noted that 15% of the gasoline sold in
their state is ethanal and so figured without ethanol would need 15%
more gas, therefore 15% more cost.
Dumb, dumb, dumb... That's wrong on so many levels......
daestrom
Hi daestrom,
I came across this:
<http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/ethanol-frequently-asked-questions.html>
"2007, ethanol displaced about three percent of our gasoline use."
So I checked:
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html>
We consume 141 billion gallons/year of gasoline. 2007 gross production
of ethanol was like 7 billion gallons. So I get 5%. But the ERoEI is
1.3, so now I get 1.5% in real terms. It doesn't even look right
comparing apples and oranges. I can't find a reference for how much
ethanol comes directly from fossil sources.
BTW, My son took the kid and wife to some kind of exploratorium a week
ago and bought a gyroscope while they were there. I got him to see if,
'well I think it is working'. The next time I get down to the valley
I'll take the gyro to his shop and set it in a one axis gimbal! (It will
be quick and easy, he has a nice shop.)
Best, Dan. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| beemerwacker |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cN8Gj.10447$qS5.6839@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
Quote: New commodities market analysis by Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. proves the
point the Center for American Progress has been making for a while
now-that
the boom in biofuels production is reducing the cost of oil around the
world.
That conclusion may seem improbable given the dramatic run up in oil
prices
over the past five years. But the analysis by Merrill commodities market
strategist Francisco Blanch (as reported today by the Wall Street
Journal)
says that:
"Oil and gasoline prices would be about 15 percent higher if biofuel
producers weren't increasing their output. That would put oil at more
than
$115 a barrel, instead of the current price of around $102. U.S.
gasoline
prices would have surged to more than $3.70 a gallon, compared with an
average of a little more than $3.25 today."
This is precisely the point made by the Center for American Progress in
its
recently published Progressive Growth series of economic papers,
particularly our Capturing the Energy Opportunity paper, as well as in
our
earlier report, Fueling the New Farm Economy. In both papers, we
explained
the link between diversifying our nation's sources of energy and the
corresponding fall in energy prices that would follow from
diversification.
This is also why it is critically important that new sources of
renewable
energy, for biofuels and for alternative electricity such as wind, solar
and
ocean tides, need to be further developed with targeted federal funds
alongside already rising private sector investment. Next-generation
biofuels
developed, for example, from jatropha, a tough shrub that grows in arid
soil
unsuited for agriculture, and inedible grasses such as switchgrass in
the
United States and miscanthus in Europe, hold the promise of new sources
of
clean fuels that will not require the divergence of food crops into
energy
production.
We of course need to ensure that the production of these new biofuels
have
lower life-cycle greenhouse gas emmissions than gasoline, that they are
produced sustainably, and that they do not raise food or feed prices.
The
Center has developed a Renewable Fuel Certification Program to deal with
these key issues.
To provide the funding necessary to bring these and other clean,
renewable
energy sources to market swiftly to combat global warming, the Center
for
American Progress supports the introduction of a carbon cap-and-trade
program. This program would provide tens of billions of dollars to build
a
green economy and offset the cost of rising energy prices for lower- and
middle-income Americans.
Congress next month will renew debate on this cap-and-trade program
alongside the 2008 Farm Bill, which also contains critical provisions to
jumpstart the growth of next-generation biofuels. Members of Congress
from
both sides of the aisle should take note of the Merrill Lynch analysis
and
our policy analysis during those debates.
Kit Batten is Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy.
Jake
Caldwell is Director of Policy for Agriculture, Trade and Energy.
No they are not, I don't see much differences in fuel saving. You indeed
created a chain of reaction, first Bush weaken your economy, then US
jumped to Biofuels causing other countries food prices to raise due to
high demand of vegetable oil. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:46 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Mar 25, 4:42 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
Quote: Bob Eld wrote:
"Dan Bloomquist" <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:6cdGj.530$NU2.216@news01.roc.ny...
Bob Eld wrote:
New commodities market analysis by Merrill Lynch & Co...
"Oil and gasoline prices would be about 15 percent higher if biofuel
producers weren't increasing their output....
I would really like to know how they get this number. There is maybe a
quad _gross_ of biofuel production world wide. Less than a half a quad
net. The world demands 175 quads/year of oil.
Articles without _real_ numbers are a dime a dozen.
Who knows where they got the numbers but it is common knowledge that much of
the recent run up in oil prices is due to speculation and anticipation not
directly on supply and demand.
Really? And this is 'common knowledge'? BTW, you have changed the subject.
I doubt that you can expect a one to one
correlation in the percentage of biofuels in the mix to the price of oil.
Nothing works directly like that.
I don't know what you mean. Fran argues like this, not really making sense.
Cheney is in the middle east jawboning the Saudis and others about the price
of oil. Among other things he is reminding them of the amount of money going
into biofuel research in an effort to convince them that their high oil
prices can cause their demise if they are not careful.
This constitutes some kind of truth? Maybe the Saudis are laughing their
ass off. Those among the Royal Family are a very well educated bunch.
It's folly to claim that biofuels are not important or that they will not
become a major competitor to petroleum in the future.
One claim after another. How about some numbers?
These guys are trying to mandate 10% bios mixed with petrol.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/25/biofuels.energy1
And one scientist says it's not a good idea. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bob Eld |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:6cdGj.530$NU2.216@news01.roc.ny...
Quote: Bob Eld wrote:
New commodities market analysis by Merrill Lynch & Co...
"Oil and gasoline prices would be about 15 percent higher if biofuel
producers weren't increasing their output....
I would really like to know how they get this number. There is maybe a
quad _gross_ of biofuel production world wide. Less than a half a quad
net. The world demands 175 quads/year of oil.
Articles without _real_ numbers are a dime a dozen.
Who knows where they got the numbers but it is common knowledge that much of
the recent run up in oil prices is due to speculation and anticipation not
directly on supply and demand. I doubt that you can expect a one to one
correlation in the percentage of biofuels in the mix to the price of oil.
Nothing works directly like that.
Cheney is in the middle east jawboning the Saudis and others about the price
of oil. Among other things he is reminding them of the amount of money going
into biofuel research in an effort to convince them that their high oil
prices can cause their demise if they are not careful.
It's folly to claim that biofuels are not important or that they will not
become a major competitor to petroleum in the future. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Bloomquist |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bob Eld wrote:
Quote: "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:6cdGj.530$NU2.216@news01.roc.ny...
Bob Eld wrote:
New commodities market analysis by Merrill Lynch & Co...
"Oil and gasoline prices would be about 15 percent higher if biofuel
producers weren't increasing their output....
I would really like to know how they get this number. There is maybe a
quad _gross_ of biofuel production world wide. Less than a half a quad
net. The world demands 175 quads/year of oil.
Articles without _real_ numbers are a dime a dozen.
Who knows where they got the numbers but it is common knowledge that much of
the recent run up in oil prices is due to speculation and anticipation not
directly on supply and demand.
Really? And this is 'common knowledge'? BTW, you have changed the subject.
Quote: I doubt that you can expect a one to one
correlation in the percentage of biofuels in the mix to the price of oil.
Nothing works directly like that.
I don't know what you mean. Fran argues like this, not really making sense.
Quote: Cheney is in the middle east jawboning the Saudis and others about the price
of oil. Among other things he is reminding them of the amount of money going
into biofuel research in an effort to convince them that their high oil
prices can cause their demise if they are not careful.
This constitutes some kind of truth? Maybe the Saudis are laughing their
ass off. Those among the Royal Family are a very well educated bunch.
Quote: It's folly to claim that biofuels are not important or that they will not
become a major competitor to petroleum in the future.
One claim after another. How about some numbers? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Fran |
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 26, 9:15 am, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: "Dan Bloomquist" <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:6cdGj.530$NU2.216@news01.roc.ny...
Bob Eld wrote:
New commodities market analysis by Merrill Lynch & Co...
"Oil and gasoline prices would be about 15 percent higher if biofuel
producers weren't increasing their output....
I would really like to know how they get this number. There is maybe a
quad _gross_ of biofuel production world wide. Less than a half a quad
net. The world demands 175 quads/year of oil.
Articles without _real_ numbers are a dime a dozen.
Who knows where they got the numbers but it is common knowledge that much of
the recent run up in oil prices is due to speculation and anticipation not
directly on supply and demand. I doubt that you can expect a one to one
correlation in the percentage of biofuels in the mix to the price of oil.
Nothing works directly like that.
Even so, I'm not persuaded that biofuels are a sufficient factor in
any market as yet to force down prices. And if they were, it's likely
that OPEC would cut production, protecting the price.
Of the two scenarios, I'd much prefer the latter, for obvious reasons.
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:21 pm
|
|