US society will drastically change on the ‘down side” of the Peak Oil curve. Certainly on the down side, the cost of oil will rapidly climb to force a reduction in its consumption. Let’s agree not debate whether or not that peak has past or is yet to come, but feel free to state your opinion. - I think we are at or slightly past the peak already. I.e. not all of the recent increases in the price of oil are due to the weakness of the dollar. Part is the inevitable rise in prices to equilibrate demand and supply.

How can the transformation be made less painful?

I will start with two easy to implement suggestions.

(1) Stop GWB’s non-functional “absence only” birth control approach in foreign aid. (Give out free “rubbers” as they do in Brazil, the world’s most Catholic country.)
(2) Stop GWB’s alcohol from corn non-sense. Import tropical sugar cane alcohol, instead of importing so much petroleum. – Reduce Joe American’s farm subsidies taxes and his cost of driving, while actually removing CO2 from the air and storing carbon in the alcohol distribution system – everything from huge ocean tankers to millions of car fuel tanks.

I admit that some rain forests will be cut down eventually* to grow sugar cane and that trees store more carbon than a field of growing sugar cane, but the alternative is to keep burning gasoline; Note that oil companies do not “produce petroleum.” They de-sequester it and cause the geologically stored carbon to become CO2 in the air. That is much more important than the difference between the carbon stored in trees and in the growing cane PLUS the alcohol transport and storages systems.

More on these and other items later; first let’s see if others are interested in this thread.
-------------
*None are now. The rate of Brazilian rain forest destruction was much greater years ago when there was no serious effort at control. The cutting is now illegal but when wood from one Mahogany tree is worth $8000 in a US port and labor is less than $10/ day in Brazil, they will be cut. Then the forest is burned to hide the crime after the selective harvest of a few trees. - If you like pretty woods, don't blame sugar cane for destruction of the rain forests - Look in the mirror to see the villain. The "rape of the forests" by the rich began more than 300 years ago. "Brazil wood"** is a type of tree, like "Oak wood." It was once the dominate wood of the forest, but is rare now. Brazil is named after that wood, not the other way round.

**In Brazil that tree is called, "pau brazil" with a small "b," not the capital letter of the country's name.

The less developed world will turn to farming, but I doubt there will be much international commerce, it would have to use sail power or coal fired steam engines. The rain forests will probably not be cut down as much, since our consumption of meat will be much reduced, and transportation costs would be high.

US society will drastically change on the ‘down side” of the Peak Oil curve. Certainly on the down side, the cost of oil will rapidly climb to force a reduction in its consumption.I dont know whether we have reached the peak of oil production or not, but I'll certainly agree that I don't see the price of oil doing anything but go up over the long term.
How can the transformation be made less painful?

I will start with two easy to implement suggestions.
(1) Stop GWB’s non-functional “absence only” birth control approach in foreign aid. (Give out free “rubbers” as they do in Brazil, the world’s most Catholic country.)I have no problem with rubbers. But i'm wondering if we should be giving out foriegn aide at all given the size of our debt.
(2) Stop GWB’s alcohol from corn non-sense. Import tropical sugar cane alcoholYes. From what I've read corn ethanol doesn't even save any oil. It's a complete waste of money and even acts to significantly raise the price of food.
, instead of importing so much petroleum. – Reduce Joe American’s farm subsidies taxes and his cost of driving, while actually removing CO2 from the air and storing carbon in the alcohol distribution system – everything from huge ocean tankers to millions of car fuel tanks. Um, I don't really care about carbon output. But I guess that's a bonus.

I'd also add build more nuke plants, more coal plants, perhaps coal to oil plants, consider switching to electric or fuel cell cars, and increase shipping via railroad which is something like 150 times as efficient as by truck.
The cutting is now illegal but when wood from one Mahogany tree is worth $8000 in a US port and labor is less than $10/ day in Brazil, they will be cut. Then the forest is burned to hide the crime after the selective harvest of a few trees. - If you like pretty woods, don't blame sugar cane for destruction of the rain forests - Look in the mirror to see the villain.Unintended consequences. Perhaps they'd do better to authorize the cutting down of trees. Issue a license to a certain company for a certain area. Make them plant new trees to make up for what they cut down. Therefore you remove the incentive to burn down the whole forest.

The less developed world will turn to farming, but I doubt there will be much international commerce, it would have to use sail power or coal fired steam engines. The rain forests will probably not be cut down as much, since our consumption of meat will be much reduced, and transportation costs would be high.The world will never "run out of oil." The coal-fired ship is possible again, but not very likely. Sails will at most assist. (There is a company trying to sell the sail assist idea now. - a German ship has crossed the Atlantic with it slightly reducing the fuel cost. Sail is on cables, out in front and up high, where wind is stronger.)

When Joe American cannot afford gasoline fuel for his car, they still will be using some liquid fuel for Ocean transport, unless you are more pessimistic than me, and think China, India etc. will collapse economically also.

On the hydrogen fuel cell car MadAnthony suggests I copy my post made at another forum in reply to that suggestion also made there:

Physics and economics are blocking the hydrogen fuel cell car. IMHO, most of the noise about hydrogen is an oil company diversion. They know it will not be able to displace oil and fear tropical alcohol which can. Already has in Brazil - more than half of the cars burn only alcohol now and 90+% of all the cars produced in Brazil are able to. (A few luxury models still run on gasoline.) Initially flex fuel cars were about $100 more expensive, but now you would pay more for a gasoline car even if it were not a luxury model as the fixed cost would be distributed over much smaller volume of sales. Alcohol has only 70% of the energy / unit volume, but currently I buy it for my car at less than half the price of alcohol. - this despite the mainly government owned and fully controlled state oil company holding the line on gas costs (less than 10% increase in the last 3 years, but it will be going up after the elections - then probably alcohol will cost about 1/3 as much. If that is the case the per mile cost of driving on alcohol will be half what it cost to use gasoline! It certainly will soon be as oil gets more expensive - very rapidly on the "downside" ot the "peak oil" curve. (We appear to be about that the top of that curve now - perhaps already slightly turning down. Saudi Arabia can not produce at a faster rate already. New oil is much more expensive when found.)

Hydrogen, as many here fortunately know, but the oil companies never mention in their TV ads trying to divert attention for a real competitor, is NOT an energy source, but must be made normally via electrolysis consuming electric which in the US is at least 90% fossil energy. When you recognize that the hydrogen production process has losses, you understand that using hydrogen in US would INCREASE the consumption of fossil fuels, including oil. Increase the CO2 component of global warming.

Thus to look only at the clean burning of H2 distorts the facts. - The production of H2 will INCREASE the fossil fuels burned MORE THAN CONTINUING TO BURN GASOLINE IN YOUR CARS DOES! True, in principle, non-fossil energy sources exits, but until the very distant day that they alone (not oil and coal) produce the electricity for non-moble use in the US these non- fossil fuels should be used for stationary power loads (homes, offices and factories).

Wind mills, nuclear power and solar cells are not even suitable for powering cars after that day for the other reasons given in this post. You might also note that the Oil Companies are the large sponcers of the various solar-cell car races etc. - for the same reason they are backing hydrogen. - I.e. neither is the real competitor that alcohol is.

Oil companies are not dumb. - The facts about converting to alcohol are too clear and strong - It could REDUCE CO2 release (Actually alcohol makes a net removal of some now in the air as the alcohol in the ocean tankers, the near-port and local storage tanks of the distribution system, and millions of car fuel tanks is sequestering carbon that was in the air.) They are doing an effective job of making people like you ignore the real alcohol alternative with the hydrogen diversion.

Even if hydrogen did not INCREASE CO2, and were not more expensive than gasoline, there is still the unsolved physics of how to store it in your car. Metal hydrides can hold a one to one atomic concentration, but a Hydrogen is the lightest element and metals that can hold hydrogen are among the heaviest - the fuel tank that can hold the energy equivalent of a gas tank would weigh about the same as the rest of the lighter weight cars the US must convert to - cars like used in Europe and Brazil.

SUMMARY: Physics, Economic and even the environment each separately rule out the hydrogen powered car - that is why knowledgeable people are not suggesting it and Oil Companies are.

The less developed world will turn to farming, but I doubt there will be much international commerce, it would have to use sail power or coal fired steam engines. The rain forests will probably not be cut down as much, since our consumption of meat will be much reduced, and transportation costs would be high.Now you're going overboard. We're not talking about some post apocolyptic world where we've lost all of our current knowledge. Just a world with ever decreasing supplies of oil relative to the demand.

As Billy said, we'll never run out of oil. As supplies decrease, the price will increase which will force people to find alternative fuels or adjust some other way. But when you're talking about crossing the ocean, They'll just raise the price they charge for shipping to cover the increased cost of fuel.

At some point, it will become more expensive to buy the oil for a specific purpose than one can gain in profit. Then that activity will cease. It's already becoming unprofitable for truckers to run their 18 wheelers. If you think that nothing much will change, you don't know how much we depend on oil for just about everything.

...Perhaps they'd do better to authorize the cutting down of trees. Issue a license to a certain company for a certain area. Make them plant new trees to make up for what they cut down. Therefore you remove the incentive to burn down the whole forest.Brazil does have this "legal logging." It is more cost effective to just steal the logs than to own the forest or meet the regulations. The legal export of legal logs or boards just makes it possible for the illegal ones to go thru the ports also.

At some point, it will become more expensive to buy the oil for a specific purpose than one can gain in profit. Then that activity will cease. It's already becoming unprofitable for truckers to run their 18 wheelers. If you think that nothing much will change, you don't know how much we depend on oil for just about everything.I think the 18 wheelers are still rolling but they are more careful to have a load for the return trip also. This increases their "idle time" and those rigs cost a lot of money - hence both the capital and fuel costs are now increasing the cost of freight.

I had a friend who worked with this scheduling of loads for a major trucking line. - He liked to quote the company's slogan:

"If you got it - a truck brought it."

Yes, you are correct. We are highly dependant upon trucks in the US and changing that to rails is decades away. Part of why the disaster is coming.

(1) Stop GWB’s non-functional “absence only” birth control approach in foreign aid. (Give out free “rubbers” as they do in Brazil, the world’s most Catholic country.)

(2) Stop GWB’s alcohol from corn non-sense. Import tropical sugar cane alcohol, instead of importing so much petroleum. – Reduce Joe American’s farm subsidies taxes and his cost of driving, while actually removing CO2 from the air and storing carbon in the alcohol distribution system – everything from huge ocean tankers to millions of car fuel tanks.

Here are my suggestions:

1. Make it illegal to grow tobacco and manufacture alcoholic beverages in the US. All land used for such purposes will be turned over to biofuels like sugarcane, sugar beets and Jatropha oil. Sugar used for food will be heavily taxed, so kids will have to settle for healthier cereals like rolled oats for breakfast, instead of the sugary horrors currently consumed. No need to import from Brazil or waste corn stocks.

2. Anyone applying for ownership of a second car will have to buy a plugin hybrid or pure electric.

3. All waste matter, whether sewage, municipal garbage or organic matter will henceforth have to be recycled. It could be used as compost, burned in plasma furnaces or converted by thermal de-polymerization. What could be better than extracting energy from what is thrown away?

I like some of your ideas but not all. See {inserts} I madeHere are my suggestions:

1. Make it illegal to grow tobacco and manufacture alcoholic beverages {Alcohol for drinking is too easily made - US tried that prohibition years ago and still is suffering the consequences - that built the crime families etc in the US.} in the US. All land used for such purposes will be turned over to biofuels like sugarcane, sugar beets and Jatropha oil. Sugar used for food will be heavily taxed, so kids will have to settle for healthier cereals like rolled oats for breakfast, instead of the sugary horrors currently consumed. No need to import from Brazil or waste corn stocks. {I am with you 200% here - I consider sugar a slow poison - in quanity it really messes up the insulin response system, leads often to type 2 diabetes etc. Sugar is very recent addition to mankind's diet. - We have not evolved to cope with it. However it will be decades before the US has small efficient cars and lots of good public transport so they are not used much. Then and only then will US be able to grow its own energy crops in the required volume. Sooner US stops sending funds to those funding the terrorist and imports tropical alcohol the better for the US.}

2. Anyone applying for ownership of a second car will have to buy a plugin hybrid or pure electric. {This mainly decreases the overall efficiency and transfers the energy load to a central station, which mean in 90% of the case burn fossil fuels. When the loses in the battery cycle, rectifiers, several transformers and transmission lines is considered, there is about a 50% INCREASE in fossil fuel use.}

3. All waste matter, whether sewage, municipal garbage or organic matter will henceforth have to be recycled. It could be used as compost, burned in plasma furnaces or converted by thermal de-polymerization. What could be better than extracting energy from what is thrown away? Unfortunately, effective recycling seems to inconsistent with people whose time is very valuable. In Brazil an amazing 96% of aluminum is used at least twice. Poor people tear open trash bags and search thru public trash cans to achieve this. You cannot walk a mile on Sao Paulo sidewalks without seeing several very poor people stomping can flat so more will fit in their huge plastic sacks. There are even machines in the parking area of many super markets you can feed your Al cans into and receive a small printed slip you soon turn in as cash when paying for your groceries. About 70% of paper is also recycled, despite Brazil being one of the largest, if not the largest, grower of trees for wood pulp! Many poor here live by recycling the discards of the rich who cannot be bothered.

I have no problem with rubbers. But i'm wondering if we should be giving out foriegn aide at all given the size of our debt.

Foreign aid is surprisingly cheap when it's rubbers and food, as opposed to $16 million dollar missiles.

It also makes us look good. And diplomacy is a hell of a lot cheaper than war, especially in the age of commerce. Free trade ftw, Mr. Wayne, ftw.

Hydrogen, as many here fortunately know, but the oil companies never mention in their TV ads trying to divert attention for a real competitor, is NOT an energy source, but must be made normally via electrolysis consuming electric
I'm aware that hydrogen is just a way to store energy. I mentioned it or electric cars in combo with nuclear and/or coal.

I guess I have more faith in the dynamic nature of the US economy. You mentioned that it took the act of a dictator to force Brazil to switch to alcohol. It took that because at the time it didn't make economic sence.

As the price of gasoline goes up and up, people will be clamoring for an alternative. It won't take a dictator. They'll be money to be made. Lot's of money.

And railroads, we'll need more of them. But this time, there are no Indians harassing the workers. This time, we have 21st century technology. And, once again, they'll be a shitload of money to be made.

The US economy can move remarkably fast when it needs to. Look at WW2. Most of our fleet was destroyed and we rebuilt it and kicked Japan's ass. Look at cable TV, cell phones, home computers, the internet, fax machines. How long did it take for those innovations to sweep the country?

About the only thing that might hold us back is environmental regulations. (they had to over ride a shitload of them just to build the fucking fence along the Mexican border. A fucking fence! What kind of environmental impact does a damned fence have?) But I imagine we'll throw those BS regulation by the wayside when it gets too expensive to drive our Suburbans or heat our houses.

And, if worse comes to worse and we do get a great depresion, maybe we'll get our dictator and he can ram the crap we need thru.

At some point, it will become more expensive to buy the oil for a specific purpose than one can gain in profit. Then that activity will cease. It's already becoming unprofitable for truckers to run their 18 wheelers. If you think that nothing much will change, you don't know how much we depend on oil for just about everything.

18 wheelers are subsidized by the federal government- who pays for and maintains the highways? Certainly not the truckers.

If highways had to be paid for in a free market, we'd see far more efficient transportation. Unfortunately, railroads don't have the benefit of being totally subsidized by the government. They're outcompeted because the government steals from everyone and builds roads which the truckers can use for practically nothing.

Here's a good summary of our current situation:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/toon041108.gif
Government needs to get out of the way, and let us fix the damned problem!

18 wheelers are subsidized by the federal government- who pays for and maintains the highways? Certainly not the truckers.

If highways had to be paid for in a free market, we'd see far more efficient transportation. Unfortunately, railroads don't have the benefit of being totally subsidized by the government. They're outcompeted because the government steals from everyone and builds roads which the truckers can use for practically nothing.
We do have toll roads and I see plenty of trucks on them. Here in Indiana, we've leased our toll road to a private company so it gets no government support whatsoever.

Really? How's it working?
I've heard they've done that in some parts of California.

But other than a few select places, virtually all roads are propped up by the government. It's actually one of the major ways the Feds can control state governments- threaten to withdraw highway funds.

"Alcohol for drinking is too easily made - US tried that prohibition years ago and still is suffering the consequences - that built the crime families etc in the US." -BillyT

Some folks will turn to moonshine, but their numbers are insignificant compared to the effect of off-setting the vast tracts of commercial farmland currently employed for growing poison. And there are already dozens of illegal drugs for crime families to indict themselves. Its a wonderful way of removing the idiots from the gene pool!

"This mainly decreases the overall efficiency and transfers the energy load to a central station, which mean in 90% of the case burn fossil fuels. When the loses in the battery cycle, rectifiers, several transformers and transmission lines is considered, there is about a 50% INCREASE in fossil fuel use." -BillyT

The efficiency and of a central plant is greatly improved over burning fuel in thousands of engines, but there will be a far greater nocturnal draw on the grid of course.

However, at least the coal will be mined here in the US, where the money will stay. Trade deficits with Brazil are bad, trade deficits with the middle east are worse. Keeping the cash here at home is best.

Explain why a trade deficit is "bad".

Explain why a trade deficit is "bad".
For the same reason you would rather pay your family members for work around the house...rather than employing outsiders.

For the same reason you would rather pay your family members for work around the house...rather than employing outsiders.

It depends on how well my family members can actually do the work.

... But other than a few select places, virtually all roads are propped up by the government. It's actually one of the major ways the Feds can control state governments- threaten to withdraw highway funds. The major subsidy to trucks and cars was the Federal Hi-Way system constructed under old solider Ike when he was president. It was justified as a military need - to quickly move troops etc across the country. (Ike remembers all the US tanks that could not cross the weak bridges in WWII Europe, I guess.)

A measure of the value of this subsidy is the sales price when the government’s roads are sold to a private operator. That should be available in the annual reports (as the main asset) of companies like the NJ turnpike authority if anyone wants to look. I am sure it was large - so large that private industry did not build toll roads.

Even not much in the early days of the US. - I once read part of the Government's contract for constructing of "the national pike" as US40 was then called. Really interesting - told the width (for two wagons to pass) and that no tree stump could be left sticking up more than 10 inches in the road, as I recall.)

Really old contracts are interesting. When New England mills were water powered by their own dam, and had workers 10 hours a day, they feed the workers lunch. One contract stipulated that the lunch could not be Salmon more four days per week! (Show how the streams of New England have changed!)

"...The {US farm} sectoral surge has been driven, in part, by external factors, as rapid growth in the developing world has increased consumer demand for meat and animal feed. Surging energy prices have also pushed up demand for biofuel, which in the United States consists mostly of ethanol derived from corn. This has driven prices to record levels, in nominal terms. Soybeans have rocketed from 8.50 dollars in August 2007 to 12.79 late last month; wheat, flax, corn and most other agricultural commodities have experienced similar rises. ...The US Department of Agriculture believes that prices will come down, as farmers increase production and boost cultivation of high demand crops. Yet global consumption has exceeded wheat production for seven of the last eight years, and most other agricultural commodities evidence similar demand. ..."

FROM:
http://www.oxan.com/worldnextweek/2008-04-03/agriboom.aspx

Rice prices rose more than 10 per cent on Friday to a fresh all-time high as African countries joined south-east Asian importers in the race to head off social unrest by securing supplies from the handful of exporters still selling the grain in the international market.

The rise in prices – 50 per cent in two weeks – threatens upheaval and has resulted in riots and soldiers overseeing supplies in some emerging countries, where the grain is a staple food for about 3bn people.

The increase also risks stoking further inflation in emerging countries, which have been suffering the impact of record oil prices and the rise in price of other agricultural commodities – including wheat, maize and vegetable oil – in the last year


EDITOR’S CHOICE {The following are links to other related FT (of India) articles - available at link below.}
In depth: Rising cost of food - Nov-28
Manila aims to halt rice imports - Apr-10
Hunger for rice gives sellers the upper hand - Apr-10
Revolt against Egyptian state’s low-pay deal - Apr-10
Editorial comment Restocking the empty global larder - Apr-09
Food inflation threatens progress on poverty - Apr-09 ..."

FROM:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4813b3c4-0250-11dd-9388-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

Although the G8 and World Bank just concluded an emergency meeting on the problem of soaring food prices, not all political leaders at the meeting are unhappy with the rise in food prices. Brazil's president, Lula, said it was a "cause for joy." (Brazil is not a member of the G8 = G7 + Russia, but should be. Lula was and "invited observer" I think.)

Interestingly Lula was NOT thinking about the great economic gain of Brazil's exporting farmers, but the laborers of many lands, including Brazil. I.e. they are for the first time, in many cases, with bellies full and eating more meat etc. Lula knows what it is like to be poor and hungry first hand. His parents are both literate and he got his first pair of shoes at age 12! He is a natural born leader, founded the main labor organization in Brazil.* He is without much formal education, speaks only Portuguese, often incorrectly, but is very smart. He has about doubled the purchasing power of the two lower economic groups in Brazil. (There are five A thru E.) In contrast the purchasing power of Joe American has been decreasing under GWB. The Brazilian internal market demand is growing so rapidly that is almost certain the Brazilian central bank will RAISE the basic interest rate to 11.5% next week to slow the booming economy.(Brazil already has the highest real rates in the world, as Inflation is still only about 4% or less.) In a recent meeting Brazil and India discussed what they could do to help the US out of its financial troubles! :bugeye: :shrug:

World Bank president (Robet Zoellich) states that globally food prices are up 83% on average in last 3 years. Rice is up 150% in last 12 months. Wheat is up 120% in last 12 months, causing the price of bread to double. Argentina, a major exporter of wheat, has just recently put a large tax / tariff on the export of wheat in effort to hold the price of bread inflation down. (Force growers to supply the domestic market.) Thialand amd others (see next post) has done the same with rice. – I think Thailand was the world’s largest exporter. Poor in parts of the world need more than they can earn just to eat, now.

More than half of the rise in the price of corn is due to the US diversion of it to alcohol production. There have been minor "tortilla riots" in Mexico. There is a serious food riot in Hattie now. It will be a few years before the poor in US cities riot for food - but you are kidding yourselves, if you think that is not possible. Trucks transport the food 1500 miles. The US needs to export food for Balance of Payments reasons. The fertile mid west land is the only natural asset the US has. Industries and technical jobs with computers etc. can be done more cheaply elsewhere, and are leaving.
------
*A "spell binding" orator, the even Obama could learn from.

More from first Ref. of post 23:

"...Thai medium-quality rice, a global benchmark, traded at about $850 a tonne on Friday, up from $760 a tonne last week, while the price of less representative top-quality aromatic rice broke the $1,000-a-tonne level for the first time, traders said. They added that the grain was being sold to African destinations.

In Chicago, US rice futures hit an all-time high of $20.45 per 100 pounds.

Although only a small amount of the grain is traded internationally, the rise in Thai prices signals the trend for the global market and also for domestic prices in countries where local production is enough to meet demand.

The price jump came as leading exporting countries, including Vietnam, India, China and Egypt, banned foreign sales. Hanoi extended its ban for two extra months until June. ..."

Next thing you know the honey bee, pollinator of most food crops, will get sick. :eek:

I can see a world food crisis being far more serious than the fuel crisis, simply because energy can take many forms.

Fertilizer production depends on natural gas, and gas reserves decline much faster after peaking than oil.

I imagine there are millions in the third world who eat little more than grain, and who survive only because grain remains within a narrow range of affordability.

Lots of people in europe and asia get along in walkable communities with nothing more than bicycles, but I can see people starting to grow more food in their backyards...potatoes, cabbage, carrots, tomatoes, snow peas, chicken coops???

Another way governments can free up more land for biofuels is to eliminate certain kinds of meat production...the obvious choice is HOGS.

Civilization can get along just fine without bacon and pork chops.

Civilization can get along just fine without bacon and pork chops.
Speak for yourself! I love bacon!

What the government needs to do is less, not more. They need to stop subsidizing and mandating corn ethanol which is a colossal waste and is driving up food prices all over the world. They also need to get rid of the tariffs that prevent cheap Brazilian ethanol from being sold in the US.

They also need to get rid of the tariffs that prevent cheap Brazilian ethanol from being sold in the US.
Why on earth would you want to send tanker ships full of cash to Brazil when the money can stay at home...with Americans farmers growing sugar cane, sugar beets and Jatropha oil?

Much of the southern US is perfect for growing cane.

Why on earth would you want to send tanker ships full of cash to Brazil when the money can stay at home...with Americans farmers growing sugar cane, sugar beets and Jatropha oil?

Much of the southern US is perfect for growing cane.Fine. Grow it. But do it without subsidies.

Fine. Grow it. But do it without subsidies.
The oil industry gets untold billions in subsidies.

Do you want those removed as well...so you can fill your SUV with $6.00/gal gas?

The oil industry gets untold billions in subsidies.

Do you want those removed as well...so you can fill your SUV with $6.00/gal gas?
Yes. I want all subsidies removed.

Speak for yourself! I love bacon!

What the government needs to do is less, not more. They need to stop subsidizing and mandating corn ethanol which is a colossal waste and is driving up food prices all over the world. They also need to get rid of the tariffs that prevent cheap Brazilian ethanol from being sold in the US.

I wonder if any of the candidates advocate this?

They all probably had to vow not to back in the influential Iowa primary.

I wonder if any of the candidates advocate this?

They all probably had to vow not to back in the influential Iowa primary.
It's a fatal flaw with democracy. Once a subsidy or government program is passed, it's damned near impossible to repeal it because the people that benefit from it will raise holy hell, while the harm it does is spread over the entire rest of the population. Yet all these programs add up to gigantic deficits and the eventual collapse of the currency.

Wind mills, nuclear power and solar cells are not even suitable for powering cars But stationary heat engine solar for electrolysis is (transported either as electricity by wire or charged fuel cells, compressed air, batteries, flywheel stored, etc) - the deflection of solar to expensive panels only is a scam, although they do have their roles.

Private highways run on direct user tolls fail to price in externalized benefits of a road system - so they will always underserve the economy as a whole.

Government "subsidy" or support has been necessary for every major technological innovation in every industrial economy I can think of - the deficiencies of bad government do not obviate the necessity of good.

Cuba would be a natural first source of sugar cane ethanol - not sugar beets and the like in the US, which are worse than corn in net gain.

Cuba would be a natural first source of sugar cane ethanol - not sugar beets and the like in the US, which are worse than corn in net gain.
No need to import from Cuba when sugar cane already grows in southern states like Florida and Louisiana. Hotter more southern climates arent necessary.

http://img359.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sugarcaneforsugarharvesme8.gif

Sugar beets also have a significantly higher net gain than corn, making it the best choice for colder climates in the States.

http://www.cleanhouston.org/energy/features/ethanol2.htm

"Sugarcane, at 1:8, yields about eight units of energy for every one unit invested to grow harvest and convert the cane into ethanol.

Sugar beets yield nearly two units of energy for every one unit that is used to grow and convert the crop into ethanol. Corn lies near the very bottom of the list at 1:1.4"

But stationary heat engine solar for electrolysis is ...I too like solar thermal production of electricity as it can be more than twice as efficient as solar cells. - Use less than half the area for collecting the same energy and uses much less expensive materials, IF done as I disclosed in a US patent many years ago. (My patent expired many years ago, while oil energy was still cheap. -I was far too advanced for my time* to gain commercial interest in it.) Here is an old "promo" I made:

Because solar energy is a spectrum of different energy photons and only those with energy equal to the band gap of the material used in photovoltaic cell can be efficiently converted in electricity, the net conversion efficiency is in practice less than half what is potentially available via thermal conversion, despite the Carnot cycle limits on thermal conversion.

You may doubt this statement as normally if the absorber is hot enough (near material limits) to allow high thermal conversion efficiency, then the re-radiation losses from the absorber are also very large. US patent 4033118 (mass flow solar absorber) teaches a possible solution to this fundamental problem.

A brief summary of the invention:
Concentrated sunlight enters the open end of a glass tube, which has a reflective coating on the outer surface. As it “mirrors” along the axis deeper into the tube, a small fraction of the energy is deposited on the wall with each reflection. A second, externally-insulated, co-axial, metal tube surrounds this inner one, forming an annulus between the two tubes in which the “working fluid” flows. At the entrance end the working fluid is relatively cool, but as it too travels farther from the entrance it becomes hotter from the energy being deposited on the inner tube wall. Deep in this tubular structure the glass grades into quartz, which can resist the high temperatures better than glass.
The interior deep insides the inner tube is of course filled with intense IR radiation but little of it can escape by “mirroring” its way back to the entrance. I.e. the glass wall does not let it “see” the mirror surface but absorbs the IR for transfer to the working fluid. Thus, a very high temperature, with very little re-radiation losses is achieved economically.
----------
*Being able to see what is coming even decades in advance was a problem for me in this case. I acted too soon, but I was afraid someone else might patent my invention.

P.S. The above may seem to be "off thread," but I continued to think, as I have for 30+ years, that my invention is a very important means for the world to have both sustainable food and fuel at affordable cost.

Fine. Grow it. But do it without subsidies.Yes. Why should every US family of four send more than 100 dollars* to the rich owners of agri-business every year? Especially now that is is getting easier and more profitable to export food too:

"...India removed a 36 percent import tariff on wheat flour, and Indonesia eliminated duties on wheat and soybeans. Peru jettisoned tariffs on wheat and corn. Turkey cut import taxes on wheat to 8 percent from 130 percent and on barley to zero from 100 percent. Mongolia scrapped its value-added tax on imported wheat and flour. Burkina Faso suspended import taxes on four food staples in February after riots in the West African nation over price increases. And Brazil may remove its 10 percent tax on wheat imports. In all, at least 24 nations have reduced duties and value-added taxes, according to an April 9 World Bank report. ..."

From:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=admKeNIaN5pw&refer=home

Also, the IMF has estimated that more than half of the price increase in US corn is due to the corn to alcohol program. I add: this does not include the cost added by speculators buying , hoarding, (including the farmers delaying sales) etc. for future sales.

For more details, see two of my posts in old thread "How DUMB can US Voters be? (Which unfortunately did not met its objective of Blocking GWB's second election.):
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1680973&postcount=93
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1633387&postcount=85

---------
*Farm subsides totaled >8 billion, 300 million Americans. 4x8000/300 = $106/ family. If the related subsidies like $0.54 on each gallon of alcohol and the adminstrative cost of these damaging programs are included it comes to more than 50 cents every day! More than the cost of their newspaper etc.

If interested in an idea for the sustainable production of both food and energy (especially if you know a little chemistry) please look at:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1820031&postcount=1