Yes, that is exactly what the source that roubles posted says. Obama supports corn-based ethanol and cellulosic ethanol. He does, however, support the tariff on Brazilian ethanol because he believes that America should pursue energy independence and not just shift from dependence on foreign petroleum to dependence on foreign ethanol.

Corn ethanol made here is not the same as sugar cane ethanol made in Brazil. Nothing inconsistent about my posts. Obama shouldn't oppose lifting tariffs on sugar cane ethanol from Brazil.

it would provide cheaper ethanol for consumers

That's your prediction about what effect sugar cane ethanol would have. Lower prices is what's needed to lower inflation and mortgage rates and help housing. The energy market doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you're interested in discussing the WHOLE INTERCONNECTED economy, let me know. Further discussion of energy without discussing how it's related to the whole economy (especially housing) is pointless.

/shrug

Well, you decided to participate in a thread that is about the role of Carter and Reagan in advocating/hindering alternative energy sources and energy independence. You chose to derail it to make accusations about Obama. If these aren't the discussions you wish to have, then please link some material that could serve as the basis for the actual discussion you would like to have. Alternately, you could even start a new thread on the issue that you think is worth discussing.

If you don't wish to do that, then I don't know what to tell you...

I'm just throwing this out there, as it's pre-coffee, pre-cigarette time.

But what's the important thing about sugar cane that allows it to be made into ethanol? Sugar, right?

So why not use beets instead? A tremendous amount of sugar is made from beets, and they can be grown in more parts of the US than sugarcane.

I'll have to look into it. It's not even a hypothesis as of yet.

One of the downsides of any form of Ethanol is that the energy and resources needed to produce it can potentially outweigh the benefits of using it. Ethanol is at best a short term solution, I think we would be better off in the long term investing in other forms of alternative energy that could be potentially less resource intensive.

Did the talk of coal make anybody else think steampunk automobiles?

No, it makes me think of trains.

Green crude production.
Uses algae.
Does not use farmland.
Does not use agricultural crops.
Can be refined, stored, and transported using existing facilities and infrastructure.
Produces 0 sulfur emissions.
Carbon neutral.

I discuss fuel prices with other issues because fuel prices have effects on other economic issues. I have explained repeatedly to you the effects of fuel prices on the economy as a whole but you are unable or unwilling to see the connection between energy prices to inflation, interest rates, housing or anything else. Making decisions about fuel without considering effects on other parts of the economy is foolish. I don't what else to tell you except to give the best site IMO for economic news and anlysis.

Calculated Risk
Calculated Risk

+1

May require some other adjustments. E.g. fewer cars, more transport-oriented. But that would not be a bad thing.

I like it. Algae fuel, I mean.

The website is incredibly uninformative. What is it? How do algae make fuel? How do cars run off of whatever is produced? And things like

are just misleading. Unless these people have created some entirely new process.

But the processes I know of use algae to produce oils, and the oils are turned into biodiesel*, biogasoline, SVO, and other synthetic fuels.

End chemical makeup is the same, just the source that's different. So I guess, technically, they aren't petroleum-based, in that they weren't made from crude oil pumped from the ground. But they're still the same hydrocarbons, and they're going to produce the same greenhouse gases. That may not be an issue, but it's an something that shouldn't be glossed over.

Then again, I realize the website is a promotional thing.

*Diesel fuel made by the transesterification of vegetable oil, or algae oil in this case, rather than by refining petroleum.

IIUC, and without looking at Shiny_metal_ass's source, the algae would be photosynthetic; so their primary energy source is solar.
That should overcome the main greenhouse-gas-emission problem.

They might be nitrogen-fixing; I'd hope so. If not, nitrogenous compounds might have to be added; human urine would probably work OK.

No one, myself included, is denying that high fuel prices have a negative effect on the economy as a whole. The issue under question is the amount of impact that removing the ethanol tariff will have. If you can show (through solid information/sources) that removing the tariff will have a noticeable impact, then you have a case. Otherwise, you are wasting your time and ours.

The first site you linked does not directly discuss the ethanol tariff.

The second site you linked does not provide any figures to back up its advocacy of eliminating the ethanol tariff. I just looked over every blog he has on ethanol. His desire to abolish the tariff is only backed up by ideology, not any statistics or estimated effects. If you would like me to consider those sources (mind you, I did just read every blog on ethanol they had), then direct me to a place where he gives some actual substantive data on the impact that removing the embargo would have. In the absence of such data, the site doesn't help your argument much.

Despite the lack of real data (on the potential of removing the ethanol tariff), I did see one blog where he mocked Bush's plan to utilize our strategic reserve to lower fuel prices (link). In his post, he called the 0.25% reduction (from the additional 25,000 barrels per day) "statistically irrelevant."

The post got me thinking and I decided to see how many barrels we could possibly get from Brazil...

Brazil is expected to produce 6.97 billion gallons of ethanol in 2008 (which is 165,952,381 barrels), they consume at least 280,000 barrels per day (assuming that they haven't increased consumption since 2006) - or 102,200,000 barrels per year, which means that we could potentially import 63,752,381 barrels per year. That comes to 174,664 barrels per day. Since ethanol is only 0.66 as energy-rich as petroleum, we would could potentially import the (ethanol) equivalent 115,278 barrels of petroleum per day in 2008. That number, however would assume that the US received every drop of ethanol not consumed domestically in Brazil. We, in fact, only receive 26.4% of their imports, which would be 30,433 barrels of what is equivalent to oil per day.

Of course, if the tariff was removed, perhaps we could import 1/3 to 1/2 of their ethanol exports (in an estimate that is pretty generous to your position). If this were the case, we could get as much as maybe 60,000 barrels per day. If so, we would still be only meeting a number roughly 2 to 3 times as much as what goes into the strategic reserves (or 0.5 to 0.75% of our daily petroleum consumption).

Note: As before, something could be wrong with my methodology or math, but it looks solid.

So, I am left with the question: If your source claims that a 0.25% reduction is "statistically irrelevant," would a 0.5 or 0.75% reduction (in an estimate that is incredibly fair to you) constitute anything that is statistically relevant? Even if that 0.75% was applied to a general reduction in rent, food costs, transportation costs, etc., would it make a meaningful impact on the entire economy?

To emphasize a point: you correctly identify a problem (high fuel costs) and then propose a near-term solution (removing the ethanol tariff). I agree with you on the problem. I disagree on the solution. It does not seem that removing the ethanol tariff will bring in enough ethanol to reduce fuel prices in an amount that will have meaningful impact on the economy. The cost for reducing the price of fuel even this much would be to risk losing much of our domestic ethanol production (and thus our energy independence). That site had an article on the bankruptcies in our domestic ethanol production.

Plus, we can get a larger reduction through diplomacy. The drop in oil prices we saw last week came from confidence in the Iranian production stemming from diplomacy. Your buddy Ron Paul argues that a "sensible approach toward Iran could quickly lower oil prices by $20 per barrel." Even if Ron Paul is being overly optimistic, Obama is in favor of dialogue with Iran and his leadership would remove fears of a US invasion. McCain pursues an aggressive policy in the Middle East (particularly in regard to Iran) and would have the opposite effect. Supporting McCain on the issue of ethanol tariff removal is counter-productive if you are going to have to deal with the impact of McCain's foreign policy on fuel prices.

Are you seriously willing to argue that the increase of ethanol imports will offset the increase of oil prices from McCain's hard-line stance on Iran?

Be rational here and consider all factors. The tariff is one thing that you might not like (I do because it protects an industry that clearly needs it and can't compete, yet we need), but McCain is far more dangerous to our economic health because of his foreign policy.

Quite right about the greenhouse gas emission problem. Any carbon dioxide produced through the combustion of the fuel would be reused by more algae to produce more fuel. Thus it being carbon-neutral.

Which is why it may not be an issue.

However, it's still not something that should be glossed over; the "information" on the website could possibly be construed as meaning no greenhouse gases are produced at all, which isn't true. It may be of concern if greenhouse gas emissions are a local health topic, for example.

Criticizing Obama on one issue doesn't mean I'm not going to vote for him. George Bush wouldn't talk with Iran until recently. I will see if McCain modifies his foreign policy before making a decision on a candidate.

When did Ron Paul become "my buddy"? I haven't mentioned him any in any of my posts anywhere.

The blog I listed isn't only focused on one issue but instead on all relevant and pressing economic
issues. I disagree that protecting the US corn ethanol industry is more important than lowering prices by whatever we can with Brazil ethanol. The fact that the exact amount hasn't been quantified isn't a reason not to lift the tariffs. The US corn ethanol industry isn't "needed." I have never ued corn ethanol. How can something most don't use be needed? It isn't.