alternative to gasoline

General, interesting, questionable, and debatable local, national or global topics in the news or on the streets.
Forum rules
Spam is not allowed, nor tolerated.
Hmph
Posts: 5551
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 12:32 am

Post by Hmph »

:o :doh: :cry:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/30/ ... index.html
Energy chief: High gas prices could last 3 years

Sunday, April 30, 2006; Posted: 12:59 p.m. EDT (16:59 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Acknowledging the energy situation is a "crisis," U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said Sunday it could take three years before drivers get relief from high gas prices.

Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Bodman blamed the increase in gas prices on the rising cost of a barrel of oil.

"The suppliers have lost control of the market and therefore, demand exceeds supply," Bodman said.

"Clearly we're going to have a number of years -- two or three years -- before suppliers are going to be in a position to meet the demands of those who are consuming this product."

According to the U.S. government's statistics, the average cost of a gallon of gas has risen about $.60 in the past two months.

Crude oil prices went above $75 a barrel in late April, and while they have eased since then, they're still up about 17 percent this year.

Speaking on the same program, assistant Senate Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois denounced Bodman's assertion that the oil companies are unable to bring down the price of gas.

"Here we have the most enormous profits in the history of the United States of America in the history of business," Durbin said.

"All of the market factors you described may suggest that the product is going to be more expensive to sell, but they don't forgive what I think is an outrageous profit-taking by this industry."

When asked if he believed the situation was a crisis, Bodman said, "I would call it that, yes."

"I think there is great concern ... it's something this president takes very seriously, it's something the entire administration takes very seriously ... and we're doing everything we know how to do that works.

"Not the things that we know for a fact that don't work."

President Bush on Friday rejected calls to tax oil companies' record profits, but said he expects those companies to reinvest those profits in alternative fuels and new energy technologies.

"My attitude is that the oil companies need to be mindful that the American people expect them to reinvest their cash flows in such a way that it enhances our energy security," Bush said.

Such investment projects could include new pipelines, expansion of refineries, and more exploration and investment in renewable sources of energy, he said.

Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan said in Saturday's Democratic radio address that Congress should roll back tax breaks for major oil companies.

"Republicans continue to turn a blind eye to the oil industry's activities," he said. "From this Republican controlled Congress, we hear more of the same: Let's just drill our way to energy independence, sacrifice our environment, and provide big tax breaks to Big Oil."

He pointed to a bill from Rep. Brian Higgins of New York, which Stupak said would put "the money where it's needed the most: helping pay energy bills for low-income Americans, small businesses, farmers, and ranchers."

Bush, in a speech last week, proposed several measures to tackle gas prices, including eliminating $2 billion in tax breaks for oil companies.

Several Democrats have said that figure should be increased to $10 billion.
:doh:
---
The truth shall make you free. Well F that! Pay me!
Hmph
Posts: 5551
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 12:32 am

Post by Hmph »

my only concern w/this is it could create a slavery type environment for illegal immigrants, esp. given this country has failed to learn from and correct its previous mistakes regarding slavery
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/06/19/suga ... index.html

Ethanol sounds sweet to sugar producers

Some lawmakers urge U.S. to follow Brazil's lead

Tuesday, June 20, 2006; Posted: 9:11 a.m. EDT (13:11 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- With the market for corn-based ethanol booming, lawmakers from sugar-producing U.S. states are hoping that beet and cane growers can soon jump onto the renewable fuel bandwagon.

They cite the model of Brazil, which produces ethanol made from sugar cane. But critics, pointing out that sugar is much cheaper in Brazil than in the United States, question whether the economics of sugar-based ethanol would work in America.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is expected to issue a long-awaited study around July 1 on the viability of converting sugar into ethanol.

Keith Collins, the USDA's chief economist, said that the soaring demand for ethanol and Brazil's successful track record make it worth discussing sugar-based ethanol in the United States.

"At some point in the future it may be worthy of commercial development," he said. "Technologically, it's possible. The question is: is it economically feasible?"

Collins noted that besides cheaper sugar, Brazil has higher yields per acre because of better climate and investment in more-productive strains of sugar cane.

"So, obviously, we can look at the technology of conversion, and learn some things from them about that," Collins said. "But it's a little hard for us just to look at Brazil and conclude that their structure of production would be our structure of production. We can't conclude that."

Sugar in the U.S. is made from two sources: beets in some northern and western states, and cane in a few southern states, including Hawaii. Minnesota is the largest producer of sugar produced from beets, while Florida leads in sugar from cane, according to the American Sugar Alliance, a trade group.

There is skepticism among some sugar growers that ethanol is a viable end product for their crop.

"If I was going to guess, I would say the economics are not going to be there," said Steve Williams, president of the American Sugar Beet Growers Association, who farms about 700 acres of sugar beets in Fisher, Minnesota. "The food value is better for sugar than for ethanol."

But backers see room for growth in the ethanol area, especially if oil prices remain high.

"It would be absurd in 10 years if we're doing 60 billion gallons of ethanol, and the only crop in America that's not participating is sugar," said Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican and one of Congress' leading champions of sugar-based ethanol.

Coleman is backing legislation that would encourage the use of renewable fuels, including the 100 million-gallon mandate for sugar-based ethanol.

Jack Roney, an economist with the American Sugar Alliance, agreed that the government would need to step in to stimulate a sugar-to-ethanol industry.

"It would take a combination of consumption mandates to ensure that the demand would be there, and conceivably some production incentives to use sugar ethanol," he said.

"The way that the Brazilians established their program is through 30 years of government intervention in energy and agriculture markets, to ensure there would be adequate demand and supplies."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
---
The truth shall make you free. Well F that! Pay me!
Post Reply