This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on May 29, 2007 12:49 PM. The previous post in this blog was Lost opportunity. The next post in this blog is The Jamison Fountain is on the blink. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Fireman Randy hates the poor

He and his Big Idea pal are taking food from the babies' mouths.

Comments (32)

It's raising hell with beef prices too.

Not to mention housing costs -- much of the Pearl District is built out of corn cobs.

let us not forget Archer Daniels Midland ADM - they have the best interest of the world as their bottom line!

We can all probably agree that we should lessen our dependency on foreign oil, but I think Leonard and our council haven't thought and researched the consequences of the ethanol dependency.

For example:
Ethanol absorbs water and has many far reaching consequences to engine performance/life. It ruins them in several ways.

Ethanol erodes fiberglass fuel tanks which we have in many of our tools, playtoys, boats, etc.

Ethanol creates gumming problems in carburetors. The consequences are endless affecting our trucking industry, fishing industry, etc. -definately causing price increases throught all of our life's needs.

Ethanol takes one bushel of corn weighing 56 lbs and produces 2.8 gallons of ethanol and 17 lbs of distillers corn. The process produces large amounts of carbon dioxide created from the processing and harvesting, transporting engines.

Ethanol production this year will give us 6B gallons of fuel, but that is 2 billion bushels of corn. Other crops are being taken out of production to satisfy this subsidized industry. Thus, cost of all the other commodities will/have gone up.

The distillers corn byproduct also causes problems. Livestock that eat distillers corn versus corn silage produce less gain. Plus the excrement from livestock eating distillers corn is blocking conveyor systems farmers use to clean their lots. Terrible.

Ethanol mixed with gasoline raises octane by two to three points, burns cooler but produces less BTU's, less power.

"Total Energy Efficiency" (TEE) also has to be considered-not just the energy efficiency of the engine but including the energy to produce the fuel-extraction, refining, distributing, selling the fuel. According to a recent Scientific American mag, gasoline was 15% and ethanol was 9% in TEE calculations. Who is really being greener?

Then consider the emissions results. As we go from two stroke engines to four stroke carbon monoxide increases. When you add catalytic converters that most newer engines have that increases carbon dioxide that contributes to the ozone hole, thus global warming as some believe.

I think Leonard and Co. need to consider before they act. I won't be able to afford my tacos and a host of other items. I've always believed in the Ying and Yang of things, and the ethanol story is once again proving it to be true.

My thought is that using plant material to make fuel for cars makes sense only to the extent that the material comes from what are now regarded as agricultural waste products--e.g., the corn stalks rather than the corn. Putting the world's food needs in direct competition with its energy needs seems fundamentally foolish.

There's tremendous waste of energy resources in the United States. Simple, relatively harmless conservation measures should be thouroughly explored and implemented before taking drastic steps like converting food to fuel, relying more heavily on burning of coal, or constructing more nuclear power plants. Why, for instance, isn't it mandatory that we Americans use only fuel-efficient automobiles (except to the extent that other kinds of autos are required for work-related use)?

The idea that we can simply produce our way out of an impending energy and environmental crisis, without instituting significant conservation measures, is disgustingly selfish and will likely prove disasterous.

i'm not an ethanol fan.

isn't Commissioner Leonard pushing biodiesel, not ethanol?

Saw grass is the answer.

Big Corn must be stopped.

Jerry & Richard are correct on the technical and pragmatic points.

I believe Leonard is more motivated by green nosing reelection politics than energy independence.

Isn'T Randy more into biodiesel than ethanol? Big difference, and biodiesel can be made from a lot of waste products.

The problem with biodiesel right now is that you have to own certain VW's, Mercedes or humongous pickup trucks to use it, as these are the primary personal diesel-burning vehicles in the U.S.

Now beef producers will want subsidies.

The problem with biodiesel right now is that you have to own certain VW's, Mercedes or humongous pickup trucks to use it, as these are the primary personal diesel-burning vehicles in the U.S.

The other problem is that because our governor took on California's emmissions rules, certain models of diesel cars dont pass the requirements, and are not for sale in this state until they do. VW for example...probably the cheapest of the lot. New diesel-powered models wont be available in this state until at least the 2009 model year from what I understand. So the used models are getting tremendous price increases because of demand.

ethanol isn't the solution.

but Commissioner Leonard is about Biodiesel--search the Tribune website for "biodiesel."

Bull. The city, Fireman Randy in charge, now requires a percentage of ethanol in all gasoline sold in the city, beginning July 1. The press release is here.

good catch, hadn't seen that. i only read the article about biodiesel; guess he's about both.

By George, I think all the comment's have it! Smell bad Randy is a farce and and it's all out in the open. Does the man have ADM stock?

Ecohuman, besides in writing and speeches, Leonard advocates for ethanol just like he does biodiesel. He even lobbys state and federal legislators for ethanol. And I love his speeches to our farmers around the state advocating ethanol. You need to catch up.

I have never "lobbied state or federal legislators for ethanol".

I have never given a speech to "farmers around the state advocating ethanol" or to anyone else for that matter.

Maybe ecohuman could help you catch up.

Typical politics -- find a tangential point that a critic's got wrong, correct it, and act as though you rebutted the main point.

The main point here is that F.R. championed a mandatory ethanol ordinance which is now the law in Portland. And perhaps there are some second thoughts about that one?

You asked and I answered that question here, on this blog, over one year ago.

Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that you really aren't interested in having a respectful discussion. The most recent example being your reaction to someone telling a straight out lie on your blog as though it were a mere technical over sight.

I won't engage in a discussion where the debate is consistently high jacked by those who would only use the insulting language they do on the condition that they are anonymous. However, even that I could accept if you enforced even a minimum standard for civil discussion.

Sorry, Jack, I will only respond here to the most blatant misstatements of facts.

Suit yourself, man.

Did you or did you not sponsor an ordinance that requires a minimum percentage of ETHANOL in ALL GASOLINE SOLD IN PORTLAND?

[crickets chirping]

As long as you're coming clean on that, feel free to respond to comments here or not as you wish. I find it's best to be selective in which commenters to get engaged with. I disagree with about 75% of what's said in the comments here. It's not a moderated site. And when I do delete something really rude, I get unmerciful cr*p for it.

Randy, are you stating for a fact that you never visited, talked to Willamette Valley, central and eastern Oregon farmers, ranchers about ethanol and biodiesel, and the need for their transforming of operations to help the world's energy crisis? Are you also saying that you never talked to one legislator, lobbyist, or appeared or written comments advocating your positions on ethanol? Maybe "speech" was too specific of a definition.

I have never talked, written, prayed, danced, gyrated or hummed to farmers, lobbyists, legislators in eastern Oregon, western Oregon, central Oregon, the state of Washington, California or any other of the 47 remaining states or the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam or the Virgin Islands about ethanol. Period.

But you did sponsor, vote for, and briefly brag about a city ordinance that requires ethanol in all gasoline sold in Portland.

I sponsored an ordinance that continued the current DEQ policy of requiring 10% ethanol to reduce carbon monoxide emissions in the Portland air shed. Most service stations in Portland, particularly BP, already mix up to 10% ethanol in the gasoline you buy today...and have for a number of years.

I have never bragged, promoted or otherwise suggested that ethanol is an attractive alternative fuel. Never.

I have promoted in every venue possible, including the legislature, eastern and central Oregon farmers, federal officials and any one else that will listen the huge benefits of growing, producing and using biodiesel.

Why, Jack, you would intentionally misrepresent what I have said and believe -especially because I have said it before right here on your blog in another acrimonious discussion last year- is beyond me.

Randy, you just admitted that what I've been saying is true. I don't know what else to tell you.

Do me a favor and ban me from your blog.

He he! Never! It's your punishment!

Randy, this thread illustrates a major problem with the blogosphere. Guys like you and I, who have so much in common, wind up looking like we disagree about something important.

Now, about those solar panels on your Rose Festival Parade float...

Do me a favor and ban me from your blog.

Awww...the snake has been cornered. He's hissing at you Jack.

I have promoted in every venue possible, including the legislature, eastern and central Oregon farmers, federal officials and any one else that will listen the huge benefits of growing, producing and using biodiesel.

You want to really help, Randy? Help us get a gasoline refinery in Oregon.

Amen, Jon.

Ethanol and the vast amounts of resouces needed to produce it is basically a red herring, as well as a really bad idea. It is probably more than coincidental that a large segment of the uniformed public confuses it with Biodiesel.

Check these articles out for a look at a new way of producing Biodiesel from algae, with a yield of over 10,000 gallons of oil per acre, much, much more than from crops that compete with food crops :




Clicky Web Analytics