What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
youtube.com - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
89 Comments
- philodygmn, on 06/07/2009, -11/+52Well, good, because ethanol is a terrible idea. Hemp, meanwhile, with its cellulose yield 4 times that of trees _PER YEAR_, remains illegal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The only reason ethanol's received so much attention is it perpetuates the inedible corn infrastructure propped up by oil energy to turn it into trademarked food-like poisons to sell with overpriced ads and ecologically exhorbitant branded packaging -- there's more money to be made in making toxic substitutes for food than there is in being healthy, and that's why raw vegans and healthy people generally who think for themselves and eat what's good for them instead of what they're told is good for them, are demonized as luddite pariahs.
- kingmanic, on 06/08/2009, -2/+32In my experience Vegans and whole food types do not think for themselves any more or less than people on any other diet.
- inactive, on 06/08/2009, -2/+18Corn Ethanol is a dead end and destructive. That wont stop "entrepreneurs" from creating companies that appear promising through crafty paper work in order to reap in government money by the millions. Once you have created a company in one of these industries the government hand outs are guaranteed.
"Biofuel supporters expect the industry to rebound quickly once the economy turns, fueled by federal requirements for increased biofuel use."
"Encouraged by tax breaks and Oregon and Washington standards designed to require biofuels' use"
Basically Taxpayers will be required to buy your product whether they like it or not what company would say no to that.
" Pacific Ethanol, which received $14.6 million in Oregon tax credits for its plant, filed for bankruptcy "
"Federal tax credits of 45 cents a gallon for ethanol blenders mean taxpayers were set to pay about $50 million a year to subsidize fuel from Cascade Grain's plant, or about $625,000 annually for each of the 80 jobs promised there"
"President Barack Obama offered loan guarantees and other financial help to struggling ethanol producers"
"Oregon's big leap into biofuels came in 2007, when the Legislature passed nation-leading rules designed to boost biofuel production and trigger 10 percent content standards for ethanol and 2 percent for biodiesel.
The legislation, which also provided tax breaks for farmers and refineries, passed handily"
"The Obama administration plans to use nearly $800 million in stimulus money to pay for research into alternative fuels"
Those who run these "green" companies will make out like bandits while taxpayers foot the bill as usual. Most of the jobs created will be low paying labor positions with zero benefits: "in an effort to keep payroll cost low and allow the company to stay competitive" LMAO. - billricardi, on 06/08/2009, -2/+17Thank god. Corn ethanol is an awful idea. Switchgrass is many times more efficient, legal, and can be planted in off years in just about any field across America. It has none of the breakage issues associated with corn ethanol either.
Corn ethanol was just there to make use of the stupid government subsidies that DISCOURAGED crop diversity! That's right, plant anything but corn and that field was permanently disqualified from government subsidy.
Corn should feed people first, animals second, and motors NEVER. - flip2trip, on 06/07/2009, -10/+21Oh, but health care is different, they won't screw that up.
/severe immeasurable sarcasm - ceredron, on 06/08/2009, -3/+14Working from the inside of rep Barnhart's office (guy in charge of Oregon house of revenue), I see this problem in a lot of emails. Ethanol, while also being kind of a ***** fuel, makes machinery break down. Who knows why, but countless numbers of farmers and workers who tried slowly switchingto ethanol mixtures found their ***** breaking.
A lot of people are just refusing to buy the biofuels. Hence, the big bankrupcies... if the fuel source was reliable, these companies would have regular customers and be fine during this period of oil speculation-fueled market crashes and a bear market. Unfortunately... these biofuels are really *****. >.> Anybody who cared knew ethanol was stupid, but it was the politicians and the oil industry that pushed it on the american consumer and business... - dustinbolton, on 06/08/2009, -1/+10dupe. saw this a couple days ago on here... but I will say this again:
Biodiesel from hemp. - offrdbandit, on 06/08/2009, -3/+11Cheap labor? Check.
Cheap resources? Check.
Hungry investors? Check.
These are the perfect economic conditions to start new companies. Of course, there is never a good time to start a company dependent upon government subsidies and legal crutches to survive. - AaronCo, on 06/08/2009, -4/+12People are going to digg me down for this... but let's face it, biofuels are not energy efficient. We should be focusing on hydrogen generated from either geothermal or nuclear sources. It's carbon neutral and could potentially be way more energy efficient.
- durruticolumn, on 09/18/2009, -2/+8
Tell me, what good is America if France can manage universal healthcare, but we're too big of ***** ups to match their competence? - ebradsha, on 06/08/2009, -1/+7Not exactly the best economic conditions for developing industrial-scale production methods for alternative fuels...
- Naieve, on 06/08/2009, -0/+6Well Congress already had a field day doling out billions of dollars for an unsustainable fuel to the people who bribed them, oops I mean lobbied them.
- FLUX, on 06/08/2009, -2/+6you fool there is no economical way to turn cellulose into ethanol at this time so it doesn't matter how much cellulose it makes
you want to make ethanol use sugar beets, it creates 7x more energy than it takes to make it. it is that simple and it is farmable from Canada to Florida - Railoc, on 06/08/2009, -4/+8Except that biofuel consumes more oil than it saves. Oops!
- smacksaw, on 06/08/2009, -0/+3If I can appreciate more than 50% of a comment I will digg it up and his was about 51%. The raw food folks are religious. The science simply justifies it for them.
- inactive, on 06/08/2009, -0/+3Actually, you can make bio-diesel from hemp oil economically.
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?artic ... - nesagwa, on 06/08/2009, -1/+4A product that consumers can actually use and wan't? Not so check.
- tgc1, on 06/08/2009, -0/+3That's because Ethanol is corrosive. It breaks down gaskets and seals in gasoline/diesel engines and eventually leads to a failure. If you want to run 100% ethanol (rather than the 10% blend with gasoline most fuel stations have currently) you have to incorporate special gaskets and seals into the motor. It is also apparently corrosive to aluminum. Doing damage to intake manifolds over time. So again, you'd have to take that into consideration before switching.
Don't blame the fuel. Blame people trying to convert their gasoline or diesel engines to ethanol. Something it is not designed to do. Sure it'll run. You could fill up on it right now. But that doesn't mean it would just work. - yerdaddy, on 06/08/2009, -9/+12Hang in there biodiesel!
- mah2cent, on 06/08/2009, -1/+4It is not surprising that these companies failed. First is the premise that the economic value of these fuels is present. If that were the case, there would be no need of subsidies or would there be a requirement for the taxpayers to fund these companies. If all of these so-called green enterprises were a viable, sustainable fuel, the big oil companies would already be engaged in their production. Can you imagine an Exxon, with its research facilities bypassing the "next generation" fuel? They may be focused on oil, but they are not stupid. They, more than anyone knows the limited supply of oil and if the new fuels were cost effective, they would jump on that bandwagon.
That there is an environmental necessity for these fuels, has not been justified. For example, the production of corn into ethanol, uses ungodly amounts of water. That, in itself, makes this unsustainable. There is also the major increase in food costs that this process causes.
In short, any process that requires taxpayer support to develop, is just bad business. But considering the march to socialism that this country continues to pursue, it is to be expected, encouraged, at the theft of the taxpayer.
- Barackalypse, on 06/08/2009, -2/+5This is what happens when an industry exists solely because of a Government subsidy. This is why the Government should not be betting on what forms of alternative energy will win in the market, because the Government has a habit of backing losers.
- Naieve, on 06/08/2009, -1/+4Actually they are, Brazilians are spending out the nose on maintenance. FFV vehicles have serious problems, and those not built to run biofuel are even worse off.
- alieneggsac, on 06/08/2009, -0/+3I lol'd
- GamerXR72, on 06/08/2009, -1/+4For those who think using a crosswalk to cross the street is a good idea, take note.
My friend once spilled his coffee. He was in a crosswalk when it happened.
Do you really want to get involved in using crosswalks? - TSK05, on 06/08/2009, -1/+4Brazilian cars use flex fuel engines. Most American cars do not.
- Naieve, on 06/08/2009, -0/+3What's sad is that we have spent hundreds of billions on biofuel and pushed an uneconomical and ultimately unsustainable fuel model because the problem wasn't researched enough first then Congress got involved when it smelled a way to get money.
I wonder what they will say when people start waking up to the fact we were using ever diminishing fresh water stocks to grow a fuel that wasn't really any more efficient than oil and had no real effect on pollution. Well, when the Ogallala goes dry and takes away a third of the water we use to grow our food, we can all sit back secure in the knowledge that we can build desalinization plants and talk about the price of water. - durruticolumn, on 09/18/2009, -0/+2
It crashed due to speculation in the private sector, not because of actions taken by it's government around healthcare and energy independance. - ebradsha, on 06/08/2009, -2/+4Hungry investors? No, definitely not. Why do you think the Russell 2000 has tanked, gold prices have skyrocketed, and the premiums for corporate 'junk' bonds have exploded? Investors are sticking with what's safe right now and that certainly excludes mass-producing alternative fuels. Over the past month or so market conditions have been getting better, but we've still got a long ways to go.
You also forgot the number one check list item for economic viability: demand. That's one thing our economy is lacking right now.
For most types of companies, these are some of the worst economic conditions for starting a new company. And for a small-cap tech companies (i.e., Northwest biofuel startups) I couldn't envision worse economic condition than these. - cybrguy, on 06/08/2009, -0/+2Governments are not good business owners. Period.
- durruticolumn, on 09/18/2009, -0/+2
Unemployment in France: 8.3%
Unemployment in the US: 9.4%
What were you saying about jobs, again? Maybe you should go to France instead of pretending it's the charicature you read about at WorldNetDaily. - smacksaw, on 06/08/2009, -0/+2Thank you for mentioning switchgrass. While I am all for hemp, we have legal switchgrass right now.
- billricardi, on 06/08/2009, -0/+2If you use corn to feed people, it has maximum potential to give sustenance to those who are starving. Without converting it to anything but corn on the cob.
If you use corn to feed animals, the conversion to calories is around 1/5th as efficient as just eating the corn itself. And only the people who aren't starving can afford it.
So I say again: Corn should feed people first, animals second, and motors NEVER. - lwhassell, on 06/09/2009, -0/+2I don't even think bubble works; more like scam... yeah thats the word.
- inactive, on 06/08/2009, -0/+2I dunno, seems like biofuels are only a good idea when gas is over 4$ per gallon, a price where subsidies are not needed. How much did we piss away before the lesson was learned? 30 mill? 100? Drop in the bucket compared to some defense contracts.
- philodygmn, on 06/08/2009, -0/+2I said my experience has been, just like kingmanic claimed his had been the opposite, so I don't know how you claim I made raw vegans look righteous, let alone asshatted. Not only didn't I say they were, I said that in my experience those who are raw vegans have thought at least slightly more about their diet than most SAD eaters, not that all raw vegans automatically must have. But go ahead and digg me down just because your brain can't handle the difference between someone stating their experience and some kind of referrendum on what it makes anyone who claims to be a raw vegan, like you have to slam it into a categorical statement or it's a waste of ***** breath.
I'd also like to point out that those raw vegans who are spiritualist or religious bear all the hallmarks of mysticism, emotionalism, and relativism endemic to those things no less so for their being raw vegan, let alone toward their raw veganism and oftentimes mine as well, which pisses me off because I most certainly do _not_ find any of it relevant to me, let alone my raw veganism, nor raw veganism itself.. - offrdbandit, on 06/08/2009, -0/+2"Investors are sticking with what's safe right now and that certainly excludes mass-producing alternative fuels."
Which has everything to do with the lunacy of alternative fuels and nothing to do with the economy. - smacksaw, on 06/08/2009, -1/+3You can say it and continue to be wrong as well.
- merky1, on 06/08/2009, -2/+4Yeap, and we will re-learn the same lessons again... Corn Ethanol steals from the food stocks. Any Ethanol fuel eats engines. Hybrids are only usefull for HOV lane usage. Our Mass Transit infrastructure sucks.
I guess there is way too much money in re-hashing yesterdays failures. - cybrguy, on 06/08/2009, -0/+2Bubble would probably fit better. It was built up on false market forces, and will go down on real market forces.
- inactive, on 06/08/2009, -0/+2Hemp Biodiesel:
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?artic ... - TexMexRex, on 06/08/2009, -0/+2Actually with it taking .7 to .9 gallons of gasoline (depending on whose estimate you use) to make one gallon of biofuel, I think the oil workers jobs are safe.
- Shanich, on 06/08/2009, -0/+2Isaias Macedo of Brazil has analyzed, in excruciating detail, the energy
involved in production of farm equipment, alcohol plant components, and
all travel associated with every aspect of producing and distributing
fuel. He is the recognized world authority on analysis of embedded energy
in agriculture. His study goes into exceptionally rigorous, verifiable
detail concerning both embedded energy and the greenhouse gases emitted at
each step of the process. Yet, oddly, Pimentel never once cites this
information -- nor mentions it in any of his studies, in any context. In
Macedo's study, alcohol from sugarcane garners a 9 to 1 positive energy
return. [22] What's even more important is that virtually none of the
energy used is fossil-fuel-based, so its ratio of renewable energy output
per fossil energy input is much, much higher.
Check out David Blumes web sight for more truth about how we can all be free of the oil company control that is killing the planet ! - Shanich, on 06/08/2009, -0/+2# Almost every country can become energy independent. Anywhere that has sunlight and land can produce alcohol from plants. Brazil, the fifth largest country in the world imports no oil, since half its cars run on alcohol fuel made from sugarcane, grown on 1% of its land.
# We can reverse global warming. Since alcohol is made from plants, its production takes carbon dioxide out of the air, sequestering it, with the result that it reverses the greenhouse effect (while potentially vastly improving the soil). Recent studies show that in a permaculturally designed mixed-crop alcohol fuel production system, the amount of greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere by plants—and then exuded by plant roots into the soil as sugar—can be 13 times what is emitted by processing the crops and burning the alcohol in our cars . - Shanich, on 06/08/2009, -0/+1Myth #1: It Takes More Energy to Produce Ethanol than You Get from It!
Most ethanol research over the past 25 years has been on the topic of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). Public discussion has been dominated by the American Petroleum Institute’s aggressive distribution of the work of Cornell professor David Pimentel and his numerous, deeply flawed studies. Pimentel stands virtually alone in portraying alcohol as having a negative EROEI—producing less energy than is used in its production.
In fact, it’s oil that has a negative EROEI. Because oil is both the raw material and the energy source for production of gasoline, it comes out to about 20% negative. That’s just common sense; some of the oil is itself used up in the process of refining and delivering it (from the Persian Gulf, a distance of 11,000 miles in tanker travel).
The most exhaustive study on ethanol’s EROEI, by Isaias de Carvalho Macedo, shows an alcohol energy return of more than eight units of output for every unit of input—and this study accounts for everything right down to smelting the ore to make the steel for tractors.
But perhaps more important than EROEI is the energy return on fossil fuel input. Using this criterion, the energy returned from alcohol fuel per fossil energy input is much higher. In a system that supplies almost all of its energy from biomass, the ratio of return could be positive by hundreds to one. You reading this gostofredit , or do you need more ! - GeorgeStone2, on 06/08/2009, -1/+2lolwut.
Way to totally make ***** up. - askantik, on 06/08/2009, -0/+1I'm not raw but I am a vegan. While philodygmn might have been a little intense with his wording, it's definitely retarded that we outlaw hemp and try to make fuel from corn.
- smacksaw, on 06/08/2009, -0/+1Iceland has decent healthcare and is energy independent. Aside from the corrupt politicians, I'd say it's possible as evidenced by Iceland.
- inactive, on 06/08/2009, -0/+1Go away.
- billricardi, on 06/08/2009, -0/+1Yup, its a crime. With the billion and more people starving in the world, we not only feed the corn to animals, farmers are paid NOT to grow it, or to throw it away in an effort to control the price! Sad.
- BobbiMillerMoro, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1BIO FUELS:"The problem is there aren't nearly enough filling stations and cars--nor will there be for decades" Although this is a great plan, you can save gasoline, and the environment with Buy Green Gasoline. You put it in your tank, and it costs under $5. You use less gasoline, need less oil changes, use your same car, and your emissions burns cleaner. Yes, you can do it right now. buygreengasoline.com
-
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is