LJWorld.com

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Farmers should be free to sell their corn for ethanol production— they just shouldn't be getting taxpayer subsidies for it, since it makes absolutely no economic sense. The amount of fossil fuels it takes to produce the corn, turn it into ethanol and get it into gas tanks makes it a Rube-Goldbergian process, at best.

Moderateguy (Anonymous) says…

Regardless of environmental issues, (that is to say taking that part out of the equation for now) I like thinking that in my case, it's at least 10% less oil I'm buying from people who hate us. Anybody else receive photos lately in e-mail of some arab prince's newest multi-million dollar sickeningly gawdy car? I would rather keep at least a little bit more in this country if I can.
Down the road, I would love some sort of next generation plug-in hybrid with wind / solar on my home.

jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…

With all the money spent on waging war or various other wasteful government enterprises (IRS) perhaps we could use that money to buy everyone a hybrid car or build a national solar complex.

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

Oh my moderateguy, ever wonder why they hate us? If you were really serious about decreasing oil we buy from them we would lower the speed limit and raise the mpg standards which we should have been doing all through the 90's and including the farm and construction vehicles that the soccer families thought they needed. And the part of the environment equation you may not be factoring in also is what growing corn requires in chemicals and water. The effects of the run off of the chemicals required from a crop that is very hard on the land and the water sucked out of the aquifers out west to grow corn is just plain silly to make our future fuel source.
If you want to keep your money in this country we could start riding bikes or just driving a lot less or go ahead and start driving slower. Conserving energy would make a bigger dent then anything else.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“I like thinking that in my case, it's at least 10% less oil I'm buying from people who hate us. ”

Given the amount of fossil fuels it takes to get that ethanol into your tank, at best, you're only decreasing your oil consumption by about 1%, and paying out huge subsidies to get it.

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

Ethanol was a good first step and it is probably getting more blame than it should, but it is highly flawed. I have no issues with it if something better comes along and ethanol was key into spurring new energy ideas. However, the ethanol lobby is no different than Big Oil and they are only going to look out for themselves and inhibit these new ideas.

Oh, yet another regional ethanol plant went bankrupt this past week. That's at least four recently in our region.

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

Oh well, we can always dip into Marion's still. Amazing all we have to do is conserve a little bit like driving slower and a lot of this would take care of itself but since we are all in such a big important hurry…..

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Yes, Marion, bio-fuels will be part of the future energy puzzle. But the source of feed stock will be the “waste” of agricultural production whose primary purpose is to produce food. We simply don't have enough arable land to do otherwise.

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

in this recent comment thread, a large number of articles were posted showing how ethanol *is* increasing world food prices, world famine, and domestic food costs. obviously, it isn't the only cause since gas prices are up. this includes: dramatic increase in the price of tortillas in mexico; canadian econ study of ethanol's effects; etc.

if you're growing corn to burn in the gas tank, you're not growing corn to put into somebody's belly. the amount of corn needed to fill a tank of one SUV once, could feed a person for, I forget, something like most of a year. yes, I know they're two different kinds of corn, but that is immaterial; grow more of the human fodder corn and feed stock for animals, our food prices go down and less world famine. it ain't rocket science.

http://www2.ljworld.com/discussions/stor…

Pogo (Anonymous) says…

With all due respect, Pat Ross is simply wrong.

It appears Mr. Ross holds a 28.95% share of the corporation Nunemaker-ross Inc. through which farm subsidy welfare is received. His outfit has received $874,929.00 over the course of the past ten years. All this data is public record and may be viewed here:
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.ph…

Ethanol is now part of the problem. Here's some simple data:

Taking into account the energy required to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol, it has been determined that burning the biofuel as a gasoline additive actually results in a net energy loss of 65 percent and in all likelihood, much more. Corn is not 'free energy'. The cumulative energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production is six times greater than what the end product provides your car engine in terms of power.

If ethanol is as much of an environmental Trojan horse as the data suggests, what is the solution? Some researchers see several possibilities, all of which can be explored in tandem. First, is to divert funds earmarked for ethanol to improve the efficiency of fuel cells and hybrid electric cars. (Adapted from materials provided by University Of California - Berkeley; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200…)

“Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning….” says Cornell professor David Pimentel (College of Agriculture and Life Sciences). Pimentel, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy panel that investigated the energetics, economics and environmental aspects of ethanol production several years ago, subsequently conducted a detailed analysis of the corn-to-car fuel process.

“Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol”.

Pogo (Anonymous) says…

Cont.:

o The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: “In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace.” (data taken from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200…
Corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol. That's $1.45 per gallon of ethanol (and $2.21 per gal of gas replaced).
Even with high gas prices in 2006, producing a gallon of ethanol cost 38¢ more than making gasoline with the same energy, so ethanol did need part of that subsidy. But what about the other $1.12. Not needed! So all of that became, $5.4 billion windfall of profits paid to real farmers, corporate farmers, and ethanol makers like multinational ADM. Why is it the farm states put up with this?!

Where did those subsidies come from:
1. 51¢ per gallon federal blenders credit for $2.5 billion = your tax dollars.
2. $0.9 billion in corn subsidies for ethanol corn = your tax dollars.
3. $3.6 billion extra paid at the pump. (see data from http://zfacts.com/p/63.html)

Pogo (Anonymous) says…

Nunemaker-ross Inc received payments totaling $874,929.00 from 1995 through 2006

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.ph…

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

from the liberal roiters news, ethanol contributing a lot to world food crisis:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080508/us_n…

MCwzMC (Anonymous) says…

“Ethanol has been accused lately for increasing food prices. Actual food inflation this year is estimated to be only 5 percent in the United States, even though many raw ingredients used to produce food have doubled in price, proving the efficiency of our food chain.”

–-

Sorry, I stopped reading after the first part of this sentence.

Inflation of “only” 5%????? If that's not enough to prove that this guy has no idea what he's talking about, I guess the rest of the sentence makes it abundantly clear.

–—

“[E]ven though many raw ingredients used to produce food have doubled in price, proving the efficiency of our food chain.”

–-

Inflation is gaged on a mixed basket of goods - not merely food prices. If food prices and inflation increased in a1-to-1 ratio, then the only factor considered in the inflation index would be…well…food prices. What this “proves,” is absolutely nothing. Thanks for the worthless propaganda.

Ohh well, time to doll out more Agro-business welfare. Ethanol, farm subsidies, what's next?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/050…

monkeyspunk (Anonymous) says…

Holy shuck! Why does this always have to come down to Corn Ethanol or nothing.

Maybe you all are asleep but the end of corn for ethanol is already well on its way.

The new farm bill will cut subsidies for corn based ethanol by 10% per gallon and increase the subsidies for switchgrass and wood chips up to a $1.01 per gallon.

Whether or not it impacts food supplies and food cost here and abroad is irrelevant. Corn for ethanol is on it sway out.

And this is a good thing. Switchgrass is a much more efficient source of ethanol than corn can ever be. It doesn't require as much water to grow and can be grown in a wider variety of places.

Kansas should get on this train before it leaves. Keep our fuel dollars at home.

Is it going to save us from our addiction to Mideast oil? Probably not, but if it can at least cut our need for it dramatically, or allow us to only import from more local sources (Mexico and Canada). Won't that be good for you, me and our kids in the long run?

monkeyspunk (Anonymous) says…

Some notes about switchgrass:

www.abcnews.com

“Most ethanol produced in America is made from corn — a less-efficient material than switchgrass — but corn producers are supported by a large lobby and huge government subsidies. There is no similar lobby or investment for grass or wood.”

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp…

“Like most plants, it does best on fertile, well-drained soils, yet it is considered both drought- and flood-tolerant.

A recent study on switchgrass as a biofuel source:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news…

More support for switchgrass over corn:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=gras…

Pogo (Anonymous) says…

Excellent work, monkeyspunk and here is some more data on cellulose ethanol and how underfunded it is so big corporate farms like Mr. Ross can get P-A-I-D:

Who should get the subsidy?

In 2006 ethanol blenders were handed $2,500 million in subsidies while the Department of Energy awarded $385 million spread over four to six years to help build cellulose ethanol plants. That's about 32 times less per year. But celluse gets a bit of subsidy from the USDA. Altogether it may get 10% as much as corn-ethanol. The problem is the lobby for cellulose is much weaker than the corn-ethanol lobby.
Corn ethanol does not need subsidies. Cellulose ethanol research does—it would actually do some good. But's what's needed is research, and very small-scale plants, not the big ones that are being built on pretense.
http://zfacts.com/p/63.html

Conventional ethanol and cellulosic ethanol are the same product, but are produced utilizing different feedstocks and processes. Conventional ethanol is derived from grains such as corn and wheat or soybeans. Corn, the predominant feedstock, is converted to ethanol in either a dry or wet milling process. In dry milling operations, liquefied corn starch is produced by heating corn meal with water and enzymes. A second enzyme converts the liquefied starch to sugars, which are fermented by yeast into ethanol and carbon dioxide. Wet milling operations separate the fiber, germ (oil), and protein from the starch before it is fermented into ethanol.

Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from a wide variety of cellulosic biomass feedstocks including agricultural plant wastes (corn stover, cereal straws, sugarcane bagasse), plant wastes from industrial processes (sawdust, paper pulp) and energy crops grown specifically for fuel production, such as switchgrass. Cellulosic biomass is composed of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, with smaller amounts of proteins, lipids (fats, waxes and oils) and ash. Roughly, two-thirds of the dry mass of cellulosic materials are present as cellulose and hemicellulose. Lignin makes up the bulk of the remaining dry mass.

( http://www.harvestcleanenergy.org/enews/… )

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Farmers should be free to sell their corn for ethanol production— they just shouldn't be getting taxpayer subsidies for it, since it makes absolutely no economic sense.
********************************
Well I'll be, bozo is really a conservative…

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

I have no problems with limited subsidies to promote rational policies for the greater good. But subsidies whose only purpose is political pandering for the exclusive benefit very narrow financial interests are just plain stupid.

Stain (Anonymous) says…

Peak oil is here and just beginning to be felt, and we need every tool we can muster.

Ethanol might not be the answer by itself. We need many solutions - wind, solar, wave, water power - as well. The key is to never, ever have the entire population of this planet dependent on one energy source (and one corporate cabal) ever again.

Our city commission is so short-sighted they are trying to destroy a successful public transportation system at the beginning of Peak Oil. They should instead be improving it so more people will be able to use it, because people will.

ChestnutCharlie (Anonymous) says…

Pat's comments appear to come from a Farm Bureau news article by Bob Young, chief economist for American Farm Bureau Federation, April 21, 2008. Farm Bureau has a certain point of view which is bordering on misinformation and propaganda—it is, after all, a lobbying organization and isn't expected to be fair or accurate or complete. For instance, I'm convinced that inflation on fresh foods that I eat is far far higher than 5%. Pat, if you are reading this, I recommend the following article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/opinio…

donnellgroup (Anonymous) says…

Ethanol subsidies, what a joke. What has the US defense dept spent to keep the shipping lanes open for oil over the last several decades? That's not to mention the subsidies and tax credits the oil companies have receive over the last several decades. The money ethanol receives or will receive will never come close to what the oil companies have picked up at the trough over the years. The good news is we will not need the US defense dept to watch over our corn fields.
What are we going to do in 100 years when the oil is gone? Talking about the negatives of renewable resources will start to sound rather silly soon. Cellulosic is part of the answer, ethanol/cellulosic plants are part of the answer, Hydrogen, wind and solar are components as well.
The studies done at Cornell have all be discredited. The DOE has said ethanol provides a net energy gain. Read about it for yourself, it's all on line.
The USA can turn all of this into a huge win. I think we can all agree that it makes no sense to send so much of our hard earned money to the middle east when we can use that money to develop renewable resources.

hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says…

Can't marijuana be used to fuel autos? It seems to have done quite successfully fueling the various leaders in this community for years.

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

I have no problems with limited subsidies to promote rational policies for the greater good. But subsidies whose only purpose is political pandering for the exclusive benefit very narrow financial interests are just plain stupid.
*********************************
You're halfway there bozo. Now you just need to take the next step and realize all subsidies are just political pandering for the exclusive benefit of narrow interests.

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

2nd verse, same as the 1st:

http://www2.ljworld.com/onthestreet/2008…

NoSacredCow (Anonymous) says…

Corn based ethanol contributes to smog. We're trading one form of pollution for another. At one time the City of Milwaukee had an ethanol program to lower the city's air pollution to stay within EPA guidelines but found that the smog levels actually increased with the introduction of ethanol. That was over 10 years ago. Since then other studies have been done yet they were ignored when Archer Daniels Midland and ConAgra were paying beaucoup bucks to lobbyists. So guess who won?
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacob…
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=redu…

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“You're halfway there bozo. Now you just need to take the next step and realize all subsidies are just political pandering for the exclusive benefit of narrow interests.”

That's way more than halfway simplistic.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

“May 11, 2008
A Requiem For Ethanol (adm)(avr)(vse)

Very few people drive down the miles-long highways and dirt roads in the middle of the country to see combines cut grain and fertilizer trucks spread chemicals. The picture is not monochromatic, at least not up close.

The expense of commercial fertilizers is so high that growing pastures for feed cattle is no longer viable. Processed human waste in pellet form is one of the few remaining methods for improving field production for crops which do not bring high prices. An entire segment of the agricultural industry is being forced to it knees.

At the same moment, farmers of corn, wheat, rice, and soybeans cannot plant enough crops to keep up with demand. The price of fertilizer matters much less to them.

New data from The U.S. Agriculture Department show a drop in total acres devoted to corn added to demand for ethanol production will keep prices for the commodity high through 2009. Corn now has to compete with other crops for yield-per-acre.

According to The Wall Street Journal “the U.S. ethanol industry is projected to use a record four billion bushels of corn, or one-third of the harvest that U.S. farmers are expected to collect this autumn.” The federal government has provided a number of incentives to keep the ethanol industry in business. The desire to replace oil demand is a powerful, but perhaps lost cause. At. least for ethanol.

Wall St. is already creating the beginning of the end for ethanol stocks. Shares in Aventine Renewable Energy (AVR) are down to $4 from a 52-week high of nearly $20. Verasun (VSE) is off to $6 from a 52-week high of over $18 Of course, larger companies like ADM (ADM) have a small part of their business devoted to ethanol production, so small that the impact to the value their shares has been largely insulated.

As the choice with commodities like corn moves to one of food versus fuel and commodities prices versus the price of gasoline, ethanol companies are bound to lose.

Every once in awhile a promising industry grows up and then disappears, both in the matter of a few short years. The ethanol business is one of them

Douglas A. McIntyre”

Godot (Anonymous) says…

The Federal govenment will soon, inevitably, because of the actions of the Federal Reserve and Congress, become the owner of hundreds of thousands of acres of what was once farm land that is now covered over with houses and concrete. Perhaps the best thing .gov could do with this worthless real estate would be to bulldoze it and return it to farmland, perhaps via a land rush similar to the one they had in Oklahoma.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Perhaps the best thing .gov could do with this worthless real estate would be to bulldoze it and return it to farmland”

Once the prairie (or other natural ecosystem) is disturbed, it can take a long time (as in beyond our lifetimes) for it to recover its fertility. The better idea is to stop sprawl now, and that includes many proposed projects in Lawrence. It's better to redevelop that which has already been destroyed/developed.

max1 (Anonymous) says…

Fact: If every arable acre on earth was planted to crops for the production of ethanol, the amount of ethanol produced wouldn't even meet the fuel needs of the USA, let alone the entire world.

gr (Anonymous) says…

“Once the prairie (or other natural ecosystem) is disturbed, it can take a long time (as in beyond our lifetimes) for it to recover its fertility.”

Unlike rainforest soils which are unlikely to ever recover their fertility.

BigDog (Anonymous) says…

Personally you are right farmers can sell their product as they wish …. but taxpayers don't have to subsidize it …. also not as worried about the corn as I am the amount of water used to irrigate these fields and the hundreds of millions of gallons of water used in corn farming and producing ethanol.

People are worried about oil not being plentiful ….. how about water???

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“Once the prairie (or other natural ecosystem) is disturbed, it can take a long time (as in beyond our lifetimes) for it to recover its fertility.”

A plowed up ecosystem isn't likely to recover at all. The price for corn has already caused some virgin prairie to be plowed under. I know of an acreage of native prairie about 90 miles northwest of Lawrence that was plowed under this spring for the purpose of planting corn.
When famland is planted to grass under the CRP program, those acreages don't come close to matching the diversity of our native grasslands, and even those poor substitutes are being plowed under for the same reason.

January 16, 2007
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pb…
Ethanol demands squeeze hunting grounds
Despite the popularity of the CRP over the past 20 years, Bogenschutz said, there has been a 30 percent decline in potential upland habitat in Iowa.
http://www.agweb.com/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx…
Contracts on nearly 135,000 [CRP] acres in Iowa expire Sept. 30, 2008. With today's grain prices, they will very likely be back in production in 2009. On Sept. 30, 2008, contracts on about 1.3 million acres nationwide are scheduled to expire. But keep in mind, some lawmakers will not like the fact the U.S. is lowering its “environmental standards” by allowing environmentally sensitive ground back into row-crop production… along with the increased fuel needed to farm the ground, the increased fertilizer use and the increased use of herbicides and insecticides. That's one reason the battle in the corn market isn't just a food vs. fuel issue — it's a food vs. fuel vs. environmental issue.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gU5Is…
Apr 29, 2008, linton, n.d.
Crops winning out over conservation
Payments from the Conservation Reserve Program have helped during lean times. And wildlife — especially pheasants — have flourished on his century-old family farm in south central North Dakota. But lured by high commodity prices, Roehrich and thousands like him nationwide are opting out of the program — and even paying penalties to exit early.
CRP, which started in 1985, dolled out about $1.9 billion to landowners last year … It pays a nationwide average of about $50 per acre annually.
McLeod said the biggest loser in the loss of CRP land will be wildlife. “This isn't just about hunters — this is an issue for everybody. Wildlife is a barometer for our environment,” he said.
Johnson, of the federal Farm Service Agency, estimated about 130,000 acres that were under contract were taken out of the program this year, for which farmers will have to reimburse the government.

jason2007 (Anonymous) says…

Bearded_Gnome is right. It takes 480 bushels of corn to produce one tank of gas for an SUV. If a person consumes 2,000 calories per day, that same amount of corn will feed one person for one year. Where's the outrage from the human rights folks over this one!?

If we took 100% of all corn produced in the US, it would amount to a paltry 18% of the US gas need. Taking corn and turning it into gas is nuts.

The 5% inflation that the letter writer quotes is waaaaay off base as well. I've seen milk spike much more than 5% in just the past few months. Everything else seems to be trending above the 5% number as well.

Time for the author to take his head out of the sand and actually look at what this is doing to people around the globe.

Pogo (Anonymous) says…

Actually, we could solve a lot of problems if we converted golf courses and grave yards to farm land and housing.

gr (Anonymous) says…

“If a person consumes 2,000 calories per day, that same amount of corn will feed one person for one year. ”

I'm not sure that people eat all that much corn. Now if you are intending it to mean planting that same ground to wheat, soybeans, and a variety of other crops, point taken.

Now, what if instead of feeding cows, that equivalent food went to people? Are you for banning meat? If it “saved the world”? Why worry about producing some fuel when we are wasting great quantities of resources in producing meat?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Why worry about producing some fuel when we are wasting great quantities of resources in producing meat?”

Producing meat is fine, but feeding cattle huge amounts of grain is unnatural, and creates many serious problems. Cattle are grass eaters, and humans, cattle and the environment do better when that's what they eat.

princetonmom (Anonymous) says…

What amazes me is that you folks who claim to be peace loving liberals are so nasty when you disagree with someone. It's unfortunate that you would resort to personal attacks on someone who is trying to do the right thing and simply wanted to share his opinion in a positive manner. Have a little class.

Pat and other corn farmers are producing enough to produce ethanol and feed the world. The perception of a food shortage in the world in based more on growing conditions in other countries and their inability to produce enough wheat, rice, and other staple crops. Corn and other commodity prices are now being driven as much by hedge funds who have fled the stock market than by supply and demand. Ethanol is not THE solution, but a sustainable PART of the solution. You complain about farmers subsidies, but those help farmers in the times of low prices. Higher prices have SAVED the government over $11 billion in subsidies. Did you know that most of the “Farm” bill goes non-farm programs like nutrition programs, not farmers.

Also, ethanol is subsidized much less than the oil industry and yes, I would rather buy part of my energy from Kansas than Qatar—any day of the week. Since when did the oil industry and the middle east oil barons become so beloved by our American people while our own farmers have become so despised?

By the way—while driving my flex fuel vehicle today, I filled up for $2.78, and I sure felt sorry for those people paying $3.64 for regular!

gphawk89 (Anonymous) says…

We don't have anywhere near enough land to grow the corn. We don't have adequate facilities to convert the corn to ethanol. We don't have adequate means to transport the ethanol to filling stations. Most filling stations don't have the means to store or pump the ethanol. Most cars still won't run on ethanol.

We're stuck with crude for the foreseeable future. Maybe ethanol is a small step in a different direction, and it's bringing a lot of attention to alternative fuels, but it's not *the* answer to our problems.

Bossa_Nova (Anonymous) says…

hey everybody, i work in this industry and my best advice for anybody i meet, is to learn to need less energy. i know that may not seem practical in the short term, but i suggest making changes now to be more efficient over the long haul, cuz this isn't going to get any better.

gr (Anonymous) says…

Hey Bossa,

To the left your letter “z” key is a wider key. It's used for capitalizing the first letter of sentences. You may want to give it a try. Hold it down while pressing another key. Who knows, it may help you seem more intelligent. Or perhaps the problem is with the key above it called, “Caps Lock”. It can accomplish similar things.

(Now, for your logic)

If we have been saving energy all these years, like we were told to, how can we reduce more? Are you saying people waste energy, then save some, now saving more? Do you think it's like the daylight saving mentality? (Why, if I set my thermostat any lower during the winter, my air-conditioner is going to come on) Why do you think everyone is using excessive energy after all these increased prices and urging of reducing energy for many years?

Bossa_Nova (Anonymous) says…

GR

obviously you take great offence at my disregard for capitalizing my letters. honestly, i could care less. this is a blog, not an intensive writing composition class. those kinds of comments make you sound anal and looking for animosity. i seriously doubt most of the other people reading these commentaries care if i use capitals, apostraphe's, etc. most people are probably analyzing the content of my opinion to draw a conclusion towards my intelligence.

as for “my logic”. trust me, i'm not trying to be a hippie green freak. “my logic” is based on my experience in this industry and the information at my disposal. all i am saying is try to learn to need less energy, if you can. if you cant, ok, i personally dont care because its your money, not mine. i'm just trying to forewarn people who think we are going to miraculously get our cheap energy prices back. i would much rather see my fellow americans find ways to need less energy and not be slaves to overseas enterprises. but for those of you who insist that we are already doing everything possible to reduce our energy needs, then fine, ok. like i said, its your money, not mine.

gr (Anonymous) says…

Bossa, why NOT try to make yourself appear as intelligent as possible? Guess you don't care or are too lazy. Best of luck in getting people to take you seriously.

Bossa_Nova (Anonymous) says…

gr,

why are you so obsessed with my lack of writing without capitals? you have strayed from the article and have decided to attack the way i choose to type. that clearly shows me that you are not interested or are uncapable of a serious discussion, or your way of arguing with someone, first starts with discrediting someone's intellect and then trying to apply a simplistic argument twisting that person's words around (this is common in people who have insecurity/confidence issues). for some reason, somewhere along the way i have offended you and your emotions are getting the best of you and you've started to attack the things that are irrelevant. as far as people taking me seriously, usually i have good feedback from these commentaries (oftentimes in agreement or disagreement, but usually well argumented, and i do welcome criticism if it's genuine and logical), unlike yours which is hellbent on attacking the way i key in the letters and simultaneously making simplistic arguments nearly unrelated to the substance of my comments. all i said was that we need to learn to use less. which started you off on a tangent about how you are already so efficient in your energy consumption and how we cant keep using less and how my logic was flawed, etc. ok, i get it! you know something that the rest of us dont and you have already perfected your energy consumption habits and there is definitely no room for your improvement. i'm proud of you! as for me, i know i can do better and improve and more so, i hate wasting money and i hate giving money to an entity that is already abusing my needs and is going to get worse as time progresses, therefore, i am looking for ways to keep from giving my hard earned cash to someone else if i dont have to. i dont know, is that flawed logic or the behaviour of an ignoramace? is wanting to keep my money and not give it to someone else so unintellectual? is trying to do things today that may save mine and my family's wealth in the future unintellectual? is it so intellectual to spend money when you dont have to? is being proactive, knowing what the future holds, so unintellectual? could be, according to you. but as for me, i prefer to keep my money. maybe that's the attitude that's gotten me where i am in life. i come from a very, very humble family and started from nothing and worked hard, and acquired nearly $1million in assets and i've not even reached my 35th birthday. oh well, i guess that's what happens when youre as unintellectual as i am.

jason2007 (Anonymous) says…

Give Bossa a pass….maybe he's using a Dvorak keyboard and GRs instructions on where to find the Shift key aren't accurate.

After all, these boards are all about diversity, diversity, diversity — unless you happen to be different from the regulars around here and then you're just a nutjob who can't use proper case in writing and we must all destroy you!

uncleandyt (Anonymous) says…

Actual estimate… there we go
The turd salesman told me they were delicious.