My understanding is that methanol is a much better candidate than ethanol when converting stalks, wood debris, etc. Anyone have any idea why methanol is never discussed as an alternative fuel?

Bingo, Mike -- you noticed the sleight-of-hand at work. Tell Oregon enviros that you want to log for wood products and paper and they'll be all over you.

Tell them it's for "cellulosic ethanol" -- a product that only exists commercially in the imagination -- and they'll line right up to say that it's a progressive move.

Cellulosic ethanol is the shiny distraction that has proven sadly effective at getting so-called environmentalists to spend all their energy pushing Big Oil's agenda: keeping eveeryone attached to liquid fuels.

Nice roundup of the current reality (as opposed to the cellulosic fantasy) here: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/2/20/214022/918

Meanwhile, as Walden provides the cellulosic distraction cover, the real ethanol action in Oregon is a proposal to turn a dead sugar-beet plant into a factory to burn imported coal carried on diesel-burning trains to turn imported midwest corn (dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, blue babies all along the Mississippi, massive fossil fuel inputs) into ethanol in Nyssa.

http://www.argusobserver.com/articles/2008/08/06/news/doc4899d562bf8cc267933813.txt

But it's all cool, because it's a "bridge" to the future -- besides, better to give Snake River Ethanol big Business Energy Tax Credits than to waste that money on health care, schools or anything else, right?

Thanks for the info Kevin. I'm reading a book right now titled "Energy Victory" by Robert Zubrin. He's a big proponent of going to alcohol fuels to break OPEC's back. According to him, cars don't need the fuel cells you speak of, they only need to be "flex fuel" cars that have upgraded fuel lines, etc to handle alcohol. The one major system that needs to be added sniffs the tailpipe exhaust to then adjust the engine's fuel mixture, spark timing, etc to handle whatever fuel is in it. On new cars, this does not represent a big expense.

The big upside to that is that fuel of ANY combination of petroleum/alcohol can be used. So if oil prices drop and gasoline is cheap, you can put that in. Your tank gets down to halfway and you're at a station with alcohol fuels, you can put that in. The mixture ratio doesn't matter.

In addition, methanol can easily be converted to a high-quality diesel substitute as well, which ethanol cannot.

Methanol can also be converted into the types of plastics used all throughout our society, thereby eliminating the oil requirement there.

AND, as much as everyone hates coal, methanol can easily be made from coal. So another option there.

Your mileage will suffer, of course, as there is not as much energy in methanol or ethanol as there is in gasoline.

In his view, Step #1 is to have the gov't mandate that all new cars are flex fuel.

I know questions are out there regarding the energy input required to make alcohol fuels. His book refutes some of those studies, but as a layman, who knows what to believe when you have dueling studies??

Yeah, I recommend reading it. Like most books that push a certain agenda, I'm reading it with a grain of salt, but it's intriguing.

As far as engine development goes.... sure it's ironic, but completely sensible that the engine evolved to handle gas only. It was cheap, readily available, and has much more energy content than anything else. Of course, the fact that we haven't made any strides to look for anything else over the last 30 years is a real problem...

His contention is that alcohol fuels should become the new standard (even over the long haul), especially if we move to methanol, which can be made from all the crop waste, so that it doesn't compete with food, which is ethanol's downside. Think about how much of the corn plant goes to waste? (unless you're cutting silage, which uses the entire plant)

He absolutely shreds the idea of hydrogen fuel cell cars, labels it a sham and lays out a pretty good case why that might be the case.

Wow! Will Wonders ever cease.

The Dems and their butt kissing clowns in the media are finally realizing that “the brush, small trees and other forest thinnings” are actually hazardous and can contribute to catastrophic wildfires.

Now will the "Let the Fires Burn Democrats" go along with the great idea???

Chip Daigle Mandeville, LA

What is this "crop waste?"

His contention is that alcohol fuels should become the new standard (even over the long haul), especially if we move to methanol, which can be made from all the crop waste, so that it doesn't compete with food, which is ethanol's downside.

Are you suggesting that every molecule of organic matter that isn't processed for human use is "waste?"

Do you think that soil magically replaces itself?

Do you understand that, since the 1940s, we've blown through most of the topsoil in the US and we're now down to the last six inches in many of the best croplands?

Do you understand the meaning of peak soil? http://is.gd/l2bf

Do you think it's worth taking all the organic "waste" out of soil so that we can use fossil fuel inputs to try and force the depleted soil to continue producing beyond its natural ability?

Though Chip is a obviously a complete douchebag, there are plenty of progressive Democrats who believe in thinning, and debris reduction. There are productive and healthy ways to extract woody biomass from forests and use it for energy production. That said, the devil is in the details.

I'm sure this is a great opportunity for Walden to "go green" and boost his bonafides pre-2010 Governor run. It could also be a backdoor for timber-interest policies to "liquidate" US forest land. Only time will tell.

George, thanks for mentioning peak soil. I have no idea why more people don't discuss it. It's almost as though any way we choose to break free of our oil dependency is logical.

I'm willing to believe that Walden is actually trying to best represent his constituency here, but the short-sightedness of his proposal is breath-taking.

Geez, George, I didn't come piss on your Cheerios today.

I don't recall me saying at all that "every molecule of organic matter that isn't processed for human use is waste". Nor do I think that "soil magically replaces itself". Please don't put words in my mouth.

It wasn't that many years ago when as a kid on a farm, I remember the "new thinking" of soil management where the idea was to leave as much plant material on the ground as possible. It was a revolutionary idea at the time.

As I've been reading the book, one of my concerns was indeed the fact that he doesn't address the ramifications of removing plant material that would otherwise nourish the soil.

I certainly welcome the discussion about that as well but you have one hell of a way of introducing things to the debate.

@Larry K: my apologies. I went off on a remark that suggested that cellulosic ethanol is somehow better than corn ethanol because it's made from "waste" matter. Being a farmer, you know that there is no such thing as waste matter, and that everything taken out of the soil must be replaced or else the soil degrades.

@William: I think more people don't discuss peak soil because they're so intent on maintaining automobiles as the central organizing principle in society.

Thus we have Oregon, supposedly an environmentally conscious state pouring additional subsidies onto crops grown for cars to supplement the already outrageous federal subsidies for fuels that only a tiny handful of people will buy unless compelled by a usage mandate (which is a form of infinite subsidy, since it means that there is a market for even the most expensive, most polluting fuels).

So we're closing schools early, forcing unpaid furlough days on state workers, cutting people off the Oregon Health Plan and generally having a hell of a time -- meanwhile, we're pouring millions into agrofuel subsidies-on-top-of-subsidies for fuels that INCREASE greenhouse gas emissions rather than reduce it.

That's why we don't see more people discuss peak soil -- because it's yet another reason that this will eventually have to stop, and the gravy train will end for the folks who have milked the system since the 70s and especially since 2005.

Comments like, " there's a possibility that he's doing something progressive" is a bit perverse in thinking, for someone from Oregon.

Progressivism as a movement was the goal of Theodore Roosevelt and his party in the early 1900s. In the US, it caused many states to introduce into their state constitutions more democratic rights and policies.

This included the ability to confirm and create law through referendums to require approval of voters, initiatives wherein citizens create law, recall where elected officials can be removed from office, and the election of U.S. Senators by popular vote instead of being appointed by legislatures.

Oregon was one of the first to jump in on the Progressive Movement and Rep. Walden would certainly endorce this, as do Republicans all over the U.S. In fact, Republican legislators are either defending, making more easy, or creating new law to make individual voting democratic input into state laws. Too bad that movement has not extended to our national government.

So, Progressivism has nothing to do with restricting or encouraging what is a movement to encourage capitalism in creating energy - but it COULD be.

If you are serious about renewable energy, take a look at where it is happening. It is not happening in any District in Oregon like it is happening in the district of Representative Walden, including dams, windmills, and reducing YOUR garbage to OUR electicity.

BTW: If you want to know more about the bill: Walden press release Stephanie Herseth Sandlin Press Reslease

Well, you can insult me if you want, Carla Axlman.

Your characterization as Representative Walden as not being progressive is arbitrary and based on partisanizm rather than logical argument, even if the definition of actively working for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government is used. It is abusive and arrogant.

I have decided not to accept the double-think that uses and abuses Progressivism with vague and arbitray conceptualizations as more fit for propaganda than logical argument or critical thinking.

If you want to call a ministry of hate a "Ministry of Love," and a ministry of propaganda the "Minsistry Of Truth," that is fine.

That which has been called "progressive" seems to have no principle on which to measure itself, other than some elitist position that "Our idea is better than your idea!"

I will define "radical" for you as well. Radical is a person or movement that seeks and has a goal of a change in institutions.

Progressivism on the national level is radical, like anything that requires an amendment to the Constitution.

Arguments against the populism that Progressivism brought are elitist ideology to support oligarchy and repress democracy.

I find it extremely interesting that those fighting for more democracy in government are Republicans. Republican infers you want a representative government.

That Democrats do not support progressive ideals on even on the state level is contradictory to the ideal of democracy.

The problem with having referendums, initiatives, recalls, and popular votes is that they take power away from the party system. When someone says they "belong" to the Democratic Party, Republican Pary, or any other organized third party, my first question to them is what they think of the people being able to vote on every issue. The more they are for their party, the less they are for the democratic principles of Progressivism.

You should be embarrassed in how you referred to the one US Representative in Oregon that has actually BEEN progressive in Oregon. Perhaps you should live in Eastern Oregon awhile where the rural electrification programs were successful. You should tour the area where there are actually wind generators making power.

Metro/Valley Oregon is the most regressive and repressive I have seen in terms of property ownership and innovation. For all their talk, they do not walk the walk.

They also do not want to deal with their social issues. That is why they send both their garbage and their convicted felons to Eastern Oregon.

It has been a boon for Eastern Oregon, though. The garbage makes fuel and the prisoners are safer, more productive, and come out of prison with fewer issues than they do at the prisons in the Valley.

Of course, Eastern Oregon is not all wet. You have to be more responsible there because use of "social services" are seen as a last resort rather than a first response. They will flip burgers rather than be subservient to to the government's "bread and circuses."

Next time you see a wind farm on TV ask yourself where those generators are. Eastern Oregonians already know where the wind come from.... the Valley.

Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 27, 2009 6:05:25 PM You are far from correct about Roosevelt, Walden, Unions, or the Sierra Club. Roosevelt was for a level playing field - the basis of free market capitalism and the reason for being of breaking up the monopolies.

You will have to help me understand how taking from the "rich" or those over $250,000 income, who make up most of small business can pay for ARRA. 1.5% of the population earns above $250,000 a year. There are about 116,011,000 households in the U.S. So, there are 1,740,165 households that are "rich." ARRA is budgeted at $787 billion. So, the shared cost for each of those "rich" households is $452,255.96 - just for ARRA.

The majority of income taxes are paid for by those between $32K and that $250K. If you believe President Obame is going to get taxes paid any other way, you are being unrealistic.

Since there is no way those revenues can be made up for taxing the "rich," the only other option is to print money to pay the bills. That makes the dollar worth less and is the definition of inflation.

When it comes to Unions, they have not advocated for workers for decades. I have seen them at work. It was so bad I resigned my position as a steward for ethical and legal reasons. Worse yet, the union local president was involved in fraud regarding the use of our funds.

Those were the SAME funds that existed to be used to fight grievances in our war chest. Those were the SAME funds that I PROPOSED, FOUGHT FOR, AND WON. When it came to actually using them for the purpose they were allocated for, they denied their use of them. Not just once or twice but at least 20 times that I know of.

If you believe the unions were meant to provide a living wage, stop abuse of workers, and provide a safe work environment, you would be correct. Such unions exist only in ideology and not in practice. Your fantasy about who helps workers is misplaced.

My Dad was in local 701 of the Portable & Hoisting Engineers. He had to fight for his wages and work place safety over and over without the support of the Union rep as I was growing up.

My mother was the president of her local in OSEA and she had to fight the other officers to keep them from wasting their funds on parties at conventions. She helped members of her local protect themselves, but it was sheer personality rather than the support of the chapter or local.

The lawyer of my local told me exactly how the governor screwed the state unions and, YET, continued to support him with endorcements and money.

Regarding Walden, it was him who started with the U.S. Forest Service to organize how the fire hazards could be turned into jobs and energy.

If you think stopping the stip logging was helpful, you know nothing about forest conservation. 200 years ago there was less forest area because of fires. We have the most we have ever had - a historical fact. Strip logging made zones to stop disease and fire.

Of course, those are fires you will never fight. Loggers and construction workers with "cats" are the first to be drafted for that job. My Dad was run over by a fire in the 1960s.

Posted by: Carla Axtman | Feb 27, 2009 6:42:59 PM

"While you may not agree with the common notion of "progressive" as it is considered today--it nonetheless is. And it has nothing to do with Greg Walden the vast majority of the time."

Actually, you do not agree with the political or dictionary definition of "actively working for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government is used." That is what Rep. Walden is engaged in.

Certainly, your good friend, Chuck Butcher is a is NOT a progressive Democrat. You can ask him if he believes in referendum, recall, initiative, and a popular vote for the President. In his position (not elected) he has not advocated for those. He is a poverty pimp with a bad case of envy and hatred of the rich - starting with Senator Gordon Smith.

A man I worked with, brother union member, went to every Democrat and bureaucrat he could to get his wife in from Mexico. She had come with no problem before, UNTIL HE MARRIED HER. I told him over and over to go to Senator Gordon Smith. Nope. Would not do it because Smith is a Republian and LDS.

Finally, he got desparate. I practically had to hold his hand by giving him the address and phone number of his office in Pendleton guess who got my union brother's wife into the US. Yup. Senator Gordon Smith. My friend is retired and living in Baja California with his wife. That was many years ago now.

I can tell you that there are two wind farms in Umatilla County. One is just outside Pendleton and one is on the Oregon/Washington border. If you think that was done without the support of Senator Smith and Rep. Walden, you are dreaming.

There is also a generator that burns garbage across the Marrow/Umatilla border. There are also wind farms beyond the edge of Wasco County and another far up on the plateau that is a HUGE producer of power. It is a project from a Japanese company that was just supposed to be a "test project."

There was a Vertical Axis Wind Generator experimentor that brought his work to the university in Portland. What happend to that? Guess.

Either way, these two worked for and accomplished your version of "progressive" in ways that just have not jelled in the Valley.

OKAY NOW... How many alternative energy projects has your "progressive" friend, Chuck, brought to Union County? Umatilla County? Eastern Oregon?

By the way, I was born in Pendleton, raised in Umatilla, and worked most of my career in Pendleton before I retired. I am never so happy as when I have the "sun in my eyes, the wind in my face, and the grit in my teeth."

My Dad worked on John Day Dam, McNary Dam and all the freeways around there as they were being built. My mother worked at the Umatilla Ordnance Depot and as a nurse at the state hospital for over 20 years.

Both my X and I were "River Kids" as we hung out on the Umatilla. She was raised on the Reservation though. We both went to BMCC and then went to the U of O.

If there is a broad brush, it is in your hands,lestatdelc. Your argument was almost as irrelevant as it was illogical.

Meanwhile, if it's possible to speak on the topic without bothering those engaged in this fascinating and so-very-informative pissing contest, maybe some of the Democrats who support the Oregon state subsidies to agribusinesses turning imported, coal, corn, and natural gas into ethanol can help explain why Pacific Ethanol is closing more of its facilities?

...mother dresses you funny...

Did I mention that Randy Leonard looks very handsome in a starched pink oxford? It takes a real man to wear pink to work.