. September 15, 2006 SouthAmerica: Today, September 15, 2006, The New York Times published a column by Thomas L. Friedman âThe Energy Harvestâ that shows that the ethanol energy program in Brazil is real, and not an illusion as many oil industry executives in the US have been trying to imply and misinform the American people regarding Brazilâs successful energy program. Friedman said: âI came to Brazil to try to better grasp what is real and what is not in the ethanol story, because no country has done more to pioneer sugar ethanol than Brazil. My impression after talking to a range of Brazilian experts, is that not only is ethanol for real, but we have not even begun to tap its full potential. â¦What the U.S. can learn from Brazil and its sugar caneâ¦. â¦Brazilians have that luxury because there are 34,000 gas stations here that offer both gasoline and ethanol (compared with around 700 in the U.S.) and because 70 percent of new cars sold here can run on either gasoline or sugar ethanol. As a result, Brazil has replaced about 40 percent of its gasoline consumption with sugar ethanol.â I am quoting this information from a hard copy of The New York Times, but the article it is too long for me to copy and post the entire article. If you have the chance of reading that article you will understand why Brazil is way ahead of everybody else in terms of solving its energy needs on an efficient and profitable way and in harmony with the environment. The article also mentions the extra benefits that these sugar refineries have in producing a lot of extra electric power than they need for sugar and ethanol production; and these extra power is sold to the companies responsible for the distribution of electric power to the Brazilian population. It is a win, win, win proposition for Brazil and the Brazilian people. .
I agree, its most definitely a win/win for Brazil. Very big problem for the rest of the world to emulate though because Brazil, by far, has the lowest cost of production for sugar. The climate, land, and low cost labor make it the perfect place for this crop. Sugar is too expensive to grow in many nations, especially the US. The indusrty wouldn't even exist in America except that it is heavily subsidized by the government. Maybe it could work with sugar beets though?
. Jayford: Very big problem for the rest of the world to emulate though because Brazil, by far, has the lowest cost of production for sugar. The climate, land, and low cost labor make it the perfect place for this crop. Sugar is too expensive to grow in many nations, especially the US. The industry wouldn't even exist in America except that it is heavily subsidized by the government. Maybe it could work with sugar beets though? ********* September 16, 2006 SouthAmerica: Yes, the United States can emulate very easily in partnership with the Brazilian sugar producers. And at very low costs. As I mentioned before, today Brazil has 357 sugar refineries operating for the production of sugar and ethanol, and they also have another 50 sugar refineries under construction to supply the expected growth on the Brazilian market for these commodities. Many of these large sugar producers in Brazil have acknowledged that they can reproduce very easily the sugar production that they have in Brazil, at a very low cost â right across the Atlantic Ocean. Some of the African countries have the same type of geography; type of soil necessary for sugar production, climate, and sugar can be produced in those countries at very low cost. Some large sugar producers in Brazil would be willing to develop the Africa sugar production with the financial backing of American corporations. After you grow the sugar cane in Africa, then you bring it to the United States to be processed into ethanol. Why do you want to do the processing in the United States instead of Africa? Because the Brazilian refineries developed a process of sugar and ethanol production in which after taking the juice from the sugar cane to produce the ethanol, they use the bagaço (leftover) as a source of fuel to create the electric energy to operate these refineries. And they improved the process so well that today, these refineries not only produce enough energy to power the production of the ethanol, but they are producing a lot more electric energy than they need to operate these ethanol refineries. Then the extra energy that they are producing they are selling it to the local electric power companies to be distributed to the Brazilian population. Millions of Brazilians today get their electric power from this type of process, and in the way helping Brazil save a ton of money necessary to buy the oil necessary to produce the same quantity of electric power. I donât know why people even consider the production of ethanol from corn, beets, and so on⦠- when it is well known that you get 10 times more ethanol from sugar cane following the processes that have been developed in Brazil in the last 30 years. The only reason they produce ethanol from corn in the United States it is because corn production it is very heavily subsidized by the US government. And in this type of ethanol production you still need a lot of oil to be able to produce your ethanol. I know that the major American oil companies would try to do everything on their power to block the United States from following on the footsteps of Brazil in ethanol production. Why? Because the United States oil industry it is the most heavily subsidized industry in the United States â and they donât have to absorb a very high cost of securing new sources of oil from around the world. The American taxpayers absorb that cost. Last year Exxon Mobil earned over $ 35 billion dollars in profits after taxes, but this profit did not include the expenses related to the war against Iraq, and so onâ¦. If the US government did allocate a portion of the cost of the war against Iraq to secure a new source of oil and sent the bill to the American oil companies, then these companies would not have any real profit to distribute to its shareholders. The other hinden costs that are never mentioned anywhere are the costs related to the loss of life and the costs of taking care of the wounded for the rest of their lives that it will cost the United States government probably over $ 1 trillion dollars. The US government is also eating the costs related of replacing all of its armaments that are been destroyed very quickly in Iraq, because of sand storms and very high temperatures â these costs runs in the trillions of US dollars. And another cost the US government is incurring it is the depletion of its clout, and influence around the world as most people around the globe does not approve of what the United States is doing in Iraq â at the end of the day: âto secure a new source of oil.â The entire world is aware that the current United States president and his vice president came from the oil industry, and that helps explain why the United States is doing next to nothing to fix its dependence from oil from the most dangerous places around the world. Today, the United States government energy policy is nothing to write home about. .
. Sandgroid: Allāhu Akbar ******** SouthAmerica: I have no idea what you are trying to say. I donât even know what language is that. Please translate it into English. .
SA, I think it would be great if cheap sugar could be grown in Africa and shipped over to USA. Won't happen soon. US sugar growers would cry bloody murder. I personally think it should be an open market. Why the hell should oil companies pay for the war in Iraq? They didn't go to war, the US government did. You must be one of those conspiracy dudes that believes the oil companies run the government here. Most people don't realize that Bush didn't make his money in oil BTW. He went broke with his oil company. He made his cash in baseball! Wouldn't matter anyway.
Similar climates to Brazil are in the Caribbean and other Latin countries...and several of the countries already grow sugar cane.... The Brazilian sugar cane ethanol model should be intiated immediately by those non oil producing Latin countries who would also have a comparative advantage... The ratio of money that leaves these countries to oil producing countries could remain in their countries... The multiplier effect of this money for inner development is very significant... What must be accounted for however are possibly much lower crude prices... The head of Templeton{s funds are using the $40 ish dollar range for 2007 expectations... Shell Oil estimates that there is over $100 billion invested in oil strategies by hedge funds...These will have to unwind...and their unwinding will have little to do with demand supply for oil...and everything to do with supply demand for oil contracts... Even with lower oil prices the non oil producing Latin countries that have comparative advantages in sugar cane production have to also weigh in keeping the money at home....For some of these countries this means that as much as 20 to 25% of their GNP money can stay within their boundaries...
Jayford said: ;..." think it would be great if cheap sugar could be grown in Africa and shipped over to USA." Africa???, Why when Cuba is one giant sugar cane farm and within spitting distance of the US. It is way past time to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba.