Earlier I posted
the link to a story on ethanol -- sent to me be a reader. It's worth another read.
Deep
in the article, this data point:
Propelled by the shale boom in North Dakota’s Bakken and
other regions, the U.S. became a net exporter of petroleum
products in 2011 for the first time since 1949, according to the
Energy Information Administration.
That’s also made the U.S. less dependent on foreign
supplies. Imports of finished crude products were the lowest
last year in records going back to 1981.
As more countries institute pollution policies, the U.S.
could expand its list of ethanol customers.
I think North Dakota also leads in honey production and nuclear missiles (or somewhere in the top three) among the 57 US states.
********************************
Update On Corn
Earlier I posted
a note on corn but was too lazy to check the facts. Turns out I was spot on:
About that comment about farming corn instead of wheat, regarding the 2014 North Dakota corn harvest, from agweb:
North Dakota has increased corn production more than any other state in
the past decade.
“Replacing 60-bu. wheat with 120-bu. corn doubles the
grain volume."
And
doubles the pressure on the railroads.
**************************************
The Problem Seems To Be Exaggerated
Later: in the original post below, I thought the problem was exaggerated, and the whole issue bogus. But this is why I love to blog. An astute reader noted that the highly inflated $8 billion needed every year (and rising every year) was due to
the funding required for the $120-billion-bullet train project. Two things: a) money will be siphoned off highway taxes to fund the bullet train; and, b) it will be justified to pay for overpasses and underpasses for the bullet train. A huge "thank you to the reader. Some of the highway funding will be used for other mass transportation programs such as buses.]
Original Post the problem seems to be exaggerated:
The Los Angeles Times is reporting (again -- this story makes the news about every six months):
Faced with growing shortfalls in highway funding as drivers give up
their gas-guzzling cars, California officials are trying to determine if
a mileage fee would be more effective at raising revenue for road
projects than the state tax of 36 cents per gallon.
So, let's run the numbers. The state says it needs $8 billion to "maintain, rehab, and operate" the California highway system, up from $3 billion in 2004. Assuming there's a bit of "gold-plating" by proponents, let's say the real cost is closer to $6 billion.
The population of California is 38 million; let's call it 40 million.
$6,000,000,000 / 40,000,000 = 6,000 / 40 = $150 / California resident. Even assuming the full $8 billion, gets us to only $200 / California (and you know they aren't going to spend that entire amount each year).
Gasoline taxes: 12,000 miles driven/year; average 20 mpg = 600 gallons x 36 cents/gallon = $216/automobile. Assuming one-fourth of the 40 million Californians drive, that gets us to $2 billion.
Back to the $6 billion that actually might be needed; subtract the $2 billion from gasoline taxes, leaving $4 billion / 38 million Californians = $105.
So, for each Californian, we are talking a whopping $100 (minimum) - $200 (gold-plate) for the state's highway transportation needs. Assuming the average family is four members, and we get $400 to $800/annually/family to maintain the California highway system. $800 / 365 days = $2.20/day, about the cost of a daily Starbucks.
I hardly see any emergency. Especially if one has a progressive tax, requiring the upper 1% to shoulder most of the burden, most Californians would not even be aware of much added expense.
It would be a lot cheaper than retro-fitting every car with an odometer-reading, GPS system, that sends data to the state, where a highly paid contractor would manage the scheme.