Skip to comments.Boondoggle Ethanol Program Got You Down? Help End it.
Posted on 05/19/2011 5:04:09 AM PDT by possum john
Ethanol is Not About Energy Independence
Have you figured out that the federal ethanol program is not about becoming energy independent, but about putting Midwest corn farmers on the government dole? If not, keep reading. If so, are you ready to help end it? That's in here, too.
If you think ethanol lowers fuel prices, then I guess you don't know that each gallon of ethanol is subsidized 47.5 cents per gallon by our tax dollars. In fact, Brazil exports ethanol, but we put a 54 cents per gallon import tax on Brazilian ethanol and then limit its import to seven percent of US production. If it were about saving money, we'd simply import the much less expensive ethanol from Brazil.
If it were about energy independence, we wouldn't us corn, either. It takes about 65% more energy to produce ethanol from corn than the ethanol yields. Who says so? University of California-Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad W. Patzek in Science Daily back in 2005.
(Excerpt) Read more at thekencarroll.blogspot.com ...
You are certainly welcome to your opinion. I do resent the “scummy” remark, but that is your opinion and you are welcome to it.
I write what I believe to be a quality product. If I post a blog (including my own when I do) I post it under Blog/Personal. If I post my own, I label it as vanity. There is no pretense of it being anything else.
If you want to attack me because I didn’t appreciate Larry being so flippant about other people’s property, then so be it. I have, and will continue to be polite as I have always been on FR - even with people I believe to be wrong.
There is usually non-ethanol gasoline in most locations. Just look it up. There’s a link to one site in the blog. I’m sure there are others as well.
Non-ethanol gas gets (according to the government) 3-4% fewer mpg. I think it’s not that good and I’ve heard anecdotal of 15% better without ethanol.
Of course my site has always linked to this site even when I wasn’t posting here.
I’ll continue to offer good, quality blogs to those who are interested in reading them.
Fixed it for you.
The subsidy is paid at the blending of gasoline. It is paid regardless of the source. If we eliminated the tariff, the subsidy would still be paid, but we would be promoting the foreign import over domestic production without the tariff.
It costs 65% more energy to produce ethanol than the energy we derive from ethanol.
That has been proved false multiple times.
I am not a fan of the subsidy. But as long as we have it, the tariff is needed so we are not subsidizing foreign production.
You have that backwards.
However, vehicles will typically go 34% fewer miles per gallon on E10 than on straight gasoline.
There is usually non-ethanol gasoline in most locations.
Not in my location or several others. I live in an area the EPA requires reformulated gasoline and MTBE is no longer used here.
I certainly hope this makes you feel good about yourself. Let the piling-on herd-mentality begin.
Name calling and ad hominem attacks are generally pointless, but they do reveal much more about you than the person you attack.
So, I suppose I should either run away or allow people like you to post my entire blog without complaint.
This all started when Larry posted my entire blog without permission and I dared asked nicely that he not do so in the future.
Is it that you don’t want it posted here at all? Is it that you want it all regardless of my wishes? Larry apparently liked it well enough that he posted all of it. What Larry decided was fair game to take took me about 2.5 hours to create.
If you don’t want to read it, then simply don’t read it. Other people like it and have the courtesy to respect my request not to post all of my blog on other sites.
I did make a recent exception for the Georgia Chapter of Americans for Prosperity for this same blog, but they asked up front and I gave them my permission to post it on their site. Are you that much better than them?
I know some states (e.g. Minnesota) require blended gas, but most still do not.
And you are correct. I did have that backwards. Thanks for the correction and shame on me for thinking I could multi-task efficiently!
Why not just post the full content here? In what way does the blog
post cease to be your "intellectual property" if posted here in full?
Oh, I forgot. The 60 to 65% more fuel consumed than produced includes fertilization, planting, harvesting, etc. and that seems to be the standard on reputable sites. Can you give me a site that gives figures that disprove the numbers I used (including all energy spent on crop production and refinement)? If I’m wrong, I’d like to know and I need to see studies that show it.
Ethanol is combustible crap which over time distills (separates) into a thick viscous consistency. Lawn mowers, leaf blowers, chain saws, etc stored with Ethanol fuel mixtures often become impossible to start. Repair shops profit off ethanol problem with expensive fixes and replacement sales. Yet the persistent problem remains, ETHANOL. Wonder why your seldom used car runs rough?
If you read my latest comment, then you know that - at times - I allow an entire blog to be posted elsewhere. If permission is asked up front and if I decide to grant it. AFP Georgia has, in the past, posted my blog excerpts and linked back to my site. So, when they asked permission up front to post an entire blog, I granted it. No problem.
I don’t just slap some words into a word processor and upload them. It takes time to research, write, edit, re-write, re-edit and post a blog. I do it because I think what I have to say might be important or at least entertaining or best of all encourage people to think for themselves.
My measure of my success is the number of pageviews I get on my blog site. It’s the only way I have of knowing whether or not I am reaching people. The changes in those number of pageviews is important feedback to me. For that reason I like to link back.
This same blog (interestingly enough) is posted in excerpt form on another blog where it is linked back, not to my site, but . . . to Free Republic. I didn’t even bother to contact the blog owner, because I’m sure they meant no harm and thanks to me, FR may get another six or eight hits. Yeah, I know, really big numbers.
I’m really not trying to be an ass, but I strongly believe in property rights, even intellectual property and even for bloggers like me that put some time and energy into writing to the best of their abilities.
Thank you, by the way, for the civil response.
The reality is although these counties must have it used, the surrounding more rural counties often get their gasoline supply from the more densely populated urban area where more gasoline is sold.
I do not believe you will find a single real study that claims 60~65%.
Ethanol contains 23.6 megajoules per liter of ethanol. The highest values claimed (but disproved) were by Pimentel and Patzek of 29%.
I'm not trying to push ethanol; I work in the oil/gas industry. I am against the ethanol subsidy. But I want to see the information given out on Free Republic to be factual.
Do you have a link that disproves Pimentel’s findings? The only ones that I am aware of were funded by the USDA and had a disturbing air of Lysenko about them.
Pimentel and Patzek also include values like the energy of the food eaten by farmers and labors along the process. They included the energy used to make tractors and other equipment.
If you apply this standard, all choices are net losses of energy.
I think Dr. Wang’s 2005 study was one of the most complete. It is tainted with concerns of the production of greenhouse gases but the energy calculation including what was required to produce the electricity consumed seems quite complete.