Corn ethanol has many better uses.
Posted on 12/06/2008 9:03:41 AM PST by jay1949
Then use those arguments, they’re good ones. Just don’t infer that the very narrow issue of burning our food for fuel is bad. It isn’t, we have more ‘food’ than we can possibly consume.
By way of example; We are so wealthy as a nation that we can BURN lots of our food as fuel, and still have enormous surpluses. We are so wealthy that consumers are willing to pay e huge premiums for low yielding, low quality, wormy, insect infested food just so they can say they eat ‘organic’. And we STILL have too much food.
More power to all those consumers, we have more than enough to go around.
And, although I no longer farm, prefer ‘inorganic’ food to ‘organic’ 2 to 1, and taste tests confirm that when blindfolded consumers can’t distinguish between ‘inorganic’ and ‘organic’ foods, if I were still farming, I’d give the consumers what they wanted; ‘organic’.
That’s where the windfall profits are.
I won’t argue that production techniques have made tremendous progress. My arguments are: givernment subsidies distort the market and are unfair and, saying “what are we going to do with all the corn” is like Detroit saying “what are we going to do with all the cars.” Perhaps to make it equal, we should also subsidise auto building which I guess is what we are about to do.
Grow all the corn or anything else you want; build all the cars and widgits you want but don’t ask the tax payers to subsidise.
I’m sorry but, the Ogalala Aquifer is in serious danger of being depleted - ask the west Tesas farmers who have to drill inordinately deep to access water there.
Some day, take a drive through western Kansas and eastern Colorado - the rains stopped several years ago, while the swirling clouds of dust may not come again or be as intense, an extreme dry spell is upon us. Farming that land for corn we do not need only because of subsidies is a stupid plan.
I am finished with this subject; I’m sure we are boring everyone else to tears.
Then use the subsidies argument, which is probably the stongest argument against ethanol.
The soils, water, food argumuments are so easily disputed that I’m always puzzled why anyone brings them up.
It’s like reaching for a peashooter when an arsenal of real weapons is closer at hand.
all US vehicles would be flex-fuel.
Patent BS on the order of global warming and a few other scams. Not to say it doesn’t provide jobs and a use for abundant corn, however, as a fuel additive it gives leftists cause to make statements like we are running out of oil, and other such stuff that is more patent BS.
Stick to gasoline, and lets not muddy the water with additives that do very little if anything to solve the mythical crisis of no oil. Just look at how far the left is willing to go to prove a point as yet unproven, that we are in a crisis of what?
Carbon credits, laughable, a nation of electric cars with unintended consequences as yet unidentified, although there is plenty of information on how long it will take to make people change from what they need to what the left demands.
The real crisis is congress and meddling government. Carbon dioxide a pollutant? You can’t make this stuff up, the inmates are attempting to run the asylum and are doing a bang up job of convincing the American people that the cause is actually the solution. Meanwhile the economy and the automobile industry among others is in the tank and on the take.
I could go on but I have a gun show to attend.
Corn ethanol has many better uses.
I read many different articles; some say corn ethanol is a negative, some paint it as rosy; the 1.3 to 1 ratio seems to be the current majority viewpoint. It could be wrong, of course. But then, what are we doing mandating the use of the stuff if we don’t even know whether there’s a net BTU gain?
Moonshine is made from corn, sugar, and water, brother; and occasionally some other stuff, like raisins, or peaches. But it’s basically corn, sugar, and water.
That’s a drop of ten percent or better - - like the ethanol isn’t even there - - which it isn’t, functionally, except in high-compression engines, which can actually burn it.
I’ve got five bucks that says they’ll expect American taxpayers to subsidize food purchases in the third-world countries where the price of grain has been driven up because we’re wasting corn to make ethanol that doesn’t burn efficiently in the lower-compression (87 octane) engines that almost everyone in America runs.
My head is spinning.
“If ethanol can reduce the demand on oil to the point that we can keep oil at 50 - 60 dollars per barrel opposed to 100 - 120 per then maybe we can keep diesel closer to 2 dollars than 4.” That is my point exactly - - ethanol does NOT result in a net reduction in demand for oil! Also, the price of Diesel is largely determined by foreign markets, so ethanol is no help there.
He who figures out how to make fuel out of kudzu economically will be worshiped as at least a minor god in the deep South.
What is the quickest way to screw up good fuel?
Add ethanol!
If they really think we should have ethanol for fuel, try sugar beets - but first lets make ‘em use the ethanol they produce as fuel for the distillation process. And do it all without subsidies.
Assuming that it is a good idea to add ethanol to gasoline to replace MTBE, then why not use sugarcane ethanol, which is far more cost-efficient?
amen!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.