Skip to comments.Federal government pulls plug on failed cellulosic ethanol factory (Enviro-weenies hardest hit)
Posted on 12/03/2011 10:53:32 AM PST by Libloather
Link only - Federal government pulls plug on failed cellulosic ethanol factory
That's a shame.
At least we’ve stopped throwing good money after bad...
Just get the government the hell out of this stuff and let free market capitalism work it out.
Bush’s guys were no better at picking winners and losers than Obamas are. If these bureaucrats at USDA, DoE, and there rest of them up and down the beltway were that smart, they’d be making millions in the private sector instead of snuggled up to the gummint teat.
These deals are typically lose lose for taxpayers. It’s good to advance and experiment with technology, except that taxpayers are always put on the hook for failures and are never rewarded with equity as are the venture capitalists if it succeeds. If taxpayers join the venture capitalists and invest money we should receive the same potential benefits if it succeeds, and not just promises of “job creation”. We should receive a direct cut of the action that would be returned to the treasury.
Gonna need a lot of wood. Is anyone FOR that? Something went wrong from the get-go.
You are assuming that these are different guys. The beaurocrats are well entrenched and changing a president only allows for a small turnover. Having said that you are correct on your main point- government should not be involved.
Its about time for that fiasco.
Keep in mind that the federal govt - specifically the USDA and DOE - are continuing to fund cellulosic ethanol research. They keep pouring more money into this fiasco praying that something will change. This is one of the biggest fiascos the USDA-ARS is involved with.
If you hate corn ethanol subsidies, your butt is gonna be raw from what is required for cellulosic ethanol.
Ethanol as a fuel, regardless of how it’s produced, is a boondoggle. Compared to gasoline, ethanol has about 40% less energy per gallon so using it in any combination mixed with gasoline results in a product with less energy than the gasoline alone. That means lower miles per gallon..hence where is the savings in oil consumption if a 10% ethanol gasoline mixture gets about 10% less miles per gallon? Flex fuel vehicles using E85 (85% ethanol/15% gasoline)get such abysmal mileage that they cost more to operate despite all the government subsidies and tax breaks that make E85 about 20+% less expensive than regular gasoline.
The use of corn ethanol and sugar ethanol for fuel needs to put out to pasture too because these sources of ethanol were originally intended to be a temporary, stop gap “pump priming” source of ethanol to build up an ethanol fuel infrastructure for what promised to be a huge cellulosic ethanol fuel industry.
How many “Golden Parachutes” did this buy? For that matter how many “Golden Paracutes” have these green deals produced?
Not to mention “Campaign Finance” kickbacks.
“How many Golden Parachutes did this buy? For that matter how many Golden Paracutes have these green deals produced?”
Lots for sure - but not for average unconnected Americans regardless of politics. Politics is sometimes the cover. Ds don’t squeal on Ds. Rs don’t squeal on Rs. The advantage always goes to the connected few, not the unconnected many.
Most of us haven’t found a way to call and be connected to our elected representative - Congress or Senate. If you can be connected, then you are connected, and you are probably being served your wealth on a platter courtesy of a cut from our taxes.
My understanding is that ethanol from corn was sponsored and really started by the USA government during WWII to get ‘torpedo’ juice. Worked in a distillery post war when production was turned to drinking spirits. Theses were very interesting plants to work in.
In actuality, the government shouldn't have anything to do with it -- other than getting out of the way.
The government owning a stake in a public company and voting its shares is an abuse of the free enterprise system.
I don’t disagree except that if either Party decides (and they both do it to us regularly) to put us at risk, we need to be protected totally. Taxpayers should never be sacrificed so that a few get rich.
Neither party should do it. Ever!
Their only excuse is "they've got the money". Our only defense is to "take the money away" -- thus leaving it in the hands of capitalists better able to determine the worthiness of the particular investment.
I cannot recall a single occasion when government intervention in an industry produced a positive result.
Maybe I’m too idealistic, but I despise corruption and crony capitalism even worse than I hate government and bureaucrats.
Corruption is about connections and self serving, and pols of both Parties are inherently corrupt. When it comes down to a vote, I vote integrity and honesty first not politics. You see these candidates running for office and their integrity is suspect and questionable from day one. Integrity starts by being proud of one’s actions that get put on the front page. The media can lie as well as the candidates.
And what breeds corruption is big government. A smaller government has less power and influence over others and less money to spend (waste).
Reduce the size of government and corruption will be reduced by the same -- or a larger -- proportion.
You might be right. I see it as big money not big government. Big money for the politically connected and less money for the non-connected.
So long as government is big enough to destroy your business, or to otherwise determine winners and losers, there will be big money paid to affect the outcome.
The money is a justifiable form of self-defense.