Skip to comments.It's Final -- Corn Ethanol Is Of No Use
Posted on 04/21/2014 12:04:02 AM PDT by Vince Ferrer
OK, can we please stop pretending biofuel made from corn is helping the planet and the environment? With huge subsidies for ethanol in gasoline, with all States now selling gasoline having some ethanol blend, and a general misconception that these biofuels are green, corn ethanol has taken on a $30 billion/yr life of its own.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
WAY better to drink than to burn in vehicular engines.
Ethanol is good to clear out water in fuel systems during the winter, but that is it.
sense from the UN? improbable.
Not only that but it was taking up too much farm land.
What subsidies? The blender credit expired a few years ago.
I didn’t realized farmers found a way to grow ethanol directly.
It’s a leftist policy, and it has a large, heavily subsidized constituency, so don’t expect ethanol polluted gasoline to go away anytime soon.
the farmers making ethanol directly is what the "Whisky Rebellion" was all about.
Who needs subsidies when the market is mandated to use it anyway? Taxpayers are subsidizing it at the pump.
- Why are we putting booze in our gas tanks when Hillary will just drink it?
Exactly! Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandates ethanol production from corn for fuel use.
The more corn ethanol they put in my gasoline, the worse gas mileage I get in my car. I am paying for that lower gas mileage.
Just one of many silly government decisions that citizens must suffer to satisfy some narrow constituency.
It gives this American great pleasure to know that those who hate us are starving as we reduce our imports from their region of the world.
List please of politicians who pushed this scam on all of us and filled thier pockets
You have to realize that:
Huge corporate farmers mainly vote democrat.
Huge corporate farmers give freely to the democrats.
Huge corporate farmers receive massive farm subsidies from democrat rules and regulations.
The pseudo need for ethanol “ginned up” by the enviro-nazis forces the American people to utilize the products produced by the Huge corporate farmers through laws and regulations specifically designed to put money in their pockets by the democrats...who will, in turn, receive donations back from those farmers to ensure a continuing mandatory use of the products they produce.
During the great depression farmers were the first to receive what we now call today...corporate welfare. Now, it is SOP for all who allow the government to tell them: When to plant, what to plant, how much to plant, and what chemicals they will utilize to control insects and weeds, and finally.....the price they will sell the crop for.
We have alcohol in gas because we were taken to court by a foreign country and accused of subsidizing our farmers, which is a violation of the global agreement on tariffs and taxes (GATT.) We were found guilty which enabled all of our trading partners to retaliate. But there was a clause in the GATT allowing us to do things for defense. So, reducing the amount of gas used became a national defense priority, which is legal. They put alcohol in gas and pumped billions of dollars to farmers. And, that is how this incredible stupidity started.
So the “environist” want to be rid of ethanol? The best way to accomplish that is to get the Keystone pipeline going. You won’t need ethanol any longer and, we can turn our local ethanol plant from processing corn to processing POTATO’S and we all know potato’s make really good vodka.
As I mentioned, alcohol in gasoline was a ruse to funnel money to farmers without triggering treaty prescribed sanctions. (It’s just ordinary wealth redistribution having nothing to do with what makes sense.) Things done for political reasons are not, on their face, logical. Therefore you can not end them through logic.
Or your motor won't start anymore.
Since 2010, gasoline manufacturers have been permitted by the EPA to blend 15% ethanol into gasoline used by late model vehicles. Recent studies indicate that this mixture can cause internal engine damage over time. The most critical problem is that the gas/ethanol mixture is not entirely compatible, and will separate causing moisture buildup (water) in the fuel tank. This moisture is then inducted into the engine causing corrosion, resin/gum buildup, hard starting, fuel-injector damage and reduced performance.
It seems that the percent of decrease in mileage is about equal to the percent of increase in ethanol. Is it just filler?
The fact that the corn lobby fought the proposal tooth and nail to ensure that it never got out of committee tells you all you need to know.
I have switched back to pure gasoline. Fuel mileage is a solid 15% better without the ethanol, and the engine runs noticeably better, esp when cold.
The difference is even more dramatic with a lawn mowers. The engine has a noticeable lope at idle when cold and running on the diluted fuel. Real gasoline cause no such rough running.
I just had to rebuild yet another carburetor ruined by ethanol. The viton part that controls fuel flow had turned to goo because of the alcohol, happens every time.
Thanks for the post.
If I fill with REAL GAS, I get 17 mpg.
When I use Ethanol laden gas I get 14 MPG over the same road.
I heard that farmers would have to plant every square inch of land in the United States with corn, to produce enough Ethanol to power one vehicle for one year...ONE VEHICLE, FOR ONE YEAR. I also found out (and I know everyone else knows this), that Ethanol causes damage to any gasoline-powered engine and its peripherals. If true low or no-cost alternative-power has been achieved (other than the huge batteries and solar power thus far that are definitely NOT low or no-cost), and vehicles have been created to use such types of power, the vehicles are likely too expensive for the average consumer to purchase, along with the fact that some type of power may need “stations” to be replenished—which are largely unavailable. We all know about hydrogen, Tesla, etc; there are definitely a score of other forms of energy being looked into that we do not know about or are just suspect, may actually be being used in military applications, or have been tried with devastating results. People report seeing things in the sky that make no noise, fly at incredible speeds and do maneuvers that stretch the imagination; many are likely man-made, “alien” hybrid technology, or purely “alien”. My dad told me on more than one occasion that until scientists are able to produce a small or very small and light-weight power storage device or unit, none of their efforts for the achievement of low-cost alternative-powered vehicles will prove fruitful.
As a closing note: I believe there are inter-dimensional, atmospheric beings with incredible physical and technological superiority, which I think are “fallen angels”, or possibly fallen angel-human hybrids called “Nephilim” in the Bible. I also believe the reports of astronauts that orbited the Earth, went to the Moon, flew the Space Shuttle, stayed on the Space Stations MIR and the ISS—when they talked about seeing things in space they could only begin to explain. As far as the “known” universe and all the dimensions that God created, there is no telling what else could be in existence; I do feel that He has placed a barrier on any other beings that are vastly superior to us, so that they cannot “invade” us or wipe us out. But the Lord gave human beings an eternal spirit, sentience or being self-aware, and a free will—so if some people are not just curious but seriously and actively seeking out contact with these other beings, they are being granted access to a certain degree, but all the control is on the other beings’ side but ultimately God’s.
People talk about being abducted and experimented on, some of which didn’t believe in such things existing. Evil comes in many forms, but they are all from the same source: satan, and the Lord Jesus told us through His Word that once we became His through salvation, we would through Him have the power to stop satanic events. You can take authority over satan in the Name of Jesus, and you can plead the Blood of Jesus over the situation. The devil must leave.
In what the Bible calls the “last days”, God will cause a “strong delusion” to come over the populations of the Earth, so that “they will believe a lie.” Our present government administration is a result of such a thing happening, as we all well know.
A bit long-winded, but that is my take on Ethanol for the useless thing that it is. And despite what the “experts” are saying, we are in absolutely no danger of running out of oil, natural gas, or coal; we are simply in danger of not acquiring it via extraction from our own country in time to stave off an energy crisis, and it may already be too late. It takes years to build refineries to process oil.
Bullcrap. Mandates do not guarantee that anyone makes a profit. If ethanol production outstrips the mandate, then ethanol prices will fall till no one makes money. For that reason alone they are not subsidies.
Just like corn. I hear the whining and crying about how ethanol is ‘burning our foooooooooooooooooood’ yet the corn price dropped substantially this last year. Obviously the logic is flawed.
I take it you make your living soaking your fellow Americans with a government-forced mandate, because that’s what we have. The free market wouldn’t be buying this stuff unless we were all forced to, so there wouldn’t be a market for it without the mandate. You can apparently be all for conservatism until it comes to your industry’s own little niche of crony capitalism. The mandate means we have to buy it—and we can only buy it feom t h ose who can afford to be in business supplying it—so of course an (ill-gotten) profit is guaranteed.
An experiment—it didn’t work, Drop it hard and fast. Invest in Oil and Gas—the proven winners.
Huge corporate farmers? Seriously?
In addition to every Demorat politician, virtually every Pubbie running for President has made promises in Iowa to keep the Ethanol subsidies flowing. If there was ever one who didn’t, I don’t know who it is. I think even Pat Buchanan did (I could be wrong. It’s been a lot of years since he last ran).
“Huge corporate farmers” are just like every other “Huge corporation.” They give heavily to slimy pols from both parties.
I doubted that so I looked it up, and it has dropped quite a bit. In fact, it's looking like a "Buy" right now, whether the fools fall for the Ethanol hype or not.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not a big ethanol fan. I am a big added-value ag fan, just don’t think the vehicle is ethanol. But I don’t like the big lefty bogus propaganda that people echo here, they are not the arguments we need to be making or the conversations we should be having.
Sending unprocessed ag products overseas on a barge is a complete waste of the resource when we could be processing it here into many different end uses, creating jobs and value-added products for use here and putting money back into the local rural economy. What we should be for is downplaying ethanol while pushing for a more diversified ag product market.
Many conservatives don’t want that because frankly they want cheap meat and a world of value-added products compete with that. Their desire to bottle up the market is their way of getting their own indirect subsidy for cheap meat that benefits them and no one else.
If we want to have a healthy economy, we need a healthy farm economy and allow farmers to make money with a range of added-value ag products. That means we need policies that don’t hinder markets from developing one way or the other and give farmers a multitude of market choices on how they utilize their production, not direct it to what some special lobby wants.
That sword cuts both ways. Let’s cut the BS, it’s not really about ethanol, what most non-farmer conservatives are afraid of is anything that competes with their desire for cheap meat.
They are more than happy to use the govt to structure the market, like it did for many years, to create an artificial situation of low grain prices to create great conditions for their little pet project - a nice little supply of cheap meat. They of course don’t care if the farmer makes money or not, just as long as they can get the govt to create the policy to provide their little indirect subsidy.
So let’s cut the little drama queen hypocrisy and expose the other side of this argument and their little niche of crony capitalism. They’re doing the same thing, they’re just pissed they’ve been getting beat at their own game.
To my Parents’ dismay, I’ve long been a supporter of refined ag products....especially the kind that comes from corn that George Washington was known for making on his farm.
What kind of a warped rationale have you spun for yourself to justify your government-forced subsidy of your business?
Nobody at FR is against ethanol mandates because they want cheaper meat. They are against a) the distortion and coercion in the market and b) being forced to put stuff in their cars that is bad for their car engines.
And how has the government structured the market for artificially low corn prices? The norm for decades has been price supports and massive subsidies.
Here’s an article talking about the idiocy of our policy:
What kind of warped rationale does it take to think that just because I point out a lobby for a different kind of govt subsidy, that that means I want to keep it for ethanol? I won’t take either false choice thank you.
The govt yes, did put a floor under prices, a very cheap floor. Just enough to keep farmers from going out of business en masse, but so low as to promote the cheap meat angle. The low subsidy creates the best of both worlds, a permanent and some would say addictive incentive to produce something, but not enough to prevent cheap meat from being produced. By doing so along with other policies, they perpetuated that business model.
What do you think the fools here are saying when they chant ‘burning our food, burning our fooooooooooooooood’ - they are really saying ‘we hate added value ag because we won’t have cheap meat’. Take off the rose colored glasses for a minute. They aren’t just against ethanol, they are against any type of added-value ag, whether the govt is propping up the market or not. They are more than happy with the farm policy of past years cultivated and maintained by the Feds - so they can have their cheap meat.
“Added value ag”? What kind of a euphemism is that?
Again, I’ve no idea where you get the idea the feds are enabling cheap meat. They’ve been propping up corn prices, which ads to the cost of meat. Now that they’ve piled ethanol on top of that, yes, more expensive meat is another distortion of the market lining the pockets of the favored few from the taxpayer and general public many.
There is no reason in the world for the feds to be monkeying with the market for agricultural products. A free market that’s good enough for the rest of the country is good enough for American farmers.
A commonly used ‘euphemism’ in the farm belt. How can you possibly be ignorant of it?
Again, you don’t understand farm policy. You subsidize just enough for farmers to keep producing but keep the prices cheap. Then no one goes out of business and there are no radical industry shakeups, and the grain keeps flowing. The meat stays cheap, and the rural economy stays afloat, but never really prosperous.
That keeps urban economies dominant, with the young people streaming into them because they can’t get a job back home in the sticks.
Again, if you subsidize a crop, you are increasing the price over what it would yield otherwise—or else there’d be no point or value to the subsidy. The impact of a subsidy is to raise the product’s price.
So farm subsidies do not cheap prices cheap. They increase prices. And the reason they do it is very simple: political pressure. Voters in farm states have a massively outsized impact on Congress because even very low-population states of course have two US Senators.
And referring to subsidized ethanol as “added value ag” is a euphemism. The idea that people are against “any kind of added value ag” is, again, warped.
Oh no! Another liberal Utopian dream is dashed. The fights at the charging stations, the smart cars being cow tipped, now this.
That fuel gets less gas mileage, I won’t use it if I know it’s in the pump.
The “other side of the argument” is that A) unlike motor fuels, meat is not a ‘must-buy’ item for the vast majority, however much they want it; B) there is no mandate to buy meat; C) there is no mandate allowing only grain fed meat to be sold.
Added value ag can mean anything, not just ethanol. It is used commonly here in the farm belt, and everyone knows what it means. That many of the policy makers and urbanites are against it for the social justice goals is not exactly secret.
You don’t understand Federal farm policy and it’s history. It’s about perpetuation and stability, but not necessarily prosperity. Splitting the middle to keep the grain flowing, but cheap enough to keep meat cheap. Keeping farmers just profitable, keeping consumers well stocked.
If grain were to fall too low, the farm belt would go bankrupt and that’d create a cascade effect of instability and shortage and economic downturns. So they created the best of both worlds so to speak, and they did it that way for over 60 years after it was started by FDR. Keep a floor, and keep prices as close to that floor as possible.
Telling me that subsidies increase prices is like telling me that 2+2=4. It does, but so what? If ‘4’ is the sweet spot that gets two birds with one stone, it’s better than a different set of variables which add up to ‘2’ or ‘6’ which are not the best of both worlds. Trying to get the best of both worlds with a subsidy floor was the govt goal for decades after the depression. They gave a little to get alot, and the deal worked for them.