Posted on 05/31/2011 1:44:23 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Sarah Palin was asked Tuesday about the sticky subject of ethanol subsidies, and she said that not only they should they be squelched but that all federal energy subsidies should be eradicated.
"I think that all of our energy subsidies need to be relooked at today and eliminated," Palin told Real Clear Politics at a coffee shop in Dillsburg, Pa. "And we need to make sure that we're investing and allowing our businesses to invest in reliable energy products right now that aren't going to necessitate subsidies because, bottom line, we can't afford it."
Ever the maverick, Palin was responding was in direct opposition to Mitt Romney, who last week in Iowa, came out in favor of government subsidies for ethanol, the fuel produced from corn and other farm products.
"I support the subsidy of ethanol. I believe ethanol's an important part of our energy solution in this country," Romney told a supporter from West Des Moines on Friday.
Neither former governor has officially stated his or her intention to run for the GOP nomination for president; however, Romney is expected to throw his hat in the ring later this week.
One former governor who has committed to running is Tim Pawlenty. In fact, it was in his statement announcing his candidacy that he also backed the elimination of ethanol and other energy subsidies. Unlike Palin, however, Pawlenty wants to take it slowly.....
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
excellent. Solar = subsidy. Wind = subsidy. Ethanol = subsidy. Oil, gas, coal, to the best of my understanding, receive no subsidies today.
Only energy which is not price competitive, is given taxpayer money in an attempt to manipulate the marketplace.
I agree and would go further. No subsidies for any entity or person for any reason.
$17 billion saved per year X 10 (because everything is X 10 now), for $170 billion in savings over 10 years.
You are PDS troll -— she said “ all”of them at the very beginning of the quote, the reporter Scott Conroy who asked the question even was fully aware of what she said-sheesh!!!
If that's true, then clearly it would be a bad program. But I don't think that's true. Because the subsidy is only $0.51 per gallon of ethanol ($0.05 per gallon of E10).ethanol subsidy Nobody could afford to claim the subsidy if it really took that much gas to produce.
That would seem to bear out in looking at the total figures as well. $6 billion in ethanol subsidies vs 6 billion gallons of ethanol produced. That seems to indicate total ethanol subsidies are more like $1.00, but that $6 billion cost might include federal administrative costs. Still at $1.00/gallon of ethanol subsidy and a cost of 3 gallons of gas, nobody would produce E10.
Sorry, I got my numbers wrong - it takes at least 1.3 gallons of oil to make one gallon of corn ethanol.
I didn't either for awhile, but here goes:
In America and similar western culture nations, our food supply is not radically impacted by using food crops for fuel, but the rest of the world is seriously dependent on these food crops for supply and stability of an affordable price of food for those citizens.
An unmentioned major provocation for the current world "democracy demonstrations" and citizen unrest, is food prices and shortages.
The American Marxists are thrilled and support these uprisings in any nation with a government friendly to or cooperating with the USA in the recent past. Muslim Brotherhood governments will replace those that fall to "democracy", US influence and trustworthiness will fall worldwide, and war against Israel will break out.
Does any of this sound like a wish list of the progressive Marxist left, and those named Hussein?
Maybe "environmentalist" (the new spelling of "communist") driven bans on petro development have had an ulterior purpose from the beginning.
Which makes it still a bad idea, just not so much of one. This does not include the water costs of corn ethanol (Google that) or the opportunity costs of former food-growing lands needing to be devoted to growing something we’re going to burn.
See post # 57
Good. Next step, slap the scientists and 16 hour per week professors off the government teat.
You do know that most of the “ethanol subsidy” is a tax break to oil refiners who blend ethanol with gasoline, right?
So all this huffery and puffery here on Free Republic about “removing the subsidies for ethanol” is mostly about removing the blenders’ credit. Farmers get no subsidy for growing “corn for ethanol.” They get subsidized crop programs for growing crops, period. Where the corn goes when the farmer decides to sell it is pretty much a function of basis and current commodity prices, including gasoline.
Better for us? Did they consider the long term damage to engines from ethanol usage?
It’s a racket. Clear and simple
Well, she IS an expert on energy companies and policies. Bob
Ethanol is made by processing corn. Corn we use to eat. Not only is corn literally in everything we consume, it’s also used in the raising of livestock the world over.
What the subsidy does is allow a corn farmer to sell at a higher price with a safer margin of error because it’s backended by the gubmint.
Now here is the catch...
They are talking about wanting to jump to 15% Ethanol now. E85? I’m sure you’ve heard of this. None of my vehicles can use it, as it will destroy some of the plumbing in older vehicles. (1997 Landcruiser) So that’s kind of a big negative.
But the largest issues is the net-negative to get Ethanol out of the ground.
It takes massive amounts of water irrigation (fresh water) that we literally spend to fill up our vehicles, and the qty of Diesel used to farm the corn adds a huge tax on the ethanol efficiency that no gubmint report includes. oops...
If you’d like to know more:
http://www.naturalnews.com/029076_ethanol_fuel.html
And a VERY good article comparing various ethanols...
http://techfarm.blogspot.com/2008/05/efficiency-of-ethanol-is-it-worth.html
Ethanol was a gift to the farmers, and has been a massive sham on the American public.
End subsidies... end them now!
OPEC is just screwing the world right now, they have turned down production yet the speculators are driving the cost.
Fix the issue... Drill... Drill NOW, and use every form of energy you can without subsidy. Fast track research into Thorium reactors, and start building Nuclear plants.
Thats my take. :) YMMV
Good post. I think I saw a replay of that interview on PalinTV. Sarah, as always, was fantastic. I have read her books. She is extremely knowledgeable on energy matters.
That number comes from David Pimmental, and is widely and thoroughly discredited. He stacked his energy balance spreadsheet by considering the energy put into casting the iron and steel for ag equipment to be part of the energy input, and he considered the food that the farmer and farm workers ate to be part of the input energy for ethanol.
Here’s a big clue how wrong this is: If the farmer isn’t farming corn for ethanol, he still buys and uses farm equipment. Until the farmer dies, he’s still gonna eat, regardless of whether he’s growing corn for ethanol.
There are lies, damned lies and stats (when abused) and Pimmental abused them like a red-headed stepchild.
Ethanol’s energy balance is positive. It isn’t hugely positive, but it is positive. That’s been held up in many USDA and independent studies now. The #1 place where ethanol production can be made more energy positive is in how they dry out the distilllers’ grains at the end of the cycle.
Subsidies have GOT to go - all that they are is an artificial distortion in the marketplace, an attempt by someone unaffected by market forces to pick a winner. All such distortions hide the truth-seeking mechanism of the free market, to EVERYONE’S detriment.
Alcohol subsidies, in particular, tick me off. First, we’re burning food in our gas tanks. Second, alcohol harms fuel lines and engines (though I know it is negligible at 10% or less). Third, I get worse mileage in my car, which only makes our higher prices seem even worse. Fourth, and most importantly, to produce the alcohol and ship it all over the place produces a net energy LOSS. We’d be FAR better off doing nothing.
If the government is going to subsidize anything (which I don’t think it should), then why not something that will benefit the nation like LFTRs (liquid flouride thorium reactors, powered by low-risk, plentiful thorium)? An added benefit of LFTR technology would be that some of the electricity produced from the reaction could be used to power the Fischer-Tropsch reaction to liquify coal (the coal from which the thorium was refined), with which we could power our trucks and cars...and end oil imports. But, really, no subsidy is needed - just get government OUT OF THE WAY, as private industry will jump all over this technology if the regulatory requirements are largely lifted.
Subsidies pick winners; over-regulation kills winners. Both should be banished from our economy.
E85 is 85% Ethanol ... (E for ethanol, 85 for 85%).
Like the way you think! Natural Gas for Cars/Trucks... I’d add Nuclear for Homes/Business Electricity, and cross your fingers for Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat if it works... we’ll all have distributed Electricity in our Homes.
The tanks are absolutely solvable in cars. And you can go a very long way if the tank is large enough. In fact... this would put a + to driving a larger SUV that can hold a bigger tank and add more protection.
We have literally 100’s of years of Natural Gas and by the time Super Capacitors are there, and High Efficiency Solar Panels are there (15-25 years).
Natural Gas is damn near perfect.
Wow! I have never seen even the most anti-ethanol site post such a number! Source?
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.