Agreed...let’s eliminate all “mandates” and subsidies. Let FREE enterprise, supply & demand and markets determine the most efficient ways to produce MAXIMUM WEALTH for our Republic. The free farmers of Iowa will adjust and become more wealthy as they pursue other crops and endeavors. And the NATIONAL economy will grow, become more efficient and produce greater wealth at less cost.
The science and agriculture behind this needs to be understood.
Special corn is used to brew fuel ethanol, which is not suitable for either animal or human food. Could other things use the land better? Maybe. But we aren’t taking any edible corn, such as what tortillas are made out of, and putting it in gas tanks.
That said, most certainly let freedom ring. Let greenies sell what they believe to be green virtue to willing purchasers.
Only politicians would think something that costs $1.50 to make a $1.00 product. That is smart business in DC.
Candidate Cruz was the surprise winner in the Iowa Primary, while running against ethanol subsidies. It can be done.
Even the greenies don’t like ethanol in gasoline.
The amount of energy used to produce the corn is never recovered. Besides that it actually lowers your gas mileage
Ethanull
Agree100%
Let the sobs build ethanol power plants!
scam, plus it pollutes groundwater more than straight gasoline. plus straight gas has more energy per gallon than ethanol gas, meaning better fuel economy if you take ethanol out. plus small engines wont suffer damage with straight gas.
all these known benefits but govt doesnt do the right thing.
The swamp just keeps refilling itself (with ethanol?!?):
https://hotair.com/archives/2017/12/13/not-shocking-grassley-aide-lands-plush-ethanol-lobbying-gig/
Ethanol has been in the mix since the beginning. So has biodiesel. Henry Ford was calling ethanol the fuel of the future in the 1920's. Rudolf Diesel ran his first engines on peanut oil. And not to forget: in the early days there were steam powered cars and electric cars as well. Petroleum based fuels came to dominate because oil turned out to be far more abundant than anyone expected. This, by the way, has not been a good thing. Too much of the cheap oil turned out to be located in the middle east, where oil dollars have fueled all manner of evils, as well as various other third world hellholes where oil has been the high road to massive corruption. But that's another story.
The current U.S. ethanol policy is rooted in the decade following the turn of the century. After the first Gulf War, oil crashed as low as $12 a barrel before stabilizing around $20 for most of the 1990's. Cheap oil was one of the several things that Bill Clinton got very lucky about. In the next decade, however, the soaring U.S. and global economies drove oil steadily upwards, approaching $150 a barrel before the 2008/09 crash. Had you told me at the beginning of the decade that the U.S. economy would shrug off oil at $80, $100, and $120 a barrel and keep doing fine, I'd have thought you were crazy. But that's what happened, largely because the effects of the digital revolution were so dominant that they carried a lot of baggage.
During that huge runup in oil prices, the U.S. decided to finally get serious about finding a way to diversify away from oil and ultimately transition to a successor fuel. The candidates were, and still are, biofuels, electric cars, and fuel cells. Then came the 2008/09 crash and a global slowdown that depressed oil prices. And then came fracking, and another shift in the economics of oil.
But oil is still a finite resource, subject to depletion and big price shocks due to the still-dominant role of very nasty places in its global production. Fracking has bought us time. How much, I don't know. But the strategic question is this: do we keep our eyes on the ball and continue to explore alternatives, or do we think short term and scuttle the alternatives for another temporary binge on cheap oil?
The Bush administration was pro-everything on energy: pro-drilling, pro-nuclear, pro-biofuels, fuel cells and electrics, pro-wind and solar. The argument was over how much to subsidize close-to-commercial alternative energy sources. Biofuels took off once oil prices rose above $80 a barrel, making corn ethanol competitive without subsidy. The blenders tax credit has been repealed; the mandate is still in place to force the oil industry, which controls the refining, to accept a competing fuel instead of locking out the competition. Wind is also close enough to a competitive price point that a relatively small subsidy has gotten us a big buildout of wind capacity. (My objection to wind is esthetic, not economic: miles of windfarms are space consumptive and ugly.) Solar has come way down in price and is carving out increasing non-subsidized markets for off-grid applications, but it is still not close to competitive against the grid. That could change quickly, however.
The Obama administration took a big step backwards. It was operationally anti-everything on energy except wind, solar, and electric vehicles. We should revert to the Bush policy. The goal is not simply energy independence; the goal is breaking OPEC, making the jihadis fight with sticks and stones because they can't afford bullets, making the Saudis close down their global madrassah poison because they can't afford it, etc. Fracking has bought us time. We shouldn't waste it.
This is not just an Iowa or an ethanol problem.