Skip to comments.Ethanol Could Go on GOP Chopping Block
Posted on 11/11/2010 8:16:36 AM PST by MichCapCon
When the Republican majority is seated in the House of Representatives this January, many have high expectations that they will cut government spending as many of the candidates promised on the campaign trail. But the tricky question now is: Where to cut?
Some energy and environmental experts say they should begin with energy subsidies; specifically for ethanol.
Ethanol is a biofuel made mostly from corn in North America and can be used as an additive to gasoline. In many states, there is a mandated 10% blend with gasoline; the idea being to lower the amount of oil needed.
But many experts say this doesn't work.
"Contrary to popular belief, ethanol fuel does little or nothing to increase our energy security or stabilize fuel prices," wrote Kenneth Green, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Instead, it will increase greenhouse gas emissions, local air pollutant emissions, fresh water scarcity, water pollution (both riparian and oceanic), land and ecosystem consumption, and food prices."...
(Excerpt) Read more at michigancapitolconfidential.com ...
Make it so
It should. It really has few benefits.
Ethanol is pure scam, and if the GOP can muster the backbone to cut this subsidy, God Bless them.
It should. It really has few benefits.
Was it chopped by the great commission as well? If not, that certainly says something about the commission.
Ethanol is nothing but a FARM SUBSIDY that is having a big effect on the price of food.
A REAL DRILLING PLAN would do far more for America, than any amount of ethanol would.
Ethanol also reduced mileage and damages engines that are not specifically designed for it.
Ethanol destroys food sources.
If John B can get this done(remember there is alot of corn grown in Ohio too) I will support him for a White House bid in 2012!
What to do with all that corn likker?
I’d be for the ethanol subsidies IF I thought they reduced gasoline consumption and defunded terrorist states. But our mpg dropped 10% with 10% ethanol. So we aren’t burning any less gasoline, we are just filling up 11 times to drive the same miles we used to fill up 10 times for.
If other people’s results are the same as ours, the program should be killed.
There’s a safety issue here as well. Many experimental aircraft (and their numbers are growing all the time) use converted auto engines for powerplants, allowing the use of relatively inexpensive auto fuel instead of very pricey avgas. Ethanol has an affinity for holding water in suspension, resulting in airborne power loss or engine failure should this water freeze while flying.
Draining the tank sumps during the preflight does no good. The water stays hidden in the ethanol until it’s too late.
But hey. What’s a few more dead pilots and passengers when you can subsidize the corn industry instead?
What’s the difference between burning corn and burning wood? If someone was to propose setting aside millions of acres of farmland to grow trees so that they could be burned in a wood-burning electrical power plant, that person would be run out of town on a rail. Yet, that scheme would actually be more efficient than ethanol, because the entire tree could be burned. You wouldn’t have to extract oil and then refine it into fuel.
How about the Dept of Energy and the Dept of Education?
Why do we need them?
Time to phase out all farm subsidies, at 25% per year. We should all be thankful to the farmers for their very hard work, but being paid to not farm is corruption.
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.