Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Get rid of ethanol subsidies, (Minnesota)state's auditor says
Minneapolis StarTribune (aka The Red Star) ^ | 4/17/09 | Bob Von Sternberg - Staff Reporter

Posted on 04/17/2009 9:17:14 AM PDT by MplsSteve

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last
To: Beagle8U

I don’t oppose turning into pork, which by the way, is also a losing proposition in today’s market, including the govt subsidies that go into the pork industry.


21 posted on 04/17/2009 10:05:42 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Freedom's Precious Metals: Gold, Silver and Lead))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: San Jacinto

Understand, but tell me about immediate returns and the regulations to be overcome to get drilling permits, tank batteries, additional refining infrastructure, and the time to get it to retail. The grain handling and ETOH infrastructure are here now.


22 posted on 04/17/2009 10:08:18 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Freedom's Precious Metals: Gold, Silver and Lead))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jurroppi1

I have burned ETOH in my truck since the early 80s and don’t see the difference. Living in Iowa, it was everywhere early on.


23 posted on 04/17/2009 10:09:30 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Freedom's Precious Metals: Gold, Silver and Lead))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot
Pork may be a losing proposition today, but, 1800 pounds of pork is worth a hell of a lot more than 400 gal of ethanol wholesale!
24 posted on 04/17/2009 10:09:35 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Pork may be a losing proposition today, but, 1800 pounds of pork is worth a hell of a lot more than 400 gal of ethanol wholesale!””

No doubt, but tell me about the profit margin on that 1800 lbs of pork.


25 posted on 04/17/2009 10:11:21 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Freedom's Precious Metals: Gold, Silver and Lead))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MplsSteve

Ethanol: A Tragedy in 3 Acts
http://www.businessweek.com/print/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_493909.htm

Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing ethanol. But that’s not such a good idea

During the comment period for the RFG (reformulated gas) program, supporters of ethanol had argued that the volatile organic compound (VOC) emission standards in the program — 42 U. S. C. 7545 (k) (3) (B) (i) — would preclude the use of ethanol in RFG because adding ethanol to gasoline increases its volatility and raises VOC emissions, especially in the summertime.

Background The American Petroleum Institute v. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Docket #94-1502 (Heard by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and decided on April 28, 1995)]

If there were ever a time when the truth in advertising standards should be put back into place, it’s now — during the current (third) attempt to convince the public that the massive use of corn-derived ethanol in our gasoline supply will alleviate our need for foreign oil. Ultimately, the answer to just one question determines ethanol’s actual usefulness as a gasoline extender: “If the government hadn’t mandated this product, would it survive in a free market?” Doubtful — but the misinformation superhighway has been rerouted to convince the public its energy salvation is at hand ....


26 posted on 04/17/2009 10:14:48 AM PDT by WOBBLY BOB (ACORN:American Corruption for Obama Right Now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot
“No doubt, but tell me about the profit margin on that 1800 lbs of pork.”

LMAO! You admit that the pork is worth way more but ask about the profit margin?

Take away subsidies from both and which one shows any freaking profit at all? Clue: It isn't ethanol.

27 posted on 04/17/2009 10:16:13 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot

Free Republic Study:)

Actually from an article on FR, Bioethanol’s Impact On Water Supply Three Times Higher Than Originally Thought, referring to a Science Daily article.

41 state study. Article did say corn belt area only used 100 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol (gasoline contaminating ethanol)


28 posted on 04/17/2009 10:38:37 AM PDT by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pikachu
-- That will kill a lot of small motors, old motors, and cause a lot of unintended consequences. --

Jobs for the small engine builders.

Works on the same principle as "war is good for the economy." If you really want to stimulate economic activity, break and burn everything!

29 posted on 04/17/2009 10:43:59 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot

What do you propose to replace the 10% ethanol added to gasoline with??

How about Ethanol from Brazil where they produce it from sugar beets for about half of what it costs to make out of corn. However, I THINK there is an tariff or duty/import tax on Brazilian Ethanol.


30 posted on 04/17/2009 10:45:55 AM PDT by woodbutcher1963
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot
To be perfectly honest, the prospects for increased domestic drilling in the near term are very small. One reason is the drop in the price of oil has diminished incentive, but the much bigger reason is the enviro-nazi dimocrats and some repubs like mccain are just not going to allow it.

Most current alternate energy options are a joke, the economics of which are totally out of kilter. Nuclear power is an exception, but the nazis hate this as well.

None of this justifies ethanol production, which is simply a boondoggle. 400 gallons per acre is nothing, especially considering the energy used to produce it. The program cannot exist on its own because the ethanol is not worth as much as it costs to produce it. We are extracting tax money from people to give to ethanol producers to prop up an inefficient program which degrades the fuel and drives up food costs across the board. It's based on political payoffs and fooling the people to think there is some sort of environmental benefit.

I have a book at home-- can't remember the name -- which came out in the last year or so dealing with the horticultural history of corn and its role in human food supply. It makes the case that if we follow current trends, we are in for a world of hurt.

A sane policy would be to loosen regs and controls which limit domestic and off shore production -- oil natural gas and coal. Build nuclear plants. Increase refinery capacity. Go ahead and use foreign oil as long as it is relatively cheap. We are in position to adopt domestic policies which would allow us to meet our own energy needs if the foreigners try to use blackmail, and more so, we could use our FOOD supply to show them the real meaning of blackmail, if we had the cods to do it.

And BTW, I expect our national policies to remain roughly opposite of the way I would approach things.

31 posted on 04/17/2009 10:48:32 AM PDT by San Jacinto (gorebull warming -- the Socialists' Shortcut.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I already lost a 2 stroke snow blower and chain saw to Ethanol mixed with unleaded gasoline.


32 posted on 04/17/2009 10:55:22 AM PDT by woodbutcher1963
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: San Jacinto

At 400 gallons/acre—there is a net energy gain of about 20%. These are the figures I have seen from an ag economist. Capturing the sun’s energy is not a bad thing. I know that during the planting of corn, it requires about 2/3s of a gallon of diesel for my tractor to plant one acre.

So let food go up a bit. Oddly, I have noticed that most people consume way too much food anyway.


33 posted on 04/17/2009 10:58:54 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Freedom's Precious Metals: Gold, Silver and Lead))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: woodbutcher1963

.....I already lost a 2 stroke .....

I recently ran my weedeater on 10% ethanols blend because there simply isn’t anthing else around. As soon as I finished, I poured it all out and ran it till the residual was gone.

How specifically did the engine get harmed?


34 posted on 04/17/2009 10:59:01 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . John Galt hell !...... where is Francisco dÂ’Anconia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot

I have noticed a steady decline in horsepower and fuel efficiency. If I had a choice I would never use it.


35 posted on 04/17/2009 11:09:54 AM PDT by jurroppi1 (We need to reward the people that carry the water instead of the people that drink the water!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jurroppi1

What are you driving and how many miles on it?


36 posted on 04/17/2009 11:24:57 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Freedom's Precious Metals: Gold, Silver and Lead))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot

I’m discussing all autos from prior to the introduction of 10% ethanol additive, and post.

All of my vehichles currently have less that 30K. My 83 caprice does noticeably better on summer blends than winter blends (even when driven in nice spring weather like this). I got 22MPG driving that big pig to where it is stored now 3 summers ago (after it was stored for 3 years without being started once), and now get about 15MPG with it being started regularly in storage and winter blend fuel in it.

Back when there was no ethanol added, I would sit quite easily in the 20-24MPG range year round with A/C on a comparable car (LTDII, Cordoba, etc...).

The caprice has a 350 with a towing cam, 650CFM 4bbl carb, a 350 turbo tranny and no air (pump removed). I also have no CAT or air pump - this is a sleeper racer.


37 posted on 04/17/2009 11:41:47 AM PDT by jurroppi1 (We need to reward the people that carry the water instead of the people that drink the water!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MplsSteve
Here's the way you test it:

Eliminate the subsidies and place 10% ethanol blend in a pump right beside 100% gasoline. Let the consumer choose.

Any guesses as to which one will sell?

38 posted on 04/17/2009 11:48:03 AM PDT by brewcrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jurroppi1

Shame on you for owning that gas pig. LOL! No starts in 3 years — I hope it was properly prepped. There is no question that ETOH does not burn with the same efficiency since one of the carbons is already oxidized. Dropping to 15 is not good and I imagine the octane rating of whatever you burn is not what it once was. I drive an 07 Maxima with 32K on it—it gets 23.5 mpg. Oddly, the mpg goes up about .1 mpg every 10,000 miles. The one I had before this did the same dang thing. Look at the new SS camaro for a replacement—a mere 422 HP.


39 posted on 04/17/2009 12:05:11 PM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Freedom's Precious Metals: Gold, Silver and Lead))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot

“I hope it was properly prepped.”

Nope, just changed the oil, checked the brakes, topped off the tranny fluid and went to the gas station. From Hinckley to Vermillion on 1/8 tank of gas. I was completely amazed. This car is just about as robust as they come. Of course almost everything on it is new, so that didn’t hurt either.

I had to replace the calipers and all four brake lines to drive it this winter, plus the wiper motor, but it still runs great and has plenty of get up and go...

Just wait until I put a new intake, headers, and different gears in the rear end - it’ll bark then. Unfortunately it’s already a ticket getter.

We had a 98 Taurus that always got better gas mileage when it needed an oil change.


40 posted on 04/17/2009 12:32:25 PM PDT by jurroppi1 (We need to reward the people that carry the water instead of the people that drink the water!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson