Posted on 10/29/2006 4:52:57 PM PST by anymouse
Energy: Bill Clinton's back, now touting tax hikes for ethanol to California voters. "If Brazil can do it, so can we," he said, claiming an ethanol switch ended Brazil's need for foreign oil. Once again, he's telling whoppers.
(snip)
No, he smashed a champagne bottle on the spaceship-like deck of Brazil's vast P-50 oil rig in the Albacora Leste field in the deep blue Atlantic. Why? Brazil's oil independence had virtually nothing to do with its ethanol development. It came from drilling oil.
Which is the very thing Clinton, in his Proposition 87 television ads, seeks to pile taxes on.
(snip)
But as a matter of fact, that's not what Brazil did.
It launched a crash program of offshore oil drilling in the late 1990s, working with a Manhattan Project-like determination to develop its own natural resources.
In 1997, Brazil opened its oil sector to foreign competition, encouraging companies like Royal Dutch Shell to explore and drill for oil in its offshore waters for the first time. It offered incentives — like tax cuts.
(snip)
Net result, lots more oil for Brazil — enough to enable the once-oil-dependent country to actually export some, all from fewer energy reserves than the U.S.
(snip)
Ethanol output didn't take off until government fetters were lifted in 1989 and the market was free to develop it without government involvement.
Clinton has had a long history of raising political funds from agri-biz giants — like Archer Daniels Midland — interested in government contracts. As Brazil's example shows, taxing oil to subsidize ag firms is exactly the wrong way to produce ethanol — or oil.
But it looks like he'd rather repeat Brazil's decades of energy mistakes instead of cutting to the real reason for Brazil's success: its decision to drill offshore for oil.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
You can always tell when he is because his lips are moving.
Drilling oil and having a lower per capita income than the US. Poor people consume less energy. Perhaps the DemocRATS could get the US to conserve energy by decreasing disposable income.
It launched a crash program of offshore oil drilling in the late 1990s, working with a Manhattan Project-like determination to develop its own natural resources.
We should do the same big time
Ethanol production uses 30% more energy than the energy produced by the ethanol fuel yields back. A net loser.
If you love pollution and excessive energy consumption, use ethanol.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html
Increasing taxes will do that.
Urban legend.
Brazil can produce ethanol far more efficiently than we can in the United States, because they get it from sugar cane, rather than corn. Of course, sugar cane is a tropical crop, so what works there won't work here.
Clinton Says Raise Taxes on Oil
Former President Bill Clinton says that taxes hikes on oil will reduce dependence on energy. Clinton threw his support behind Proposition 87, which calls for raising taxes on oil to encourage conservation and fund government research on alternate fuels.
"High oil prices are the key to saving the planet,” Clinton told a cheering crowd at the campus. “It will encourage people to forego foolish travel. There is no need for the average person to be driving wherever and whenever he pleases. There is no need for these people to be jetting around the country for frivolous reasons. Oil needs to be conserved for important purposes—like my trip to join you here tonight for this rally.”
Proposition 87 has drawn criticism from opponents who claim that raising taxes on oil produced in California would discourage production and make the state more dependent on foreign oil. The California Taxpayers Association (CTA) and several public safety groups are opposing the proposition.
“A couple of months ago these Democrats were saying high prices were wrecking the economy and that it was Bush’s fault,” said Tom Swift, spokesman for the CTA. “Now they’re saying high prices are a good thing? It makes no sense.”
Clinton explained the apparent inconsistency. “Bush’s high prices weren’t the result of higher taxes,” Clinton pointed out. “The money was all flowing to the private sector where all it would do is encourage companies to supply more fuel. This would just perpetuate wasteful travel. Prop 87 extracts the money from consumers and funnels it into projects selected by the government. There would be no risk of inducing increased supplies of gasoline that would undermine the conservation objective.”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Column_Archives.htm
Ethanol production in the US was 1.6 billion gallons in 2000. It's up to an annual rate of 5 billion gallons/yr. now and this year will absorb about 20% of the corn harvest. Plants under construction will bring capacity to over 8 billion gallons over the next year or so, and additional plants are being announced weekly.
IOW, the ethanol industry right now is building out as fast as possible. It doesn't need more subsidies. There is currently a 51 cents per gallon tax credit which has obviously been hugely important in getting ethanol off the ground, but many analysts believe that, at current oil prices, corn ethanol is now viable without subsidy.
Cellulosic ethanol isn't there yet cost-wise, but the technology is advancing rapidly. Several major companies have recently announced plans to build commercial scale demonstration plants. This bears watching. Cellulosic ethanol could potentially displace upwards of 30% of gasoline use over the next couple of decades. How much of a subsidy (if any) might we be prepared to pay to break OPEC, if that's what it takes?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Worthless link to a maze of articles.
That was what the IBD article said - as soon as the Brazilian government got out of the way in 1989, ethanol took off. Brazilian ethanol is much more efficient, cheap and cleaner burning than the corn-based ethanol produced here - that's why if Clinton is serious about ethanol and not contracts from Archer Daniels Midland, he'd be lobbying for an end to ethanol tariffs on Brazilian ethanol.
Brazilian ethanol is very good but it is still not as good as oil - Unlike Clinton, Brazil put most of its focus into developing and drilling for oil, not wasting all its time on ethanol. That's what we should be doing - we have more offshore oil than Brazil and here Brazil knew what to do but Clinton doesn't. Maybe if Clinton spent less time bikini shopping in Rio and more time talking to real Brazilians, he would know this. But I think he knows this - he's just a liar.
The fires of hell are warming Greenie Gore!
One of the issues under study is how much of the stover, etc. needs to be left in the field. This is a sustainability issue for farmers and a design issue for the equipment manufacturers. It's not my field so I can't offer specifics, but I do know the question is on the radar screens of the agribusiness types.
Matt Drudge just announced on his WABC 770am based radio talk show:
Two radio stations have now banned all "global warming" stories in news broadcasts
The Manager said they may cover "global warming" when the Atlantic Ocean rises up into the studio -
Now, that's really funny!! Gore will turn green when he hears that...
What do you mean by "as good as?" It's not an idle question. Gasoline has more BTU's per unit of measure than ethanol so it yields better mileage. Ethanol burns cleaner and is carbon-neutral, which is good for your engine and the environment. Take your pick.
If, however, by "good" you mean "lower price," it gets more complicated. Everything depends on where oil prices will be 5, 10, and more years down the road. If oil drops back to $20 a barrel, ethanol can't compete (without subsidy). If oil stays at $40-plus, ethanol becomes viable.
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.