Replies

BS? Watch your mouth boy.

From that poor, short, incomplete argumentative report, "..The following graph illustrates the total energy needed to produce a unit of ethanol is more than needed to produce a unit of gasoline.."

I knew that.

Further, if it wasn't for one arm of the FedGov keeping us from driving diesels small cars, like they do in Europe, if the rest of us weren't subsidizing farmers, ADM, and ethanol companies. If ethanol energy producers were taxed at the same rate, and if consumers then had free choice between high cost gas/eth mix and lower cost higher mileage/power producing gasoline then ethanol would be toast.

Hey, if you want to burn it, and only you pay for it, fine. But get your tax subsidize, get with the tax rates and compete in an unforced compelled to buy by government scam out of my pocket and tax forms.

If ethanol is a scam. If give me enough subsidizes I'll make horse drawn wagons come back.

And why don't horses come back as they are the original grain powered engine? Because there are costs when fully accounted for that make it less economical. Same with ethanol. Full, fair it isn't economical. As a example in the report is the 'other petroleum' by product from the refining of gasoline. What you think that is making money? It's more than grain feed brings in from eth. But being a government report, and bait for economic suckers, it's isn't accounted. Also, why gasoline, the (almost) most expensive fuel? Why not diesel fuel that is cheaper and more powerful? We know what that would do to the supposed eth advantage. But, again, one would have to look outside one's mental envelope, if possible.