Posted on 04/25/2008 6:21:14 PM PDT by Kaslin
See my tagline,
Your comment is over the top. It is what I would expect to see on DU, not here.
And the fat subsidies didn't make it any less attractive either
You'll want to read this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2005746/posts
First....stop subsidizing it.
But, the volume has to be large enough to justify the cost of a new dedicated pipeline and governmental policy has to be dependable.
Wrong, it was the lobbyist, along with the fact that several members of the house and senate are corn farmers and have been getting those government checks for years. Many people pointed out that there were cheaper and better ways to produce fuel, but they did not have the power and the influence of the corn belt and their lobbyists. There for the tax payer got screwed as usual.
Interesting. So all of the complaining about the high cost of corn are not true.
And that corn, that would have been used for food production including feed for animals, is going towards ethanol production?
This is what I have been hearing and from multiple sources.
Very little says we can use it in place of oil. Much says we can't.
Where did you get the idea we could? Read the literature. This is the Internet you are using.
Look it up.
Yikes.
We can't and nothing but government sources and the greenies ever believed we could. Brazil is making ethanol from SUGAR, not corn.
Different starting point, big difference in outcomes and effects getting there.
Plus, Americans consume *a lot* more energy than Brazilians.
An exercise for someone — figure how much land would be required for corn to produce enough ethanol to replace gasoline. You can scale it back. Keeping in mind that ethanol doesn't possess as much energy as gasoline. Approx 70%.
Think you'll be surprised.
They are not idiots, just control freaks.
Unfortunately money talks in our political system, and there's too much money in ethanol to undo the mistake.
Last year, 25% of America's corn crop was diverted to produce ethanol.
Yes, and 55% was diverted to feed cattle.
Anything wrong with that?
25% of the entire US corn crop goes to ethanol... and you believe that there is no effect on food prices worldwide?
Are you really that blind? Do you not realize that in many parts of the world, if the price of rice becomes too expensive, the people turn to corn as the ‘cheaper’ alternative?
With rice prices surging due to shortages, those people cannot turn to corn, for we have reduced the amount we could export by 25%.
-
And when people start to starve, governments topple and wars start.
Ethanol can’t be piped like gasoline for it has the ability to absorb water.
And if water gets into a gas engine, it causes problems.
Anything wrong with that?
1. Even though I like to eat beef, it's not clear that devoting 55% of corn acreage to feeding cattle is the most efficient use of agricultural resources.
2. Apparently cows were not made to live on a diet of corn. This diet produces a number of illnesses in them which must be counteracted with heavy does of antibiotics. The abuse of antibiotics encourages the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
3. People are complaining about the 25% of corn being used for ethanol. But this is small is comparison with the 55% going to feed cattle. Furthermore some of the ethanol corn comes from an increase in total corn production.
“25% of the entire US corn crop goes to ethanol.”
If it is true that 25% of the corn crop goes to ethanol, it is not true that 25% is lost to food production. Livestock feed lots spring up next to ethonal plants to make use of the leftovers. Thus the 25% is not a good number.
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.