Posted on 01/18/2016 12:43:04 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
I am a Trump supporter but I applaud Senator Cruz for this stance.
I hate the use of feed grains for the production of fuel. My cars would get much better efficiency with gasoline: Ethanol (E100) consumption in an engine is approximately 51% higher than for gasoline since the energy per unit volume of ethanol is 34% lower than for gasoline.
Jonrick46, did you vote for the corn based?
its rather ironic Trump who’s owned by no one is owned by the ethanol lobby
Prove it. Thanks.
We need this kind of common sense.
The only vote I will give is for Jack Daniel’s.
go find yourself what trump has said in favor of ethanol funding.
I don’t know him, yet, I heard that his vote is for Mr. Donald Trump.
No matter what...do the next right thing.
What is your opinion on veggie based ethanol, RginTN?
Food should be used for food; fuel should be used for fuel.
We have BOTH, and plenty of both.
Yes, we do.
I have heard Trump talk about his support of ethanol funding. That is one thing I will not support. However, if support of ethanol production is a vote for Jack Daniel’s (the alcoholic beverage), I would support that (Jack Daniel’s is whiskey made from corn, rye and malted barley).
Ted Cruz’s plan is good. 5 years is the correct way to stop any subsidy, which gives an industry time to make needed adjustments.
One thing you need to know, the value of the grain left from alcohol production retains 2/3 of the value of dry corn when used for livestock production. This is one of the reasons that alcohol production may be self supporting at this point.
The research for other products that can be made from the distillers grain is on going.
Now let’s move on to other subsidies in other industries, oil, flight, rail, highway, and personal.
Please make additions and corrections.
It is time and past time that any subsidy for converting feed grains into alcohol (ethanol) for motor fuel to be abolished.
If alcohol is that good a thing for a motor fuel, then it is easier, cheaper and far more feasible to convert a fraction of natural gas, ethylene, to 95% ethanol. This is already done on an industrial scale throughout the world.
For technical reasons, it is difficult to produce 100% ethanol, as the distillation and condensation point of ethanol-water mixture is LOWER than 100% totally water-free alone, and in an open container, the additional water is reabsorbed from the atmosphere until the equilibrium point of 95% purity is again achieved.
A true conservative is against subsidies, period.
I am not an Iowa voter. However, I would rather see corn used for food products and other biochemicals uses like textiles. The use of corn to make fuel drives up the cost of food and really does not make as efficient a fuel as gasoline. To make a humorous light of the subject, my vote is for Jack Daniel’s.
I am in 100% agreement. And that 100% will not be dropped down, due to atmospheric (the political atmosphere type) absorption, Trump (who supports ethanol from corn) or no Trump.
Ethanol 123 is an abomination. Hey, let’s pretend that Monsanto is a grace filled gift.
Someday, giving back will be another grace filled gift of Thanks.
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.