Posted on 01/23/2016 7:55:50 AM PST by Kaslin
What happened to butanol?
It was supposed to be much better than ethanol.
Do you mind telling me what business you are in?
Much of what you write is true, but explain the scientific article excerpt I posted. How is 400 gallons of ETOH per acre not a net energy gain. The paper proves it is indeed.
Two Cheers for Ethanol Subsidies Expiring - but Costly Mandate Remains
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/01/ethanol-subsidies-expiring-but-the-costly-mandate-remains
January 17, 2012
Two federal policies expired at the close of the year: the federal tax credit for blending ethanol into gasoline and a 54 cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. A diverse group of fiscal watchdogs, environmentalists, and free-trade proponents all hailed this as a major victory. While the tax credit and tariff expirations are a good start, the real burden on consumers is that producers will continue to blend ethanol into gasoline - because they are federally required to do so.
As Roy Orbison would say:
ONYLYyyy.........the lonely.
Sheese, meant to say FARMERS!!!
Do you consider more toxic and more expensive, better?
just asking asking
Betcha ton of Iowans saw it for what it is - very obvious pandering.
In that context, federal income tax deductions are subsidies too. Do you take this form of welfare?
***************************************************************************
Ahh...so you are of the view that all my income belongs FIRST to the state and anything our benevelant government allows me to keep is a subsidy?
Refineries once used Pb in gas too. How did that work so much better? Should we still burn leaded gas so we can inhale the fumes in big cities?
******************************************************************************
So now you’ve advanced to using the old progressive argument that if we don’t MANDATE the use of ethanol, the heavy metal lead must become an additive to gasoline. Prohibition of (ACTUAL) poisonous products is a legitimate function of government mandating the use of something such as ethanol is not.
Try not to mix the two in an illogical manner.
Do you mind telling me what business you are in?
********************************************************
Of course I mind...it’s bad enough that the Obama regime operatives in the federal government know it...I don’t care to share private information with potential trolls on the internet.
I will tell you I’m not involved in any petroleum-related business.
The subsidy will be around for a long time just like all subsidies. That’s what reps do.....feed its constituents.
I didn’t read the whole article. But as a Texan I certainly don’t support oil subsidies, and while I’m all for a successful oil industry, I wouldn’t base my vote for a presidential candidate based on just that. So much attention goes to Iowa and it seems they hold the corn subsidy up as a bribe to the candidates.
Factoring in ALL the costs, and determining if the number of BTUs in the ethanol is greater than the number of BTUs used (as Diesel fuel and/or natural gas) in the planting, cultivation, and harvest, the transportation to the ethanol distillery, the actual input of energy required to brew, distill and collect the now 95% ethanol, then transporting the product to the refineries for combining into the retail product gasoline.
Now compare, on a cost basis, the energy required to convert a fraction of the natural gas (ethylene) to ethanol
C2H4 (ethylene) + H2O (water vapor) (in presence of a catalyst) -—> C2H5OH (ethanol)
Fast, being done on an industrial scale already, and MUCH less expensive than using corn or other grains to produce ethanol.
If the idea is to simply have ethanol mandated for motor fuel component.
Thanks. I do put my foot in it once in a while.
:)
The butanol lobby doesn’t have first in the nation election primaries.
I agree. Palin is out there to keep her name in the public eye. She is quite the self-promoter.
Actually, subsidies hurt recipients, too. There was a great piece on this topic at the website of the foundation for economic education (I think that was the name, can’t find the piece now).
Why do subsidies hurt recipients? Because it prevents them from seeing their mistakes. They continue to make bad decisions because there is no correction. It’s rather like what would happen if you couldn’t feel pain. Sounds great, but then you wouldn’t know when you touched a hot burner.
The free market is the only thing that works. Everything the government does to tinker with that hurts everyone.
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.