Posted on 01/23/2016 7:55:50 AM PST by Kaslin
This seems like it may be a day late and a dollar short as the saying goes, but someone has decided to ask a question in Iowa this week which would normally border on blasphemy. Do Iowans really know much about the ethanol issue and, even more to the point, do they really care? Going by the conventional wisdom this seems like a preposterous prospect. Iowa is the domain of King Corn and it drives all things political out there, right? Well, the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) decided to take the question to the voters directly rather relying on the state GOP leaders and some of the answers may surprise you.
With the Iowa caucuses fewer than 10 days away, research commissioned by the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and completed this week provides new insights into what 700 likely voters across the state know about corn ethanol mandates, how much they care about or are following them, and whether they’re likely to vote on the basis of a candidate’s position on the issue.
Their answer? Not much, not really, and not at all.
"For as long as anyone can remember, conventional political wisdom dictated that candidates had no choice but to support ever-expanding corn ethanol mandates to win in Iowa," said George David Banks, Executive Vice President of ACCF. "Unfortunately, they forgot to ask actual Iowans what they thought about it. As this polling makes clear, not only aren't folks in the nation's largest corn-producing state paying particularly close attention to the back-and-forth over the RFS, they're definitely not using it as some sort of litmus test in determining who to vote for. That might qualify as a revelation to the political class in Washington, but something tells me actual Iowans won't be too surprised to hear that."
Here are a few of the results that jumped out at me:
If true, that might have made a bit of a difference in the shape of the race this year, but coming out less than two weeks before the caucuses it’s difficult to see what changes at this point. And yet it may at least prove useful for the midterms, assuming anything else backs this up later on. The only real questions I have about these numbers are the same ones that crop up whenever we run into these issue polls as opposed to surveys about candidates and elected officials.
If you’re looking for data on which candidates are doing well it’s not nearly as difficult to manage. Do you plan to vote for [CANDIDATES 1 THROUGH 10 or UNDECIDED] in the upcoming election? Similarly you can poll voters about the people in office with a basic query of approve or disapprove. (Strongly or somewhat.) When you get into issue questions, however, a lot depends on the wording and the ebb and flow of the news cycle. Seeing that 94% of Iowans don’t have ethanol in their top three concerns might say something, but it doesn’t mean it’s not a concern, either. Only a third of respondents knew where the candidates stood on the subject, which might be even a bit more telling, but I immediately found myself wondering if that’s just because they assume that all of the candidates back the RFS. It’s been baked into the cake for so long that perhaps they just take it for granted at this point.
Again, one data point such as this isn’t likely to be a game changer. But by the same token, maybe we’re finally seeing the beginning of a new trend. That would shake up both state and national elections and come as a refreshing change.
There are dozens of examples Limbaugh could have used where Trump demonstrated during this campaign that he does not think or approach problems in conservative terms let alone understand them and is unable to bring them up.. But views challanges in a very personal way
From the campaign begining with the first debate. His legiirimate battles with Fox and Kelly. Trump goes on CNN following the debate to complain about his treatment .Alas where he could have cited how the press abused Palin as well as other conservatives. Instead must personnaly attack Kelly and brings up Kellys body functions.
Trumps exchange with Jorge Ramos (Univision). Trump should have demand from him If he believes Mexico has legitimate claim to American states as well as bring up Mexican treatment of illegals. Then ask why should the US permit land ownership when legal American retirees cannot own land in their own name or vote there.then boot his buttocks out of there. Instead what does he do ? Kisses up to him and lets him go .The way the Mexicans are treating Americans reciprocity should be the issue and would dump the quote hispanic unquote krap
Then there is the issue where some UK politicians along with Islamists wanted to prevent him from even visiting Britan . Here he would have been saluted if he did this. Used the Brits expression to those phoneys; To Piss off and WISE UP pointing out the problems they are having rhere and chiding them for refusing to face reality. Instead what did he do ? Threatens economic retailiation.
. . What really sealed it for me was when Businessman deal maker Trump who also owns Goldman Sachs stock
http://www.freerepublic.com/focua/f-news/3386879/posts
Sided with the GOPES and even advocates expanded use Ethanol because he thinks it will help him carry IOWA . Which also begs the question of Just how heavily invested is he in Ethanol ?
What did it for me was his recent interview with Field and Stream in which he seems to be anti-States Rights. If he doesn’t think states can be trusted with their own land, what does he think citizens can’t be trusted with?
Actual Iowan’s contribute very little to the politicians campaigns in comparison to ADM. That could have some influence on this non story.
about ethanol anymore?, greatvikingone wrote:
What did it for me was his recent interview with Field and Stream in which he seems to be anti-States Rights
I was going to use that as well. Some of the sruff Cruz supporters are throwing at Trump though, are way off target. It should be based on the desired candidate supporting constitutional questions and shrinking government down to size and bringing it back to the people. That is out of our faces,bedrooms,shurches,and backyards.
Along with getting the economy rolling again and bringing US back to being one people not a bunch of hyphenated Americans.
No but you are likely involved in a business that receives subsidies and tax breaks, so it is best you not reveal it.
Iowans know which side their bread’s buttered on, so of course it matters, to them. That’s why it’s so tough to get rid of subsidies, even relatively conservative voters who benefit are not all that prone to vote themselves into economic pain, even in the short term for long term benefit.
Read the article part that describes the co . . Try not to omit the rest. It ain’t just ethanol that is at issue.
I’ve taken an active part in every presidential year Iowa caucus since the GOP started the presidential preference vote in 1976. I never met anyone there who would admit to having changed their preference for president based on fuel ethanol support.
The Iowa legislature has several times considered requiring a higher percent of ethanol than the Feds require, and turned it down each time.
Iowa will grow almost more corn than anyone can use regardless of fuel ethanol.
Enthlene production is a very energy intense process, unlike ETOh. I was a chemist for a few years long ago. The areas of an ethylene plant are:
steam cracking furnaces:
primary and secondary heat recovery with quench;
a dilution steam recycle system between the furnaces and the quench system;
primary compression of the cracked gas (3 stages of compression);
hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide removal (acid gas removal);
secondary compression (1 or 2 stages);
drying of the cracked gas;
cryogenic treatment;
all of the cold cracked gas stream goes to the demethanizer tower. The overhead stream from the demethanizer tower consists of all the hydrogen and methane that was in the cracked gas stream. Cryogenically (−250 °F (−157 °C)) treating this overhead stream separates hydrogen from methane. Methane recovery is critical to the economical operation of an ethylene plant.
the bottom stream from the demethanizer tower goes to the deethanizer tower. The overhead stream from the deethanizer tower consists of all the C
2’s that were in the cracked gas stream. The C
2 stream contains acetylene, which is explosive above 200 kPa (29 psi).[18] If the partial pressure of acetylene is expected to exceed these values, the C
2 stream is partially hydrogenated. The C
2’s then proceed to a C
2 splitter. The product ethylene is taken from the overhead of the tower and the ethane coming from the bottom of the splitter is recycled to the furnaces to be cracked again;
the bottom stream from the de-ethanizer tower goes to the depropanizer tower. The overhead stream from the depropanizer tower consists of all the C
3’s that were in the cracked gas stream. Before feeding the C
3’s to the C
3 splitter, the stream is hydrogenated to convert the methylacetylene and propadiene (allene) mix. This stream is then sent to the C
3 splitter. The overhead stream from the C
3 splitter is product propylene and the bottom stream is propane which is sent back to the furnaces for cracking or used as fuel.
The bottom stream from the depropanizer tower is fed to the debutanizer tower. The overhead stream from the debutanizer is all of the C
4’s that were in the cracked gas stream. The bottom stream from the debutanizer (light pyrolysis gasoline) consists of everything in the cracked gas stream that is C
5 or heavier.[11]
Yep, and you bought leaded gas and never complained about it. ETOh is toxic but not close to Pb. It is a replacement for Pb in gas. Recall, it came about as Pb was removed in order to boost octane and prevent premature combustion.
So what do you propose to replace ETOH?
Neoliberalnot:
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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Neoliberalnot:
No but you are likely involved in a business that receives subsidies and tax breaks, so it is best you not reveal it.
**************************************************************************
House Atreides:
You seem to be awfully fixated on “subsidies”-—I assume because you are the recipient of them or are a rent-seeker receiving some sort of mandated income stream.
The only “deduction” I receive gross sales from the sale of products I produce are the ACTUAL costs of production. If I produce products that are competitive in terms of quality and cost, then I achieve sales at a high enough volume to allow for a profit. Not only do I not want competitors to receive subsidies, I do not want to receive them -— let our individual efforts, the market and free enterprise determine how we all do as we struggle to provide the best possible value for meeting our users’ needs.
No, I get no subsidy. I did produce about 2.3 million lbs of food and feed in 2015, about 30 % of which was exported. Do you use Chinese labor?
The conservative Iowa voters will probably care mostly about who will pick the best judges, as they know how important that is with so many issues.
What kind of judges would pro-eminent domain Trump pick if he ever became president? It was the LIBERAL justices who voted for the UNconstitutional eminent domain to be used for private property, not just public use. These justices would be the same kind of liberals who would vote for all liberal causes, including abortion.
Free Market, Gasoline or ethanol or mix, as people want to purchase. Not forced upon us with the government selecting what we must purchase.
I’m fine with that , but the point I was addressing was replacing ETOH with a different octane booster. ETOH replaced leaded gas.
Lead phase out began in 1974 as the EPA required catalytic converters for control of HC, NOx and CO emissions because lead destroys the emissions control capacity of catalytic converters.
The U.S. Experience with the Phasedown of Lead in Gasoline
http://web.mit.edu/ckolstad/www/Newell.pdf
The ethanol mandate did not start until 2005 with the Renewable Fuel Standard.
Should the U.S. End the Ethanol Mandate?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/should-the-u-s-end-the-ethanol-mandate-1447643514
Today, the octane boost to prevent knocks is provided by gasoline aromatics, which comprise more than 25 percent by volume of each gallon of gasoline.
Fact Sheet: High Octane Fuels: Challenges & Opportunities
http://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-high-octane-fuels-challenges-opportunities
Aviation Fuel still uses lead, although in lower concentrations than before.
http://aviationweek.com/bca/getting-lead-out-future-avgas
Ethanol as 10% of our fuel is not due to replacing lead.
Most of the octane boost comes from aromatics in gasoline, not ethanol.
We had sufficient octane without the use of ethanol before the mandate.
Straight-run gasoline has an octane number of about 70. In other words, straight-run gasoline has the same knocking properties as a mixture of 70% isooctane and 30% heptane. Cracking, isomerization, and other refinery processes can be used to increase the octane rating of gasoline to about 90.
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/a/aa070401a.htm
So what would you replace ETOH with? 10% more oil? We have been burning ETOh since the 70s and Hitler used it to run a good portion of his war machine.
Again, I would get rid of the mandate and allow the market to decide.
It was not used to replace lead as you first claimed.
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.