Skip to comments.
WSJ: The Ethanol Party - Republicans see Tom Daschle, and raise him.
Wall Street Journal ^
| May 26, 2005
| Editorial
Posted on 05/26/2005 5:17:06 AM PDT by OESY
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
1
posted on
05/26/2005 5:17:06 AM PDT
by
OESY
To: OESY
Farm Subsidies by another name are still Farm Subsidies - and they all are nothing more than a government handout or welfare program.
2
posted on
05/26/2005 5:19:19 AM PDT
by
TheBattman
(Islam (and liberals)- the cult of Satan)
To: OESY
Just like there was a report yesterday the we have overbuilt golf courses, we have overbuilt ethanol plants. I would not invest any of my money in it.
To: OESY
Bio-diesel would be far more intelligent. Then we could replace 100% of the petrochemical content in gasoline.
4
posted on
05/26/2005 5:24:24 AM PDT
by
.cnI redruM
("Every man's your brother 'til the rent comes due" - Anon.)
To: OESY
This Nation is spending itself, and our greatgrandchildren into the ground. Where is the goobermint going to get the money to pay for their special-interest largesse? The taxpayers... that's where.
It is way past time for the professional political class to remember that this country was founded in a tax revolt, and we are damnewd close to another one.
This time, it won't be tea that gets spilled.
5
posted on
05/26/2005 5:25:24 AM PDT
by
clee1
(We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
To: .cnI redruM
As one who has worked in the bio fuels realm, bio diesel has a lot of promise but is not supported by the engine manufacturers. Ethanol is pretty established, and will run in dang near anything. Where I used to work, we had guys running straight 200 proof on lawn mowers, tractors, and one guy using it on a sprint car.
Funny thing is, most ethanol plants are more for making cattle feed than the fuel grade ethanol. Cattle producers have figured out that a ration of distillers grains improves yield and makes leaner cows than if the straight corn was used. Distillers grains has more protein and less carbs, and doesn't upset the cows stomach as much.
6
posted on
05/26/2005 5:51:23 AM PDT
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: redgolum
>>>Distillers grains has more protein and less carbs, and doesn't upset the cows stomach as much
Amazing how that changes when you actually distill those grains.
7
posted on
05/26/2005 5:55:28 AM PDT
by
.cnI redruM
("Every man's your brother 'til the rent comes due" - Anon.)
To: redgolum
You have violated one of the most sacred of all FreeRebublic rules:
You know what you're talking about.
8
posted on
05/26/2005 5:59:02 AM PDT
by
Mr. Lucky
To: .cnI redruM
Yep, yeast eat the starch, and in general don't like the proteins. Cows stomachs are more geared for cellulose food instead of starch. The outer shell of the corn kernel is mainly cellulose, and so it works out rather well.
9
posted on
05/26/2005 5:59:49 AM PDT
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: Mr. Lucky
You have violated one of the most sacred of all FreeRebublic rules: You know what you're talking about. I'm sorry! I will feed the Viking Kitties nothing but fresh dolphin tuna for the next week!
10
posted on
05/26/2005 6:07:26 AM PDT
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: clee1
"It is way past time for the professional political class to remember that this country was founded in a tax revolt, and we are damnewd close to another one." Americans today aren't made of a tenth of the the stuff of Revolutionary Americans. Americans today will just continue to take it until the country implodes. Rather than witnessing the start of a tax revolt, we're just witnessing the end of a nation.
11
posted on
05/26/2005 6:21:11 AM PDT
by
T.Smith
To: .cnI redruM
It will never happen. the oil companies will block it.
To: OESY
" ...but it seems Republicans are only too happy to preserve one of his legacies. As the Senate turns... to its uninspired energy bill, the majority party is busy passing an enormous ethanol mandate that would make even corn farmers blush."Gee, that's funny. Our Mininapolis paper ran a piece praising our democrat senator for being the driving force behind this.
Dayton to Pump Ethanol
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5423968.html
13
posted on
05/26/2005 7:09:34 AM PDT
by
MNnice
To: OESY
You still need tons of oil, pesticides and petrochemicals, oil again, and machinary, refining, and trucking to deliver the ethanol.
I know we have some supersuper bright people out there who can think of something else.
14
posted on
05/26/2005 8:11:21 AM PDT
by
OpusatFR
(I live in a swamp and reuse, recycle, refurbish, grow my own, ride a bike and vote gop)
To: OpusatFR
Evil & stupid all this is.
1. ethanol is crap, no power, might as well light farts.
2. Costs many times more than anything else.
3. Only stupid people would go for it, woops, answered my own question.......
15
posted on
05/26/2005 10:57:30 AM PDT
by
norraad
("What light!">Blues Brothers)
To: norraad
Ethanol is not crap.. true it has less energy per gallon, but it burns cooler, with virtually no detonation, which means you can turn up the timing advance skyhigh and the boost if you're running a blower, and make killer power with ethanol.
As for cost, I'm not going to give specific names and locations, but I know from relatives that used to make it for "consumption" purposes and also used it to fuel the runner vehicles, when the figured production cost, that it cost about $30 to set up everything to have the materials to get started, but once it was running, it cost 2 cents per gallon to make, when gasoline was costing 15-20 cents per gallon.
16
posted on
05/26/2005 12:14:52 PM PDT
by
Schwaeky
(Attention Liberal Catholics---The Caffeteria is officially and permanently CLOSED!)
To: norraad
Only stupid people would go for it. Ethanol for June delivery is presently quoted on the Chicago Board of Trade at $1.19 per gallon. What did you pay for your last gallon of gasoline?
To: Mr. Lucky
Alot cheaper than $1.19 if equally subsidized.
18
posted on
05/26/2005 8:51:51 PM PDT
by
norraad
("What light!">Blues Brothers)
To: Schwaeky
Yes, I understand & agree 100%.
If the powers that be (whom I term Sneakyman Inc.) wanted cleanliness, efficiency, etc., we would have had HPFI (high pressure fuel injection) 60~70 years ago & would never have needed Mid-east oil.
It's not about what we think it's about.
19
posted on
05/26/2005 9:07:21 PM PDT
by
norraad
("What light!">Blues Brothers)
To: norraad
The $1.19 price contains no subsidy. This is the value of a gallon of pure ethanol.
The subsidy is a "blending credit" received by the oil company (not the farmer or corn processor) for mixing ethanol with gasoline.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson