Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 07/10/2012 2:10:04 PM PDT by KeyLargo
So what? West Virginians will continue to pull the (D)emoncrapfromhell lever just like their grandpappy for them, and his grandpappy before him, and his grandpappy before him, and his grandpappy before him....
“So what? West Virginians will continue to pull the (D)emoncrapfromhell lever just like their grandpappy for them, and his grandpappy before him, and his grandpappy before him, and his grandpappy before him....”
July 3, 2012,
In West Virginia, Coal Means More, Party Less
By MICAH COHEN
Barring a truly shocking turn of events, Mitt Romney will win West Virginia’s five electoral votes. The state is rural, culturally conservative and religious. Of the 50 states, West Virginia has the fifth highest share of gun owners, the third oldest median age and one of the least diverse and least educated populations — all variables associated with Republican Party affiliation. After decades of Democratic dominance, West Virginia voted for the Republican candidate in the last three presidential elections.
Just like Georgia, the last state profiled in this series, West Virginia has gone from solid blue to solid red on presidential electoral maps. But unlike Georgia, West Virginia still elects Democrats in statewide races. Both of West Virginia’s senators are Democrats, as is the state’s governor. Democrats claims large majorities in the State Senate and the West Virginia House of Delegates. And Democrats still maintain almost a 2-1 registration edge over Republicans in the state.
READ AT:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/in-west-virginia-coal-means-more-party-less/
natural gas produced from shale is actually responsible for spewing significantly more greenhouse gases than coal.
Even if it's true, I don't give a rat's behind. All I said was that if market forces (which also don't give a rat's behind about CO2 emissions) drive coal out of the market, then I have no problem with it.
That's true, but the same can be said about oil's replacing whale oil in the 19th century.
Whatever works best for consumers is what will win. Your comment makes it sound as if I want coal to be eliminated as an energy source. I don't care one way or the other -- as long as consumers and entrepreneurs make decisions based on what's best economically for them.
Which is EXACTLY the way the corrupt WV GOP wants it. Think about it. 2012 will be the FOURTH consecutive Presidential election that WV will back the Republican candidate. This means that tens of thousands of Rats are SPLITTING their ballots, and the WV GOP STILL can't make inroads.
And yes there are forces artificially driving the market. You'd be foolish to think not.
The EPA haven't caught up with it yet. Maybe because it is perceived as more green. Maybe because people have been bought off. But be warned, its next! Especially if nat gas is obtained via fracking.
Oh, I agree with you completely that natural gas obtained through fracking is the next target -- once they've killed coal. I am only saying that I don't mind seeing coal replaced by natural gas if consumers make the decision.
OK? You don't disagree with that, do you?
A good example: E10 and E85 both are cheaper at the pump than clear gas.
Rhetorical question: Why would an additive based, blended, gasoline that is more difficult to store and transport and requires mixing be cheaper?
As a consequence, you can't find clear gas in my neck of the woods anywhere. A few years ago, E10 was only required a couple of months out the year. Now you can't find clear gas at all at any time of the year. There was one hold out gas station near me but the owner finally gave in. He couldn't compete.
So, the market forces have chosen the “cheapest” solution... even though it is not the cheapest accounting for all costs.
Not in New York State, they're not. But for the last year or so, I can't find real gas, either. I don't think the market had a thing to do with that. My mileage dropped from 22mpg to 18mpg when the last station in my area stopped selling the good stuff.
Perhaps the wholesale market chose the cheapest solution under pressure from refiners who had to get rid of the corn-stuff. It certainly wasn't consumer-driven in these parts.
Commodity price ($/gal)
(Wednesday)
Regular gasoline 2.77
Ethanol 2.23
Interesting. Here in Colorado E10 is cheaper. Why the one hold out finally gave in as I mentioned above. I’d drive an extra 10 miles to get the clear gas and had regular discussions with the owner. He finally told me ... no more clear gas.
It is a federal requirement here to sell E10 during the cold months and optional the rest of the year even though all stations sell it exclusively, now. Believe me — I have looked every where for clear gas. My old car doesn’t run well on the ethanol. Plus, the rust/water issue.
Is it required in New York?
Oh, gosh. I don't know -- probably is. I can't keep up with all the regulations the New York City contingent concocts in Albany. When the last chain to offer real gasoline stopped selling it, I asked why and got blank stares from the employees -- honest blank stares, I don't think they'd ever thought about it and no one had evidently asked.
The kicker was when the gas stations on the Indian reservations all went to ethanol, too. The Indians generally buy their gas from Pennsylvania refiners. They didn't have any idea why it had changed, either. I just don't think gasoline consumers even think about it. Or most of them, anyway.
I assumed [I'm usually wrong when I do that] that the refineries just weren't selling it anymore. No one apparently checked their mileage, either -- except me. At any rate, there's been no discussion of it in the media and when I bring up the issue, people aren't even aware they ever had an option.
So, thus, my puny opinion that the consumer-market didn't make this decision, it was made for us.
Ethanol: I'd like to see a study or post mortem review of how much ethanol has improved emissions. 10% (E10) seems insignificant. On the other hand, there is a noticeable drop in mpg. So that means, all transportation has to burn more gallons to cover the same distance.
So...
1. Does consuming more gallons of E10 to cover the same distance translate into more pollution? Or does it break even?
2. How much more per gallon does it cost the consumer since we are consuming more gallons? This is easy to compute. Guess ~ 10 cents? more per gallon? Most of us will drive miles to save a few pennies per gallon.
3. What REAL PRICE of a gallon of E10 with all of the hidden subsidies and kickbacks removed?
4. Ethanol is mostly created from corn. Means less corn supply. Corn is a key component in many other food sources. Does this drive the cost up for those food sources?
5. Ethanol is more difficult to store and transport. How does this affect cost?
I bet if you had hard facts and answers for the above questions, you'd have to ask the question: why are we using ethanol? It doesn't make economic sense and has negligible impact on emissions.
Absolutely -- no question about it. And don't forget that it costs more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than the energy that gallon provides. This forced-ethanolization is a perfect example of the government's subsidizing one group (corn farmers) at the expense of virtually everyone else.
There is no energy or emissions gain whatsoever, everyone knows, it -- yet no one is willing to stop it.
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.