TexasCHLforum.com

I say cut all subsidies.

WHY ETHANOL SUBSIDIES?

There's really a very good reason for government ethanol subsidies and mandates: they've been bought and paid for.

Some years back when I was living in PROM (People's Republic of Minnesota) the legislature mandated that gasoline be diluted with ethanol. (Initially during the winter, but now I think it's year-round.) A local newspaper did a little research, and found that there was an almost perfect correlation between legislators that wanted gasoline diluted with ethanol, and legislators who'd received contributions from ADM - Archer Daniels Midland - then one of the largest producers of fuel ethanol in the country.

ADM got a LOT of value for their lobbying dollars.

I don't think it will be any different at the Federal level when it comes to those supporting subsidies and those receiving something of value from ethanol producers.

ScottDLS wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:Another burr in my saddle is that they are singling out corn. You can get ethanol for fuel from anything that contains cellulose. Leaves, grass clippings, wood chips, etc. are all good sources of cellulose. We considered doing E85 conversions and/or buying a flex fuel vehicle and building our own still (the BATFE permit had a very reasonable fee) but we decided at the time it was not well suited for neighborhood living. If we get any land around us at any point we might reconsider.

True, but most non-corn, non-grain ethanol takes a whole lot more energy to produce, thereby making it even more un-economic than corn ethanol already is... Excuse me while I power up my electric car from a coal powered generating plant... Also, thank goodness for the coal fired Chicomm nickel smelter that built my Leaf battery...

LOL. I got into a discussion after I bought a Gen I Prius to save on gas (immediately had to put a $3500 battery in it ) and someone made the comment about how it was good for the environment. I said I was hoping to save gas money by buying used but it is hardly any better for the environment. You have the smelters you pointed out and THEN you have to dispose of a 400# battery when they go out. You can't just chop up the car like a regular auto because now you have a hazmat situation. The Leaf is a good example as well, though it is way cheaper on fuel, especially if you mostly commute, but you have massive batteries to manufacture and dispose of.

The Eco crowd loves them though, I guess it is an out of sight out of mind kind of thing like the BP cleanup. There they buried the oil and its dispersant toxins. It looks better but people are getting sick and dying, massive sea life kills are happening but they can come on television and say, "See, BP kept their promise, look how nice it looks!"

BTW, I was commenting on how corn was singled out for subsidy when there is massive amounts of vegetable waste that can be used and NOT impact the food supply. That is why I brought up the still thing. The efficiency would be suitable and economical for a single family though.

Dragonfighter wrote:BTW, I was commenting on how corn was singled out for subsidy when there is massive amounts of vegetable waste that can be used and NOT impact the food supply. That is why I brought up the still thing. The efficiency would be suitable and economical for a single family though.

I remember seeing this book in the library ten years ago as a kid. http://www.amazon.com/Browns-Alcohol-Mo ... 0879473002" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Long thread. I think I read it all and failed to see anyone comment on the fact that corn is at an historic high. I think not since the civil war has corn sold for $7/bu.

So when should this subsidy end?.....at $50/bu?...$1000/bu? What a scam. Same thing goes of oil subsidy.

The patients have taken over the asylum.

flb_78 wrote:I say cut all subsidies.

I've been saying this for years. Cut all subsidies to all private companies. Our tax dollars should not be going to prop up private industry. If a company can't survive in the free market, it's obviously not providing a product or service the public wants.

Kythas wrote:

flb_78 wrote:I say cut all subsidies.

I've been saying this for years. Cut all subsidies to all private companies. Our tax dollars should not be going to prop up private industry. If a company can't survive in the free market, it's obviously not providing a product or service the public wants.

I'm in general agreement with this, but not as an absolute.
All governments subsidize pet industries to some extent. The best use is for desirable startups that might take a few years to be viable.
There are lots of benefits like employment money going into a poor community. The problem is they never go away. the federal government subsidizes the most outrageous products, just because they always have. At the very least, They should have a short term (3 years) with a mandatory sunset provision.

Ethanol - Brazil does pretty well with it, but they are going at it a more efficient way - by making it from sugar cane.
We could do that in places like the Southern US, Puerto Rico, etc. Their economies need it, and it's a much more efficient process.
But there aren't as many votes available.

I'd also vote for biodiesel. Conversion from plants seems to be more efficient, and the engines are more efficient. Peugot just announced a diesel hybrid that get 74 mpg highway.
I can't believe it took that long for a diesel hybrid to hit the market.

As for the lead being a problem in used hybrids or electrics, lead is not a problem. Lead is almost 100% recycled. It's valuable - a used conventional car battery is currently worth $10.
If anyone (like the state of Texas) charges you a fee to recycle a used battery, you are being scammed.

It's easy to say, "cut subsidies," but it never happens. They go on regardless of who is in control of Congress or the White House.

The U.S. government started a helium reserve near Amarillo in the 1920s. At that time capturing helium (from natural gas) was technically difficult and expensive. Helium was considered a strategic material for use in dirigibles in some hypothetical future war.

Helium production has become cheap, and you can buy helium pretty much like carbon dioxide or any other gas.

In the 1990s, the congressman from Illinois who represented me, Harris Fawell, was single-mindedly dedicated to eliminating the helium reserve. He got a law passed in 1996 that called for privatizing the operation by 2005.

The helium reserve is still in operation, still subsidized by the federal government. Currently you can find scare articles about the need for more regulation before the world runs out of helium.

I don't know the answer to this problem. Every "special interest group" has a small group of voters in some critical district or wealthy donors and a powerful senator or congressman who makes sure they are taken care of.

- Jim

philip964 wrote:
Although it makes no sense to make ethanol from corn to burn in our cars, other than to prop up corn prices. It does work from the standpoint of trying to solve our energy needs from multiple sources. Which I think is not a bad idea on its own.

Supposedly they are working on ways to make ethanol from the corn stalks which I think is a way better idea.

It take 3-4 gal of gas to make 1 gal of Ethanol. Remember Ethanol was first billed as a CLEAN fuel. When it was not clean, it was better then gas. When it was not better then gas, it was to get us off foriegn oil. As it is now... its a bad fuel source.

Vecco wrote:

philip964 wrote:
Although it makes no sense to make ethanol from corn to burn in our cars, other than to prop up corn prices. It does work from the standpoint of trying to solve our energy needs from multiple sources. Which I think is not a bad idea on its own.

Supposedly they are working on ways to make ethanol from the corn stalks which I think is a way better idea.

It take 3-4 gal of gas to make 1 gal of Ethanol. Remember Ethanol was first billed as a CLEAN fuel. When it was not clean, it was better then gas. When it was not better then gas, it was to get us off foriegn oil. As it is now... its a bad fuel source.

I agree that corn ethanol is a bad fuel source however there are many other ways to extract it that have better yeild that need to be looked at the problem is the special intrest groups in this country (all of them) have way too much power.

John Huntsman, prospective Republican candidate for president, former governor of Utah, said today that he will not compete in the Iowa caucuses because he is opposed to subsidies for agricultural crops and ethanol.

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2 ... h-florida/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:John Huntsman, prospective Republican candidate for president, former governor of Utah, said today that he will not compete in the Iowa caucuses because he is opposed to subsidies for agricultural crops and ethanol.

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2 ... h-florida/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

Sounds to me like he is baiting all the other candidates in the running. Say you're for them then he'll attack as not beings serious about cost cutting. Say you agree with him and you tank in the caucus.