TexasCHLforum.com

Ok, so Romney said that he supports ethanol subsidies, which I strongly dislike. There is quite a bit of evidence out there that shows ethanol to be a bad alternative for economic and efficiency reasons (it has less energy density, causes shifts in the food market, would require more farmland than is available to make enough ethanol to provide sufficient fuel...etc). My question is: If he is willing to make such a lame concession to corn farmer special interest groups, what might he accept from other special interest groups, lets say anti-2nd amendment groups, out of political/financial pressures?

Lonest4r wrote:Ok, so Romney said that he supports ethanol subsidies, which I strongly dislike. There is quite a bit of evidence out there that shows ethanol to be a bad alternative for economic and efficiency reasons (it has less energy density, causes shifts in the food market, would require more farmland than is available to make enough ethanol to provide sufficient fuel...etc). My question is: If he is willing to make such a lame concession to corn farmer special interest groups, what might he accept from other special interest groups, lets say anti-2nd amendment groups, out of political/financial pressures?

The answer is: "Almost anything." He is not a small government conservative. He is a political opportunist. First, he was willing to put his name on a healthcare bill which mirrors Obamacare; then he excoriated Obamacare as unconstitutional and swears he will repeal it. I wonder if he, like Christie says about NJ, thinks that Massachusetts' gun laws are fine as they are.

I agree that there is no scientific or economic rationale for the use of ethanol as a motor fuel. The details are fully documented for anyone who wants to search for them.

No candidate who doesn't pretend to know which end of a cow the milk comes out of is going to win the Iowa caucuses.

This is what happens when the primary system allows a few hundred thousand voters in Iowa and New Hampshire—who are not at all a demographic cross-section of the entire United States—to determine the major-party candidates.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:I agree that there is no scientific or economic rationale for the use of ethanol as a motor fuel.- Jim

Besides, it's a perfectly good waste of whiskey material.

e85 lacks in btu bottom line. yes its another sorce of fuel. the cost at the pump is equal to or greater the 87. We now have the ability to burn diesel very cleanly and devlop greater amounts of power and torque. Diesel pump prices have gone up as well but IMO making cars that can go farther faster and longer still make diesel a good sorce. the other thing is that there are so many sorces of fuel theat can be burned or recyclied in to diesel fuel that there is no reason to really go after the e85 market.

For Obama to loose the election, the Republicans must have a good candidate that the majority of the country will vote for.

Until this post I thought Romney had the best chance and maybe he still does as this statement is still in line with his middle of the road stature.

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.

My diesel is great. No power but great.

I'm not sure whether this thread is supposed to about how worthless ethanol subsidies are or how feckless Romney is.

It's true that diesel engines have improved over the past 30 years and are a viable alternative to gasoline engines, and we can now exploit sources of diesel fuel that are not based directly on petroleum.

However, the 200 million or so gasoline-powered vehicles in the U.S. would remain in service for approximately the next 20 years even if every vehicle produced, starting Tuesday, was a diesel.

If ethanol can be made from trash and weeds, fine. Bring it on. Ethanol needs to compete on a level economic playing field. Motor fuel taxes fund interstate highways. Unless you want to take your chances with gaping potholes and collapsing bridges, we need to pay for maintaining those highways.

- Jim

Most of the people who suggest ethanol or other alternative fuels are not scientists or engineers and don't understand the basic laws of thermodynamics.

If ethanol can make it as an alternative fuel without subsidies, then it deserves to succeed. If not, then not.

tacticool wrote:If ethanol can make it as an alternative fuel without subsidies, then it deserves to succeed. If not, then not.

Verily, if an industry cannot stand on it's own, it should fall.

seamusTX wrote:I'm not sure whether this thread is supposed to about how worthless ethanol subsidies are or how feckless Romney is.

Perhaps it was a little of both. I just don't want that kind of leadership for this country. This country needs a leader who can make decisions based upon rational decision making and common sense, rather than his own pocketbook and interest groups.

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.

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...

Lonest4r wrote:This country needs a leader who can make decisions based upon rational decision making and common sense, rather than his own pocketbook and interest groups.

Certainly we need that, but the president does not decide on his own authority that the U.S. will or won't have ethanol subsidies. These things have been voted through Congress and signed by presidents of both parties for something like 33 years now.

If you really want your blood pressure to skyrocket, look into sugar subsidies.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote: This is what happens when the primary system allows a few hundred thousand voters in Iowa and New Hampshire—who are not at all a demographic cross-section of the entire United States—to determine the major-party candidates.

- Jim

Nailed it.