Posted on
Monday, October 29, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
Congress Should Not Provide New Ethanol Subsidies
Editor's Note: Comments this week are on the topic: Do you think Congress would be wise to provide huge new subsidies to boost the marketing and consumption of ethanol, or should emphasis be on trying to develop other technological breakthroughs in energy?
NO QUICK FIX
Renewable Fuels Association president, Bob Dineen, needs to get used to being on the losing side of the Ethanol discussion. Perhaps he'd be a good candidate for presidency of the Flat Earth Society, for which there has been a vast conspiracy aimed at undermining its beliefs by a coordinated offensive of mistruths.
Obviously not a student of history, Mr. Dineen appears never to have heard of multiple efforts in prior decades to make economic sense of the alchemy of making alcohol out of corn. Ed Wallace, a highly respected energy historian writing in Business Week magazine has, on multiple occasions, been a voice in the dark patiently explaining the facts that the corn lobby would prefer we side-step.
Too many "mistruths" supported by science, economics, and history debunk the idea that large scale Ethanol production benefits ANYONE, other than the corn growers and the makers and marketers of this walking dead idea that can survive only as long as the government is willing to use our tax dollars to prop it up.
Depletion of the water table and escalation of food prices only scratch the surface of the damage we'll endure from this bad idea that satisfies only those who desperately search for anything that rings of renewable energy and independence from foreign oil.
Rather than wise, I'd say typical is a word that fits the further congressional subsidy of Ethanol. I once thought people in high places of government had some kind of special sense of awareness of what we commoners can't see. I now believe that they live in a hurricane alley of the winds of influence which so distract them from obvious facts as to render them blind.
We endured years and years of damage to our water supply caused by the government's knowingly relenting to influence peddlers for an impulsive replacement of lead in gasoline, MTBE. After we find that every water source in the country shows contamination by this substance, we are told that the scientific community knew of its dangers from the beginning. The rush to cure the lead problem sacrificed clean water in the race to clean the air.
So, if history tells us anything, we can expect this Frankenstein creation of the corn lobby and shallow government, to decimate the present and foreseeable crop of gasoline engines (despite "flex fuel" promises), raise our taxes, raise food prices, and create enough other bad outcomes to insure its demise. The only good may be the slingshot growth of diesel engine production for cars, closing the gap between the US and Europe's 60% of all automobiles now powered with diesel fuel.
While truth typically wins in the end, with our government, that end seems to take a very long time. On the way, we get wrapped up in the heat of the debate, rather than the facts that inundate us.
Enjoy yourself, Mr. Dineen. Your troubles have just begun. You will find no quick fix of our dependence on petroleum without destroying the very fabric or our economy.
Stephen Westmoreland
Tyler
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
Should ethanol have the majority of subsidies?
No, there are many projects underway for alternative renewable fuel sources. Ethanol will probably be our first stab at the problem because every vehicle that will burn a 10% blend and a 10% reduction in imported oil and atmospheric emissions is better than nothing.
Modifications to the engine and injectors are needed to burn E-85 (85%) ethanol. The hard fact remains that the BTU content of ethanol is 20% less than gasoline and this translates into 20% less power and 20% less fuel economy for a higher priced fuel.
Everyone raves about making fuel out of corn, well, you can bet ethanol produced from corn produces just about as much energy as it takes to make it. Sugar cane on the other hand produces 10 times the energy that it takes to make it.
The only problem with sugar cane is that geographically there's not much land in North America suited to raising sugar cane. We could import it from Brazil, but then we would be in the same boat, relying on potentially unstable governments for our energy.
Bio-diesel, made from any vegetable mass, in a 20% (B-20) blend has only 1% less BTU per gallon than petroleum diesel. Even though neat (100%) B-100 bio-diesel has 10% less BTU, the cetane number is higher and test results note very little difference in performance or gas mileage.
The cetane number rates the combustion characteristics of diesel fuel. Most diesel fuels have a number between 45-55. The higher the number, the faster the fuel ignites. The high cetane number fuels are superior in high speed diesels. Most diesel engines will not need any alterations to burn the fuel due to the low sulfur modifications already made.
If we put all our eggs in the ethanol basket we will be passing up our long range goals of finding the best renewable energy source. I think bio-diesel hybrids for highway and plug in electrics for city will be the ticket. If we can combine the two, that would be all the better.
Mike Jones
Tyler
DECISION TIME
Congress has been giving away my tax money for a long time without public opposition. Now they're so used to it they seem to think it's their money and they can afford to pay for everthing: farm subsidies, ethanol use in subsidized vehicles, ethanol production, wind generation of electric power, and lots of things I'm sure I don't know about. I shouldn't mention "pork" in this setting, but it's just another waste of my tax money.
I don't think we should be using tax money to encourage production, distribution, and use of ethanol (vehicle purchase subsidies). If it's a viable option, let the market bear the financial burden. Otherwise, develop our own resources and use them wisely: on land, sea, and in forests! When we stop relying on foreign oil, they will quickly offer to sell it at a price that provides a reasonable profit.
I don't care about others' tax money, but I would like to see Congress stop all subsidies and use my tax money for something more worthy. Nor do I think Congress should pay anyone to develop other energy technologies. It's time they realized they are spending my money foolishly and should remove the unnatur- al environmental blockades imposed on energy production; such as, refineries, atomic power and coal-fired power plants and oil production wherever it's found!
I don't consider ethanol, wind, or batteries a substitute for gas. Either we must start producing a larger part of our oil and gas needs, or admit we have exceeded our standard of living and stay home and read like we did in the good old days.
Norm Beavers
Tyler
RUNAWAY SUBSIDIES
There are pros and cons when it comes to ethanol. Back in the '60s Brazil used straight alcohol for their automobile industry. The little oil they produced and the large amount they imported went solely to industry and economic production. Some sight the amount of water used.
Well folks, water is recycled all the time. The amount of water in our solar system is static, always the same. It is just located in different places at different times.
These same opposing views say it will affect food prices. The industry sells this line of thought so they can raise food cost. The biggest contributor to food cost lately is the cost of fuels to deliver and produce it. Who says farmers can only plant so much corn? Look at ADM (Archer Daniels Midland).
If people are scared and gullible enough to fall for all the scare tactics, we deserve to lose in the energy game. This country should and has to do all it can to produce enough fuels and energy to keep this nation going and competitive with other nations. If we don't, this country is going to become a third world nation, and it is well on it's way.
Electricity, fuels and even our water is being used to scare the people. There is no reason we shouldn't build more power plants to keep this nation advancing. There is no reason nuclear power can't be used. The world's oil will some day be gone. The problem with water is it is being horded in lakes and containers and not left to recycle like it should.
Subsidies for farmers should never have been started in the first place. If the powers that be would just butt out. The free market capitalist system that worked so well to get us through the industrial age would still be working if the tax man didn't kill off the little guy that really does the work and has all the ideas. Our state and federal governments have choked the life out of every thing it touches. "No" to subsidies. Why pay for the product with taxpayer money before it is even made? But that seems to be the American way anymore. Make the industries take risks. How do you think this nation got started anyway?
Was there a world welfare system that I didn't know about that gave every person with an idea taxpayer money to start the Market research and developed a product without them putting all their funds in first - subsidies.
Read about the beginning of the oil patch here in east Texas and see how it faltered and fell a few times before the producers finally got it right all without subsidies. Some went broke, the weak were washed out and believe it or not we got where we are today without subsidies. For many decades Yankee ingenuity, guts, and backbone got us to the '60s. Then subsidies, taxes, free love, flower power and socialists got the upper hand. But then that would be in the history they don't teach in our schools.
I can only say we can talk this to death and subsidies will always be around because big business and government want them. Why stop socialism now? It's only been going for 43 years now. It is still trying to give everyone everything.
But then most already know this as they stand with their hand out for more of what they have been told is free. One day we will pay the piper and it will not be subsidized. Then and only then will the realization that there is "no free lunch" slap us in the face. Till then we will continue to subsidize everything for every one. Folks, watch your wallets. A lot of our society still wants it all and wants it now.
Clarence G. Brown
Mineola
NO QUICK FIX
Renewable Fuels Association president, Bob Dineen, needs to get used to being on the losing side of the Ethanol discussion. Perhaps he'd be a good candidate for presidency of the Flat Earth Society, for which there has been a vast conspiracy aimed at undermining its beliefs by a coordinated offensive of mistruths.
Obviously not a student of history, Mr. Dineen appears never to have heard of multiple efforts in prior decades to make economic sense of the alchemy of making alcohol out of corn. Ed Wallace, a highly respected energy historian writing in Business Week magazine has, on multiple occasions, been a voice in the dark patiently explaining the facts that the corn lobby would prefer we side-step.
Too many "mistruths" supported by science, economics, and history debunk the idea that large scale Ethanol production benefits ANYONE, other than the corn growers and the makers and marketers of this walking dead idea that can survive only as long as the government is willing to use our tax dollars to prop it up.
Depletion of the water table and escalation of food prices only scratch the surface of the damage we'll endure from this bad idea that satisfies only those who desperately search for anything that rings of renewable energy and independence from foreign oil.
Rather than wise, I'd say typical is a word that fits the further congressional subsidy of Ethanol. I once thought people in high places of government had some kind of special sense of awareness of what we commoners can't see. I now believe that they live in a hurricane alley of the winds of influence which so distract them from obvious facts as to render them blind.
We endured years and years of damage to our water supply caused by the government's knowingly relenting to influence peddlers for an impulsive replacement of lead in gasoline, MTBE. After we find that every water source in the country shows contamination by this substance, we are told that the scientific community knew of its dangers from the beginning. The rush to cure the lead problem sacrificed clean water in the race to clean the air.
So, if history tells us anything, we can expect this Frankenstein creation of the corn lobby and shallow government, to decimate the present and foreseeable crop of gasoline engines (despite "flex fuel" promises), raise our taxes, raise food prices, and create enough other bad outcomes to insure its demise. The only good may be the slingshot growth of diesel engine production for cars, closing the gap between the US and Europe's 60% of all automobiles now powered with diesel fuel.
While truth typically wins in the end, with our government, that end seems to take a very long time. On the way, we get wrapped up in the heat of the debate, rather than the facts that inundate us.
Enjoy yourself, Mr. Dineen. Your troubles have just begun. You will find no quick fix of our dependence on petroleum without destroying the very fabric or our economy.
Stephen Westmoreland
Tyler
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
Should ethanol have the majority of subsidies?
No, there are many projects underway for alternative renewable fuel sources. Ethanol will probably be our first stab at the problem because every vehicle that will burn a 10% blend and a 10% reduction in imported oil and atmospheric emissions is better than nothing.
Modifications to the engine and injectors are needed to burn E-85 (85%) ethanol. The hard fact remains that the BTU content of ethanol is 20% less than gasoline and this translates into 20% less power and 20% less fuel economy for a higher priced fuel.
Everyone raves about making fuel out of corn, well, you can bet ethanol produced from corn produces just about as much energy as it takes to make it. Sugar cane on the other hand produces 10 times the energy that it takes to make it.
The only problem with sugar cane is that geographically there's not much land in North America suited to raising sugar cane. We could import it from Brazil, but then we would be in the same boat, relying on potentially unstable governments for our energy.
Bio-diesel, made from any vegetable mass, in a 20% (B-20) blend has only 1% less BTU per gallon than petroleum diesel. Even though neat (100%) B-100 bio-diesel has 10% less BTU, the cetane number is higher and test results note very little difference in performance or gas mileage.
The cetane number rates the combustion characteristics of diesel fuel. Most diesel fuels have a number between 45-55. The higher the number, the faster the fuel ignites. The high cetane number fuels are superior in high speed diesels. Most diesel engines will not need any alterations to burn the fuel due to the low sulfur modifications already made.
If we put all our eggs in the ethanol basket we will be passing up our long range goals of finding the best renewable energy source. I think bio-diesel hybrids for highway and plug in electrics for city will be the ticket. If we can combine the two, that would be all the better.
Mike Jones
Tyler
DECISION TIME
Congress has been giving away my tax money for a long time without public opposition. Now they're so used to it they seem to think it's their money and they can afford to pay for everthing: farm subsidies, ethanol use in subsidized vehicles, ethanol production, wind generation of electric power, and lots of things I'm sure I don't know about. I shouldn't mention "pork" in this setting, but it's just another waste of my tax money.
I don't think we should be using tax money to encourage production, distribution, and use of ethanol (vehicle purchase subsidies). If it's a viable option, let the market bear the financial burden. Otherwise, develop our own resources and use them wisely: on land, sea, and in forests! When we stop relying on foreign oil, they will quickly offer to sell it at a price that provides a reasonable profit.
I don't care about others' tax money, but I would like to see Congress stop all subsidies and use my tax money for something more worthy. Nor do I think Congress should pay anyone to develop other energy technologies. It's time they realized they are spending my money foolishly and should remove the unnatur- al environmental blockades imposed on energy production; such as, refineries, atomic power and coal-fired power plants and oil production wherever it's found!
I don't consider ethanol, wind, or batteries a substitute for gas. Either we must start producing a larger part of our oil and gas needs, or admit we have exceeded our standard of living and stay home and read like we did in the good old days.
Norm Beavers
Tyler
RUNAWAY SUBSIDIES
There are pros and cons when it comes to ethanol. Back in the '60s Brazil used straight alcohol for their automobile industry. The little oil they produced and the large amount they imported went solely to industry and economic production. Some sight the amount of water used.
Well folks, water is recycled all the time. The amount of water in our solar system is static, always the same. It is just located in different places at different times.
These same opposing views say it will affect food prices. The industry sells this line of thought so they can raise food cost. The biggest contributor to food cost lately is the cost of fuels to deliver and produce it. Who says farmers can only plant so much corn? Look at ADM (Archer Daniels Midland).
If people are scared and gullible enough to fall for all the scare tactics, we deserve to lose in the energy game. This country should and has to do all it can to produce enough fuels and energy to keep this nation going and competitive with other nations. If we don't, this country is going to become a third world nation, and it is well on it's way.
Electricity, fuels and even our water is being used to scare the people. There is no reason we shouldn't build more power plants to keep this nation advancing. There is no reason nuclear power can't be used. The world's oil will some day be gone. The problem with water is it is being horded in lakes and containers and not left to recycle like it should.
Subsidies for farmers should never have been started in the first place. If the powers that be would just butt out. The free market capitalist system that worked so well to get us through the industrial age would still be working if the tax man didn't kill off the little guy that really does the work and has all the ideas. Our state and federal governments have choked the life out of every thing it touches. "No" to subsidies. Why pay for the product with taxpayer money before it is even made? But that seems to be the American way anymore. Make the industries take risks. How do you think this nation got started anyway?
Was there a world welfare system that I didn't know about that gave every person with an idea taxpayer money to start the Market research and developed a product without them putting all their funds in first - subsidies.
Read about the beginning of the oil patch here in east Texas and see how it faltered and fell a few times before the producers finally got it right all without subsidies. Some went broke, the weak were washed out and believe it or not we got where we are today without subsidies. For many decades Yankee ingenuity, guts, and backbone got us to the '60s. Then subsidies, taxes, free love, flower power and socialists got the upper hand. But then that would be in the history they don't teach in our schools.
I can only say we can talk this to death and subsidies will always be around because big business and government want them. Why stop socialism now? It's only been going for 43 years now. It is still trying to give everyone everything.
But then most already know this as they stand with their hand out for more of what they have been told is free. One day we will pay the piper and it will not be subsidized. Then and only then will the realization that there is "no free lunch" slap us in the face. Till then we will continue to subsidize everything for every one. Folks, watch your wallets. A lot of our society still wants it all and wants it now.
Clarence G. Brown
Mineola
FAQ
Log in
Register
Re: Debate not Dishonor - 11/06/09 03:25:00 PM
Debate not Dishonor - 11/06/09 02:09:00 AM
Father's Advice - 11/05/09 10:34:00 AM
Re: (No heading) - 11/04/09 12:38:00 PM
What ever happened to states rights? - 11/03/09 08:10:00 PM
UP IN SMOKE - 11/03/09 07:31:00 PM
House Health care bill - 11/03/09 04:22:00 PM
Re: So what's the solution to the healthcare crisis? - 11/03/09 03:02:00 PM