Senate votes to end $6 billion in ethanol subsidies (73-27)

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=309210

GOOD!
cuhulin

On 06/16/2011 07:52 PM, wrote:
> http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=309210
>
> GOOD!
> cuhulin
>

I agree, just because something happens to be an "alternative fuel"
doesn't mean it's a good idea. Now if ethanol could be produced in a
way that was actually renewable, i'd be all for it.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message >
> I agree, just because something happens to be an "alternative fuel"
> doesn't mean it's a good idea. Now if ethanol could be produced in a
> way that was actually renewable, i'd be all for it.
>
> nate

It IS renewable, whether made from sugar cane, potatoes, or corn.
It just isnt a good deal. It is a pork pie from congress to Archer
Daniels Midland.
There MUST be better ways.

Nate Nagel > wrote in
:

> On 06/16/2011 07:52 PM, wrote:
>> http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=309210
>>
>> GOOD!
>> cuhulin
>>
>
> I agree, just because something happens to be an "alternative fuel"
> doesn't mean it's a good idea. Now if ethanol could be produced in a
> way that was actually renewable, i'd be all for it.
>



And if perpetual-motion machines were available for sale, I'd buy one.
Ethanol is, and always will be, a loser.

I'm frankly shocked the Senate actually had the guts to risk votes trying
to kill this monster. Then again, the bill has an uphill fight against the
House and Obama, so the Senate may end up being able to have its cake and
eat it too.

--
Tegger

On 2011-06-17, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> On 06/16/2011 07:52 PM, wrote:
>> http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=309210
>>
>> GOOD!
>> cuhulin
>>
>
> I agree, just because something happens to be an "alternative fuel"
> doesn't mean it's a good idea. Now if ethanol could be produced in a
> way that was actually renewable, i'd be all for it.

It is. From sugar cane. The feds put high tarrifs on imported ethanol
because it's cheaper than corn ethanol. So only HI gets sugar cane
ethanol if anywhere in the US.

On 2011-06-17, hls > wrote:
>
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message >
>> I agree, just because something happens to be an "alternative fuel"
>> doesn't mean it's a good idea. Now if ethanol could be produced in a
>> way that was actually renewable, i'd be all for it.
>>
>> nate
>
> It IS renewable, whether made from sugar cane, potatoes, or corn.
> It just isnt a good deal. It is a pork pie from congress to Archer
> Daniels Midland.
> There MUST be better ways.

We already have the best way for the system we have. The best way for
those who hold political office and those close to them.

A better way for us requires a system where each of us decide for
ourself.

But americans still by and large prefer to be treated like children and
have other people make decisions for them.

On 06/16/2011 08:45 PM, hls wrote:
>
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message >
>> I agree, just because something happens to be an "alternative fuel"
>> doesn't mean it's a good idea. Now if ethanol could be produced in a
>> way that was actually renewable, i'd be all for it.
>>
>> nate
>
> It IS renewable, whether made from sugar cane, potatoes, or corn.
> It just isnt a good deal. It is a pork pie from congress to Archer
> Daniels Midland.
> There MUST be better ways.
>

I don't consider it renewable if it takes an equivalent amount of other
(usually fossil fuel) energy to produce. Now if you could power all
your farm equipment on ethanol and still have some left over to sell,
then it'd be "renewable."

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel > wrote in news:iteehb01894
@news7.newsguy.com:

> On 06/16/2011 08:45 PM, hls wrote:
>>
>> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message >
>>> I agree, just because something happens to be an "alternative fuel"
>>> doesn't mean it's a good idea. Now if ethanol could be produced in a
>>> way that was actually renewable, i'd be all for it.
>>>
>>> nate
>>
>> It IS renewable, whether made from sugar cane, potatoes, or corn.
>> It just isnt a good deal. It is a pork pie from congress to Archer
>> Daniels Midland.
>> There MUST be better ways.
>>
>
> I don't consider it renewable if it takes an equivalent amount of other
> (usually fossil fuel) energy to produce. Now if you could power all
> your farm equipment on ethanol and still have some left over to sell,
> then it'd be "renewable."
>
> nate
>

With the advances made it is now almost 2 to 1 return now. It may not
be suger cane but the energy used to make ethanol from corn is MUCH less
than even 2 years ago. AND it keeps $ in OUR country not some dam idiot
hell bent on killing us alls pocket. That is not a throw away deal. KB

"Kevin Bottorff" > wrote in message news:itfia3>
> With the advances made it is now almost 2 to 1 return now. It may not
> be suger cane but the energy used to make ethanol from corn is MUCH less
> than even 2 years ago. AND it keeps $ in OUR country not some dam idiot
> hell bent on killing us alls pocket. That is not a throw away deal. KB

That corn takes a lot of ammonia based fertilizer to grow well, and that
comes normally from petroleum. Admittedly, recovered corn mash from
a distillation process could still be used in animal feed, and would
probably
make old "Daisy" even more contented.

I like ethanol as a fuel in many ways, but I dont believe the ADM, Congress,
conspiracy was meant to help the most of us.

Keeping our money out of the hands of foreigners (or Americans) who
have no loyalty to us is perhaps a good idea. We have enough natural
gas here in the continental USA to last for a long long time.

I just see this all as a helterskelter grab for subsidy funds.

hls wrote:
>
> "Kevin Bottorff" > wrote in message news:itfia3>
> > With the advances made it is now almost 2 to 1 return now. It may not
> > be suger cane but the energy used to make ethanol from corn is MUCH less
> > than even 2 years ago. AND it keeps $ in OUR country not some dam idiot
> > hell bent on killing us alls pocket. That is not a throw away deal. KB
>
> That corn takes a lot of ammonia based fertilizer to grow well, and that
> comes normally from petroleum

No it Doesn't. Nowadays nitrogen is made using natural gas.
And typically its made in places with a surplus of gas
and where it is uneconomical to ship it anywhere



> Admittedly, recovered corn mash from
> a distillation process could still be used in animal feed, and would
> probably
> make old "Daisy" even more contented.
>
> I like ethanol as a fuel in many ways, but I dont believe the ADM, Congress,
> conspiracy was meant to help the most of us.
>
> Keeping our money out of the hands of foreigners (or Americans) who
> have no loyalty to us is perhaps a good idea. We have enough natural
> gas here in the continental USA to last for a long long time.
>
> I just see this all as a helterskelter grab for subsidy funds.

They should end the subsidy. Tax it the same as gasoline
It won't change anything.
Ethanol is still cheaper than gasoline
It will still be blended with gasoline

What should be done is the EPA should
test fuel economy with ethanol blended gasoline
there are new cars that get better mileage with ethanol blends
than straight gasoline
but it is illegal in the US for the manufacturer to advertise the
mileage that a car gets with ethanol blends

In Brazil they test fuel economy with ethanol in the gas
and in Brazil they sell cars that get better fuel economy with ethanol
blends.