Help from the Government

[wdyasq]

Just in case one thinks the US government, and that newly elected congress (brand D thieves as opposed to brand R theives), is out to help the environment and the citizens of the United States, one should read this:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrasselpw/?id=110009578

The WSJ is conservative. But, they do understand business and the truth. They have called ethanol what it is, a subsidity to farmers, ethanol plant owners and others involved in the industry. The automotive fuel shortages, and $3 gallon gas, last year was not an 'oil company gouging and supply problem'. It was caused by mandating ethanol and the infrastructure necessary in a short time-span. In this article they take a look at the renewable energy 'push' and laws to 'help'.

"I love your daughter and want to marry her," he stated. "Of course, you do realize you are going to bea  grandfather don't you?"

SSDD.........

Ron

[drdongle]

I think that any time the government gets involved you need to run screaming in the opposite direction...........

[finnsawyer]

How do you get government uninvolved once it's involved?  I live in a State which is in the tank and losing population, but the pols want to carry on as usual.  Our lady Governor is currently preparing the populace to accept a tax increase to avoid a $200 loss per pupil in K through 12 funding.  At the same time the head of the local University is seeking cover behind local municipalities and law enforcement to avoid cut backs in state funding of the State Universities.  It doesn't seem to occur to anybody that in a shrinking state you need to shrink all government services.  I could go on, but I'll bite my tongue.  

[thefinis]

Hmmm subsidity for american farmers/businesses (ethanol)or middle east radicals (oil). Any policy that keeps our dollars at home rather than sending them out of the country is a step in the right direction. Even if it costs the gov (us) out of pocket money for each gallon of renewable fuel made here in the USA in the end it is a good investment without even taking into account environmental benifits. Each extra dollar spent here/kept here rolls over many times often creating more tax dollars than was spent. Check out the economic benifits/contributions that are calculated for a military base in a city. They usually figure that it turns over 4-6 times before becoming too diluted to track.

CO2 is made when any carbon containing fuel is burned even ethanol. I don't like the carbon system for measuring polution reduction. It smells of DC politics and big business and reminds me of the green credits. Not that green credits or carbon reduction is bad just the system that lets you keep polluting if you have enough money to spend.

The automotive fuel shortages, and $3 gallon gas, last year was not an 'oil company gouging and supply problem'. It was caused by mandating ethanol and the infrastructure necessary in a short time-span.

Not sure what you have been smoking but come back to reality. Here in Texas where we still have oil, there is very little available in ethanol mixes or biodiesel and no mandates to force it but the price of gas was still sky high. Oil company profits last year were some of the highest ever and with a bunch of oil men in the white house it just stands to reason that things are slanted to favor the petro business.

Finis

[Countryboy]

Let's not forget the government has done just about everything in its power to keep food prices low for decades.  A lot of family farms went under because they couldn't make ends meet farming.  Of course, large farms got enough government subsidies to stay afloat.

Now, we have the energy sector and ethanol competing for food grains.  Everyone needs to realize the days of $2 a bushel corn is gone.  Expect food prices to skyrocket now.

[wdyasq]

I was OK until you said,"Not sure what you have been smoking but come back to reality. Here in Texas where we still have oil, there is very little available in ethanol mixes or biodiesel and no mandates to force it but the price of gas was still sky high." The FACT is one puts SIX units of energy in to get ONE unit of ethanol out. That means, if one does the math, that to produce a gallon of ethanol (and get about 8% less fuel mileage for the 90/10 blend or 33% less for E85) one has to purchase the equivalent of six gallons of gasoline. Bio_diesel does show some promise. I'll bet it isn't a goobernment subsidy that properly develops it.  Which takes to your opening salvo...........

"Hmmm subsidity for american farmers/businesses (ethanol)or middle east radicals (oil)." - YES - by following the ethanol in gas the consumer is forced to buy MORE oil. Of course, the politician gets the vote. AND the oil companies afford whichever political party is in power. If you think the White house is responsible for the tax code ... you are a few years late on how things work in the logic free zone of Washington, DC.

It is easy to think the present occupant of the White House is responsible for all our problems. It is just plain stupid to think what is happening now started when one party or another did one deed or another.  

I'm waiting right now for that car that gets 80 miles per gallon the US government subsidized to the tune of $1.5 billion dollars in 1993 - promised by the last occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. OOPS - mistake there - There was an additional billion spent on 'related technologies'.  Oh, they developed a 70mpg car ... but not for the public. (you can look it up - provided you can do a decent search)

I am from Texas. I live here now. Texas has lower fuel prices than most the nation. Although I too consider them high. Of course, we could take all incentive away from the Oil Companies operating in America. That way there never will be a new refinery built and whatever oil is here will stay safely in the ground for politicians to bribed with after we are all dead. Personally, I believe Texas should become an independent nation and charge for all the oil and gas that  originates here or comes ashore here. I'm sure the "middle east radicals (oil)" would enjoy seeing the east coast 'freeze in the dark'.

Ron).

[RUFUS]

Ronald Ragan said:

   The words you dont want to hear; I'm from the government and i'm here to help.

[TAH]

6 gallons of gas to produce one gallon of ethanol? If that were so then it every farmer would be loosing money on every bushel of corn that they grow. The goverment "subsidy" on corn is around $2.00 a bushel. The current price is around $3.50 so there is no government money going for corn. I don't know where your numbers came from but many of the anti ethanol people include the solar energy that the corn grows on in their "math". I guess if there wasn't corn growing the fields would all be covered with solar panels.

The government farm subsidies have two purposes, to get the votes of people who think it helps farmers and to cause over production of food to keep prices down to get the votes of the rest of the people.

[ghurd]

History Channel, "Modern Marvels" a couple nights ago, claimed 1 gallon of gas gets 1.3 gallons of ethanol for corn.  Sugar cane was 8~11 to 1, and some kind of grass was that good, but had a larger yield per acre.

It was a good show.

G-

[finnsawyer]

Here in "Miss-it-again" the Government won't allow drilling for natural gas under Lake MIchigan.  Well, it'll be there for future exploitation.  Around here a lot of people put in those $5,000 outside wood furnaces.  There are two within 600 feet of my place.  And they do pollute.  Some municipalities have now outlawed them because of the smoke (they tend to smolder for long periods of time and burn green wood).  I may put one in this summer, as I have 50 acres of woods.  Say goodbye to the woods.  A lot of people in the Northeast also can use them.  If you leave people to their own devices they will find a solution.  No Government help needed.

Oh yeah, I could also start only sawing logs to lumber at my landing.  If I keep the slabs I'd have a good source of fuel.  Good thought there.

[thefinis]

I agree with much of what you say but I love to debate issuses and it often brings up points I did not know of. One problem with your math(which I don't agree with) is that to get that gallon of petro it takes a lot more than 1 gallon of oil. If you have the figures/ratio I would like to know what it takes to make a gallon of petro all energy costs included. It should include all the energy it took to find, research, lease, drill, clear roads, lay power lines, build pipe lines, oil and gas wasted at site in transport or at refinery, any energy used to transport oil either in pipes or trucks, energy used in refining and well production, and energy used now and in the future to clean up well sites and refinery sites plus energy used to treat off site pollution and its effects. I could go on and include energy used to treat illnesses caused by the pollution of using hydrocarbon fuels but think that might be streaching it. After all can you imagine the sad state we would all be in if there was no fossil fuel.

Now about that 6 to 1 on ethanol figure. There are lots of studies that dispute your figure and here is a link to a site that says it has both sides and links to different arguements. (Grin I am going to lob this back to your side of the net) Or you could just do the web search yourself for the figures.

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/netenergy/net-energy-yield.htm

Each admin of either flavor D or R seeks to help special interest groups which in most cases means they get more money from their investments and holdings. The fact that you have two persons in the white house on their second term both heavy into oil related industry plus their friends and family in the same area of interest the future was pretty easy to see before the last presidental election. I can't say much cause I voted for Bush even while telling his supporters that electing an oil man to a second term would mean much higher diesel prices. Damn wish I had been wrong.

It is easy to think the present occupant of the White House is responsible for all our problems. It is just plain stupid to think what is happening now started when one party or another did one deed or another.

Agreed but the white house tends to be the one in the driver's set most of the time. They may not have started us down this road but are responsible for keeping us speeding down it.

The biggest problem we have now is not pollution or the middle east but the national debt. We are spending not our money or our childrens' money, we(the gov) are busy spending our grandkids' money. Economics will drive the solutions to pollution and alt fuels. Gov mandates tend to slow or speed up the process but will not stand up to a time test if economics is against it.

Enough politics for now

Have a good one

Finis

[wdyasq]

Well, I came up with another study:

http://www.mathproinc.com/pdf/2.1.6_Ethanol_NEV_Comparison.pdf

And, depending on which liar you care to pick there is an~ 5/4 ratio - pick your side as to which is the truth.

When Slickster was in orfice 5% unemployement was 'best nuze'. Now, it is a failing economy. I think one of the problems we have is a voting class with a poor memory and an active remote listening to believing the crapola they hear on TV and radio. This includes the pundits like Mr. Limpaw.

Although I may not agree with the new congress and the ways they are doing things, don't think I agree with those with an R after their names. My political leanings are far to the right of Atilla the Hun. If you ain't got the money - maybe you shouldn't do a particular project.

Ron

[finnsawyer]

I just saw a TV program about a project in your neighborhood to bring enough natural gas from deep in the Gulf of Mexico to supply 5,000,000 homes a day.  Yeah, that's 5 million, no error.  And it's near completion.  I got interested just watching how they did things on that scale and at the depths encountered.  Very impressive.  How do you lay that big pipe at a depth of one mile?  Well, they can do it.  I'm sure the program will be on again.  you might look for it.  One can only conclude that somebody is doing the right things with the money available to pull off something like that.  So, maybe those tax breaks for the energy industry aren't such a bad idea.  Well, the Dems want to take the tax breaks away.  So, there may never be such a project again.  Or the loss of tax breaks may not matter.  Who knows?