Strange Bedfellows Fight Ethanol Subsidies 552
Reader Actual Reality sends us to Business Week for a tale of the strangest political coalition to be seen in a while — greens, hippies, libertarians, and livestock producers uniting to get ethanol subsidies reduced or killed. The demand for the alternative fuel is driving up corn prices and having big impacts on other parts of the economy. Not many other issues are capable of getting left-leaning economist Paul Krugman and the Cato Institute on the same side.
Business advice (Score:4, Insightful)
Start growing corn then.
Consumer Reports (Score:5, Informative)
So financially and environmentally, it is good to fight the push for ethanol.
Re:Consumer Reports (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Consumer Reports (Score:4, Insightful)
I think everyone getting screwed here is entitled to complain, and especially since the US and Brazil seem to be looking to form an ethanol monopoly not to mention use a more expensive and potently more polluting in the way of exhausted farm land and what ever they plan to burn to heat the still.
If we aren't careful we will end up slaves to new masters and little more.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that be an oligopoly? But that is besides the point, because such oligopoly is not possible. Brazil can at most supply 20% of the fuel used on the world nowadays, more than that, it would need to reduce other crops. USA is on a much worse situation, it can't even supply 10% of the world needs, even if it adopts modern crop technologies, what seems unlikely nowadays. Those are 2 huge players, but far from supplying the majority of the market.
The situation is even better because there are LOTS of co
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sugar can produces 8 times the energy consumed while corn produces 1.5 times the energy consumed. Also with current petrol prices sugar based ethonal can be cost effective.
The problem is not ethonal, it is the subsidies causing it to be artificially competitive (in the US)and the laws requiring it to be put in gas requiring the subsidies to be in place (so people don't realize the cost of the "summer blend").
Re:Consumer Reports (Score:5, Informative)
For gasoline to burn, it needs to get into the gas phase. For this to occur at the rate necessary to support combusion in the engine of a car, the mixture known as gas must have a sufficiently high vapor pressure. Since the vapor pressure of any liquid increases as the temperature goes up, gas must be formulated to have a "high" vapor pressure in the cold winter months. In the summer when the temperature is high, "gas" must be formulated such that the vapor pressure of the mixture isn't too high such that the gas evaporates before it enters the cylinders of the engine.
Adding ethanol to gasoline is one way to accomplish this. Ethanol molecules have strong intermolecular attractions (forces that bind neighboring molecules together) due to hydrogen bonding. As a consequence, mixtures with ethanol will have a lower vapor pressure than mixtures without ethanol at the same temperature.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, you just need a successful domestic tax rebellion, and then you can complain about it all you want.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but how much of that is tax? A quick google search came up with this [bbc.co.uk] (somewhat outdated yet informative) article. From the look at the graphs, the cost of fuel has only increased marginally (due to increased global demand and international conflicts), while the proportion of tax has has increased substantially. Part of the reason for the price increase was "...designed as a means b
Re:Consumer Reports (Score:4, Insightful)
Forcing people to pay for their own externalities is not socialism. Subsidizing certain activities by making others pay for the externalities is.
Re:Consumer Reports (Score:4, Interesting)
It really sounds like you are trying to force me to pay for the expenses you cause, and I don't quite see how that's fair. Forcing me to pay for the health effects caused by your driving sounds more like fascism to me.
How would you handle things differently, in a way that put the true cost onto the people who caused it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have alway know gasohol (the old 15% methanol mixture)yielded less fuel economy and performance. People never believe me. Although, the car makers and engine makers have known this too. They have ways to tune the vehicles in order to mitigate these deficiencies. And because Ethanol is considered cleaner burning, they can
Re:Consumer Reports (Score:4, Interesting)
E10 (E10% EtOH/90% gasoline) and E85 (85%EtOH/15% gas) are the common blends sold in the US. The first can be used in any conventional spark ignition engine while the latter requires a flex-fuel vehicle. Some states require that all gasoline sold is actually E10 - if I remember correctly CT, NY, HI and MN are some that come to mind.
Anyway, yes, E85 contains about ~30% less energy per gallon than straight gasoline, so yes, it requires more to go the same distance. However, E85 also has an octane rating of 105, meaning you can tune the engine to run on E85, as Saab did with the 9-5 Biopower. It has a 2L turbocharged inline 4 producing 180hp optimized to run on E85.
Re:Business advice (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe we can finaly stop paying farm subsidies. Quit growing tabacco and grow corn as a cash crop. Maybe a farmer can make a living again. The beef industry hates it of course because of higher costs. Expect prices to rise at the local hamburger joint due to rising costs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidi
Re:Business advice (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that we may see a shift in the production of livestock in the United States. Much of the existing beef production takes place outside of Iowa, while much of the ethanol production takes place within the state. Iowa is also a major producer of pork - I expect that many of those operations will switch to feeding out cattle instead of hogs - especially if they can get distillers grains at a decent price compared to the corn that hogs require.
Corn's not good for cows (Score:5, Insightful)
As for human beings, the older among us can recall how much better food tasted when it was all sweetened with sugar rather than corn syrup. There are some pretty strong concerns about corn syrup not being so healthy for you either - although it's probably not as bad for us as corn is for cows.
Ethanol is a boondoggle, and I'll prefer any presidential candidate who stands firmly against subsidizing it. But corn too is subsidized - has been for decades - and that leads to it being used in other ways that are already seriously screwing things up. Plus, agriculture is not infinitely renewable, not the way we practice it. The US has lost something like half its agricultural topsoil, on average, over the last century or so. Long-term viability requires us to take more agricultural land out of production, rather than exploit our land more extensively for short-term gain. Over the long run, in many locations, agriculture is just another form of strip mining - at least until we develop technologies we don't currently have to replace millions of tons of topsoil that current practices have allowed to be washed away and otherwise depleted. Soil is more precious than oil.
There's no easy fix here. And corn shouldn't even be a candidate.
Re:Business advice (Score:5, Informative)
However, there are producers out there who will supply you with free roaming beef if that's your taste.
If you really want to fix things, start controlling the number of people on the planet. We're eating up resources at a prodigious rate, technology is helping, but not fixing it.
Re:Business advice (Score:5, Informative)
Corn is not what cattle evolved to feed on. Corn causes a nasty condition in cattle called acidosis which is not good for the animal or for the people drinking its milk and eating its meat. Corn has been used in animal feed in recent decades to fatten them up before slaughter because it has more calories than grass. But 'grain finishing' is like you eating nothing but candy bars and vitamin pills. In a very short time, your health would suffer.
Corn is typically genetically modified and contains traces of herbicides and pesticides. Corn subsidies have hurt the small farmer while enriching ADM (Archer Daniels Midland). Corn subsidies have the tax payer paying into ADM's bottom line whether we eat their foods or not.
Grass-fed beef and dairy contains much higher levels of vitamins, enzymes, and essential fatty acids. Grass-fed beef and dairy is the natural, healthy way to farm. As for digging through snow banks to graze on grass, you should look up the words 'hay' and 'silage' to learn how that problem is handled. Furthermore, beef cattle are slaughtered in the fall. You don't have to feed them when they are in your freezer.
Re:Business advice (Score:4, Informative)
The cow's rumen is not set up to digest corn. Introducing mass quantities of corn into the rumen causes the rumen to acidify (normally it is neutral). This causes several problems including massive ulceration. Essentially a feed lot cow is sick and dying the whole time it is there as it is being fattened. The other issue with the acidified rumen is that it means a cow's stomach is now chemically similar to a human stomach (strongly acid). Now you have an environment for E. Coli in the cow, which previously did not exist. This is why E. Coli in beef has become a problem. THe natural barrier to E. Coli infection transmission from cattle to humans has been removed by feeding the corn to the cow.
A properly managed intensive grazing system produces healthier cattle and, if properly rotated with other livestock (range chickens for example) can be significantly more productive, in terms of calories produced, per acre than modern corn farming. It is also less energy intensive. I think it takes something like 10 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of food energy through corn farming. MIG (managed intensive grazing) can do it on less without pesticides, herbicides etc.
See the book "Omnivore's Dilemma" for what appears to be a fairly balanced treatmwent of this subject.
Re:Business advice (Score:4, Insightful)
How about if farmers just get off the welfare?
Re:Business advice (Score:4, Insightful)
When I'm paying, I'll buy from whoever has the best price.
So, hell yes, let's buy the corn or beets or sugarcane or whatever grows locally. Biodiesel is another great use of fallow land.
Go ahead and buy some land and grow whatever you want and sell it on the free market. It's none of your business otherwise. Stealing money from people so that you're happy about the "great use" of some land is approximately the same as stealing money from people to buy yourself a luxury car -- just a little less honest.
Re: (Score:2)
Burger joint? We eat hamburger help twice a week or other meals that require beef, chicken or pork in them. This corn prices don't just affect beef. They affect chicken and pork prices as well. For those with the belief that the US should s
Oh, good (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure all Slashdot posters will quickly reach a friendly consensus too, it being an environmental and economical issue that also mentions left vs right wing politics. I'm looking forward to the thoughtful and informative debate.
Deceptive disagreement (Score:5, Insightful)
Periodic ideological alignment is necessary to demonstrate that both "sides" are willing to engage in creative problem solving and aren't just part of an ideological game.
Lobbies not environment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For me, I think it comes down to whether I want pollution in a single place (the plant) or multiple places (cars.) I think I'd prefer it in a single place far from me.
Re:Information on CO2 Sequestered (Score:2, Informative)
Q; Please tell me more. Where does it go?
A; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_s
Re: (Score:2)
Coke and Pepsi
Re:Lobbies not environment (Score:5, Informative)
Corn isn't especially good for this purpose, but I believe this claim is false. Berkley's study [berkeley.edu] computes the whole process at a 1.3x net fuel gain.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Corn isn't especially good for this purpose, but I believe this claim is false. Berkley's study computes the whole process at a 1.3x net fuel gain."
Now compare that with the 10x net fuel gain of canae...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And even where farmers don't want to grow GM corn, companies like Monsanto are using dirty tricks to get them to grow the GM corn anyway. And if that doesn't work, Monsanto heavies raid the farm and "find" GM corn that the farmer hasn't paid for (some of the things Monsanto heavies do would probably make the BSA look good)
Why do you think the US is the only country in the world that uses corn sweetener instead of sugar (beet or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it can be produced by electrolysis from wind or solar but it won't be.
Right, this is a stupid way to go since electrolysis is very inefficient, on the order of 10-15%.
We can generate clean H2 using chemical high temp nuclear cycles (not electrolysis) and keep a high efficiency, but nuclear scares people.
Plus H2 storage densities are low and the infrastructure is not there.
Old-school electrochemical batteries are probably the best way IMHO. Plug-in hybrids and full electric with drag-along IC trailers for long distance.
Batteries, the technology of yesterday, today!
Libertarian speaking here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Libertarian speaking here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Libertarian speaking here (Score:4, Insightful)
And then, let's get rid of personal rights, since they hamper some businesses more than others.
I agree that most subsidies are not a good thing. However, in order to stimulate economic activity and the general welfare, sometimes it's necessary for government to aid industries. Note that the farm subsidies, for example, were intended to help the small family farmer, during times of low demand when the corporate farm economies of scale were killing them. I won't judge whether it's worth it for government to try to preserve "the American way of life," since that is what was intended.
Re:Libertarian speaking here (Score:4, Interesting)
Totally agree.
If the small family farmer can't make it in their business of choice, then they should find a business they can make it in. It's no different than if I can't make it in the career I have chosen, I don't sit around and bitch about out it and expect the government to help me out, I find something else to do. It is never appropriate for governments to interfere with the markets.
The government preserves the "American way of life" by staying out of the way and allowing people to make their way in the world. Giving people/corporations handouts when things don't work out the way they planned, doesn't create a strong "way of life" it creates a dependent "way of life".
Re:Libertarian speaking here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Libertarian speaking here (Score:5, Insightful)
Or energy
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's very unlikely. There's a price of land at which American farmers can compete. Farm subsidies keep the price of land high, because owning land is way to collect subsidies.
Farmers are often (but not always) land owners, so a sudden drop in subsidies would be very painful. But don't get the idea that without subsidies
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, well said. And the same is of course true for energy. The point is that cost is not the only factor, even though these things are commodities. There is also the question about whether their sources are reliable, can be expected to continue selling at current prices, and so forth.
In other words, it may make sense to spe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Libertarian speaking here (Score:5, Insightful)
What an idiotic thing to say.
I grew up on a farm. My dad used to joke that "city people" think that food magically appears in the grocery store. I never realized how close to the truth that statement might be until I read your post and saw that it was modded up as insightful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Many countries have learned this lesson the hard way. In recent times, for example 30 years ago, Zaire was Africa's breas basket. They provided nearly a third of all food eaten on the continent. Then their current governmental mess started, Zaire collapsed, and now it can't even feed its own people, let alone the rest of the continent. The primary problem was that as reparations, farms - Zaire's primary export business system - were repose
How about..... (Score:2, Funny)
Let's not use alternative fuel... (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, Libertarians are against any and all forms of government subsidies, and it's rather obvious why if we're absolutely pro-free market. Nobody should read this article and say, "Wow, that's surprising that they're working together!" Rather, they should read it and really wonder why these different groups oppose subsidies for ethanol and whether or not ethanol is a viable choice for an alternative fuel.
After all, alternative != better.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Never mind, ethanol does not solve the problem ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ethanol production does not save anything, because current production methods, storage and distribution use as much energy (mostly natural gas, and fuel) as it saves.
The money would better be spend on R+D into new forms of ethanol production than buying votes in the mid-west
Re:Never mind, ethanol does not solve the problem (Score:2)
How about ending ALL Agribusiness subsidies? (Score:2)
2nd law of thermal-dynamics (Score:2)
That said (and sorry for the downer message so early in the morning), the articles (follow the links) are correct- that it should be up to the markets to pick the winner, and not by politicians seeking favor and higher office.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I'm a fan of reactionary policies, nor do I think politicians are always on the ball. Couple that with I don't really know the stats on ethanol vs. standard gasoline efficiency and well there ya have it.
I think ethanol should be promoted as an alternative, but not at the cost of the existing farming market. On the otherhand, they already use corn for sugar substitutes already, usually with crap
Re: (Score:2)
The money spent on subsidizing ethanol could be better spent finding the right solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Though yeah, forcing reactionary policies doesn't help.
Tom
Feed prices (Score:5, Interesting)
Working for a corn refiner, I can tell you that though there is an increasing demand and price for corn due to ethanol plants spinning up, the glut of distillers grain/feed from their spent corn will be putting tremendous downward pressure on the animal-nutrition side of the market. In a wet mill, we depend on our co-products (corn hull, fiber, gluten, spent germ, everything but the starch really) prices rising and falling with the price of corn. Now we're having competition in the feed market from ethanol plants whos business models don't typically include needing to sell their feed. Granted, distillers grain is kind of gnarly (not as finely tuned as a wet mill's products) but typically farmers more interested in lower cost nutrition. And they're going to get it.
Diversion of corn to ethanol is also a cause (Score:5, Informative)
Ethanol Subsidies (Score:4, Informative)
Problem solved. Of course we would have never got the subsidies in the first place it wasn't for the ADM lobbyist. Now that we got them making them exclusive solves the issue.
Research has shown ethanol produced from corn is less efficient and carbon positive. Alternative stock materials that require less fertilizing planting, etc. are the answer.
Growing food is hard. Growing grass is hard not to do.
Ethanol is not renewable (Score:4, Informative)
Don't forget the water (Score:4, Insightful)
This is on top of the propane used to make the fertilizer (corn is very hard on the soil), the natural gas to cook the mash, the electricity to turn the big drums, the diesel to run the tractors and combines, the diesel or gas to truck the corn to the still and transport (by train usually) the ethanol to (close to) the point of sale (it has to be mixed in locally, not at the refinery).
All in all, it makes slightly more sense than just paying the farmer not to grow the corn. It makes no sense whatsoever compared to bio-diesel (beans fix nitrogen), ethanol from sugar cane, or even burning through the cheap gas now while bringing more nuclear on line.
Topsoil (Score:3, Informative)
--
Graze the Sun: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
Whatever happened to the "free market" (Score:2)
If there were no farm subsidies in this world, the world would be a better place.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
remember that when you're sitting there starving because your imported grain is suddenly cut off because of some crisis or turmoil external to your country.
i grew up on a family farm. i helped my dad through college until he retired. all the small/medium farmers work their ass off at great risk (you live or die by the weather.. try basing your livelihood on that as a variable) and
Corn Prices (Score:5, Informative)
My great uncle is a corn farmer, he is salivating at the lips at the prospect the gov't is going to build all of these ethanol plants, a nice payday for him off our backs if it goes through. That is all it is, a payday, it isn't worrying about the environment. Sugar ethanol is much more efficient, 4x much so I believe. We aren't using that because we have subsidies and trade protections for the sugar farmers. HA!
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What I learned upon speaking with a sorghum breeder is that most sorghum previously grown in the U.S. had sweet stems. However, they bred this characteristic out to increase grain yields. Folks are looking at going back to high sugar sorghum for ethanol production, but this germplasm is not well adapted to the regions of the U.S. where sorghum is most widely grown (i.e. the Southern and Central Great Plains). It doesn't compete well with the curre
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Saab (GM) has a vehicle that runs anything from 100% gasoline to 100% Ethanol. It gets better MPG on 100% ethanol or E85 than it does 100% gasoline. How does that fact square with your assumption? It isn't a matter of the mixing making things inefficient, it's the assumption made when designing the engine and powertrain. Consider this: a smaller engine th
Uh,...., left leaning Paul Krugman? (Score:2, Informative)
I think you're confusing "willing to criticize the Bush administration" with "left-leaning".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I was going to comment on this also.. but in a slightly different way.
Are there any left-leaning economists? Economics is the study of choice, and the left hates choice. Economics is a science, with definite consequences when those who choose to ignore its principles craft policy. Willful igorance of economics is Leftist Politics 101. (Of course, the right has been following their lead for a while now
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Krugman changed after bush got elected, and he's now suffering from bush derangement syndrome. He's no longer nearly as reasonable as he once was.
From the wikipedia article you apparently read:
"A November 13, 2003 article in The Economist [2] reads: "A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush...Even his economics is sometimes stretched...Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable persona
Cellulosic Ethanol Coming Like a Frieght Train. (Score:3, Interesting)
If cellulosic becomes attainable, and it will, then the pressures on corn will decrease tremendously.
Link to article about the program [mongabay.com] And then there are those wacky ORNL researchers making both ethanol and hydrogen from algae.. [ornl.gov]
The future seems bright enough for ethanol production, with new ideas popping up all the time. Its pretty fun to drink too... :)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing with algae - you can make a potential of something like 10,000 gallons per acre of algae plant. Ethanol from corn is on the order of 150 gallons per acre.
Well there's a few issues here... (Score:2)
2. Ethanol is not economically or technically feasible. We can't produce enough corn to produce fuel to meet the demand AND feed people.
3. We need improved mass transportation with more flexibility and a clean up of the problem riders (insane, violent, etc...)
I'm op
Why ethanol? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Butanol [wikipedia.org] does have it's own problems but is far more promising biofuel than
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ethanol is attractive, in some ways, because it replaces some of the volume of gasoline used, which helps reduce the need for the refinery time, etc.
don't get me wrong here, I love biodiesel, I use it in my car (TDI Jetta) which I bought simply because I wanted a diesel for the fuel effiency and it's environme
Yields (Score:3, Informative)
Using corn for ethanol is just stupid (Score:2)
Biofuels aren't the answer (Score:3, Informative)
The Department of Energy did a study that showed there was enough wind in North Dakota alone to fill the entire US's ENERGY needs, not just transportation. Nanotech in battery technology is showing huge promise in being able to store transport energy and be able to charge in seconds instead of hours. So why aren't we building windfarms and electric cars instead of encouraging South America to slash and burn their entire rainforest to grow sugarcane?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
An energy sink that large in one place would throw our weather system into chaos. The biosphere in the area would be ruined. The metal supply is tremendously inadequate for such a large construction job.
Renewable fuels (Score:3, Informative)
--Addressing the subsidy issue. Yes, our farm receives them, on occasion. Generally speaking they are set up if prices do not reach a set point for a season. Many say they should be eliminated, and in principle I agree with them. However, there are some costs that are unique to farmers, that, well, hurt. One is property tax. Farmers generally do not benefit from abatements like corporations do, and therefore bear the full brunt of tax. In areas with increasing housing pressure, that drives up land values, which can really sting with respect to taxes as a viable single family farm generally isn't less than 350Acres (here in IN due to good soil) X 3-4K per acre = ~$1-1.5Millon. Farmers also cannot control their prices. Whereas a factory can sell lots of widgets for less money a piece, or a few widgets for more $, farmers must take what they can get on the market. Farmers also cannot fully control their production. Agriculture is dependent on weather conditions completely, and poor weather for a year can put a small farm out of business. Subsidies are supposed to help small farmers in those bad years, but are greatly abused by commercial "gipsie farmers." It kind of gives a bad rap to the whole system.
--Bio-fuels.... Yes, we farmers know that rapeseed and sugarcane and all these other exotic crops are better for ethanol than corn. But, not many are willing to take the gamble to grow these exotic crops and not have a market for them. Most farmers around here take their grain to an elevator less than 50miles from their fields. Its generally not feasible economically to go farther than that. Do I know of any elevators in that range that take anything exotic; no. These crops are just too risky for a business that already has so many factors that we cannot control. I mean, think. What if rapeseed does not grow well in certain soils in Indiana? What available chemicals are there to control weeds in these crops? What equipment must I purchase? (for small seeds, probably new drill attachments, and special harvesting equipment, also very expensive). We all know that corn grows well in Indiana. We all know that there are markets, cheap chemicals for weed control, and hey, I already have all the equipment to plant and harvest corn. Hmm, I think I'll stick with corn.
With respect to corn ethanol plants, they have the potential to be very efficient. Imagine this: Ethanol plant takes corn from nearby farmers and produces ethanol and distillers grain. Attached to the ethanol plant is a large confined beef cattle feeding operation which consumes the distillers grains. The cattle operation produces beef and manure. The manure is then placed in a digester, which produces methane and residuals (inorganics, etc.)The methane is used to augment the fuel to power the ethanol plant, and the residuals are used in fertilizer production for the corn fields. Nice and efficient. Too bad this has yet to be implemented.
As for biodiesel (virgin biodiesel that is), its made from soybeans, a crop planted on years opposite corn. It has its issues, such as gelling issues in higher concentrations when temps are low, but from a farmer stand point, we fully support it.
I could go on, but I'm sick of typing...
Re:Liberals... (Score:5, Interesting)
Singing to the corn farmers, who have been given so much cash that things like sugar farming are being driven out of the country? Ask yourself why we're using corn for ethanol when Brazil has shown that sugarcane can be used much more efficiently?
Down here in Texas, corn farmers struggle to convince their corn crops to live over the summer, but that's ok, because the feds will happily shell out cash for irrigation systems that weren't needed back when sugar was grown here. Up north, sugarbeets (also superior to corn for ethanol) used to hold sway, but increasingly farmers have been lured to the free money (on TOP of the rising corn prices).
The only tune conservatives (or liberals, or libertarians, or...) sing is "vote for me!"
Re: (Score:2)
Since your from Down here in Texas, I can see you may be uninformed in what we grow up here. This is Apple, Grape, and Wheat country. Other crops include Mint, Beets, Hops, Potatoes, Cherrys, Flowers, Grass seeds, and Cranberries. Potato country is in Eastern Washington, Oregon and in Idaho along with Wheat.
Oregon and Washington both grow lots of grapes for wine. We alre
Allow me to explain (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is trying to end fossil-fuel dependence here. Nobody is subsidising ethanol production, except in a rather technical sense. If people wanted to end fossil-fuel dependenence and make ethanol production easier, they could fund, subsidize, and promote any number of solutions.
What IS going on here is another huge subsidy for the very powerful corn industry. This particular subsidy is wearing a paper hat that says 'ethanol', which is enough to fool:
0% of people who know anything about energy markets.
25% of lawmakers
95% of the public
100% of all the libertarian slashdotters who have already jumped in and gone 'OMG teh socialism sux lol!!'
Now, repeat after me: ETHANOL is one thing, ETHANOL FROM NORTH AMERICAN CORN is another thing. You want energy, subsidize the former. You want money for corn growers, subsidize the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Ethanol (and the hydrogen pipe-dream to a lesser extent) are more about maintaining our current fuel distribution system than about finding real alternatives. The idea that we need to pipe fuel from distant places is a 19th century concept. Tesla would be disappointed that we're not using electricity to provide energy, and he'd be even more disappointed that we're charging money for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ethanol (and the hydrogen pipe-dream to a lesser extent) are more about maintaining our current fuel distribution system than about finding real alternatives. The idea that we need to pipe fuel from distant places is a 19th century concept. Tesla would be disappointed that we're not using electricity to provide energy, and he'd be even more disappointed that we're charging money for it.
Agreed. Ethanol is no better for the environment than oil -- in fact, it may be worse when you consider that the cheapest crops that are grown to produce it, like corn, strip the soil of nutrients and make it useless for growing other things.
The problem, though, is producing enough electricity. Right now, the cleanest way we have a producing electricity at the amounts required is through nuclear fission -- a process that makes toxic waste that will have to kept locked up for at least 10,000 years or more
Re: (Score:2)
The current system of nuclear fission is extremely wasteful. Newer systems can avoid the creation of such waste and extract more energy from the fuel provided.
The only real problem with solar power is that it's not widespread enough. More energy hits the surface of the earth in one second than we use in a year. Further developments in solar power, like thin-film panels, will make it cheaper and easier to spread solar power.
If the downward trend holds, renewable forms of electricity will be cheaper than co
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is not technically true. The biggest problem with using fossil fuels is that we're taking a source of carbon that has effectively been outside of our ecosystem and burning it, returning it into our environment and, as we're seeing, prompting the Earth to seek a new equilibrium. When you make fuel, even combustible fuel, from plant matter, those plants are leeching carbon out of the atmosphere and ground, completing a cycle that can be run endlessly. We use plants to make Ethanol, we burn Ethanol, CO2 goes into the air, plants siphon back out the CO2, leaving our atmosphere with roughly the same concentration as it had when we started. Problem? I fail to see it.
While that's true, you skipped the other half of my sentence -- the main problem being the fact that corn robs our soil of essential nutrients, especially the way it's planted today.
Furthermore, it's not that simple. Burning ethanol is a very, very wasteful process. Worse than gasoline. And the process releases more CO2 than gasoline. It's likely that if we standardized on ethanol for our motor vehicles, that 1) we would not be able to grow enough corn to produce all of the ethanol needed, and 2) we woul
Re:Allow me to explain (Score:5, Insightful)
Quoted for truth.
This is why a petroleum tax is the way to go. Government sucks at picking the winning technologies whereas markets are quite good at it. The solution? Ditch technology specific subsidies in favor of technology agnostic user fees that incentivize the desired goal, namely reduced petro use.
Now most people don't like taxes, but really it is the fairest way to let the market select the best renewable technology. If you tax petroleum, then biodiesel, ethanol, wind/pv plug-in HEVs, and transit all compete via market forces.
And before the libertarians get their panties in a bunch, we don't have anything close to a free market currently. The market is, and has been, slanted toward petroleum via foreign, domestic and tax policy for the the last 50-75 years. I'm just suggesting we use a petroleum tax to level the field a little.
Re: (Score:2)
No need for that. Peak Oil will take care of the field on it's own thank you. Peak Oil will simply give you a longer transition time adjust instead of the swift kick in the pants to disrupt your markets.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Says who? People wanted a cheaper recorder, even at the expense of some quality. VHS provided them that, Beta did not. Most people just wanted to be able to record shows, they weren't videophiles. And tape recorders were extremely expensive when they came out. Today it might be a difference of $15 between players, but back then it was like $500...of 1980s money!
The Macintosh was a better computer than the (early) IBM PCs.
Businesses bought most of the early PCs,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Huh? Libertarians are against all forms of welfare, whether for people or companies. In particular, you won't find a single libertarian who likes Con-Agra, or Archer-Daniels-Midland. They both suck at the government teat.
Amazing (Score:2)
I am starting to think that every human has a specific spot in them for unbounded hate, but that your society stimulates people to fill that spot with some socially accepted image (reps, dems, libs) rather then the more un-PC images(blacks, j
Re:Stupid ethanol gas (Score:4, Funny)
Ethanol and Gasoline are NOT same just like Goat's milk and Cow's milk are not same.
Ethanol benefits farmers who can now send their wards to colleges.
Gasoline benefits S.A which sends our way more 9/11 attackers...
If i were Bush (supporting ethanol) i would argue in this way.
Would we want to send our money to support terror or would we want to send our children to school?
If you don't support ethanol, you support terror.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We got plenty of fucking corn.
Re: (Score:2)
Subsidies divert spending from areas of the economy that could use the money more effectively, that's why we need to be sure that the subsidies are actually being used well. Otherwise we may as well be paying farmers to plant garden gnomes.