Another classic moment in government interventions
posted at 11:55 am on November 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Two years ago, the newly-Democratic Congress struck a blow for a greener planet by demanding a level of ethanol production based on current estimates of gasoline use. This delighted corn farmers and ethanol manufacturers, and most everyone else assumed that little harm could be done by growing more corn and turning it into something other than food. No one thought about what a recession might do to gasoline demand, or how a parallel Democratic push to force automakers to produce more efficient cars would impact the need for all of the ethanol Congress demanded.
Now it looks as though we have a glut of ethanol coming, and your catalytic converters might be sacrificed on the altar of Congressional foolishness (via Brian Faughnan):
In theory, the Environmental Protection Agency has the power to solve this problem by tweaking the mandates imposed by Congress, and it may act as early as next week.
Each potential solution would anger one interest group or another, so the agency has been subjected to fierce lobbying, including from members of Congress lining up behind various factions. One possibility is to raise the maximum proportion of ethanol in gasoline to 15 or 20 percent.
But that idea is opposed by some carmakers and pollution experts. They contend that high ethanol blends can cause damage to cars, including making catalytic converters run hotter.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers says it believes this could cause the converters, components that help control pollution, to fail at around 50,000 miles. They are supposed to last for 120,000 to 150,000 miles. “We are sensitive to the issues facing the ethanol industry, but the government must make decisions based on sound science,” said Dave McCurdy, president and chief executive of the alliance, in a letter to the E.P.A.
Another possibility is that the agency could waive the mandates requiring use of a large volume of biofuels. But that would anger farmers, who sell a great deal of corn to ethanol factories, and the members of Congress who represent them. It might also undermine the efforts of companies that are investing millions in factories to make ethanol from waste materials, like corncobs, straw and garbage.
Think of this as a bubble in the ethanol market not unlike that seen in the housing market with subprime loans and ill-advised government incentives. Congress created an artificial demand for ethanol production, and got much more than we needed. Now a lot of people may lose their shirts if someone doesn’t buy it up, and a lot of us may lose our catalytic converters if they do.
The government incentives have had other perverse outcomes, too. The CBO reported in April that it drove food prices higher, making more difficult for the poor to get enough food to eat. In October of last year, the International Monetary Fund called corn ethanol “a very, very bad idea” for the same reason. Those market distortions go well beyond damaging catalytic converters or sticking Congress with a lot of ethanol it can’t use.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Who is this guy suggesting the Obama gand needs to make decisions based on sound science?
GaltBlvnAtty on November 28, 2009 at 11:58 AM
but the government must make decisions based on sound science,” said Dave McCurdy, president and chief executive of the alliance, in a letter to the E.P.A.
Bwwaaaahahahahahahahha!
faol on November 28, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Wow, the ripple of unintended consequences! Pretty amazing.
4shoes on November 28, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Why do we let the government meddle in anything? Everything they stick their fingers into turns into a mess.
Oldnuke on November 28, 2009 at 12:00 PM
But Obama has a plan to help the hungry: Because the food shortage will be caused by the ethanol surplus that American’s caused by having the industrial revolution, America will agree next month in Copenhagen to pay a few extra hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to the underdevloped countries.
GaltBlvnAtty on November 28, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Oh, what the hell, let’s get ‘em involved in our healthcare too. What could possibly go wrong?
sheesh on November 28, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Just another example of government/communist interference destroying freedom and liberty.
darwin on November 28, 2009 at 12:06 PM
…making economic decisions for political reasons. …while ignoring scientific evidence that doesn’t fit one’s conclusions.
Skandia Recluse on November 28, 2009 at 12:06 PM
weird science
moonbatkiller on November 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Come on… this one’s easy. Just pay the farmers not to grow so much extra corn, and pay the ethanol factories to burn off any excess from their production, and sue the car companies for any catalytic converters that fail early, and…../sarc
RalphyBoy on November 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Let’s just drink it.
forest on November 28, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
And if there is no crisis, Create one!
bridgetown on November 28, 2009 at 12:12 PM
The bad news just keeps rollin’ in….
We’re at a point now where it’s beginning to look as if a total change of government to one filled with responsible, far-sighted, patriotic people, couldn’t clean up the mess in our lifetimes.
MrScribbler on November 28, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Oh… and let the starving eat cake, or arugula…
RalphyBoy on November 28, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Why do we let the government meddle in anything
//
I don’t think it’s us letting them,they are doing as they please with no regard for their constituents.
ohiobabe on November 28, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Why the sarc tag?? That’s probably exactly what will happen!
4shoes on November 28, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Ethanol is one of the biggest scams the government has ever done. You get crappy mileage and it takes far more energy to make it then it produces. Throwing money at welfare farmers is all it is about all the while we refuse to drill some of the largest crude oil reserves in the world. God I hate these envirotards!
trs on November 28, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Skandia Recluse:
Agree with your point, but your “decisions for political reasons” goes much further. Another major lurking problem is our Supreme Court: Obama has his first appointment on the court, and she has no respect for the law, just as Obama has no respect for science. She will, of course, vote with the liberals and will not attract much special notice for awhile, because she is the first “sleeper” justice. Her “empathy” based decision making will not demonstrate itself too early, for that could interfere with Obama appointing more such justices when the opportunity arises. Once Obama get a conservative justice or two replaced with flaming liberals we will see all decisions from the Supreme Court being made with the same disregard for the law as we now see economic decisions being made without regard to science, or facts, or historical precedent.
GaltBlvnAtty on November 28, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Looks like a rehash of the episode of Ma Chalmers and soya beans.
promachus on November 28, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Looks like someone screwed up and forgot to hide the decline.
The Reasonable Man on November 28, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Just label it corn whiskey and issue it to taxpayers to help ease the pain.
farright on November 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM
The solution is simple. Follow the constution. Shut down the EPA.
Johan Klaus on November 28, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Government bets are HUGE, almost always wrong, and frequently disastrous.
And since they are written into the law, they are very difficult to unravel.
Even when they are unraveled, millions of people are damaged.
Goverment, not money, is the root of all evil.
notagool on November 28, 2009 at 12:40 PM
The topic of food vs. fuel was addressed by The Anchoress on 28 April 2008.
This chart by Boeing, referenced by my comment at The Anchoress, is instructive.
The nutshell: The diversion of cropland for the production of ethanol was and is a crime against humanity.
unclesmrgol on November 28, 2009 at 12:41 PM
100%Gasoline 29 MPG
90% Gasoline 25 MPG
Now what 80% Gasoline 21 MPG
And this is supposed to save OIL.
R I G H T
Steveangell on November 28, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Oddly, the corn board was up yesterday.
Seems like traders have an idea the feds are going to save their bacon.
Tio on November 28, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Why do demoncrats want to starve the worlds poor to prop up the ethanol industry?
farright on November 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM
The free market could never work this out.
/s
obleo on November 28, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Fun Fact: Ethanol added to gasoline reduces the total potential amount of energy produced by one unit of gas vs non-Ethanol gasoline.
I saw this on a sticker on a gas pump somewhere. Funny thing is now I can’t find it even tho I go to the same area gas stations all the time.
So you get poorer performance with Ethanol-blended fuels. Awesome.
Neo on November 28, 2009 at 1:01 PM
I don’t understand why the automative industry is upset by the possibility of cars breaking down sooner. Wouldn’t it be a sort of cash-for-clunker in slow motion?
year_of_the_dingo on November 28, 2009 at 1:07 PM
I ride a motorcycle to save on gas, but ethanol is a constant nuisance. It’s a sticky mess already and upping the percentage will make it intolerable. On the flip side, the growing of corn to be used as fuel is reaping a harvest of higher prices at the supermarket.
Of course the royal fat cats who live well above the standards they set for the average American could care less.
“Let them burn corn”
Hening on November 28, 2009 at 1:11 PM
How about Obama saturation?
Isn’t it peachy and keen the way he’s earning us greater respect from the international community? Sarkozy’s just miffed that he didn’t get bowed to.
Drained Brain on November 28, 2009 at 1:11 PM
FSA just announced another $290 million in direct payments to dairies following one of the worst years ever to milk cows.
So the government interferes with the pricing of feed, which then leads to the government interfering with the price of food production. Isn’t this one of those “unintended consequences” they teach in Econ 101?
(May be a bad example, since the feds already dictate the price of milk anyway…)
Tio on November 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Sarkozy needn’t worry…Obama is just going for the “road trip” to get out of D.C. and have some fun. He will leave the actual work to others…He’ll be there for the photo-op though.
Nozzle on November 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM
***
The corn based ethanol scam can not stand alone economically without government (read TAXPAYER) subsidies to make it “competitive” with oil based fuel sources. And it uses almost as much energy to produce a gallon as the energy delivered by the gallon in your car. And it pollutes as much as gasoline–and damages cars. And it drives up food (corn) costs to starving countries across the world.
***
End this sham now. No energy sources that have to have subsidies to exist.
***
John Bibb
***
rocketman on November 28, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Ethanol has already cost me several thousand dollars to fix my outboard marine motors and replace a built in fuel tank with a custom built one.
I’m really looking forward to more ethanol in the gas – I can’t wait to give my marine mechanic more money!
hotdax on November 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM
I dream of a country where Congress appropriates and spends only on those things mandated by the Constitution. Wouldn’t that be fabulous?
Cindy Munford on November 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Introducing the $50 Billion CCC Program!!!!!
Cash for Catalitic Clunkers…
percysunshine on November 28, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Corn went up because of the futures market. People were buying corn futures for ridiculous amounts. It was manipulation just like the oil speculation and mortgage speculation, and all driven by the same people. It had nothing to do with food production.
Just another nail in the coffin we’re being hustled into by a corrupt banking elite and their political lackeys.
Beto Ochoa on November 28, 2009 at 1:29 PM
This is the other hidden cost…
Cars get WORSE gas mileage on these “blended” fuels. So the consumer ends up buying MORE fuel… while also potentialy damaging their own cars…
Yet, no subsidies to go to Compressed Natural Gas as a substitute… which burns MUCH Cleaner than gasoline, and is produced HERE… and which ANY car can be converted to use for only a few hundred dollars…
So, they make the situation WORSE, instead of funding an actual solution…
Why does it look like this Government is activly working AGAINST the people?
Romeo13 on November 28, 2009 at 1:32 PM
But don’t you see, poor people starving is good for Gaia. Mother Earth is SO much better off without all those poverty-stricken breeders consuming natural resources. Never mind that allotting about 2,000 sq/ft per person, the earth’s entire population of 6 billion plus could fit into Texas and Oklahoma with room to spare. When you help AlGore worship the creation, you understand people are of no value.
oldleprechaun on November 28, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Hey, I’ve got a great idea! Let’s let Congress “tinker” with health care. What could go wrong?
GarandFan on November 28, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Learning is not the Democrats’ strong suit.
Skipper50 on November 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM
In disgust and anger, I started to say, no, the government and everyone else must make decisions based on their understanding of what is good. However, it seems better to say merely that it seems better for the government and everyone else to make decisions based on their understanding of what is good. But let the reader consider for himself: Given a choice between what seems good and what seems scientific, what does it seem good to choose?
If it needs to be said, I have altogether set aside the matter of ethanol saturation in order to point to the problem of our saturation with scientific authority.
Kralizec on November 28, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Don’t worry about any of this the government has all the answers just ask bo.
tim c on November 28, 2009 at 1:49 PM
In other news, a bear was spotted squatting in the woods with a roll of Charmin Ultra hanging from a nearby branch.
Sharke on November 28, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Unintended Congrequences……heh!
b4lucy on November 28, 2009 at 2:11 PM
I waiting for the demand for an ethanol stockpile.
IlikedAUH2O on November 28, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Higher ethanol blends (as a percentage) won’t just cause damage to catalytic converters (which are expensive, btw) — higher blends can cause damage to engines, seals, & fuel rails. Alloy engines are far more expensive to replace, so we — as consumers — can look forward to more than just inefficient fuels. We can look forward to engines and exhaust components that self destruct in a manner that won’t be covered by manufacturers’ warranties. And we’ll have no recourse against the refineries and ethanol producers.
Super.
Thanks, Congress.
Thanks a lot.
stevezilla on November 28, 2009 at 2:43 PM
All-American Stupid.
Griz on November 28, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Common sense Neo. Gasoline is a mixture of 4 to 12 carbon atom molecules, average 8 carbon atoms, while ethanol is a 2 carbon atom molecule. The gasoline is much more energy dense.
The more ethanol in the mixture the more mileage will suffer.
chemman on November 28, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Perhaps all of us can help with the glut of ethanol.
A torch and pitch fork party is long overdue
elderberry on November 28, 2009 at 3:19 PM
http://www.despair.com/government.html
29Victor on November 28, 2009 at 3:32 PM
All autos being produced now are warranted for 10% ethanol max. By mandating in excess of that governmant is forcing auto owners to violate the terms of the warranty.
Who pays when the catalytic convertor is destroyed or the seals and gasket deteriorate? The owner? The auto manufacturer (now heavily government owned)? Or the government itself? There will be lawsuits on this, and the government will lose, big time.
Decisions, decisions.
The simplest solution: Vote Republican.
Corky Boyd on November 28, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Ethanol is an incredibly bad motorfuel.
The worst problem for the end user, as others have mention, is gas mileage suffers. Ethanol is not as energy dense as gasoline. The per unit difference is significant. This is why one really must have a “flex fuel” vehicle to run this crap. The vehicle’s engine management computer will compensate for this, and richen up the fixture, burning more fuel.
Also, alcohol is corrosive. It destroys seals, fuel lines, and injectors. Another reason why you can’t run this crap in a car that is not designed for it.
It takes enormous amounts of water to produce a gallon of ethanol, and it takes way more energy to produce a gallon of this crap than you end up with.
Ethanol is the very definition of insanity.
We have 100′s of TRILLIONS of cubic feet of clean, cheap natural gas. Every American car manufacturer ALREADY produces cars, trucks, and buses that run on compressed natural gas (CNG)
Natural gas is as close to a ZERO EMISSIONS fuel as one can possibly get. It burns so cleanly that many warehouses and manufacturing facilities run fork lifts, and other vehicles on CNG indoors.
The major infrastructure already exists for using CNG as a motorfuel. You can even buy set ups that will allow you to fill up you’re CNG powered car at home, using your existing gas line.
Even better, diesel engines can be converted to run on CNG. These high compression engines are very happy on CNG.
Another benefit is longer engine life. Burning CNG produces little carbon inside an engine, so there is very little contamination with the oil. This not only keeps the oil looking like it was just poured in (clear) it also reduces wear significantly.
With the miracle, and abundabce, of natural gas, why we ever thought it was a good idea to turn food into motorfuel is beyond me.
gary4205 on November 28, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Short term solution: Do what Brazil does and export Ethanol. Export the excess or use the excess ethanol to heat homes in the US. The farmers can also export any surplus. Those ethonol factories can be re-tooled and transitioned into another industrial field. Get on it.
The poor effiency of ethanol fuel in cars was sold to the American public like many other things related to saving the planet. Now that the man-made Global Warming hoax is being exposed, now is the time to keelhaul this ethanol proganda as well.
We have the dumbest bright people running the show. Now it’s time to show those people the door along anybody else who thinks ethanol is still a good idea.
Americannodash on November 28, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Ethanol trashed my outboards… Thanks, Government!
Medicated on November 28, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Just go to slide 13. (good reference by the way).
WitchDoctor on November 28, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Want to bet Congress is waiting until they’re fully invested in the catalytic converter manufacturers before signing on to this? Or maybe short on the ethanol side?
chickasaw42 on November 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM
CNG is produced by the evil oil companies, so therefore its use cannot be allowed.
JFS61 on November 28, 2009 at 4:20 PM
We also need a lot of rails, barrels of tar and tons of feathers. We can fix unemployment just manufacturing stuff to run crooked politicians out of D.C.
Oldnuke on November 28, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Re-package it as genuine American White Lightning for export to China. We can get rid of while making a buck and destroying the chinese workforce through alcoholism.
trigon on November 28, 2009 at 4:28 PM
You people own boats ?? Well, screw you, you bunch of elitist, rich bastards……you deserve to over pay, and pay, and pay…….
Love live the new United Socalist States of America !!!
Jerome Horwitz on November 28, 2009 at 4:37 PM
*Long live*
…..and that post was sarcasim.
Dammit…….where’s an edit feature when you need it.
Jerome Horwitz on November 28, 2009 at 4:40 PM
It’s my understanding, gleaned somewhere, that ethanol fuel is also creating unique pollution problems.
We are led by fools. When do we stop following?
Maquis on November 28, 2009 at 4:46 PM
I’m only a stupid Aussie, but why don’t the farmers just grow something else if there is a glut? Like produce that people actually want.
I guess they wouldn’t be guaranteed income, but subject to market demand, so it wouldn’t work, then. /sarc
Ozwitch on November 28, 2009 at 5:10 PM
There is a community in Iowa that owns and runs a ethanol Plant. The farmers grow the high starch corn on land other wise payed for by the Government to grow nothing(farm welfare). The farmers are growing the same amount of feed corn if not more. The plant gave the farmers a way to get off the Government Teat. This community also built a wind generator to power and help pay for their school energy use. This worked so well it not only paid for it’s self, it has paid for all energy use. The sale of power back to the grid pays for maintenance and supplies for the school. The community is reinvesting it’s profits from the ethanol plant to build a biomass plant. These plants run on methane. The farmers provide the manure to produce the methane, it is converted to energy. The bi-product is a fertilizer that no longer smells and is loaded with exactly what the farmer needs to grow more corn. This community now has very low property tax rates. None of this has lowered the amount of food produced by this community. Soon their ethanol plant will be powered by manure, a hazardous waste product.
This is bad why?
IowaWoman on November 28, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Bio-fuel runs the tractors just fine. You can tell when a tractor is running on bio-fuel, it smells like popcorn :o)
IowaWoman on November 28, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Because the rest of us don’t need the ethanol. Don’t want to buy or use it but are forced to do so by at the point of a bayonet.
Beto Ochoa on November 28, 2009 at 5:43 PM
You should speak for yourself. NASCAR wants it. Ethanol has many uses.
I do not think Americans should be forced into using anything.
I believe any form of energy will find users on it’s own. Like wind and solar, ethanol is only useful where it makes sense.
IowaWoman on November 28, 2009 at 5:55 PM
The Government should stay out of our business period.
IowaWoman on November 28, 2009 at 5:57 PM
You’re right we shouldn’t be forced to buy anything. Now that said let’s imagine a world where in every gas station there were two pumps one with ethanol and one with no ethanol. Which one do YOU think would get the most business?
Oldnuke on November 28, 2009 at 6:03 PM
“Once Obama get(s) a conservative justice or two replaced with flaming liberals, we will see all decisions from the Supreme Court being made” retroactively according to International Law…
Friendly21 on November 28, 2009 at 6:13 PM
It’ll taste great after about 4hrs of standing in the healthcare line, or the foodstamp line, or the unempoyment line or the free cheese line.
Bicyea on November 28, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Because it is a waste of time and energy just to satisfy the enviros who will in time turn against farmers raising ethanol corn, just as they have turned against farmers raising food.
Because not a few of us would like to return to cheap, efficient leaded gas – right after we utilize the world’s largest fossil fuel supplies here in the US – right after we find people with common sense to run for office and elect them.
Friendly21 on November 28, 2009 at 6:20 PM
And after a bit, you won’t be standing in any line any more… ever.
Friendly21 on November 28, 2009 at 6:21 PM
…let’s imagine every gas station has three pumps: one with ethanol, one with no ethanol, and one with leaded gas. Which one do you think would get the most business?
Friendly21 on November 28, 2009 at 6:23 PM
I do not have to “imagine” that world, I live in it. I make that choice every time I fill my tank. I do not know the choices where you live. In Iowa you may choose unleaded or unleaded with 10% Ethanol. We also have many stations with 4 choices the a fore mentioned 2 and diesel and bio-diesel.
I do not “think” Ethanol is always chosen but I know it is chosen a lot. I choose it, so do many others. If you lived here you would choose not to. Big Deal
IowaWoman on November 28, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Government mandates for ethanol production has never been anything other than a program to transfer our taxes into the pockets of the ethanol industry. Nothing else has been,or will be accomplished by it.
Hucklebuck on November 28, 2009 at 6:36 PM
The ethanol manufacturing market has been oversaturated for at least 18 months now. A great many of the facilities are running well under nameplate capacity. They cannot sell the stuff.
Same goes for biodiesel plants. This was easily predictable. A lot of folks in my line of work have been anticipating a LOT of used process equipment on the market as long as 3 years ago.
Kermit on November 28, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Ethanol is very high octane. It burns fast and hot. Not good for many uses, essential for others. If the Government stayed out of it Ethanol would find it’s niche. NASCAR is one of many good uses. It is stupid to try and force it’s use on engines that would work better with slow burning fuel.
The false assumption that corn used for feed or food is used in the production of ethanol is pure BS. It is a totally different kind of corn, and should be grown on land the Government pays farmers not to grow on. Take Government out of it and Americans will find a way to utilize it properly. It is high time the Government got out of the farming biz also.
Ethanol can be made without any imported oil or domestic oil. tractors run on bio-fuel, bio-mass plants used to run ethanol plants. The by-products of both plants can and are used to feed and grow food. The mash left over from the ethanol plant is a very good source of protean food for animals (which we eat) and fertilizer is the by-product of the bio-mass plant. It is obvious this will only work in certain farm regions.
Let these farmers take advantage of the opportunity.
It is the Government that screws it up with it’s mandates and such, not the farmers.
IowaWoman on November 28, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Way ahead of ya, buddy. This sort of planning takes years to implement, & I’m so on top of it, I’ll have both our shares accounted for by 2006 at the latest. You heard me: you’re running a 3 year ethanol deficit thanks to my hard work. If you want to thank me I accept rifles, tin-foil, & the all important hat-making blocks in trade. Gold teeth are fine too.
fronclynne on November 28, 2009 at 7:26 PM
This makes me smile, They still make that stuff in Tennessee,Kentucky and other states east of the Ohio Valley. The birth of NASCAR came from this business and area. Ironic that the cars now run on corn liquor.
IowaWoman on November 28, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Sigh.
Didn’t any of these blockheads read Jurassic Park?
Noocyte on November 28, 2009 at 8:17 PM
IowaWoman, most places don’t have that choice; the only gas that’s sold is the state mandated 10%-20% ethanol mix. Moreover, none of us have a choice in paying for the federal taxes that go to subsidies that town’s free electricity. Sure, it’s great for them, but for all of us that are actually footing the bill for it, it’s not so great at all.
You pointed it out yourself: they are growing all their ethanol on land that the government is paying them to grow nothing on, and they are feeding it into a plant that the government bought. That money has to come from somewhere.
Voyager on November 28, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Government meddling, its so good for you…gag.
Speakup on November 28, 2009 at 9:07 PM
And then we’ll send foreign aid money to buy food made more expensive by our government meddling.
Speakup on November 28, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Way back when, I predicted this biofuels business would prove to be one of our worst ideas. That prediction hasn’t borne out just yet, but it’s heading in that direction. Why does government have to be such a meddler? It’s been clear for decades that far too much money flows into and through federal coffers. We must return rightful control to the states and localities as was intended.
SukieTawdry on November 28, 2009 at 9:42 PM
It seems to have gone unnoticed in much of America, but there are also ethanol producers which were driven into bankruptcy because of (wait for it) high corn prices! There may be a place for ethanol, but we need to let market forces dictate when and how.
nkviking75 on November 28, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Finally…
FREE GUBMINT LIKKER!!!!
hillbillyjim on November 28, 2009 at 10:09 PM
Of course, never mind that they would be packed in like sardines, and you’d need to undertake a housing program on the scale of futuristic dome-cities to even have a prayer of even hope to have humane and sanitary living conditions…
(seriously – that argument is so lame it needs a wheelchair.)
Dark-Star on November 28, 2009 at 10:35 PM
So one person per 2000 square feet would “packed in like sardines”? Damn, that would be some big-assed people.
hillbillyjim on November 28, 2009 at 11:02 PM
…would be…
hillbillyjim on November 28, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Why do I suspect there’s a member of congress somewhere(or maybe a close relative of a member of congress) who owns the factory that makes catalytic converters that are going to start failing and have to be replaced.
mbs on November 28, 2009 at 11:33 PM
You misunderstand, The farmer does not get paid for the land if he uses it. Thus saving tax dollars. The farmer does not double dip so to speak. He becomes less dependent on Government welfare.
I agree that Ethanol should not be mandated.
If Ethanol it is a Federal mandate, why do I get to chose and not you? Could it be possible your State mandates its use? If it were a federal mandate would Iowa be exempt? I think not.
The government did not pay for the Ethanol plant I described. The community bought shares in the plant. People invested private money (their own) into it. It was not paid for with tax dollars.
IowaWoman on November 28, 2009 at 11:36 PM
There are several gas stations in my area that sell gas without ethanol, although it’s a little more expensive, I make it a point to always fill up with non-ethanol fuel. It’s only a couple of bucks per tank, well worth it in my opinion.
mbs on November 28, 2009 at 11:37 PM
You could not invest in the plant if you did not live in the community. It was a deal between the farmers and the people of the town. Not the Government. This town keeps the Government(especially Federal) out of their business as much as possible. Even the local Government is not involved in this plant, other then the laws and regulations all business work under. The town, State and Federal Governments do get taxes from said plant. Voyager, this takes money out of your pocket how? I say your State is the thief not the farmers or this community.
IowaWoman on November 28, 2009 at 11:50 PM
The clenched fist of the invisible pimp hand will not be denied.
holygoat on November 29, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Ethanol is great for racing, in fact, while a bit inconsistent batch to batch, ethanol, as well as alcohol, has a higher octane rating than gasoline. Another cool deal, especially for sportsman racers, is ethanol, is a hell of a lot cheaper than racing gasoline, which is now almost $10 a gallon.
In fact, the Indy Racing League has used ethanol for a couple of seasons now. They are sponsored by the corn farmers, most likely using tax payer dollars!
But here is the deal. Racing isn’t about fuel mileage! To make ethanol work, they simply pump more fuel! Not very practical on the family car though, especially since the crap costs about was plain old dinosaur juice does. So, in fact, driving a street car with ethanol costs you more.
Race cars have used methanol and nitromethane for decades. But there are many issues. Both of these fuels are corrosive. Both absorb water from the atmosphere, causing issues. But you can’t compare their usage to that of a passenger car.
Take nitro, for example. It SUCKS as a fuel. You can’t even start a race car on it. You have to fire them up on alcohol, then switch over. Now you can pour some on the ground, and hit it with a hammer, and have a nice little explosion, but you can throw a match in a bucket full, and nothing will happen.It won’t light.
In fact, it takes incredible amounts of air, and fuel, along with and ungodly amount of spark to fire this crap.Of course, pour it in a fuel dragster, and you have an 8,000 horsepower V-8 that can run the quarter mile in just over 4 seconds at 330 mph. It takes around 18-20 gallons of nitro to make that 1/4 mile pass. At about $30 a gallon!
In other words, what is completely awesome for racing, is totally worthless, and insanely expensive, for the street.
Look, with direct injection gasoline engines, sophisticated engine management, and well, diesels, moving away from stupid things like ethanol, and on to proven technology like CNG makes all of the sense in the world. The technology to convert the fleet to CNG already exists and is proven.
Plus, unlike ethanol, natural gas is actually a clean fuel. As close to zero emissions as you are going to get.
gary4205 on November 29, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »