The scam of corn ethonal

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Well think about how GW gets credit for promoting/ subsidizing fuel cells ( of which a friend who got his masters in chem. Eng was a beneficiary). Semantics aside, that is the point I was getting across. Again, if we want to get specific about the politics, this is not the arena for that. There are other threads for that.

example

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-10237572-48.html

 

[Almington]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

You could theoretically displace an astronomically large amount of petrol, but if the net energy balance is less than one, than its the ultimate testiment to how stupid our policy makers are. Whoever runs against obama would be very wise to leverage this against his campeign, especially when we are running up against the debt ceiling, and spending has become unsustainable.

Poor energy policy (or even poor policy in general) isn't exclusive to one administration or party. Between politicians pandering for votes from the public, donations from various organizations and special interests it shouldn't be surprises that the "optimum" policy is almost never followed.

Ending all subsidies for anything isn't really going to solve the deficit/debt problem. The real problems are entitlements (medicare/medicaid, and social security) along with defense spending (including a two front war on terror) and a totally failure of a tax system that gives out over 1.1 trillion in deductions and credits. But that's another thread.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Poor energy policy (or even poor policy in general) isn't exclusive to one administration or party. Between politicians pandering for votes from the public, donations from various organizations and special interests it shouldn't be surprises that the "optimum" policy is almost never followed.

Ending all subsidies for anything isn't really going to solve the deficit/debt problem. The real problems are entitlements (medicare/medicaid, and social security) along with defense spending (including a two front war on terror) and a totally failure of a tax system that gives out over 1.1 trillion in deductions and credits. But that's another thread.

First paragraph is interesting, and I guess I failed to take that into consideration. Either way, I am not a fan of obamas flip flopping on energy policies. Maybe the EA scam is a subset of a larger problem – how should we set our course in regards to national energy policy? Do we want a president who scorns Natural gas one month, than praises it the next?

And yes, I know that the corn subsidies pale in comparison to QE2, DOD, and healthcare …buy a great deal. To that end, I would rather see cut backs in the big expenditures ( says a lot considering I’ll be on the DOD payroll in a month) if we want to make ground towards balancing the budget. And while the EA scam is abhorrent on many levels, the issues facing our healthcare system are much larger too. No argument here.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

If this is a net energy loser....than why? You could theoretically displace an astronomically large amount of petrol, but if the net energy balance is less than one, than its the ultimate testiment to how stupid our policy makers are. Whoever runs against obama would be very wise to leverage this against his campeign, especially when we are running up against the debt ceiling, and spending has become unsustainable.

On a side track, there are quite a few proposed "solutions" (and in particular CO2) that have the appearence of being better, and are in specific parts of their usage. But dust to dust- are far worse.

It's not about policy makers, it's about the loudest ring master telling you (the general public), "Come this way, see the Great and Giant Egress." People are easily fooled. And it's a lot easier with the internet.

Same has happened for as long as I've lived. Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now Obama. Sounds too good to be true, and while it probably is, there ARE people who click on the links they get as spam.

(and thank you very much, PT Barnum, for the quote I paraphrased)

 

[Patman]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

A) Like the GOP is going to run against farmers and agribusiness. Paul might, but he's unelectable anyway. If you believe that, I've got a couple bridges to sell to you.

Screw agribusiness. What are they doing for this country right now? Seeing to it that we all get incrementally poorer in the name of a false God called "green energy"? Sort of admits that we have no interest in improving this country.

B) The debt ceiling is not what you think it is, despite its name. The debt ceiling is a limit on how much we'll pay back, not how much we'll spend. This isn't the country maxing out its credit cards, this is the country telling the credit card company it refuses to make the monthly minimum payment.

This is only true because there is still one out... we can print money. You know, I'd like to force that hand and have them explain that decision. Sure we're trading pain now instead of further pain later. Both of us know the principle of compounding interest... I'd almost say that if you're going to spend to the roof then you may as well print money. At least printed money doesn't compound... but of course there's a moral hazard when you go ahead and just assume you can print without consequences... but heck, most of this is done without an idea of consequences.

The apt comparison is paying one credit card with another with an endless stream of credit cards... the interest builds and builds but hey, we're paying off the cards... EXCEPT even that isn't apt because we are a nation and that the amount of money means something in terms of relational buying power. Bottom line... we are becoming worth less and less as a nation as compared to nations in better shape than us (less debt, lower interest... in some manner).

C) While I agree spending levels are higher than they should be, I'd dispute that they're unsustainable. We could afford them if we wanted to (through higher taxes), we just don't want to. This isn't the case of a fast food worker wanting a rolls royce, it's more like Warren Buffett wanting a rolls royce while only paying enough for an accord.

Oh lord... the debt is affordable because we could have higher taxes?!?!? NO... the extra spending could possibly become more affordable because of higher taxes. The debt never becomes more affordable... well, maybe if societal improvement and efficiency outpace the interest rate on the debt. In the end, the compounding of the interest means this nation because progressively poorer compared to other nations. We should hope that the world is able to improve itself rapidly because otherwise we will most assuredly decline for decade upon decade. In the end its the same, you must assume that gov't spending is the vehicle to improve society and it its an effective vehicle. Otherwise you cannot justify the spending. Likewise, this increase in taxes must create an improvement that outpaces the damage to an economy created by taking money out of the hands of persons and companies.

I don't understand this logic that says that the gov't needs to do more and more and we need to provide the means to do so. I suppose we won't let go of this opinion that we are assuredly able to improve society via government. Its an indulgence to man's arrogance. All we're saying is "just a little more just a little more"... and at what point does that ACTUALLY achieve anything? We keep assuming that if we take on more debt or we take on more taxes we will improve that country... when does that stop being true? Why is it even true in the first place?

----

And most of this doesn't even have to do with the lie of corn ethanol... but please... I love justifications as to why things I buy should cost more for my own good... and not only that but its proper policy because some know-nothing twits together and decided as such. Great national policy we have folks... good thing we got all the "correct" people to agree to it. Its really interesting to see this nation descend into tribalism.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

ha ha thats fine. I didn't have the steam to argue politics anyway so I am glad you pick up the ball, so to speak.

On a side track, there are quite a few proposed "solutions" (and in particular CO2) that have the appearence of being better, and are in specific parts of their usage. But dust to dust- are far worse.

Exactly, and that is the point of this thread. Suffice to say that it expends to other technologies as well and EA is one of many - arguably not even close to the worst. Its just one that is blatantly obvious , and is something our administration outright refuses to do away with. Now, imagine on less than obvious issues and how they will get resolved ( hint, they wont).

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Screw agribusiness. What are they doing for this country right now?

Oh, I don't know, feeding it.

That is one of the most asinine things I've seen in a long time.

 

[goldy_331]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

That is one of the most asinine things I've seen in a long time.

Are you new here?

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Oh, I don't know, feeding it.

That is one of the most asinine things I've seen in a long time.

Lets differentiate normal agriculture to the people who live off subsidies and have overproduced their capacity only thanks to uncle sam. The ones who are willing to jump on government incentives and use their land for fuel instead of food. Bailouts are not acceptable in any form, be it to banks, auto, or agri of this nature. The ethanol subsidies and E15 are bailouts for an industry with no competition ( thanks foreign ethanol tarrifs), and no demand.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

ha ha thats fine. I didn't have the steam to argue politics anyway so I am glad you pick up the ball, so to speak.



Exactly, and that is the point of this thread. Suffice to say that it expends to other technologies as well and EA is one of many - arguably not even close to the worst. Its just one that is blatantly obvious , and is something our administration outright refuses to do away with. Now, imagine on less than obvious issues and how they will get resolved ( hint, they wont).

As I've posted before, slant toward EA isn't unique to this administration. IIRC, back when Nixon was president, they were touting EA then, as well, just for different reasons. Since we are not going to stop giving the most profitable companies in the world extra tax breaks, I don't see how the ea benefits will end any time soon. Besides, much of the support is bi-partisan from the corn states. Bob Dole was a HUGE fan of EA. Had some particularly bad laws passed that didn't pass judicial muster back when he was a Senator.

And if we are talking CO2, there are much larger fish to fry. (a new side note- if you want to REALLY make an impact on the world, find a way to process bauxite into aluminum that does not take as much electricity as it does, and if you can re-process steel using less energy, you can make millions supplying the world)

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

As I've posted before, slant toward EA isn't unique to this administration. IIRC, back when Nixon was president, they were touting EA then, as well, just for different reasons. Since we are not going to stop giving the most profitable companies in the world extra tax breaks, I don't see how the ea benefits will end any time soon. Besides, much of the support is bi-partisan from the corn states. Bob Dole was a HUGE fan of EA. Had some particularly bad laws passed that didn't pass judicial muster back when he was a Senator.

And if we are talking CO2, there are much larger fish to fry. (a new side note- if you want to REALLY make an impact on the world, find a way to process bauxite into aluminum that does not take as much electricity as it does, and if you can re-process steel using less energy, you can make millions supplying the world)

You won’t find me disagreeing with tax breaks being slashed.

CO2 is another boogyman we use as a scare tactic. Its an inevitable byproduct of energy generation. However if we were really serious about cutting back CO2 emissions, we’d push a more aggressive nuclear policy. This won’t happen thanks to fukushima. Think that in 2008 40% of our grid electricity was coal - if we could increase nuclear capacity to account for a portion of that, we could cut back not only CO2 emissions, but the dastardly strip mining that comes with acquiring coal.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

You won’t find me disagreeing with tax breaks being slashed.

CO2 is another boogyman we use as a scare tactic. Its an inevitable byproduct of energy generation. However if we were really serious about cutting back CO2 emissions, we’d push a more aggressive nuclear policy. This won’t happen thanks to fukushima. Think that in 2008 40% of our grid electricity was coal - if we could increase nuclear capacity to account for a portion of that, we could cut back not only CO2 emissions, but the dastardly strip mining that comes with acquiring coal.

That's my point- every administration has backed EA, since the EA ring master has convinced the crowds that the increidble egress is the most important thing to see in the show. In '72, it was very much about getting fuel, in the 80's- it was backing farmers, sometime in there it was emissions, now it's CO2 and/or energy independance. They are all BS, and it's not just the guy sitting in the big white house who is doing it.

Even IF one of the more important nuclear opponents figured out that fukushima's horrific results were no deaths vs. what coal has given us over the last few years so that we should back nuclear much, much more, it's quite easy to scare people in thinking its super evil.

Favorite line in MIB- a person is smart, people are dumb. And it's easy to manipulate the masses into being scared. (see Patman, for instance... )

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

If you're going to rail on ethanol subsidies, there are plenty of other ones out there waiting to be railed against, too.

might want to read the title of this thread. that is the scope of this thread.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

might want to read the title of this thread. that is the scope of this thread.

Seems like a one sided discussion against it.

so you win!

 

[unofan]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

might want to read the title of this thread. that is the scope of this thread.

Fine. Just remember that yourself the next time you feel the need to inject comments about the deficit and administration in yet another rambling rant while you wear an onion on your belt, as was the style at the time.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Lets differentiate normal agriculture to the people who live off subsidies and have overproduced their capacity only thanks to uncle sam. The ones who are willing to jump on government incentives and use their land for fuel instead of food. Bailouts are not acceptable in any form, be it to banks, auto, or agri of this nature. The ethanol subsidies and E15 are bailouts for an industry with no competition ( thanks foreign ethanol tarrifs), and no demand.

First, the US agriculture industry has always produced as much as it possibly can, if anything, the government has historically paid to lower production (which is a completely different argument). Look at it this way, if there was no ethanol, do you think we'd be producing less overall? No, the producer always grows as much as possible, even when, at times, it isn't in his best interest to do so.
Second, I don't agree with the statement on jumping on government incentives to use land for fuel instead of food. Farms simply produce grain/meat/etc and sell at the highest price possible, whether it goes for food or fuel doesn't really matter because from their standpoint it is a business, and they have to get as much money for their product as possible. The problem is at the next level up, where corporations that build ethanol plants get the incentives that artificially raise the price. As for subsidies that go straight to the farmer, when prices are this high, it doesn't really matter because we don't need the subsidies then. When the prices are low, they're needed because if they weren't there farmers across the country would go under, causing a bigger shift to giving companies like Cargill and ADM even more control over the industry. Trust me, farmers would much rather not get subsidies, they would rather get a fair price for their crops and make a living without the government help. At times that is possible, other times, it just isn't.

Full disclosure: check out this website: http://farm.ewg.org/ This shows the subsidies that went to every single farmer in the country. I looked in the database for my home county, over the past years, as grain prices have risen, the major grain producers have slid off the list, and the list of the highest subsidies is dominated by dairy farms, which have continued to struggle after the price of grains recovered. (remember, if you're running a dairy farm, that high price of grain is an expense, not a revenue)

edit: actually, just looked, we came in at $0 for 2009, just as any of the other crop farmers did, which is good to see, that the subsidies aren't given out when prices are high.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

First, the US agriculture industry has always produced as much as it possibly can, if anything, the government has historically paid to lower production (which is a completely different argument). Look at it this way, if there was no ethanol, do you think we'd be producing less overall? No, the producer always grows as much as possible, even when, at times, it isn't in his best interest to do so.
Second, I don't agree with the statement on jumping on government incentives to use land for fuel instead of food. Farms simply produce grain/meat/etc and sell at the highest price possible, whether it goes for food or fuel doesn't really matter because from their standpoint it is a business, and they have to get as much money for their product as possible. The problem is at the next level up, where corporations that build ethanol plants get the incentives that artificially raise the price. As for subsidies that go straight to the farmer, when prices are this high, it doesn't really matter because we don't need the subsidies then. When the prices are low, they're needed because if they weren't there farmers across the country would go under, causing a bigger shift to giving companies like Cargill and ADM even more control over the industry. Trust me, farmers would much rather not get subsidies, they would rather get a fair price for their crops and make a living without the government help. At times that is possible, other times, it just isn't.

Full disclosure: check out this website: http://farm.ewg.org/ This shows the subsidies that went to every single farmer in the country. I looked in the database for my home county, over the past years, as grain prices have risen, the major grain producers have slid off the list, and the list of the highest subsidies is dominated by dairy farms, which have continued to struggle after the price of grains recovered. (remember, if you're running a dairy farm, that high price of grain is an expense, not a revenue)

edit: actually, just looked, we came in at $0 for 2009, just as any of the other crop farmers did, which is good to see, that the subsidies aren't given out when prices are high.

This was a great post. Thank you.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Fine. Just remember that yourself the next time you feel the need to inject comments about the deficit and administration in yet another rambling rant while you wear an onion on your belt, as was the style at the time.

As for my posts, I have posted many numbers and figures. While you call my posts rambling ( they are a rant), at least I try and back what I say with evidence, figures, articles and anything else I find. I do not see you do this. Why? Because you are arguing to argue. You harp on semantics and bring it all into your realm because , frankly, you don’t know anything about this industry. Our exchanges would be like doing my thesis defense while talking about frequency modulation and having someone in the crowd arguing about the units of a wave, or harping on about what a ‘subtended’ angle is. ( yes I have seen a thermal systems dominated by such a discussion, and it was a massive waste of a day).

BBDL interesting take. Didn’t know that.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

From the link above

http://www.ewg.org/report/Will-the-Real-Ethanol-Beneficiaries-Please-Stand-Up

The supposed growth of biofuels that would come from something other than corn looks impressive, but getting across that ethanol “bridge” is like running head-on into a 70 mph wind. The biggest reason is the VEETC tax credit, which is set to expire at the end of this year unless the ethanol lobbies get their way and persuade the lame duck session of Congress to pass an extension of this wasteful and unwise tax subsidy.

Followed by

The Renewable Fuels Association and the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) argue that extending the tax credit is essential in order to make progress in reducing American dependence on imported oil and fossil fuels generally. But the reality is that this subsidy is not only draining government coffers but also drowning out other renewable energy options with far more promise.

Cough algae cough. But I was too busy rambling to be congruent with this sentiment.

What I did not know is the drop in farmer owned ethanol plants, which according to this article at BP, shall and Exxon ( they get the 45 cent per gallon tax credit). In 2005, farmers owned half the plants, and now its closer to 19% In raw numbers, that’s a corporate owned increase from 41 to 162 biorefineries. (that’s all in the article). So my original stance - cutting all subsidies still stands. To big oil or agri ( who it appears to be big oil anyway) .

A great concluding remark from the article

Allowing the tax credit to expire this year and resisting industry demands for taxpayer funding to build an ethanol infrastructure will allow the free market, not a politically powerful lobby, to determine what the clean energy future will look like.

I have no problem with farm subsidies. I have a problem with EA subsidies. Let the force of the free market dictate energy. Do not let a lobby that is interested in political gain control our energy outlook.

edit: there are doves of articles that dislike the corn ethanol scam as much as I. Take a look.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

I just read this quote from Pawlenty in an article about announcing running for president, and thought it was worth a mention here:

"And in Iowa, Pawlenty said Monday that ethanol subsidies, as well as all other energy subsidies, must eventually be phased out."

I don't want to get into the politics, when it relates to specific candidates, because I'm in no mood for a political flame war. I just thought that the quote was relevant to the conversations we've had in this thread.

edit: here's the link: http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/122455524.html