robwbright
Member
- Apr 8, 2005
- 2,283
- 0
Here's info and perspective you won't find in the regular news media or from the greens - selected quotes below:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker23.html
Let’s take the very rosiest assumptions for corn ethanol, from the paid PR flacks who lobby for the subsidy. They claim that it takes 35,000 BTUs of energy to make 77,000 BTUs of ethanol from corn. No one else gets a ratio anywhere near that good; some calculations show that corn ethanol actually costs energy to make (and fuel ethanol only has 76,100 BTU per gallon according to the EPA). But even this most unrealistic case assumes that about half the energy in a gallon of subsidized ethanol has to come from somewhere else. For comparison, it takes around 22,000 BTU to make a gallon of gasoline. Gasoline contains about 114,000 BTU per gallon, so there’s a clear energy profit.
Looking at market price instead of BTUs, on June 6 wholesale cost for ethanol was around $2.67 per gallon, vs. 2.09 for gasoline. This isn’t counting the cost of the subsidies; even cheating, corn ethanol still isn’t as good as gasoline. And mixing the ethanol in to make gasohol adds further refining costs.
So, the ethanol programs force us to pay more per gallon for a diluting fuel additive that gives only 2/3 the miles per gallon. This means more gas station stops, more wasted time and gas. And the ecological effect of each fuel?
All so-called "biofuels" are a step backward ecologically. The US has reforested; 59% of the northeastern US is now forest. The eastern US has more forested acres now than in the mid-1800s. This reforestation is due to our replacement of biofuels with higher-tech oil, gas, and nuclear power. If we allow the market to improve our technology, eventually we would only use "biofuel" for grilling our salmon.
According to the Environmental Working Group (a generally pro-ethanol group), corn subsidies alone were at least 41.9 billion from 1995–2004. The EWG points out that US politicians (including Hillary) have only supported expensive subsidized ethanol; overseas ethanol from more-efficient sugar cane production is kept out by tariffs. (So don’t write me that someone in Brazil has a great ethanol production company. I’m sure they do, but you can’t buy from them!)
END QUOTES
I don't suppose the 42 billion in subsides for corn has anything to do with the ethanol push . . .?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker23.html
Let’s take the very rosiest assumptions for corn ethanol, from the paid PR flacks who lobby for the subsidy. They claim that it takes 35,000 BTUs of energy to make 77,000 BTUs of ethanol from corn. No one else gets a ratio anywhere near that good; some calculations show that corn ethanol actually costs energy to make (and fuel ethanol only has 76,100 BTU per gallon according to the EPA). But even this most unrealistic case assumes that about half the energy in a gallon of subsidized ethanol has to come from somewhere else. For comparison, it takes around 22,000 BTU to make a gallon of gasoline. Gasoline contains about 114,000 BTU per gallon, so there’s a clear energy profit.
Looking at market price instead of BTUs, on June 6 wholesale cost for ethanol was around $2.67 per gallon, vs. 2.09 for gasoline. This isn’t counting the cost of the subsidies; even cheating, corn ethanol still isn’t as good as gasoline. And mixing the ethanol in to make gasohol adds further refining costs.
So, the ethanol programs force us to pay more per gallon for a diluting fuel additive that gives only 2/3 the miles per gallon. This means more gas station stops, more wasted time and gas. And the ecological effect of each fuel?
All so-called "biofuels" are a step backward ecologically. The US has reforested; 59% of the northeastern US is now forest. The eastern US has more forested acres now than in the mid-1800s. This reforestation is due to our replacement of biofuels with higher-tech oil, gas, and nuclear power. If we allow the market to improve our technology, eventually we would only use "biofuel" for grilling our salmon.
According to the Environmental Working Group (a generally pro-ethanol group), corn subsidies alone were at least 41.9 billion from 1995–2004. The EWG points out that US politicians (including Hillary) have only supported expensive subsidized ethanol; overseas ethanol from more-efficient sugar cane production is kept out by tariffs. (So don’t write me that someone in Brazil has a great ethanol production company. I’m sure they do, but you can’t buy from them!)
END QUOTES
I don't suppose the 42 billion in subsides for corn has anything to do with the ethanol push . . .?
