In years past, the federal government paid farmers to let their fields lay fallow. This was done as a means to achieve price supports for agricultural products. Does anyone know if this government program is still in place with farmers being paid NOT to farm their lands? If so, might it be time for the federal government to discontinue this subsidy?
Ethanol is, in my opinion, not the long term solution. Though it can be produced from grasses and grains other than corn, it will have (and already has had) an adverse impact on food prices. Further, the long term effect to the combustion engines that burn E85 and to the environment are not, I suspect, fully understood. Fossil fuels are also not the future of energy. There are many technologies (nuclear, hydrogen, wind, solar, fuel cells, etc.) for which the potential has not been exploited.
It may be time for the federal government to sponsor a Manhattan Project style initiative to develop and promote the manufacture of renewable energy products. It is my contention that the public would support a market for these products if they were made available to the general public at an affordable price. The United States of America could become the leader of the world in the research, development, and manufacture of energy products. Our economy and our national security may depend on such actions.
Lastly, why does it seem that the only electric, hydrogen, and fuel cell vehicles are found in government and utility company auto fleets?
BTW, the Cumby's over here in front of Golub now has their new gas sign up, including the price for their E85. Ugly sign and it's very different from (actually, almost a negative of) their old sign.
Bad idea, but good for farmers that have been struggling to make ends meet for years. Having our food source tied to our fuel source is crazy ! Farmers , family farmers not big business farms, do not get enough money for their product. The middle men and stores get the biggest hike. Raw grains etc use to sell for a dollar or two a bushel. When you figure the pesticides (oil based) and herbicides (oil based) and machinery (gas run) cost, no wonder so many are losing the family farm. Also all the fetilizer for the extra corn is washing down into gulf of mexico and creating a dead zone, no fish no life! There is no one solution, no magic bullet. We have to conserve (yea right ) and find many alternative sources. I suggest you watch The End Of Suburbia, a documentary put out several years ago.
Quoted from yarbdoc: ... I suggest you watch The End Of Suburbia, a documentary put out several years ago.
I presume that the message is that the population will shift back from rural and suburban areas to urban areas. I believe that the availability of public transportation will define the areas of population density as the price of gasoline continues to increase.
Something obviously needs to be done about our energy consumption and availability and cost. I don't know the answer either. But I do believe that cost will ALWAYS be an issue. So far,no matter what form of energy we choose, it is expensive. One way or another. Then add the tax on top of that.
The only change that I believe can be made is that we slow down our dependency on foreign oil. And again, no matter what we change to...it will be costly. Partly due to government taxation. If we could just get our government officials to cut spending. They have talked about cuts in spending, but it never happens. They spend more and pay pay more in taxes.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
The Gazette made an eloquent plea to the court of history in its April 26 editorial [“Blame it all on ethanol? You could”] questioning the use of ethanol in our gasoline. It voiced the opinion of most Americans. Thus, it remains to be seen if democracy really works. Your expose of the damage done to small engines [April 24 story] using ethanol also terrorized. Now, we must wonder if all of our vehicles will be ruined by the additive. Conspiracy theorists will track such potential disaster back to auto makers. With it will come more distrust of the system’s integrity. Had the White House merely said, “We’re in a crisis — drive less in more-effi - cient cars,” American would have responded. Instead, it had to gum up the works. Now, if we went cold turkey on ethanol, American’s farmers would go bankrupt and drag the rest of us under with them. DAVID CHILDS Johnstown
Ethanol falls from favor with legislators BY H. JOSEF HEBERT The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Just months ago, ethanol was the Holy Grail to energy independence and a “green fuel” that would help nudge the country away from climate-changing fossil energy. Democrats and Republicans cheered its benefits as Congress directed a fivefold increase in ethanol use as a motor fuel. President Bush called it key to his strategy to cut gasoline use by 20 percent by 2010. But now with skyrocketing food costs — even U.S. senators are complaining about seeing shocking prices at the supermarket — and hunger spreading across the globe, some lawmakers are wondering if they made a mistake. “Our enthusiasm for corn ethanol deserves a second look. That’s all I’m saying, a second look,” said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., at a House hearing Tuesday where the impact of ethanol on soaring food costs was given a wide airing. In a dramatic reversal, ethanol has shifted from being an object of widespread, bipartisan praise to one of derision, even among some of its past supporters. Despite the change in attitude, a change of course is unlikely. Democratic leaders in Congress appear to have little interest in reversing a pro-ethanol policy they mapped out only last December. And the powerful farm lobby is on the attack. “The ink has hardly dried on this new law when the clamoring began … for congressional intervention” on food prices, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said Tuesday. But tampering with the mandate “would be unwise and could lead to unintended consequences,” he concluded. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, one of the Senate’s two working farmers and a longtime ethanol booster, said he finds it hard to believe that ethanol could be “clobbered the way it’s being clobbered right now” over the issue of food costs. What does the cost of corn have to do with the price of wheat or rice, he is telling people. The uproar over ethanol is clearly gaining momentum. The governor of Texas and 26 senators, including the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee John McCain, are asking the Environmental Protection Agency to cut this year’s requirement for 9 billion gallons of corn ethanol in half to ease, they say, food costs. Connecticut’s governor recently asked Congress to temporarily waive the requirement. Meanwhile, Sen. John Thune, RS.D., is gathering senators’ signatures on a letter opposing any EPA action so “this attack on ethanol will be blocked,” said a statement from Thune’s office. “It will be a fight.” Robert Meyers, an EPA deputy assistant administrator, told a House hearing Tuesday the agency will respond to the request as quickly as possible, but doubts anything will be forthcoming for about three months. There’s a regulatory process to follow, he said. But lawmakers, even those who enthusiastically supported the requirement for refiners to ramp up ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022 from about 7 billion gallons last year, have begun to have qualms. “Corn ethanol was presented as an almost Holy Grail solution,” said Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa. “But I believe its negatives today far outweigh its benefits. … We need to revisit this … and back away from the food to fuel policy.” Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he will introduce a bill to abandon the ethanol requirement passed just before last Christmas and go back to the one Congress enacted in 2005 that would call for a more modest ethanol increase. But Barton is not so naive to think his bill has a chance. House Democratic leaders have given no indication of retreating from the ethanol requirement. Still, said Barton, “it’s worth putting in.” And congressional unease about the food-for-fuel debate is showing itself in a number of places. In a massive farm bill — for the first time in memory — lawmakers recently trimmed back the federal tax subsidy for corn ethanol, reducing the tax break from 51 cents to 45 cents a gallon.
“Our enthusiasm for corn ethanol deserves a second look. That’s all I’m saying, a second look,” said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., at a House hearing Tuesday where the impact of ethanol on soaring food costs was given a wide airing.
Yeah, where the hell is all that high fructose corn syrup going to come from----the corn syrup is used to dilute the food to spread to the masses.....wonder why diabetes is so prevalent, or any number of other diseases----there is no nutritional value in corn syrup but it does wonders for company owners/stocks/trade etc......screw the masses, let them pay $5.00 gal for gas to get to the market to pay $5.00 1/2LB apples and $5.00 for 10oz cookies with large amount high fructose corn syrup and $5.00/10oz of so-called maple syrup(not-it's 100% grade A high fructose corn syrup with artificial maple flavor), the real stuff cost $12.00pint(could be more now)........
unjust scales abound and now it is all catching up and our house of cards is ready to blow over.....that tower of Babylon is leaning and the dude in the throne at the top is certainly afraid to look down......THERE IS NO STRAW FOR THE BRICKS.......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
“Corn ethanol was presented as an almost Holy Grail solution,” said Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa. “But I believe its negatives today far outweigh its benefits. … We need to revisit this … and back away from the food to fuel policy.”
I give Mr. Doyle credit for his reversal regarding the food for fuel policy. But isn't if funny that we, the average everyday joe, predicted this would happen. We all said that food prices would soar.
I understand that this whole energy thing does not have an easy resolve. But you seriously can't use one necessity to supply another. You just can't!!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Ethanol plant should process nonfood products First published: Monday, May 12, 2008
At a time of severe food shortages and starving worldwide, the Albany Port Authority faces a difficult decision on a proposed corn ethanol plant at the port. Corn ethanol is a controversial and moral issue. The supply of corn for food consumption has been drastically reduced and corn prices have nearly tripled as our Midwest farmers continue to divert corn harvests to the more profitable production of ethanol.
This program will worsen as more plants are built to appease the government's feeble and misguided energy policy. The Albany ethanol plant would add to the problem. Corn ethanol production is often referred to as a "boondoggle" and a "fiasco," and rightly so. It consumes more energy than it generates in the end product. Ethanol has less energy than regular gas resulting in fewer miles per gallon. It is subsidized lavishly at taxpayer expense and is protected from competition by high tariffs imposed on cheaper Brazilian ethanol made form the less essential sugar cane. Despite its shortcomings, ethanol is here to stay and will serve with other energy alternatives in our nation's goal of energy independence. Going forward, our energy policy should focus on ethanol and other biofuels made from nonfood materials and should also remove the import tariffs on sugar cane ethanol. Economic factors, government subsidies, and tax breaks will very likely bring us an ethanol plant at the Port of Albany. Hopefully, our officials will use good judgment and not join the corn ethanol debacle by opting for a plant that makes the ethanol from materials other than food staples. AL PEZZI Clifton Park
Corn-based ethanol an environmental disaster First published: Thursday, May 15, 2008
A May 4 letter by Tom DiBacco of Broadhead + Co. Inc. in Minneapolis advocated continued use of corn-derived ethanol. Mr. DiBacco's company calls itself a "marketing communications agency." I consider them lobbyists for Midwestern agribusiness. Mr. DiBacco's letter contains numerous distortions and factual errors. He states that ethanol uses field corn, presumably as distinct from sweet corn, and that most of it is fed to livestock, not humans. This is factually correct but misleading, since humans drink the milk and eat the eggs and meat produced by the livestock.
Clearly, higher prices for field corn mean higher prices for milk, eggs and meat. Also, field corn is used for direct human consumption in products such as corn flour, cornstarch, corn flakes and corn sweeteners in addition to hominy, grits and Bourbon whiskey. Mr. DiBacco erroneously states that corn sweeteners are derived from corn products other than the starch used to produce ethanol. This is wrong. Corn-based sweeteners include corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, high maltose corn sugar, maltodextrin, dextrose and glucose. These ingredients are listed on innumerable food labels. All are derived from starch in direct cost competition with ethanol. Mr. DiBacco's final sentence claims that corn-based ethanol is environmentally friendly. Have you ever seen an Iowa corn field that stretches endlessly into the distance? Nothing lives there but corn. Corn-based ethanol is an environmental disaster. It has negligible or even negative impact on global warming. It has severe cost consequences to the great majority of Americans who do not grow corn but who pay large subsidies to support the grain companies and ethanol producers who make money only because of our taxes. It appears that corn-derived ethanol and other biofuels are increasing world hunger. The federal law mandating ethanol content in gasoline should be repealed and the subsidy for ethanol should be eliminated. New investments in ethanol plants, be they based on corn or molasses, seem bad investments, particularly when the raw materials are not grown locally but must be brought in.
You know, I was listening to talk radio lately and a caller into a show might have come up with a really good idea when it comes to ethanol. We should stop making it out of corn, and instead, make it out of switchgrass. I don't know exactly what switchgrass is compared to regular grass, but the suggestion that the person made is that they could go along the highways and biways around the country and instead of planting regular grass in the median and on the side of the road, plant switchgrass and cut and send that to be made into ethanol. Then, we can have our corn back to actually eat.
I’m dismayed by the numbers that have resulted from the use of 10 percent ethanol fuel in my car. On average, it takes 15 gallons of fuel to fill the tank. This amount normally would take me 330 miles when I was buying straight gasoline. When I buy fuel with 10 percent ethanol, it must be 13.5 gallons of gasoline and 1.5 gallons of ethanol. Putting this mixture in my car causes me to have to refill the tank after driving on 285 miles. In order to go 330 miles, I must now purchase an additional 2.37 gallons of fuel, if I continue using the 10 percent ethanol mixture. To drive 330 miles with 10 percent ethanol mixture in my car requires 15.63 gallons of gasoline and 1.74 gallons of ethanol, where I previously only had to have 15 gallons of gasoline. Am I wrong, or did I just spend more money and use more gasoline in order to burn up ethanol, which I didn’t need, in order to get where I needed to go? Added to this is the fact that ethanol is being made from an important food source, a source which is a basic food, not only for people, but also for the animals from which we get meat, milk and eggs. This is a big factor in rising grocery prices. Also added to this is the fact that the 10 percent ethanol mixture is raising havoc with many small engines. Some people report that their cars don’t run smoothly on this mixed fuel. Does this ethanol-gas mixture make any sense? We must have the option of buying straight gasoline. DONNA BURR Sharon Springs
Logged
