US Senate Votes For Repeal of Ethanol Subsidies

T Murphy writes "Although the measure is not expected to become law, a Senate vote 73-27 in favor of repealing ethanol subsidies and tariffs means a lot for future legislation. The White House stands opposed to changes in the subsidies or tariffs, so they will likely go untouched before they expire at the end of the year. Even so, this is a strong indication that such government support for ethanol will be reduced if not eliminated. The response to the Senate vote has been mixed, from corn prices falling, to the World Bank encouraging lower food prices, to concerns over reduced funding for alternative energy, to supporters of such budget cuts."

Comments

Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[goodmanj]

Democrat, Republican, whatever. My political support goes for congressmen who believe in the laws of thermodynamics.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[hrvatska]

I think from a politician's perspective the law of thermodynamics is that money burned within your district generates votes for you and money burned outside of your district doesn't.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[chemicaldave]

The Laws of Thermodynamics? So does that have authority over the Constitution?

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[EraserMouseMan]

A subsidy is when the government forks over money so a product's price point can be lowered enough for it to be affordable. In other words, the government takes your money (tax dollars) and gives it to Big Ethanol producers so they can cut the price of Ethanol to the point where you can afford to buy it. Wait... I paid to lower Ethanol's price to the point where I could afford to buy it?

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Smallpond]

Ethanol subsidies would not exist if the Iowa caucus weren't the earliest primary. Corn prices have been driven so high by E85 that there has not been a need for subsidies in at least 4 years

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Fallingcow]

Subsidies spur production and research, as well as making a product more competitive internationally. They can keep a threatened industry that is desirable to keep around (say, one that is expected to be useful later but which might die in the meantime and be hard to start back up, or one that needs a push to get off the ground but will provide lots of jobs and tax money once it's going, or one critical to defense, even in an indirect sense) from being lost to foreign competition or simple changing demand. They can also be used to keep staples in the reach of the poor (though that happens more often in other countries, I think). Those are just the uses/justifications I can think of off the top of my head at 7:30 in the morning local time.

They're not as nonsensical as you imply, though I happen not to support this particular one myself.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[rwa2]

Yay! So if this eventually leads to E10 going away, does that mean we can all look forward to a 3% increase in gas mileage? Will gas prices go up 3% to compensate for not being watered down? Were gas prices reduced 3% in the first place to compensate for ethanol having only ~66% of the energy density of gasoline in the first place?

I highly doubt it :-P

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

My mind can't really handle the fact that, SOMEHOW, the corn lobby lost this vote.

It's...have they not been putting enough money into the system or something? Yeah, it's awesome, but the fact that "big corn" actually got a slap in the face with this has me boggling.

I thought stuff like this would never get repealed.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[TheRaven64]

The point of a subsidy like this is usually to provide a catalyst. If it takes 100,000 people buying something for economies of scale to make it affordable, then you need some way of building the demand to that level. It's not very attractive to companies, so the government provides subsidies. Eventually, they should be phased out as the production cost drops below what the market will accept. The government then gets the subsidy money back in taxes.

Of course, theory and practice don't always agree, and in the USA subsidies are used more to buy votes than anything else.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Aladrin]

Technically, you're both right. They are supposed to be used for the reasons you state, but many end up being used as he states.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Banning entropy doesn't work.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[trum4n]

This one IS nonsensical though. The entire reason in the first place was to replace gas. Instead, they mixed it with our gas, ruining our engines, lowering our MPG AND they didn't even lower the price! I cant tell you how angry i get when i pull up to the pump in my 74 Charger that says GAS ONLY, NO ALCOHOL on the cap, and the STATE says i have to ruin my car for their gain. Fuel pump started leaking a few weeks after this crap hit the tank, and ever since, it is a bear to start, cause the fuel bowl dries out, cause the pump leaks!

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[paiute]

Subsidies spur production and research, as well as making a product more competitive internationally. They can keep a threatened industry that is desirable to keep around (say, one that is expected to be useful later but which might die in the meantime and be hard to start back up, or one that needs a push to get off the ground but will provide lots of jobs and tax money once it's going, or one critical to defense, even in an indirect sense) from being lost to foreign competition or simple changing demand. They can also be used to keep staples in the reach of the poor (though that happens more often in other countries, I think). Those are just the uses/justifications I can think of off the top of my head at 7:30 in the morning local time.

They're not as nonsensical as you imply, though I happen not to support this particular one myself.

The corn subsidy has very little to do with actual economies and a whole lot to do with the Iowa primaries.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[goodmanj]

Who said anything about E10 (10% ethanol-gas mixtures) going away? The same bill eliminates the tariff on ethanol imports from outside the US, which allows Brazil to send us good cheap sugar cane ethanol. This stuff has its own problems, but at least has an energy return on energy invested (EROI) greater than one.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[goodmanj]

It's simple. Gasoline lobby + food manufacturers' lobby > corn lobby. This bill also drops tariffs on imported sugar cane based ethanol, which will make the raw materials for 10% ethanol/gas mixtures cheaper. Meanwhile, prices on good ol' corn syrup will drop, since it's not being made into ethanol anymore.

ADM loses, Chevron and Coca-Cola win.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Rei]

Your 74 charger would be referring to the "gasohol" movement, which was immature but just emerging back when this car was produced in 1973. There were no standard blends back then (and few filling stations); people could mix anywhere from a couple percecnt ethanol in to a majority ethanol. Your leak almost certainly had nothing to do with the ethanol; the notion that these small percents ethanol are not only damaging, but so damaging that they'd destroy a fuel pump in just a couple weeks, is just absurd.

The lower MPG claim is quite a legit one. Ethanol is a less dense fuel than gasoline, so when you buy by the gallon, you're buying less energy. But at 10-15% blend, you're not buying that much ethanol in that gallon.

Gasoline is always going to be a blend of different chemicals. No one chemical is needed, but a wide variety of different chemicals are needed to yield different properties in the fuel. It's likely that for the forseeable future gasoline will contain at least a few percent ethanol because, all "sustainability" issues aside, it's one of the best substitutes for MBTE, which causes serious groundwater contamination.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[UnknowingFool]

No the reason that alcohol was used in the first place was for pollution reasons. Adding alcohol to gasoline allows for the gasoline to burn more completely thus reducing other pollutants. Other chemicals like MTBE achieved the same purpose; however, MTBE was found to pollute ground water when leaked. If you are in bind, you can use more alcohol to replace gasoline but the original purpose was never to increase mileage or be an alternative source. Somewhere along the way, ethanol became a savior that it was never meant to be.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[radl33t]

it also has a great rainforest destruction index (RDI) of 7.4 !

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[camperdave]

ADM loses, Chevron and Coca-Cola win.

And possibly the average American as well, if HFCS gets eliminated from foods.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Moryath]

Effects seen (firsthand on the part of my rather large family, over a dozen aunts and uncles plus grandparents, parents, siblings, and cousins) within the 6 months after WhiskeyGas (Gas + Ethanol, brought to you by the same tech that brings you Jack Daniels) was forced upon the people of Milwaukee, WI:

- Failed fuel pumps
- Failed/corroded fuel lines; alcohol does a number on any rubberized hose.
- Failed fuel injectors (as the detritus of corroded fuel lines moves through the system)
- Reduced gas mileage
- Increased knock (WhiskeyGas does not produce the same power as normal gas, causing the engine's timing to periodically go outside recommended bounds)
- My dad's best friend, who owns an auto repair shop, stocked up on fuel pumps and lines when the change was announced but not yet put in place. Within a month after the change he had enough business from people needing lines replaced, fuel pumps fixed, and timing adjusted that he had to hire another assistant and started to see wait times of 5-7 business days in his schedule.

Sure, these are "all anecdotes", but I've a large enough family to find the sample size fairly representative of the population at large.

Also, Ethanol is a pretty lousy-ass substitute for MTBE. It causes gas to "go stale" twice as fast as previous blends, it's impossible to transport WhiskeyGas by pipeline over meaningful distances due to water affinity (ergo, even more wasted fuel hauling the crap around by tanker truck), and even over short distances, Ethanol constantly corrodes the pipes and causes leaks unless patched/repaired/replaced on an insanely short schedule.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[black soap]

Won't stop them from simpy redefining terms though. Like when they say "this tax isn't a tax," in law, it isn't a tax - but you still have to pay it.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[trum4n]

Ethanol damages rubber. The same rubber used the in seals of the mechanical pump. Old rubber got a lot older very fast after soaking in the stuff for a few weeks.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Bob-taro]

Technically, you're both right. They are supposed to be used for the reasons you state, but many end up being used as he states.

You claim that both sides have a point? Call the internet police! I'm pretty sure kind of forum posting law has been broken.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[snspdaarf]

I will not argue with your gas cap, but my '68 Ford ran for years on gas with "up to 10 percent ethanol", and never had any problems. It was used as a daily driver until brake parts had to be special ordered, then I sold it. Also, I don't think your fuel bowl dries out because of a leaking pump. I have not worked on every brand of carb out there, but all the ones I have had the fuel inlet too high in the bowl to siphon much gas back out.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[trum4n]

I've had a few mechanics define the problem for me that way. I assumed it was correct, because the bowl is dry when i go to start it. Unless its leaking through the jets/evaporating. But the line from the pump to the carb is always dry when i go to start the car.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Rei]

I'm sorry, but you're making one of the most common mistakes in anecdotal data analysis: attributing whatever symptoms you experience to the phenomenon that you just became aware of. This is the same reason why people think that their vaccines caused their kids to become autistic or that the wind farm a couple miles away gave them cancer.

Ethanol has its own disadvantages compared to MTBE, but overall it's clearly a net positive. I don't have time to go into each of them here, but for example, while it increases VOCs relative to MTBE, most other pollutants decline.

And the pipeline issue is increasingly obsolete, FYI -- a little bit more every year.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[poetmatt]

The ethanol subsidy has been knowingly misused for decades, so to see this finally end will also help to spell doom to things like HFCS too - since those rely on the ethanol-corn subsidy as well.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[crmarvin42]

No, the corn subsidies have everything to do with price control. They are on a sliding scale, and while corn prices are high (as they have been for the last 8-10 years), corn subsidies go way down with the more profitable operations not making anything off of the subsidies. Now, you can argue that an ethanol subsidy is essentially a corn subsidy, I won't even disagree with you much. However, the reasoning behind the existance of corn subsidies existance is sound.

Agricultural commodities markets fluctuate dramatically, but in a generally cyclical maner. Production is high and prices start to drop, then the market and farmers respond too slowly and prices bottem out and many farmers go out of business. This curtails supply, prices rise, but the market and farmers respond too slowly and prices rocket up out of the reach of the poor. More acres are planted, production rises... rinse and repeate.

The corn subsidy sets a floor for corn prices so that farmers don't go out of business (mostly the smaller farmers that liberals orgasim at the thought of) when supply/demand work to decrease prices below production costs. It is supposed to be structured such that it is far better for the farmer to turn a profit on his own that to rely on the subsidy, and it can also be argued that congress has failed to structure it properly in the last couple of farm bills, but the impetus behind the existance of corn subsidies is sound.

The impetus behind the ethanol subsidy on the other hand is on far more shakey ground. It supports higher corn prices, but does so by decreasing supply, and creates an antagonism between food and fuel that has not previously existed. The fact that ethanol is far less suitable than gasoline to fuel even flex fuel cars based on performance per $ or per Gallon shows that it was a pipe dream. Ethanol can be *Part* of the new energy plan, but shouldn't *Be* the new plan. Especially if it is made from food. Cellulosic ethanol (that glorious unicorn) could be excellent, but is perpetually 10 years away from being viable (and I've been watching it for the last 12 years or so).

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[poetmatt]

you have to go above the blend for these things to become more commonplace.

see: E85 and higher proportions of ethanol, and why E85 is barely offered anywhere.

with the 10% we regularly see, it wasn't as likely - it still happened, but it wasn't as much of a "Every fillup might kill your fuel pumps".

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Moryath]

I'm sorry, but you're making one of the most common mistakes in anecdotal data analysis: attributing whatever symptoms you experience to the phenomenon that you just became aware of.

A series of very similar failures, in >50% of the vehicles of friends and family, within 2 months after the only significant change was the gas formulation. Other vehicles that didn't have "failures" but required tune-ups and adjustment far sooner than the standard manufacturer's schedule (which had previously been very reliable) within the next year.

Ethanol has its own disadvantages compared to MTBE, but overall it's clearly a net positive.

Only if you're a mechanic, farmer, or factory producing the replacement parts.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[bratloaf]

I have personally seen a decline in my average MPG from 21 to 17 since the swap to "10% Ethanol everywhere". This is comparing the same time of year, same commute, same everything. To prove my hypothesis, I took a little side trip the other week, and gassed up with "gas" at the local marina/quickiemart that still sells "gas" for over $4 a gallon. No ethanol.

I made 2 complete 70+ mile commutes, and averaged... 21.3 MPG. Today, a couple weeks later and back on Gasohol, my overhead display (reset after last tank, about 3 commutes ago) reads 16.9MPG. It most definitely affects mileage.

Additionally, I work at an autoparts store part-time (day job is at a University). We see no end of people coming in with alcohol related problems. Especially on cars built from the mid 80's to mid 90's. I've personally seen some of the "gunk" that rubber turns to when exposed to alcohol too much. It looks like and acts like tar. Boats and motorcycles seem to be especially affected in many cases. I think 10% is really pushing the limit on any car built before about 2005.

Side rant: Most of these "clean air" additives were mandated back before multi port injection, electronic controls, hell even electronic ignition were standard. On a modern car (anything built since about 1990, especially any OBD-II car since 1995) it's just stupid to add "clean air" additives (oxygenates) to fuel. ANY modern car that has a working fuel control system (O2 sensor, Cat, no holes in exhaust) will simply re-calculate the fuel air mixture. If the car is broken in such a way that its running open loop, it will fail inspection anyway and illuminate the check engine light. A much simpler, and more effective solution to air pollution would be to get these "emissions dinosaurs" off the road, or fixed. Subsidize THAT (i.e. fixing O2 sensors, Cat converters, etc). and it might make a difference without costing EVERYONE a ton in gas costs.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Moryath]

You mean like this?

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/BF822DDBEC29C0DC852577BB005BAC0F
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/05/10/ethanol-mess-with-your-engine-you-may-be-on-your-own/

Where I currently live we've regularly had gas stations caught selling gas that was 12-13% Ethanol coming from disreputable refineries. It happens all over the country.

And causes problems.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Chris Mattern]

It has authority over everything, although it make take a little while getting to you.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[bratloaf]

AMEN to that... Here's hoping for cane sugar back in soda as a general thing in a couple years.

What I'd love to see is every gas station with an E85 pump (priced accordingly) and GAS (E0). Then let people decide, based on mileage/cost/car. Some cars will do very well on E85, and if priced accordingly it might be worth it. The rest of us could have GAS and our mileage back...

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Andy Dodd]

My guess - Ethanol IS a solvent but not one strong enough to damage a properly functioning vehicle. However, if the vehicle is "crudded up" due to improper maintenance, the ethanol might dislodge the crud.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then you won't be voting Republican. They believe in God and Kicking That Uppity Muslim Nigger Out Of The White House, not science.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Moryath]

No, it's the cost of replacing fuel lines intended for proper gas with "Ethanol-ready" lines. And even the "Ethanol-ready" ones don't hold up as well as the old ones did with proper gas.

Here's what Ethanol can do to fuel lines over time:
Image.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[fast turtle]

and yet, if our fuel was up to the octane standards of the late 60's, our cars could easily beat the emission standards set by almost any government and no I'm not talking this crap they call 87 octane but the 100 octane we used to get with premium/high test being 110+ octane. Keep in mind that the higher the octane, the more resistant the fuel is to detonation, thus allowing them to set the timing where needed to get both maximum power with the leanest fuel settings and on the new computer controlled with an O2 sensor, you would see very close to zero emissions across the board while getting 50+ mpg at the minimum

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Pope]

My bike is a 1980 Honda, and I only use Shell's premium gasoline, since here on Ontario anyway it contains 0% ethanol.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[snspdaarf]

I can see the line itself draining out from a pump leak. And, I could see the bowl drying out from a different leak. I had a 72 Ford wagon with a failed power valve. A small leak at first, it caused a drop in mileage and hard starting because it was always dripping fuel into the intake. If the engine was cold, the bowl would be dry. If it was warm, it would be flooded. Then it let go completely. Lots of smoke out the tailpipe.

Did ethanol cause your pump to fail? Maybe. I didn't see an increase in pump failures, but I know people claim there were. I have seen a lot of clogged filters. It's possible that some gunk was loosened by the ethanol (in your tank, the gas station tank, etc.) that stopped up the filter and caused the pump to let go. It could have cleaned out the pump so that a leak that was stopped up started again. Or, it could have been coincidence.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Rei]

I'm sorry, but statistically, *that happens*, especially with older cars. At some points, you'd have thought a witch put a hex on my '86 Olds I used to drive. There's a reason why anecdotes are not a substitute for data: they suck.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[realityimpaired]

I doubt it'll be the end of HFCS, because that is still in common use in parts of the world that never subsidised ethanol production. What it will do, however, is reduce the demand for corn as a fuel, which will mean more of it is available for use in food, which is how it should be. Food prices are way higher than they need to be, largely because so many industries are using food for non-food purposes.

If we're going to use ethanol as a fuel, we should be getting it from stuff that isn't a major part of the food chain, like wood pulp, or certain types of seaweed or algae blooms. It isn't significantly harder to make from those sources than from corn, and we won't be hurting the global food supply. Hell, even if you're going to use corn as a base for your ethanol fuel, you shouldn't be using the part of the corn that gets eaten, you should be using the husk, the silk, and the stalk as biomass for fuel production.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[goodmanj]

What? Oh, you thought the tariff elimination I was talking about applied to imported *sugar* too? Hahaha, don't be ridiculous. The bill only eliminates tariffs on *ethanol*. It'll be a cold day in hell before high fructose corn syrup goes away.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[UnknowingFool]

Octane rating does not affect the effectiveness of the reaction directly; it affects the kinetics for the reaction. Indirectly it affects effectiveness but not enough to make it a reliable indicator of pollution control effectiveness.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[goodmanj]

I have no problem with subsidies being used to bootstrap economies of scale. The problem is that no matter how big a scale you operate at -- and we've now tried it at a titanic scale -- corn ethanol gives you essentially zero net energy gain. These subsidies achieve nothing but providing a cash pipeline to Big Agriculture.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[realityimpaired]

Go ahead and give it a whirl, then... avgas isn't very hard to find, it isn't mixed with ethanol, and is usually over 130 octane. Try it in your car, and tell me if you get enough of a boost in mileage to justify the increased cost in running it.

Of course, Avgas has lead in it, just like all the gas in the 1960's did. It's an unfortunate necessity for developping the high octane fuel. It'll fuck up your catalytic converter and then some, but if you really do think running super high octane gas will improve your emissions then give it a whirl. If you'd rather not take a chance on the lead, you can still get 103 octane unleaded gas at some stations.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[goodmanj]

I'm all in favor of subsidies as a general proposition, for the reasons you mention. However, corn ethanol does not meet the criteria of any of your justifications.

  Production: is not in itself a good thing, if the thing you're producing is not useful.
* Research: all these billions funneled into corn ethanol have not led to new insight into how to make the process provide positive net energy. Ethanol production turns one gallon of gasoline and 20 pounds of corn into one gallon of ethanol.
* Desirable industry: while farmers may come and go, agribusiness as a whole is doing just fine.
* Push off the ground: the subsidies we've provided have turned corn ethanol into a gigantic business, but despite the economy of scale it provides no useful service to anyone
* Critical to defense: Ethanol per se is not vital, and while food is, America is not going to stop farming any time soon
* Loss to foreign competition: this is not itself a bad thing.
* Staples in reach of the poor: this subsidy *harms* the poor, by inflating food prices while having no influence on gas prices.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, even my 1991 is unhappy with Ethanol in the fuel. The Ethanol pushers that claim that it works fine in any car on the road are a bunch of liars. Down with Ethanol!

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[ifiwereasculptor]

Such different mileage numbers cannot be attributed to ethanol. A certain volume X of it has about 70% of the energy present in its equivalent in gasoline. Which means if you average 20MPG with gasoline, your car will do about 14MPG on pure ethanol. In a 10%e-90%g blend, you'll be looking at a reduction from 20MPG to 19.4MPG.

Also, the only "gasonline" available around here is 25% ethanol and a lot of imports (mostly BMW and Audi) run just fine. Rubber does degrade significantly with ethanol, but not that much when it's blended with gas. I think most people there are either overreacting or being fed something other than 10%e-90%g. Maybe more alcohol or a different kind of solvent, thinking they can get away with it now because everyone will just assume it's the ethanol. I had a moped that would always complain whenever fed substandard or adulterated fuel, so I'd test each gas station with it before greenlighting it for my family. Most cars run just fine on a lot of crap until they are corroded and start running crappily even on good stuff, but the combination of a small chamber and a carburetor was quick to point out any dishonest oil merchants.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[canajin56]

Corn ethanol cannot be made affordable regardless of economies of scale, due to a thing called the laws of thermodynamics. Even if you manage to build a 100% efficient ethanol engine, it will still take more ethanol to grow a crop of corn, that can ever possibly be obtained from the corn. So corn subsidies are the government spending money in order to make things worse. Because the generators and the tractors don't run on 100% efficient ethanol engines, they run on diesel. So instead of just using 100 gallons of petrol in vehicles, you're using 120 gallons on farms to make 100 gallons of ethanol, which then gives a lower MPG than petrol did in the first place*. And no price makes that make any sense, ever, no matter what. Now, there are far more efficient sources of ethanol, but the American corn states had a lot of power, and sort of forced all Ethanol research to be on corn. For one, any grain at all would be a better source by a long shot. Corn is the worst crop in the world to be grown for food in terms of efficiency, and the same holds for fermenting it.

*these numbers are made up, but broadly true.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[TheDarkMaster]

I'm from Brazil, and here we use regularly gasoline with 25% alcohol. But notice that you can not use this mixture in a car prepared to use only gasoline, the engine will actually start to fail. The mix works, but the car's engine needs to be adjusted to work properly (setting, hose, compression ratio, etc.)

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Moryath]

"Over the past 30 years" you say. How many did you put ethanol in, how regularly, what model year, and what year were their fuel hoses and rubber gaskets replaced as standard maintenance?

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[drinkypoo]

Your leak almost certainly had nothing to do with the ethanol; the notion that these small percents ethanol are not only damaging, but so damaging that they'd destroy a fuel pump in just a couple weeks, is just absurd.

Your assumption that it "destroy[ed] a fuel pump in just a couple weeks" instead of causing an already-marginal part to fail is beyond absurd.

Ethanol is known to attack certain things that gasoline with MTBE doesn't. It's a fact. My chainsaw's fuel line is one of those things; the manufacturer explicitly specified non-gasohol, as if you could get it. The leather diaphragm commonly used in carburetors' accelerator pumps as recently as the early seventies (mine was from 1960, though; a 650 CFM Carter 4bbl) are another item typically destroyed by ethanol. Ethanol attacks neoprene seals so newer systems use silicone or Viton.

This last winter when the fuel changed as it does seasonally Ford diesel pickups across the nation (but primarily in Northerly states; some of the southerly ones don't change blend at all) lost their fuel pickups and also developed leaks in hard lines.. within the first week. This wasn't an ethanol issue (as far as I know) but it was a very rapid deterioration. The pickup feet were chemically attacked; mine were actually gummy because they were being broken down. I assume that most of these out there in the world are already marginal because they are simply a crap design (thanks, Ford!) and not made of a sufficiently stable plastic. My replacement is just a piece of tubing with a bend in it so it doesn't suck to the bottom of the tank, because the stock pickup has a low pressure bypass which goes around the filter screen anyway, making it useless.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

It was like the transition of Coke, to New Coke, to Classic Coke. The New Coke only came out so people would not notice that the Classic Coke had High Fructose Corn Syrup instead of cane sugar. Even though HFCS was half the cost if not more, the price of Coke stayed the same.

Do you actually think the profit that the big oil companies make would be given back.... What have you been smoking?

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[trum4n]

PA law requires ALL gas to have ethanol in it. 10% as of right now. I'm mad about my Charger. I usually don't even both talking about my Supra that had nothing wrong with it, for 100k miles, then about a month after starting the ethanol mix gas, car was burning oil and needed a complete ring job. The manual said NO ETHANOL.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the point though. Whether you support it or not, you are forced to pay. Whereas if there are no subsidies, you can CHOOSE to support it by paying that extra money.

Why should I be forced by threat of imprisonment to pay for a subsidy because you support it and why should you be forced by threat of imprisonment for a subsidy that I support?

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

The ENTIRE COUNTRY of Canada uses ~10% ethanol in our gas in winter as a gas line antifreeze and octane booster, and have been doing so for a very long time (15+ years). If all of the problems you associate with ethanol based gasoline happened as often and as severely as you indicate then no one would ever 'wrap around' the odometer in there car in Canada, and yet it happens routinely (sometimes with gas line service beyond routine maintainance).

If I had to make a guess at what's happening it would be this: Your vehicles were already junk, and had all kinds of gas line faults, they would have failed soon- BUT the goo inside gasoline had collected on the faults like a plaque or cholesterol temporarily providing relief. Add something that dissolves gasoline glazes (like ethanol), and all of those faults will become immediately apparent, rather then apparent over the next 10,000km.

Further: Ethanol in gasoline at reasonable mixture levels (~10%) actually increases shelf life (ethanol evaporates slower then gas) and increases resistance to water (ethanol and water are mixable, so rather then the water sinking to the bottom of your tank, the ethanol content in the gas works as a partial 'dry gas' taking moisture out of the tank and while not burning it effectively at least pushing it through the engine). Ethanol is most certainly more pipe safe then petro-chemical mixtures.

With all that said- in Canada we need to add ethanol to our gas because the damned stuff would freeze in the winter, and we need that 'dry gas' action of the ethanol due to our large temperature extremes, ethanol is a useful addition here (and for many of your northern stats), in the southern states where snow is something that you've heard of perhaps somewhere, and temperatures are pretty consistent you don't need it, and being FORCED to add it by government action is silly.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... if only there were technological advances in the automobile industry in the past 30 years. Or fueling stations where you could purchase, to invent a phrase, a "premium" gasoline that includes little to no ethanol. That would be a novel concept! In fact, why don't gas stations try offering say... 3 different blends at the pump, so that people could choose!

Oh, to live in such a world.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[operagost]

Octane is about the same now as it was then; only the method of measuring it has changed. This is similar to how a muscle car from the 1960s might have been rated at 350 HP, but it's really like a 250 HP car now because at the time they used to dyno it without even an alternator or air cleaner on the engine!

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay! So if this eventually leads to E10 going away, does that mean we can all look forward to a 3% increase in gas mileage? Will gas prices go up 3% to compensate for not being watered down? Were gas prices reduced 3% in the first place to compensate for ethanol having only ~66% of the energy density of gasoline in the first place?

I highly doubt it :-P

Your instincts are good. Ethanol in gas is a completely separate law from ethanol subsidies. If removal of ethanol subsidies takes effect (unlikely in the near term) the requirement for ethanol in your gas will still be in place, and pump prices will rise accordingly.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Shotgun]

I'm sorry, but you're making one of the most common mistakes in anecdotal data analysis:

I'm sorry, but you're making one of the most common mistakes in anecdotal data analysis rebuttals: attributing his quoted small sample size to that being the only data he has. Do you really expect the Moryath to quote his whole damn life's history in a /. post?

There has been tons of tests and experiments showing ethanols caustic and destructive effects. Legislation has been enacted to keep it out of marinas and airports. I personally know of several fuel tanks that were destroyed by ethanol gas after surviving for years with unpoisoned gasoline. Poison is a harsh term to use, but that is exactly what it is for a vehicle that was not designed to handle it.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Shotgun]

Ethanol isn't that bad as a solvent. But, ethanol is hydroscopic. It pulls in any atmospheric moisture it can. The mixture of the two is corrosive as hell. If you put the fuel in the tank and burn it off within a few days, you have no problems. Use it like a normal person, and your fuel system's life is severely shortened. And it isn't just carbon-based components (any plastic or rubber seals). The ethanol-water combination like to chew on aluminum, too.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Shotgun]

And it was going to burn the gas more completely, because it had some oxygen in it.

You know what else has a lot of oxygen. **AIR**.

That has always been one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Duradin]

"which will mean more of it is available for use in food, which is how it should be."

It'll more than likely it will be food for our food.

Modern food shortages are generally caused by distribution issues and not a lack of resources. We have the resources to meet demand, no one is starving because American farmers sell their corn to ethanol plants. Other countries might be another issue with farmers growing cash crops while their country starves, but that isn't something you can pin on American farmers getting subsidies for growing corn for ethanol production. Even with corn going to ethanol we've still got corn coming out of our ears.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[countertrolling]

To save yourself a lot of angst, just vote for the one with the biggest tits.. They're just following orders, so actually a dart board, or pulling a name out of a hat would be just as good

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[s73v3r]

Wait... I paid to lower Ethanol's price to the point where I could afford to buy it?

Collective Bargaining and Economies of Scale at work. Lets take an Arduino chip and dev board, for example. If you were the only one who wanted one, then you would have to bear the brunt of the fabrication costs and manufacture yourself. This would make said chip and board very expensive. However, if you got a lot of people involved, then suddenly your cost per unit goes down, as you can buy supplies in bulk, and the costs for setup get spread out over everyone who's getting one, making the individual burden much less.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[s73v3r]

Here's the question: Did they vote to do the same for oil subsidies?

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[amliebsch]

Hmmm, I might be wrong but I don't believe "premium" blends contain any less ethanol. The ethanol percentage is a legal mandate for automotive fuel. If you live in an ethanol area and want pure gasoline, your only real choice is to buy marine fuel.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[s73v3r]

Were gas prices reduced 3% in the first place to compensate for ethanol having only ~66% of the energy density of gasoline in the first place?

Except at the levels that most blends were at (5-10%), the energy drop in a gallon of gas is close to negligible, and the gallon as a whole does not experience anywhere near the "66%" you claim.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[lgw]

There are no "oil sibsidies", never have been in my lifetime. Oil companies depreciate their capital assets, just like any other heavy industry. Some people like to pretend that's some sort of hand-out, but forcing a company to depreciate a purchase over time instead of counting the cost in the year it's purchased means more taxes, not less.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[KDR_11k]

You have an open air combustion engine then?

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[lgw]

You do realize that most of the energy in that corn came from the Sun right? I mean, corn subsidies in any form suck, but bogus thermodynamics arguments don't help the conversation any. In practice, I think we do use more oil to produce corn ethanol than that ethanol replaces, but that's just because no one even tries to be efficient, not because they couldn't be.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

This last winter when the fuel changed as it does seasonally Ford diesel pickups across the nation (but primarily in Northerly states; some of the southerly ones don't change blend at all) lost their fuel pickups and also developed leaks in hard lines.. within the first week.

You know they don't put ethanol in diesel fuel right?

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Slime-dogg]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/biofuels/e15-gasoline-damage-engine

In other words, the 10-15% ethanol mixes damage your car. They also really screw up older cars, which were not designed for ethanol. It also forces you to handle your yard / boating equipment differently.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[geekoid]

Yes, becasue the amount of your tax dollars that go to it is smaller then you would pay otherwise. Your taxes that go towards that might be 45 cents a year, per person paying taxes. But it saves you a quarter every time you fill up.
Number use ONLY as an example to illustrate a point.

IT's a great way to start technology acceptance, and to look at promising new technologies. Of course, when it becomes mainstream, or doesn't work as expected, you stop subsidies.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[geekoid]

One is jst a clarification of how it works. There is no 'right or wrong' since there posts are stating opposite things.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[geekoid]

Corn is going up for it, that means an increase in the cost of corn and feed; which means an increase in everything.

Then add to acreage just use to produce ethanol that will not be used to produce food, or feed.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

$billions a year in tax brakes at every stage from exploration to the gas station aren't subsidies...because I define "subsidies" that way. Amazing what one can do with word games. Pathetic too.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[geekoid]

the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

And for drilling equipment, the oil companies can count the cost in the first year.

Every [pies of it gets a tax break. Some are for industries as a whole, others are specifically for the oil industry. Get rid of those.

That's what it means, regardless of all the verbage twisting pundits do.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy you sure are a whiny little cunt.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[geekoid]

Confirmation bias, cherry picking, no controls. and it's not close enough to be a reasonable sample size.

Horrible.

Ethanol has problems, And I want it to go away, but bad data and sampling is never tolerated.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[geekoid]

Now you're making the second mistake: Creating emotional arguments to back your belief instead of realizing the myriad of ways you could be wrong.

I could find data to support a DROP in maintenance is some place.

If the rates you give where true overall, then 50% of all cars would be having more problems then they previously did across the country. This simply isn't happening. Adding to the difficulty here is the fact that the cars you talk about are getting older and by that very fact require more maintenance.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[geekoid]

No, I expect him to site good studies, or have good data himself before making those claims.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[trum4n]

And your flawless reason to insult someone with an opinion left you posting AC? Clearly you have a perfect reason to think your better than me. Not like I'm an Electrical/Mechanical Engineer, who is also ASE Certified. Maybe Google will tell you what that means, if you can figure out what button to push. Git. Ethanol belongs in vehicles designed to run on it, not forced into tanks of cars that WILL be damaged by it, owned by people who cant afford to fix them every month. It was purely political. It was pure stupid. Burning food is always a bad idea.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Rei]

I'm sorry, but you're making one of the most common mistakes in anecdotal data analysis rebuttals: attributing his quoted small sample size to that being the only data he has.

Right. He secretly has a double blind study, but was holding out on us, right?

There has been tons of tests and experiments showing ethanols caustic and destructive effects

[[Citation needed]], for E10. For higher blends, in some situations, yes. E10 has long been established as safe for cars, even by groups lobbying against E15 and E20.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[rwa2]

Fine, fine, I'll look it up for you :P

One liter of ethanol contain 21.1 MJ, [...] and a liter of gasoline approximately 32.6 MJ

. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_fuel (yeah, chastise me for citing wikipedia next :P )

Since ethanol has ~66% (OK, actually closer to 64%) lower energy density than gasoline, then you will need to carry 50% more ethanol get the same power out of it.

If your fuel is watered down with 10% ethanol, you'll need somewhere between 3% and 5% more fuel to store the same amount of energy in a tank of gas, which was my claim.

Ethanol does have a higher octane rating of 109. Which means when you buy 87 Octane E10, they're probably mixing it with even lower grade gasoline. Not that they're passing any of these savings on to the consumer.

But yeah, no wonder they're pushing for an increase to E15.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[publiclurker]

Ethanol also tends to clean up "gunk" in the fuel system. It could be that the parent poster's car already had a leak that was plugged by this stuff. Adding the ethanol cleaned things up enough to expose the leak

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, these are "all anecdotes", but I've a large enough family to find the sample size fairly representative of the population at large.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Unless you are going to get a comparative analysis of the state of each car prior to using "whiskey gas", plus a detailed record of time on the roads, how they were driving, conditions they were driven under and repairs made, your argument is spurious at best. For example, the area in which I live has had 10% ethanol blends for a number of years and not a single person I know has suffered the issues you list above. My collection of anecdotes does not constitute evidence either, but they refute yours.

BTW, your last point about your dad's friend represents a good example: is it not possible your dad's friend isn't just a scam artist who saw all of the complaints of what could possibly happen when the switch to whiskey gas was made and saw an opportunity to make some extra cash? "Looks like your headlight fluid's a bit low and...whoa! Your fuel lines are shot! Damn government, forcing you to have to use whiskey gas! Gonna have to replace them or you're not even going to make it home..." Seeing my own unscientific analysis tells me about one mechanic in a hundred is actually honest, I'd be more inclined to believe your family's unable to make the determination of who is honest or not than some widespread conspiracy to make you "ruin" your engines.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be anecdotal, but it is backed by emperical evidence. The effect of ethanol on gaskets and seals made of polymers typical for automotive systems has been studied and degraded mechanical properties and distortion that can lead to seal failure beyond statistical significance have been observed. Sorry, but ethanol is damaging in the concentrations offered for many vehicles.

Look up Ertekin and Sridhar's "Performance of elastomeric materials in gasoline-ethanol blends - A review" for details.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[i_b_don]

"I think most people there are either overreacting or being fed something..."

Ok... let me do a quick sanity check. Is there anyone here who believes ethanol is ruining your engine and also believes that climate change (AKA global warming) is real?

d

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[ifiwereasculptor]

Of course, if X occurs everywhere and to everyone except to you, you may either be on to an interesting discovery or you have fucked up your experiment. Given that ethanol powers about 5 million vehicles in my town alone and the consensus is that consumption increases by a third (it's even reflected in the price at the pump - ethanol tends to be at least 30% cheaper because if it isn't, people buy gasoline instead and vice versa), I think it's more likely that you screwed up somewhere. Plus I'm willing to bet that you're not measuring the consumption of your car with scientific rigor. And I have only cited the numbers because they support what is a very known occurrence. But if you choose to ignore all that, label me a liar, lunatic, lobbyst or stupid and believe whatever, it's ok. Oh, and about nature "not giving a flying fuck to what I think should happen", once I thought that birds should mate in flight. And guess what nature gave me when I looked out the window.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[ifiwereasculptor]

Ugh, I have butchered some of my sentences with careless editing. Here's how that part should read:

think most people there are either overreacting or their cars are being fed something other than 10%e-90%g. Maybe more than a few unscrupulous gas station owners are mixing more alcohol or a different kind of solvent, thinking they can get away with it now because everyone will just assume it's the ethanol.

Though the excerpt you have chosen may work better as it is.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[drinkypoo]

You know they don't put ethanol in diesel fuel right?

Yep, I do in fact know that they don't typically put ethanol in diesel fuel. They do however change the diesel fuel formulation in the winter; the point was that a formulation change can cause [apparently or possibly literally] rapid deterioration of critical parts.

Did you know that you can run diesels on E95? Not sure why you'd want to, but it's interesting.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, OP stated that he didn't agree with this particular subsidy.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[UnknowingFool]

There are 3 ways to increase the oxygen in the sealed combustion chamber:

1. Reduce the gasoline in air/fuel mixture. Unfortunately a leaner fuel means less energy per stroke. Not a good idea.
2. Increase the amount of gaseous oxygen. With the vast majority of automobiles being air breathing, this however requires compression. That would require modification and it is not clear that the energy required to pre-compress the air mixture will be recovered.
3. Increase the amount of oxygen in liquid form. Liquid oxygen is too impractical to use but oxygen containing compounds like ethanol are not. This requires little or no engine modification.

Which of the three methods above is most practical? You decide.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Archwyrm]

As the former owner of a '70 GTO I can tell you that driving around your old gas guzzler is not really helping the whole situation. If you are extremely attached to the car, I'd suggest shelving it until an efficient, non-fossil fuel burning engine is available to haul around that huge mass of steel. I'd have done the same, but idiots are still paying big money for old cars.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

10-15% not that much? Are you joking?
So I suppose you wouldn't mind a 10-15% pay cut... since it's not "that much."

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a question of mixing. You've seen the hydrogen and hydrogen/oxygen balloon demonstration, right?

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Fallingcow]

Short answer? Because occasionally having to pay for something I don't like is better than the alternatives, and because it's not always possible to accomplish some things even if everyone wants them done without a sovereign power to force certain action (see: the Tragedy of the Commons, the Free Rider Problem, and Forster's Two Cheers for Democracy).

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

I smell a class-action lawsuit.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

I can confirm that in Iowa, at least, the Premium blend does contain ethanol. In fact, the "regular unleaded" (real) gasoline costs 10-15 cents more per gallon than the "premium unleaded" gas with ethanol.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't sue the government. Just try it. Trum4n posting AC from my phone.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[s73v3r]

Yeah, that's completely and utterly WRONG. Check the US Tax Code, or simply Google for "US Oil Subsidies". They get many, many special tax breaks.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[s73v3r]

I never said there wasn't a drop. Just that it was tiny per gallon of gasoline, and the energy density of a gallon of gas mixed with the 10% ethanol was not dropped by 66%.

Re:Physics: an alternative political spectrum

[rgviza]

Yup, it's a wasteful enterprise and only serves to drive up the cost of both food and gasoline.  I've read the paper. You simply cannot create more fuel than you start with. Here is an incomplete list of the petroleum products required to create ethanol:
Diesel to carry the corn around and ship the finished product too petroleum refineries
Diesel to run farm equipment and harvest
Petroleum based fertilizer to grow the corn
Petroleum based pesticides
Energy to ferment and process the corn

You end up with a less fuel than you start with.

Very interesting I'm sure

[binkzz]

But is this really news for slashdot? It's hardly nerd news.

Re:Very interesting I'm sure

[apetrelli]

It's about ethanol and biofuel. I think that many of us have different ideas about biofuel (e.g. I don't like it, it reduces food fields) that might be discussed.
And there's the problem of funding biofuel, that may not be fair comparing it to other alternative technologies, like hybrid or pure electric cars.

Re:Very interesting I'm sure

[jhoegl]

Wasnt there also proof that ethanol also harms the engine?
It had a good run, but it needs to stop. Question is, if they stop this, does that also remove the % requirement as well?
Otherwise, gas prices will rise again.

Re:Very interesting I'm sure

[compro01]

Ethanol content higher than about 5% harms engines not properly rigged for it (e.g. anything made before 1980 or so). More than 10% requires special alcohol-resistant rubbers to be used in the fuel system, among other things.

Re:Very interesting I'm sure

[tripleevenfall]

Not only that, but ethanol is a net LOSS of energy, and would be phenomenally expensive to produce if not for government subsidies (which are very useful for getting votes in midwestern states, coincidentally)

??? - profit

[Anonymous Coward]

"alternative energy" subsidies aren't supposed to be permanent. If ethanol is as great as its proponents say it is, then it ought to be able to turn a profit without subsidy

Re:??? - profit

[SirGarlon]

In the U.S., methanol isn't widely used as a primary fuel so I don't consider it an "alternative" in that sense. Ethanol is used as a fuel additive to oxygenate gasoline, a replacement for MTBE. Congress rejected a law to indemnify petroleum companies from liability for health effects of MBTE contamination so the companies switched to ethanol c. 2005. So, while some may blow smoke about ethanol as a "green" fuel, the real reason it has caught on is that it's considered less dangerous to human health than the previous fuel additive. (You could look at it as the fuel companies covering their asses, or Congress making a good public-health decision for a change, depending on whether you regard the glass as half empty or half full.)

Re:??? - profit

[OwenTheContrarian]

The subsidies should not be permanent, but then again, how long have we been subsidizing and providing tax incentives to oil companies that continually rake in billions in profit? Can we at least be fair about our stupidity?

Re:??? - profit

[s73v3r]

If ethanol is as great as its proponents say it is, then it ought to be able to turn a profit without subsidy

You say that, yet forget that oil enjoys similar subsidies.

Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[Madman]

If the US used every acre of cropland for biofuel feedstock production it would only be able to produce 40% of transportation fuel needs and then there'd be nothing to eat! It's impossible to make even a dent in fossil fuel usage with biofuels, and by trying we will make food more expensive for everyone and reduce the surplus that helps to feed the world's poor.

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[Madman]

Here's a link to my blog entry on the subject btw:
http://tetsui.net/gdblog/2011/06/17/why-biofuels-make-no-sense/

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[DanTheManMS]

Isn't that what's happening in Mexico as is? Full disclaimer, I heard this from a friend in casual conversation, but my understanding is that it's more profitable for Mexican farmers to sell their corn crops to the US for ethanol than to feed their people, so prices of corn products have risen sharply and the nation is starving as a result.

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[Madman]

Isn't that what's happening in Mexico as is? Full disclaimer, I heard this from a friend in casual conversation, but my understanding is that it's more profitable for Mexican farmers to sell their corn crops to the US for ethanol than to feed their people, so prices of corn products have risen sharply and the nation is starving as a result.

Yes it is the perfect example of how biofuels can affect food prices, or even availability. It caused a local food shortage in parts of Mexico and people did go hungry.

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[Gideon Wells]

Distiller grains, often overlooked, but is a byproduct of ethanol production.

The corn used for ethanol production is feed corn for animals. Not all of the corn is used to produce ethanol either, just the starch. The distiller grains can be used to feed livestock much like the used corn can. It can't completely fill all the dietary needs of the animals (how much depends on the species), but it isn't a zero sum choice between feeding the animals used to feed humans and having ethanol.

Unless you are a vegetarian and/or animal rights supporter who wants the ending of animal consumption. Then, I dunno, you could use it for compost? *shrugs*

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If the US used every acre of cropland for biofuel feedstock production it would only be able to produce 40% of transportation fuel needs and then there'd be nothing to eat! It's impossible to make even a dent in fossil fuel usage with biofuels, and by trying we will make food more expensive for everyone and reduce the surplus that helps to feed the world's poor.

Hmm... Sounds like we need to shift our focus from propping up friendly puppet despots in oil-producing regions and start propping them up in agriculturally productive ones... Rising food prices(and a bit of judicious repression, good for the defense industry) should ensure a steady supply of squalid, desperate peasant labor to work the biofuel fields. We can't eat our cake and drive it too; but eating our cake and driving theirs is eminently possible...

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[Noughmad]

I guess some really smart general figured out that going to war is too much fuss when you can simly buy out their food.

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[Anonymous Coward]

Feed corn is a problem, not part of a solution.

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[Madman]

If the US used every acre of cropland for biofuel feedstock production it would only be able to produce 40% of transportation fuel needs and then there'd be nothing to eat! It's impossible to make even a dent in fossil fuel usage with biofuels, and by trying we will make food more expensive for everyone and reduce the surplus that helps to feed the world's poor.

Hmm... Sounds like we need to shift our focus from propping up friendly puppet despots in oil-producing regions and start propping them up in agriculturally productive ones... Rising food prices(and a bit of judicious repression, good for the defense industry) should ensure a steady supply of squalid, desperate peasant labor to work the biofuel fields. We can't eat our cake and drive it too; but eating our cake and driving theirs is eminently possible...

You are definitely right in that biofuels imports would simply substitute one despot for another, however the problem is wherever it comes from it will still compete against the food on our tables and make food more expensive and scarce. It's already happened in places and I for one am not willing to have people starve so I can use biofuels that aren't really green. Ethanol is a poor substitute for gasoline as it only has 80% of the energy per unit of volume, and it has other properties that make it a bad choice for fuel. Add to that there's only 20% carbon saving compared to fossil fuels and there really is no point in using them.

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm not really arguing for the viability of 'conventional' biofuels(ie. ones that are rivalrous with food crops, people growing algae in tubes on sterile salt-flats are really just doing 'photovoltaics by other means'), I was just, by means of slightly gallows humor, noting that oppression and death in the service of obtaining biofuels would really just be an extension of the way fossil fuels, and mineral resources in general, are frequently obtained today.

Although they are conveniently long enough that we don't have to look at them, you can usually find a bunch of human-tragedy cases shackled to any supply chain.

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[naasking]

Here's a thought: why not use a plant with a higher ethanol output than corn and which grows on land we can't use for corn and other food, like switchgrass. Personally, I'd rather see the fossil fuel subsidies abolished so we can get some actual competition in the energy market.

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[ProppaT]

I almost feel like politicians hear the words "farm" and "agricultural" and think, "We're 'Merica, we make technology....farming is for for the third world."

The best thing for our country would be a massive return to farming/agriculture. We would get better food with more nutrition, be self sufficient once again, and keep our money from flying out of the country. There's such a stigma against farming. Well, news flash. Unless we want to start deciding who gets to eat and who doesn't (and that's already happening in parts of the world), we need to refocus our efforts into growing useful stuff...not subsidizing corn to make ethanol. Corn's not even efficient for ethanol production...if you feel like we need to be making ethanol, start a new switch grass industry. That's efficient enough to where we wouldn't need to subsidize it.

To be successful, a country has to be self sufficient in either agriculture or technology. If all you do is grow food, you need to be able to trade food for technology, and vice versa. Unfortunately, we're not self sufficient in either and, unless that changes, we're going to be in a world of hurt in another 20 years down the road...

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[Madman]

The sugars in switchgrass are hard to free up, they haven't found a way to produce ethanol from switchgrass in a way that produces more energy than it uses.

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[Madman]

I almost feel like politicians hear the words "farm" and "agricultural" and think, "We're 'Merica, we make technology....farming is for for the third world."

The best thing for our country would be a massive return to farming/agriculture. We would get better food with more nutrition, be self sufficient once again, and keep our money from flying out of the country. There's such a stigma against farming. Well, news flash. Unless we want to start deciding who gets to eat and who doesn't (and that's already happening in parts of the world), we need to refocus our efforts into growing useful stuff...not subsidizing corn to make ethanol. Corn's not even efficient for ethanol production...if you feel like we need to be making ethanol, start a new switch grass industry. That's efficient enough to where we wouldn't need to subsidize it.

To be successful, a country has to be self sufficient in either agriculture or technology. If all you do is grow food, you need to be able to trade food for technology, and vice versa. Unfortunately, we're not self sufficient in either and, unless that changes, we're going to be in a world of hurt in another 20 years down the road...

Are you kidding? We are already overfarming as it is! We are irrigating so much that the water table is THOUSANDS of feet down in many places. Farming more is simply going to make it worse.

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[Andy Dodd]

Also, supposedly Mexican farmers are burning their agave fields because it's more profitable to grow corn for subsidized ethanol than agave for tequila production.

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[ShakaUVM]

America is self-sufficient when it comes to food production. We import food when it's cheaper, not because we can't feed our own people.

A massive return to agriculture, as you suggest, would make as much sense as Mao's desire to build a blast furnace in every podunk village in China. And with the same disasterous consequences.

The easiest measure of the success of a civilization is to measure the ratio of farmers to the rest of the population.

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[elsurexiste]

Brazil has a great ethanol industry, but they use sugar cane, not corn. Better yield and all...

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[compro01]

Ethanol is a poor substitute for gasoline as it only has 80% of the energy per unit of volume, and it has other properties that make it a bad choice for fuel..

And other properties that make it an awesome choice for fuel. Compare the octane rating of gasoline and ethanol. Notice ethanol is way higher. Stick on a turbocharger or supercharger (or hey, do what VW does and use both), crank up the boost, and watch as you get slightly BETTER mileage and MORE power out of ethanol than gasoline.

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[Madman]

Meaning we would have to wholesale re-engineer all vehicles at enormous expense, not a good idea when you cannot produce enough to matter.

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[Locutus]

we've already seen there are many options for passenger/private vehicles and most of those are not effective for heavy equipment(diesels). Yet here is all this talk about trying to convert 100% of all vehicles on the road to biofuels. Bullshit to that I say. The world is not black or white and people should get a clue that those posting how impossible it is to convert 100% of the vehicles to X, Y, or Z technology are either protectionists, ludites, or something else other than knowledgeable. IMO

LoB

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[Duradin]

Isn't the free market grand? Go team Capitalism!

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[Anonymous Coward]

How did you manage to miss the fact that we are talking about government-mandated subsidies for a government-mandated fuel?

Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[Duradin]

Because they were talking about Mexican farmers selling the corn to the US while their country starves and the parent post was about it being cheaper to buy out a country's food supply than it was to invade it.

Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[tarsi210]

I wish it WOULD pass. I'm in Iowa, the heart of ethanol country, and I can't stand the stuff and what it's done. Artificial inflation of corn prices, artificial money, artificial companies. Whole corporations and huge plants have been built up on the promise of ethanol and just as quickly have fell into bankruptcy because the dream failed to pay off. As people have slowly come to realize that the bang-for-buck of ethanol is so much lower than gasoline, even with subsidies, plus the corrosion factors on improperly-engineered cars, it's fallen by the wayside. E-85 was supposed to be the next big thing and it barely made a fart in the market at all. All we've ended up with is farmers who thought they had a huge market for their product and suddenly....don't.

I've heard a lot of arguments for things like switchgrass ethanol and so forth and, hey, I'm all for alternatives -- if they work. But the fact remains that despite whatever "green" intentions people may have, if you can't sell it to the general public without a crutch, you're going to lose in the end. Time to let ethanol stand -- and die gracefully -- on its own.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Corn ethanol was a bad idea from the start. Alternate routes exist, and obviously the sugarcane ethanol production in e.g. Brazil is rather healthy on its own.

As for making a dent in the fossil fuel market.. Let's just say that the problem with fossil fuels is that they are fossil. They are going to run out, or get exponentially more expensive, which amounts to the same thing. Using subsidies/taxes to prepare for that day is exactly what the state should do. Call it a crutch or call it a reduction in the artificial abundance of fossil fuels, it is still a fundamentally good idea to invest in the long-term future rather than expect things to solve themselves with time, or, even worse, pretend that no problem exists and that there will be a neverending supply of coal/oil with no adverse effects.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Tridus]

You hit the nail on the head. The real problem with this wasn't that ethanol itself is a bad idea. It's not. It's that CORN is a very bad way to make ethanol because there's not much energy in it. That only happened because Iowa is the first primary and thus gets highly disproportional attention, and they decided to suck money out of taxpayers for the corn industry.

Sugar based ethanol has proven to do far better because the energy content you get out of growing sugar gives a viable product at the end. Last I heard corn ethanol wasn't even energy positive.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[acid06]

Corn-based ethanol is a joke. Ethanol from sugar cane has been in use in Brazil for 20+ years and it works great - cheaper than gas without the need of any subsidies. More than half of the Brazilian car fleet runs on ethanol on a daily basis. Don't dismiss ethanol completely just because the US has chosen a silly way to manufacture it.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Smallpond]

A couple years ago when I was in Ohio I saw people who had replaced their lawns with corn because prices were so high. Looks like its still over $7/bushel. I wonder how well a 1/16th acre crop would do in New England? The farmers I know aren't getting rich, though.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[americamatrix]

It's not a joke. On e85 my race car makes 100 WHP more power than it does on 93 OCT. e85 is MUCH cheaper than any race gas out there. e85 is similar to running 104 OCT leaded race fuel. Get off your computer and go race a car, and you'll see its NOT a joke at all. -An avid e85 user

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Even though I am not a big fan of corn based ethanol as a general purpose motor fuel I am tired of hearing about the "corrosion factors on improperly-engineered cars". Most of what people think are issues caused by ethanol in gas are really issues caused by crappy gas. I have fallen for the its $0.03 cheaper over here at the off brand gas station compared to the other one across the street. Some of those off brand stations sell good gas some of them sell crap gas that makes my car run poorly, but once refilled with a tank of good gas it goes back to running properly. Also it is fine in your small engines, I haven't had a problem in any of my yard equipment with it, and here it is more a matter of the care you give the equipment, as in do you drain the gas out of them when done for the season so it doesn't varnish, absorb water, and plug the carburetor.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Madman]

The real problem with this wasn't that ethanol itself is a bad idea. It's not. It's that CORN is a very bad way to make ethanol because there's not much energy in it.

Well, that's not exactly true. Ethanol is actually a bad choice as a replacement for gasoline. First it only has 80% of the energy per unit of volume, meaning you will only get about 80-80% of the mileage off of it. Second, it evaporates very easily so there will be quite a bit of it that simply goes up into the air. Third, it is a solvent and eats away at seals and hoses. Fourth, it cannot use the same pipelines as gasoline for transportation, making it more expensive. All in all, not a good option.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Rei]

It's a longstanding myth that corn ethanol isn't a net positive. Studies by basically everyone except Pimental (an anti-ethanol crusader) and whatever grad students he can dig up at the moment all agree that it's at least 30% positive and growing. And whether something is "energy positive" isn't really the question anyway. The question is whether it's *liquid transportation fuels* positive. I can't shove a piece of coal or some wind in my gas tank. Liquid transportation fuels are much more valuable than other energy sources (about 5x per joule for oil vs. coal).

The real problem with corn ethanol at this point is a problem shared, to a lesser but still major extent, with other ethanol sources: it's a net *CO2* negative, by a large margin, when you factor in land-use changes (something that was neglected in earlier studies). That is, to say, you're using corn starch (and possibly the rest of the grain, depending on how good your waste recovery is) to make ethanol. To replace that foodstuff on the market (with more corn starch, or whatnot -- the demand for food isn't going to decrease just because you decide to make ethanol) requires using more land. That land wasn't sitting around doing nothing before you started farming it -- it was lying fallow and sequestering CO2. Generally doing a better job of it than your farm would even if you weren't harvesting the corn to turn its starches into something which you'll burn. And not only are you worsening the ongoing sequestration process, but the process of converting wild fields to farmed fields generally releases a lot of stored carbon, both from standing vegetation and from the soil itself.

Studies that factor in land-use changes show that even cellulosic switchgrass ethanol are CO2 negatives compared with gasoline. The only ones that are a net win are ones that utilize organic waste streams. But obviously fuel from organic waste streams isn't going to replace gasoline; there just isn't that much waste out there.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Hatta]

Let's not stop there. We don't need corn subsidies at all. We need to stop subsidizing corn and start subsidizing fresh fruits and vegetables, if anything.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[alta]

It it makes it REALLY hard to cut the grass.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[black soap]

We can make diesel substitutes pretty easily form all sorts of biomass - alcohol is trickier and more expensive, and isn't really a good gasoline substitute anyway. All this talk about ethanol for fuel has pretty well distracted us from the reality that biodiesel is the future.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[alta]

It's not just a choice based on how it's manufactured... I'd dare to argue that we don't have as much area to grow sugar cane as brazil. It's a tropical plant. It needs somewhere north of 125cm/year of rainfall to grow, high humidity and lots of sun. Unfortunately most of our agriculture land does not support those conditions. Brazil is MADE for cane. Where we grow stuff, it's made for corn, and maybe switchgrass? Compare Iowa/nebraska, indiana, illinois, where corn is grown, to Louisiana, Florida and Hawaii, where we can grow cane. Add to that, hawaii is tiny, florida and Louisiana have a lot of unaccessable swamp, and that florida land prices are at a premium.

http://www.tangail.110mb.com/sugar.php production amounts
http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USLA0231 - AVG rainfall/temp of US States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Brazil
http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Iowa/average-annual-temperatures.php - Iowa average Temp - high 50s, low 60s
http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Louisiana/average-annual-temperatures.php - Louisiana avg temp high 80s

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[ShakaUVM]

Indeed. Corn ethanol is one of the worst ideas ever implemented in our country, and this is the first positive news I've heard about it in a long time.

It's nothing more than a bribe to Iowa farmers to get that key early presidential nomination.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Smallpond]

Good point. That's another advantage.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[acid06]

Well, the US already imports most of the oil it uses. Instead of producing, ethanol could be imported from countries which are better suited for sugar cane agriculture. It would still be cheaper than gas for cars and pollutes less.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't dismiss ethanol completely just because the US has chosen a silly way to manufacture it.

That's EXACTLY what he didn't do.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[alta]

Don't get me started on grass right now. Ours is nearly dead. We're having drought conditions this year. I've cut my grass exactly twice so far this year. Normally in Mobile you'd start sometime and march and cut weekly until September.

It's funny, the grass is wanting water so bad, I put a sprinkler out in one spot for about an hour. The next day I had a perfectly round green spot in a brown dead yard. In a week, it had grown as was a tall spot needing cutting. Looks like aliens were making really bad crop circles. I put out one of those drip hoses in a spiral, and now I have a green spiral growing in the yard.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Corn-based ethanol is a joke. Ethanol from sugar cane has been in use in Brazil for 20+ years and it works great - cheaper than gas without the need of any subsidies. More than half of the Brazilian car fleet runs on ethanol on a daily basis.

That'd be great except for high cost of sugar in the United States...thanks to corn lobbyists.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately fossil fuel is the system with a crutch, and I'm not even talking about the (even more) massive subsidies.

That crutch is that fact that we aren't cleaning up the output of the system.

Biofuels can replace oil at a level of pollution that our natural ecosystem can process in near real time.

The processing time for fossil fuels is long and unclear, however it is very clear that once the unavoidable cleanup costs are added into the formula it will become an economically unfeasible solution.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[black soap]

We need to stop subsidizing monoculture crops, find a way to encourage many different varieties of food (but no Monsanto/GM crops).

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[compro01]

Sugar cane isn't appropriate for the US climate, but sugar beets are wonderful for it and are just as good for sugar and ethanol production.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Oligonicella]

*Or*, we could drill our own oil and not import so much. You can't buy things from the other guy forever.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Mr. Arbusto]

The real question here is, will they be taking the state subsidy off of 87 Octane fuel.......

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Twillerror]

And oil isn't. We don't fight wars over it right? It doesn't have any environmental issues right? We don't have a supply constrained system right?

Ethanol is easy to bash on paper...harder to do in reality. WE USE LOTS OF IT TODAY. This isn't some future thing. It's use will not go down with lack of subsidies it will just be more expensive...but less money paid in taxes or taxes going to something else. This is just cost shifting.

http://www.foe.org/usda-approves-use-genetically-engineered-corn-ethanol
Corn based ethanol is improving. We can grow it here. We know how to put it on trains. We know how to make it. We have the system to transfer it around. Newer cars are tested with it.

Sugar cane is also starting to come online in the states. It really only grows in certain southern states...corn is grown in more places with more expertise.

I'm going to guess that everyone that hates on it will love wind and solar. What do turbines and panels make themselves? We use lots of fossil fuels to make both.

The point is we are in transition. Until we have a robust non oil eco system we will be using oil to make the new energy sources. Hopefully some day Iowa will require their farmers to use ethanol in the tractors that being used to harvest the material.

At the end of the day it is just solar energy anyways. The corn doesn't grow itself. Sun for the chemical reactions in the plant, sun for the wind that drives the water cycle....maybe a little gravitational energy thrown in there.

Electric cars are going to be expensive and take a long time to materialize and have the range we need. In the meantime and probably even after we need a liquid fuel that works in existing designs. Yeah maybe a gas like hydrogen will be used, but that is probably way way off.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[amendonca]

It's not true that ethanol is necessarily cheaper than gasoline. You pay less for the same volume but ethanol burns faster. Studies show that ethanol must be _at least_ 30% cheaper than gasoline in order to be more cost effective.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[colin_faber]

Yes, and that's a joke as well. How many billions of dollars are we sending to Brazil this year? Why is it that they're drilling like crazy for oil off their coasts?

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[acid06]

It depends on the efficiency of each car engine. On my car, it needs to be at least 20% cheaper to be worth it. On other cars, it needs to be 35%. Of course, when I say "cheaper" it means "cheaper per distance travelled". Everyone in a country with widespread usage of ethanol knows that a full tank of gasoline lasts longer than full tank of ethanol.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[acid06]

I'm all for ethanol usage. I just think that you Americans are being very silly supporting corn-based ethanol. I'm no expert, but there must be something better, even if it's not sugar cane. By ending the subsidies, there will be a market force driving research towards a better alternative.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[acid06]

The main reason is that the current Brazilian government wants to pay for the "welfare" programs using oil money. It's just a political motivation as the government's budget is already tight and Brazilian taxes are already very high (so, no margin for tax hikes). They need this money to keep "buying votes" from the poor.

However, Brazilian oil deposits are very deep in the ocean and it's very expensive to extract oil from those deposits. If you add that to the fact that the state-owned oil company is very inefficient and spends a lot and you end up in a situation where extracting oil from these deposits makes Brazil lose money if the oil is below US$60-70. So they want this oil money *now* which will further guarantee that the current political party maintains its dominance.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[gtall]

And how would that work, exactly? Oil is a market. Oil companies will sell to that market. The U.S. cannot drill enough to make a dent in a market that large. Or, you could nationalize the oil companies and make them keep the oil here. Forgetting that we only do that in an emergency and for a limited period of time, why should we believe the government (the one with trillions of debt) is going to know how to run a large oil business. And then there is the grade of oil. Libya has the best oil for gasoline since theirs is very "light". You'd be attempting to push American oil onto a market to effect gasoline which prefers non-American oil.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[gtall]

That settles it, I'm planting my yard tomorrow...won't have to cut it 'till October. Damn grass, worse thing you can put in a lawn.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[alta]

My suggestion, stay away from corn. It's actually one of the harder plants to grow on a small scale. Their root system sucks. If you live anywhere with lots of rain the erosion will be bad and every time it rains you have to go prop them up with new dirt. Unless you know your pesticides already, you're going to get worms. Use seven, it will help. When the stalks are 0-6" you need to watch for cutter worms, deer and rabbits. When they're a little taller, less worms, still deer and rabbits.

If you want something that's just GOING to grow, and you can't do wrong, try okra. Also, cucumber and squash are nearly impossible to do wrong. Oh, and green onions.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

No where is made for corn. Corn is destructive and requires ridiculous amounts of fertilizer and chemicals to grow.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Zenin]

Why so hell-bent on local production then?

The only reason foreign sugar is so expensive in the US is do to artificial inflation from tariffs.

I'm normally a died-in-the-wool-treehugging-birkenstock-wearing-liberal, but if there was ever a time that government manipulation caused far, far greater problems while solving nothing...it's in agriculture policy.

End the US farm subsidies, most especially corn. A large number of our biggest health problems are directly linked to highly processed corn products (HFCS, etc), which only exist at all because we've subsided the hell out of corn and artificially inflated the cost of imports with tariffs (cane sugar, ethanol).

End the absurd market manipulation in agriculture. It's destroying our own health, it's starving the 3rd world due to sky rocketing inflation on food, it's disincentive alternative energy research (why spend money on alternative energy sources when market manipulation will always insure ethanol will artificially win?). It's a lose, lose, lose policy.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why people in climates like ours take advantage of sugar beets.
Except the US of course. Why? I'm not sure, but I'd guess the corn lobby doesn't want sucrose competing with their... corn sugar.

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

All we've ended up with is farmers who thought they had a huge market for their product and suddenly....don't.

sure they do; it's called "food"

Re:Good -- Ethanol's a Joke Anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Corn was made to be grown in the midwest. Years and years of genetic engineering (selection) have made a cold-intolerant mexican plant into a staple vegetable grown in the US. Likewise, sugar cane could be adapted for northern climates (hopefully sooner than thousands of years)

Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Colin Smith]

Not a clue. What they vote for and against is what their lobbyists tell them to vote for and against.

Yay! Go big government. How big is the government debt now?

p.s. Isn't this the senate rather than congress?

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[smelch]

Senators are in the senate, Representatives are in the House of Representatives. The Senate and the House of Representatives are two houses of a bicameral legislature we call congress. All people serving in congress are congressmen.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[trum4n]

I call them Representatives.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Anonymous Coward]

National debt = Entropy

It doesn't decrease!

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[RazzleFrog]

Only if that someone is very ignorant. Congressman means either Senate or House of Representatives.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[spottedkangaroo]

False. Congressmen refers to either. That is a fact.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[stewbacca]

I tried that the entropy tree in Dragon Age, but didn't like it. I'm more of an elementals mage.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Mindcontrolled]

Just out of interest - what is big government? What would be small government? At what point does small government become big government? Or is there an intermediate government in between?

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[circletimessquare]

yes, and if we say we live in a democracy, we get the pikers who have to insist it's a constitutional republic

and if we say something was hacked, we get the pikers who no, the system was cracked, or socially engineered

yes, pikers, we KNOW THAT ALREADY

hey pikers: the general meaning of a word often strays from narrow definitions. don't think you are in a position to correct that. understand you are in a position to learn, for once in your life, what common usage means

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Big and small are nonspecific but a reasonable definition of 'small' could be a government that honors it's constitutional restraints - at least as far as the USA goes as a goal of the US constitution was to limit the size and power of the federal government. Of course there are an infinite number of 'intermediate' sizes. Rather than harping on big and small, I think it's more useful to think of 'government' vs. 'the state', as described by Albert Nock. 'Government' can serve a useful function that benefits society, 'the state' is the entity that gives it to you the hard way every chance they get. It's the State that most people are offended by.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Anonymous Coward]

hey pikers: the general meaning of a word often strays from narrow definitions when used by morons. don't think you are in a position to correct that. understand you are in a position to learn, for once in your life, what common usage means

FTFY

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[circletimessquare]

you think common usage is for morons?

you realized you just defined yourself as socially inept, right?

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Geoffrey.landis]

National debt = Entropy
It doesn't decrease!

...unless you have an external source of energy (and a place to radiate waste heat).

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do men wielding polearms have to do with anything?

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is big government when the democrats are in charge.
It is small government (but in reality, just as big) when the republicans are in charge.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[jd2112]

It's a big government if it taxes or regulates you. It's a small govenment if it doesn't suffucuently tax or regulate your competitors.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[BlortHorc]

yes, and if we say we live in a democracy, we get the pikers who have to insist it's a constitutional republic

and if we say something was hacked, we get the pikers who no, the system was cracked, or socially engineered

yes, pikers, we KNOW THAT ALREADY

hey pikers: the general meaning of a word often strays from narrow definitions. don't think you are in a position to correct that. understand you are in a position to learn, for once in your life, what common usage means

Speaking of common usage: you clearly have absolutely no clue what the term piker means, either in common or uncommon usage. Pretty much makes your rant meaningless.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the wonderful colour you british pikers insert into your language. ;)

The "King's English"? Sorry, the King is dead. And for my money the Queen can go fuck herself. We "colonials" will speak as we wish.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[ArcherB]

Just out of interest - what is big government? What would be small government? At what point does small government become big government? Or is there an intermediate government in between?

Big government does more than the Constitution allows.

Small government doesn't do what the Constitution requires.

Just Right government follows the Constitution and does what the Constitution says it should do and nothing more as the 10th Amendment mandates. Anything else is reserved to the states or the people.

As an example, take marijuana laws. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the federal government to ban a substance. Therefor, it should be up to the states to decide whether they want to allow for the production and sale of marijuana. However, once that marijuana crosses state lines, it falls under the Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government regulate it as it sees fit.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[circletimessquare]

sorry pikey

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Anonymous Coward]

For your information, a piker is someone who is stingy or only makes small bets. Maybe you should learn the meaning of a word before using it to avoid using the word incorrectly.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[sorak]

yes, and if we say we live in a democracy, we get the pikers who have to insist it's a constitutional republic

Simple answer: don't correct others if you don't know what you're talking about. Smith tried to correct goodmanj on a semantic issue, and he was wrong. Once you bring up a subject, don't get pissy that someone continues the discussion.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Anonymous Coward]

I call them bought and paid for assholes

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[sorak]

Big government is when the government helps someone else. Small government is when they only help you.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ronald Reagan grew the federal government to ginormously huge non-conservative levels, and yet is hailed as one of the "greatest Conservative Republicans" ever. What am I missing here?

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ. This is like when Madonna whipped out a British accent all of the sudden. No one in NYC uses the word "pikers". Knock it off.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Mindcontrolled]

Well, constitutionality is a reasonable requirement, I give you that - how does following the constitution correlate with size, though?

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[pla]

Just out of interest - what is big government? What would be small government? At what point does small government become big government? Or is there an intermediate government in between?

A small government would not take action except as necessary to maintain sufficient domestic peace to allow average citizens to simply go about their daily lives, and defend (defend - DEFEND) the nation from foreign invaders.

Obviously that involves some degree of social policy (for the former) and international dick-waving (for the latter), but when those necessary evils expand to eat 96% of the budget, you unambiguously have a big government.

And, of course we can have middle ground. We have 3.5 trillion (well, 2 trillion, since we don't actually have that extra 1.5 to spare) dollars of leeway between "small" and "big" in this case.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[FatdogHaiku]

All people serving in congress are congressmen.

You know, I always thought there was something odd about some of the females that have been elected, this explains it. They're tucked and taped!

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ronald Reagan grew the federal government to ginormously huge non-conservative levels, and yet is hailed as one of the "greatest Conservative Republicans" ever. What am I missing here?

A congress controlled by Democrats. In particular Democrat control of the House of Representatives where all spending bill must originate. Reagan could sign or veto what these guys came up with, he could not write the legislation.

A negotiated plan where increases in the Department of Defense were offset by cuts elsewhere in government, and a failure of congress to deliver on those cuts.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[circletimessquare]

if the conversation strays into the prerogatives of the socially inept and their pinheaded obsessions about word choice adequacy, i might get pissy. sorry

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[circletimessquare]

my head just exploded in meta-irony

but regardless, yes, a piker is someone stingy. such as with money, affection, concern... or with the adequacy of words?

gee, imagine that!

are we beginning to understand the wide fluffy world of language and how words can have evolving, overlapping and complicated meaning?

and that to sit there like a nitwit and insist on mediocre narrow minded definitions as the most important topic of discussion, only makes you out to be socially inept

jesus fucking christ, seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you PIKERS

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[itsenrique]

I think congress refers to the house or the senate. As in a member of congress.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Mindcontrolled]

Again, a reasonable position. However, the people usually ranting about "big government" seem to be of the opinion that slashing social programs would be the cure-all to make it "small" again. I don't usually hear about the military from those...

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Toonol]

Yes, if you're pedantic, but in reality when someone on the news says "congressman" they are talking about somebody from the House, not the Senate.

I don't believe this is the case at all. Senators and Representatives are both Congressmen. Just as 'a bill in congress' could refer to a bill in either the house or the senate.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Toonol]

When does a small tree become a big tree? Is there an intermediate sized tree in between?

That should demonstrate the concept. Indistinct boundaries between terms don't mean the terms are meaningless.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Mindcontrolled]

Mu. Great way of clearing up that the "big government" rah-rah crowd has no idea what it actually means by it, except for "government not ran by us and not funneling money into OUR pockets".

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[toadlife]

A congress controlled by Democrats. In particular Democrat control of the House of Representatives where all spending bill must originate. Reagan could sign or veto what these guys came up with, he could not write the legislation.

In typical Reagan worshiper fashion, you fail at history.

Throughout his two terms, Reagan asked for billions more in his budget proposals than congress eventually approved.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[ArcherB]

Well, constitutionality is a reasonable requirement, I give you that - how does following the constitution correlate with size, though?

Maybe I should have said TOO big and TOO small. Size referring to the amount of power the government is wielding (I guess large and small would be more grammatically correct). A government that does more than they are allowed to do is using a "larger" amount of power than they should be, or is too big.

Sure, a government may be "large" in how they do things; large military, strict interstate regulations, high taxes, etc, but still be within the Constitutional limits. It may also stretch the limit of what may be Constitutional. For example, a government might say that the military needs educated soldiers, so paying for and regulating state run education has military implications. A real world example of this would be health care law recently passed. Supporters claim that the Commerce Clause allows it under the Constitution. The Commerce Clause deals with interstate commerce only so unless you are buying insurance from a company out of state, this law should have no effect on you. A government may also be too small, as in a weak military, no interstate regulations and still meet their Constitutional requirements.

But in the context spoken here, a big government uses more power than they should be allowed per the Constitution.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[trum4n]

Well, that too. But i was trying to be slightly civil. Not sure why....

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[SleazyRidr]

Hey, if a dude with a polearm walks up to me and tells me to say something, I'll do what he says!

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Mindcontrolled]

To be honest, I am not particularly interested in the American constitutional folklore of "state rights". Can we discuss the issue on an abstract level, not specifically tied to the US? Because, frankly, I still have no idea what you mean by "more rights than they should be allowed by the Constitution". From the examples you cite i can only glean that spending for the military is fine, but healthcare is out. So again, we are not looking at a matter of quantity, we are looking at a matter of quality.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[KDR_11k]

Politicians talk about their ideals but rarely follow them. By talking enough about their ideals they can divert attention from actions that completely oppose their stated ideals.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[lgw]

You know, if you ever mastered the Shift key, you might not feel so defensive about that. If all caps is the equivalent of shouting, no caps is the equivalent of creepy mumbling and muttering.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[s73v3r]

That "Conservative Republicans" are extreme hypocrites.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[s73v3r]

A negotiated plan where increases in the Department of Defense were offset by cuts elsewhere in government, and a failure of congress to deliver on those cuts.

Yet, Reagan still tried to increase the size of government, just in the area where they make things go BOOM, which is OK with Republicans.

But God help them if anyone else tries to increase the size of government that, you know, actually tries to help people, or keep business in check.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[lgw]

Well, right now social progams cost more than all the money the government takes in (and so they must be cut, eventually, that's math not politics), but that's a recent thing, and there have always been people who saw any social spending as too much, and people who saw any military spending as too much.

But ususally "big government" means "intrusive government" - any government that tells me how much water I can use when I flush my toilet, or who I can have sex with, or otherwise steps into what should be private moments, is too damn big. Cutting funding is the bad way to deal with that, a last resort.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[countertrolling]

whAt dO rAnDoM CapS mEan?

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[lgw]

Small government is when the government regulates someone else. Big government is when the government regulates you.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[lgw]

That you should go back on your meds.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[geekoid]

OTOH, it is perfectly constitutional to say : We won't give you funds to aid interstate commerce if you don't do X.

So yes, it is constitutional. If you don't like it, contact your state legislators and tell them to not accept funds from the feds, and allow Marijuana.

FtR: I am for removing Marijuana in to the alcohol level status of controlled substances.

On short: Your state has made an agreement to the Feds.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[geekoid]

No they don't.

Also, you can raise taxes also Math.

It's not too damn big.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[spauldo]

It's also a fact that on the radio (and probably TV as well, I dunno) when they refer to someone as "Congressman So-and-So", he or she is a member of the House.

There's not really a title for representatives - technically, both senators and House members are representatives - Senators of the state, House members of the people in their district. The general rule of thumb in the media is to use the title "senator" when appropriate and "congressman" when it is not.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[publiclurker]

So you actually think you have the right to take everyone's water for your own self serving devices? If you use too much water, then everyone else has to pay more to get and clean their water, to say nothing of the damage caused when streams and aquifers run dry. Just because a few people are so full of crap that they feel they need extra water to dispose of it all, does not mean that everyone else should readily be expected to suffer for it.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[spauldo]

Run toward him and punch him in the gut. If he hasn't had a lot of training, once you're inside the range of the weapon he'll probably pause before he remembers to drop it and defend himself.

Once he's down, smash his visor into his face if he has one. That always pisses them off, and he'll have a hell of a time getting it off.

Most pikemen I know don't have pockets, but carry their belongings in a belt pouch. If you're lucky, he's got a knife on his belt you can grab it and cut the pouch strings off. You might also want to carry a knife yourself just for this purpose.

Don't turn and run - if you do, he's got you square in the back. I've seen it plenty of times - it's a rookie mistake.

Note that you should only attempt this at a ren faire or SCA event. Do not, under any circumstances, try it with the Swiss Guard.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[countertrolling]

:-) I'm hip...

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[pla]

No they don't.

Yes, actually, they do. The entire "necessary" budget, including the massively bloated full current military funding level, comes out to under 1.2 trillion. We have a current yearly deficit of 1.4 trillion.

Put bluntly, Military, Social Security, Welfare (medicare + medicaid): Eliminate TWO to balance the budget.


Also, you can raise taxes

"Can" does not mean "should".

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[kevinNCSU]

I think you missed the point GP was trying to make entirely. He's saying you can identify a big tree and you can identify a small tree, and both those descriptions have meaning even if you can't identify the exact boundary between the categories. In other words, just because you can't pinpoint the nano second a warm bath becomes a hot one doesn't mean you shouldn't take action to prevent the water from boiling with you in it.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[spauldo]

OK, how about this idea:

Big government provides more services and draws more on the tax base than small government.

Governments like Sweden, where the government provides health care, university education, public transit, etc. are big governments. There's a good social safety net, so the poor have a decent standard of living.

Small governments only provide that which cannot be reliably provided by the private sector. A small government would limit itself to things like law enforcement, foreign affairs, defense, essential public infrastructure (roads, seaports, etc.), and various forms of standardization for trade (i.e. 1Kg is actually 1Kg, pallets must be heat treated to remove parasites, etc.). A small government is better for the rich and (arguably) middle class, because less of your money is redistributed.

It's pretty much the whole socialism vs. capitalism argument. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but in times of economic hardship (at least in the U.S.), you get a lot of people calling for small government.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[i_b_don]

Ok... so the way the constitution works is that there is this referee that says what is constitutional and what isn't; it's call the supreme court. If the supreme court says it's constitutional then it's constitutional as per the constitution. Therefore YOUR judgment as to what's constitutional and what's not is totally worthless AS PER THE CONSTITUTION and your whole framing of "big government" and "small government" is now also useless.

God, i truly hate the worshiping of the constitution as a religious document. The document is the set of rules that the political game is played by and they change over time, as were intended by the original writers. And while the founding fathers made some brilliant decisions in the creation of the constitution (espically for it's time), their morals and how they lived their life should not be more important than how we as a society decide we wish to live our lives today, 200 years later. (And if you don't believe that then women shouldn't be allowed to vote and blacks should still be slaves.)

d

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[toadlife]

...that which cannot be reliably provided by the private sector.

Like health care.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[mattack2]

I *do* think we can have reasonable limits on things like this (how much water a toilet uses in this case)..

There are other solutions however -- require gray water reuse (though yes, the person you're replying to would probably complain about that too), and/or charge for water appropriately, so supply/demand comes into the situation, and the guy who wants the 3 gallon/flush toilet pays a crapload (ba dum psh!) more money for his water bill.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[hrvatska]

Social security currently brings in more than it costs. It runs enough of a surplus that it lends money to the federal government. The federal government owes more to social security than it does to China. Social security will eventually need for those loans to be repaid, but for the time being it can hardly be considered a drag on the budget, and you should look elsewhere to balance the budget. Significant contributors to the increase in the deficit since 2001 have been the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, Medicare part D, a decline in revenue due to the great recession, and an increase in costs also due to the recession. Due largely to the improving economy the deficit is projected to shrink by over $600 billion from 2011 to 2012. Ending or greatly curtailing the US wars in in Iraq and Afghanistan will also help to shrink the deficit. Medicare part D was an unfunded entitlement program pushed through congress in 2003. It's basically a subsidy program for the US insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and does need to be trimmed. Not extending the Bush tax cuts would put a big dent in the deficit.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[lgw]

Social Security hit cashflow negative this year, but that's not really important: what they call the taxes is just the salespitch.

You seem to want to cut only the other party's programs. Watch Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain for how that will end. Everyone bleeds before this is done.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[lgw]

You've clearly never done the research here (or you're just trolling). The Majority of water used is used for power geenration. The Majority of the remainer for agricultural irrigation. The majority of the remainer for lanscaping irrigaton. Houshold water use just isn't important in the scheme of things - these are do-nothing feel-good (to some) measures. The toilet case is worse because it doesn't actually save water.

But that aside: yes, goddamit, the right way to parcel out a scarce resource 9or one with an excess) is to let the price float to where it clears the market. That enourages both production and consumption to move in the right direction, with no government intervention (in pricing). The solution to high commodity prices is high commodity prices.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Richy_T]

So when the supreme court changes its stance compared to what it held previously?

Constitutionality is not determined by the supreme court, merely how the government is going to treat things (not even then sometimes). Check out "Appeal to authority" as a logical fallacy.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[chuckugly]

Yes, and exotic sports cars. Just because you can't afford something doesn't mean the private sector is bad at producing it. The discussion about what a human deserves or is entitled to in a just society is a different discussion.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[i_b_don]

The problem is, this is not a fact based exercise. If you have a sporting event and a ref makes a bad call, the you can watch the replay and say "yep, bad call." Here's the set of rules, this is what actually happened, the person stepped out and the ref didn't see it. However in this case you're basically arguing philosophy and as such, there are few if any hard answers. Can the government use the commerce clause to outlaw cannabis? Well that's a matter of definitions. If you define things a certain way, then no. If you define things a different way, then yes. But who makes up the definitions? You? Me? The original authors of the constitution or law? There is not a hard "truth" to be found.

So, baring some measurable truth, the founders developed a referee that makes the final call on this decision. I'm not making the appeal to authority fallacy because the definition of constitutionality *is* the supreme court. You don't get to make the decision. Talking heads on TV or radio don't get to make the decision. Only the supreme court gets to rule if something is constitutional or not. I may not always like their rulings (I truly despise some of the more recent ones) but there are no facts to be had here. We're talking philosophy and opinion and definitions.

I think The Truth is on my side, you think The Truth is on your side, but all we're really arguing here is opinions and definitions. In the end this is a totally uninteresting argument and one that is only a distraction to the real argument. The REAL argument is what government services are beneficial for us as a group to pay for and which ones aren't. I say there is benefit and efficiencies to having a public health care system and you don't. Now THAT's an interesting conversation to have. I say the method we use to pay for the government should be slated toward taxing the rich, and you don't. That's an interesting conversation to have. (These are made up examples - I'm not trying to put words in your mouth) These arguments we can bring metrics and statistics to the table to try and justify the correct amount and best method of government involvement in a particular area. That's the real meat of what we're trying to argue, what path should we take to make our lives better.

The constitutional argument is just boring and lame because in the end there is nothing to be gained by "winning" because the supreme court STILL controls the definition of what is constitutional or not. =(

d

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Rakarra]

Ronald Reagan grew the federal government to ginormously huge non-conservative levels, and yet is hailed as one of the "greatest Conservative Republicans" ever. What am I missing here?

Well a lot of 'conservatives' would probably disagree with the moves these days (but change their tune once told that Reagan had done it), but many of the increases under Reagan were in the areas that were in the federal government's constitutional pervue. For instance, military spending is one of the areas of the federal government that the Constitution says they should handle, so conservatives are all for it. Social programs? The Department of Education? The arts? Conservatives would say that because those aren't explicitly given to the federal government in the Constitution, those are more state or local issues and should not be handled on the federal level. I guess that's why Mitt Romney can say with a straight face that he supports Massachusetts's health care system and oppose the federal system, despite them being very similar. At least, I hope that's why he does that. Maybe I'm being too charitable.

In addition, around Reagan's time the Republican Party was taken over by the neo-Conservative movement, people who believe in those traditional conservative values except for issues of morality. Those, they believe the federal government should stick their noses into all the time, in enforcement of "traditional moral values." For some reason to them this is not hypocrisy.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Rakarra]

To be honest, I am not particularly interested in the American constitutional folklore of "state rights". Can we discuss the issue on an abstract level, not specifically tied to the US?

That may be difficult, each country's population is going to have a much different idea of what a federal government 'should' do. Even in the US, each state population may have a different idea about what the federal government ought to do, and it is difficult to talk about something subjective like "how large/involved should the government be" without considering the frame of reference of the country's populace.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[spottedkangaroo]

Also false. representatives are from the house, senators are from the senate, and congress is both. The news may be misrepresenting that, or you may be perceiving it incorrectly, but that is how it is.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[spauldo]

It's not false. Reread my comment.

Referring to members of the House as "Congressmen" and senators as "Senators" is a rule of thumb. That's the fact I was stating. It's true.

Yes, they're all "congressmen". We get that. What you apparently don't get is the custom of referring to senators by the title "Senator", and not by the generic term "congressman", which isn't a title. Members of the House don't have titles, so they are referred to as congressmen.

Consider two men: one gets a PhD, one does not. They're both adults. While you could refer to either as "Mister", it wouldn't be appropriate for the man with the PhD, since his correct title is "Doctor". In everyday conversation, referring to the doctor as "Mister So-and-So" would probably pass, but a TV or radio show host wouldn't never knowingly do it.

As to my other point, they are all representatives, in the sense that they represent an entity as a member of a representative government. Senators represent the state government, theoretically speaking, although since the 17th amendment senators have to concern themselves more with public opinion. They're generally not referred to as representatives since that would be confusing.

If you're referring to members of congress as a whole, then congressmen is perfectly acceptable. You don't see that very often, since it's not common to refer to the members of congress as a whole, as opposed to "Congress", which refers to the organization (i.e. you wouldn't say congressmen passed a law, you'd say Congress passed a law). The rule of thumb I mentioned above is for referring to individual senators and House members.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe this is the case at all.

That's ok. You're still wrong. Just watch any of the major news channels, or read a newspaper or magazine. You'll soon see how wrong you are.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[spottedkangaroo]

I read your comment. The point that you don't seem to get is that you're still wrong. You can argue it any way you like. Congressman refers to either.

Re:Do you think they know what a thermodynamic is?

[toadlife]

As a society, we've already made the decision that humans deserve health care in some form.

The private sector may be good at producing health care as a product, but it has a dismal track record of efficiently delivering it to all people.

Worse mileage, corn lobby

[gatkinso]

Thats all that needs to be said.

Subsidies and markets

[Colin Smith]

E-85 was supposed to be the next big thing and it barely made a fart in the market at all. All we've ended up with is farmers who thought they had a huge market for their product and suddenly....don't.

Lets see. Trillions of free money for bankers, but only tens of billions for farmers? Hardly fair. Surely if they spent trillions on the farmers they would be able to grow enough corn to fill the gas tanks.

So what's next? Where do you think are the billions or trillions in subsidies going to be spent next? Hey it's free money, everyone should be getting involved.

Re:Subsidies and markets

[zvonik]

The government is still paying farmers to not grow corn. It's called the Conservation Reserve Program.

http://beta2.tbo.com/news/nation-world/2008/jul/11/na-usda-urged-to-end-paying-farmers-not-to-grow-cr-ar-151982/

"At issue is the Conservation Reserve Program, under which the government has paid farmers to stop growing row crops, such as corn and soybeans, on 34 million acres across the country. "

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/crp/

Re:Subsidies and markets

[Geoff-with-a-G]

The "trillions for bankers" weren't subsidies, they were loans. Said loans were already paid back, with interest.

The Ethanol subsidies aren't getting paid back, and they aren't all going to "farmers" (unless you count massive Ag companies like Cargill or ConAgra as "farmers"), and they aren't even an effective use of subsidy to fund alternative fuels. The real advocates for bio-fuels will tell you that sugar cane works better than corn, and switchgrass works better than cane.

Corn ethanol subidies were always a gift to the Ag companies, which were extra important due to the early position of Iowa in the presidential primaries.

Re:Subsidies and markets

[Colin Smith]

The "trillions for bankers" weren't subsidies, they were loans

Of course they are subsidies. What is the interest rate again? 0.25%? 0.01% at some points. Meanwhile inflation is hitting 7% (http://www.shadowstats.com/). Which is like 100 billion/year in free money.

Re:Subsidies and markets

[the eric conspiracy]

Yes, there was some subsidy implicit in the interest rates, however along with those rates the guvmint was purchasing preferred stock in the banks which required payment of additional dividends of 5 to 9%.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122390023840728367.html

As far as Shadowstats, you actually believe that hooey? It's complete bull.

http://blog.jparsons.net/2011/06/shadow-stats-debunked-part-ii.html

Re:Subsidies and markets

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely if they spent trillions on the farmers they would be able to grow enough corn to fill the gas tanks.

Nope. There is only so much arable land, so much water, and so much sunshine. There are fairly hard limits on all of these. Either you chose to grow food with these limited resources, or you chose to trade food for fuel.

Switchgrass is supposed to be able to grow on land that crops can't be grown on. The problem with that is that type of land is already in use as ranchland. So you still end up trading food for fuel but in this case meat instead of crops.

Food As Fuel

[blcamp]

Great idea for living creatures, stupid as all hell for machines. I mean, seriously... we are feeding machines with perfectly good food. Hello?

Let's leave the food for the living and stop rewarding this stupidity with the further stupidity of the government stealing the fruits of our labors to subsidize this lame-brained bullshit.

Re:Food As Fuel

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Ethanol subsidies are, pretty much, purely about buying votes in flyover country; but your distinction between food and fuel is somewhat artificial. Essentially all fossil fuels are 'biofuels' that have been taking a dirt nap long enough to be unpalatable; the only real advantage is that, at the price of additional extraction costs, we can spend down millenia of Cambrian biofuel production with a few weeks of digging and blasting.

Corn is a particularly terrible biofuel crop, being fertilizer intensive and directly useful as a human food source; but the notion of using cheap, self-replicating, fairly efficent solar collecting organisms to generate energy isn't all that nonsensical. Photovoltaics have the advantage of being usable in areas without enough water for agriculture, and some breakthroughs in algae and the various other possible candidates that will grow in saltwater, on marginal land, and in other convenient places would be nice; but every source of energy on earth(save nuclear and geothermal) is pretty much an exercise in more-or-less direct solar energy collection. Plants are pretty good at that.

Re:Food As Fuel

[Anonymous Coward]

Well we're growing food that's not quite as good (not really good enough to eat) instead of growing good to eat food on the same land because of corn subsidies. So its what you say, but there's one layer of indirection that's often used by the corn lobby to say they're not taking away from edible corn. Truth is its better for farmers to grow the crappy corn under the subsidies and they have higher yields due to the lower bar of quality. We desperately need to stop using the land for crap corn, especially when we already pay farmers not to use some of their land.

Re:Food As Fuel

[Rei]

The problem with algal biofuel is that you can't just grow it in a field. You have two options: sterile, pure algal strains, and open-air tanks. Open-air tanks means that algal predators get in, wild algae strains get in and overtake your desired ones, etc. The amount of recoverable energy is a tiny fraction of that if you use pure strains. But pure strains means compeltely enclosed tanks. *Acres and acres* of enclosed tanks, with each acre only yielding a few tens of thousands of dollars. And you can't just enclose it with thin film; the weather would destroy it in no time. This needs to be thick plastic. And it'll photodegrade. The cheaper the type of plastic you use, in general, the faster it'll photodegrade. This makes it increasingly opaque and brittle until it's useless.

On top of all this, separating water from algae is an expensive, energy-intensive process.

Solar is even higher capital cost per acre, but it is *extremely* energy dense per acre compared to even the best biofuels -- about an order of magnitude more energy dense than enclosed-tank algae, two orders of magnitude more than corn. A streamlined EV like the Volt or Leaf uses about 250Wh/mi. A square meter of land on the surface of the Earth receives that every 15 minutes that said area is in full overhead sunlight. Even after factoring in panel losses, and the capacity factor (sun's not shining all the time, etc), that's *very* high energy density compared to 330 gallons of ethanol per acre per *year* (under 1/10th gallon per square meter per *year*) for corn and 6,000 for enclosed algae (1 1/2 gallons per square meter per *year*). Plus, fuel crops generally have absurd amounts of freshwater water consumption, something that marginal lands are already very short on, plus there's the pesticide and fertilizer issues, etc.

Come on Tea Partiers ....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sympathetic to some of your causes and helping to smack this down will get a lot more of us "liberals" taking you guys seriously!

Quick reminder: 40% of Corn is turned into ethanol

[Hadlock]

That's right! AND it gives you worse gas milage, and in cars made before 1994-1998 (reports vary wildly) it can accelerate engine part wear. No wonder the price of food (i.e. corn, a staple of Latin America) has gone up damn near 800%. Food as fuel seems to only work with sugarcane/beet. Even then it seems wasteful.

http://www.designscar.com/

[Anonymous Coward]

information that resides in this website is very good and interesting. http://www.designscar.com/ probably will be trying to be a great site like this website.

Mandate

[mdsolar]

There is a mandate for ethanol content in fuel. Fuel prices and grain prices are high so a subsidy does not make much sense anymore. Repealing the tariff might bring in some efficiently produced Brazilian ethanol so grain prices can fall.

Re:Mandate

[OwenTheContrarian]

Actually, there is a 90% petroleum-based fuel mandate. You have it backwards.

Great for Brazil

[acid06]

Brazil actually produces energy efficient ethanol from sugar cane. It's used by more than half of Brazilian cars and it's generally cheaper than gasoline, without any subsidies.

The only reason Brazilian sugar cane ethanol can't compete with the US corn-based ethanol (which is silly and energy inefficient) is because of the huge advantage given to US producers.

This will mean cheaper ethanol for Americans and improved market conditions for Brazilian ethanol companies. Hopefully the price of ethanol here in Brazil won't rise too much, thanks to the larger demand.

Re:Great for Brazil

[Zaatxe]

[...] It's used by more than half of Brazilian cars and it's generally cheaper than gasoline, without any subsidies.

It is cheaper "per liter", not "per kilometer", unfortunatelly. Until 2 years ago I would fill my car's tank with ethanol only. Now I use gasoline because the cost per kilometer is lower with gasoline.

Hopefully the price of ethanol here in Brazil won't rise too much, thanks to the larger demand.

You don't live in Brazil, do you? We already had a big rise in the ethanol price because of the international price of sugar. Sugar cane farmers prefer to turn their crops into sugar than into ethanol for bigger profits. If the demand on the ethanol increases, it will be more expensive than gasoline PER LITER!

Re:Great for Brazil

[acid06]

Actually, it still is cheaper per kilometer for my car, it only wasn't for maybe a week or two. It actually depends on the car - the Brazilian media usually says it's only worth using ethanol if its price is at most 70% of the price of gasoline but that varies from car to car. On my car, the threshold is 80% - I've done several measurements over a few months.

If there was a reliable, growing, international demand, the producers would also raise production levels so we would only face maybe a short-term price spike but it the long-term, production would be adjusted accordingly.

Re:Great for Brazil

[Zaatxe]

Lucky you... on my car the threshold is below 65%...

Re:Great for Brazil

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep hearing this argument that Brazil's ethanol is competitive without any subsidies, but it's an intellectually dishonest argument. Their program started in 1975 and was heavily subsidized by the government.... it wasn't until 2005 that Brazil took away the subsidies and let ethanol stand on its own two feet. That's 30 years of government subsidies to create an industry out of thin air.

Re:Great for Brazil

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem Just clear out all that useless rain forest, and then you can civilize the savages that live there, and put them to work doing something useful for the world's great societies. And do try to make your airlines a bit safer, mkay?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Unintended consequences ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time ethonal support goes away. It's driven corn prices up alot. Also, fields that could be farmed for food are not when corn is being used for fuel.

It pisses me off. How much does one have to think when passing these laws in the first place? How hard is it to realize that food prices might be effected? I call them unitnended consequences but are they not recognizable risks? Are politicians really that stupid?

Re:Unintended consequences ...

[cptdondo]

Are politicians really that stupid?

Google Wiener. Yes, the really are that stupid.

Now make the gasoline and oil incentives go away too. After all, if the free market is good for the little guy, it should be good for the big guy.

The Senate doing something good for the country???

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite frankly, I am surprised the Senate passed this, and bipartisan too. I thought ethanol subsidies would never be threatened, and with this little fuss. Did the Team Party have any effect?

Then get rid of....

[Lumpy]

The damned requirement for it to be in the gasoline. IT ruins gas mileage and the gas stations are NOT selling it for 5%-10% cheaper because that is what your gas mileage loss is from running E10. They sell that crap at full price because consumers are too stupid to know better. (Most people think that "premium" is a better gas! The lack of education in fuel that is used daily by the population is incredible)

I have a flex fuel car, it get's 25% less gas mileage when running on E85 but it's designed to run on the stuff. And all the stations around here selling it are price gouging it so hard that it's only 20% below the price of the E10.

This makes E85 a net loss for me to even use it. I can be with the enviro-freaks and waste 5% gas mileage by running E85 or I can run the E10 and get optimum gas mileage at the quality of fuel available and get the most Dollars per mile out of my expense. When E85 first came out it was 40% to 50% cheaper than gasoline so I was running it all the time in the flex fuel van. But in Michigan it's $3.29 a gallon while Indiana it's $2.59 a gallon (as seen this past weekend on a trip to Chicago) There is no $1.00 a gallon tax on it, IT's that Michigan only retailer of E85 is Meijer and they are price gouging it.

I'm done with Ethanol. Until they start using real sources like switchgrass that produce more of it per acre and actually try to make it a viable fuel that is not based on corn subsudies... it needs to go away...

EXCEPT: IT's a fantastic racing fuel. I have 10 friends that are in racing and all of them have modified their cars to use ethanol instead of racing gas. IT's cheaper and they are getting MORE power from it One friend has went from 12.2 on the quarter mile to 11.9 just by changing fuel. Plus they can afford to race at $3.29 a gallon instead of $6.89 a gallon.

Re:Then get rid of....

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

EXCEPT: IT's a fantastic racing fuel. I have 10 friends that are in racing and all of them have modified their cars to use ethanol instead of racing gas. IT's cheaper and they are getting MORE power from it One friend has went from 12.2 on the quarter mile to 11.9 just by changing fuel. Plus they can afford to race at $3.29 a gallon instead of $6.89 a gallon.
I assume your friend has changed the tune of their engine to take advantage of the higher octane rating, since thermodynamics is thermodynamics and per mass the ethanol isn't providing more power, but you can run higher compression w/ E85.

Re:Then get rid of....

[phizix]

The damned requirement for it to be in the gasoline. IT ruins gas mileage and the gas stations are NOT selling it for 5%-10% cheaper because that is what your gas mileage loss is from running E10. They sell that crap at full price because consumers are too stupid to know better. (Most people think that "premium" is a better gas! The lack of education in fuel that is used daily by the population is incredible)

I have a flex fuel car, it get's 25% less gas mileage when running on E85 but it's designed to run on the stuff. And all the stations around here selling it are price gouging it so hard that it's only 20% below the price of the E10.

This makes E85 a net loss for me to even use it. I can be with the enviro-freaks and waste 5% gas mileage by running E85 or I can run the E10 and get optimum gas mileage at the quality of fuel available and get the most Dollars per mile out of my expense. When E85 first came out it was 40% to 50% cheaper than gasoline so I was running it all the time in the flex fuel van. But in Michigan it's $3.29 a gallon while Indiana it's $2.59 a gallon (as seen this past weekend on a trip to Chicago) There is no $1.00 a gallon tax on it, IT's that Michigan only retailer of E85 is Meijer and they are price gouging it.

I'm done with Ethanol. Until they start using real sources like switchgrass that produce more of it per acre and actually try to make it a viable fuel that is not based on corn subsudies... it needs to go away...

EXCEPT: IT's a fantastic racing fuel. I have 10 friends that are in racing and all of them have modified their cars to use ethanol instead of racing gas. IT's cheaper and they are getting MORE power from it One friend has went from 12.2 on the quarter mile to 11.9 just by changing fuel. Plus they can afford to race at $3.29 a gallon instead of $6.89 a gallon.

Ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline, but a much higher octane rating. The high octane rating allows much higher engine compression ratios resulting in better thermodynamic efficiency. This is why your racing friends see a benefit; their engines are designed for high octane fuel. Flex fuel engines are designed to tolerate the 87 octane rating fuel at the pump and have normal compression ratios. This is the problem with flex fuel; E85 results in worse performance because the engines can't take advantage of the high octane rating.

Re:Then get rid of....

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Congratulations you have just stumbled upon the issues with ethanol as a general purpose motor fuel. You mention that that your flex fuel car gets 25% less mileage when running on E85, but if you look at the energy content by unit volume of fuel you will see that E85 has closer to 2/3 the energy of regular gas. This show that your car isn't running as efficient as it could be on either fuel since they have very different characteristics (octane, stoichiometric ratio, latent heat).

Also you mention that it is a great racing fuel, which is true. E85 is a good fuel for racing, better would be methanol but that is harder to find. Your friends who race probably just up-jetted their carbs, or put in bigger injectors given the performance increase. If they really want to get the most benefit from E85 they should look in to raising the compression ratio since E85 has an octane in the range of 105-115 and a much higher latent heat than the 100 low lead (avgas) they were previously using. If the vehicles are older they should also consider putting in hardened valve seats. My project car, a 68' MG Midget, is being rebuilt and is going to be a supercharged alcohol burner for the same reasons that your friends are now racing with E85.

Re:Then get rid of....

[Xacid]

Is it safe to presume that higher compression but lower energy in the fuel equates to requiring more fuel to do the same work - thus potentially costing the same/more? Anyone know what the MPG difference is in an all-ethanol engine vs. an all-gasoline engine with the same horsepower output and same engine size?

Re:Then get rid of....

[Bob the Super Hamste]

You are forgetting that it has a different stoichiometric ratio so you can get more power because you can burn much more of it than the racing gas (probably 100 low lead avgas given the price) that they were running with. Ideally to maximize the benefits they should be raising the compression ration or increasing the boost (if supercharged or turbocharged) since ethanol has a higher octane (105-115) and also has a much higher latent heat. Additionally there are benefits to adjusting the timing as well which should also be done.

Re:Then get rid of....

[bkaul01]

The damned requirement for it to be in the gasoline. IT ruins gas mileage and the gas stations are NOT selling it for 5%-10% cheaper because that is what your gas mileage loss is from running E10.

Ethanol has a lower heating value (energy content per unit mass) of 26.9 MJ/kg. Gasoline has a LHV of 44 MJ/kg. So on a mass basis, ethanol has 61% of the energy content of gasoline. Converting to a volume basis (since fuels are blended and sold by volume), the slightly higher density of ethanol (0.785 kg/m3 vs ~0.75 for gasoline) takes the ratio to 64%. Since E10 is 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol by volume, this works out to E10 having 94% of the energy content of pure gasoline. The mileage/range loss will be 6% compared to pure gasoline. Most people aren't going to notice that (it's on the order of about 1-2 mpg or 20 miles of range per tank), so there's no strong incentive to price it differently. E10 is usually cheaper, however, than E0 blends in most markets, owing to the EPA requirements for oxygenated fuels, etc. Since E10 is mandated in most major markets, even in the ones where it isn't E0 tends to be more expensive due to its scarcity if for no other reason.

With E85, on the other hand, the mileage/range loss works out to be around 40%, which people do notice. There are some properties of the fuel that we could take advantage of in modern engines, though, to try to reduce this. Since it has a higher octane rating (i.e. better knock resistance), we can run engines at a higher compression ratio and/or with more advanced spark timing, which is more efficient. In direct-injection engines, there's a significant charge cooling effect (ethanol's heat of vaporization is more than double that of gasoline), which aids efficiency too. With variable cam timing, it's possible to reduce the effective compression ratio when running on E0/E10, essentially treating it as inferior fuel rather than optimizing for it. Flex-fuel vehicles currently on the market don't have these control strategies in place yet (they're still optimized for gasoline), but there are active R&D programs to develop them, so in the near future, that disadvantage may be somewhat (though not entirely) mitigated.

Re:Then get rid of....

[blueg3]

IT ruins gas mileage and the gas stations are NOT selling it for 5%-10% cheaper because that is what your gas mileage loss is from running E10.

You should know that running E10 can't cost you 10% gas mileage, since the energy content of ethanol isn't zero and E10 has 10% ethanol. It's more like 2-3%.

Of course, it's still stupid to sell E10 at the same price as E0. If it provides 3% less energy, it ought to cost me 3% less or they should stop selling it.

Re:Then get rid of....

[Anonymous Coward]

You should know that just because it contains that much energy doesn't mean the engine can harness it and use it. It burns hotter and faster than gasoline. Non-high-performance engines waste a lot of that energy.

Re:Then get rid of....

[compro01]

It's entirely possible to have a car take advantage of it, just current ones don't. It requires 3 things.

1. Forced induction. Supercharger, turbocharger, or if you're VW, both.
2. Sensor in the gas tank to determine ethanol content of the fuel.
3. Appropriate configuration engine control configuration to crank up the boost as appropriate.

Saab has an engine that does this. It gets equal mileage on gasoline and E85, but delivers about 20% more horsepower and torque on the latter.

Re:Then get rid of....

[Lumpy]

No not just more fuel in, one was able to increase Supercharger boost by almost 20psi without any ill effects. He thinks he can get even higher.
Most are upping boost pressures and one had the heads shaved to increase compression to 11:1.

Re:Then get rid of....

[Lumpy]

Yes it can and does.

I have two stations here one selling E0 (verified as they sell to farmers for their older farm gear) and the others selling E10.

In my car that get's 40mpg regularly I get 44mpg on E0 and 39-40mpg on E10.

that is 10%.
look at the hypermiler forums. guys that get even higher gas mileage are seeing even bigger differences. Driving a gas hog SUV that get's 20mpg will not notice a 2mpg difference.

Re:Then get rid of....

[compro01]

but there are active R&D programs to develop them, so in the near future, that disadvantage may be somewhat (though not entirely) mitigated.

R&D? Saab has been selling such a vehicle (the biopower 9-5) since 2005. It cranks up the turbocharger boost when the sensors detect an elevated ethanol content in the fuel, actually resulting in BETTER highway mileage (and equal city mileage) on E85, along with about 15% extra horsepower and torque.

Re:Then get rid of....

[bkaul01]

The particular control strategies I mentioned (variable cam timing to reduce effective compression ratio when using gasoline) aren't in production yet. I suppose I worded it a bit poorly if it implied that nothing in production is optimized for E85. But the vast majority of production FFVs (in the US market at least; Brazil and some others have notable exceptions) are still optimized for gasoline, rather than E85.

Re:Then get rid of....

[sugarmatic]

Ethanol does not burn faster. It burns a lot slower. It also burns slightly cooler, not hotter.

Re:Then get rid of....

[Anonymous Coward]

So I obviously don't know all of how it works, but I do know that my vehicle isn't designed for high-octane fuel, and when I use high-octane fuel my gas mileage drops significantly. More than you could attribute to the difference between energy stored in ethanol vs. in gasoline, so it's obvious to me that the energy stored in the high-octane fuel isn't being completely utilized by the engine.

The chemical energy in the fuel is converted mostly into heat. Gas might burn hotter, but if more of the energy in ethanol is wasted, that's more waste heat, which means the engine as a whole runs hotter. Maybe the fuel in the combustion chamber isn't actually burning hotter, but the engine itself runs hotter because it's not utilizing the fuel's energy as well.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

... when there was talk of removing oil subsidies, the Republicans balked and asked why we would want to increase taxes on the oil companies. I guess they don't mind increasing taxes on America's farmers. The hypocrisy of our government never fails to astound.

Remember Congress has a way

[dkleinsc]

The White House stands opposed to changes in the subsidies or tariffs, so they will likely go untouched before they expire at the end of the year.

That 73-27 vote is way more than the 2/3 required to override a presidential veto. Even if Obama doesn't want to do this, Congress could force it on him.

Re:Remember Congress has a way

[bkaul01]

True, but Congress generally has enough respect for the opinion of the President that not all of those 73 would vote to override the veto. I could easily imagine 5-10 senators deciding that the political consequences of picking a fight with the President over this issue by voting to override his veto isn't worth it, given that they're going to expire at the end of the year anyway if they do nothing at all.

Re:Remember Congress has a way

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that this bill has to pass through the House of Representatives, where I suspect that corn/ethanol special interests will have an easier time torpedoing it.

Re:Remember Congress has a way

[fireylord]

I can't see this ever getting past the lower house though

Re:Remember Congress has a way

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Congress is composed of two houses, the House and Senate. What is the House's stance on this and how would the vote breakdown be if it actually came up for vote?

My guess the House would not have enough for a 2/3rds override, given they cater more towards loudest voice and lobbies, and here the corn and farm lobby would be pushing for ethanol subsidies. Another guess is that if the vote would come up in the House, it would provide incentive to renew the damn thing for next year, so I would suggest letting it lie and run out quietly than shove it in everyone's face again.

Re:Remember Congress has a way

[SheeEttin]

You're confusing the Senate with Congress. Remember, Congress the both the House and Senate combined.

Democrats currently have the majority in the Senate. Since the Republicans have the majority in the House, this bill is highly unlikely to pass there.

Re:Remember Congress has a way

[MachineShedFred]

Personally, I'm surprised there were 73 Senators with no Presidental aspirations. A vote against ethanol in the US Congress is a sure loss in any Iowa Caucus that follows the vote.

Re:Remember Congress has a way

[MachineShedFred]

What is the House's stance on this and how would the vote breakdown be if it actually came up for vote?

I don't know. Does the Majority Whip's office post to Slashdot? =P

Re:Remember Congress has a way

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't get 2/3 support in the House. They'll just let the subsidies expire at the end of the year. That way no one takes a political hit for it.

Ahh, politics.

Cellulosic

[dvoecks]

I've never been a fan of grain ethanol (except for the amount in beer), except that I've viewed it as a bridge to create a market for cellulosic ethanol. If we were driving around cars with high enough compression ratios, a lot of the efficiency shortcomings could be overcome. However, turning food into ethanol is not sustainable over the long term. I really would have hoped we'd be turning waste into ethanol by now. I'm not quite ready to give op on that, but it's time to go about it differently.

Who opposes oil industry subsidies?

[Anonymous Coward]

McCain(R) opposes ethanol subsidies, Palin(R) opposes ethanol subsidies, neither oppose Big Oil subsidies.

Q: "What about ending oil subsidies? Subsidies for oil companies. Where do you stand on that?"

Palin: .. "we're only talking about four billion dollars" [a year] .. link

"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, long a mouthpiece for the interests of the oil industry, has lashed out against the Democratic effort to roll back taxpayer subsidies for the Big Five oil companies .. The $21 billion in unneeded subsidies would go to reduce the federal deficit" link

Re:Who opposes oil industry subsidies?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the $21 Billion would pay a couple days worth of interest on the federal deficit. Sorry, the deficit isn't going anywhere until spending is cut. You are fighting over a penny with stacks of $100 bills sitting on the desk that are "off limits". Pretty soon, even you'll realize that nothing is going to be off limits.

Re:Who opposes oil industry subsidies?

[ArcherB]

McCain(R) opposes ethanol subsidies, Palin(R) opposes ethanol subsidies, neither oppose Big Oil subsidies.

Q: "What about ending oil subsidies? Subsidies for oil companies. Where do you stand on that?"

Palin: .. "we're only talking about four billion dollars" [a year] .. link

"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, long a mouthpiece for the interests of the oil industry, has lashed out against the Democratic effort to roll back taxpayer subsidies for the Big Five oil companies .. The $21 billion in unneeded subsidies would go to reduce the federal deficit" link

You are missing something here. It is that oil companies pay much more in taxes than they receive in subsidies. What happens is that the government taxes the crap out of oil, not just as it's produced but at the pump as well. Then it gives a small portion back to the oil companies and then tells them what to do with it. If you eliminate the oil subsidies, you are actually going to lose some control over how oil companies operate. You will also increase the base price of fuel because the government is certainly not going to cut the taxes they charge for fuel.

Re:Who opposes oil industry subsidies?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't pay interest on the deficit, you pay interest on the debt. A $21B cut in spending would cut the deficit by $21B, all other things being equal.

Congressmen can be either, But...

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

No and Yes--people often refer to House Members as Congressmen and Senators as Senators. This is basically because "Senator" is a more significant title, and because the word "Member" is awkward while "Representative" is both pentasyllabic and less specific than Congressman.

Brazil imports record amount of ethanol

[doperative]

Brazil's ethanol industry

Brazil imports record amount of ethanol

"So, where's Brazil getting all of this ethanol from? The United States. According to Platts, almost all of Brazil's imports were U.S. corn-based ethanol, as prices were deemed to be the world's most competitive".

Ethenol is a great fuel

[codepunk]

Ethenol is a great fuel, the way it is distributed and used however is it's downfall. Selling a pre-blended mix at the pump is just plain stupidity. It needs to be blended at the pump in any ratio to allow for vehicles to be sold that run 100% or close to 100% ethanol. A engine running pure alcohol can run extremely high compression ratio's greatly increasing the power and efficiency.

You would have to engineer some way to keep stupidity out of the mix by preventing people from using the wrong blend.

Re:Quick reminder: 40% of Corn is turned into etha

[Bob the Super Hamste]

And here in Minnesota we have a law that was passed a while ago and signed by now presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty that mandates 20% of motor fuel consumed be ethanol. I forget the date by which this needs to be met, but if 20% isn't reached then all fuel will have to be a minimum E20 instead of the current E10.

A substantial political change - and Nerds Help.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

It's also a substantial change to what has been a cardinal fact of American politics--ethanol subsidies are untouchable because of the Iowa primaries. This is odd, and probably reflects the fact that everyone is recognizing the need to begin campaigning nationally early now. The early primaries are still important, but they're less important.

There are political nerds too. And we, as nerds, should care about some politics--because we like to see things done well, and sometimes political action makes a difference. We should be the people who correct people who think foreign aid is a huge percentage of the budget, or it does no good. (See, e.g., our anti-malarial programs.) We should be the people to counter the fear of anything nuclear. We should know stuff, and help make the world a little better. Being a nerd is about knowing stuff. And growing up on Quantum Leap or Star Trek or Heinlein or Tolkien or other nerd fare is about helping people.

Re:Quick reminder: 40% of Corn is turned into etha

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I should have included this initially, but here is the link to the Minnesota statute that mandates 20% ethanol. Also here is the MN senate file on the bill.

Uneducated debate, as usual.

[OwenTheContrarian]

Here are some facts.
1. Corn has been subsidized for decades, keeping the cost of corn below the cost of production.
2. Third world agriculture cannot compete with our subsidized grain exports. Therefore, they have no sustainable agricultural production. If we use the grain for something else, they starve. If we use the grain for something else and the prices go up, they begin growing their own grain again. Our farm subsidies have been a foot on the head of the third world. They don’t need a handout, they need us to play fair so they can have real economies themselves.
3. Alternative fuels are actively hindered by grocery manufacturers and big oil companies. They want cheap high fructose corn syrup and a continued 90% petroleum mandate. Don’t kid yourself. Follow the money.
4. Without incentives, we’ll never get off petroleum. It costs so little to produce and has existing infrastructure paid for with our tax dollars. There is the other problem of the most powerful cartel in the world, OPEC. Do you think they are happy about our efforts to wean our nation off of their product and stem the tide of petrodollars?
5. Food prices are affected 2% by the cost of grain and 92% by the cost of petroleum, according the USDA.

I’m all for getting rid of subsidies. If we get rid of ethanol subsidies, let’s level the playing field first. Get rid of petroleum subsidies and make the EPA remove the artificial 90% gasoline mandate, too. Then we can see how things really shake out.

BTW, if an engine is properly designed for ethanol, it will get better mileage than with gas. The higher vapor pressure allows higher compression than is possible with gas. In fact, oil companies have used this fact to worsen the grades of gas they sell, knowing the 10% ethanol blend will prevent consumers from complaining about knocking.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, going by what you've said, I have a few real questions if you can answer them:
 
I thought this money was going to the same companies that get the patrolium subsidies?
 
Aren't there any more energy dense crops that can be grown instead of corn?

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, if we get rid of corn subsidies and sugar cane tariffs, then the USA will no longer be crippled by substandard Coca-Cola.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[OwenTheContrarian]

Yes, most of the dollars go to the petroleum companies as an incentive to blend.

Energy density is a boodoggle. Corn is useful because we CAN feed it to cows, we CAN turn it into fuel, and we still have lots of it. In fact, corn that is used for ethanol does not just vanish. The starch is used, and the remaining 40% is livestock feed called DDG. Why change crops when the one we have lots of will do just fine. The issue is not 'Food vs Fuel'. It is really 'Food AND Fuel'.

Look at the current USDA numbers. Ethanol is a net energy gain. It has been for a long time.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, if an engine is properly designed for ethanol, it will get better mileage than with gas. The higher vapor pressure allows higher compression than is possible with gas. In fact, oil companies have used this fact to worsen the grades of gas they sell, knowing the 10% ethanol blend will prevent consumers from complaining about knocking.

I don't have time to reasearch your five upper points, but this one is easily debunkable.
Vapor pressure isn't a concern in gas mileage. BTU per unit volume is. How much energy is stored in a gallon of gasoline versus a gallon of ethanol?

The answer is the gallon of ethanol contains ~30% less energy than a gallon of gas. Your efficiency will therefore be about 30% less if all other things are equal. This is physics, and it's immutable. The higher vapor pressure does allow higher compression and advanced ignition timing, which will mean more specific output for a given displacement, but you'll still get ~30% crappier milage.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[OwenTheContrarian]

You are talking theoretical numbers, not the reality of ICE. You are absolutely correct that if you could design engines that were identical in every respect (fuel/air mixture, compression, ignition, combustion dynamics), the higher potential energy of gasoline would win out. In reality, with the considerable de-tuning that consumer ICEs are designed with, your theoretical numbers are not realized. In terms of what you can do to make an engine more efficient and still be reliable, running high ethanol blends is a pretty good way to go. I'm doing it as we speak, getting comparable mileage with E30 in a mildly modified GM 3.8L ICE.

The vapor pressure is an off-the-cuff way of knowing how well a fuel will perform at a given compression. If it ignites prematurely due to high compression, there is engine damage. Don't take my word for it though. Ask race car drivers who burn alcohol. Sprint car teams know all about it. You can do LOTS of things with alcohol that is just not possible with standard pump gas.

Again, I don't want to discount the truth of the BTU disparity, but engines don't run on BTU potential alone. There are a host of other factors. In my opinion, and in the opinion of a lot of people that are smarter than me, the disparity in potential energy is more than offset by a number of other characteristics that make ethanol a better ICE fuel.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you run for every branch of government immediately and then force this down their throats so we can vote on it? If you wait eighteen years to do it I'll spend all of this one fathering illegitimate children that will be raised their whole life to vote for you then. If not, how else can we get this to the point where it can be voted on?

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[MobyDisk]

Now I'm confused. I've read countless articles from reliable sources explaining how and why ethanol is either energy negative, or close enough to be useless. A quick Google search gives so many articles, all of which agree, that it isn't worth listing any individual ones. Many speculate that it could be viable in the future though. So why do the USDA numbers disagree with every other scientific journal out there? And your claim goes another step further claiming that it is energy positive, but that it does not impact the corn feedstocks and it did not account for the rise in corn prices. This would be wonderful if true, and would change my stance on the issue.

For now, I can't change my stance based on a single source that disagrees with the vast majority. I speculate that the USDA figures are self-serving since they do have a conflict of interest, but that would be disturbing since their job is to evaluate these types of things to make policy.

I am curious what your thoughts on this are. You started the post pointing out that the discussion is "uneducated" and citing a source - that's great. Now can you explain why that source disagrees with everyone else? That would certainly make me more open to changing my mind, for what that is worth.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but ethanol has been killing modern engines. Not by harming the engines themselves but by harming the fuel delivery systems. Ethanol is very corrosive to the rubber and plastic materials those parts are made of. Do some research on the BMW N54 High Pressure Fuel Pump debacle.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[WillAdams]

And of course, there's absolutely no down-side to DDG, right?

Feeding it to livestock hasn't been working out that well, unfortunately:

http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?1816-DDG-s-health-risk-for-livestock

You can't stop when you get the answer you want --- you have to continue following the money trail, and all the fall-out until all the dust settles.

William

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[OwenTheContrarian]

Gah! I'm sick to death of hearing this stuff. 100% pure ethanol has been used for ages as a medium for storing metals that are highly susceptible to corrosion. It is true that ethanol is highly SOLVENT, and likes to dissolve lesser grades of rubber and plastic.

Certain rubber types, like nitrile, are unaffected by ethanol. Do you know how much more nitrile o-rings cost than regular ones? Nothing. Do you know how much more a better grade of plastic costs? Next to nothing. By GM's own admission, the cost of making a car E85 capable is about $7, and my bet is that it the cost of the FlexFuel emblem they stick on the back.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Anonymous Coward]

the cost of making a car E85 capable is about $7

Here's $7, then. Make my 1997 Ford Ranger pickup E85-capable.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[OwenTheContrarian]

Fantastic point. Go back to those articles, read them, look up their cited research and post back here with a link to any of them that have cited actual data that was gathered in the last 10 years. If you find any, look at the source, and decide if they are in a position to know what they are talking about.

What I mean is, would you prefer an agricultural study done by a PhD in agriculture from the University of Iowa, or one from a professor of insect ecology at Cornell?

There are people with lots of money that are propping up some sub-standard research as fact, and ignoring the preponderence of research out there that is a direct contradiction of those disproven theories. Did you know that the researcher who first introduced Indirect Land Usage theories has since recanted them as totally unprovable, but that fact has been ignored and the California Air Resources Board is charging forward with penalties based on a failed theory?

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[OwenTheContrarian]

Aflatoxins and mycotoxins are not a result of ethanol. They exist every year in varying quantities, and their effects on livestock are well known. The article you cite is discussing the study that points to the fact that these toxins can make it through the fermentation process, into the DDGs, and still have a negative effect on livestock. This has been known for years, and most ethanol producers have very stringent measures in place to prevent the use of corn that is contaminated with fungal toxins.

DDGs are a very good feed supplement, and if you do some looking, you'll be staggered by the amount that is fed every year without issue. Don't just focus on the negatives, please. They may make a compelling article, but reality is that millions of tons of DDG are fed annually to all kinds of livestock.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Shotgun]

You are talking theoretical numbers, not the reality of me and millions of others having to buy a new car to take advantage of your theoretical benefits.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are some facts.

People eat corn.
Livestock east corn
People eat livestock.
Since the ethanol boom, prices of grain have skyrocketed
Since the ethanol boom, prices of meat have gone up

Corn is food not fuel. Keep it that way. Ethanol is NOT a replacement for petroleum as a fuel source. The answer to reducing our dependence on oil is not replacing it with what we'd normally use for food. Electricity is the answer; cheaply and efficently produced to power fully electric cars. Take all the money being spent on these subsidies and throw it into battery research. That is where our future lies. Efficent energy storage and to a lesser extent, production. (not involving oil as the fuel for generating electricity either)

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[OwenTheContrarian]

So you are OK with continued use of petroleum as the answer to our fuel situation? Maybe you believe that someone will GIVE you an electric car. Then you can ignore the fact that it will be powered by electricity produced from coal.

If everyone had your attitude, we'd still be walking, 'cause riding horses has too many negatives.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Anonymous Coward]

5. Food prices are affected 2% by the cost of grain and 92% by the cost of petroleum, according the USDA.

Which is obviously why the stuff I buy at my local farmer's market is 92% cheaper. Wait, what?

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Anubis IV]

BTW, if an engine is properly designed for ethanol, it will get better mileage than with gas. The higher vapor pressure allows higher compression than is possible with gas.

The first sentence I quoted is completely incorrect, though your second is correct. Ethanol contains 34% less energy per unit volume when compared to gasoline, but it also has a higher octane rating. So while its higher octane rating means that you can indeed use higher compression ratios to achieve better fuel efficiency, that improved efficiency is not sufficient to overcome the fact that you're starting from a source with less energy in the first place. At E10 (10% ethanol), the difference is negligible (1-3% worse mileage), but by the time you get to E100, you're suffering from 20-30% worse fuel economy, even with the best-tuned ethanol engines. For some real world numbers, the EPA pegged the E85 vehicles of a few years ago as getting about 25% worse fuel milage.

Granted, none of that undermines your point that the companies use its higher octane to avoid knocking, or your entire comment as a whole (it's not my goal to argue, since I agree with most of what you said), but it's a fact that needs correcting when it's repeated, since it tends to get picked up and latched onto by people that haven't looked into it as much.

Numbers shamelessly stolen from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel#Ethanol-based_engines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel#Fuel_economy

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[OwenTheContrarian]

Point taken. I should have said the cost during manufacturing is $7. It is, of course, more expensive to convert the current fleet. As I mentioned earlier, though, I am running E30 in a 2001 engine that has only been equipped with cooler spark plugs,

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[OwenTheContrarian]

My apologies, I failed to address one of your points. You asked about my assertion that corn-based ethanol did not impact feedstocks and corn prices, which I did not assert, and would have been silly to do so.

Ethanol has of course caused corn prices to go up. It is topic of endless debate how much of the current high prices are due to ethanol and how much is due to other factors like speculation, yield estimates and simple market manipulation. Regardless of how MUCH effect ethanol has had on the price of corn, it is incontrovertable that ethanol has caused corn prices to go up. The real question, then, is why food prices went up so much, when a box of corn flakes has 4 cents worth of corn in it. If the price of corn doubled, that makes it 8 cents. Does that justify the jump from $1.79 to the current $3.29?

Ethanol is a convenient whipping boy for the predatory practices of grocery producers and big oil, in my opinion.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm I think you confuse two things, octane rating and energy content.

Ethanol has higher octane rating than gasoline. Ethanol is 95.5 ((RON+MON)/2) but has lower energy content. You need 1.53 gallons of ethanol for the same energy content as gasoline.

The same is true for all alcohols.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[OwenTheContrarian]

I believe I addressed this point in an earlier post. I think it is important to remeber that ICEs don't simply convert BTUs to units of work. A lot of it ends up going out the tailpipe and some is discarded via heat loss.

You mentioned the EPA study that showed E85 cars getting 25% less mileage. That was with an engine designed with low enough compression to be able to run pump gas. Add a supercharger and a turbo, the way that nifty little Saab engine does, and you can effectively boost compression when running a fuel that can handle it, like E85. That engine does get better mileage with high ethanol blends than it does with gas.

It is difficult to detach hard numbers like energy density from what is actually obtainable in a real-world setting. Granted, most cars are not able to take advantage of the higher efficiency ethanol can provide, but if the incentive was there for the car makers, they have already shown us that they can do it.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[OwenTheContrarian]

I'm sure your local farmers don't use tractors, and if they do, they run on sunshine. Oh, wait, what?

Oops, forgot the truck he drove to the market. Also sunshine powered. And his irrigation equipment, and fertilizer...all powered by the sand most people stick their heads in.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[OwenTheContrarian]

Wow...just...wow. Where does electricity come from? Show me a viable, renewable source of electricity that can account for 10% of our gas supply, the way ethanol does now.

Corn is not the only answer, to be sure, but it is VITAL that we don't hamstring this growing fuel source (ethanol) by giving big oil back it's monopoly. We are learning to make ethanol from other things as we speak, but if the market and infrastructure does not exist, what good is cellulosic ethanol? Who would buy it? With no cars that can burn it and no pumps to dispense it, it is dead in the water, and that would be sad.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[sdguero]

Mod parent up! For the farming subsidies if nothing else...

Most Americans (and most posts in these comments) seem to think our farm subsidies help the third world. In reality, third world farmers suffer because they have to compete with prices that fluctuate widely based on which subsidized farm in the USA/Europe is dumping 6 month old grain onto the market. I've heard of rice shipments from Thailand to South America getting turned around in the middle of the Pacific because some warehouse in Mississippi decided to dump 500 tons onto the market at a cheaper price. The majority of American farming subsidies result in financial ruin for farmers and investors in poor countries. It creates an environment where only black market crops, like marijuana and opium, make any sense to grow because they don't have to compete with American/European subsidies.

Bush passed a $180 billion dollar farm aid bill back in 2002 that was the biggest ever, and then an even bigger one in 2008 for $288 billion. Clinton passed a big one back in 1996, and I expect Obama to follow suit when it becomes his turn to kowtow to big business next year. It's a stupid system that, in the USA anyway, ONLY benefits large corporate entities. The politicians spin it as helping American farming families, when in reality 95% of the subsidies go to large corporation like McDonalds and RJ Reynolds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_farm_bill

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Anubis IV]

Ah, actually, I think I see where my dissent came from, and it's a simple misunderstanding on my part. What I was getting at is that, when comparing the best gasoline engines against the best ethanol engines, the gasoline engines get better mileage. I hope that's something on which we can both agree, since it's backed up by numerous studies and statistics.

In contrast, and correct me if I'm still mistaken, you intended to point out that engines tuned for ethanol usage would achieve better milage with ethanol as opposed to gasoline (as you did here again with the Saab example). I certainly don't disagree with that.

When you said that an engine designed for ethanol would get better mileage "than with gas", I mistakenly interpreted that to mean something along the lines of "than a typical engine designed to use gasoline", hence why my comments were oriented around comparing the best ethanol-tuned engines against the best gasoline-tuned engines. The EPA study was tossed in there as a real-world counterpart to all of that, and was never intended to represent ethanol fuel at its best, so I apologize if I gave that impression.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lately I've been drinking "Throwback Pepsi", made with real sugar. It could be placebo effect, but it seems tastes better. I should to do a blind taste test between the corn syrup version and the sugar version.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Agripa]

I have an E85 Sonoma but E85 it is not cost effective given its price and the lower MPG it yields.

How much improvement would be gained by changing the pistons to raise the compression? You would not be able to use regular gasoline but would it be worth it?

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[OwenTheContrarian]

I think you are getting close to understanding my thoughts on the subject. Gasolone has more potential energy, but you cannot use it all in a streetable engine because it would fail to start in cold weather, run rough, and would certainly require some sort of additives to improve the detonation characteristics. On the other hand, you can produce an engine that runs well, starts easily and gets better mileage using ethanol. Not because ethanol has more potential energy, but because it has combustion characteristics that make it a more efficient fuel.

Your comparison of best-tuned gas to best-tuned ethanol is not really workable, since neither ICE would be able to be driven on a daily basis. So far, the manufacturers have shown us that the best they can do with gas cannot keep up with the best they can do with ethanol. Theoretically, that should not be true, but theory often loses out to practice.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/3531/

The cited article states that in addition to making more HP and torque, the engine will get 15% better highway mileage when burning ethanol than it will when burning gas.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[OwenTheContrarian]

Rather than changing the pistons, go to a higher compression-rated head gasket, beef up the heads a little (better bolts) and throw on a clutched supercharger that you use when you are running E85. The limiting factor at that point is your ECM, which will probably need significant custom tuning to make the best power at the higher effective compression. Injectors might be iffy at that point as well, but my gut says not. The advantage is that you need not run the SC when you are running standard pump gas.

The sad fact is that in many markets, E85 is a niche fuel. This gives it a 'boutique' status, and gas stations seem to charge more than fair market value for it.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[sugarmatic]

"Here are some facts?" Good lord, don't embarrass yourself, especially when you don't know a great deal about what you are talking about.
A properly designed ethanol engine will not get better volumetric or mass fuel efficiency than with gasoline. It has 1/3 less energy per gallon, and around 38% less energy per kilo. It does not derive the ability to burn in an Otto cycle with a higher compression ratio via a higher vapor pressure. Completely unrelated. A Diesel cycle doesn't even have these limitations.

As for the numbered items, you are partially correct in a few areas. However, when the most needy nations grow grain, they do not use the same high intensity methods used in the US or Europe...and they starve even if they grow it themselves. If they did, fine- that requires a) political stability to encourage eye-poppingly large investments in infrastructure over extended periods of time, and b) massive land reforms on a scale that would make large tracts of the surface of the earth culturally or politically unrecognizeable. This didn't used to be true, but with arable land in short supply, huge increases in urban populations, and a complete lack of the political stability necessary to entertain thoughts of a sustainable agriculture program like the one America takes for granted, the future looks very dim indeed.

The idea that higher food prices will level the playing field is correct. To make the leap that it will cause local economies to replace the supply is complete, demonstrable tripe...from history, not speculation.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Artagel]

Well, ethanol is hard on engines from a corrosion standpoint, and petroleum-based fuels are made of basically the same kind of stuff as the engine lubricants. Also, ethanol does not have the same power density as petroleum. This is important for applications such as flight. The trick we want is to turn CO2 in the atmosphere into petroleum again. Then, we can put what we want in the ground in the ground, and recycle the amount we want to use. Plants do this with sugar and are powered by sunlight. Oh, but the technological gap is so big from sugar to hydrocarbons.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[OwenTheContrarian]

I wondered how long it would take someone to get all vitriolic on me.

Seriously, you need to read the rest of the thread. I have been talking until I'm blue in the face (fingers?) about the non-relationship between chemical potential in the two fuels to the reality of engine output and efficiency. If you read the rest and still disagree, then we can certainly be human to each other and discuss it a bit more.

Needy nations do grow some crops on a subsistence-basis, and I think that is what you mean by non-high intensity. Not at all what I'm talking about. Subsistence farming is very far removed from actual agrarian economic sustainability. You have a pessimistic view of the ability of third-world nations to innovate, given the proper conditions. Do you think the lack of political stability and the lack of sustainable agriculture might have a causal relationship?

Now, for your last statement, I have to ask...when in history have prices risen sustainably over the cost of production and local economies failed to adjust? I'm not saying this has never happened, but in every instance I am aware of, there were severe extenuating circumstances, like civil war or invasion, impeding the adjustment. Further, your statement makes it sound like you are OK with the idea that these people will never be able to help themselves, so we should not do the right thing and set the stage for them to make those changes.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[OwenTheContrarian]

We covered the corrosion issue already elsewhere in this thread, and it is just not true. Volumetric energy density is less than gasoline, yes, it is true. Again, we've covered that to death as well. Saab has done it already, as has Ricardo and a few others. Ethanol is a better liqiud fuel, not because of its potential energy, but because of a few other characteristics that we already discussed.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you (or someone) post link to the paper that supports the fifth claim? It seems very interesting, but googling gave no results for me.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now there's an argument I understand!

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Agripa]

I have thought about but never seen a clutched supercharger with a bypass. Seems like an awful lot of work compared to just changing the pistons or maybe the rods assuming there was enough valve clearance in the engine.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Anubis IV]

I had some other thoughts, but then I discovered this, which is pretty definitive:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/analysis_saab2007.pdf

It's an Oak Ridge National Laboratory study on the 2007 model of the car you described. If you check Figure 1 (page 4), they explicitly mention in the text that they saw the expected 25-30% worse "tank mileage" (i.e. miles per gallon), and Figure 2 just backs that up with additional tests. That said, Figure 3 (page 5) indicates that ethanol does indeed yield a better "gas-equivalent fuel economy" (i.e. how many miles you can drive per unit of energy present), though the conclusion (page 8) indicates that the improvement over gasoline is only 3% on the highway and 7% in city driving.

It's likely the article you linked was referring to gas-equivalent fuel economy (note that it says "fuel economy" rather than "mileage") when it cited a 15% improvement (though even that idea is hard to swallow). With language that vague, it's difficult to say if "fuel economy" meant mileage (miles per gallon), mileage normalized for energy content, mileage normalized for fuel cost, or something else entirely. Typical car gasoline engines get an average 20% energy efficiency (25% on the highway, but I'll ignore that for the moment). For ethanol to reach the energy output you described with the same volume of fuel, it would need to have nearly 35% efficiency under the same conditions. They simply don't do that yet, though Gizmag had a later article describing some technology that may allow engines using ethanol to do that and better eventually.

So I'll definitely concede that they have better fuel economy once you normalize their miles per gallon based on energy content or the cost of the fuel. But more miles per gallon? Definitely not.

Of course, this may just be another misunderstanding if you and I were using the word "mileage" in different senses. I'm using it to mean "miles per gallon", but if you've been using it to mean one of the other statistics I described here, then we're already on the same page.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[OwenTheContrarian]

Very interesting, I had not seen that study, in spite of a lot of looking. The manufacturer's claims for higher mileage are obviously not borne out by the tests. Since the engine does develop more HP with ethanol, I would have expected that for a given highway speed, the economy would have been higher than at the same speed using gas.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the injectors are putting substantially more ethanol in per power stroke, and that would indicate a very wide-band injector, which is entirely likely.

This makes sense, I guess, if the stoichiometric ratios for gas and ethanol are close to each other. If a shorter injector pulse makes the mixture too lean, then engine damage could result. Therefore, it is not possible with that arrangement to take advantage of the higher compression, since lots of fuel is being used to keep the engine from getting lean. Back to the drawing board, I guess. Thanks for the link to that study!

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[Anubis IV]

Sure thing! It sounds like you know a lot more about the subject than I do, so when it looked like we weren't in agreement on that one idea, I really did want to get to the bottom of it. I have quite a few petroleum engineering friends, and this sort of thing would make for a great discussion with them, especially since one of them loves talking about engines. It's a shame there isn't an engine like that yet, though now I'm curious how well a StarRotor engine would do.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[MobyDisk]

From what I can tell, the preponderance of research out there indicates that corn ethanol is not viable. At this point, the USDA report is in question since all the others agree. They are also the only one who has a potential bias. Obviously the subsidies benefit the US agriculture lobby (albeit indirectly). At this point, the burden of proof goes to proving their numbers, not disproving everyone else's.

Re:Uneducated debate, as usual.

[MobyDisk]

My apologies - now I can't recall where I read that.

Blame the gummint! [Re:Physics: an alternative...]

[Geoffrey.landis]

Sure, these are "all anecdotes", but I've a large enough family to find the sample size fairly representative of the population at large.

That's the real problem with ethanol. It used to be that when you have a crappy old car and it breaks down, you'd say "my crappy old car broke down."

Now, when you have a crappy old car and it breaks down, you say "my car broke down-- it's a government conspiracy!"

Re:hello webmaster

[mdm-adph]

I don't know, CmdrTaco -- I think you should go in for this. This guy seems legit.

Good

[Stavr0]

Burning food is stupid. Greenwashing fossil fuel into biofuel is very stupid. Doing it at a loss is stupidestest.

Pure ethanol mileage

[Anonymous Coward]

An automobile piston engine set up with the right compression ratio and proper air/fuel mixture to optimize pure ethanol as fuel will only get about 65% of the "miles per gallon" as the hypothetical "same setup" pure gasoline engine.

PS: Moonshine should be drank, not burned in our engines.

If Congress had real balls about corn

[Dracos]

If Congress really wanted to fix several problems at once related to corn, they would end the sugar tariff and impose penalties on the use of HFCS.

Long overdue

[gestalt_n_pepper]

*Corn* ethanol was always a boondoggle, brought to you by lobbyists and innumerate politicians who were unable to understand or care about the concept of EREOI. Brazil has made *sugar cane* alcohol with a reasonable EREOI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil). While nothing will replace oil, moving as much of the transportation industry to alternatives like sugar cane methanol would give us a bigger cushion against the inevitable loss of oil as a major energy source.

Re:Long overdue

[Animats]

*Corn* ethanol was always a boondoggle, brought to you by lobbyists and innumerate politicians who were unable to understand or care about the concept of EREOI.

Right. The ethanol subsidy applied to the output of ethanol plants that used other fuels to run the distillation process. So unsubsidized natural gas went in and subsidized ethanol came out. In some cases this was a net energy loss. If ethanol plants were required to be self-powering (as most oil refineries are), and there was no subsidy for energy consumed in the process, it wouldn't be so bad.

Re:Long overdue

[OwenTheContrarian]

Corn ethanol plants could easily be self-supporting, just as sugarcane ethanol plants are. Simply put, DDG is more valuable as a livestock feed than it is as a source of needed BTUs. Sugarcane bagasse is not useful for anything other than burning, afaik.

Then again, how does pumping oil into a refinery make it self-sustaining?

BULL: Re:Good! Let's concentrate on feeding people

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.
The problem is quite the opposite - our farmes are TOO EFFICIENT at prpoducing food. They get paid (subsidized) to NOT produce food - keeping the prices artificially high. Why not pay the farmers to show us how much they can REALLY produce? We'd find out that we have so much green fuel and new jobs (read farmworkers and heavy industry to support those workers) that our oil based economy would come to it's knees and the money would shift away form the current 10% who have 90% of the wealth to the rest of the people - where it should be.

Repeal the tariff not the subsidies

[sgt scrub]

They should definitely get rid of the tariffs. It would help alcohol based fuels to become strong globally. In a wold where multiple fuel types are going to be needed to replace oil it would only benefit society as a whole. At the same time they should repeal subsidies for oil companies. But, since attacking Obama on every front is the republicans only goal neither would never happen.

Re:Repeal the tariff not the subsidies

[Anonymous Coward]

The state of politics and everyone's agenda as stated, rather then common sense makes the future seem rather dismal and depressing at times. :( When are we going to have our revolution and finally say enough is enough. It makes me realize that someday, living off the grid and self sustainability will be necessary in order to survive the long haul.

Good, lets end all subsidies

[Anonymous Coward]

to large corporations. The government should only be helping small businesses get a start. Large corporations already get a subsidy by skipping out on 100% of their taxes that any patriotic person would be happy to pay. Why do you hate America and not want to pay your taxes? Traitor.

Re:Quick reminder: 40% of Corn is turned into etha

[MaWeiTao]

Newer cars have suffered problems due to ethanol. In cases of engine failure where people thought to test the fuel they found much higher concentrations of ethanol than the fuel was supposed to have. And in addition to worse mileage it's also more polluting than straight gasoline.

It's not for nothing that some lawn equipment, like my lawn more, has a warning that specifically states not to use gasoline with more than 10% ethanol. And to think my state was trying to push for higher concentrations.

modest cut in "farmer welfare"

[peter303]

US farmers have been doing fairly well lately with commodity bubbles in 2008 and 2011 and a major world drought in 2010. Dont pity the Aunt-Em types. Manhattan zipcodes are a major destination of subsidy checks, since these are public records.

A civics lesson

[operagost]

The White House stands opposed to changes in the subsidies or tariffs, so they will likely go untouched before they expire at the end of the year.

Read the Constitution much? The Senate passed it with a supermajority. I see no reason it wouldn't pass the House (which is GOP controlled, and the GOP is trying to cut costs right now) with a supermajority as well. If it manages to pass both houses with over 66% of the vote, a veto can be overridden.

Re:A civics lesson

[Registered Coward v2]

The White House stands opposed to changes in the subsidies or tariffs, so they will likely go untouched before they expire at the end of the year.

Read the Constitution much? The Senate passed it with a supermajority. I see no reason it wouldn't pass the House (which is GOP controlled, and the GOP is trying to cut costs right now) with a supermajority as well. If it manages to pass both houses with over 66% of the vote, a veto can be overridden.

True, but just because it can doesn't mean it will. Senators and Representatives may vote for (or against) something they think will not happen (or is inevitable) to get a vote "on record" for that all important election campaign commercial. It's a no-cost political "win." No, if they really have to go on record when something is at stake, they are much less likely to; which is why they'd just as soon let it drop rather than risk a veto and the political cost of voting on an override.

And no, I'm not cynical...

I would go further...

[jonwil]

I would end ALL subsidies to corn farmers.
Ending subsidies to corn farmers would make corn more expensive.
This then makes foods containing corn products more expensive.
It also makes meat (chicken, pork and beef) from feedlots using corn as a feed more expensive.

It may sound counter-intuitive to make food more expensive at a time when things are so bad. But the food that will become more expensive is the food that is really bad for you.

One of the biggest contributors to the obesity crisis in the US is that you can feed a family at McDonalds or KFC for LESS than it would cost to buy a meal for that family at a supermarket. Make junk food more expensive and parents will start saying "Now that I have to pay $3-$4 for a hamburger at McDonalds instead of $1, I am going to rethink how often I buy McDonalds food for the family"

Re:I would go further...

[geekoid]

I wouldn't. I like having a stable food supply.

"One of the biggest contributors to the obesity crisis in the US is that you can feed a family at McDonalds or KFC for LESS than it would cost to buy a meal for that family at a supermarket. Make junk food more expensive and parents will start saying "Now that I have to pay $3-$4 for a hamburger at McDonalds instead of $1, I am going to rethink how often I buy McDonalds food for the family""

That's pretty ignorant.

1) A large part of it is convenience, not cost. People eat at fast food because there schedule don't permit an hour to cook.

2) It's the calories that cause obesity. SO, again, moderation

3) It's would not drive up the cost of the hamburger. The vast majority of the cost is NOT the food. Shipping, storing, paying people to make the burgers, supplies, rent, etc. . .
Your solution wouldn't change any of those factors.

Of course, anything that drives up the food price, drives up the food price everywhere.
So doing your own cooking cost will go up as well.

Re:I would go further...

[drsquare]

It'll never happen. The American establishment requires bread and circuses to distract the masses from the destruction of their nation. Cheap corn provides the junk food that keeps people thinking they've got it good. I've heard Americans unironically stating that the US is better than Northern Europe because McDonald's is cheaper.

Re:I would go further...

[rgviza]

An interesting point is that just about everything at mcdonalds is made from corn (either directly or indirectly), except the buns and batters.

Everything is fried in corn (canola) oil or a soy/corn oil mixture, the drinks are made with corn syrup, the printed cups, boxes etc are printed with ink made from corn, the cows and chickens used to make the sandwiches and nuggets are fed corn.

The price of corn affects _everything_.

Reasonably priced Brazilian ethanol?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bring it on. As the owner of a Flex Fuel vehicle with no local (Ithaca, NY) sources of E85, I look forward to cheap ethanol from way down south. I mean for craps sake, my 2000 Ford Ranger has a $750 fuel composition sensor made by Raytheon and it has never seen E85 in the 2 years I have owned it. I would have to drive to Buffalo or Albany to find ANY E85 currently.

Hemp

[Anonymous Coward]

First car engines ran on hemp. - why is the indurstial usage banned in USA again?

Good job senators!!

[WaffleMonster]

Ethanol does not produce much more useful energy than is required to produce it.

It is immoral to bind the price of food and energy any more than necessary as the practice unecessarily disadvantages the poor.

Corn = Evil

[ThatsNotPudding]

It takes massive amounts of water, massive amounts of fertilizer (runoff), massive amounts of herbicide (runoff 2 and death to butterflies)... for the large majority of US corn, the soil is just there to prop up the plants.

And don't forget the other big use of corn: feed for cattle to fatten them up just prior to slaughter. But since cattle weren't 'Intelligently Designed' to eat corn, it makes them sick rather quickly. Here comes the last massive: massive doses of antibiotics to keep the cattle from keeling over before auction. MRSA, ahoy!!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

If that's the case

[publiclurker]

then why were they unable to eliminate the oil subsidies "feel free to call them handouts if it makes you feel any better" a few months ago? If they had depreciation just like any other industry, then why would there be any special rules that only applied to them?

Re:If that's the case

[lgw]

The only special rules are: what's considered a capitla expense for an oil company, as opposed to a steel mill, etc. There are different rules for every industry, defining effectively what's considered a business-related expense.

Um...

[publiclurker]

the plural of anecdote is not data.

No, ethanol is a lousy fuel

[multiplexo]

You can get most of ethanol's benefits from methanol. Engines running on methanol can run at higher compression ratios to increase performance and efficiency. In fact the cars at the Indy 500 run off of methanol. Methanol can also be synthesized from a variety of feedstocks using destructive distillation, unlike ethanol which is created by fermenting corn and then distilling the product, which is very energy intensive (the dirty little secret of many biofuel plants is that they burn coal to produce the heat to distill the ethanol out of the water). Butanol is better than ethanol because it's less miscible with water and dimethylfuran beats ethanol hands down because it's immiscible with water and has a higher energy content and boiling point. Ethanol sucks. It's nothing more than a huge handout for Iowa farmers and corrupt agribusinesses like ADM and Cargill.

err....Bob, still not right.

[sugarmatic]

The higher latent heat is a large detriment to ethanol as a fuel, not a benefit. As for stoichiometry, ditto. You need a larger volume of ethanol per volume of air (or mass for mass) to balance the equation. Higher compression does two things: improves thermal efficiency, and increases the amount of fuel you can burn per stroke (stuffing more molecules in the cylinder). The thermal efficiency boost *absolutely* does not overcome the latent heat disadvantage of the alcohol. The ability to stuff more reactive molecules in each stroke does not contribute to efficiency. Dragsters (and others) use alcohol because it cools the burn temps (at the expense of efficiency) while allowing specific power to increase. Neither of these things improves overall efficiency. Only power.

Re:err....Bob, still not right.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Actually I am correct.

1. Since the latent heat of ethanol is higher it can provide a benefit in certian cases. These would be cases where you are running a lot of boost, or a lot of compression. This is because as the ethanol makes the phase change from liquid to gas it will help to cool the air charge thus preventing pre-ignition or detonation. This provides a benefit similar to that of having a higher octane.

2. The stoichiometric ratio for ethanol does have a benefit if you were to work through the equations. Yes you will burn more fuel each stroke at the correct stoichiometric ratio than with gasoline, but ethanol will release more energy per unit air than gasoline can. From when I last did the calculations (I can't find the link, it may have been before I decided to actually get a /. account) you can get about 10% more power out of running ethanol at the expense of burning about 1.5x the fuel. IIRC the stoichiometric ratio for ethanol is somewhere around 9:1 but for regular gas (100LL, regular 87 octane, etc) it is around 14:1, methanol is even worse at around 7:1.

3. No a higher compression ration does not increase the amount of fuel you burn per stroke, all it really does is increase your carnot cycle efficiency. This is most to to the fact that it decreases the distance the flame front has to travel while also increasing the flame speed due to the increased temperature. Because of the increased temperature that you get from a higher compression ratio you either need a higher octane or a fuel with a higher latent heat. Granted alcohols burn cooler leading to a lower maximum theoretical carnot cycle efficiency, but it isn't that much lower if you want to work through the math, but you can really crank up the compression (or boost for those running turbos or superchargers) when using ethanol because of its higher octane and its higher latent heat.

4. Your top fuel dragsters and funny cars are not really running alcohol (their fuel has some in it), but instead a fuel called nitromethane. Typically they run it at a 1:1 fuel air ratio since nitromethane is similar to an explosive and brings with it its own oxidizer. Your are correct in that it does burn cooler, but because the stoichiometric ratio of nitromethane they are able to release more energy per power stroke than with any other fuel. In top fuel racing the fuel isn't 100% nitro methane but is about a 90% nitromethane 10% methanol, the reason for this is because nitromethane is similar to an explosive and when first used there were some very catastrophic incidents with vehicles using it, both the NHRA and IHRA, the 2 drag racing bodies in the US, ban the use of 100% nitromethane. In the alcohol classes (alcohol dragsters and funny cars) all of those vehicles run methanol. The reason for this is exactly what is described in my second point you can burn even more methanol than you can ethanol and in doing so are able to release even more energy.

5. Finally I never said that ethanol was efficient fuel wise, it is actually pretty bad compared to regular gasoline and even worse compared to diesel, but was a good fuel for producing power. I was only indicating that to get the most benefit out of running ethanol as a race fuel you need to do more than just run it in an existing engine at the proper fuel to air ratio. The additional things that should be done would be to increase the boost and or compression ratio, adjust the timing, if switching from a vehicle from something that was originally designed to run leaded gas (pre 1975 in most cases) ensure that you have hardened valve seats put in but this should be done even if not using ethanol as you would want these if running unleaded fuel as well.

I did all of this research since I am in the process of restoring a 68' MG Midget that I plan on converting into a supercharged alcohol burner. As far as I can tell no one has done one before and it would be fun as hell to take that little 1275cc A-series engine as far as one can. The car is light, eas

But I need alternative energy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they're trying to take our ethanol supplies away. The Long Island Iced Tea Party will not tolerate it.

End the good times for the few trators at the top

[Anonymous Coward]

Anytime a G. Bush ,wee ha! give money to his mobster friends - knowing full well the ONLY reason was to make money on the stock market before it was crashed by his wee ha friends is brought to a stop- it is a good thing!

No U "slurp" wads apparently (LMAO)

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36493706 please: go back to elementary school, learn to read and count, ok? Quit eating those "wads" too, you'll get sick! ROTFLMAO!

That U "slurp 'wads'" (rotflmao)

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36493706 please: go back to elementary school, learn to read and count, ok? Quit eating those "wads" too, you'll get sick! ROTFLMAO!

countertrolling = "wad 'slurping' troll"? LMAO

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36493706 please: go back to elementary school, learn to read and count, ok? Quit eating those "wads" too, you'll get sick! ROTFLMAO