Slashdot Mirror
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."
Democrat, Republican, whatever. My political support goes for congressmen who believe in the laws of thermodynamics.
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.
Blog,Twitter
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.
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.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
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.
I am officially gone from
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.
Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
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.
Big government is when the government helps someone else. Small government is when they only help you.
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.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
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.