"RHF" wrote in message
om...



Actually a 5% Ethanol / 95% Gasoline results in a 5% reduction
of imported foreign oil. This also results in a 5% reduction
in Petro-Dollars spent abroad and more Dollars spent internally
in the USofA.

Ethanol has about half the fuel value as gasoline. Gasahol, at least
around here, is 90% gasoline, 10% alcohol. If there's any merit to the
arguement that gasahol reduces imports by 5%, it's because 5% is half of
10%. Another way of saying the same thing is an efficent car will get
5% better gas mileage with gasoline as compared to gasahol.

Unfortunately, there's less to the oil import reduction than it seems.
Growing corn uses a considerable amount of fertilizer. Fertilizer
produced with oil, much of imported. Cultivating it uses fuel. Not to
mention the fuel needed to transport the stuff, ferment it and distill
it. In the end, ethanol production justs transfers alot of fossil fuels
into a "renewable resource".


YES it is a Farm Subsidy but it creates many more
"JOBS" between the Farm and the Pump.

How many jobs does ethanol production create? Corn production is highly
automated. I ezpect the same is true of the distillers. But, the
ethanol subsidy needs to take less than four dollars a year from every
American to total over a billion dollars. I'm sure we lose more than a
billion dollars a year in discretionary income every year to the ethanol
subsidy. I also have no doubt that redirecting a billion dollars into
the pockets of a few fat cats costs more jobs than it "creates".

IMHO: It is "Better"
to spend a few Foreign Aid Dollars here at Home.

Foriegn aid? Are you comparing the mega-farmers and
Archer-Daniels-Midland to a bunch of tinhorn dictators? Well, OK.


California (where I live) needs to start growing Corn for Fuel
(Ethanol) and Manufacturing Ethanol in-state for it's own internal
consumption.

Is California an efficent corn producer like Iowa or Illinois? I
thought fruits domininated California's agricultural production. I
suppose you could distill grapes and oranges into fuel if you spend
enough money. I suppose if it was an efficent use of resources,
somebody would be doing it profitably on their own now. I do believe
taking money from people for things they don't want will almost
certainly cost more jobs than it creates.

Why pay someone else for what you can do yourself ?

Because someone else can do it cheaper and better? Because forcing
people to spend money on ethanol means they have less money to spend on
take out pizza or new vacuum cleaners or shortwave radios? Because I'm
tired of transfering wealth to well connected fat cats?


Every Gallon of California Ethanol Fuels a New California Economy.

~ RHF

.

I can't say ethanol didn't create work for me. I got to replace a few
fuel pumps and fix cars with carb trouble after Illinois decided to drop
the gas tax on gasohol and make it cheaper than gasoline. But that's
like saying the government ought to subsidize tire slashing to create
jobs in Akron.

Frank Dresser