"RHF" wrote in message
om...
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...
"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.

YES - American Made Fertilizer.


Why American fertilizer? The chemical industry is worldwide. I used to
work in an electroplating shop, and a great deal of the basic chemicals
came from low cost producers such as Korea.



Fertilizer produced with oil, much of imported.

YES - But NOT from the Middle East (Arabs).


That can't be true. If the fertilizer is produced in the US, the Middle
Eastern oil used is in the same proportion as the oil used in the rest
of the US. That's a small, but real percentage. If the fertilizer
comes from a foriegn source, the percentage of Middle Eastern oil is
whatever that foriegn source uses. I suppose European fertilizer would
have a high percentage of Middle Eastern oil. Europe has an active
chemical industry. Oh, yeah. Alot of our electroplating chemicals came
from Germany and France.

Anyway, I don't see how it could make one bit of difference in the
Middle East. Middle Eastern oilmen get a good price no matter who's
buying it or what it's used for.




Cultivating it uses fuel.

YES - Cultivation is one more American Job.

Not to mention the fuel needed to transport the stuff,

YES - Transportation is many more Unionized "Teamsters" American Jobs.

ferment it and distill it.


YES - Fermentation and Distillation are one more American Job.


Gasohol is an net job loser. Stealing from the bulk of Americans to
give to the few is bad enough, but but, in the case of gasohol, the few
are generally better paid than the many. To "create" jobs, the money
ought to go the other way. Steal from the rich and give to the poor, if
you must.

To tell you the truth, I think spreading those billions of dollars among
a few thousands of people on welfare would be "create" more jobs than
giving it to a few hundred who already make more than the average
American. I'm not saying that's a good solution, however. I think it's
best for our economy if each individual gets to spend his money on what
he knows he needs.


In the end, ethanol production justs transfers alot of fossil fuels
into a "renewable resource".

YES - An American 'Renewable Resource'.

I put the term "renewable resource" in quotes because I don't want to
leave the impression that those are my words. Gasohol is not really a
renewable resourse. Processing it burns more energy than it produces.
Here's what Cornell professor David Pimentel of the College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy
panel which looked into the gasohol question said:

"about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the
energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of
ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 Btu."

This is from:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl...l-ethanol.html

If anything, wasting energy increases the world wide demand for oil.
More worldwide demand equals higher worldwide oil prices, including in
the Middle East. It seems likely American gasohol policy puts more cash
in the pockets of Middle Eastern oil sellers.




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.

YES - Automated 'High Tech' American Jobs.

I ezpect the same is true of the distillers.

YES - Automated 'High Tech' American Jobs.


Jobs the average American doesn't want to pay for. If the average
American thought gasohol was worth 20% more than gasoline, they'd buy it
without a subsidy. If the average American thought gasohol was worth
100% more than gasoline, maybe there'd be even more high tech American
jobs. Maybe not.

And how many good jobs have been lost because billions have been taken
out of the pockets of Americans?



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".


YES - From my view point just the opposite is true.

Why? I sure don't agree with everything the Democratic Party stands
for, but they do say that it's better for the economy to spread a given
amount of money to a large number of people rather than focusing that
money on a small number. The gasohol subsidy is a tax break for the
already wealthy producers at the expense of the general public.

Of course, the Dems are happy to do the el-foldo on their principles
when the campaign cash starts flowing.

Or as Dwayne Andreas, chairman of ADM said:

"People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a
socialist country."

Just to nit pick, however, the corporate state is usually described as
"fascist". The article describes it so:

"Andreas has exerted his influence in Washington to ensure that the U.S.
form of "socialism" resembles 1930s' Italian corporate statism: the
government plunders the citizenry for the benefit of politically
connected corporations."

And:

"ADM's success highlights the absurdity of the interventionist state in
which imaginative and highly skilled political businessmen can get
hundredfold returns on their handouts to politicians."


This is from:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

This article is long, but I think it's worth reading.



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.


NO - Just that the 'spending' of our Tax Dollars should be done
at home when possible.


I'd settle for getting somthing positive for our tax dollars.




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?

YES - It can be on the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley.
http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/cvrank/

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.

YES - But that could be said of ALL TAXES.

If that "YES" indicates that you're thinking the gasohol subsidy costs
more jobs than it creates, then we agree on that much. But the
government can take money for things which benefit the economy. Roads
are an easy example. The government has roads built, repaired and
plowed. The economy would be much poorer without government roads. But
they have an obligation to hire the lowest qualified bidders and insure
the roads are built with suitable materials.


Why pay someone else for what you can do yourself ?

Because someone else can do it cheaper and better?

YES - But is Cheaper is not always better.


And if gasohol didn't have the subsidy, it would be both a more
expensive and a poorer fuel.



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?

QUESTION - Isn't the Environment - The 'need to Save the Planet
(The Great Mother) more Important then such trivial consumer items.

The gasohol subsidy has nothing to do with the environment.

If gasohol really reduced pollution, why block the imports of ethanol
from low cost producers such as Brazil? Shouldn't we use as much as we
can, as soon as we can, rather than wait until the domestic distillers
get online?

If gasohol really reduces pollution, shouldn't we also give the same tax
break to ethanol produced from natural gas?

What is the enviromental value of gasohol? More energy is burned up to
create it than gasohol has. Burning that fuel to distill gasohol
pollutes the
air. Trucking it around pollutes the air. Unnecessary cultivation
creates
unnecessary soil erosion. Additional fertilizer use creates additional
run
off pollution. Some vehicles misfire on the stuff, dumping clouds of
unburned fuel into the atmosphere. Gasohol evaporates more quickly
which can overload a car's evaporative emissions controls and dump
more unburned fuel in the air. Not to mention all the carbs and fuel
pumps which were damaged by gasohol and dumped yet more
unburned fuel into the air.

I'm vaguely aware of some carefully controlled study in which a car on a
dynomometer produced something on the order of 2% less pollution. Seems
like a trivial amount, to me. In the real world, I'll bet gasohol is a
net environmental loss just as it's a net energy loss and job loss.


Because I'm tired of transfering wealth to well connected fat cats?

BUT - That is the 'nature' of ALL TAXES.


No, taxes do not generally transfer wealth to well connected fat cats.
Who gets most of the tax money? Retirees, soldiers, teachers, cops,
paper shufflers and such. Very very few get as much money as the heads
of ADM or the corporate mega farmers.



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.

NO - I do not advocate Violent Criminal Acts.

I'm glad you're drawing a distinction between violent and non violent
crimes. In fact, many of the crimes I've discussed here are completely
legal.


Please Note: You May Be TAXED TO DEATH . . .
But Taxes are Not in an of themselves violent criminal acts.


Good point. There's a couple of ways to avoid taxes. One is to resist
payment. The Sherriff's department is capable of countering that
resistance up to, and including, physical violence.

The other way is to buy yourself some politicians and media time.


ir... ~ RHF
= = = I Remain... Radical Humanoid Freak ;:o)]
.
.

ADM and their cohorts have not only thrown a remarkable amount of cash
around Washington and various state capitals, but they've also run a
remarkably effective PR campaign. They've managed to mislead a large
number of good willed Americans into seeing that their special interests

are the general interests of the United States. Here's an oughtright
deception from their sugar subsidy campaign:

"ADM is the driving force behind the sugar lobby in this year's battle
over the future of the sugar program. The American Sugar Alliance,
heavily bankrolled by ADM, has spent lavishly for full-page newspaper
ads showing how cheap sugar is in the United States. The ads show that
sugar costs 39 cents a pound less here than in any other major country,
noting that Brazilians pay 47 cents a pound and Russians pay 65 cents a
pound."

"However, there was a minor glitch in the ads. The Brazilian and Russian
prices were based on kilograms--2.2 pounds--and thus were actually
significantly lower than the U.S. price. As Al Kamen noted in the
Washington Post, "The Russians pay about nine cents a pound less and the
Brazilians about 17 cents less than we do" for sugar. The Post further
reported that "Joseph Lockhard, a spokesman for the anti-quota Coalition
to End Welfare for Big Sugar, accused the sugar alliance of knowingly
letting the ad run even after the errors were pointed out."(97)"

And this:

"ADM is certainly the nation's most arrogant welfare recipient. And it
is one of the few welfare recipients that spend millions of dollars each
year advertising on Sunday morning television shows populated and
watched by politicians."

And:

"Besides, at a time when Congress is rightfully moving toward removing
millions of able-bodied citizens from welfare rolls, there is no excuse
to perpetuate handouts for a company like ADM. If a company can afford
endless advertisements on national television, it is safe to conclude
that it does not need any help from American taxpayers."

Again, this is from:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

This isn't quite a one stop page for info on ADM, as they don't get into
the price fixing convictions or anything like that, but it's good for a
start.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ...
"RHF" wrote in message
om...
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...
"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.

YES - American Made Fertilizer.


Why American fertilizer? The chemical industry is worldwide. I used to
work in an electroplating shop, and a great deal of the basic chemicals
came from low cost producers such as Korea.



Fertilizer produced with oil, much of imported.

YES - But NOT from the Middle East (Arabs).


That can't be true. If the fertilizer is produced in the US, the Middle
Eastern oil used is in the same proportion as the oil used in the rest
of the US. That's a small, but real percentage. If the fertilizer
comes from a foriegn source, the percentage of Middle Eastern oil is
whatever that foriegn source uses. I suppose European fertilizer would
have a high percentage of Middle Eastern oil. Europe has an active
chemical industry. Oh, yeah. Alot of our electroplating chemicals came
from Germany and France.

Anyway, I don't see how it could make one bit of difference in the
Middle East. Middle Eastern oilmen get a good price no matter who's
buying it or what it's used for.




Cultivating it uses fuel.

YES - Cultivation is one more American Job.

Not to mention the fuel needed to transport the stuff,

YES - Transportation is many more Unionized "Teamsters" American Jobs.

ferment it and distill it.


YES - Fermentation and Distillation are one more American Job.


Gasohol is an net job loser. Stealing from the bulk of Americans to
give to the few is bad enough, but but, in the case of gasohol, the few
are generally better paid than the many. To "create" jobs, the money
ought to go the other way. Steal from the rich and give to the poor, if
you must.

To tell you the truth, I think spreading those billions of dollars among
a few thousands of people on welfare would be "create" more jobs than
giving it to a few hundred who already make more than the average
American. I'm not saying that's a good solution, however. I think it's
best for our economy if each individual gets to spend his money on what
he knows he needs.


YES - A Billion Dollars to One-Hundred Millionaires does NOT
create as many 'basic' "Service Sector" Jobs as that same
Billion Dollars could be distributed at $1000 per Month to
27,750 Welfare-to-Work Families. At an Annual Cost of
$36,000 per Families: About $24K for the Family and $12K
(50% Overhead) for the Government Bureaucracy; that in its
self would create another 7,500 Government Jobs Paying $50K
per Year with Benefits. That's a Total of 35,250 Jobs from
just one billion dollars.


In the end, ethanol production justs transfers alot of fossil fuels
into a "renewable resource".

YES - An American 'Renewable Resource'.

I put the term "renewable resource" in quotes because I don't want to
leave the impression that those are my words. Gasohol is not really a
renewable resourse. Processing it burns more energy than it produces.
Here's what Cornell professor David Pimentel of the College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy
panel which looked into the gasohol question said:

"about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the
energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of
ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 Btu."

Are not these Ethanol Plants 'fueled' by "Farm Waste" by Products ?


This is from:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl...l-ethanol.html

If anything, wasting energy increases the world wide demand for oil.
More worldwide demand equals higher worldwide oil prices, including in
the Middle East. It seems likely American gasohol policy puts more cash
in the pockets of Middle Eastern oil sellers.




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.

YES - Automated 'High Tech' American Jobs.

I ezpect the same is true of the distillers.

YES - Automated 'High Tech' American Jobs.


Jobs the average American doesn't want to pay for. If the average
American thought gasohol was worth 20% more than gasoline, they'd buy it
without a subsidy. If the average American thought gasohol was worth
100% more than gasoline, maybe there'd be even more high tech American
jobs. Maybe not.

And how many good jobs have been lost because billions have been taken
out of the pockets of Americans?


BUT - You Forget - We Are Saving the Planet.



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".


YES - From my view point just the opposite is true.

Why? I sure don't agree with everything the Democratic Party stands
for, but they do say that it's better for the economy to spread a given
amount of money to a large number of people rather than focusing that
money on a small number. The gasohol subsidy is a tax break for the
already wealthy producers at the expense of the general public.

Of course, the Dems are happy to do the el-foldo on their principles
when the campaign cash starts flowing.

Or as Dwayne Andreas, chairman of ADM said:

"People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a
socialist country."

Just to nit pick, however, the corporate state is usually described as
"fascist". The article describes it so:

"Andreas has exerted his influence in Washington to ensure that the U.S.
form of "socialism" resembles 1930s' Italian corporate statism: the
government plunders the citizenry for the benefit of politically
connected corporations."

And:

"ADM's success highlights the absurdity of the interventionist state in
which imaginative and highly skilled political businessmen can get
hundredfold returns on their handouts to politicians."


This is from:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

This article is long, but I think it's worth reading.



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.


NO - Just that the 'spending' of our Tax Dollars should be done
at home when possible.


I'd settle for getting somthing positive for our tax dollars.




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?

YES - It can be on the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley.
http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/cvrank/

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.

YES - But that could be said of ALL TAXES.

If that "YES" indicates that you're thinking the gasohol subsidy costs
more jobs than it creates, then we agree on that much. But the
government can take money for things which benefit the economy. Roads
are an easy example. The government has roads built, repaired and
plowed. The economy would be much poorer without government roads. But
they have an obligation to hire the lowest qualified bidders and insure
the roads are built with suitable materials.


Why pay someone else for what you can do yourself ?

Because someone else can do it cheaper and better?

YES - But is Cheaper is not always better.


And if gasohol didn't have the subsidy, it would be both a more
expensive and a poorer fuel.



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?

QUESTION - Isn't the Environment - The 'need to Save the Planet
(The Great Mother) more Important then such trivial consumer items.

The gasohol subsidy has nothing to do with the environment.

NO - You are Wrong. Oxygen Enriched Fuels like Gasohol, help to
'reduce' Air Pollution and Gasohol is all about Saving the Planet.


If gasohol really reduced pollution, why block the imports of ethanol
from low cost producers such as Brazil? Shouldn't we use as much as we
can, as soon as we can, rather than wait until the domestic distillers
get online?

If gasohol really reduces pollution, shouldn't we also give the same tax
break to ethanol produced from natural gas?

What is the enviromental value of gasohol? More energy is burned up to
create it than gasohol has. Burning that fuel to distill gasohol
pollutes the
air. Trucking it around pollutes the air. Unnecessary cultivation
creates
unnecessary soil erosion. Additional fertilizer use creates additional
run
off pollution. Some vehicles misfire on the stuff, dumping clouds of
unburned fuel into the atmosphere. Gasohol evaporates more quickly
which can overload a car's evaporative emissions controls and dump
more unburned fuel in the air. Not to mention all the carbs and fuel
pumps which were damaged by gasohol and dumped yet more
unburned fuel into the air.

I'm vaguely aware of some carefully controlled study in which a car on a
dynomometer produced something on the order of 2% less pollution. Seems
like a trivial amount, to me. In the real world, I'll bet gasohol is a
net environmental loss just as it's a net energy loss and job loss.


Because I'm tired of transfering wealth to well connected fat cats?

BUT - That is the 'nature' of ALL TAXES.


No, taxes do not generally transfer wealth to well connected fat cats.
Who gets most of the tax money? Retirees, soldiers, teachers, cops,
paper shufflers and such. Very very few get as much money as the heads
of ADM or the corporate mega farmers.



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.

NO - I do not advocate Violent Criminal Acts.

I'm glad you're drawing a distinction between violent and non violent
crimes. In fact, many of the crimes I've discussed here are completely
legal.


Please Note: You May Be TAXED TO DEATH . . .
But Taxes are Not in an of themselves violent criminal acts.


Good point. There's a couple of ways to avoid taxes. One is to resist
payment. The Sherriff's department is capable of countering that
resistance up to, and including, physical violence.

The other way is to buy yourself some politicians and media time.


ir... ~ RHF
= = = I Remain... Radical Humanoid Freak ;:o)]
.
.

ADM and their cohorts have not only thrown a remarkable amount of cash
around Washington and various state capitals, but they've also run a
remarkably effective PR campaign. They've managed to mislead a large
number of good willed Americans into seeing that their special interests

are the general interests of the United States. Here's an oughtright
deception from their sugar subsidy campaign:

"ADM is the driving force behind the sugar lobby in this year's battle
over the future of the sugar program. The American Sugar Alliance,
heavily bankrolled by ADM, has spent lavishly for full-page newspaper
ads showing how cheap sugar is in the United States. The ads show that
sugar costs 39 cents a pound less here than in any other major country,
noting that Brazilians pay 47 cents a pound and Russians pay 65 cents a
pound."

"However, there was a minor glitch in the ads. The Brazilian and Russian
prices were based on kilograms--2.2 pounds--and thus were actually
significantly lower than the U.S. price. As Al Kamen noted in the
Washington Post, "The Russians pay about nine cents a pound less and the
Brazilians about 17 cents less than we do" for sugar. The Post further
reported that "Joseph Lockhard, a spokesman for the anti-quota Coalition
to End Welfare for Big Sugar, accused the sugar alliance of knowingly
letting the ad run even after the errors were pointed out."(97)"

And this:

"ADM is certainly the nation's most arrogant welfare recipient. And it
is one of the few welfare recipients that spend millions of dollars each
year advertising on Sunday morning television shows populated and
watched by politicians."


YES - Including the nightly "News Hour" on PBS.


And:

"Besides, at a time when Congress is rightfully moving toward removing
millions of able-bodied citizens from welfare rolls, there is no excuse
to perpetuate handouts for a company like ADM. If a company can afford
endless advertisements on national television, it is safe to conclude
that it does not need any help from American taxpayers."

Again, this is from:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

This isn't quite a one stop page for info on ADM, as they don't get into
the price fixing convictions or anything like that, but it's good for a
start.

Frank Dresser

..

"RHF" wrote in message
om...

YES - A Billion Dollars to One-Hundred Millionaires does NOT
create as many 'basic' "Service Sector" Jobs as that same
Billion Dollars could be distributed at $1000 per Month to
27,750 Welfare-to-Work Families. At an Annual Cost of
$36,000 per Families: About $24K for the Family and $12K
(50% Overhead) for the Government Bureaucracy; that in its
self would create another 7,500 Government Jobs Paying $50K
per Year with Benefits. That's a Total of 35,250 Jobs from
just one billion dollars.


The methanol people also think ethanol is a job loser:

"The energy bill that will be debated on the Senate
floor beginning tomorrow includes a Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)
mandating a huge
increased in the use of ethanol in gasoline, which results in the loss
of over 1.1 million jobs."

http://www.methanol.org/pdf/RFSJobs_logo.pdf


Are not these Ethanol Plants 'fueled' by "Farm Waste" by Products ?


My first inclination is to say, "Of course not, they till the stalks and
leaves into the soil." But maybe they do toss the waste under the
still. Farm waste would make a poor fuel, maybe even an anti-fuel, if
you know what I mean. The biggest problems would come when it's not
completely dry. It would have the fuel value of wet grass. I suppose
it could be dried before burning in a fuel powered drier, but just
tossing the damn stuff into the fire would have about the same effect.

Consider the biggest inefficency of ethanol production from corn.
Assuming the mash has an alcohol content of 5%, that means only one out
of 20 gallons are ethanol and must be cooked out and seperated. That
also assumes that no ethanol is lost in the process. That takes alot of
fuel, and a few wet corn stalks won't make much difference one way or
the other. I wouldn't be surprised if trucking the farm waste to the
distiller uses more energy than the farm waste can provide. But if it's
good for PR, it's worth doing. PR is far more important than
therodynamic efficency in the strange world of the ethanol subsidy.


BUT - You Forget - We Are Saving the Planet.


Saving the planet from what -- common sense?


The gasohol subsidy has nothing to do with the environment.

NO - You are Wrong. Oxygen Enriched Fuels like Gasohol, help to
'reduce' Air Pollution and Gasohol is all about Saving the Planet.


OK, let's pretend, for a moment, that's true. If ethanol is so good,
why doesn't imported ethanol qulalify for the subsidy? Because the
gasohol subsidy has nothing to do with the environment.

If ethanol is saving the planet, why doesn't ethanol produced directly
from natural gas qualify for the ethanol subsidy? Because the gasohol
subsidy has nothing to do with the environment.

If oxygen enriched fuels could save the planet, why doesn't methanol get
a subsidy? Because the gasohol subsidy is fostered by politics and
greed, and not concern for the environment.

But it's easy to find people who don't think there's much environmental
value to ethanol:

David Pimentel says the ethanol subsidy harms the environment:

"Corn farming takes a terrible toll on the environment -- it causes more
soil erosion and requires more insecticides, herbicides and nitrogen
fertilizer than any other crop. And every gallon of ethanol produced
results in 13 gallons of effluent pollution." Said Pimentel, "I can't
call that renewable."

This is from:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl...l-ethanol.html

Cecil Adams also knows:

"Though ethanol can reduce carbon monoxide emissions, the fuel may well
produce more of other air pollutants"

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html


Not surprisingly, the methanol boosters claim ethanol, no matter what
the source, is the poorer choice:

"Use of ethanol fuels leads to increased levels of toxins called
aldehydes and peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN). Aldehydes are much more
reactive in the atmosphere than the alcohols they are made from. They
react with other chemicals in urban atmospheres to set off chemical
reactions leading to PAN. Argonne scientists have found that once
created, PAN can last for many days in the air if the conditions -
especially temperature - are right. When its cold, its lifetime is
longer. PAN is highly toxic to plants and is a powerful eye irritant. It
has been measured in many areas of the world, indicating that it can be
carried by winds throughout the globe."

And:

"Nor is gasohol environmentally friendly. It often leads to vapor lock
and is more explosive than gasoline. And while ethanol use might reduce
carbon-monoxide emissions, it increases hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide
output."

"it increases hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide output." That sounds like
MORE ozone alert days with gasohol.

These are from:

http://www.methanol.org/reformgas/fact/ethanol.cfm


However, both the backers of ethanol and methanol are ignoring both the
drivability and evaporation problems. In the real world, people will be
driving cars which misfire on alcohol fuels, even if those cars don't
find their way onto the dynomometers for the alcohol lobby's controlled
condition pollution tests. Also, the increased evaporation of alcohol
fuels can overwhelm the evaporative controls of vehicles and gas
stations. The overall reduced tailpipe emissions, as claimed by the
ethanol lobby, are likely either very slight or nonexistant. Misfiring
and evaporation will surely dump more reactive hydrocarbons into the air
in the real world.




YES - Including the nightly "News Hour" on PBS.


Yeah, the major TV networks don't much cover the antics of ADM, do they?

Repeating the quote from Dwayne Andreas, chairman of ADM:

"People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a
socialist country."

Well, I'm in the Midwest, and sometimes I get my news from the local
papers as well as the TV. The ADM of the local news tells of trials,
executives convicted of price fixing, huge campaign contributions and
lost jobs.

ADM's sugar subsidy has helped force jobs out of Chicago:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/will/cst-edt-geo12.html

Not to mention the periodic gas shortages around here. One contributing
factor is ethanol. We can't buy gasoline anymore, only gasohol. The
ethanol used to make gasohol out of gasoline must be trucked in or
brought in on train tanker cars. Ethanol isn't compatible with the
petroleum pipelines and pumping equipment, so we get shortages of gas
whenever there isn't enough trucking or train tanker capacity to bring
the mandatory ethanol in.

You'd think the TV media would find something to critisize ADM for.
ADM's big campaign contributions, price fixing, concentrating wealth
from the bottom to the top, high dollar misleading PR campaigns.

Wait a minute. High dollar misleading PR campaigns? Too bad for the
poor saps at Enron and Worldcom. Maybe they should have also tried for
the best national media money could buy.

Frank Dresser