EPA backs broader use of ethanol

On 1/23/2011 3:34 PM, John A. Weeks III wrote:
> On Jan 23, 1:46 pm, "US > wrote:
>>> I suspect that the Green community is becoming far less enchanted with
>>> ethanol. Cargill et al remain enthusiastic and energetic in pursuing
>>> subsidies.
>>
>> If there was a way to do that didn't impact food prices, I'd be more
>> interested in whet they had to say.
>
> That may become a moot point in a free market economy as some people
> will be able to pay more for energy than what others are able to pay
> for food. Some futurists are predicting that a similar issue may
> develop with water where it will become expensive enough that folks on
> the lower end of the economic scale will have a hard time paying for
> it.
>
> -john-

Also consider the possibility of the use of water to create hydrogen to
fill hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Clean water is already a very
precious commodity, even in parts of this country. Start using massive
amounts of it to power vehicles and let supply and demand take over and
watch what happens

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 1:46 pm, "US 71" > wrote:
> > I suspect that the Green community is becoming far less enchanted with
> > ethanol. Cargill et al remain enthusiastic and energetic in pursuing
> > subsidies.
>
> If there was a way to do that didn't impact food prices, I'd be more
> interested in whet they had to say.

That may become a moot point in a free market economy as some people
will be able to pay more for energy than what others are able to pay
for food. Some futurists are predicting that a similar issue may
develop with water where it will become expensive enough that folks on
the lower end of the economic scale will have a hard time paying for
it.



So once again, the rich rule the world.

On 1/23/2011 7:17 PM, US 71 wrote:
> "John A. Weeks > wrote in message
> ...
> On Jan 23, 1:46 pm, "US > wrote:
>>> I suspect that the Green community is becoming far less enchanted with
>>> ethanol. Cargill et al remain enthusiastic and energetic in pursuing
>>> subsidies.
>>
>> If there was a way to do that didn't impact food prices, I'd be more
>> interested in whet they had to say.
>
> That may become a moot point in a free market economy as some people
> will be able to pay more for energy than what others are able to pay
> for food. Some futurists are predicting that a similar issue may
> develop with water where it will become expensive enough that folks on
> the lower end of the economic scale will have a hard time paying for
> it.
>
>
>
> So once again, the rich rule the world.
>
>

Name one time that hasn't been true.

On 1/23/2011 7:33 PM, Rich Piehl wrote:

>> So once again, the rich rule the world.

> Name one time that hasn't been true.

Rule the world?

Dunno about that.

Lots of the Founding Fathers had people take up aq collection to buy
them a suit when they went down to Washington.

But how about Castro? Chavez? Mao? Hu? Lenin? Stalin? I guess they
are or were rich.

I see where some of the new congress critters are sleeping in their offices.


--
Superfluity does not vitiate
California Civil Code quote-#3537

http://lwolt.wordpress.com/
http://tinyurl.com/269dspw # <-- Where I live
3

On 2011-01-24, US 71 > wrote:

> That may become a moot point in a free market economy as some people
> will be able to pay more for energy than what others are able to pay
> for food.

There's nothing free market about corn based ethanol. It's all driven
by government demand, subsidy and tariff. The government demands ethanol
in the gasoline, the government subsidizes the cost with tax payer
money, and lastly the government puts tariffs on imported ethanol.

The best way to make ethanol is with sugar gain. With sugar gain it's an
energy gaining process. This is why imported ethanol is highly taxed.

Then there are the sugar tariffs which drive the market for HFCS too.

The corn lobby is more important than your car and your body.

On 1/22/11 11:21 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...y/7392427.html

It's not about oil independence or green or nice stuff like that. It's
about the midwest farm lobby and corn prices. Period.

"Craig Zeni" > wrote in message
m...
> On 1/22/11 11:21 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
>> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...y/7392427.html
>
> It's not about oil independence or green or nice stuff like that. It's
> about the midwest farm lobby and corn prices. Period.

I remember just a few short years ago when Missouri was forced to offer E-85
at all gas stations. Turns out Gov Blunt had his hands in an ethanol producer.

I tried it once since my van is a flex-fuel: crappy mileage, crappy
performance.

In article >,
Rich Piehl > wrote:
>On 1/23/2011 3:34 PM, John A. Weeks III wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 1:46 pm, "US > wrote:
>>>> I suspect that the Green community is becoming far less enchanted with
>>>> ethanol. Cargill et al remain enthusiastic and energetic in pursuing
>>>> subsidies.
>>>
>>> If there was a way to do that didn't impact food prices, I'd be more
>>> interested in whet they had to say.
>>
>> That may become a moot point in a free market economy as some people
>> will be able to pay more for energy than what others are able to pay
>> for food. Some futurists are predicting that a similar issue may
>> develop with water where it will become expensive enough that folks on
>> the lower end of the economic scale will have a hard time paying for
>
>Also consider the possibility of the use of water to create hydrogen to
>fill hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Clean water is already a very
>precious commodity, even in parts of this country. Start using massive
>amounts of it to power vehicles and let supply and demand take over and
>watch what happens

Corn ethanol used as a fuel is so expensive that the only reason it
causes any problems for food prices is governments subsidize it. And
that's the most ridiculous problem with hydrogen I've ever heard.
First of all, you don't need (or want) potable water to do
electrolysis. Second, if you had a practical way of transporting
hydrogen (as would be necessary to use it as a vehicle fuel in any
case), you'd make it where water is plentiful. Nobody's going to be
producing hydrogen from Colorado river water in the California
desert.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

On Jan 22, 11:33*pm, Larry Sheldon > wrote:
> On 1/22/2011 10:21 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
>
> >http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...y/7392427.html
>
> I didn't see any mention of the harm from converting food to fuel,
> habitat to corn-fields, or any explanation of why a "clean air waiver"
> is needed.
>
> --
> Superfluity does not vitiate
> California Civil Code quote-#3537
>
> http://lwolt.wordpress.com/http://tinyurl.com/269dspw# <-- Where I *live
> 3

Why would you need to convert anything? The US already produces so
much excess corn that farmers barely break even even with government
assistance. Until our agricultural policies changed (to support
excess food production and the ruin of the agricultural market), we
used to pay a ton of farmers to NOT PRODUCE ANYTHING. We have plenty
of excess corn that could be used.