The Washington Times: Stop 'Big Corn'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Environmental Protection Agency wants to dump more corn into your fuel tank this summer, and it's going to cost more than you think.

The agency is expected to approve a request from 52 ethanol producers known collectively as "Growth Energy" to boost existing requirements that gasoline contain 10 percent ethanol to 15 percent. The change means billions more in government subsidies for companies in the business of growing corn and converting it into ethanol. For the rest of us, it means significantly higher gasoline and food prices.

It's time that this shameless corporate welfare gets plowed under.

In 2007, members of Congress joined with the Bush administration in mandating by government fiat the annual sale of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022. To meet the ambitious sales targets, the EPA has little choice but to approve the 15 percent ethanol fuel blend. Big Corn's advocates claim that forcing Americans to use this renewable fuel would reduce dependency on Mideast oil and lead to cleaner air. It's just as likely, however, that they want to get their hands on the $16 billion a year from the 45-cent-per-gallon "blender's tax credit" - in addition to the various state and federal mandates giving us no choice but to pump their pricey product into our fuel tanks.

The benefits are overstated. According to the EPA, reduction in foreign imports will result in $3.7 billion in "energy security benefits" at the expense of $18 billion in increased fuel costs by 2022. Environmental testing has proved inconclusive, as certain types of pollutants increase when ethanol content increases. It should be noted that the EPA's track record on "environmental" gasoline additives includes Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), a possible carcinogen whose once-mandated use has contaminated groundwater across the country.

Ethanol's environmental credentials are further weakened by its inefficiency as a fuel. Higher ethanol concentration will reduce the gas mileage of America's cars across the board by 5.3 percent. In addition to the pain that adds at the pump, repair bills will mount when engines not designed to handle 15 percent ethanol run lean and suffer increased wear and misfires. Because vehicle warranties specifically exclude damage from the use of unapproved fuels, the additional price for this boondoggle will fall on drivers.

The same problem hits gas stations where pumps and underground storage tanks are not certified for use with elevated ethanol levels. The cost of replacing perfectly good equipment will, once again, be passed on to the consumer.

Even those who do not own automobiles will begin to feel the pinch as more and more farm land is shifted towards taking advantage of government-subsidized ethanol production instead of food. Groups as diverse as the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the National Chicken Council and the American Meat Institute realize that this policy is distorting the market for food prices.

According to the University of Missouri's Farm and Policy Research Institute, the ethanol tax credit increases corn prices by 18 cents a barrel, wheat by 15 cents and soybeans by 28 cents. That means higher prices for most food items at the grocery store and restaurants.

There simply is no justification - environmental or otherwise - for this interventionist scheme. With the economy reeling, consumers can no longer afford to bankroll the politically connected agricultural lobby. The EPA should reject the 15 percent ethanol requirement and Congress should send Big Corn's rent seekers elsewhere with the repeal of all ethanol subsidies.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-stories-today

---

15% ethanol for gas engines? Are you kidding me!

I agree. Corn is horribly inefficient. Sugar is where it's at. We need to invade Cuba.

I thought this thread was about the Corn Syrup lobby that makes us use Corn Syrup instead of real sugar in our sodas and fruit juices.

Let's not waste time with converting shit for Ethanol, we've got the whole Eastern coastline ready to open up for real oil!

Not surprising, as long as bribing politicians is legal.

Nearly all US corn and soybeans are now genetically modified, which is completely for the benefit of the corps, esp Monsanto, not in any way for the benefit of the consumers.

Corps are feeding us, and their animals, pathogenic shit, and shipping their shit all world, killing local agriculture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Corps are feeding us, and their animals, pathogenic shit, and shipping their shit all world, killing local agriculture.

---

Shouldn't that read - Americans are such gluttons that they'll eat the nastiest shit a corporation can put in front of them as long as it's cheap and loaded with enough fat and/or sugar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

15% ethanol for gas engines? Are you kidding me!

---

LOL...I occasionally run M85 in my van. 85% Methanol. It's ridiculously cheap..usually .75 to $1 cheaper than unleaded.
The kicker is, my mpg is almost cut in half.:depressed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I agree. Corn is horribly inefficient. Sugar is where it's at. We need to invade Cuba.

---

I heard once that modern agriculture could pretty much be defined as "the conversion of oil energy into food".

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.php

Look at the table "approximate EROEIs [6] for different energy sources" about halfway through the briefing.

Ethanol offers somewhere between a negative EROEI, that is it takes MORE energy to produce than you get out of it, to about an 8.

Now, the most pertinent bit is the briefing on biofuels, that has some rather good data in it.

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/biofuels.php

There is a good particular chart that shows the amount of energy/fuel in a given hectare (unit of area), but it does not show any of the "cellulose based" ethanols, but the briefing does talk about them in a pretty balanced and fair-minded way.

The end result is that it would, even with the best technology and efficient distillation processes, probably not be very efficient to get fuel from such sources. It would require VERY large amounts of crop land to replace more than a tiny fraction of our needs from it.

It is mostly likely a dead-end for most countries. Brazil manages to get a good chunk of their transportation energy needs from sugarcane, the most efficient of the sources given in the graph and almost twice as efficient per unit of land as corn. Brazil still uses oil, however, and it remains to be seen if the ethanol economy can be sustained over the long term due to concerns about long-term farmland soil depletion.

We are not Brazil however. The amount of farmable land in the US that could sustain sugarcane is much, much less to start with, and we consume much more energy in our transportation sector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell

I thought this thread was about the Corn Syrup lobby that makes us use Corn Syrup instead of real sugar in our sodas and fruit juices.

---

Soda and fruit juices? I wish only that. I think you meant everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

LOL...I occasionally run M85 in my van. 85% Methanol. It's ridiculously cheap..usually .75 to $1 cheaper than unleaded.
The kicker is, my mpg is almost cut in half.:depressed

---

Quote:

---

A litre of ethanol provides about sixty-five percent the energy of a litre of petrol/gasoline.

---

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/biofuels.php

Converting that into actual figures:

Assume:
Regular gasoline price: $2.80
85% ethanol price: $1.80

MPG regular gasoline: 18
MPG 85% ethanol: 9

The price is dollars per gallon or $/g
The MPG is miles per gallon or m/g

Since both have a common denominator, you can actually calculate the MPD, or miles per dollar, m/$

18/2.8= 6.42 miles per dollar for regular gasoline
9/1.8 = 5 miles per dollar for 85% ethanol.

You can substitute your own actual figures for my estimates, but the end result should be fairly close in terms of scale.

This is why one must always remember that you cannot substitute a gallon of ethanol for a gallon of gas.

They are NOT identical in the way that really matters: the amount of USABLE energy. That is the ultimate measure of any energy source.

Talking off-the-cuff with no evidence here, but I think the majority of people will agree that ethanol is a failed idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell

I thought this thread was about the Corn Syrup lobby that makes us use Corn Syrup instead of real sugar in our sodas and fruit juices.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by balli

Soda and fruit juices? I wish only that. I think you meant everything.

---

Everything is right. It's in practically all bread products, meat and nearly every condiment you can think of. It's also in many alcohols.

Go to any fast food chain and order any meal combo - there's corn in every bite. The meat (in addition to being unnaturally corn-fed) usually has some sort of corn product added to the beef or chicken. The soda, bun and condiments all have HFCS and the fries have probably been fried in corn oil. It's also in practically everything you buy during your weekly grocery trip, so unfortunately "just don't eat out" isn't as simple a solution as it should be.

How about this. Everyone... Call your congress[wo]man. Voice an opinion.

The corn farmers no longer need a subsidy to [not] grow corn. I lost track of the truth over the matter with corn, but if it's tax break, OK. If there are subsidies, I say eliminate all corn related subsidies. With the mandated 10% ethanol in fuel, there is a known demand for corn.

Interesting read, look who's names are on it:

Letter to Growth Energy

Another:

Ethanol Industry’s 15% Solution Raises Concerns

Subsidies and tax breaks are the same fucking thing in the end. Whether you pay less taxes or get money and pay higher taxes it ends up as the same god damn thing in the end. I'm not sure why you're so persistent to act as though one is better than the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Subsidies and tax breaks are the same fucking thing in the end. Whether you pay less taxes or get money and pay higher taxes it ends up as the same god damn thing in the end. I'm not sure why you're so persistent to act as though one is better than the other.

---

*WTF It's the wrong thread!* post. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

ethanol is a failed idea.

---

this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

*WTF It's the wrong thread!* post. :lol

---

No, read 3 posts above mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Subsidies and tax breaks are the same fucking thing in the end. Whether you pay less taxes or get money and pay higher taxes it ends up as the same god damn thing in the end. I'm not sure why you're so persistent to act as though one is better than the other.

---

A tax break is allowing one to keep money they earned, a subsidy is giving someone money that someone else earned. There's a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

A tax break is allowing one to keep money they earned, a subsidy is giving someone money that someone else earned. There's a difference.

---

I stopped trying to explain the difference. I just chock it up to another reason why I call them "libtards."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

No, read 3 posts above mine.

---

*WTF. I'm an idiot post*. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

A tax break is allowing one to keep money they earned, a subsidy is giving someone money that someone else earned. There's a difference.

---

What difference does it make if the end result is still the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Doesn't matter. The end result is still the same.

---

No, it matters.

With a tax break, your money can be no greater than your earnings. With a subsidy, your money can be greater than your earning.

My God....

Why am I trying to explain this again.... I must be insane. Afterall, one definition of being insane is doing the same thing over, expecting a different result....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

No, read 3 posts above mine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No, it matters.

With a tax break, your money can be no greater than your earnings. With a subsidy, your money can be greater than your earning.

My God....

Why am I trying to explain this again.... I must be insane. Afterall, one definition of being insane is doing the same thing over, expecting a different result....

---

and you ain't got it right yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

What difference does it make if the end result is still the same?

---

They're spelled different. That's about the only functional difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

They're spelled different. That's about the only functional difference.

---

Well, you are just proving yourself an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No, it matters.

With a tax break, your money can be no greater than your earnings. With a subsidy, your money can be greater than your earning.

My God....

Why am I trying to explain this again.... I must be insane. Afterall, one definition of being insane is doing the same thing over, expecting a different result....

---

That only applies in a specific scenario though. That doesn't negate the point that a $1 subsidy results in the same outcome as a $1 tax break.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Well, you are just proving yourself an idiot.

---

Good work. You and my kids agree.

Doesn't make it so.

When you're ready to compare brain-pans, I'm in.:rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

That only applies in a specific scenario though. That doesn't negate the point that a $1 subsidy results in the same outcome as a $1 tax break.

---

Watch it! That's idiot-speak!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

That only applies in a specific scenario though. That doesn't negate the point that a $1 subsidy results in the same outcome as a $1 tax break.

---

You are a fucking idiot.

Just because the outcome can be the same, doesn't make the real meaning of the terms the same.

definition: Subsidy

definition: Tax Break

You guys really are libtards. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is seldom a square.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

When you're ready to compare brain-pans, I'm in.:rolleyes

---

Ready to do some 68000 series programming in assembler?

Settle down, little fella. It'll be ok. It's just the internets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Ready to do some 68000 series programming in assembler?

---

Ready to recite 18th century part-writing rules?


Stupid fuck. Only you would try something as asinine as a brain fight on the internet.:rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Ready to do some 68000 series programming in assembler?

---

Count me in! I'll even do it in hex for you:

4EF9 4845 4C4C

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

and you ain't got it right yet.

---

Why don't you explain it then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Count me in! I'll even do it in hex for you:

4EF9 4845 4C4C

:lol

---

Brilliant!

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64.../brilliant.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Why don't you explain it then.

---

already have. There's another thread on this. Go and seek it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Count me in! I'll even do it in hex for you:

4EF9 4845 4C4C

:lol

---

LOL...

Damn...

Now where did I put my books? I said Assembler, not machine language...

Know the difference between ABCD and ADD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You are a fucking idiot.

Just because the outcome can be the same, doesn't make the real meaning of the terms the same.

definition: Subsidy

definition: Tax Break

You guys really are libtards. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is seldom a square.

---

First, :lol @ you for getting all butthurt and going personal insult.

Second, :lol @ you for thinking I'm a "libtard".

Third, :lol @ you for not grasping the point that several people are trying to make that it shouldn't matter whether the farmers are getting a tax break or a subsidy when the net result in both cases is the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Count me in! I'll even do it in hex for you:

4EF9 4845 4C4C

:lol

---

JMP 48454c4c

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Second, :lol @ you for thinking I'm a "libtard".

---

Then stop acting like one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

LOL...

Damn...

Now where did I put my books? I said Assembler, not machine language...

Know the difference between ABCD and ADD?

---

Well, in assembler the above would read

JMP $'HELL' :lol

But yes, ABCD = Add Binary Coded Decimal
whereas ADD = Regular binary add

The 68k was one of my favorites processors to work with... Many obscure features on it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

The 68k was one of my favorites processors to work with... Many obscure features on it...

---

Yes, a great processor to work with. I love the fact they have direct BCD modes. If I recall, it took something like 56 clock cycles to convert a BCD to hex for the 386 processor to work with numbers.

I hadn't done any assembler programming in maybe 18 years. Didn't do much, but played with my Amiga 500, 3000, and 4000. Never as a job.

I bought my Amiga 4000 the day they were first available. Had serial number 173.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Well, in assembler the above would read

JMP $'HELL' :lol

But yes, ABCD = Add Binary Coded Decimal
whereas ADD = Regular binary add

The 68k was one of my favorites processors to work with... Many obscure features on it...

---

You nerds get a room...:married:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Then stop acting like one.

---

Until you change your definition of libtard to make it mean something other than "disagrees with me" then that's not something that's going to be in my control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Until you change your definition of libtard to make it mean something other than "disagrees with me" then that's not something that's going to be in my control.

---

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64...y-tv-dvd11.jpg

The most fun machine language is MIX (from Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming series), because you have to write it generally enough to work on a decimal or a binary computer (with 6-bit bytes :lol). Plus, self-modifying code is always fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Until you change your definition of libtard to make it mean something other than "disagrees with me" then that's not something that's going to be in my control.

---

Well, liberals are the only people in my experience that interchange tax break and subsidy.

How about starting to use the correct terms then.

Either way, you are using the term wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

already have. There's another thread on this. Go and seek it.

---

Just as I thought, simplistic view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

The most fun machine language is MIX (from Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming series), because you have to write it generally enough to work on a decimal or a binary computer (with 6-bit bytes :lol). Plus, self-modifying code is always fun.

---

Well, MIX was hypothetical. However, MMIX became a reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Just as I thought, simplistic view.

---

It ain't rocket surgery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Shouldn't that read - Americans are such gluttons that they'll eat the nastiest shit a corporation can put in front of them as long as it's cheap and loaded with enough fat and/or sugar.

---

that's true, too.

Americans are their own worst enemy, not foreigners.

All great empires rot from within, and America is rotting apace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Talking off-the-cuff with no evidence here, but I think the majority of people will agree that ethanol is a failed idea.

---

Unless the idea is to get us to fill up more often.

"ethanol is a failed idea"

yep, but it's Repugs' idea of "green" economy, which was really smokescreen for tranferring taxpayer wealth to BigAg.

Again, WTF did the Repugs do right in their 8-year Reign of Error?

Simplistic view? Seriously? When you're the one talking about their different because of a semantical difference?

Here's the scenario. Congressman passes a law saying that if you grow corn you get a tax break off of regular taxes that all Americans are going to pay in order to make it more profitable for growers to grow corn. If they grow corn then they get a save a said amount of money simply because they are growing corn. The end result of legislation it to make it more enticing to grow corn.

Another congressman says no I'd rather give them money to grow corn but they pay higher taxes. Well, the end result of said legislation is to make it more enticing to grow corn.

To act as if one method is superior to the other when the goal for both is to artificially make it more enticing to grow a crop based upon government and not fee market action is fucking BEYOND simplistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No, it matters.

With a tax break, your money can be no greater than your earnings. With a subsidy, your money can be greater than your earning.

My God....

Why am I trying to explain this again.... I must be insane. Afterall, one definition of being insane is doing the same thing over, expecting a different result....

---

... unless of course the "tax break" happens to be a direct tax credit, then you get a refund.

There is also the concept that if you are not profitable, you would not be able to earn a tax break, and being unprotifable is not, in the long run, sustainable for businesses.

You are right that for a pure tax break, where the break is equal to or less than the net income, the effect would not be the same.

In more practical terms, the difference is vanishingly small, though.

Remember that a tax break represents a fraction of a tax that represents a fraction of income. The subset of companies that would not benefit from the fraction of the fraction is pretty small and remember that if a company IS unprofitable, they get to apply that tax break to calculations of future taxes in loss carryforwards, i.e. deferred tax assets.

Random, let's not forget, a tax credit is most often a subsidy itself.

Back on point... gasoline engines were not designed for combusting ethanol... the mechanical wear on the engines themselves increases due to incompatibilities with the engine's design and the thermodynamic properties of combusting alcohols.

That's why the push to increase the mandated percentage from 10% to 15% is being done with complete disregard to how that affects the consumer (us).... and yet, those pushing for it are demanding an increase in the subsidies as well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Back on point... gasoline engines were not designed for combusting ethanol... the mechanical wear on the engines themselves increases due to incompatibilities with the engine's design and the thermodynamic properties of combusting alcohols.

That's why the push to increase the mandated percentage from 10% to 15% is being done with complete disregard to how that affects the consumer (us).... and yet, those pushing for it are demanding an increase in the subsidies as well...

---

I think it's the fuel system rather than the engine, but otherwise, you are on target.

Maybe it's a master plan to get older cars off the road by making them break down in an unrepairable manner? Afterall, they are only concerned with the effects on 2001 and newer models. They all have ECC IV or newer computer emissions control systems.