PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on Ethanol Fuel


SuperiorPower
06-29-2009, 03:29 AM
What are your thoughts on Ethanol fuel?

Are they good?

Are there any pitfalls of using Ethanol?

Do you know of any problems that are caused by Ethanol?

Does your state (or province) mandate ethanol? If so, you please tell me what state you live in?

****************************
Ok, you guessed, I am not asking these questions as blind questions. Rather, I am try to determine the current knowledge level with Ethanol and the problems associated with it. In the near future (within the next week or so) I will be posting an article on my forum about Ethanol Fuel. I'll let you guys know about it when I post it.

In the mean time, could you guys answer the above questions for my research on the matter?

Thanks,
Eli

picframer
06-29-2009, 05:37 AM
Ethanol is not available here in Nova Scotia, at least to the best of my knowledge.

Based on what I have herd on the news and read in the paper my personal concern is the higher cost of food. Diverting food items such as corn has increased the price....I do still follow the stock market. I have read many environmental organizations have raised concerns about the increased inputs of energy, pesticides, and fertilizer to grow more corn. The price of corn has doubled in three years in large part due to increased demand for ethanol because of government-mandated fuel-level regulations both here in Canada and the USA.

I read it is also more expensive to use in the summer, it contributes to smog and in several areas it can be used only with a costlier base blend that helps overcome this.

I know a local fairly large oil refinery has been making bio diesel from fish oil, they have to use Ethanol in this, two years ago they run it in the city bus's for the summer and it was a disaster.

Anyhow I am all for renewable resources but not at the expense of the economy, think of the millions without food, there are other ways to go about this, mandate better fuel economy vehicles, higher tax on the gas guzzlers etc.

Steve
06-29-2009, 06:31 AM
I can't remember the last time I saw a gas station that sold ethanol!

majoe7
06-29-2009, 07:23 AM
Here in Florida ethanol is at every gas station. 10% is blended with the regular gas. The station has to post a sign on the pumps stating this fact.
There is a problem they are discovering with the use of this product. After time if you don't use what you have stored it will break down and particles will settle at the bottom of the tank, the next time you go and use your machine/car it mixes up and clogs fuel lines , leaves deposits in you carberator. This is becoming a big problem and an expensive repair bill to the consumers. I just had to have my carb. rebuilt on my boat at the tune of $400. They say and I did regularly add fuel stablizer to the gas and I assume that hasn't been helpful. I also add it to my gas for my lawn care. You never know. BTW price for a gallon of gas here now is $2.56 per gallon 87 octange.

mark123
06-29-2009, 07:56 AM
Ethanol is bad for engines. Especially small engines. Especially small 2-stroke engines. I hate the stuff.

swstout
06-29-2009, 08:41 AM
What are your thoughts on Ethanol fuel?

Are they good?

Are there any pitfalls of using Ethanol?

Do you know of any problems that are caused by Ethanol?

Does your state (or province) mandate ethanol? If so, you please tell me what state you live in?

****************************
Ok, you guessed, I am not asking these questions as blind questions. Rather, I am try to determine the current knowledge level with Ethanol and the problems associated with it. In the near future (within the next week or so) I will be posting an article on my forum about Ethanol Fuel. I'll let you guys know about it when I post it.

In the mean time, could you guys answer the above questions for my research on the matter?

Thanks,
Eli

From my files:

Top Ten Facts about Ethanol
<DIR><DIR>Ethanol is listed as a known human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.


The cost of Reformulated Gasoline with ethanol will increase 3-6 cents per gallons compared to RFG with MTBE (see below).


Spills of pure ethanol or gasoline containing ethanol from leaking storage tanks can create a benzene plume up to 150% larger than a spill from a non-ethanol fuel.

Ethanol cannot be shipped by pipeline because of its high affinity for water posing significant distribution costs and hurdles for gasoline blenders.


According to a study by Cornell University, for every gallon of ethanol produced, 1.4 gallons of energy is consumed in the process, compared to 0.15 gallons used in the manufacture of gasoline.


It takes 1.5 gallons of ethanol (E-85) to drive as many miles as one gallon of gasoline.


Every gallon of ethanol removes 53 cents from the Federal Highway Trust Fund because of a special tax break for producers.

Ethanol increases the vapor pressure of gasoline by 1 psi. resulting in higher evaporative emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds, while tailpipe emissions of Acetaldehyde increase 150%.


Ethanol permeates the hoses and lines of automobile fuel systems resulting in a 50% increase in VOC emissions for pre 1995 cars.


Ethanol dissolves oxide scale from the walls of pipes and tanks, subjecting the systems to internal corrosion, which leads to leaks.
</DIR></DIR>MTBE Extends Gasoline Supplies & Prevents Fuel Price Increases

The cleaner-burning gasoline additive Metyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) is an integral component of the nationís gasoline supply and has been vital in helping to minimize gasoline supply shortages. With current U.S. crude oil imports exceeding 50% of overall demand and U.S. refineries operating at full capacity, there is no margin for error with regard to gasoline supply. Banning or reducing the use of MTBE would further tighten gasoline supplies and substantially impact gasoline prices for consumers.
<DIR><DIR>MTBE extends U.S. gasoline supplies Ė Up to 15 volume percent can be blended into finished gasoline. It is particularly valuable during refinery outages and distribution system disturbances when additional supplies are needed most.

MTBE use comprises over 4 volume percent of the overall U.S. gasoline pool; and in certain areas makes up over 10 volume percent of gasoline supply.

DOE estimates total U.S. gasoline production above 95% capacity. Any supply disruption or alterations would have serious gasoline supply impacts.

DOE concludes that removing MTBE from commerce will effectively reduce domestic gasoline supply by 550,000 barrels/day or roughly 6.8% of the total daily consumption of gasoline.


According to DOE, MTBE use is equivalent to gasoline production from five U.S. refineries.


MTBE is cost effective choice of refiners Ė 85% of RFG is blended with MTBE.

MTBE is a growing component of the nationís fuel supply, even in areas that have taken very aggressive action against the chemical. Record MTBE use has been reported in California during the past two summers.


Because MTBE is mainly produced from natural gas, it reduces dependence on foreign oil and is less susceptible to supply shocks. DOE reports that MTBE use makes up 71 percent of the alternative fuel use requirements contained in the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
</DIR></DIR>A number of studies indicate that removing MTBE will significantly increase the cost of producing gasoline, further compounding any cost increases anticipated as a result of gasoline supply shortfalls, and substantially increasing gasoline prices for the consuming public:
<DIR><DIR>The California Energy Commission describes an immediate MTBE phaseout as "catastrophic." CEC estimates the refiner cost of phasing out MTBE (in California only) to be at least 5 to 7 cents/gallon. California cost estimates are 10 to 20 cents/gallon for accelerated MTBE removal.


Turner Mason & Company estimated a national MTBE phaseout cost of about 4 to 8 cents/gallon without controls against air quality backsliding.

MathPro Inc. estimates national MTBE phaseout cost of about 4 to 6 cents/gallon above cost of California-only ban even with extensive air quality backsliding.


DOE estimates the cost of removing MTBE at about 2.5 to 7 cents/gallon (with RFG areas having an additional "substantial" price increase).


DOE informally estimated the cost of replacing MTBE with ethanol in the Northeast to be 3 cents/gallon Ė excluding significant investment costs and highway trust fund impacts.


Californiaís conversion to ethanol will cost an additional 4 cents per gallon for each gallon of ethanol blended into gasoline.
</DIR></DIR>Using conservative estimates, the overall annual refinery production costs following MTBEís removal from gasoline is estimated to be $3.6 to $10.0 billion. This estimate does not reflect the ultimate price increases consumers will see at gasoline retail stations.

It should be noted that the impact on the U.S. gasoline and energy outlook could be more pronounced as a result of unplanned refinery outages and distribution system disruptions. This too, will aggravate already tight energy supplies and leave U.S. consumers paying substantially higher prices for gasoline.

MTBEís vehicle performance contributions, emissions reduction benefits, and stabilizing influence on the nationís gasoline supply have been well documented. More importantly, the health effects associated with its use in gasoline have been extensively studied by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state health agencies, international health organizations, and leading research universities. These studies confirm that MTBE reduces toxic air pollutants such as benzene (a known human carcinogen); reduces carbon monoxide and greenhouse gas emissions; and substantially surpasses all Clean Air Act requirements for the reduction of smog forming compounds.

Ethanol Is Not a Suitable Replacement for MTBE

In 1990, Congress passed a law requiring fuel oxygenates Ė such as Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) and ethanol Ė to be added to Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) to reduce automotive emissions and improve the air we breathe. However, for a variety of economic, logistic and environmental reasons, refiners overwhelmingly favored MTBE over ethanol:

Gasoline Production Economics: Ethanol blends evaporate more readily than MTBE blends. Therefore, using ethanol increases refiner production costs and reduces operating flexibility. For example, the Chicago/Milwaukee ethanol market saw gasoline prices increase 25 cents/gallon over the national average during the summer of 2000. In addition, ethanol contributes about one half the blending volume provided by MTBE, and the maximum amount of ethanol that can be blended into gasoline is capped at 10% (versus 15% for MTBE). As a result, ethanol is unable to dilute many, less desirable, gasoline components.

Ethanolís Tax Subsidy: Ethanol is not economically viable without its substantial federal tax subsidy Ė currently 53 cents per gallon Ė and supplemental state tax incentives.

Supply Uncertainties & Distribution Concerns: Ethanol use is generally limited to the Midwest, with little capacity for expansion. Ethanol supplies can be uncertain due to feedstock (i.e., corn) shortages caused by summer droughts. Ethanolís high affinity for water does not allow blending at the refinery, nor transportation through the existing nation-wide gasoline pipeline infrastructure. Ethanol must be stored in segregated tanks, can only be transported by rail or truck and must be blended into gasoline at the terminal or retail station.

Environmental Concerns: Ethanol emits more harmful smog-forming emissions in the summertime than MTBE due to its high tendency to evaporate. Because ethanol is used in lower volumes, it provides less reduction in toxic air emissions than MTBE. Ethanol also can contribute to increased NOx emissions.

Consumer Acceptance: Automaker owner manuals warn buyers of performance problems with ethanol. Some consumers perceive ethanol-blended gasoline or "gasohol" as an "inferior product."

In addition, energy security implications and consumer costs remain a concern as ethanolís role in future national energy policy is debated:
<DIR><DIR>Ethanolís federal tax subsidy currently reduces money for state road maintenance and transportation infrastructure by over $1.1 billion/year. If ethanol were used to replace MTBE, this figure would grow to over $3.5 billion/year.

MTBE supplies 2.5 times more non-petroleum energy into the nationís gasoline pool than ethanol (at the same oxygen content), thus increasing overall gasoline supplies.


Despite its "renewable fuel" billing, producing ethanol consumes as much energy as it yields as a finished fuel. Lower fuel economy (by as much as 2-5 %) should be expected for ethanol blended gasoline versus conventional, or MTBE-blended, gasoline.


Increasing the use of ethanol would increase the fragility of our nationís gasoline supply outlook and potentially result in a net increase of crude and product imports.


Calls to triple the required use of ethanol would cost U.S. consumers $17 billion over the next nine years.


The large ethanol subsidy generally benefits the large agri-business interests rather than average farmers.
</DIR></DIR>Ethanolís use is uneconomic without a large government subsidy and, outside of the Midwest, it can not be integrated into the nationís gasoline supply and transportation system. Increased reliance on ethanol would result in air quality backsliding. And, most importantly, it can destabilize the nationís gasoline supply without offering significant energy security benefits and without even benefiting Americaís farmers.

Steve
 

turfmaster
06-29-2009, 10:07 AM
We have 10% ethanol in our gasoline here in Wisconsin .
We also have some stations that carry E85 which is 85% ethanol.
My GMC truck will run on this however I will not use it. It is about 25 cents less
per gallon than regular gas however your mileage is about 25% less so it's a wash at best using the stuff.
I have noticed over the years since they went to 10% ethanol that my small engines (carburators, fuel lines etc). have needed more maintenance. For equipment that you don't use at least weekly you better have stabil mixed in the gas or you could have problems.

My biggest gripe with the stuff is that it raises the cost of food. I fail to see how it will reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

I could go on but all the global warming radicals seem to have all the answers.

XtreemGreen
06-29-2009, 10:34 AM
Here in Florida ethanol is at every gas station. 10% is blended with the regular gas. The station has to post a sign on the pumps stating this fact.
There is a problem they are discovering with the use of this product. After time if you don't use what you have stored it will break down and particles will settle at the bottom of the tank, the next time you go and use your machine/car it mixes up and clogs fuel lines , leaves deposits in you carberator. This is becoming a big problem and an expensive repair bill to the consumers. I just had to have my carb. rebuilt on my boat at the tune of $400. They say and I did regularly add fuel stablizer to the gas and I assume that hasn't been helpful. I also add it to my gas for my lawn care. You never know. BTW price for a gallon of gas here now is $2.56 per gallon 87 octange.
From my experience, All of my 2 cycle machines now bog when started...Although my mowers arent affected by it..A buddy of mine that I met online that is a certified small engine mechanic (Works for mower shop in N. Fla) suggested I run 93 octane in my 2 cycle stuff... He also said if I dont, In due time, the carbs will all need rebuilt..

I havent run 93 yet, but I do add 1/4 cup of sea foam to my mixed and 1/2 cup to each tank on my mower..Although my 2 cycle still bogs, I havent had any other problems since I started adding sea foam to the fuel 3 years ago..

SuperiorPower
06-29-2009, 06:51 PM
Thanks for the response guys. I added a poll to this thread. Please take the time to vote on it. And I would also like to see what state you live in and whether or not Ethanol is mandatory there.

swstout
06-29-2009, 06:56 PM
Thanks for the response guys. I added a poll to this thread. Please take the time to vote on it. And I would also like to see what state you live in and whether or not Ethanol is mandatory there.

I don't see the poll.

Steve

swstout
06-29-2009, 06:58 PM
I don't see the poll.

Steve

I found it!

picframer
07-02-2009, 06:02 PM
This was announced a few hours ago:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/23/news/economy/wesley_clark_fights_for_ethanol.fortune/index.htm

SuperiorPower
09-05-2009, 10:16 PM
From my files:

Top Ten Facts about Ethanol
<DIR><DIR>Ethanol is listed as a known human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.


The cost of Reformulated Gasoline with ethanol will increase 3-6 cents per gallons compared to RFG with MTBE (see below).


Spills of pure ethanol or gasoline containing ethanol from leaking storage tanks can create a benzene plume up to 150% larger than a spill from a non-ethanol fuel.

Ethanol cannot be shipped by pipeline because of its high affinity for water posing significant distribution costs and hurdles for gasoline blenders.


According to a study by Cornell University, for every gallon of ethanol produced, 1.4 gallons of energy is consumed in the process, compared to 0.15 gallons used in the manufacture of gasoline.


It takes 1.5 gallons of ethanol (E-85) to drive as many miles as one gallon of gasoline.


Every gallon of ethanol removes 53 cents from the Federal Highway Trust Fund because of a special tax break for producers.

Ethanol increases the vapor pressure of gasoline by 1 psi. resulting in higher evaporative emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds, while tailpipe emissions of Acetaldehyde increase 150%.


Ethanol permeates the hoses and lines of automobile fuel systems resulting in a 50% increase in VOC emissions for pre 1995 cars.


Ethanol dissolves oxide scale from the walls of pipes and tanks, subjecting the systems to internal corrosion, which leads to leaks.
</DIR></DIR>MTBE Extends Gasoline Supplies & Prevents Fuel Price Increases

The cleaner-burning gasoline additive Metyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) is an integral component of the nationís gasoline supply and has been vital in helping to minimize gasoline supply shortages. With current U.S. crude oil imports exceeding 50% of overall demand and U.S. refineries operating at full capacity, there is no margin for error with regard to gasoline supply. Banning or reducing the use of MTBE would further tighten gasoline supplies and substantially impact gasoline prices for consumers.
<DIR><DIR>MTBE extends U.S. gasoline supplies Ė Up to 15 volume percent can be blended into finished gasoline. It is particularly valuable during refinery outages and distribution system disturbances when additional supplies are needed most.

MTBE use comprises over 4 volume percent of the overall U.S. gasoline pool; and in certain areas makes up over 10 volume percent of gasoline supply.

DOE estimates total U.S. gasoline production above 95% capacity. Any supply disruption or alterations would have serious gasoline supply impacts.

DOE concludes that removing MTBE from commerce will effectively reduce domestic gasoline supply by 550,000 barrels/day or roughly 6.8% of the total daily consumption of gasoline.


According to DOE, MTBE use is equivalent to gasoline production from five U.S. refineries.


MTBE is cost effective choice of refiners Ė 85% of RFG is blended with MTBE.

MTBE is a growing component of the nationís fuel supply, even in areas that have taken very aggressive action against the chemical. Record MTBE use has been reported in California during the past two summers.


Because MTBE is mainly produced from natural gas, it reduces dependence on foreign oil and is less susceptible to supply shocks. DOE reports that MTBE use makes up 71 percent of the alternative fuel use requirements contained in the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
</DIR></DIR>A number of studies indicate that removing MTBE will significantly increase the cost of producing gasoline, further compounding any cost increases anticipated as a result of gasoline supply shortfalls, and substantially increasing gasoline prices for the consuming public:
<DIR><DIR>The California Energy Commission describes an immediate MTBE phaseout as "catastrophic." CEC estimates the refiner cost of phasing out MTBE (in California only) to be at least 5 to 7 cents/gallon. California cost estimates are 10 to 20 cents/gallon for accelerated MTBE removal.


Turner Mason & Company estimated a national MTBE phaseout cost of about 4 to 8 cents/gallon without controls against air quality backsliding.

MathPro Inc. estimates national MTBE phaseout cost of about 4 to 6 cents/gallon above cost of California-only ban even with extensive air quality backsliding.


DOE estimates the cost of removing MTBE at about 2.5 to 7 cents/gallon (with RFG areas having an additional "substantial" price increase).


DOE informally estimated the cost of replacing MTBE with ethanol in the Northeast to be 3 cents/gallon Ė excluding significant investment costs and highway trust fund impacts.


Californiaís conversion to ethanol will cost an additional 4 cents per gallon for each gallon of ethanol blended into gasoline.
</DIR></DIR>Using conservative estimates, the overall annual refinery production costs following MTBEís removal from gasoline is estimated to be $3.6 to $10.0 billion. This estimate does not reflect the ultimate price increases consumers will see at gasoline retail stations.

It should be noted that the impact on the U.S. gasoline and energy outlook could be more pronounced as a result of unplanned refinery outages and distribution system disruptions. This too, will aggravate already tight energy supplies and leave U.S. consumers paying substantially higher prices for gasoline.

MTBEís vehicle performance contributions, emissions reduction benefits, and stabilizing influence on the nationís gasoline supply have been well documented. More importantly, the health effects associated with its use in gasoline have been extensively studied by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state health agencies, international health organizations, and leading research universities. These studies confirm that MTBE reduces toxic air pollutants such as benzene (a known human carcinogen); reduces carbon monoxide and greenhouse gas emissions; and substantially surpasses all Clean Air Act requirements for the reduction of smog forming compounds.

Ethanol Is Not a Suitable Replacement for MTBE

In 1990, Congress passed a law requiring fuel oxygenates Ė such as Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) and ethanol Ė to be added to Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) to reduce automotive emissions and improve the air we breathe. However, for a variety of economic, logistic and environmental reasons, refiners overwhelmingly favored MTBE over ethanol:

Gasoline Production Economics: Ethanol blends evaporate more readily than MTBE blends. Therefore, using ethanol increases refiner production costs and reduces operating flexibility. For example, the Chicago/Milwaukee ethanol market saw gasoline prices increase 25 cents/gallon over the national average during the summer of 2000. In addition, ethanol contributes about one half the blending volume provided by MTBE, and the maximum amount of ethanol that can be blended into gasoline is capped at 10% (versus 15% for MTBE). As a result, ethanol is unable to dilute many, less desirable, gasoline components.

Ethanolís Tax Subsidy: Ethanol is not economically viable without its substantial federal tax subsidy Ė currently 53 cents per gallon Ė and supplemental state tax incentives.

Supply Uncertainties & Distribution Concerns: Ethanol use is generally limited to the Midwest, with little capacity for expansion. Ethanol supplies can be uncertain due to feedstock (i.e., corn) shortages caused by summer droughts. Ethanolís high affinity for water does not allow blending at the refinery, nor transportation through the existing nation-wide gasoline pipeline infrastructure. Ethanol must be stored in segregated tanks, can only be transported by rail or truck and must be blended into gasoline at the terminal or retail station.

Environmental Concerns: Ethanol emits more harmful smog-forming emissions in the summertime than MTBE due to its high tendency to evaporate. Because ethanol is used in lower volumes, it provides less reduction in toxic air emissions than MTBE. Ethanol also can contribute to increased NOx emissions.

Consumer Acceptance: Automaker owner manuals warn buyers of performance problems with ethanol. Some consumers perceive ethanol-blended gasoline or "gasohol" as an "inferior product."

In addition, energy security implications and consumer costs remain a concern as ethanolís role in future national energy policy is debated:
<DIR><DIR>Ethanolís federal tax subsidy currently reduces money for state road maintenance and transportation infrastructure by over $1.1 billion/year. If ethanol were used to replace MTBE, this figure would grow to over $3.5 billion/year.

MTBE supplies 2.5 times more non-petroleum energy into the nationís gasoline pool than ethanol (at the same oxygen content), thus increasing overall gasoline supplies.


Despite its "renewable fuel" billing, producing ethanol consumes as much energy as it yields as a finished fuel. Lower fuel economy (by as much as 2-5 %) should be expected for ethanol blended gasoline versus conventional, or MTBE-blended, gasoline.


Increasing the use of ethanol would increase the fragility of our nationís gasoline supply outlook and potentially result in a net increase of crude and product imports.


Calls to triple the required use of ethanol would cost U.S. consumers $17 billion over the next nine years.


The large ethanol subsidy generally benefits the large agri-business interests rather than average farmers.
</DIR></DIR>Ethanolís use is uneconomic without a large government subsidy and, outside of the Midwest, it can not be integrated into the nationís gasoline supply and transportation system. Increased reliance on ethanol would result in air quality backsliding. And, most importantly, it can destabilize the nationís gasoline supply without offering significant energy security benefits and without even benefiting Americaís farmers.

Steve
 


Steve I was reading this thread again and started reading this post and was wondering if you know its source? I am interested in using some of this info in my article but want to be able to properly quote it as far as the original source.

Since I posted the original request I have learned so much on the topic it is astounding...

BTW, any members who have not yet posted or voted please do so.

Thanks,
Eli

swstout
09-06-2009, 02:01 AM
Steve I was reading this thread again and started reading this post and was wondering if you know its source? I am interested in using some of this info in my article but want to be able to properly quote it as far as the original source.

Since I posted the original request I have learned so much on the topic it is astounding...

BTW, any members who have not yet posted or voted please do so.

Thanks,
Eli

Hi Eli,

While finishing up my masters degree, I did a paper on the "Global Warming" farce. The data I posted was from my notes. Because I was doing so at a very liberal college - one that professed that combating global warming was the new religion - I didn't submit it. I submitted a paper on coded data statistical process control instead (I waned the degree). I figured if I demigoded American manufacturing there was a better route for success. I compared the evil capitalist system of manufacturing to the quality based Japanese system. I got my degree!

Unfortunately, I kept the notes but not the sources. I did however get all the data by using Goggle. I used something like " problems with ethanol" as my search criteria.

Hope this helps.

Steve

BTW, go to http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/ (http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/) and do your part.

lawncrafter56
09-06-2009, 02:00 PM
Ethanol in my opinion is the biggest fleecing of the American bread n butter earner/tax payer in the history of this country...
We have it in Iowa and go out of my way not to buy it. Proven poor performer!

If ethanol has commercial merit, it doesn't need the subsidy. If it doesn't, no amount of subsidy will bestow it. And that's the truth.

lawncrafter56
09-06-2009, 02:07 PM
MTBE is also very controversial & alarming additive. I perfer neither

swstout
09-06-2009, 02:46 PM
Ethanol in my opinion is the biggest fleecing of the American bread n butter earner/tax payer in the history of this country...
We have it in Iowa and go out of my way not to buy it. Proven poor performer!

If ethanol has commercial merit, it doesn't need the subsidy. If it doesn't, no amount of subsidy will bestow it. And that's the truth.

Even the GAO (Government Accounting Office) predicts that Cap and Trade will raise costs by $65 per week for every American Family. If it uses any form of energy it will cost you more. Manufacturing (I'm using as an example) like all other industries will pay more for raw materials (it takes energy to get then, having the raw materials shipped to them, Manufacturing their products (energy intensive), packaging the products (they too must be packaged, and then again to ship out their products. At least 6 price increases before the product is shipped to where you will purchase it (at an inflated cost).

Where are you going to come up with that extra $65.00 a week?

Steve

lawncrafter56
09-06-2009, 03:08 PM
So true Steve.. I only see a fraction of the transportation handling of Corn base Ethanol right here in Iowa. Make me wonder how the hell it's feasable! But it's good for jobs here in Iowa! Hop on the bandwagon politics as usual.... tag on the subsidy to corn farmers to grow it ..MILLLIONS ..along with the continued taxpayer gifts provided by those gift horses we elect to the processors "POET" for R&D which is probably dulicated from research of other countries.

If the Obama Demo experiment is left unquestioned by the media they will bancrupt this country in his 1 term.

The citizens of this country have to much to loose with this whole economic experiment of economic equality for all

As wisely as forum memeber majoe7 said If we care...speak out .

swstout
09-06-2009, 03:56 PM
So true Steve.. I only see a fraction of the transportation handling of Corn base Ethanol right here in Iowa. Make me wonder how the hell it's feasable! But it's good for jobs here in Iowa! Hop on the bandwagon politics as usual.... tag on the subsidy to corn farmers to grow it ..MILLLIONS ..along with the continued taxpayer gifts provided by those gift horses we elect to the processors "POET" for R&D which is probably dulicated from research of other countries.

If the Obama Demo experiment is left unquestioned by the media they will bancrupt this country in his 1 term.

The citizens of this country have to much to loose with this whole economic experiment of economic equality for all

As wisely as forum memeber majoe7 said If we care...speak out .

Global Warming Histeria GWH)

Did you know that China and India are building a coal powered energy plant every 3 days? Why, they want the manufacturing jobs to all go there. Manufacturing is what made America great. Global warming histeria is outsorcing (a dirty work in the Obama government) all manufacturing jobs to India and China. Taxpayer funded government jobs can't continue if only the service sector jobs are left.

Find out the true costs of GWH. Go to http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/ (http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/)

Do your thing! Let Washington know their party is over!

Steve

SuperiorPower
09-06-2009, 09:36 PM
Well, let me tell you, I could not care less about "going green" etc.... I think I spoke my mind pretty well about that in the past. To see how I really feel about emissions and Al Gore's bologna, see my post here (http://www.gopherforum.com/showthread.php?t=5807&highlight=gore). I think that is what killed that thread! :D

I think anyone with half a mind and who pays any attention to whats going on around them will know Al Gore is a media WHORE.... I can't stand the sight of his face. He is such a liar. What most people don't know is that Al gore uses more propane to heat his mansion in ONE MONTH than the average American FAMILY does in an ENTIRE YEAR! Than you figure in all his airplane use, being driven around in big vehicles, etc... It really is an "inconvenient truth" for him.

When it comes to the whole corn/ethanol thing, let me mention that the only good thing for the farmers is that they sell more corn. Maybe. The only person really making out on this is the owners of the Ethanol plants. It did bring in some more jobs. But at what cost? It makes NO sense to support ethanol when you look at the big picture. I personally believe we need to fire the people who voted this stuff in and vote us in some new people. Perhaps some Constitution party people. Someone who remembers that they are supposed to represent us and someone who is willing to stand on the Constitution. It's there for a reason afterall...

I watched a video on Youtube sometime ago and the guy was talking about the "non-representing representatives"..... Truer words have never been spoken.

Let me tell you, from a mechanic's perspective, let me tell you, ethanol is a HORRIBLE thing..... I am still reeling from some of the info I recently learned. And the people who are behind Ethanol knew this information without a doubt before they brought it out...... These people have only one thing in mind, lining their pockets with your and my money....

swstout
09-06-2009, 11:56 PM
I personally believe we need to fire the people who voted this stuff in and vote us in some new people. Perhaps some Constitution party people. Someone who remembers that they are supposed to represent us and someone who is willing to stand on the Constitution. It's there for a reason afterall...

While at the local farmer's market Friday I overheard heard some people talking about the American Party. One that has representatives that actually read bills they are voting on. One that demands only role call votes so the people being represented know exactly how their representative voted. A party that would change the Constitution the only by Amendments to it. The legal way!

Party affiliation is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. If your party doesn't represent you find a candidate that will. If you are a "registered" whatever (Dem, Rep, Ind.) vote for the candidate that has voted the way you would have. The only way Washington will get the message is through the voting box.

Remember, a no vote is a vote for what you don't want! Investigate, question, VOTE!

Steve

SuperiorPower
09-07-2009, 01:40 AM
I was unable to upload the pdf documents but here (http://www.constitutionparty.com/documents/Crockett_CPweb_.pdf) is the link to it. Please read it and see for yourself what we as a nation have done and how far we have come. I know this does not have anything directly to do with Ethanol, but check it out anyway....

Steve I am not familiar at all with the American Party. Matter of fact, I never heard of them until you mentioned them. I personally really like the Constitution party. They really do stand on their name. The Constitution. The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States and The Bill of Rights are the basis for their platform.

They seek to eliminate congressional pensions. They support legislation to prohibit the attachment of unrelated riders to bills. Any amendments must fit within the scope and object of the original bill. They essentially oppose Presidential Executive Orders. Their entire platform, including the above mentioned issues, are based on The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States and The Bill of Rights. What more can you ask for.


Their platform is far more detailed than the American Party's is. Here is a link to the Constitution Party's platform info: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

I would have to do some research to prove this one way or the other but I know that the Constitution Party opposes the 17 amendment stating that it is not constitutional.... Like said, without researching it and ind out what they are talking about etc I can not take a position on that.

SuperiorPower
09-07-2009, 01:49 AM
Ok, I found the violation. It is in Article 1, section 3 of the constitution...

The difference is here:

Constitution Article 1, section 3:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

VS.

17 Amendment:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

swstout
09-07-2009, 03:23 AM
Steve I am not familiar at all with the American Party. Matter of fact, I never heard of them until you mentioned them. I personally really like the Constitution party. They really do stand on their name. The Constitution. The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States and The Bill of Rights are the basis for their platform.

They seek to eliminate congressional pensions. They support legislation to prohibit the attachment of unrelated riders to bills. Any amendments must fit within the scope and object of the original bill. They essentially oppose Presidential Executive Orders. Their entire platform, including the above mentioned issues, are based on The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States and The Bill of Rights. What more can you ask for.


Their platform is far more detailed than the American Party's is. Here is a link to the Constitution Party's platform info: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php



(http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php)
Wow!

A lot to digest! Definitely not in the best interest of today's politicians. I foresee great opposition to this party by the powers that be.

I do however, view it as a great starting point for judging all candidates. How does their record and rederick jive with the Constitution Party views.

I still feel that everyone should vote on how they are and should be represented. As I said earlier, if you chose not to vote, you are actually voting for what you don't want. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain. You have to be an informed voter!

Steve

SuperiorPower
09-07-2009, 10:28 AM
(http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php)
Wow!

A lot to digest! Definitely not in the best interest of today's politicians. I foresee great opposition to this party by the powers that be.

I do however, view it as a great starting point for judging all candidates. How does their record and rederick jive with the Constitution Party views.

I still feel that everyone should vote on how they are and should be represented. As I said earlier, if you chose not to vote, you are actually voting for what you don't want. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain. You have to be an informed voter!

Steve


Agreed, Vote, or forever hold your peace for the damage that was/is being done by the evil ones who are voted in. Find a good candidate, vote for them, and campaign for them.

It is never good enough to not vote for someone because you don't think they have a flying chance. If you vote for someone you don't believe in then you are voting for the enemy. Example, if you believed in Chuck Baldwin (presidential candidate during this last election) but you believed he did not have a chance to get elected, so you voted for EITHER McCain or Obama, then you voted against Baldwin. It was not alone that you voted for one of the others, but you really voted AGAINST Baldwin.

Let me just ask, can you imagine the result of having Baldwin in as a president with the current congress? Either way, he would not be able to do much good because the other 2 parties would stick together to override his vetoes (and we know there would be plenty vetoes). I believe we need to really work on getting third party candidates into office on the local and state level to where people start seeing the good effects of that. Get the people to believe in the parties and the strengths of third parties.....

BTW guys, did you read the "not yours to give" flier on the Constitution party's website?

Once you read and appreciate that, you will understand the trouble we are in as a nation...

-Eli