• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Ethanol Explanation

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
http://www.energyfuturecoalition.org/biofuels/fact_ethanol.htm

Ethanol is another name for ethyl alcohol, or “grain alcohol” (CH3CH2OH). The alcohol in a glass of wine, beer, or liquor is ethanol. Fuel ethanol is “denatured” by the addition of 2-5% gasoline, which makes it undrinkable. In the U.S. today fuel ethanol is mostly made from the starch in corn kernels; in Brazil it is made from the juice in sugar cane. Commercial production of ethanol from cellulose (plant fiber) is expected within the next few years.
- How is ethanol made?
- How is ethanol used?
- How much oil does the U.S. consume, and how much biofuel?
- How much does it cost to make ethanol?

- How does the ethanol subsidy work?
- What about subsidies for farmers?
- How efficient is ethanol at displacing oil?
- Does ethanol have a positive or negative “energy balance”?
- How is ethanol transported?


The production of ethanol today involves the use of yeast to convert sugar into alcohol – the same fermentation process that has been used for thousands of years, although on a much larger scale. A typical dry mill production facility produces 50 to 100 million gallons of ethanol a year; the process is shown below.

Dry-mill production also results in solid byproducts known as distillers grains and solubles (DGS), which can be dried and used to feed livestock. In some plants close to cattle feedlots, the grains can be fed wet to livestock, avoiding the need for drying and saving both energy and money. The wet-mill process, which begins by soaking the grain in water and acid, generally produces corn oil, corn gluten meal (to feed poultry), and sweeteners in addition to ethanol. Wet mills tend to be much larger than dry mills.

As of February 2007, the ethanol production capacity of the United States was estimated at 5.6 billion gallons per year. An additional capacity of 6.2 billion gallons per year was under construction, which will bring the total capacity to 11.8 billion gallons per year spread across 23 states. Corn represents roughly 95% of the feedstocks used in those facilities. The corn used for ethanol production is field corn typically used to feed livestock, not the sweet corn marketed for human consumption. Nearly 40% of the nation’s ethanol production capacity is farmer-owned.


“The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumac out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust – almost anything. There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented.” – Henry Ford, 1925

Back to top


Ethanol is a high-octane premium fuel. It improves engine performance and prevents “knock.” A blend of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline, or E10, is approved for use in every vehicle sold in the U.S.; about one-third of America’s gasoline contains some ethanol. In the past, this blend has been called gasohol.

Ethanol can also be used as a substitute for gasoline. In the U.S. it is sold in blends of up to 85% (E85). Gasoline, the remaining 15%, is needed to help the fuel ignite in cold weather. In very cold weather, higher proportions of gasoline may be needed. Ethanol at these higher blends should not be used in conventional vehicles but only in flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs), which are designed to run on any combination of ethanol and gasoline up to E85.


• Ethanol will become standard in Indy race cars in 2007, replacing another alcohol – methanol. The higher octane of alcohols (compared to gasoline) allows engines to be set at a higher compression ratio, increasing the car’s performance.


Back to top


The U.S. consumes a little more than 20 million barrels of oil a day. The largest end uses are motor gasoline (9 million barrels) and diesel (4 million barrels). That works out to about 140 billion gallons of gasoline and 60 billion gallons of diesel a year.
In 2006, the U.S. consumed nearly 5.4 billion gallons of ethanol, 12 percent of which was imported. Adjusting for its lower energy content, that amounted to about 2.5% of the total U.S. demand for gasoline. Biodiesel consumption was much lower, about 250 million gallons in 2006.

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress enacted the Renewable Fuels Standard, which requires an annual increase in biofuels use to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. The chart above details past levels of U.S. ethanol production and the minimum levels set by the Renewable Fuels Standard.

In the 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush announced a goal of replacing “more than 75% of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.” According to the Department of Energy, meeting that goal will require 60 billion gallons of biofuels a year. A year later, the President accelerated the timetable and called for “20 in 10.”

“Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we've done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years. … To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017.”
– President George W. Bush, 2007

Back to top


The two largest variables in the cost of ethanol are the cost of corn and the cost of natural gas or other sources of heat needed to process the mixture. When corn costs $2 a bushel, it costs between $1 and $1.20 to make a gallon of ethanol. Because ethanol has only two-thirds the energy content of gasoline, that’s equivalent to $1.50-$1.80 per gallon of gasoline (wholesale), or $50-$60 per barrel of oil. At that price of corn, ethanol is competitive with gasoline with the current subsidy for gasoline blenders when oil costs $30 a barrel or more. It is economically competitive with gasoline without a subsidy when oil costs $50 a barrel or more.

It takes a little more than a third of a bushel of corn to make a gallon of ethanol, so, if the cost of corn rises from $2 to $3 a bushel, that adds about 35 cents to the cost of a gallon of ethanol. At $1.50 a gallon, ethanol competes with gasoline without a subsidy when oil costs $70 a barrel or more. Corn prices spiked upward at the end of 2006 and reached $4 per bushel, but it remains to be seen if that is a temporary phenomenon.

In 2006, crude oil prices ranged from $54 to $74, and wholesale gasoline prices ranged from $1.87 to $2.46 a gallon as retail gasoline prices ranged from $2.28 to $3.08 a gallon.

In the 2006 Annual Energy Outlook, the U.S. Energy Information Administration increased its oil price forecast by $20 a barrel over the next 20 years, relative to its prior-year forecast, as the chart below shows. The price is now not projected to fall below $49.64 during that time.

The red line on top shows the higher oil prices contained in the 2006 Annual Energy Outlook, compared to the 2005 forecast in blue.

It is important to note that the market price of ethanol does not always reflect the cost of production. As oil refiners abandoned the substitute MTBE in 2006, ethanol demand increased. Ethanol prices rose to match or exceed gasoline prices without any major changes in production costs (although corn prices rose late in the year). In addition, most ethanol is sold under long-term contracts, so the spot price of ethanol may not represent typical transactions. Ethanol prices are expected to decline with the increase in production capacity and the accompanying competition.


Back to top


The federal government provides a tax incentive to gasoline blenders (not ethanol producers) to encourage the use of ethanol. This subsidy affects how ethanol’s competitiveness with gasoline. For example, gasoline blends containing 10% ethanol earn a tax credit of 5.1 cents per gallon. In effect, the blenders can pay up to 51 cents more for a gallon of ethanol than the equivalent amount of gasoline and still break even. This tax break is called the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit. Its cost to the government ($2.5 billion in 2006) is offset by savings in crop payments to farmers. In 2006 high corn prices caused by ethanol demand reduced farm support payments by roughly $6 billion.

A tariff of 54 cents a gallon is imposed on most foreign ethanol. The tariff is meant to counterbalance the ethanol tax credit and ensure that foreign producers are not subsidized. Significant exemptions were created by the Central America Free Trade Agreement. More than 700 million gallons of ethanol were imported in 2006, a five-fold increase from 2005.

Some states do pay production subsidies directly to ethanol producers, but the federal tax credit for ethanol is paid to gasoline blenders, not ethanol producers. Small producers receive an additional production income tax credit of 10 cents per gallon on up to 15 million gallons of production annually.

Back to top


Corn growers receive government support if the price of corn falls below a certain level, which encourages production. High levels of production keep the market price low, making ethanol more economically competitive by reducing the cost of corn. On the other hand, ethanol production reduces farm payments because the increased demand for corn causes its price to rise. (It also increases taxable farm income.)

• Animals consumed most of the corn produced in the U.S. in 2005 – 54.5% of 11 billion bushels. The rest went to exports (18.2%), ethanol (14.7%), and domestic food consumption (12.4%).


Back to top


Every gallon of ethanol requires a small amount of petroleum, mostly for farming. The equivalent of 5-8% of the energy in ethanol goes to such uses as diesel for farm tractors, fuel to ship corn to a processing plant, and more fuel to ship the finished ethanol to a pump. Most of the energy used at a processing plant comes from natural gas or coal. Thus, ethanol is highly effective at displacing oil; just one gallon of oil is required to make 12-20 gallons of ethanol. On this point, it makes little difference whether the ethanol is made from corn, sugar cane, or cellulose.

Back to top


The term “energy balance” refers to the difference between the amount of fossil energy needed to produce a fuel and the energy the fuel contains. It takes energy to transform any product from one form into another. (For example, electricity contains less than 40% of the energy of the coal used to make it.) For every unit of energy delivered at the pump, corn ethanol requires 0.76 units of fossil energy, and gasoline requires 1.22 units. The use of ethanol thus results in the consumption of 40% less fossil energy than the gasoline it replaces. Papers by a Cornell entomologist and a Berkeley petroleum geologist have asserted a more negative view of ethanol and have received much attention – but their methodology has been disputed by their peers.

Most of the fossil energy consumed in making corn ethanol goes to processing the feedstock – from cooking and distilling to drying the distillers grains. Very little fossil energy is needed to make ethanol if renewable energy is used for processing. For example, in Brazil, sugar cane waste, known as “bagasse,” is used for boiler fuel. Thus Brazilian ethanol contains eight times more energy than was required to make it. Ethanol from cellulose is expected to have a similar fossil energy balance (and therefore greenhouse gas balance). In one assessment, cellulosic ethanol from wood residue required 0.16 units of fossil energy per unit of delivered energy; corn stover required just 0.09 units. The fossil energy balance of corn ethanol would improve if corn stalks, wood waste, or methane from cattle manure were used for its process heat, as a couple of U.S. facilities already do.

Back to top


Ethanol in the U.S. is transported mostly by truck, train, and barge, unlike oil, which is generally transported through pipelines. Unlike oil, ethanol mixes with water. Because water accumulation in pipelines is a normal occurrence, unless the pipeline is cleaned out and made watertight, transporting ethanol in a pipeline risks making it unusable as a fuel. Given the time and resources required to make oil pipelines suitable for ethanol, as well as the diffuse sources of U.S. ethanol supply, it currently makes more sense to transport the fuel in other ways. However, as production of ethanol increases, it may make sense to make the investment needed to “dry out” pipelines, or new water-tight pipelines may be built, as they are in Brazil.



© 2007 Energy Future Coalition, All Rights Reserved
ition, All Rights Reserved
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
ethanol is in the same category as wind, solar, and research on other forms of energy as methane from garbage sites etc. It is research and a sperate issue as fuel production. No matter ones belief in ethanol subsidies it is a seperate issue. It is an area where the government has stuck their nose and got into the R & D. Now maybe it can be argued that it is for national security.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Larrry said:
ethanol is in the same category as wind, solar, and research on other forms of energy as methane from garbage sites etc. It is research and a sperate issue as fuel production. No matter ones belief in ethanol subsidies it is a seperate issue. It is an area where the government has stuck their nose and got into the R & D. Now maybe it can be argued that it is for national security.


I guess you could say the same thing about every product that has come out of university research, Larry, which is A LOT of products.

We need to push the technology in the direction we know the economy will go in because of limited sources of cheap oil. The more we do it, the easier it will be to deal with the supply/demand price of limited oil resources on the planet.

Think of it as forward thinking. Not everything will play out as planned and we should expect that to happen. We need to keep finding other sources of energy than just in the ground oil.

Tex
 

BRG

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
North Western SD
In my opinion, we should not use food sources for fuel. The world will become more hungry for food than for fuel in the future.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,144
Reaction score
13
Location
BC
Quote:
Most of the energy used at a processing plant comes from natural gas or coal. Thus, ethanol is highly effective at displacing oil;

I can never help but wonder why we don't just skip the whole ethanol idea altogether and focus on using more natural gas to displace oil
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Tex said:
Larrry said:
ethanol is in the same category as wind, solar, and research on other forms of energy as methane from garbage sites etc. It is research and a sperate issue as fuel production. No matter ones belief in ethanol subsidies it is a seperate issue. It is an area where the government has stuck their nose and got into the R & D. Now maybe it can be argued that it is for national security.


I guess you could say the same thing about every product that has come out of university research, Larry, which is A LOT of products.

We need to push the technology in the direction we know the economy will go in because of limited sources of cheap oil. The more we do it, the easier it will be to deal with the supply/demand price of limited oil resources on the planet.

Think of it as forward thinking. Not everything will play out as planned and we should expect that to happen. We need to keep finding other sources of energy than just in the ground oil.

Tex

Can you please tell me again how government manipulation of the economy has worked out for the houseing industry, the automobile industry, the banking industry, I just can't remember what happened last time? :roll:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
BRG said:
In my opinion, we should not use food sources for fuel. The world will become more hungry for food than for fuel in the future.

Ethanol does not use human food for fuel. The products used for are grains for livestock. The funny thing about that is that the production of ethanol will keep the prices of fuels down and freight on almost all products used in the US. The oddest thing about ethanol production is that the byproduct of ethanol production is a big protein source. Considering there is a worldwide shortage, it isn't such a bad trade off.

Sure it will cut into livestock feed such as energy in feeds, but the livestock industry has used this energy source in excess because it was cheap. We beef producers need to produce our product on as little inputs as possible. We shouldn't rely on our success as beef producers at the expense of the grain farmers.

As i said before the only logical argument against ethanol is the gov subsidy for the green energy's. I also believe that the technology for ethanol will advance and maybe in the future grains will not be used at all for ethanol production. Oh and may I say in closing drill, drill, drill
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
okfarmer said:
Tex said:
Larrry said:
ethanol is in the same category as wind, solar, and research on other forms of energy as methane from garbage sites etc. It is research and a sperate issue as fuel production. No matter ones belief in ethanol subsidies it is a seperate issue. It is an area where the government has stuck their nose and got into the R & D. Now maybe it can be argued that it is for national security.


I guess you could say the same thing about every product that has come out of university research, Larry, which is A LOT of products.

We need to push the technology in the direction we know the economy will go in because of limited sources of cheap oil. The more we do it, the easier it will be to deal with the supply/demand price of limited oil resources on the planet.

Think of it as forward thinking. Not everything will play out as planned and we should expect that to happen. We need to keep finding other sources of energy than just in the ground oil.

Tex

Can you please tell me again how government manipulation of the economy has worked out for the houseing industry, the automobile industry, the banking industry, I just can't remember what happened last time? :roll:

I might if I had ever made the assertion that it has.

We forgot some very important rules of the economy that we learned about capitalism without rules that lead to the Great Depression. We chunked those rules out the window (thanks Phil Gramm) and allowed a huge scam of using other people's money to make money with little risk. It didn't work. Yes, it made a few people very wealthy, and they haven't paid the price for that-- the public has. Too big to fail is too big to exist. Politicians have been selling the public good and the rules we should be living by to the highest bidder. It doesn't work in the long run, it just concentrates the wealth of the nation into the hands of the few.

I could tell you how the automobile industry and the banking industry self destructed because those rules were not followed, but I think you can see that for yourself.

Tex
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Tex said:
okfarmer said:
Tex said:
I guess you could say the same thing about every product that has come out of university research, Larry, which is A LOT of products.

We need to push the technology in the direction we know the economy will go in because of limited sources of cheap oil. The more we do it, the easier it will be to deal with the supply/demand price of limited oil resources on the planet.

Think of it as forward thinking. Not everything will play out as planned and we should expect that to happen. We need to keep finding other sources of energy than just in the ground oil.

Tex

Can you please tell me again how government manipulation of the economy has worked out for the houseing industry, the automobile industry, the banking industry, I just can't remember what happened last time? :roll:

I might if I had ever made the assertion that it has.

We forgot some very important rules of the economy that we learned about capitalism without rules that lead to the Great Depression. We chunked those rules out the window (thanks Phil Gramm) and allowed a huge scam of using other people's money to make money with little risk. It didn't work. Yes, it made a few people very wealthy, and they haven't paid the price for that-- the public has. Too big to fail is too big to exist. Politicians have been selling the public good and the rules we should be living by to the highest bidder. It doesn't work in the long run, it just concentrates the wealth of the nation into the hands of the few.

I could tell you how the automobile industry and the banking industry self destructed because those rules were not followed, but I think you can see that for yourself.

Tex

What has this discussion been about and how were you suggesting to push technology?
\
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Larrry said:
BRG said:
In my opinion, we should not use food sources for fuel. The world will become more hungry for food than for fuel in the future.

Ethanol does not use human food for fuel. The products used for are grains for livestock. The funny thing about that is that the production of ethanol will keep the prices of fuels down and freight on almost all products used in the US. The oddest thing about ethanol production is that the byproduct of ethanol production is a big protein source. Considering there is a worldwide shortage, it isn't such a bad trade off.

Sure it will cut into livestock feed such as energy in feeds, but the livestock industry has used this energy source in excess because it was cheap. We beef producers need to produce our product on as little inputs as possible. We shouldn't rely on our success as beef producers at the expense of the grain farmers.

As i said before the only logical argument against ethanol is the gov subsidy for the green energy's. I also believe that the technology for ethanol will advance and maybe in the future grains will not be used at all for ethanol production. Oh and may I say in closing drill, drill, drill


Larry, the subsidies that make ethanol competitive are costing the taxpayer as much as the difference in the price of conventional fuel, if ethanol was not subsidized.

Did I say that correctly? :lol:

Don't be a "Romney". You cannot believe in these type of subsidies and be a conservative at the same time.
 

BRG

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
North Western SD
Larrry said:
BRG said:
In my opinion, we should not use food sources for fuel. The world will become more hungry for food than for fuel in the future.

Ethanol does not use human food for fuel. The products used for are grains for livestock. The funny thing about that is that the production of ethanol will keep the prices of fuels down and freight on almost all products used in the US. The oddest thing about ethanol production is that the byproduct of ethanol production is a big protein source. Considering there is a worldwide shortage, it isn't such a bad trade off.

Sure it will cut into livestock feed such as energy in feeds, but the livestock industry has used this energy source in excess because it was cheap. We beef producers need to produce our product on as little inputs as possible. We shouldn't rely on our success as beef producers at the expense of the grain farmers.

As i said before the only logical argument against ethanol is the gov subsidy for the green energy's. I also believe that the technology for ethanol will advance and maybe in the future grains will not be used at all for ethanol production. Oh and may I say in closing drill, drill, drill

First of all, I am not trying to pick a fight.

Corn does not directly go into human consumption, but it has gotten more expensive for the beef, hog, chicken, etc producers to use, which in turn goes toward the human food. So yes it does affect human consumption. Ethonal byproducts are great, but they are getting to a point where they are not affordable anymore either, all due to the price of oil and the demand for ethonal. Now as far as the other types of ethonal like switch grass and whatnot, these are taking farm acres as well, which could be livestock feed. I would much rather pay a farmer for ethonal than an arab for oil, but it just doesn't make any sense to me, when we are going to need twice as much food in the future to feed the world.

On another note about ethonal, if it was so good and efficient, why wouldn't they use ethonal to fuel the ethonal plants instead of coal? Evidently it isn't as efficient as they tell us. Also, I don't think their should be any subsidies for it. If they can't make it on their own, then do something else. Again, not trying to pick a fight, just my opinion.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
That is the problem I have with ethanol, the subsidies. But there a positive points to ethanol, such as another form of fuel to rely on if needed. The studies I saw showed that the ethanol had kept gas prices around 76 cents lower because of ethanol.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Larrry said:
That is the problem I have with ethanol, the subsidies. But there a positive points to ethanol, such as another form of fuel to rely on if needed. The studies I saw showed that the ethanol had kept gas prices around 76 cents lower because of ethanol.


Most if not all new technologies require investment. The ethanol subsidies were an investment in substituting ethanol for gasoline. After the environmental problems with MTB, the oil companies had to have a substitute for that too, and ethanol fit the bill perfectly. You rarely hear of water in gas tanks because most gas treatments were ethanol based because ethanol dissolves water into gas and you get rid of the water in your tank.

The ethanol subsidies were fine to get this industry started. The subsidy was paid to gas blenders (oil companies), not directly to farmers. We had an over abundance corn because farmers were out producing demand. Using corn for ethanol helped solve some of these problems as the article I posted stated.

Now we are at a point where the subsidies may not be needed because the price of gas is so high and ethanol is lower. To get the industry started, they needed the subsidies.

My question is that when subsidies have done their job and started an industry, does Congress have the competence to review the program and reduce the subsidies. They were only there to give a kick start to the industry, not to subsidize it forever.

I like to use the example of someone push starting a motor bike. After it gets going, there is no reason to keep pushing it.

Does Congress have the competence to allow the taxpayer to stop pushing the motor bike when it is going faster than the pusher can push?

It seems Congress is too busy fighting between the two parties than to govern effectively.

Everything has its season, the Good Book says, but it seems Congressional spending is the exception.

I would much rather see Congress take the waste out of programs or to set them up right in the beginning, than to cut things like SS to elderly people who have paid into it all their lives.

It just doesn't make sense.

Tex
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
That is pretty close to my thinking on ethanol. One of the big things I liked about ethanol is that you got the common Joes out there investing in ethanol.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Larrry said:
That is pretty close to my thinking on ethanol. One of the big things I liked about ethanol is that you got the common Joes out there investing in ethanol.

I knew some of the common Joes that did invest and with a few turns of the market, they were basically cheated out of that investment and now Cargill has the ethanol plant that the farmers built.

This kind of thing has to stop. We can't just let the well entrenched steal all the value in the economy out of the average Joes with their power and might. That is a HUGE lapse in competent governance of the nation by those running it---the politicians who are on the take.

Tex
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
What happened to some of those ethanol plants is that some plants jumped in head first and didn't have everything covered. Then they came up short in the investment backing and they were there for the taking by some other bigger company. Haste and the uncertaintity of the fed gov played a big role in the demise of some of these.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Larrry said:
What happened to some of those ethanol plants is that some plants jumped in head first and didn't have everything covered. Then they came up short in the investment backing and they were there for the taking by some other bigger company. Haste and the uncertaintity of the fed gov played a big role in the demise of some of these.

I didn't get to talk to this fellow for long enough to get the whole story, so I don't know exactly what happened there. It was a story I would have liked to hear from beginning to end with all the details but I just didn't have time at the moment. I don't like it when little guys can put all the weight on and then get swallowed up because there is a much bigger fish in the pond.

Tex
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
Tex said:
Larrry said:
What happened to some of those ethanol plants is that some plants jumped in head first and didn't have everything covered. Then they came up short in the investment backing and they were there for the taking by some other bigger company. Haste and the uncertaintity of the fed gov played a big role in the demise of some of these.

I didn't get to talk to this fellow for long enough to get the whole story, so I don't know exactly what happened there. It was a story I would have liked to hear from beginning to end with all the details but I just didn't have time at the moment. I don't like it when little guys can put all the weight on and then get swallowed up because there is a much bigger fish in the pond.

Tex

agree
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Tex said:
Larrry said:
That is pretty close to my thinking on ethanol. One of the big things I liked about ethanol is that you got the common Joes out there investing in ethanol.

I knew some of the common Joes that did invest and with a few turns of the market, they were basically cheated out of that investment and now Cargill has the ethanol plant that the farmers built.

This kind of thing has to stop. We can't just let the well entrenched steal all the value in the economy out of the average Joes with their power and might. That is a HUGE lapse in competent governance of the nation by those running it---the politicians who are on the take.

Tex

more government control is obviously the answer, they, (Government) should legislate more regulations

:lol: :lol:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
hypocritexposer said:
Tex said:
Larrry said:
That is pretty close to my thinking on ethanol. One of the big things I liked about ethanol is that you got the common Joes out there investing in ethanol.

I knew some of the common Joes that did invest and with a few turns of the market, they were basically cheated out of that investment and now Cargill has the ethanol plant that the farmers built.

This kind of thing has to stop. We can't just let the well entrenched steal all the value in the economy out of the average Joes with their power and might. That is a HUGE lapse in competent governance of the nation by those running it---the politicians who are on the take.

Tex

more government control is obviously the answer, they, (Government) should legislate more regulations

:lol: :lol:


That is way too broad of a stroke, hypocrite. They should be competent in the laws that make the programs, not open ended. The ethanol subsidies should not be there when ethanol is at a lower price than gasoline and if gas companies are not putting it in, we should all be asking them why.

Unfortunately, it takes regulations to fix some of these things or better yet, find the people who made the law open ended and hold them accountable. Ask them why they haven't fixed it already and how much money it has cost taxpayers since the cost of gas was over the cost of ethanol.

We need competence in Washington more than we need partisan politics. We are just not getting it from either side.

Just making a negative quirp about regulations is not going to solve ANY of these problems and may even make them worse. Every law needs to react to the changing conditions on the ground, not be stifled by them.

Tex
 

Latest posts

Top