patrick_g
Elite Member
I have a couple diesel fuel and foreign oil dependence sort of questions-topics floating around in my head that I'm not quite sure how to express but here goes:
1. I don't understand why diesel fuel which is easier to refine than gasoline is more expensive. Didn't used to be that way. What changed so drastically?
2. Gasohol or ethanol for motor fuel. Pickups are offered with engine options for burning fuel that is 85% ethanol (grain alcohol.) Why do we want to subsidize the ethanol industry with huge $ from our tax money so the corn growers can use more chemical fertilizers (petrochemical dependent) and diesel fuel to plant, tend, harvest, and transport corn as feedstock to the ethanol industry to make motor fuel?
Studies have shown there is little or no net energy surplus in "ethanol for motor fuel" after you account for all the diesel and petrochemicals used to produce it. If our tax $ weren't being diverted to prop up corn-ethanol, the corn-ethanol industry would not make it on its own because it does not produce an energy surplus. It is just a sham.
As corn is used in the ethanol game, corn prices are up and pork, beef, chickens, eggs, milk and so forth are pulled along.
I'm interested in protecting the environment and reducing dependency on foreign oil but the corn/ethanol for fuel industry we are subsidizing isn't doing that and probably never will. Burning a clean fuel like ethanol is a good idea but only if you can produce it while consuming less energy and oil than it replaces. If you aren't coming out ahead, why do it?
I think it is a political charade. Politicians are afraid to make a hard decision that will upset many folks so they subsidize an industry to give the appearance of doing something good while accomplishing nothing and wasting $. Of course the folks receiving the subsidy aren't complaining and give political support to the politicians granting the subsidy. Everybody is happy and no one is hurt except it doesn't lower our dependence on foreign oil and it makes a lot of our food cost more, and it doesn't help the price of diesel.
Using cellulose (plant fiber) for feedstock to produce ethanol is a much better and more sound approach so far as producing a net energy surplus and not negatively impacting so many other commodity prices but is not so far along in development and viability as ethanol from corn technology (essentially a whiskey still.)
Ethanol from cellulose is so much more deserving of subsidy to get it up and running since it has the potential to actually help not just shuffle $ around in an impotent charade of pretense. Switch grass and lots of other feedstocks for producing ethanol are better choices than corn so far as a net energy surplus in the output is concerned. Gasohol/ethanol motorfuel from grass and other cellulose sources would ease demand on oil, reduce diesel prices, food prices, and dependence on foreign oil.
Of course, to expect the political types to actually do the right thing when pretending to do the right thing is so much easier and gets more votes, is probably not realistic.
Sorry if this offended anyone but I think ever increasing prices for diesel, fertilizers and ag chemicals (oil dependent) are marginalizing us small operations. A gal of a particular insecticide this year is $60 for what cost $40 last year, same brand, same concentration, same amount.
Note: I am for clean fuel. But... corn to ethanol is not a viable fuel industry and exists only because of substantial inputs of our tax money to prop it up. Subsidies are not inherently bad but in this case what is the net good to the population of the country? It doesn't save oil, just diverts its consumption and increases out food and fuel costs.
Why do we let the politicians use our $ to buy them votes from the subsidized industry? Especially when in the long run (something politicians don't like to think about as their planning horizon never extends appreciably beyond their next election) corn-ethanol is NOT a benefit. Ethanol from cellulose can be so why not push a potential winner instead of beating a dead horse. The parrot may be beautiful but if it is dead and the only reason it sits on its perch is because it is nailed there then we need to look for another pet. (apologies to Monty Python)
Pat
1. I don't understand why diesel fuel which is easier to refine than gasoline is more expensive. Didn't used to be that way. What changed so drastically?
2. Gasohol or ethanol for motor fuel. Pickups are offered with engine options for burning fuel that is 85% ethanol (grain alcohol.) Why do we want to subsidize the ethanol industry with huge $ from our tax money so the corn growers can use more chemical fertilizers (petrochemical dependent) and diesel fuel to plant, tend, harvest, and transport corn as feedstock to the ethanol industry to make motor fuel?
Studies have shown there is little or no net energy surplus in "ethanol for motor fuel" after you account for all the diesel and petrochemicals used to produce it. If our tax $ weren't being diverted to prop up corn-ethanol, the corn-ethanol industry would not make it on its own because it does not produce an energy surplus. It is just a sham.
As corn is used in the ethanol game, corn prices are up and pork, beef, chickens, eggs, milk and so forth are pulled along.
I'm interested in protecting the environment and reducing dependency on foreign oil but the corn/ethanol for fuel industry we are subsidizing isn't doing that and probably never will. Burning a clean fuel like ethanol is a good idea but only if you can produce it while consuming less energy and oil than it replaces. If you aren't coming out ahead, why do it?
I think it is a political charade. Politicians are afraid to make a hard decision that will upset many folks so they subsidize an industry to give the appearance of doing something good while accomplishing nothing and wasting $. Of course the folks receiving the subsidy aren't complaining and give political support to the politicians granting the subsidy. Everybody is happy and no one is hurt except it doesn't lower our dependence on foreign oil and it makes a lot of our food cost more, and it doesn't help the price of diesel.
Using cellulose (plant fiber) for feedstock to produce ethanol is a much better and more sound approach so far as producing a net energy surplus and not negatively impacting so many other commodity prices but is not so far along in development and viability as ethanol from corn technology (essentially a whiskey still.)
Ethanol from cellulose is so much more deserving of subsidy to get it up and running since it has the potential to actually help not just shuffle $ around in an impotent charade of pretense. Switch grass and lots of other feedstocks for producing ethanol are better choices than corn so far as a net energy surplus in the output is concerned. Gasohol/ethanol motorfuel from grass and other cellulose sources would ease demand on oil, reduce diesel prices, food prices, and dependence on foreign oil.
Of course, to expect the political types to actually do the right thing when pretending to do the right thing is so much easier and gets more votes, is probably not realistic.
Sorry if this offended anyone but I think ever increasing prices for diesel, fertilizers and ag chemicals (oil dependent) are marginalizing us small operations. A gal of a particular insecticide this year is $60 for what cost $40 last year, same brand, same concentration, same amount.
Note: I am for clean fuel. But... corn to ethanol is not a viable fuel industry and exists only because of substantial inputs of our tax money to prop it up. Subsidies are not inherently bad but in this case what is the net good to the population of the country? It doesn't save oil, just diverts its consumption and increases out food and fuel costs.
Why do we let the politicians use our $ to buy them votes from the subsidized industry? Especially when in the long run (something politicians don't like to think about as their planning horizon never extends appreciably beyond their next election) corn-ethanol is NOT a benefit. Ethanol from cellulose can be so why not push a potential winner instead of beating a dead horse. The parrot may be beautiful but if it is dead and the only reason it sits on its perch is because it is nailed there then we need to look for another pet. (apologies to Monty Python)
Pat
