# Stop selling ethanol and see what happens



## rdean

A study came along this past week from economists at Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin that found that if ethanol production came to an immediate halt, the estimated gasoline price increase would be what the researcher described as historic proportions, ranging from 41 to 92 percent.

Thats roughly $5.50 to $7.50 of gasoline per gallon.

The same research team, in a study sponsored by the Renewable Fuels Association and released by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), found that the increased use of ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of $0.89 per gallon in 2010. The average effect increased to $0.89 per gallon, and the regional impact ranges from $0.58 per gallon on the East Coast to $1.37 per gallon in the Midwest, according to the studys authors.

Ethanol In Pottersville

Thought this was interesting.


----------



## dilloduck

rdean said:


> A study came along this past week from economists at Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin that found that if ethanol production came to an immediate halt, the estimated gasoline price increase would be what the researcher described as historic proportions, ranging from 41 to 92 percent.
> 
> Thats roughly $5.50 to $7.50 of gasoline per gallon.
> 
> The same research team, in a study sponsored by the Renewable Fuels Association and released by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), found that the increased use of ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of $0.89 per gallon in 2010. The average effect increased to $0.89 per gallon, and the regional impact ranges from $0.58 per gallon on the East Coast to $1.37 per gallon in the Midwest, according to the studys authors.
> 
> Ethanol In Pottersville
> 
> Thought this was interesting.



Those democrat scientists were sure smart to figure that one out !


----------



## Mr. H.

Why don't we just stop selling 30% of the ethanol?
Exports were not in the original intent of the program when it was shoved down our trotes.


----------



## Bern80

rdean said:


> A study came along this past week from economists at Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin that found that if ethanol production came to an immediate halt, the estimated gasoline price increase would be what the researcher described as historic proportions, ranging from 41 to 92 percent.
> 
> Thats roughly $5.50 to $7.50 of gasoline per gallon.
> 
> The same research team, *in a study sponsored by the Renewable Fuels Association and released by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD)*, found that the increased use of ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of $0.89 per gallon in 2010. The average effect increased to $0.89 per gallon, and the regional impact ranges from $0.58 per gallon on the East Coast to $1.37 per gallon in the Midwest, according to the studys authors.
> 
> Ethanol In Pottersville
> 
> Thought this was interesting.



Hmmmm a study funded by an environmental lobby and corn farmers. Nope, no special interests there. I'm sure it was a completely objective study. 

Geez, dean at least be smart enough not to include such a damning peice of information when trying to mislead people.


----------



## Mr. H.

Chuvved down our trotes I tell ya!

Is this story supposed to enforce the illusion of the importance of ethanol?
Is it a threat?

It's a goddamn cottage industry, sold to America like a huckster pushing snake oil.


----------



## rdean

Bern80 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> A study came along this past week from economists at Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin that found that if ethanol production came to an immediate halt, the estimated gasoline price increase would be what the researcher described as historic proportions, ranging from 41 to 92 percent.
> 
> Thats roughly $5.50 to $7.50 of gasoline per gallon.
> 
> The same research team, *in a study sponsored by the Renewable Fuels Association and released by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD)*, found that the increased use of ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of $0.89 per gallon in 2010. The average effect increased to $0.89 per gallon, and the regional impact ranges from $0.58 per gallon on the East Coast to $1.37 per gallon in the Midwest, according to the studys authors.
> 
> Ethanol In Pottersville
> 
> Thought this was interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm a study funded by an environmental lobby and corn farmers. Nope, no special interests there. I'm sure it was a completely objective study.
> 
> Geez, dean at least be smart enough not to include such a damning peice of information when trying to mislead people.
Click to expand...


Because those two universities are such hotbeds of lying and creative statistics.  Unlike the Heritage Foundation.


----------



## Bern80

rdean said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> A study came along this past week from economists at Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin that found that if ethanol production came to an immediate halt, the estimated gasoline price increase would be what the researcher described as &#8220;historic proportions,&#8221; ranging from 41 to 92 percent.
> 
> That&#8217;s roughly $5.50 to $7.50 of gasoline per gallon.
> 
> The same research team, *in a study sponsored by the Renewable Fuels Association and released by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD)*, found that the increased use of ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of $0.89 per gallon in 2010. The average effect increased to $0.89 per gallon, and the regional impact ranges from $0.58 per gallon on the East Coast to $1.37 per gallon in the Midwest, according to the study&#8217;s authors.
> 
> Ethanol In Pottersville
> 
> Thought this was interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm a study funded by an environmental lobby and corn farmers. Nope, no special interests there. I'm sure it was a completely objective study.
> 
> Geez, dean at least be smart enough not to include such a damning peice of information when trying to mislead people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because those two universities are such hotbeds of lying and creative statistics.  Unlike the Heritage Foundation.
Click to expand...


I see, so the Heritage Foundation's bias effects the outcome of studies, but the bias of the above groups don't, huh? Your arguments are getting dumber by the post.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

> *Stop selling ethanol and see what happens*


Less gasoline would be burned. Therefore less pollution.

Ethanol makes gasoline more inefficient. You have to use more fuel to get the same work. Therefore you have to burn more, buy more. The perfect scheme. What a boondoggle.


----------



## Zander

Food prices would drop.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rdean said:


> A study came along this past week from economists at Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin that found that if ethanol production came to an immediate halt, the estimated gasoline price increase would be what the researcher described as historic proportions, ranging from 41 to 92 percent.
> 
> Thats roughly $5.50 to $7.50 of gasoline per gallon.
> 
> The same research team, in a study sponsored by the Renewable Fuels Association and released by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), found that the increased use of ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of $0.89 per gallon in 2010. The average effect increased to $0.89 per gallon, and the regional impact ranges from $0.58 per gallon on the East Coast to $1.37 per gallon in the Midwest, according to the studys authors.
> 
> Ethanol In Pottersville
> 
> Thought this was interesting.



Who wants to stop selling it? We just want to stop supporting big business with corporate welfare. When did you become a Republican and start supporting massive tax breaks for billionaires?


----------



## Bern80

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> A study came along this past week from economists at Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin that found that if ethanol production came to an immediate halt, the estimated gasoline price increase would be what the researcher described as historic proportions, ranging from 41 to 92 percent.
> 
> Thats roughly $5.50 to $7.50 of gasoline per gallon.
> 
> The same research team, in a study sponsored by the Renewable Fuels Association and released by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), found that the increased use of ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of $0.89 per gallon in 2010. The average effect increased to $0.89 per gallon, and the regional impact ranges from $0.58 per gallon on the East Coast to $1.37 per gallon in the Midwest, according to the studys authors.
> 
> Ethanol In Pottersville
> 
> Thought this was interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who wants to stop selling it? We just want to stop supporting big business with corporate welfare. When did you become a Republican and start supporting massive tax breaks for billionaires?
Click to expand...


The hypocrisy of the left is amazing. They claim to be all anti corporate america and want to end government favors. But talk about ending farm subsidies or eliminating tariffs and my how the tune changes.


----------



## Mr. H.

It's been a forced-fed agra-doggle from day one. Presented on a shiny platter of back room schemes and unattainalbe promises.


----------



## Two Thumbs

So a university, in a state that grows tons upon tons of corn discovered that we need to keep using corn for fuel.

shocking, no really, there's no chance they looked at the facts the way they were told to, no, no chance they lied or twisted facts around, none at all.


----------



## KissMy

I haven't read the report yet but I know it is true. Here is how to prove it.

In the winter the demand for heating-oil/diesel-fuel is high & gasoline is low. That makes gasoline a bi-product from the barrels of crude oil they refine into heating oil. So the gas price dropped below & heating-oil/diesel-fuel would rise above gasoline every winter.

The exact opposite happened every summer.

In the summer the demand for gasoline is high & heating-oil/diesel-fuel is low. That makes heating-oil/diesel-fuel a bi-product from the barrels of crude oil they refine into gasoline. So the heating-oil/diesel-fuel price dropped below & gasoline would rise above heating-oil/diesel-fuel every winter.

Before the big rise in Ethanol production this translated into gasoline being at least 25% higher than diesel-fuel at the pump in the summer & diesel-fuel costing at least 25% more than gasoline in the winter.

Now in the past 3 years gasoline prices never even get as high as diesel-fuel even in the summer. At current prices that means Ethanol is holding Gasoline prices at the pump down by at least a $1 a gallon.


----------



## FireFly

I have been burning E85 Ethanol for about 10 years & I love it. last time I filled up gas was $3.99 & E85 was $3.05 & people were waiting in line at the E85 pump. That is definitely holding down gasoline prices & lower gas prices creates jobs in this country. The ethanol industry also creates jobs in this country. U.S. ethanol production will eliminate the need for more than 212 million barrels of imported crude oil worth $21 billion in 2011. That is a real genuine stimulus plan if there ever was one.


----------



## Annie

Hmmm,

How ethanol is jacking up your gas costs | Bankrate.com


----------



## FireFly

Annie said:


> Hmmm,
> 
> How ethanol is jacking up your gas costs | Bankrate.com



Hmmm, Ethanol is holding gasoline prices at the pump over a dollar a gallon & E85 ethanol cost almost a dollar less than the lowered gasoline price. That means E85 ethanol is $2 a gallon less than if we had no ethanol & all had to use expensive gas. It is a no brainer, I would definitely use ethanol that gets a few percent lower mileage if it save $2 a gallon. Not only am I saving my self $2 a gallon but I am also saving you a dollar a gallon by lowering gasoline demand thereby lowering your cost by at least a buck a gallon. You should pay me for saving you money.

Gasoline in Canada is already well over $5 a gallon. They are just now starting to get on the ethanol bandwagon. This year they will have 1,000 gas stations selling E10 gasoline. Soon their gasoline prices will drop to be more in line with ours if they continue to increase their use of ethanol.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

FireFly said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm,
> 
> How ethanol is jacking up your gas costs | Bankrate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, Ethanol is holding gasoline prices at the pump over a dollar a gallon & E85 ethanol cost almost a dollar less than the lowered gasoline price. That means E85 ethanol is $2 a gallon less than if we had no ethanol & all had to use expensive gas. It is a no brainer, I would definitely use ethanol that gets a few percent lower mileage if it save $2 a gallon. Not only am I saving my self $2 a gallon but I am also saving you a dollar a gallon by lowering gasoline demand thereby lowering your cost by at least a buck a gallon. You should pay me for saving you money.
> 
> Gasoline in Canada is already well over $5 a gallon. They are just now starting to get on the ethanol bandwagon. This year they will have 1,000 gas stations selling E10 gasoline. Soon their gasoline prices will drop to be more in line with ours if they continue to increase their use of ethanol.
Click to expand...


What makes you think ethanol keeps the price of gasoline down? The only reason ethanol even exists is because the government subsidizes it. that means that every federal taxpayer is paying gasoline taxes even if they do not drive.


----------



## Annie

Quantum Windbag said:


> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm,
> 
> How ethanol is jacking up your gas costs | Bankrate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, Ethanol is holding gasoline prices at the pump over a dollar a gallon & E85 ethanol cost almost a dollar less than the lowered gasoline price. That means E85 ethanol is $2 a gallon less than if we had no ethanol & all had to use expensive gas. It is a no brainer, I would definitely use ethanol that gets a few percent lower mileage if it save $2 a gallon. Not only am I saving my self $2 a gallon but I am also saving you a dollar a gallon by lowering gasoline demand thereby lowering your cost by at least a buck a gallon. You should pay me for saving you money.
> 
> Gasoline in Canada is already well over $5 a gallon. They are just now starting to get on the ethanol bandwagon. This year they will have 1,000 gas stations selling E10 gasoline. Soon their gasoline prices will drop to be more in line with ours if they continue to increase their use of ethanol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think ethanol keeps the price of gasoline down? The only reason ethanol even exists is because the government subsidizes it. that means that every federal taxpayer is paying gasoline taxes even if they do not drive.
Click to expand...


Ethanol is a lose for environment; at the pump; and at the food stand. Lose/lose proposition for everyone other than those subsidized, especially the big corn producers and their favorite politicians.


----------



## Bern80

FireFly said:


> I have been burning E85 Ethanol for about 10 years & I love it. last time I filled up gas was $3.99 & E85 was $3.05 & people were waiting in line at the E85 pump. That is definitely holding down gasoline prices & lower gas prices creates jobs in this country. The ethanol industry also creates jobs in this country. U.S. ethanol production will eliminate the need for more than 212 million barrels of imported crude oil worth $21 billion in 2011. That is a real genuine stimulus plan if there ever was one.



Then what you love is subsidizing because that is the only way ethanol can cost what it costs. If ethanol actuallyg had to compete in a free market it either would not exist because farmers couldn't make money on how little they would have to charge for it or it would cost more that gas and no one would buy it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rdean said:


> A study came along this past week from economists at Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin that found that if ethanol production came to an immediate halt, the estimated gasoline price increase would be what the researcher described as historic proportions, ranging from 41 to 92 percent.
> 
> Thats roughly $5.50 to $7.50 of gasoline per gallon.
> 
> The same research team, in a study sponsored by the Renewable Fuels Association and released by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), found that the increased use of ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of $0.89 per gallon in 2010. The average effect increased to $0.89 per gallon, and the regional impact ranges from $0.58 per gallon on the East Coast to $1.37 per gallon in the Midwest, according to the studys authors.
> 
> Ethanol In Pottersville
> 
> Thought this was interesting.



Sounds like something Obama Energy Secretary Steve "Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in Europe" Chu would support in a heartbeat


----------



## FireFly

Bern80 said:


> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been burning E85 Ethanol for about 10 years & I love it. last time I filled up gas was $3.99 & E85 was $3.05 & people were waiting in line at the E85 pump. That is definitely holding down gasoline prices & lower gas prices creates jobs in this country. The ethanol industry also creates jobs in this country. U.S. ethanol production will eliminate the need for more than 212 million barrels of imported crude oil worth $21 billion in 2011. That is a real genuine stimulus plan if there ever was one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what you love is subsidizing because that is the only way ethanol can cost what it costs. If ethanol actuallyg had to compete in a free market it either would not exist because farmers couldn't make money on how little they would have to charge for it or it would cost more that gas and no one would buy it.
Click to expand...


Well since ethanol saves the USA $21 billion worth of imported crude oil & it's subsidies only cost the USA $7 billion, I will take that 3 to 1 yearly profit on investment any day. It is not a subsidy if you profit from it. It is an investment.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

FireFly said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been burning E85 Ethanol for about 10 years & I love it. last time I filled up gas was $3.99 & E85 was $3.05 & people were waiting in line at the E85 pump. That is definitely holding down gasoline prices & lower gas prices creates jobs in this country. The ethanol industry also creates jobs in this country. U.S. ethanol production will eliminate the need for more than 212 million barrels of imported crude oil worth $21 billion in 2011. That is a real genuine stimulus plan if there ever was one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what you love is subsidizing because that is the only way ethanol can cost what it costs. If ethanol actuallyg had to compete in a free market it either would not exist because farmers couldn't make money on how little they would have to charge for it or it would cost more that gas and no one would buy it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well since ethanol saves the USA $21 billion worth of imported crude oil & it's subsidies only cost the USA $7 billion, I will take that 3 to 1 yearly profit on investment any day. It is not a subsidy if you profit from it. It is an investment.
Click to expand...


Don't let made up numbers fool you into thinking you are saving money. You still have to pay at the pump for about 275 billion barrels of ethanol if you factor in the lower gas mileage. Then you have to pay higher maintenance costs on vehicles and it quickly becomes a net loss.


----------



## lvcabbie

The problem with ethanol is that producers use corn when there are plenty of other sources that would not adversely effect the cost of foods!!!!!
Corn is used in almost every packaged good found in a grocery store and is a vital foodstuff for livestock. Make it less available and the price rises. Those prices are passed on to EVERY American consumer!
And, ethanol is a joke!!!
I drove a taxi powered by LPN for six years! It was a good as the highest grade gasoline, produced less than 10% of the emissions and is a hundred times more plentiful than petroleum products!!!


----------



## Momanohedhunter

rdean said:


> A study came along this past week from economists at Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin that found that if ethanol production came to an immediate halt, the estimated gasoline price increase would be what the researcher described as historic proportions, ranging from 41 to 92 percent.
> 
> Thats roughly $5.50 to $7.50 of gasoline per gallon.
> 
> The same research team, in a study sponsored by the Renewable Fuels Association and released by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), found that the increased use of ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of $0.89 per gallon in 2010. The average effect increased to $0.89 per gallon, and the regional impact ranges from $0.58 per gallon on the East Coast to $1.37 per gallon in the Midwest, according to the studys authors.
> 
> Ethanol In Pottersville
> 
> Thought this was interesting.



Odd, that Iowa State University and University of Wisconsin studies are sighted and taken as the gospel on the subject considering that they would be among some of the biggest losers if the ethanol subsidies went away. I also find it odd that ethanol, one of the most toxic liquids on the planet is supposed to save us from environmental disaster when the vehicles that grow the corn or what ever the producer makes it from run on diesel and get about four MPG if its well maintained and the trucks used to ship it also run on diesel and get around eight MPG going down hill and running perfect. To take a university's word on ethanol bringing down would be like believing Exxon if they said higher octane would lower gas prices. Its a blatant lie told to insure they stay off the financial chopping block.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

lvcabbie said:


> The problem with ethanol is that producers use corn when there are plenty of other sources that would not adversely effect the cost of foods!!!!!
> Corn is used in almost every packaged good found in a grocery store and is a vital foodstuff for livestock. Make it less available and the price rises. Those prices are passed on to EVERY American consumer!
> And, ethanol is a joke!!!
> I drove a taxi powered by LPN for six years! It was a good as the highest grade gasoline, produced less than 10% of the emissions and is a hundred times more plentiful than petroleum products!!!



Yup. Anything high in cellulose will do. I know a guy who has a motorcycle that burns alcohol. He makes his fuel from day old bread and doughnuts. He also makes it from cat tails and is experimenting with lawn clippings. Engines run cooler on straight ethanol to.


----------



## KissMy

Momanohedhunter said:


> lvcabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with ethanol is that producers use corn when there are plenty of other sources that would not adversely effect the cost of foods!!!!!
> Corn is used in almost every packaged good found in a grocery store and is a vital foodstuff for livestock. Make it less available and the price rises. Those prices are passed on to EVERY American consumer!
> And, ethanol is a joke!!!
> I drove a taxi powered by LPN for six years! It was a good as the highest grade gasoline, produced less than 10% of the emissions and is a hundred times more plentiful than petroleum products!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Anything high in cellulose will do. I know a guy who has a motorcycle that burns alcohol. He makes his fuel from day old bread and doughnuts. He also makes it from cat tails and is experimenting with lawn clippings. Engines run cooler on straight ethanol to.
Click to expand...


The US farmer produces over 12 billion bushel of #2 yellow field corn every year. Humans eat sweet corn. Humans do not eat this field corn. It is fed to livestock. Extracting Ethanol from this corn only uses the starch of the corn. All the protein remains as Distiller Dried Grains (DDG) animal feed. Protein is what builds muscles in animals. Muscles = Meat, Steak, Hamburger, etc. Corn starch created methane gas in farm animals. This is smelly & is 15 times stronger of a greenhouse gas than (CO2) Carbon Dioxide ever was.

If you converted all the Corn grown in the USA into Ethanol it still leaves US & the World nearly all the animal feed value in the form of DDGs that we would have got from feeding corn directly to animals. We still export the DDG animal feed to China & the rest of the world the same way we did the corn. Sugar cane, switch grass & algae do not have a usable food co-product. They only create toxic waste. That means when you take away farm acreage to grow one of those, you truly decrease the worlds available food & drive up food prices. That does not happen with corn ethanol.







If you converted all the Corn grown in the USA into Ethanol it can replace 25% of the total US Gasoline demand 12% of the total US Crude Oil demand.

Mixing Ethanol into Gasoline prevents the need for refineries to add the ground water polluting MTBE into gasoline.

Ethanol production in the USA has created over 500,000 good paying jobs in the USA. Not part time minimum wage jobs.


----------



## chikenwing

1.5 gal fuel oil used for every 1 gal ethanol produced ,wheres the payoff??


----------



## KissMy

chikenwing said:


> 1.5 gal fuel oil used for every 1 gal ethanol produced ,wheres the payoff??



That is a total lie. Ethanol EROEI is 3:1. It produces 3 units of energy for every 1 unit consumed. The same as oil sands.  the US also makes/saves $3 on ethanol for every $1 it cost us.


----------



## Mr. H.

Ethanol also pollutes groundwater. It's a containment issue. MTBE was railroaded out of the picture by the Ag lobby. They needed to do this to set the stage for ethanol blending.


----------



## chikenwing

KissMy said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.5 gal fuel oil used for every 1 gal ethanol produced ,wheres the payoff??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a total lie. Ethanol EROEI is 3:1. It produces 3 units of energy for every 1 unit consumed. The same as oil sands.  the US also makes $3 on ethanol for every $1 it cost us.
Click to expand...


Really??!!,funny thing this was told to me by a Citgo Engineer as I installed a blending system at one of their terminals,no incentive to lie,just part of a conversation we had about ethanol.

Kinda straight from the horses mouth so to speak.


----------



## chikenwing

Ethanol is dead with out tax payers subsidizing it.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

KissMy said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lvcabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with ethanol is that producers use corn when there are plenty of other sources that would not adversely effect the cost of foods!!!!!
> Corn is used in almost every packaged good found in a grocery store and is a vital foodstuff for livestock. Make it less available and the price rises. Those prices are passed on to EVERY American consumer!
> And, ethanol is a joke!!!
> I drove a taxi powered by LPN for six years! It was a good as the highest grade gasoline, produced less than 10% of the emissions and is a hundred times more plentiful than petroleum products!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Anything high in cellulose will do. I know a guy who has a motorcycle that burns alcohol. He makes his fuel from day old bread and doughnuts. He also makes it from cat tails and is experimenting with lawn clippings. Engines run cooler on straight ethanol to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US farmer produces over 12 billion bushel of #2 yellow field corn every year. Humans eat sweet corn. Humans do not eat this field corn. It is fed to livestock. Extracting Ethanol from this corn only uses the starch of the corn. All the protein remains as Distiller Dried Grains (DDG) animal feed. Protein is what builds muscles in animals. Muscles = Meat, Steak, Hamburger, etc. Corn starch created methane gas in farm animals. This is smelly & is 15 times stronger of a greenhouse gas than (CO2) Carbon Dioxide ever was.
> 
> If you converted all the Corn grown in the USA into Ethanol it still leaves US & the World nearly all the animal feed value in the form of DDGs that we would have got from feeding corn directly to animals. We still export the DDG animal feed to China & the rest of the world the same way we did the corn. Sugar cane, switch grass & algae do not have a usable food co-product. They only create toxic waste. That means when you take away farm acreage to grow one of those, you truly decrease the worlds available food & drive up food prices. That does not happen with corn ethanol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you converted all the Corn grown in the USA into Ethanol it can replace 25% of the total US Gasoline demand 12% of the total US Crude Oil demand.
> 
> Mixing Ethanol into Gasoline prevents the need for refineries to add the ground water polluting MTBE into gasoline.
> 
> Ethanol production in the USA has created over 500,000 good paying jobs in the USA. Not part time minimum wage jobs.
Click to expand...


Fine and cool and all. I wont argue that. What I will argue is that corn is NOT the best medium to make ethanol, and folks in the ethanol making business will tell you as much. Anything high in cellulose makes the go go juice. It is also much cheaper to produce your own fuel with anything but corn. Ethanol is also very toxic. And to the guys who do the trading corn is corn. It makes food more expensive. It also gets hauled to the pump by commercial vehicles that use diesel. At this time it is $4.00 per gallon and will get about 6.5 MPG 8 if running superbly (not likely). And the tractors and farm vehicles are exempt from any emission standards in most states, or run on diesel as well, so I would ask what offsets the pollution from the equipment used in harvesting and producing this highly toxic substance and who does the cost of all that gas and diesel get passed on to ?


----------



## Momanohedhunter

chikenwing said:


> Ethanol is dead with out tax payers subsidizing it.



It is a valid source of fuel, dont get me wrong, but that it is green, and has to be made from corn is a big fat lie. It is extremely toxic though. You get a better deal if you make your own from your garbage. I am saving for a still and I have an old moped I am going to convert. I will get nasty crazy MPG and all I have to do is pay a small tax towards maintaining the roads.


----------



## chikenwing

Momanohedhunter said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ethanol is dead with out tax payers subsidizing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a valid source of fuel, dont get me wrong, but that it is green, and has to be made from corn is a big fat lie. It is extremely toxic though. You get a better deal if you make your own from your garbage. I am saving for a still and I have an old moped I am going to convert. I will get nasty crazy MPG and all I have to do is pay a small tax towards maintaining the roads.
Click to expand...


Oh it has its place,its the BS thats being feed to people that makes it so wrong,cotton prices are on the rise,but hey I am burning ethanol!!!Ian feeling green!!

The terminal I installed the controls for blends,depending on the day about  20k gals a day into 18 wheelers for delivery to the staions,all is trucked 1 way about 275 miles from Jersey and this is just 1 terminal out of 4 they all get it the same place,just like your gas,dead head back for more day in and day out,this is not what they want you to think it is.


----------



## KissMy

The cost to make corn ethanol today is $2.40. The spot market price for ethanol today is $2.76. Price at the pump is $3.09

Who cares if cellulose or sugar cane makes ethanol? We grow & feed 12 billion bushels of #2 yellow field corn in this country every year for animal feed whether we make corn ethanol or not. The only change is we had to pay & use energy to grind corn into animal feed instead of converting corn to DDG animal feed at the ethanol plant located locally in farm country saving shipping fuel. Stopping corn ethanol does not stop the raising & transportation of corn. We used same fuel to ship corn to market as we now use to ship ethanol & DDG feed to market. There is no difference.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

chikenwing said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ethanol is dead with out tax payers subsidizing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a valid source of fuel, dont get me wrong, but that it is green, and has to be made from corn is a big fat lie. It is extremely toxic though. You get a better deal if you make your own from your garbage. I am saving for a still and I have an old moped I am going to convert. I will get nasty crazy MPG and all I have to do is pay a small tax towards maintaining the roads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it has its place,its the BS thats being feed to people that makes it so wrong,cotton prices are on the rise,but hey I am burning ethanol!!!Ian feeling green!!
> 
> The terminal I installed the controls for blends,depending on the day about  20k gals a day into 18 wheelers for delivery to the staions,all is trucked 1 way about 275 miles from Jersey and this is just 1 terminal out of 4 they all get it the same place,just like your gas,dead head back for more day in and day out,this is not what they want you to think it is.
Click to expand...


No it is not, you are dead on there. Just do the math on what fuel cost to deliver, and head back to the plant and multiply that number by say 500 to make it easey, and its clear what a scam it is.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

KissMy said:


> The cost to make corn ethanol today is $2.40. The spot market price for ethanol today is $2.76. Price at the pump is $3.09
> 
> Who cares if cellulose or sugar cane makes ethanol? We grow & feed 12 billion bushels of #2 yellow field corn in this country every year for animal feed whether we make corn ethanol or not. The only change is we had to pay & use energy to grind corn into animal feed instead of converting corn to DDG animal feed at the ethanol plant located locally in farm country saving shipping fuel. Stopping corn ethanol does not stop the raising & transportation of corn. We used same fuel to ship corn to market as we now use to ship ethanol & DDG feed to market. There is no difference.



I am not being clear. The ethanlo still has to be shipped to refinery's  and then to the pump. So lets say it ships from Des Moines Iowa to say little rock Arkansas, thats 614 miles. So the commercial vehicle (truck) will fill up in Des moines we will say diesel costs about $3.00 a gallon (its more) so driver needs about 375 of his 425 gallon capacity that cost 1,125 dollars and another fill up on the return trip with an empty tanker. Divide that number by 2 or 3 hundred trucks and transporting it alone throws any benefit out the window. The cost of running the field equipment and wages also shoot the numbers way up, not to mention all the cost due to environmental regulations . Now, who do those cost get passed on to ? The only way you make it economical is if you make your own.


----------



## chikenwing

1.5 gals fuel oil to make 1 gal of ethanol,no matter how you slice it just doesn't make sense.

The only resone the oil companies use it because its mandated,and subsidized,they would not otherwise.

Its the trucking,petroleum products are moved around primarily by pipe line,way cheaper,ethanol is trucked,and most times a return trip to the distillery empty.


----------



## KissMy

chikenwing said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.5 gal fuel oil used for every 1 gal ethanol produced ,wheres the payoff??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a total lie. Ethanol EROEI is 3:1. It produces 3 units of energy for every 1 unit consumed. The same as oil sands.  the US also makes $3 on ethanol for every $1 it cost us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really??!!,funny thing this was told to me by a Citgo Engineer as I installed a blending system at one of their terminals,no incentive to lie,just part of a conversation we had about ethanol.
> 
> Kinda straight from the horses mouth so to speak.
Click to expand...


Boy you are stupid. The Citgo man had every reason to lie to you. Ethanol is holding Gasoline prices down by over $1 a gallon. I proved that right here. Apparently you have a comprehension problem.


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> A study came along this past week from economists at Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin that found that if ethanol production came to an immediate halt, the estimated gasoline price increase would be what the researcher described as historic proportions, ranging from 41 to 92 percent.
> 
> Thats roughly $5.50 to $7.50 of gasoline per gallon.
> 
> The same research team, in a study sponsored by the Renewable Fuels Association and released by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), found that the increased use of ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of $0.89 per gallon in 2010. The average effect increased to $0.89 per gallon, and the regional impact ranges from $0.58 per gallon on the East Coast to $1.37 per gallon in the Midwest, according to the studys authors.
> 
> Ethanol In Pottersville
> 
> Thought this was interesting.



So you're perfectly willing to continue killing the Gulf of Mexico as long as you don't have to pay more for gas.


----------



## daveman

CrusaderFrank said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> A study came along this past week from economists at Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin that found that if ethanol production came to an immediate halt, the estimated gasoline price increase would be what the researcher described as historic proportions, ranging from 41 to 92 percent.
> 
> Thats roughly $5.50 to $7.50 of gasoline per gallon.
> 
> The same research team, in a study sponsored by the Renewable Fuels Association and released by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), found that the increased use of ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of $0.89 per gallon in 2010. The average effect increased to $0.89 per gallon, and the regional impact ranges from $0.58 per gallon on the East Coast to $1.37 per gallon in the Midwest, according to the studys authors.
> 
> Ethanol In Pottersville
> 
> Thought this was interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something Obama Energy Secretary Steve "Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in Europe" Chu would support in a heartbeat
Click to expand...


I am a Democrat because I believe in the environment and conservation. For instance, we must raise the price of gasoline, like they do in Europe, to increase conservation. If we don't, there will soon be a big gas shortage, and this will mean higher gasoline prices for you and me.


----------



## daveman

KissMy said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.5 gal fuel oil used for every 1 gal ethanol produced ,wheres the payoff??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a total lie. Ethanol EROEI is 3:1. It produces 3 units of energy for every 1 unit consumed. The same as oil sands.  the US also makes/saves $3 on ethanol for every $1 it cost us.
Click to expand...


Wrong.

Recently, Patzek published a fifty-page study on the subject in the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Science. This time, he factored in the myriad energy inputs required by industrial agriculture, from the amount of fuel used to produce fertilizers and corn seeds to the transportation and wastewater disposal costs. All told, he believes that the cumulative energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production is six times greater than what the end product provides your car engine in terms of power.​


----------



## Momanohedhunter

KissMy said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.5 gal fuel oil used for every 1 gal ethanol produced ,wheres the payoff??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a total lie. Ethanol EROEI is 3:1. It produces 3 units of energy for every 1 unit consumed. The same as oil sands.  the US also makes/saves $3 on ethanol for every $1 it cost us.
Click to expand...


No not really he isn't. They use fossil fuels and petroleum products to grow, produce, and ship the stuff. There is no way you can look at the cost of shipping alone and say mass produced ethanol saves money. It is logistically impossible even if they did blend the fuel there it still would not be cheaper. They still have to ship the ethanol to refineries all over the country by hundreds of thousands of diesel trucks that get shitty MPG and pay big dollars for fuel. Now, who eats that fuel bill?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

KissMy said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lvcabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with ethanol is that producers use corn when there are plenty of other sources that would not adversely effect the cost of foods!!!!!
> Corn is used in almost every packaged good found in a grocery store and is a vital foodstuff for livestock. Make it less available and the price rises. Those prices are passed on to EVERY American consumer!
> And, ethanol is a joke!!!
> I drove a taxi powered by LPN for six years! It was a good as the highest grade gasoline, produced less than 10% of the emissions and is a hundred times more plentiful than petroleum products!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Anything high in cellulose will do. I know a guy who has a motorcycle that burns alcohol. He makes his fuel from day old bread and doughnuts. He also makes it from cat tails and is experimenting with lawn clippings. Engines run cooler on straight ethanol to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US farmer produces over 12 billion bushel of #2 yellow field corn every year. Humans eat sweet corn. Humans do not eat this field corn. It is fed to livestock. Extracting Ethanol from this corn only uses the starch of the corn. All the protein remains as Distiller Dried Grains (DDG) animal feed. Protein is what builds muscles in animals. Muscles = Meat, Steak, Hamburger, etc. Corn starch created methane gas in farm animals. This is smelly & is 15 times stronger of a greenhouse gas than (CO2) Carbon Dioxide ever was.
> 
> If you converted all the Corn grown in the USA into Ethanol it still leaves US & the World nearly all the animal feed value in the form of DDGs that we would have got from feeding corn directly to animals. We still export the DDG animal feed to China & the rest of the world the same way we did the corn. Sugar cane, switch grass & algae do not have a usable food co-product. They only create toxic waste. That means when you take away farm acreage to grow one of those, you truly decrease the worlds available food & drive up food prices. That does not happen with corn ethanol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you converted all the Corn grown in the USA into Ethanol it can replace 25% of the total US Gasoline demand 12% of the total US Crude Oil demand.
> 
> Mixing Ethanol into Gasoline prevents the need for refineries to add the ground water polluting MTBE into gasoline.
> 
> Ethanol production in the USA has created over 500,000 good paying jobs in the USA. Not part time minimum wage jobs.
Click to expand...


You keep posting that thinking it actually proves something.

Are you aware that, if Obama's new mandates on ethanol remain in place, we will need to devote more and more crop to the feed corn every year? Eventually all the land currently used to produce both will be devoted to feed corn, and there will be no room to grow sweet corn.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Your statistics make that statement true.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

Say KissMy, I returned that neg rep you sent with your resound about them using rail tankers. First retard that very statement points directly to your ignorance of how shipping and logistics. You see, there are few gas stations that have service by rail. And a tanker drop to a gas station uses the same amount of or more fuel as OTR due to inner city driving. Oh and here is your response.-

Stop selling ethanol... 	05-17-2011 05:50 PM 	KissMy 	They use rail cars

Next time dont be such an ignorant pussy and post your neg rep out in the open like everyone else does. Then you will just be ignorant.


----------



## KissMy

Historically Gasoline has usually cost more than Diesel Fuel. These price charts prove Ethanol is lowering the cost of Gasoline at the pump.










The oil boys are all pissed about it & want to see your money support some foreign terrorist so their defense stocks will also make money. Lower Gasoline vs Diesel prices at the pump would not be possible if Ethanol actually had a negative EROEI or increased Gasoline consumption by lowering your mileage. Increased Ethanol demand is lowering Gasoline demand & blending Ethanol into Gasoline is increasing the Gasoline supply.

In the winter the demand for heating-oil/diesel-fuel is high & gasoline is low. That makes gasoline a bi-product from the barrels of crude oil they refine into heating oil. So the gas price dropped below & heating-oil/diesel-fuel would rise above gasoline every winter.

The exact opposite happened every summer.

In the summer the demand for gasoline is high & heating-oil/diesel-fuel is low. That makes heating-oil/diesel-fuel a bi-product from the barrels of crude oil they refine into gasoline. So the heating-oil/diesel-fuel price dropped below & gasoline would rise above heating-oil/diesel-fuel every winter.

Before the big rise in Ethanol production this translated into gasoline being at least 25% higher than diesel-fuel at the pump in the summer & diesel-fuel costing at least 25% more than gasoline in the winter.

Now in the past 3 years gasoline prices never even get as high as diesel-fuel even in the summer. At current prices that means Ethanol is holding Gasoline prices at the pump down by at least a $1 a gallon.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

KissMy said:


> Historically Gasoline has usually cost more than Diesel Fuel. These price charts prove Ethanol is lowering the cost of Gasoline at the pump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The oil boys are all pissed about it & want to see your money support some foreign terrorist so their defense stocks will also make money. Lower Gasoline vs Diesel prices at the pump would not be possible if Ethanol actually had a negative EROEI or increased Gasoline consumption by lowering your mileage. Increased Ethanol demand is lowering Gasoline demand & blending Ethanol into Gasoline is increasing the Gasoline supply.
> 
> In the winter the demand for heating-oil/diesel-fuel is high & gasoline is low. That makes gasoline a bi-product from the barrels of crude oil they refine into heating oil. So the gas price dropped below & heating-oil/diesel-fuel would rise above gasoline every winter.
> 
> The exact opposite happened every summer.
> 
> In the summer the demand for gasoline is high & heating-oil/diesel-fuel is low. That makes heating-oil/diesel-fuel a bi-product from the barrels of crude oil they refine into gasoline. So the heating-oil/diesel-fuel price dropped below & gasoline would rise above heating-oil/diesel-fuel every winter.
> 
> Before the big rise in Ethanol production this translated into gasoline being at least 25% higher than diesel-fuel at the pump in the summer & diesel-fuel costing at least 25% more than gasoline in the winter.
> 
> Now in the past 3 years gasoline prices never even get as high as diesel-fuel even in the summer. At current prices that means Ethanol is holding Gasoline prices at the pump down by at least a $1 a gallon.



Are you so fucking retarded that that you dont think anyone will notice both your charts are from 2008 ? Have a clue about what you are posting asshole. Flaylo has it together better then you.


----------



## chikenwing

KissMy said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a total lie. Ethanol EROEI is 3:1. It produces 3 units of energy for every 1 unit consumed. The same as oil sands.  the US also makes $3 on ethanol for every $1 it cost us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really??!!,funny thing this was told to me by a Citgo Engineer as I installed a blending system at one of their terminals,no incentive to lie,just part of a conversation we had about ethanol.
> 
> Kinda straight from the horses mouth so to speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy you are stupid. The Citgo man had every reason to lie to you. Ethanol is holding Gasoline prices down by over $1 a gallon. I proved that right here. Apparently you have a comprehension problem.
Click to expand...


So how does your pretzel logic work here? Citgo lies too me because it takes more fuel oil to make less ethanol? if they were going to lie it would be the other way around,ya your right comprehension is a problem.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

Ethanol: How Many Senators Does It Take to Screw a Taxpayer?
Posted on January 16, 2011 by geobear7| 13 Comments

By The Burning Platform

&#8220;Today, the government decides and they misdirect the investment to their friends in the corn industry or the food industry. Think how many taxpayer dollars have been spent on corn [for ethanol], and there&#8217;s nobody now really defending that as an efficient way to create diesel fuel or ethanol. The money is spent for political reasons and not for economic reasons. It&#8217;s the worst way in the world to try to develop an alternative fuel.&#8221; - Ron Paul

When bipartisanship breaks out in Washington DC, check to make sure your wallet is still in your pocket. Every time you fill up your car this winter you are participating in the biggest taxpayer swindle in history. Forcing consumers to use domestically produced ethanol is one of the single biggest boondoggles ever committed by the corrupt brainless twits in Washington DC. Ethanol prices have soared 30% in the last year as the supplies of corn have plunged. Only a policy created in Washington DC could drive up the prices of gasoline and food, with the added benefits of costing the American taxpayer billions in tax subsidies and killing people in 3rd world countries.

The grand lame duck Congress tax compromise extended a 45-cent incentive to ethanol refiners for each gallon of the fuel blended with gasoline and renewed a 54-cent tariff on Brazilian imports. The extension of these subsidies, besides costing American taxpayers $6 billion per year, has the added benefit of driving up food costs across the globe, causing food riots in Tunisia, and resulting in the starving of poor peasants throughout the world. This taxpayer boondoggle is a real feather in the cap of that fiscally conservative curmudgeon Senator Charley Grassley. He was joined in this noble effort by another fiscal conservative, presidential hopeful John Thune. It seems these guys hate wasteful spending, except when it benefits their states. The bipartisanship in this effort was truly touching, as Democrats Kent Conrad and Tom Harkin also brought home the pork for their states.

A bipartisan group of 15 senators signed a letter in late November demanding an extension of U.S. ethanol subsidies. I wonder if the fact they have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions during the past six years from pro-ethanol companies and interest groups like ADM, Monsanto, the National Corn Growers Association, and the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association had anything to do with this demand. You can always count on a Senator to do what&#8217;s best for his re-election campaign rather than what is best for the country. These symbols of political integrity will always spout the standard talking points:

    Promoting ethanol reduces our dependence on foreign oil
    Ethanol is green renewable energy
    Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline

As we all know when dealing with a politician, &#8220;half the truth, is often a great lie.&#8221;

Amaizing

Corn is the most widely produced feed grain in the United States, accounting for more than 90% of total U.S. feed grain production. 81.4 million acres of land are utilized to grow corn, with the majority of the crop grown in the Midwest.  Although most of the crop is used to feed livestock, corn is also processed into food and industrial products including starch, sweeteners, corn oil, beverage and industrial alcohol, yogurt, latex paint, cosmetics, and last but not least, fuel Ethanol. Of the 10,000 items in your average grocery store, at least 2,500 items use corn in some form during the production or processing. The United States is the major player in the world corn market providing more than 50% of the world&#8217;s corn supply. In excess of 20% of our corn crop had been exported to other countries, but the government ethanol mandates have reduced the amount that is available to export.

This year, the US will harvest approximately 12.5 billion bushels of corn. More than 42% will be used to feed livestock in the US, another 40% will be used to produce government mandated ethanol fuel, 2% will be used for food products, and 16% is exported to other countries. Ending stocks are down 963 million bushels from last year. The stocks-to-use ratio is projected at 5.5%, the lowest since 1995/96 when it dropped to 5.0%. As you can see in the chart below, poor developing countries are most dependent on imports of corn from the US. Food as a percentage of income for peasants in developing countries in Africa and Southeast Asia exceeds 50%. When the price of corn rises 75% in one year, poor people starve.

The combination of an asinine ethanol policy and the loosest monetary policy in the history of mankind are combining to kill poor people across the globe. I wonder if Blankfein, Bernanke, and Grassley chuckle about this at their weekly cocktail parties while drinking Macallan scotch whiskey and snacking on mini beef wellington hors d&#8217;oeuvres. The Tunisians aren&#8217;t chuckling as food riots have brought down the government. This month, the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reported that its food price index jumped 32% in the second half of 2010 &#8212; surpassing the previous record, set in the early summer of 2008, when deadly clashes over food broke out around the world, from Haiti to Somalia.

Let&#8217;s Starve a Tunisian

&#8220;What is my view on subsidizing ethanol and farmers? Under the constitution, there is no authority to take money from one group of people and give it to another group of people for so called economic benefits. So, no, I don&#8217;t think we should do that. Besides, bureaucrats and the politicians don&#8217;t know how to invest money.&#8221; - Ron Paul

The United States is the big daddy of the world food economy. It is far and away the world&#8217;s leading grain exporter, exporting more than Argentina, Australia, Canada, and Russia combined. In a globalized food economy, increased demand for corn, to fuel American vehicles, puts tremendous pressure on world food supplies. Continuing to divert more food to fuel, as is now mandated by the U.S. federal government in its Renewable Fuel Standard, will lead to higher food prices, rising hunger among the world&#8217;s poor and to social chaos across the globe. By subsidizing the production of ethanol, now to the tune of $6 billion each year, U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing skyrocketing food bills at home and around the world.

The energy bill signed by that free market capitalist George Bush in 2008 mandates that increasing amounts of corn based ethanol must be used in gasoline sold in the U.S. This energy legislation requires a five-fold increase in ethanol use by 2022. Some 15 billion gallons must come from traditional corn-blended ethanol. Nothing like combining PhD models and political corruption to cause worldwide chaos. Ben Bernanke and Charley Grassley have joined forces to bring down the President of 23 years in Tunisia. People tend to get angry when they are starving. Bringing home the bacon for your constituents has consequences. In the U.S. only about 10% of disposable income is spent on food.  By contrast, in India, about 40% of personal disposable income is spent on food. In the Philippines, it&#8217;s about 47.5%.  In some sub-Saharan Africa, consumers spend about 50% of the household budget on food. And according to the U.S.D.A., &#8220;In some of the poorest countries in the region such as Madagascar, Tanzania, Sierra Leone, and Zambia, this ratio is more than 60%.&#8221;

The 107 million tons of grain that went to U.S. ethanol distilleries in 2009 was enough to feed 330 million people for one year at average world consumption levels. More than a quarter of the total U.S. grain crop was turned into ethanol to fuel cars last year. With 200 ethanol distilleries in the country set up to transform food into fuel, the amount of grain processed has tripled since 2004. The government subsidies led to a boom in the building of ethanol plants across the heartland. As usual, when government interferes in the free market, the bust in 2009, when fuel prices collapsed, led to the bankruptcy of almost 20% of the ethanol plants in the U.S.

The amount of grain needed to fill the tank of an SUV with ethanol just once can feed one person for an entire year. The average income of the owners of the world&#8217;s 940 million automobiles is at least ten times larger than that of the world&#8217;s 2 billion hungriest people. In the competition between cars and hungry people for the world&#8217;s harvest, the car is destined to win. In March 2008, a report commissioned by the Coalition for Balanced Food and Fuel Policy  estimated that the bio-fuels mandates passed by Congress cost the U.S. economy more than $100 billion from 2006 to 2009. The report declared that &#8220;The policy favoring ethanol and other bio-fuels over food uses of grains and other crops acts as a regressive tax on the poor.&#8221; A 2008 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (O.E.C.D.) issued its report on bio-fuels that concluded: &#8220;Further development and expansion of the bio-fuels sector will contribute to higher food prices over the medium term and to food insecurity for the most vulnerable population groups in developing countries.&#8221; These forecasts are coming to fruition today.

It Costs What?

The average American has no clue about the true cost of ethanol. They probably don&#8217;t even know there is ethanol mixed in their gasoline. The propaganda spread by the ethanol industry and their mouthpieces in Congress obscures the truth and proclaims the clean energy mistruths and the thousands of jobs created in America. The truth is that producing ethanol uses more energy than is created while driving costs higher. The jobs created in Iowa are offset by the jobs lost because users of energy incur higher costs and hire fewer workers as a result. It takes a lot of Saudi oil to make the fertilizers to grow the corn, to run the tractors, to build the silos, to get the corn to a processing plant, and to run the processing plant. Also, ethanol cannot be moved in pipelines, because it degrades. This means using thousands of big diesel sucking polluting trucks to move the ethanol &#8211; first as corn from the fields to the processing plants, and then from the processing plants to the coasts.

The current ethanol subsidy is a flat 45 cents per gallon of ethanol usually paid to the an oil company, that blends ethanol with gasoline. Some States add other incentives, all paid by the taxpayer. On top of this waste of taxpayer funds, the free trade capitalists in Congress slap a 54 cent tariff on all imported ethanol. Ronald R. Cooke, author of Oil, Jihad & Destiny, created the chart below to estimate the true cost for a gallon of corn ethanol. Cooke describes a true taxpayer boondoggle:

It costs money to store, transport and blend ethanol with gasoline. Since ethanol absorbs water, and water is corrosive to pipeline components, it must be transported by tanker to the distribution point where it is blended with gasoline for delivery to your gas station. That&#8217;s expensive transportation. It costs more to make a gasoline that can be blended with ethanol. Ethanol is lost through vaporization and contamination during this process. Gasoline/ethanol fuel blends that have been contaminated with water degrade the efficiency of combustion. E-85 ethanol is corrosive to the seals and fuel systems of most of our existing engines (including boats, generators, lawn mowers, hand power tools, etc.), and can not be dispensed through existing gas station pumps. And finally, ethanol has about 30 percent less energy per gallon than gasoline. That means the fuel economy of a vehicle running on E-85 will be about 25% less than a comparable vehicle running on gasoline.
Real Cost For A Gallon Of Corn Ethanol

Corn Ethanol Futures Market quote for January 2011 Delivery 	$2.46
Add cost of transporting, storing and blending corn ethanol 	$0.28
Added cost of making gasoline that can be blended with corn ethanol 	$0.09
Add cost of subsidies paid to blender 	$0.45
Total Direct Costs per Gallon 	$3.28

Added cost from waste 	$0.40
Added cost from damage to infrastructure and user&#8217;s engine 	$0.06
Total Indirect Costs per Gallon 	$0.46

Added cost of lost energy 	$1.27
Added cost of food (American family of four) 	$1.79
Total Social Costs 	$3.06

Total Cost of Corn Ethanol @ 85% Blend 	$6.80

Multiple studies by independent non-partisan organizations have concluded that mandating and subsidizing ethanol fuel production is a terrible policy for Americans:

    In May 2007, the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University released a report saying the ethanol mandates have increased the food bill for every American by about $47 per year due to grain price increases for corn, soybeans, wheat, and others. The Iowa State researchers concluded that American consumers face a &#8220;total cost of ethanol of about $14 billion.&#8221; And that figure does not include the cost of federal subsidies to corn growers or the $0.51 per gallon tax credit to ethanol producers.
    In May 2008, the Congressional Research Service blamed recent increases in global food prices on two factors: increased grain demand for meat production, and the bio-fuels mandates. The agency said that the recent &#8220;rapid, &#8216;permanent&#8217; increase in corn demand has directly sparked substantially higher corn prices to bid available supplies away from other uses &#8211; primarily livestock feed. Higher corn prices, in turn, have forced soybean, wheat, and other grain prices higher in a bidding war for available crop land.&#8221;
    Mark W. Rosegrant of the International Food Policy Research Institute, testified before the U.S. Senate on bio-fuels and grain prices. Rosegrant said that the ethanol scam has caused the price of corn to increase by 29 percent, rice to increase by 21 percent and wheat by 22 percent. Rosegrant estimated that if the global bio-fuels mandates were eliminated altogether, corn prices would drop by 20 percent, while sugar and wheat prices would drop by 11 percent and 8 percent, respectively, by 2010. Rosegrant said that &#8220;If the current bio-fuel expansion continues, calorie availability in developing countries is expected to grow more slowly; and the number of malnourished children is projected to increase.&#8221; He continued, saying &#8220;It is therefore important to find ways to keep bio-fuels from worsening the food-price crisis. In the short run, removal of ethanol blending mandates and subsidies and ethanol import tariffs, in the United States&#8212;together with removal of policies in Europe promoting bio-fuels&#8212;would contribute to lower food prices.&#8221;

The true cost of the ethanol boondoggle is hidden from the public. The mandates, subsidies and tariffs take place out of plain view.  The reason blenders (and gas stations) will pay the same for ethanol is because they can sell it at the same price as gasoline to consumers. A consumer will pay the same for ten gallons of E10 as for ten gallons of gasoline even though the E10 contains a gallon of ethanol. Consumers pay the same for the gallon of ethanol for three reasons. (1) They don&#8217;t know there&#8217;s ethanol in their gasoline. (2) There is often ethanol in all the gasoline because of state requirements, so they have no choice. (3) They never know the ethanol has only 67% the energy of gasoline and gets them only 67% as far. The result is that drivers always pay much more for ethanol energy than for gasoline energy, simply because they pay the same amount per gallon. When gasoline prices are $3.00 per gallon, Joe Six-pack pays $4.50 for the same amount of ethanol energy.

You know a politician, government bureaucrat or central banker is lying when they open their mouths. Whenever evaluating a policy or plan put forth by those in control, always seek out who will benefit and who will suffer. Who benefits from corn based ethanol mandates and subsidies? The beneficiaries are huge corporations like Archer Daniels Midland and Monsanto, along with corporate farming operations (80% of all US farm production), and Big Oil. The mandated ethanol levels are set in law. By providing tax subsidies we are bribing oil companies with taxpayer dollars to do something they are legally required to do, resulting in a $6 billion windfall profit to oil companies.  The other beneficiaries are the Senators and Representatives from the farming states who are bankrolled by the corporate ethanol beneficiaries and their constituents who will re-elect them. The environment does not benefit, as many studies have concluded that it requires more fossil fuel energy (oil & coal) to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy created. The jobs created in the farm belt at artificially profitable ethanol plants are more than offset by job losses due to the added costs in the rest of the economy. When subsidies are removed or oil prices drop, the ethanol plant jobs disappear, resulting in a massive capital mal-investment.

Our supposedly wise PhD and MBA leaders have created a perfect storm. The unintended consequences of government intervention in the markets are causing havoc, food riots, starvation and intense suffering for the poor and middle class. Brazil produces sugar cane ethanol in vast quantities and can export it to the U.S. much cheaper than we can produce corn ethanol. Fuel prices would be lower without tariffs on Brazilian ethanol imports.

The average cost of food as a percentage of disposable income for an American is 10%. Averages obscure the truth that the cost is probably .0001% for Lloyd Blankfein, Ben Bernanke and Chuck Grassley, while it is 30% for a poor family in Harlem. America&#8217;s horribly misguided ethanol policy combined with Ben Bernanke&#8217;s Wall Street banker subsidy program are resulting in soaring fuel and food prices across the globe. Poor people around the world suffer greatly from these policies. Below are two assessments of ethanol.

&#8220;Everything about ethanol is good, good, good.&#8221; &#8211; Senator Chuck Grassley, Iowa

&#8220;This is not just hype &#8212; it&#8217;s dangerous, delusional bullshit. Ethanol doesn&#8217;t burn cleaner than gasoline, nor is it cheaper. Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of our gasoline consumption &#8212; yet it consumes twenty percent of the entire U.S. corn crop, causing the price of corn to double in the last two years and raising the threat of hunger in the Third World.&#8221; &#8211; Jeff Goodell


Davis-Bacon for Ethanol Plants: New Ways to Waste Money
August 27, 2007
by: Terrence C. Watson

Wastewatcher, 7-Aug

The federal government&#8217;s subsidization of the ethanol industry needlessly depletes the U.S. Treasury. As if that alone were not enough to upset taxpayers, H.R. 2419, the Farm Bill Extension Act, will only make an already egregious waste of money worse by making it even more expensive to build new ethanol plants.

Made in the United States from corn, ethanol is a gasoline substitute; running cars on ethanol means using less oil. The federal government heavily subsidizes corn growers and ethanol producers. Rolling Stone reporter Jeff Goodell observed in the July 24th issue that ethanol receives more than 200 tax breaks and at least $5.5 billion in subsidies per year. According to Goodell, ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of the nation&#8217;s gasoline consumption, but it consumes 20 percent of the entire U.S. corn crop. The Energy Information Administration reported that "Ethanol relies heavily on Federal and State subsidies to remain economically viable as a gasoline blending component."

It is fair to say that many of the 114 ethanol plants that exist across the country would never have been built if not for government subsidies. Foreign Affairs reports that within a few years these plants will consume half of the nation&#8217;s domestic corn supplies, drastically increasing the price of corn and many other foods. Subsidies for ethanol keep taxes high and have increased the price of corn to its highest level in 10 years. For the average American, this adds up to both a higher tax bill and a higher grocery bill.

This is all for a fuel that, according to experts like Dr. David Pimentel of Cornell University, just isn&#8217;t very good. Ethanol is less efficient and pollutes almost as much as the gasoline it is intended to replace.

Worse yet, H.R. 2419 extends the Davis-Bacon Act to ethanol plants constructed using federal loan guarantees. The Davis-Bacon Act is a 1931 labor law which mandates that contractors receiving federal subsidies pay their workers above-market wages. According to the Associated Builders and Contractors, an organization representing some 24,000 firms in the construction industry and related fields, Davis-Bacon already costs taxpayers approximately $1 billion annually, while making it harder for smaller firms to compete for government contracts.

If the Farm Bill Extension Act is approved, it will increase the cost of building ethanol plants and raise the price of ethanol. Congress egged on by clamorous corn lobbyists will be obliged to increase farm subsidies to keep ethanol competitive. The benefits will go to a few large companies that produce ethanol, increasing the misery of taxpayers.

Only members of Congress could find a way to make wasting money more expensive, but in H.R. 2419 that&#8217;s just what they have found. For the taxpayers&#8217; sake, the Farm Bill Extension Act should be scrapped. 

Davis-Bacon for Ethanol Plants: New Ways to Waste Money


----------



## daveman

KissMy said:


> The oil boys are all pissed about it & want to see your money support some foreign terrorist so their defense stocks will also make money.



The derp is strong with this one.


----------



## Mr. H.

KissMy said:


> The oil boys are all pissed about it & want to see your money support some foreign terrorist so their defense stocks will also make money.



Don't debase yourelf.


----------



## KissMy

Mr. H. said:


> Ethanol also pollutes groundwater. It's a containment issue. MTBE was railroaded out of the picture by the Ag lobby. They needed to do this to set the stage for ethanol blending.



The Ethanol Lobby did not even exist before the EPA decided to mandate Ethanol & Ban MTBE

Oh Yeah - The AG lobby really has sway with the EPA. 

These 2 groups are always opposed to each other. 

The EPA hates Farmers, Oil companies & any USA domestic industry. They would rather see it all go to foreign countries.


----------



## editec

How much would enanthol gas cost us if its producers were getting _over a dollar a gallon_ from the Federal government?

Do you suppose it would be cheaper than non-enthanol gas?


----------



## KissMy

daveman said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The oil boys are all pissed about it & want to see your money support some foreign terrorist so their defense stocks will also make money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The derp is strong with this one.
Click to expand...


So you are telling me that KBR is not a huge defense contractor & oil contractor.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

No, its a construction company.


----------



## daveman

KissMy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The oil boys are all pissed about it & want to see your money support some foreign terrorist so their defense stocks will also make money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The derp is strong with this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are telling me that KBR is not a huge defense contractor & oil contractor.
Click to expand...

Correlation does not imply causation.  Derp again.


----------



## KissMy

Net Energy: A Useless, Misleading And Dangerous Metric


> The problem with net energy is that it makes an assumption that all sources of energy (oil, coal, gas etc) have equal value. "This assumption is completely wrong -- all energy sources are not equal -- one unit of energy from petrol is much more useful than the same amount of energy in coal...and that makes petrol much more valuable," says Dale.
> 
> For evidence, he points to the markets, where a unit of energy from gas, petrol and electricity are worth 3.5, 5 and 12 times as much as a unit of energy from coal, respectively.
> 
> "Clear thinking shows that we value the services that energy can perform, not the energy per se, so it would be better to compare fuels by the services that each provides...not on a straight energy basis...which is likely to be irrelevant and misleading," says Dale.
> 
> For example, biofuels could be rated on how much petroleum use they can displace or their greenhouse gas production compared with petroleum. His calculations indicate that every MJ of ethanol can displace 28 MJ of petroleum, in other words ethanol greatly extends our existing supplies of petroleum. Using corn ethanol provides an 18% reduction in greenhouse gasses compared with petrol, while fibre-produced ethanol gives a 88% reduction compared to petrol.
> 
> "As we embark on this brave new world of alternative fuels we need to develop metrics that provide proper and useful comparisons, rather than simply using analyses that are simple and intuitively appealing, but give either no meaningful information, or worse still, information that misleads us and misdirects our efforts to develop petroleum replacements,"


----------



## JWBooth

For starters, the parts on my power equipment will last longer, and my cost of repairs will go down.


----------



## daveman

KissMy said:


> Net Energy: A Useless, Misleading And Dangerous Metric
> 
> 
> 
> His calculations indicate that every MJ of ethanol can displace 28 MJ of petroleum, in other words ethanol greatly extends our existing supplies of petroleum. Using corn ethanol provides an 18% reduction in greenhouse gasses compared with petrol, while fibre-produced ethanol gives a 88% reduction compared to petrol.
Click to expand...

That's impossible, considering it takes up to 6 units of petroleum to produce 1 unit of ethanol, as I've already shown.


----------



## KissMy

daveman said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Net Energy: A Useless, Misleading And Dangerous Metric
> 
> 
> 
> His calculations indicate that every MJ of ethanol can displace 28 MJ of petroleum, in other words ethanol greatly extends our existing supplies of petroleum. Using corn ethanol provides an 18% reduction in greenhouse gasses compared with petrol, while fibre-produced ethanol gives a 88% reduction compared to petrol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's impossible, considering it takes up to 6 units of petroleum to produce 1 unit of ethanol, as I've already shown.
Click to expand...


I have downloaded & read the report you posted & it is pure fiction. Non of his numbers jive with reality. It is from 2005 & has been debunked.

We produce & export Ethanol with no subsidy. The only tax break for ethanol sales is the 45 cent blender credit. That amounts to 4.5 cents per gallon tax break for every gallon of your regular E10 gasoline you pump into your car. There is no blender credit on exported ethanol.

Ethanol Exports Continue to Surge; Anti-Dumping Investigation Reduces DDGS Exports to China


> The new year began with a bang for U.S. ethanol exports, according to government data released today. Ethanol shipments (consisting of both denatured and undenatured, non-beverage, ethanol) totaled 57.2 million gallons in January, marking the second highest monthly total on record. However, the January total was down 20% from the all-time record of 71.9 million gallons. established in December 2010. *These exports are not eligible for the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), also called the blender&#8217;s credit.*
> 
> Of the total, 45.4 million gallons were denatured. Canada continued to be the top market for denatured ethanol exports, receiving 19.4 million gallons in January. The United Arab Emirates, the Netherlands, Finland, and the United Kingdom, respectively, were other top destinations for denatured product in January. Together, the top five importers received 98% of total U.S. denatured ethanol shipments in January.
> 
> The U.S. exported 11.8 million gallons of undenatured ethanol in January, with about half of that total going to Nigeria. The Netherlands and Mexico were the second- and third-leading importers in January. Together, the three countries received 97% of total undenatured ethanol exports in January.
> 
> At 714,000 metric tons, January exports of distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) were virtually identical to December 2010 levels (713,600 metric tons). Exports to China&#8212;the leading export market in 2010&#8212;fell by 30% in January, likely as the result of China&#8217;s DDGS anti-dumping investigation. January exports to China totaled 129,000 metric tons, down from 183,000 metric tons in December 2010. However, the drop in exports to China was offset by a surge in exports to Mexico. DDGS exports to Mexico jumped from 130,000 metric tons in December to 229,000 metric tons in January, a 76% increase.
> 
> Following Mexico and China, Canada was the third-leading market for DDGS exports in January, receiving 87,000 metric tons.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

Quantum Windbag said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Anything high in cellulose will do. I know a guy who has a motorcycle that burns alcohol. He makes his fuel from day old bread and doughnuts. He also makes it from cat tails and is experimenting with lawn clippings. Engines run cooler on straight ethanol to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US farmer produces over 12 billion bushel of #2 yellow field corn every year. Humans eat sweet corn. Humans do not eat this field corn. It is fed to livestock. Extracting Ethanol from this corn only uses the starch of the corn. All the protein remains as Distiller Dried Grains (DDG) animal feed. Protein is what builds muscles in animals. Muscles = Meat, Steak, Hamburger, etc. Corn starch created methane gas in farm animals. This is smelly & is 15 times stronger of a greenhouse gas than (CO2) Carbon Dioxide ever was.
> 
> If you converted all the Corn grown in the USA into Ethanol it still leaves US & the World nearly all the animal feed value in the form of DDGs that we would have got from feeding corn directly to animals. We still export the DDG animal feed to China & the rest of the world the same way we did the corn. Sugar cane, switch grass & algae do not have a usable food co-product. They only create toxic waste. That means when you take away farm acreage to grow one of those, you truly decrease the worlds available food & drive up food prices. That does not happen with corn ethanol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you converted all the Corn grown in the USA into Ethanol it can replace 25% of the total US Gasoline demand 12% of the total US Crude Oil demand.
> 
> Mixing Ethanol into Gasoline prevents the need for refineries to add the ground water polluting MTBE into gasoline.
> 
> Ethanol production in the USA has created over 500,000 good paying jobs in the USA. Not part time minimum wage jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep posting that thinking it actually proves something.
> 
> Are you aware that, if Obama's new mandates on ethanol remain in place, we will need to devote more and more crop to the feed corn every year? Eventually all the land currently used to produce both will be devoted to feed corn, and there will be no room to grow sweet corn.
> 
> There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Your statistics make that statement true.
Click to expand...


Notice how it has nothing more to say ?


----------



## KissMy

Momanohedhunter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US farmer produces over 12 billion bushel of #2 yellow field corn every year. Humans eat sweet corn. Humans do not eat this field corn. It is fed to livestock. Extracting Ethanol from this corn only uses the starch of the corn. All the protein remains as Distiller Dried Grains (DDG) animal feed. Protein is what builds muscles in animals. Muscles = Meat, Steak, Hamburger, etc. Corn starch created methane gas in farm animals. This is smelly & is 15 times stronger of a greenhouse gas than (CO2) Carbon Dioxide ever was.
> 
> If you converted all the Corn grown in the USA into Ethanol it still leaves US & the World nearly all the animal feed value in the form of DDGs that we would have got from feeding corn directly to animals. We still export the DDG animal feed to China & the rest of the world the same way we did the corn. Sugar cane, switch grass & algae do not have a usable food co-product. They only create toxic waste. That means when you take away farm acreage to grow one of those, you truly decrease the worlds available food & drive up food prices. That does not happen with corn ethanol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you converted all the Corn grown in the USA into Ethanol it can replace 25% of the total US Gasoline demand 12% of the total US Crude Oil demand.
> 
> Mixing Ethanol into Gasoline prevents the need for refineries to add the ground water polluting MTBE into gasoline.
> 
> Ethanol production in the USA has created over 500,000 good paying jobs in the USA. Not part time minimum wage jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep posting that thinking it actually proves something.
> 
> Are you aware that, if Obama's new mandates on ethanol remain in place, we will need to devote more and more crop to the feed corn every year? Eventually all the land currently used to produce both will be devoted to feed corn, and there will be no room to grow sweet corn.
> 
> There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Your statistics make that statement true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how it has nothing more to say ?
Click to expand...


If we took most of the over 12 billion bushel of #2 yellow field corn the US farmers produces every year & turned it all into ethanol there would still be plenty of DDGs left to feed all the livestock that were eating the field corn. Farmers are not increasing #2 yellow field corn acreage to squeeze out the Sweet Corn Humans eat. They are also not reducing cotton, soybean or wheat acres to grow corn for ethanol. See Chart:

USDA intended corn acreage and actual acreage planted from 1975 to 2006 in Wisconsin. Vertical bars represent the relative difference (%) between intended and actual acreage.





We will soon be also making lots of Cellulosic Ethanol from Corn stover, stalks, silk & shucks. I sure hope you weren't eating that stuff & are now going to cry about us burning your food in the gas tank. That will exceed all the mandated ethanol production goals. Poet already has a working cellulosic ethanol plant that is producing ethanol from leftover Corn stover, stalks, silk & shucks. POET plans to build many cellulosic ethanol plants to have a hand in producing 3.5 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year by 2022.

You retards are childish liars & unworthy of a response.


----------



## Mr. H.

KissMy said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ethanol also pollutes groundwater. It's a containment issue. MTBE was railroaded out of the picture by the Ag lobby. They needed to do this to set the stage for ethanol blending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ethanol Lobby did not even exist before the EPA decided to mandate Ethanol & Ban MTBE
> 
> Oh Yeah - The AG lobby really has sway with the EPA.
> 
> These 2 groups are always opposed to each other.
> 
> The EPA hates Farmers, Oil companies & any USA domestic industry. They would rather see it all go to foreign countries.
Click to expand...


As I recall initial lab testing revealed that ethanol blends, at that time, exceeded emissions standards. Standards were summarily re-written to accomodate ethanol.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

KissMy said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep posting that thinking it actually proves something.
> 
> Are you aware that, if Obama's new mandates on ethanol remain in place, we will need to devote more and more crop to the feed corn every year? Eventually all the land currently used to produce both will be devoted to feed corn, and there will be no room to grow sweet corn.
> 
> There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Your statistics make that statement true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how it has nothing more to say ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we took most of the over 12 billion bushel of #2 yellow field corn the US farmers produces every year & turned it all into ethanol there would still be plenty of DDGs left to feed all the livestock that were eating the field corn. Farmers are not increasing #2 yellow field corn acreage to squeeze out the Sweet Corn Humans eat. They are also not reducing cotton, soybean or wheat acres to grow corn for ethanol. See Chart:
> 
> USDA intended corn acreage and actual acreage planted from 1975 to 2006 in Wisconsin. Vertical bars represent the relative difference (%) between intended and actual acreage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will soon be also making lots of Cellulosic Ethanol from Corn stover, stalks, silk & shucks. I sure hope you weren't eating that stuff & are now going to cry about us burning your food in the gas tank. That will exceed all the mandated ethanol production goals. Poet already has a working cellulosic ethanol plant that is producing ethanol from leftover Corn stover, stalks, silk & shucks. POET plans to build many cellulosic ethanol plants to have a hand in producing 3.5 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year by 2022.
> 
> You retards are childish liars & unworthy of a response.
Click to expand...


More snippets from blogs. The secret is, that you cant google fast enough and still have no clue about what you are talking about. You are just another predictable lib troll.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

Mr. H. said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ethanol also pollutes groundwater. It's a containment issue. MTBE was railroaded out of the picture by the Ag lobby. They needed to do this to set the stage for ethanol blending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ethanol Lobby did not even exist before the EPA decided to mandate Ethanol & Ban MTBE
> 
> Oh Yeah - The AG lobby really has sway with the EPA.
> 
> These 2 groups are always opposed to each other.
> 
> The EPA hates Farmers, Oil companies & any USA domestic industry. They would rather see it all go to foreign countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I recall initial lab testing revealed that ethanol blends, at that time, exceeded emissions standards. Standards were summarily re-written to accomodate ethanol.
Click to expand...


it does burn cleaner. cooler to, its just that the stuff made from corn is inferior  compared to when its made from other things and the liquid is deadly poisonous no matter what you make it from.


----------



## daveman

KissMy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Net Energy: A Useless, Misleading And Dangerous Metric
> 
> 
> 
> That's impossible, considering it takes up to 6 units of petroleum to produce 1 unit of ethanol, as I've already shown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have downloaded & read the report you posted & it is pure fiction. Non of his numbers jive with reality. It is from 2005 & has been debunked.
Click to expand...

Doubtful.


KissMy said:


> We produce & export Ethanol with no subsidy. The only tax break for ethanol sales is the 45 cent blender credit. That amounts to 4.5 cents per gallon tax break for every gallon of your regular E10 gasoline you pump into your car. There is no blender credit on exported ethanol.


No subsidies for ethanol?  Really?
*Tax subsidies provided to corn ethanol producers have been larger than those given to producers of any other form of renewable energy. 
*Corn ethanol subsidies are now costing U.S. taxpayers about $7 billion per year, the Congressional Budget Office reported in July. The CBO found that producing enough corn ethanol to match the energy contained in a single gallon of conventional gasoline costs taxpayers $1.78.​


----------



## mudwhistle

rdean said:


> A study came along this past week from economists at Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin that found that if ethanol production came to an immediate halt, the estimated gasoline price increase would be what the researcher described as historic proportions, ranging from 41 to 92 percent.
> 
> Thats roughly $5.50 to $7.50 of gasoline per gallon.
> 
> The same research team, in a study sponsored by the Renewable Fuels Association and released by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), found that the increased use of ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of $0.89 per gallon in 2010. The average effect increased to $0.89 per gallon, and the regional impact ranges from $0.58 per gallon on the East Coast to $1.37 per gallon in the Midwest, according to the studys authors.
> 
> Ethanol In Pottersville
> 
> Thought this was interesting.



Water based ethanol causes a marked reduction in fuel economy especially during cold temps and causes damage to cataletic-converters. 

This explains why my engine warning light remains on all of the time.


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> A study came along this past week from economists at Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin that found that if ethanol production came to an immediate halt, the estimated gasoline price increase would be what the researcher described as historic proportions, ranging from 41 to 92 percent.
> 
> Thats roughly $5.50 to $7.50 of gasoline per gallon.
> 
> The same research team, in a study sponsored by the Renewable Fuels Association and released by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), found that the increased use of ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of $0.89 per gallon in 2010. The average effect increased to $0.89 per gallon, and the regional impact ranges from $0.58 per gallon on the East Coast to $1.37 per gallon in the Midwest, according to the studys authors.
> 
> Ethanol In Pottersville
> 
> Thought this was interesting.



This is interesting, too:
Between 1999 and 2009, U.S. ethanol production increased seven-fold, to more than 700,000 barrels per day (bbl/d). During that period, however, oil imports increased by more than 800,000 bbl/d. (In addition, U.S. oil exports  yes, exports  more than doubled, to about 2 million bbl/d.) Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that oil imports closely track domestic oil consumption. Over the past decade, as oil demand grew, so did imports. When consumption fell, imports did as well. Ethanol production levels had no apparent effect on the volume of oil imports or on consumption.

So despite more than three decades of subsidies costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, the ethanol industry cannot point to any decline in oil imports during the period when it experienced its most rapid growth.​


----------



## Momanohedhunter

mudwhistle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> A study came along this past week from economists at Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin that found that if ethanol production came to an immediate halt, the estimated gasoline price increase would be what the researcher described as historic proportions, ranging from 41 to 92 percent.
> 
> Thats roughly $5.50 to $7.50 of gasoline per gallon.
> 
> The same research team, in a study sponsored by the Renewable Fuels Association and released by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), found that the increased use of ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of $0.89 per gallon in 2010. The average effect increased to $0.89 per gallon, and the regional impact ranges from $0.58 per gallon on the East Coast to $1.37 per gallon in the Midwest, according to the studys authors.
> 
> Ethanol In Pottersville
> 
> Thought this was interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Water based ethanol causes a marked reduction in fuel economy especially during cold temps and causes damage to cataletic-converters.
> 
> This explains why my engine warning light remains on all of the time.
Click to expand...


Alcohol does burn cold. Thats why it is not the answer for everyone in every situation. And vehicles need to be built or converted to burn the stuff. There are cheaper ways to make it and better stuff to make it from. Most of Which can be pulled out of a trash can or the dumpster behind the grocery store. Converting a car or truck is not hard, and building a still is easy and cheap. I am converting a 95 pathfinder and looking into a motor cycle.


----------



## RodISHI

My old van runs like shit with ethanol and uses more gas. I have to drive to MO to get real gas.


----------



## Bern80

editec said:


> How much would enanthol gas cost us if its producers were getting _over a dollar a gallon_ from the Federal government?
> 
> Do you suppose it would be cheaper than non-enthanol gas?



Huh? They do and it is.


----------



## KissMy

Daveman is again debunked by his own link.  Here is the full artical from manhattan-institute

The title reads: Corn Ethanol Has Not Cut U.S. Oil Imports but the artical proves that *Corn Ethanol has increased U.S. Oil Exports* Here is the graph from your source that proves it.






Gee Mr Wizard, How could this be? So why doesn't ethanol cut oil imports?






Because even though domestic gasoline demand has been essentially flat for the past six years due to Corn ethanol. "Corn ethanol has not reduced the volume of oil imports, or overall oil use, and likely never will, because it can replace only one segment of the crude-oil barrel. Unless or until inventors come up with a substance (or substances) that can replace all of the products refined from a barrel of crude oilfrom gasoline to naphtha and diesel to asphaltthis country, along with every other one, will have to continue to rely on the global oil market."

This proves Corn Ethanol is reducing the price of gasoline at the pump. Because we are processing crude for all the other elements besides gasoline. *We have so much excess gasoline & ethanol now that we have to export ethanol & gasoline.*

*Fact: Ethanol has increased U.S. Oil Exports!!!

Fact: Ethanol has reduced the price of gasoline at the pump!!!*


----------



## daveman

KissMy said:


> Daveman is again debunked by his own link.  Here is the full artical from manhattan-institute
> 
> The title reads: Corn Ethanol Has Not Cut U.S. Oil Imports but the artical proves that *Corn Ethanol has increased U.S. Oil Exports* Here is the graph from your source that proves it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee Mr Wizard, How could this be?


Compare ethanol production to gas exports.  Remarkably inefficient, isn't it?


KissMy said:


> So why doesn't ethanol cut oil imports?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because even though domestic gasoline demand has been essentially flat for the past six years due to Corn ethanol. "Corn ethanol has not reduced the volume of oil imports, or overall oil use, and likely never will, because it can replace only one segment of the crude-oil barrel. Unless or until inventors come up with a substance (or substances) that can replace all of the products refined from a barrel of crude oilfrom gasoline to naphtha and diesel to asphaltthis country, along with every other one, will have to continue to rely on the global oil market."
> 
> This proves Corn Ethanol is reducing the price of gasoline at the pump. Because we are processing crude for all the other elements besides gasoline. *We have so much excess gasoline & ethanol now that we have to export ethanol & gasoline.*
> 
> *Fact: Ethanol has increased U.S. Oil Exports!!!
> 
> Fact: Ethanol has reduced the price of gasoline at the pump!!!*


Fact:  Ethanol takes more energy to produce than it provides.  And it's environmentally damaging:  
While the BP oil spill has been labeled the worst environmental catastrophe in recent U.S. history, a biofuel is contributing to a Gulf of Mexico "dead zone" the size of New Jersey that scientists say could be every bit as harmful to the gulf.​While you're "saving the environment", you're damaging the environment.  Only a leftist would support that.


----------



## editec

Has anybody notice what a bag of FTIZOS cost?

How about the cost of Enathol "enhanced" gas?


----------



## Momanohedhunter

daveman said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daveman is again debunked by his own link.  Here is the full artical from manhattan-institute
> 
> The title reads: Corn Ethanol Has Not Cut U.S. Oil Imports but the artical proves that *Corn Ethanol has increased U.S. Oil Exports* Here is the graph from your source that proves it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee Mr Wizard, How could this be?
> 
> 
> 
> Compare ethanol production to gas exports.  Remarkably inefficient, isn't it?
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why doesn't ethanol cut oil imports?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because even though domestic gasoline demand has been essentially flat for the past six years due to Corn ethanol. "Corn ethanol has not reduced the volume of oil imports, or overall oil use, and likely never will, because it can replace only one segment of the crude-oil barrel. Unless or until inventors come up with a substance (or substances) that can replace all of the products refined from a barrel of crude oilfrom gasoline to naphtha and diesel to asphaltthis country, along with every other one, will have to continue to rely on the global oil market."
> 
> This proves Corn Ethanol is reducing the price of gasoline at the pump. Because we are processing crude for all the other elements besides gasoline. *We have so much excess gasoline & ethanol now that we have to export ethanol & gasoline.*
> 
> *Fact: Ethanol has increased U.S. Oil Exports!!!
> 
> Fact: Ethanol has reduced the price of gasoline at the pump!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact:  Ethanol takes more energy to produce than it provides.  And it's environmentally damaging:
> While the BP oil spill has been labeled the worst environmental catastrophe in recent U.S. history, a biofuel is contributing to a Gulf of Mexico "dead zone" the size of New Jersey that scientists say could be every bit as harmful to the gulf.​While you're "saving the environment", you're damaging the environment.  Only a leftist would support that.
Click to expand...


It points to this dudes ignorance. He as a lib is used to hand outs and welfare. He is one of those who looks at government money like it just appears there. He cant understand it any other way. Ethanol is a valid alternative to gas, but not the way the government does it. They forced it on the public and bumped the price of a gallon of gas and fucked up a bunch of vehicles doing it. The production of government subsidized ethanol is nothing more then a bunch of good'ol boy kick backs. Ethanol made from corn is an inferior product .


----------



## daveman

Momanohedhunter said:


> It points to this dudes ignorance. He as a lib is used to hand outs and welfare. He is one of those who looks at government money like it just appears there. He cant understand it any other way. Ethanol is a valid alternative to gas, but not the way the government does it. They forced it on the public and bumped the price of a gallon of gas and fucked up a bunch of vehicles doing it. The production of government subsidized ethanol is nothing more then a bunch of good'ol boy kick backs. Ethanol made from corn is an inferior product .



Good intentions, not a bit of thought about the consequences.  Liberalism.


----------



## KissMy

daveman said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daveman is again debunked by his own link.  Here is the full artical from manhattan-institute
> 
> The title reads: Corn Ethanol Has Not Cut U.S. Oil Imports but the artical proves that *Corn Ethanol has increased U.S. Oil Exports* Here is the graph from your source that proves it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee Mr Wizard, How could this be?
> 
> 
> 
> Compare ethanol production to gas exports.  Remarkably inefficient, isn't it?
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why doesn't ethanol cut oil imports?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because even though domestic gasoline demand has been essentially flat for the past six years due to Corn ethanol. "Corn ethanol has not reduced the volume of oil imports, or overall oil use, and likely never will, because it can replace only one segment of the crude-oil barrel. Unless or until inventors come up with a substance (or substances) that can replace all of the products refined from a barrel of crude oil&#8212;from gasoline to naphtha and diesel to asphalt&#8212;this country, along with every other one, will have to continue to rely on the global oil market."
> 
> This proves Corn Ethanol is reducing the price of gasoline at the pump. Because we are processing crude for all the other elements besides gasoline. *We have so much excess gasoline & ethanol now that we have to export ethanol & gasoline.*
> 
> *Fact: Ethanol has increased U.S. Oil Exports!!!
> 
> Fact: Ethanol has reduced the price of gasoline at the pump!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact:  Ethanol takes more energy to produce than it provides.  And it's environmentally damaging:
> While the BP oil spill has been labeled the worst environmental catastrophe in recent U.S. history, a biofuel is contributing to a Gulf of Mexico "dead zone" the size of New Jersey that scientists say could be every bit as harmful to the gulf.​While you're "saving the environment", you're damaging the environment.  Only a leftist would support that.
Click to expand...




> Some scientists fear the oil spill will worsen the dead zone, because when oil decomposes, it also consumes oxygen. New government estimates on Thursday indicated that the BP oil spill had gushed as much as 141 million gallons since an oil-rig explosion and well blowout on April 20 that killed 11 workers.



So Gulf Oil is killing way more of the Gulf than ethanol but somehow you oil boys claim ethanol is bad? 

You do know that Big Oil has bought & paid for politicians for the last 100 years don't you? Big Oil has also bought & paid for the media at least since the 1970's. Who do you think paid for & built NBC's Rockefeller Plaza? Who do you think built The World Trade Center? Who's Oil Companies do you think the US Military defends in foreign countries?

No-Till Corn Farming does not contribute to the Gulf dead zone. No-Till Corn Farming reduces the Gulf dead zone. No-Till Farming is on the rise. Why don't you get the EPA to mandate No-Till Farming instead of blaming the ethanol industry for the DESTRUCTION OF THE GULF BY THE BIG OIL COMPANIES?


----------



## daveman

KissMy said:


> So Gulf Oil is killing way more of the Gulf than ethanol but somehow you oil boys claim ethanol is bad?
> 
> You do know that Big Oil has bought & paid for politictions for the last 100 years don't you? Big Oil has also bought & paid for the media at least since the 1970's. Who do you think paid for & built NBC's Rockefeller Plaza?
> 
> No-Till Corn Farming does not contribute to the Gulf Dead Zone! No-Till Farming is on the rise. Why don't you get the EPA to mandate No-Till Farming instead of blaming the ethanol industry for the DESTRUCTION OF THE GULF BY THE BIG OIL COMPANIES?


I knew you wounldn't get it.  But only because you're stupid.

The oil spill was an accident.  Flushing agrichemicals into the Gulf is _deliberate_.  

You know the danger and the effects.  But you still support it.  

And no-till farming has nothing to do with the ethanol-caused dead zone in the Gulf.  It's the run-off from corn farming that's causing it.  And do you know what that run-off is from?  Agrichemicals.  And do you know what agrichemicals are made from?

Petroleum.  

So:  Ethanol production is flushing petrochemicals into the Gulf where it's killing marine life.

And you support it.

What makes you better than the BP officials you hate?

_Nothing._


----------



## KissMy

daveman said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Gulf Oil is killing way more of the Gulf than ethanol but somehow you oil boys claim ethanol is bad?
> 
> You do know that Big Oil has bought & paid for politicians for the last 100 years don't you? Big Oil has also bought & paid for the media at least since the 1970's. Who do you think paid for & built NBC's Rockefeller Plaza? Who do you think built The World Trade Center? Who's Oil Companies do you think the US Military defends in foreign countries?
> 
> No-Till Corn Farming does not contribute to the Gulf Dead Zone! No-Till Farming is on the rise. Why don't you get the EPA to mandate No-Till Farming instead of blaming the ethanol industry for the DESTRUCTION OF THE GULF BY THE BIG OIL COMPANIES?
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you wounldn't get it.  But only because you're stupid.
> 
> The oil spill was an accident.  Flushing agrichemicals into the Gulf is _deliberate_.
> 
> You know the danger and the effects.  But you still support it.
> 
> And no-till farming has nothing to do with the ethanol-caused dead zone in the Gulf.  It's the run-off from corn farming that's causing it.  And do you know what that run-off is from?  Agrichemicals.  And do you know what agrichemicals are made from?
> 
> Petroleum.
> 
> So:  Ethanol production is flushing petrochemicals into the Gulf where it's killing marine life.
> 
> And you support it.
> 
> What makes you better than the BP officials you hate?
> 
> _Nothing._
Click to expand...


You are a Big Oil Idiot. You know absolutely nothing about Farming, No-Till Farming, World Food Production or Ethanol Production.

Agrichemicals in the rivers increases algae blooms in the Gulf. That is an increase in marine life. Algae makes the Crude Oil in the Gulf that oil companies are extracting. Why don't you filter the algae out of the river & squeeze crude oil out of that?

No-Till Farming greatly reduces soil erosion & the run-off of agrichemicals into rivers. This also reduces the need for farmers to apply agrichemicals. No-Till Farming greatly reduces the use of Diesel Fuel & Agrichemicals.


----------



## daveman

KissMy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Gulf Oil is killing way more of the Gulf than ethanol but somehow you oil boys claim ethanol is bad?
> 
> You do know that Big Oil has bought & paid for politicians for the last 100 years don't you? Big Oil has also bought & paid for the media at least since the 1970's. Who do you think paid for & built NBC's Rockefeller Plaza? Who do you think built The World Trade Center? Who's Oil Companies do you think the US Military defends in foreign countries?
> 
> No-Till Corn Farming does not contribute to the Gulf Dead Zone! No-Till Farming is on the rise. Why don't you get the EPA to mandate No-Till Farming instead of blaming the ethanol industry for the DESTRUCTION OF THE GULF BY THE BIG OIL COMPANIES?
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you wounldn't get it.  But only because you're stupid.
> 
> The oil spill was an accident.  Flushing agrichemicals into the Gulf is _deliberate_.
> 
> You know the danger and the effects.  But you still support it.
> 
> And no-till farming has nothing to do with the ethanol-caused dead zone in the Gulf.  It's the run-off from corn farming that's causing it.  And do you know what that run-off is from?  Agrichemicals.  And do you know what agrichemicals are made from?
> 
> Petroleum.
> 
> So:  Ethanol production is flushing petrochemicals into the Gulf where it's killing marine life.
> 
> And you support it.
> 
> What makes you better than the BP officials you hate?
> 
> _Nothing._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a Big Oil Idiot. You know absolutely nothing about Farming, No-Till Farming, World Food Production or Ethanol Production.
> 
> Agrichemicals in the rivers increases algae blooms in the Gulf. That is an increase in marine life. Algae makes the Crude Oil in the Gulf that oil companies are extracting. Why don't you filter the algae out of the river & squeeze crude oil out of that?
> 
> No-Till Farming greatly reduces soil erosion & the run-off of agrichemicals into rivers. This also reduces the need for farmers to apply agrichemicals. No-Till Farming greatly reduces the use of Diesel Fuel & Agrichemicals.
Click to expand...


You Big Ethanol shills are funny.  You';re saying agricultural runoff is beneficial?  Then why are you advocating no-till farming to reduce runoff?

I'll give you a minute to consider this.  I can tell you haven't given this any thought.

Nevertheless, ag runoff is anything but harmless:
he year was 2000 and states up and down the Mississippi River, spurred by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, were coming to grips with one of Americas most vexing water quality challenges: the fertilizer runoff from Midwestern farm fields flowing hundreds of miles south to the Gulf of Mexico.

A mass of oxygen-deprived water had expanded in 1999 to a then-record 7,700 square miles, bigger than Connecticut and approaching the size of New Hampshire or Vermont. Farm chemicals from the Midwest and elsewhere were blamed in scientific studies for triggering much of the vast algae growth showing up along the Louisiana and Texas coasts and in so doing consuming oxygen.

Aquatic creatures fled or died and shrimpers went out of business.

--

Late last month, a panel of independent scientists convened by the EPA issued its preliminary findings, affirming much of what had been known a decade ago _ and reaching the strong conclusion that increased nutrient loads have led to hypoxia, the low-oxygen condition causing problems in the Gulf.​
A 2008 study found over 400 Dead Zones around the world, and the Gulf of Mexico's is one of the largest. Snaking along the Louisiana and Texas coasts, the expanding Gulf Dead Zone has drastically reduced seafood stocks and pushed fishers further out to sea.

The primary culprit? Nitrate-laced runoff from agricultural operations along the Mississippi River, which eventually drain into Gulf waters. One study found that 51% of nitrogen load in the Mississippi was from commercial fertilizer, with livestock manure, human sewage and runoff from other crops contributing to the mix.​

Congratulations.  You support killing the Gulf.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

KissMy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Gulf Oil is killing way more of the Gulf than ethanol but somehow you oil boys claim ethanol is bad?
> 
> You do know that Big Oil has bought & paid for politicians for the last 100 years don't you? Big Oil has also bought & paid for the media at least since the 1970's. Who do you think paid for & built NBC's Rockefeller Plaza? Who do you think built The World Trade Center? Who's Oil Companies do you think the US Military defends in foreign countries?
> 
> No-Till Corn Farming does not contribute to the Gulf Dead Zone! No-Till Farming is on the rise. Why don't you get the EPA to mandate No-Till Farming instead of blaming the ethanol industry for the DESTRUCTION OF THE GULF BY THE BIG OIL COMPANIES?
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you wounldn't get it.  But only because you're stupid.
> 
> The oil spill was an accident.  Flushing agrichemicals into the Gulf is _deliberate_.
> 
> You know the danger and the effects.  But you still support it.
> 
> And no-till farming has nothing to do with the ethanol-caused dead zone in the Gulf.  It's the run-off from corn farming that's causing it.  And do you know what that run-off is from?  Agrichemicals.  And do you know what agrichemicals are made from?
> 
> Petroleum.
> 
> So:  Ethanol production is flushing petrochemicals into the Gulf where it's killing marine life.
> 
> And you support it.
> 
> What makes you better than the BP officials you hate?
> 
> _Nothing._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a Big Oil Idiot. You know absolutely nothing about Farming, No-Till Farming, World Food Production or Ethanol Production.
> 
> Agrichemicals in the rivers increases algae blooms in the Gulf. That is an increase in marine life. Algae makes the Crude Oil in the Gulf that oil companies are extracting. Why don't you filter the algae out of the river & squeeze crude oil out of that?
> 
> No-Till Farming greatly reduces soil erosion & the run-off of agrichemicals into rivers. This also reduces the need for farmers to apply agrichemicals. No-Till Farming greatly reduces the use of Diesel Fuel & Agrichemicals.
Click to expand...


Oh dude you are so wrong. AG run off is killing rivers and lakes from all the pesticide and fertilizer runs off into them. No till farming yeah right. The corn barons all grow no till, that's bull shit.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

daveman said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you wounldn't get it.  But only because you're stupid.
> 
> The oil spill was an accident.  Flushing agrichemicals into the Gulf is _deliberate_.
> 
> You know the danger and the effects.  But you still support it.
> 
> And no-till farming has nothing to do with the ethanol-caused dead zone in the Gulf.  It's the run-off from corn farming that's causing it.  And do you know what that run-off is from?  Agrichemicals.  And do you know what agrichemicals are made from?
> 
> Petroleum.
> 
> So:  Ethanol production is flushing petrochemicals into the Gulf where it's killing marine life.
> 
> And you support it.
> 
> What makes you better than the BP officials you hate?
> 
> _Nothing._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a Big Oil Idiot. You know absolutely nothing about Farming, No-Till Farming, World Food Production or Ethanol Production.
> 
> Agrichemicals in the rivers increases algae blooms in the Gulf. That is an increase in marine life. Algae makes the Crude Oil in the Gulf that oil companies are extracting. Why don't you filter the algae out of the river & squeeze crude oil out of that?
> 
> No-Till Farming greatly reduces soil erosion & the run-off of agrichemicals into rivers. This also reduces the need for farmers to apply agrichemicals. No-Till Farming greatly reduces the use of Diesel Fuel & Agrichemicals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Big Ethanol shills are funny.  You';re saying agricultural runoff is beneficial?  Then why are you advocating no-till farming to reduce runoff?
> 
> I'll give you a minute to consider this.  I can tell you haven't given this any thought.
> 
> Nevertheless, ag runoff is anything but harmless:
> he year was 2000 and states up and down the Mississippi River, spurred by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, were coming to grips with one of Americas most vexing water quality challenges: the fertilizer runoff from Midwestern farm fields flowing hundreds of miles south to the Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> A mass of oxygen-deprived water had expanded in 1999 to a then-record 7,700 square miles, bigger than Connecticut and approaching the size of New Hampshire or Vermont. Farm chemicals from the Midwest and elsewhere were blamed in scientific studies for triggering much of the vast algae growth showing up along the Louisiana and Texas coasts and in so doing consuming oxygen.
> 
> Aquatic creatures fled or died and shrimpers went out of business.
> 
> --
> 
> Late last month, a panel of independent scientists convened by the EPA issued its preliminary findings, affirming much of what had been known a decade ago _ and reaching the strong conclusion that increased nutrient loads have led to hypoxia, the low-oxygen condition causing problems in the Gulf.​
> A 2008 study found over 400 Dead Zones around the world, and the Gulf of Mexico's is one of the largest. Snaking along the Louisiana and Texas coasts, the expanding Gulf Dead Zone has drastically reduced seafood stocks and pushed fishers further out to sea.
> 
> The primary culprit? Nitrate-laced runoff from agricultural operations along the Mississippi River, which eventually drain into Gulf waters. One study found that 51% of nitrogen load in the Mississippi was from commercial fertilizer, with livestock manure, human sewage and runoff from other crops contributing to the mix.​
> 
> Congratulations.  You support killing the Gulf.
Click to expand...


Yup. You see big green mats of green slime in  the bay ware creeks and bayou's empty in to it. This dude only has google to fall back on for clues.


----------



## KissMy

So you do not consider Algae to be Aquatic Life? Interesting!

Like I said, If you are worried about algae then filter it out of the water & turn it into fuel.

This algae issue in the GOM was an issue before 2000 & before the run-up in ethanol production. Ethanol has nothing to due with GOM dead zone. But Big Oil has created a larger Dead Zone than farmers ever did. Again if you are truly worried about the GOM then force the EPA to mandate No-Till Farming. That will reduce diesel fuel & petro-chemicals use & run-off into the GOM. But that is the real issue isn't it? *There is no way in hell Big Oil would ever want farmers to reduce their use of diesel fuel & petro-chemicals!!!*


----------



## daveman

Momanohedhunter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a Big Oil Idiot. You know absolutely nothing about Farming, No-Till Farming, World Food Production or Ethanol Production.
> 
> Agrichemicals in the rivers increases algae blooms in the Gulf. That is an increase in marine life. Algae makes the Crude Oil in the Gulf that oil companies are extracting. Why don't you filter the algae out of the river & squeeze crude oil out of that?
> 
> No-Till Farming greatly reduces soil erosion & the run-off of agrichemicals into rivers. This also reduces the need for farmers to apply agrichemicals. No-Till Farming greatly reduces the use of Diesel Fuel & Agrichemicals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You Big Ethanol shills are funny.  You';re saying agricultural runoff is beneficial?  Then why are you advocating no-till farming to reduce runoff?
> 
> I'll give you a minute to consider this.  I can tell you haven't given this any thought.
> 
> Nevertheless, ag runoff is anything but harmless:
> he year was 2000 and states up and down the Mississippi River, spurred by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, were coming to grips with one of Americas most vexing water quality challenges: the fertilizer runoff from Midwestern farm fields flowing hundreds of miles south to the Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> A mass of oxygen-deprived water had expanded in 1999 to a then-record 7,700 square miles, bigger than Connecticut and approaching the size of New Hampshire or Vermont. Farm chemicals from the Midwest and elsewhere were blamed in scientific studies for triggering much of the vast algae growth showing up along the Louisiana and Texas coasts and in so doing consuming oxygen.
> 
> Aquatic creatures fled or died and shrimpers went out of business.
> 
> --
> 
> Late last month, a panel of independent scientists convened by the EPA issued its preliminary findings, affirming much of what had been known a decade ago _ and reaching the strong conclusion that increased nutrient loads have led to hypoxia, the low-oxygen condition causing problems in the Gulf.​
> A 2008 study found over 400 Dead Zones around the world, and the Gulf of Mexico's is one of the largest. Snaking along the Louisiana and Texas coasts, the expanding Gulf Dead Zone has drastically reduced seafood stocks and pushed fishers further out to sea.
> 
> The primary culprit? Nitrate-laced runoff from agricultural operations along the Mississippi River, which eventually drain into Gulf waters. One study found that 51% of nitrogen load in the Mississippi was from commercial fertilizer, with livestock manure, human sewage and runoff from other crops contributing to the mix.​
> 
> Congratulations.  You support killing the Gulf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. You see big green mats of green slime in  the bay ware creeks and bayou's empty in to it. This dude only has google to fall back on for clues.
Click to expand...


He's been programmed to screech "Ethanol good!  Ethanol GOOD!"

No independent thought required.


----------



## daveman

KissMy said:


> Ethanol has nothing to due with GOM dead zone.



Since I've shown you that growing corn for ethanol production has, indeed, caused a dead zone in the Gulf, I can only conclude you're either stupid or a liar, although the two aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## KissMy

daveman said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you do not consider Algae to be Aquatic Life? Interesting!
> 
> Like I said, If you are worried about algae then filter it out of the water & turn it into fuel.
> 
> This algae issue in the GOM was an issue before 2000 & before the run-up in ethanol production. Ethanol has nothing to due with GOM dead zone. But Big Oil has created a larger Dead Zone than farmers ever did. Again if you are truly worried about the GOM then force the EPA to mandate No-Till Farming. That will reduce diesel fuel & petro-chemicals use & run-off into the GOM. But that is the real issue isn't it? There is no way in hell Big Oil would ever want farmers to reduce their use of diesel fuel & petro-chemicals!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I've shown you that growing corn for ethanol production has, indeed, caused a dead zone in the Gulf, I can only conclude you're either stupid or a liar, although the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...


You have not shown that ethanol killed the GOM. You have shown that Big Oil killed more than farmers did. Farmers use of petrochemicals grows algae in the GOM. That is a life. The algae is competing with shrimp & fish cutting their numbers in the so called "dead zones". Like I said, if you are truly worried about the GOM then force the EPA to mandate No-Till Farming. That will reduce diesel fuel & petro-chemicals use & run-off into the GOM. But that is the real issue isn't it? There is no way in hell Big Oil would ever want farmers to reduce their use of diesel fuel & petro-chemicals!!!

You don't give a shit about the GOM. You don't care that Big oil killed the most life in the GOM. You don't want farmers to reduce their diesel fuel & petro-chemicals use. You are just pissed that Ethanol has reduced Gasoline Prices cutting into Big Oil profits. You idiots are even defending Big Oil subsidies in other threads. What a stupid tool you are.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

KissMy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you do not consider Algae to be Aquatic Life? Interesting!
> 
> Like I said, If you are worried about algae then filter it out of the water & turn it into fuel.
> 
> This algae issue in the GOM was an issue before 2000 & before the run-up in ethanol production. Ethanol has nothing to due with GOM dead zone. But Big Oil has created a larger Dead Zone than farmers ever did. Again if you are truly worried about the GOM then force the EPA to mandate No-Till Farming. That will reduce diesel fuel & petro-chemicals use & run-off into the GOM. But that is the real issue isn't it? There is no way in hell Big Oil would ever want farmers to reduce their use of diesel fuel & petro-chemicals!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I've shown you that growing corn for ethanol production has, indeed, caused a dead zone in the Gulf, I can only conclude you're either stupid or a liar, although the two aren't mutually exclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not shown that ethanol killed the GOM. You have shown that Big Oil killed more than farmers did. Farmers use of petrochemicals grows algae in the GOM. That is a life. The algae is competing with shrimp & fish cutting their numbers in the so called "dead zones". Like I said, if you are truly worried about the GOM then force the EPA to mandate No-Till Farming. That will reduce diesel fuel & petro-chemicals use & run-off into the GOM. But that is the real issue isn't it? There is no way in hell Big Oil would ever want farmers to reduce their use of diesel fuel & petro-chemicals!!!
> 
> You don't give a shit about the GOM. You don't care that Big oil killed the most life in the GOM. You don't want farmers to reduce their diesel fuel & petro-chemicals use. You are just pissed that Ethanol has reduced Gasoline Prices cutting into Big Oil profits. You idiots are even defending Big Oil subsidies in other threads. What a stupid tool you are.
Click to expand...


Again you show your ignorance. It is not petro-chem runoff its all of the fertilizer. This fertilizer creates a massive algae bloom that removes all of the oxygen in the water and kills all of the fish. Come on dude, they teach that stuff in Head Start.


----------



## daveman

KissMy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you do not consider Algae to be Aquatic Life? Interesting!
> 
> Like I said, If you are worried about algae then filter it out of the water & turn it into fuel.
> 
> This algae issue in the GOM was an issue before 2000 & before the run-up in ethanol production. Ethanol has nothing to due with GOM dead zone. But Big Oil has created a larger Dead Zone than farmers ever did. Again if you are truly worried about the GOM then force the EPA to mandate No-Till Farming. That will reduce diesel fuel & petro-chemicals use & run-off into the GOM. But that is the real issue isn't it? There is no way in hell Big Oil would ever want farmers to reduce their use of diesel fuel & petro-chemicals!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I've shown you that growing corn for ethanol production has, indeed, caused a dead zone in the Gulf, I can only conclude you're either stupid or a liar, although the two aren't mutually exclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not shown that ethanol killed the GOM. You have shown that Big Oil killed more than farmers did. Farmers use of petrochemicals grows algae in the GOM. That is a life. The algae is competing with shrimp & fish cutting their numbers in the so called "dead zones". Like I said, if you are truly worried about the GOM then force the EPA to mandate No-Till Farming. That will reduce diesel fuel & petro-chemicals use & run-off into the GOM. But that is the real issue isn't it? There is no way in hell Big Oil would ever want farmers to reduce their use of diesel fuel & petro-chemicals!!!
> 
> You don't give a shit about the GOM. You don't care that Big oil killed the most life in the GOM. You don't want farmers to reduce their diesel fuel & petro-chemicals use. You are just pissed that Ethanol has reduced Gasoline Prices cutting into Big Oil profits. You idiots are even defending Big Oil subsidies in other threads. What a stupid tool you are.
Click to expand...


So it looks like I was right after all.  You are a liar, and you are stupid.  

From one of my earlier links:
A mass of oxygen-deprived water had expanded in 1999 to a then-record 7,700 square miles, bigger than Connecticut and approaching the size of New Hampshire or Vermont. *Farm chemicals from the Midwest and elsewhere were blamed in scientific studies for triggering much of the vast algae growth showing up along the Louisiana and Texas coasts and in so doing consuming oxygen.*​You really are irrational.


----------



## daveman

Momanohedhunter said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I've shown you that growing corn for ethanol production has, indeed, caused a dead zone in the Gulf, I can only conclude you're either stupid or a liar, although the two aren't mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not shown that ethanol killed the GOM. You have shown that Big Oil killed more than farmers did. Farmers use of petrochemicals grows algae in the GOM. That is a life. The algae is competing with shrimp & fish cutting their numbers in the so called "dead zones". Like I said, if you are truly worried about the GOM then force the EPA to mandate No-Till Farming. That will reduce diesel fuel & petro-chemicals use & run-off into the GOM. But that is the real issue isn't it? There is no way in hell Big Oil would ever want farmers to reduce their use of diesel fuel & petro-chemicals!!!
> 
> You don't give a shit about the GOM. You don't care that Big oil killed the most life in the GOM. You don't want farmers to reduce their diesel fuel & petro-chemicals use. You are just pissed that Ethanol has reduced Gasoline Prices cutting into Big Oil profits. You idiots are even defending Big Oil subsidies in other threads. What a stupid tool you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you show your ignorance. It is not petro-chem runoff its all of the fertilizer. This fertilizer creates a massive algae bloom that removes all of the oxygen in the water and kills all of the fish. Come on dude, they teach that stuff in Head Start.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's both.  Fertilizers (and pesticides) are made from petrochemicals.


----------



## editec

*



Stop selling ethanol and see what happens 

Click to expand...

 

Okay, lets!*


----------



## Momanohedhunter

editec said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> Stop selling ethanol and see what happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, lets!*



Dont buy it. Make your own. Convert a lawn mower, they pollute more then a car of 80's vintage. Just leave folks a choice.


----------



## daveman

Momanohedhunter said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Stop selling ethanol and see what happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, lets!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont buy it. Make your own. Convert a lawn mower, they pollute more then a car of 80's vintage. *Just leave folks a choice.*
Click to expand...


Can't have that.  How can we mandate the Leftist Utopia if people have a choice?  The proles are too stupid to do their thinking on their own.  They need leftists to tell them what's in their best interests.  


There, did I do that right, KissMy?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

KissMy said:


> Daveman is again debunked by his own link.  Here is the full artical from manhattan-institute
> 
> The title reads: Corn Ethanol Has Not Cut U.S. Oil Imports but the artical proves that *Corn Ethanol has increased U.S. Oil Exports* Here is the graph from your source that proves it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee Mr Wizard, How could this be? So why doesn't ethanol cut oil imports?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because even though domestic gasoline demand has been essentially flat for the past six years due to Corn ethanol. "Corn ethanol has not reduced the volume of oil imports, or overall oil use, and likely never will, because it can replace only one segment of the crude-oil barrel. Unless or until inventors come up with a substance (or substances) that can replace all of the products refined from a barrel of crude oilfrom gasoline to naphtha and diesel to asphaltthis country, along with every other one, will have to continue to rely on the global oil market."
> 
> This proves Corn Ethanol is reducing the price of gasoline at the pump. Because we are processing crude for all the other elements besides gasoline. *We have so much excess gasoline & ethanol now that we have to export ethanol & gasoline.*
> 
> *Fact: Ethanol has increased U.S. Oil Exports!!!
> 
> Fact: Ethanol has reduced the price of gasoline at the pump!!!*



It proves no such thing. In order to prove that ethanol increased oil exports you have to prove that production and drilling levels remained exactly the same during that period. Those pretty pictures do not even mention those.


----------



## KissMy

daveman said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not shown that ethanol killed the GOM. You have shown that Big Oil killed more than farmers did. Farmers use of petrochemicals grows algae in the GOM. That is a life. The algae is competing with shrimp & fish cutting their numbers in the so called "dead zones". Like I said, if you are truly worried about the GOM then force the EPA to mandate No-Till Farming. That will reduce diesel fuel & petro-chemicals use & run-off into the GOM. But that is the real issue isn't it? There is no way in hell Big Oil would ever want farmers to reduce their use of diesel fuel & petro-chemicals!!!
> 
> You don't give a shit about the GOM. You don't care that Big oil killed the most life in the GOM. You don't want farmers to reduce their diesel fuel & petro-chemicals use. You are just pissed that Ethanol has reduced Gasoline Prices cutting into Big Oil profits. You idiots are even defending Big Oil subsidies in other threads. What a stupid tool you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it looks like I was right after all.  You are a liar, and you are stupid.
> 
> From one of my earlier links:
> A mass of oxygen-deprived water had expanded in 1999 to a then-record 7,700 square miles, bigger than Connecticut and approaching the size of New Hampshire or Vermont. *Farm chemicals from the Midwest and elsewhere were blamed in scientific studies for triggering much of the vast algae growth showing up along the Louisiana and Texas coasts and in so doing consuming oxygen.*​You really are irrational.
Click to expand...


Just like all of your post, once again you are wrong. I was right after all. You are a liar, and you are stupid.

The GOM dead zone in 2002 measured 8,484 square miles. After 8 years of rapid ethanol growth, the GOM dead zone has shrunk. In 2010 it only measured 6,564 square miles. That is back to the levels before 1993.

Here is the reason the GOM dead zone shrunk from 2002 to 2010 even as Ethanol Production Exploded during that same period. In 2002 less than 25% of US farmers did NO-Till Farming. By 2009 that number of has grown to 35.5% of US farmers do NO-Till Farming. This is reducing the petrochemicals running off the fields & the use of petrochemicals. We could mandate that all farmers do NO-Till Farming to save major fuel & petrochemical expense & to reduce the algae in the GOM thereby reducing the "Dead Zone". But no I forgot, you don't give a shit about the environment. You just want more Big Oil Subsidy.

You are stupid stupid stupid!!! Now go shill for some more Big Oil Subsidies!


----------



## percysunshine

rdean said:


> * Stop selling ethanol and see what happens*.



Gas milage would improve, cows would get fatter, and the price of tortias in Mexco would go down. 

Other than that, not much else.


----------



## daveman

KissMy said:


> Just like all of your post, once again you are wrong. I was right after all. You are a liar, and you are stupid.



Eat shit, troll.

Oh, and since you didn't provide a link for your claims, I have no choice but to conclude you're lying.  But then, you're a leftist, and you're astoundingly stupid (even for a leftist!), so you simply can't help it.


----------



## KissMy

There is no correlation between ethanol production & the size of the GOM dead zone.

Here is the actual data from NOAA & the EIA. Since you want to be a neg repping butt-hurt sissy-bed-wetter about it. You can go fish for your own links.

*Dead Zone Area with Ethanol Production Totals.*
2010 - 6564 square miles - 13,230,000,000 gallons ethanol
2009 - 3000 square miles - 10,758,258,000 gallons ethanol
2008 - 7988 square miles - 9,000,000,000 gallons ethanol
2007 - 7903 square miles - 6,500,000,000 gallons ethanol
2006 - 6662 square miles - 4,855,000,000 gallons ethanol
2005 - 4564 square miles - 3,904,000,000 gallons ethanol
2004 - 5800 square miles - 3,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
2003 - 3220 square miles - 2,800,000,000 gallons ethanol
2002 - 8484 square miles - 2,130,000,000 gallons ethanol
2001 - 8006 square miles - 1,770,000,000 gallons ethanol
2000 - 1750 square miles - 1,603,000,000 gallons ethanol
1999 - 7778 square miles - 1,470,000,000 gallons ethanol
1998 - 4902 square miles - 1,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
1997 - 6110 square miles - 1,300,000,000 gallons ethanol
1996 - 6846 square miles - 1,100,000,000 gallons ethanol
1995 - 7032 square miles - 1,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
1994 - 6403 square miles - 1,350,000,000 gallons ethanol
1993 - 6811 square miles - 1,200,000,000 gallons ethanol


----------



## daveman

KissMy said:


> There is no correlation between ethanol production & the size of the GOM dead zone.
> 
> Here is the actual data from NOAA & the EIA. Since you want to be a neg repping butt-hurt sissy-bed-wetter about it. You can go fish for your own links.
> 
> *Dead Zone Area with Ethanol Production Totals.*
> 2010 - 6564 square miles - 13,230,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2009 - 3000 square miles - 10,758,258,000 gallons ethanol
> 2008 - 7988 square miles - 9,000,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2007 - 7903 square miles - 6,500,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2006 - 6662 square miles - 4,855,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2005 - 4564 square miles - 3,904,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2004 - 5800 square miles - 3,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2003 - 3220 square miles - 2,800,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2002 - 8484 square miles - 2,130,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2001 - 8006 square miles - 1,770,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2000 - 1810 square miles - 1,603,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1999 - 7750 square miles - 1,470,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1998 - 4902 square miles - 1,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1997 - 6110 square miles - 1,300,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1996 - 6846 square miles - 1,100,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1995 - 6968 square miles - 1,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1994 - 6403 square miles - 1,350,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1993 - 6811 square miles - 1,200,000,000 gallons ethanol



No link?  

Then you made it up.  

Dismissed.  You AND your bogus data.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

KissMy said:


> There is no correlation between ethanol production & the size of the GOM dead zone.
> 
> Here is the actual data from NOAA & the EIA. Since you want to be a neg repping butt-hurt sissy-bed-wetter about it. You can go fish for your own links.
> 
> *Dead Zone Area with Ethanol Production Totals.*
> 2010 - 6564 square miles - 13,230,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2009 - 3000 square miles - 10,758,258,000 gallons ethanol
> 2008 - 7988 square miles - 9,000,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2007 - 7903 square miles - 6,500,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2006 - 6662 square miles - 4,855,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2005 - 4564 square miles - 3,904,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2004 - 5800 square miles - 3,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2003 - 3220 square miles - 2,800,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2002 - 8484 square miles - 2,130,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2001 - 8006 square miles - 1,770,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2000 - 1750 square miles - 1,603,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1999 - 7778 square miles - 1,470,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1998 - 4902 square miles - 1,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1997 - 6110 square miles - 1,300,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1996 - 6846 square miles - 1,100,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1995 - 7032 square miles - 1,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1994 - 6403 square miles - 1,350,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1993 - 6811 square miles - 1,200,000,000 gallons ethanol



You mean neg repping like you did earlier in the thread ? Stop being such a sniveling little pussy.


----------



## KissMy

Momanohedhunter said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no correlation between ethanol production & the size of the GOM dead zone.
> 
> Here is the actual data from NOAA & the EIA. Since you want to be a neg repping butt-hurt sissy-bed-wetter about it. You can go fish for your own links.
> 
> *Dead Zone Area with Ethanol Production Totals.*
> 2010 - 6564 square miles - 13,230,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2009 - 3000 square miles - 10,758,258,000 gallons ethanol
> 2008 - 7988 square miles - 9,000,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2007 - 7903 square miles - 6,500,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2006 - 6662 square miles - 4,855,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2005 - 4564 square miles - 3,904,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2004 - 5800 square miles - 3,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2003 - 3220 square miles - 2,800,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2002 - 8484 square miles - 2,130,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2001 - 8006 square miles - 1,770,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2000 - 1750 square miles - 1,603,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1999 - 7778 square miles - 1,470,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1998 - 4902 square miles - 1,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1997 - 6110 square miles - 1,300,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1996 - 6846 square miles - 1,100,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1995 - 7032 square miles - 1,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1994 - 6403 square miles - 1,350,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1993 - 6811 square miles - 1,200,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean neg repping like you did earlier in the thread ? Stop being such a sniveling little pussy.
Click to expand...


Daveman negged me saying I lied when I clearly did not. So I negged his ass back because the facts clearly prove he is the liar just as you were when I negged you. Then he PMed me back with the quote below. That is what I was refering to in my post.



			
				daveman said:
			
		

> You sure are a butthurt little sissy bedwetter, aren't you?



You sissy's need to get your facts straight. Farmers no longer not just blindly throw fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide & seed at the fields just to watch the rain wash it down the river. They now apply it only when needed & as needed after the crop is growing. Only after they see a good stand of corn & conditions are right do they apply chemicals as needed. Also fewer farmers till their soil to prevent it & the chemicals in it from washing into streams & rivers. This also greatly reduces the amount of fuel used by farmers. Turning over & leveling out the top foot of a large portion of the Earth's surface every year was a huge waste of resources.

Corn yields nearly double with less fertilizer use


> In 1980, farmers grew 6.64 billion bushels of corn using 3.9 pounds of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) for each bushel and in 2010 they grew 12.45 billion bushels using 1.6 pounds of nutrients per bushel produced. In total, this represents an 87.5 percent increase in production with 4 percent fewer nutrients during that same timeframe.


----------



## daveman

KissMy said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no correlation between ethanol production & the size of the GOM dead zone.
> 
> Here is the actual data from NOAA & the EIA. Since you want to be a neg repping butt-hurt sissy-bed-wetter about it. You can go fish for your own links.
> 
> *Dead Zone Area with Ethanol Production Totals.*
> 2010 - 6564 square miles - 13,230,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2009 - 3000 square miles - 10,758,258,000 gallons ethanol
> 2008 - 7988 square miles - 9,000,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2007 - 7903 square miles - 6,500,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2006 - 6662 square miles - 4,855,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2005 - 4564 square miles - 3,904,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2004 - 5800 square miles - 3,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2003 - 3220 square miles - 2,800,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2002 - 8484 square miles - 2,130,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2001 - 8006 square miles - 1,770,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2000 - 1750 square miles - 1,603,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1999 - 7778 square miles - 1,470,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1998 - 4902 square miles - 1,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1997 - 6110 square miles - 1,300,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1996 - 6846 square miles - 1,100,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1995 - 7032 square miles - 1,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1994 - 6403 square miles - 1,350,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1993 - 6811 square miles - 1,200,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean neg repping like you did earlier in the thread ? Stop being such a sniveling little pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daveman negged me saying I lied when I clearly did not.
Click to expand...

You didn't provide a source for your data.  You really expect us to just take your word for it?

Not happening. Link, or you lied.  It's that simple.  


KissMy said:


> So I negged his ass back because the facts clearly prove he is the liar just as you were when I negged you. Then he PMed me back with the quote below. That is what I was refering to in my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure are a butthurt little sissy bedwetter, aren't you?
Click to expand...

And you just keep proving me right.  


KissMy said:


> You sissy's need to get your facts straight. Farmers no longer not just blindly throw fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide & seed at the fields just to watch the rain wash it down the river. They now apply it only when needed & as needed after the crop is growing. Only after they see a good stand of corn & conditions are right do they apply chemicals as needed. Also fewer farmers till their soil to prevent it & the chemicals in it from washing into streams & rivers. This also greatly reduces the amount of fuel used by farmers. Turning over & leveling out the top foot of a large portion of the Earth's surface every year was a huge waste of resources.
> 
> Corn yields nearly double with less fertilizer use
> 
> 
> 
> In 1980, farmers grew 6.64 billion bushels of corn using 3.9 pounds of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) for each bushel and in 2010 they grew 12.45 billion bushels using 1.6 pounds of nutrients per bushel produced. In total, this represents an 87.5 percent increase in production with 4 percent fewer nutrients during that same timeframe.
Click to expand...

And that's good.  No one's saying otherwise.

But it still has a huge negative impact on the environment.  All the good intentions of ethanol supporters won't change that.


----------



## Mr. H.

KissMy, I don't at all mind your promotion of ethanol or defense of agriculture. I may not agree with some of your assertions, but please- quit berating the oil industry regarding "subsidies". 

90% of the wells drilled in this country are done by independents - much like the small farmers are "independents" and not Big Ag. So stick with what you think you know, not what I know you don't know.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

KissMy said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no correlation between ethanol production & the size of the GOM dead zone.
> 
> Here is the actual data from NOAA & the EIA. Since you want to be a neg repping butt-hurt sissy-bed-wetter about it. You can go fish for your own links.
> 
> *Dead Zone Area with Ethanol Production Totals.*
> 2010 - 6564 square miles - 13,230,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2009 - 3000 square miles - 10,758,258,000 gallons ethanol
> 2008 - 7988 square miles - 9,000,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2007 - 7903 square miles - 6,500,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2006 - 6662 square miles - 4,855,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2005 - 4564 square miles - 3,904,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2004 - 5800 square miles - 3,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2003 - 3220 square miles - 2,800,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2002 - 8484 square miles - 2,130,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2001 - 8006 square miles - 1,770,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 2000 - 1750 square miles - 1,603,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1999 - 7778 square miles - 1,470,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1998 - 4902 square miles - 1,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1997 - 6110 square miles - 1,300,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1996 - 6846 square miles - 1,100,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1995 - 7032 square miles - 1,400,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1994 - 6403 square miles - 1,350,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 1993 - 6811 square miles - 1,200,000,000 gallons ethanol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean neg repping like you did earlier in the thread ? Stop being such a sniveling little pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daveman negged me saying I lied when I clearly did not. So I negged his ass back because the facts clearly prove he is the liar just as you were when I negged you. Then he PMed me back with the quote below. That is what I was refering to in my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure are a butthurt little sissy bedwetter, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sissy's need to get your facts straight. Farmers no longer not just blindly throw fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide & seed at the fields just to watch the rain wash it down the river. They now apply it only when needed & as needed after the crop is growing. Only after they see a good stand of corn & conditions are right do they apply chemicals as needed. Also fewer farmers till their soil to prevent it & the chemicals in it from washing into streams & rivers. This also greatly reduces the amount of fuel used by farmers. Turning over & leveling out the top foot of a large portion of the Earth's surface every year was a huge waste of resources.
> 
> 
> ig·no·rant
> &#8194; &#8194;[ig-ner-uhnt] Show IPA
> adjective
> 1.
> lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
> 2.
> lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
> 3.
> uninformed; unaware.
> 
> You demonstrated this with your inability to understand shipping, as well as how ethanol is made, and what makes better ethanol.
> 
> As far as not telling the truth, through your willing ignorance on the matter, you continue to lie. When you were getting pegged for not having a clue about what you are talking about, you stick to your political party's talking points instead of educating your self.
> 
> And your feeble neg reps mean nothing. I got four positive just for the fact you were the libtard who gave it to me.
Click to expand...


----------

