Your lawnmower won't start.
You're paying more for a wide range of groceries and for eating out.
Your car gets poorer mileage than it once did.
While a range of factors can be behind any one of these problems, a common thread runs through them: They all can be linked at least to some degree to the federal government's multibillion-dollar subsidies for ethanol.
The 46-cent-per-gallon subsidy for ethanol made from corn ended this year, but subsidies for ethanol made with other ingredients remain on the books, and large quantities of ethanol still are required by law to be mixed into the nation's fuel supply.
As such, it should come as no particular surprise when we read that the government-driven diversion of corn from food production to ethanol production still is making us all pay more for food that is linked in any way to corn -- such as beef from corn-fed cattle. It's a simple matter of supply and demand.
"[G]rowers who would grow feed corn have grown corn for ethanol instead," the sales manager of a meat company in West Palm Beach, Fla., told Cox Newspapers. "Since corn is the primary feed for beef, that means cattle prices have reached an all-time high."
Then there is the small-engine damage and the lower mileage for which ethanol is responsible.
The owner of a lawnmower repair shop in Tuscaloosa, Ala., told a newspaper there that he had seen increasing numbers of lawnmowers that will not start because of the damage caused by ethanol. In fact, that accounted for more than 20 percent of the repairs in his shop.
That's not a comforting thought now that the grass-cutting season is upon us.
Even less comforting is automobile fuel efficiency that ethanol can reduce in some cases by up to 30 percent, according to the Tennessee Department of Agriculture.
We were not aware that motorists were paying so little for gasoline that it was sensible to tack on a lower-fuel-efficiency surcharge by requiring massive volumes of ethanol in the nation's fuel supply.
But that is precisely the kind of contorted "logic" that results from government propping up unsuccessful, dubious ventures instead of letting free consumer choice drive the market.
That's something to remember when your lawnmower is in the shop -- again.
And when you're opting for soup instead of steak at your favorite restaurant.
And when you're taking out a loan to buy that next tank of gas.
Oh, and most especially when you're in the voting booth picking a president or members of Congress.
Wow, the owner of a repair shop. From Tuscaloosa? That's four years old. You'd think you'd be able to get corroboration from say the manufacturers instead. No? Why not?
No wait, you'll take the word of some guy at the repair shop. It can't possibly be that people don't care for their mowers in general and mess them up, and the ethanol is just being scape-goated.
The only people who have to worry about ethanol in their engines are those who try to use E-85 instead.
BTW, ethanol isn't being added to fuel as a performance booster. If you want that, give your money to STP, Chevron or Additech. The ethanol is being added to reduce the air pollutants from the combustion of gasoline. Your contorted logic ignores that. Is it because you can't refute the science, so you come up with irrelevant or downright false objections?
You want to worry about your fuel efficiency? Fine, but do it without poisoning the air I breathe. Or poisoning the water. Can't do it, can you?
Also, you want to know what gets a big subsidy? HFCS. I'd prefer the broccoli.
There can be little doubt that ethanol is a product of bad public policy. The energy return on energy invested is near zero. As the editorial says, ethanol drives up food costs and damages engines.
So why would government, R or D, mandate such a policy? The answer may lie in oil production. The world has been unable to produce more than 75 million barrels a day of conventional oil since 2005. Demand has grown steadily with that new demand being supplied by ethanol, tar sands oil, and shale oil...all much more expensive to produce. Ethanol was the quick way to increase production that conventional oil could no longer supply. Without cost inefficient ethanol and dirty syn-crude products, we might have seen price rationing for gasoline and other oil products.
Would we be better off without the government intervention? Probably, but not without a cost.
Near zero? Nucanuck, if you believe that, you need to look for better figures on the energy balance.
I suppose if you were counting the solar energy, it might come out poorly, but there is a reason that isn't done.
Really, you need to look at other sources on the energy balance of ethanol production. With corn it is positive. Sugarcane is even higher. And cellulosic will outpace them both.
You can thank our US representatives, senators and the president for the law to subsidize replacing food production with inefficient ethanol for gas hog vehicles. I have access to a couple gas stations that sell ethanol-free gas and my mpg has increased considerably.
CON-nuck, you wrote to me......."You rarely enunciate or defend what you believe"
Do you have any guesses or suspicions about my stand on ethanol? Has the trend so far been the opposite of you on the previous 3 questions? I will give you a clue why this may be - I am a Conservative and you are a Lieberal.
It was always about the farm vote primarily and the insane demand for "green" energy secondarily. Demoncrats and Lieberals dominate both. Without taxpayer dollars ethanol, wind and solar are not competitive energy sources. This doesn't matter with Demoncrats because they are spending other people's money.
So CON-nuck, reasoning from the above here is Q4. Does Conservative want the government to stop subsidizing ethanol, wind, and solar with other people's money? Chose only one. YES or NO.
conservative...while I agree with your stand on ethanol, it was Pres. Bush who pushed the bill through Congress because of the farmer vote. Sad to say Obama has continued down the same path.
hwnb,
You may have mis-interpreted the meaning of EROEI, energy return on energy invested. An EROEI of zero means that as much energy is consumed in production as the total energy produced making the process worthless! Some studies even show ethanal with a negative EROEI.
The point of my post was that ethanol is a stupid effort that does add somewhat to available liquid fuels which takes a little pressure off of conventional oil production. With conventional oil production unable to grow, we are scrambling for alternatives and ethanol was quick and easy relative to ramping up others like the tar sands which takes years to expand.
I am not a defender of ethanol, only trying to explain how we could have done something so stupid.
Hey CON-nuck, you wrote to me......."You rarely enunciate or defend what you believe"
Checking back with you on Q4.Does Conservative want the government to stop subsidizing ethanol, wind, and solar with other people's money? Chose only one. YES or NO.
The correct answer was - YES. Hope you got that one right, if not you will still have many more oportunities to improve your score. You will have to admit that I did give you some strong clues as to what I might believe on the feds taking other people's money to subsidize ethanol. At least you now know.
con-man. it's good to see you responding to constructive criticism and trying to be more content oriented.
hate to tell you this folks but nucanuck is DEAD RIGHT about ethanol! ethanol is a gross loser when you crunch the numbers as to energy spent to energy recoverd! just the facts of life !git over it!
Or login with:
New Account