Comments on: Corn and Cellulosic Ethanol Fight for Viability, Government Favor

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:26:43 +0000

It baffles me that corn and cellulosic ethanol are both far cheaper than the fuel we put in our cars yet they are still not viable. As much as we all hate subsidies, they are on an unleval playing field with oil subsidies in the 100s of billions each year. I would like to keep the 500,000 current jobs in the ethanol industry and to see it grow 10 fold in the next 10 year. It would be the best thing for our economy and our childrens future.

By: Jignesh

Jignesh — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:57:15 +0000

You are doing great job.

Thanks a ton.

By: TD

TD — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:47:34 +0000

Yes, you can take it to the bank that none of the deficit hawks in the Farm belt like Ben Nelson and Byron Dorgan will ever agree to a cut in farm subsidies.

By: zach

zach — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:43:35 +0000

My personal prediction is that these ethanol incentives will be extended and everything will be business as usual. It’ll be interesting to see what bill they end up tacking it onto in the middle of the night though.

By: Samie

Samie — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:29:55 +0000

Agree TD
Vague, oversimplified political promises are just that. We as Americans fall for this every 2-4 years or we believe in propaganda spread by 24-hour news networks. Shame if you ask me but that is what you get with a two party system, lobbyist who write legislation, and political ideologies that are selective or not followed under convenient circumstances. Short-term economics always trumps long-term planning and short-term hardship that would stem from things like ending all subsidies on petroleum or mandating higher CAFE standards.

If you are for ethanol, I don't see what return the taxpayers have gotten for all the subsidies dumped into corn ethanol. Using conservative principles tells me that if private businesses do not want to invest in the ethanol industry after almost twenty years of federal incentives then we must end all government subsidies and mandates now and let market forces work towards greater achievements without government help.

By: TD

TD — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:03:14 +0000

Yeah.

Those promises about replacing 75% of oil by some date are just the usual idle promises made by the last 7 Presidents including the current occupant. Take a look a SOTU speeches all the way back to Richard M. Nixon. They all promise to get us off of oil by some date conveniently far in the future so that it is not their problem. Really why bother to even write about SOTU promises they aren't worth the ink.

By: Samie

Samie — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:01:52 +0000

Lets skip opening up state & federal wildlife areas and potential farming/private landowner property that is in voluntary land conservation programs for the sake of getting excited over growing ethanol "anywhere".

"A recent study done by the University of Tennessee reported that as many as 100 million acres (400,000 km2, or 154,000 sq mi) of cropland and pasture will need to be allocated to switchgrass production in order to offset petroleum use by 25 percent.[46]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
Above this quote is a study done by the U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture in 2005 that contradicts the UT claim but one must remember that there is/was a bias to promote the agro industry within this agency partly due to political agendas. Speaking of political agendas the EPA is trying to delay the report until after the fall elections which is better b/c politicians will pander to corn producing states by mandating more ethanol be produced and consumed by consumers.

Unless we can harness cellulosic waste in landfills or use algae, I don't see the point of this "alternative energy" Especially given the amounts of subsidies spent, poor development within market forces, and potential/reality of ethanol coming in from other countries within the next 10 years.