Bertram33 User Forum

Buzz, I was in Cancun last month. Diesel there was around $240 a gallon. I'm using my boat as much as possible this year, screw the fuel prices, it will still seem like a bargain when I get rid of the gas engines.

Here is a column taken from today's NJ.com on enthanol. Points out the ridiculous thinking of government. "Ethanol really takes the cake Posted by Paul Mulshine March 16, 2008 11:13AM Categories: Hot Topics Mueller's Bakery occupies a prominent position along the road I take when I drive to the ocean, tempting me with apple turnovers and hot coffee. When I stopped in the other day, I got collared by the owner and chief baker, Brian O'Neill. "You ought to do a column on food prices," O'Neill said. "Last year I was paying $10.50 for a bag of high-gluten flour, that's the flour you make hard rolls with. This year when we reopened in February it was up to $18 a bag, so I bought a bunch to cover myself. But the salesman told me it was going to skyrocket so I bought more at $22. And just last week I paid $28 for the flour." O'Neill recited similar stories re garding shortening and eggs, the other two products essential to the baker's craft. The price of the ingredients may triple, but he can't triple the price of his turnovers. "We raised prices 10 percent," he said. He'll probably have to raise prices even more in the near future. There are several reasons the cost of staples is skyrocketing, including high fuel costs. But the primary culprit is the obvious one: Congress. In an effort to buy favor in the farm states, Congress created huge subsidies for the production of ethanol made from corn. This drove up the price of wheat as farmers switched to corn. The price of vegetable oil rose for the same reason. And the price of eggs rose because hens eat corn, which no longer sells for the price of chicken feed. But isn't ethanol helping to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? And aren't biofuels better than oil when it comes to cutting greenhouse gases? No. And no. Cornell University scientist David Pimental has been researching the economics of ethanol ever since he did a study on it for the Carter administration, which was looking for an alternative to oil in response to the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. If there is such a magical substance, it's not ethanol. Producing ethanol from corn takes more energy than the finished product contains. "We're actually importing more oil to produce ethanol," said Pi mental when I got him on the phone. "It's not making us oil-independent, and it's costing us one hell of a lot of money." Still, Americans are seduced by the idea that there is some "alternative fuel" that will permit them to keep driving giant gas guzzlers while also cutting oil imports. I told Pimental about watching a 110-pound woman emerge from a four-ton SUV that pulled up next to me in a parking lot. He did some quick calculations in his head. "The tank on that car would hold 30 gallons," he said. "It takes 22 pounds of corn to make one gal lon of ethanol, so that's 660 pounds of corn to fill that tank just once." That's 660 pounds of corn that won't make it into the food chain. Yet Congress grants exemptions to the fuel-economy rules for gas guzzlers set up to run on E-85, a fuel that is 85 percent ethanol. Since ethanol has less energy than gasoline per gallon, the fuel economy on these monsters can drop as low as 8 mpg. If you think we can end our dependence on foreign oil with vehicles that get 8 mpg, then you belong in a mental institution -- or in Congress, Yet Congress is just getting started in its efforts to construct a corn-state Saudi Arabia. Federal law requires that the current etha nol production of 6 billion gallons be ramped up to 36 billion gallons a year. But that is contingent on proof that the production of etha nol from corn reduces greenhouse gases. And it doesn't, says researcher Timothy Searchinger of Princeton University. Searchinger was the lead author of a study published last month that could sink the ethanol indus try. Agribusiness interests contend that ethanol is a green fuel because corn absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Searchinger says otherwise. "When you take an acre of corn in the U.S. to make ethanol, then essentially an acre is put into production somewhere else in the world," he told me. "When you clear that land, you end up releas ing huge amounts of carbon dioxide that these lands have been storing for decades." In other words, the only thing green about ethanol is the cash it puts in congressmen's campaign coffers. Rarely has a program been so completely debunked so quickly. "Basically, ethanol just looked like the perfect solution for everybody," said Searchinger. It's still the perfect solution as far as Congress is concerned. Etha nol is wasteful, expensive and entirely pointless. Inside the Beltway, that's known as hitting a trifecta." 22 pounds of corn for one gallon of ethanol. Only government could think that is worthwhile. What a mess.

"the only thing green about ethanol is the cash it puts in congressmen's campaign coffers" That point has been as obvious as the nose on our faces, since the day ethanol was created. It's all about politicians selling us, and this country out for their own political gain. And there's nothing you can do about it. Bill 1989 33 FBC Ipswich, Ma. > ~------- [img]http://www.bertram33.com/photogallery/p ... a_Rose.jpg[/img]