A great quote....................


"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.."
--Al Gore, Vice President

I just came through Lexington KY a few hours ago. I wonder how many people are going to starve because all those horses are burning all those acres of grass fuel----not to mention all the fuel used by people going to watch the horses burning grass when they race. Looks like lots of waste to me. Guess it's a good thing I stopped and got a room.

180Marty wrote:I just came through Lexington KY a few hours ago. I wonder how many people are going to starve because all those horses are burning all those acres of grass fuel----not to mention all the fuel used by people going to watch the horses burning grass when they race. Looks like lots of waste to me. Guess it's a good thing I stopped and got a room.

Shit! If I would have realized that there was a subsidy for horses and growing grass for them, I would not have sold our hay burners.

kevbert, Here is some info that you should also read.

NCGA hosted an Ethanol Energy Open Forum at the National Press Club to address points made in a report issued recently by researchers who claimed ethanol uses more energy than it produces. The study, recently released by Drs. David Pimentel and Tad Patzek has received a large amount of media attention in recent weeks. Dr. Bruce Dale, a Michigan State University professor, and John Sheehan, a senior engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, debated Pimentel, a Cornell University entomology professor, and Patzek, a professor from University of California-Berkeley, on the merits of their latest study.

According to Dale and Sheehan, Pimentel and Patzek routinely inflate the energy inputs of both farming and fuel production. Their estimates of fossil inputs for farm production are twice as high as those estimated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and their grain processing input estimate is 40 percent higher, Sheehan said.

"Their analyses are simply wrong in many important details," said Dale. "They really need to update their information." Kansas Corn Commission Chairman Bob Timmons, Fredonia said that Pimentel and Patzek did a poor job defending their study.

"The more they spoke, the less credible they were. It sounded like they used whatever numbers helped to prove their point, instead of using current, accurate numbers and then seeing what the truth was," Timmons said. "At one point, Pimentel implied that he used outdated data because it had been compiled by a colleague he wanted to include in the study."

180Marty wrote:kevbert, Here is some info that you should also read.

NCGA hosted an Ethanol Energy Open Forum at the National Press Club to address points made in a report issued recently by researchers who claimed ethanol uses more energy than it produces. The study, recently released by Drs. David Pimentel and Tad Patzek has received a large amount of media attention in recent weeks. Dr. Bruce Dale, a Michigan State University professor, and John Sheehan, a senior engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, debated Pimentel, a Cornell University entomology professor, and Patzek, a professor from University of California-Berkeley, on the merits of their latest study.

According to Dale and Sheehan, Pimentel and Patzek routinely inflate the energy inputs of both farming and fuel production. Their estimates of fossil inputs for farm production are twice as high as those estimated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and their grain processing input estimate is 40 percent higher, Sheehan said.

"Their analyses are simply wrong in many important details," said Dale. "They really need to update their information." Kansas Corn Commission Chairman Bob Timmons, Fredonia said that Pimentel and Patzek did a poor job defending their study.

"The more they spoke, the less credible they were. It sounded like they used whatever numbers helped to prove their point, instead of using current, accurate numbers and then seeing what the truth was," Timmons said. "At one point, Pimentel implied that he used outdated data because it had been compiled by a colleague he wanted to include in the study."

I think your right Marty. So right that you should be the first to ask to have the subsidy pulled.

Tim

Tim, I'm betting it will be pulled after the first the year. I also predict that the tariff on Brazilian ethanol gets dropped and oil subsidies don't get touched. Here is a little on the subsidy cuts that a guy posted in response to something I said on another forum.

The difference, of course, Martin, is that ethanol has a guaranteed market. Also, there are some grounds for optimism regarding tax breaks for oil and gas: they were targeted by the recent bipartisan US Deficit Commission. See www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalco ... _Draft.pdf
Posted by Ronald STEENBLIK at 8:17AM CST 11/26/10

From HotAir.com: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/30/end-of-the-line-for-ethanol/

Has the federal government’s appetite for ethanol ended? A bipartisan group of Senators signed a letter today calling for an end to subsidies and tariffs designed to protect and enhance domestic production of ethanol, which has been until recently the darling of the alternative-energy movement. In a sign of how far ethanol subsidies have fallen from favor, the letter addressed to both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell has the signatures of such liberal luminaries as Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and the newly-elected Chris Coons:

In a clear sign of momentum against ethanol subsidies, a bipartisan group of more than a dozen senators has signed onto a letter urging Senate leaders to let the subsidies expire during this Congress, a move that could put many officials in a tricky political spot and could even have ramifications for the 2012 presidential race.

The letter, which I obtained from a source, was authored by senators Dianne Feinstein and Jon Kyl, and includes a number of Democrats and Republicans, including John McCain, Susan Collins, Richard Burr, and Mike Enzi. This is key, because the question of whether the subsidies should expire is emerging as a key test — just like earmarks — of whether Republicans are serious about reining in spending and the deficit.

While this issue could divide Dems along regional lines, it’s more directly relevant to the GOP. With leading GOP senators now coming out for letting the subsidies expire, this could up the pressure on Republican senators who backed the subsidies in the past, such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, putting them on the wrong side of what may emerge as a key litmus test for the Tea Party and potentially dividing the GOP caucus.

Greg Sargent misses the significance of Boxer’s name on this list. Boxer has a cap-and-trade bill stalled in the Senate, earlier versions of which relied on ethanol to meet its goals. The ethanol subsidies allowed Midwest farmers to have some buy-in for a bill that would otherwise levy some significant costs on agriculture. This more or less puts an end to that support, which means that Boxer has acknowledged the death of cap-and-trade.

Will this divide the GOP? It will make for some contentious discussions on agricultural policy, no doubt, especially in the House where the GOP picked up a number of seats. But it’s just as likely to hurt Democrats in the Senate, especially those running for 2012 re-elections from ag-heavy states. Ben Nelson of Nebraska is the obvious incumbent for the hot seat, but Jon Tester in Montana and Mark Pryor in Arkansas also will have to answer for it.

It may, however, have some impact on the 2012 presidential nomination race, which starts in Iowa — the heart of corn country. It’s not necessary for a GOP candidate to win Iowa in order to win the nomination — Mike Huckabee won it last year and finished a distant third — but it’s usually necessary for a candidate to do well in the caucuses. Tea Party activists will see an end to subsidies as a success, but will GOP presidential candidates start pandering to corn farmers in Iowa to gain an advantage in the first round of the nominating process? That may well be a good test for the sincerity of those candidates running as small-government conservatives.

The letter makes clear just how much the government has intervened to coddle ethanol production:

Historically, our government has helped a product compete in one of three ways: subsidize it, protect it from competition, or require its use. We understand that ethanol may be the only product receiving all three forms of support from the US government at this time.

It’s long past time for those efforts to cease. Converting food to fuel not only doesn’t work as a replacement for gasoline, it expands starvation by artificially inflating corn prices and making it more difficult to purchase. This letter might be the first step in dismantling an expensive and ongoing failure.

The only reason this thread is not in our Hot Air is its relevance to flying, so let's keep it on topic. Pretty good job so far.

FAA required separation of bottle to throttle is 8 hours minimum. When your throttle is connected to the bottle then there is no way to get that gap...... Easy fix...... Get the bottle out of the mix.....

Ben.

Zane wrote:The only reason this thread is not in our Hot Air is its relevance to flying, so let's keep it on topic. Pretty good job so far.

You have no idea how many times I have changed a post after previewing it. . Trying my best to toe the line Zane.

Tim

Rob Burson, I know you are thinking about it.

gb

If the ethanol industry loses their subsidy, I sure hope the oil industry loses their $280 billion also. One thing is, if we can stop subsidizing ethanol and oil, gas for airplanes and cars ought to increase. Who knows, maybe we could have $5 or $6 gas down at the service station. The links below don't work right so click this one--- http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtn ... ParentId=0

After DTN's story published Monday, http://dld.bz/…, Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis offered the following statement in response:

"If there are subsidies that should expire, let's start with the more than $280 billion in government subsidies the oil industry receives annually as reported by DTN/The Progressive Farmer, http://dld.bz/…. The only reason the ethanol industry needs any government support today is because we are arbitrarily denied access to all but 10 percent of the fuel market.

The government subsidizes many industries, companies, and people. I don't have a problem wih that,in most cases, or woth them subsidizing the ethanol and petroleum industries-- but I don't like it when the result of that subsidy is getting E10 (or whatever) rammed down my throat when I want & need clear gas.

So is it just certain states that have the mandate? I can still get 87 octane mogas here in bulk, from my local fuel supplier. I thought the mandate was 10%, so any E85 sold would help offset and E0, so the 10% would be reached. And yes, I have checked it for ethanol--there isn't any in it. We can run it in our 180 and our champ, but rarely do.

I don't like Social Security or many other social programs rammed down my throat either, but here we are

I just recieved this powerpoint in a email, it has some points that are interesting. It is pro-ethanol, but it is a quick read--check out page 12 at the very least, it refers to the subsidies.

http://grainnet.com/pdf/UrbanchuckEthan ... 102710.pdf

Zane wrote:The only reason this thread is not in our Hot Air is its relevance to flying, so let's keep it on topic. Pretty good job so far.

Yes, I agree. Yet every time I see this thread I'm shocked it hasn't made it's way to hot air!

Hafast wrote:A great quote....................
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.."
--Al Gore, Vice President

Sounds more like a Dan Quayle-ism. Maybe vice presidents just tend to make quotable remarks.
With all this "Inconvenient Truth" hoopla, I do wonder why Al Gore didn't make make a fuss about all this global warming business when he was VP & could maybe do something about it. Seems to me like just an attempt to stay in the spotlight.

Gore didn't have time--he was too busy inventing the internet

Auto Channel has it figured out. Good read.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2010 ... 09666.html

180Marty wrote:Auto Channel has it figured out. Good read.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2010 ... 09666.html

Yeah, right. Ethanol is absolute crap. Not saying we shouldn't move in the direction of less reliance on foreign oil, but ethanol is certainly not the answer. Talk about a rip off. BTW, I have no bone in this save trying to avoid damaging my engines. What's your connection, Marty?