Cruz opposes ethanol

Discussion in 'Politics' started by church mouse guy, Dec 12, 2015.

  1. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trump may end up winning the Midwest because he supports ethanol, which is adding a lot of money to bank accounts of farmers at the expense of the general public.

    Cruz has stated his opposition to ethanol.

    Ethanol is really bad for the environment. Also, it drives up the price of gasoline. Ethanol is bad for your car. And using so much corn as an inefficient government-subsidized and government-mandated fuel drives up food costs for the general public at the grocery store.

    Some have estimated the total bill to be $10.00 a gallon for ethanol.

    It is clear that Cruz is economically smarter than Trump on this issue. Trump weakly accuses Cruz of taking oil money to finance his campaign, but Trump is clearly aiming to capture the votes of farmers, who could care less about what they are doing to the environment and the general public. Look for farmers to lean toward Trump.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ruz_for_not_supporting_ethanol_subsidies.html
     
  2. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,127
    Likes Received:
    266
    Ah, farm welfare. Gross.
     
  3. pwarbi

    pwarbi
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2015
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trump is doing what every candidate should do. If you don't know enough about a topic, just agree with the side that will get you the most votes at the end of the day.

    If a person wants to win an election, unfortunately they're going to have to bend and twist their own opinions a little to get the most votes. Trump seems to be all to well aware of that.
     
  4. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,180
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    No. The holistic assessment of ethanol’s environmental footprint is called a lifecycle emissions analysis.

    The lifecycle emissions of ethanol—from seed to tailpipe—can produce as much as 90 percent fewer lifecycle emissions compared to gasoline, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 59 percent compared to gasoline, according to the latest study.

    Again, no. It creates competition which drives the price of motor fuel down.
    Again, no. Ethanol is a clean-burning, high-octane fuel that reduces emissions and helps keep your engine clean. It’s the only practical, renewable fuel available right now, for the car you already have.

    Correct. Corn is a stupid, and expensive, source of ethanol. However, ethanol production is now into its second generation. It’s made from cellulose, the most common renewable biomass on the planet. It’s found in all plants, and today’s ethanol producers are making it from corn cobs, wood waste, agricultural waste and more. Other sources all over America are in development, and with continued support, next-generation biofuels could replace much of our imported oil by 2030. The technology of cellulosic ethanol could be used all over the world to help make poor countries and rural communities energy independent, too.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    I am guessing that you are a Midwest corn farmer for Trump. Even the original supporters of ethanol have admitted that it causes more environmental damage than oil. No one would use it if the government did not mandate it. It is not competitive and it does make driving more expensive and food more expensive and Iowa farmers much richer.

    Look for Trump to carry the farm vote. He is already leading in states like Indiana.
     
  6. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,180
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Wow. You really are out to lunch, aren't you?

    I think Trump is a clown. I live in the Midwest, but in the far, far south of Texas. We don't grow corn here. We grow sugar cane, onions, and citrus. And I already said how stupid it is to make ethanol out of corn (or sugar cane), and that present ethanol technology uses waste biomass, not corn or sugar cane.
    Wrong again. 60% less environmental impact.
    We all use it. Including you. And it is not because the government mandates it. It is because we spend $700 billion dollars every year on foreign oil. And some (or even much) of that oil money is spent on international terrorism.
    Yet.
    For a while, but the environment is worth the minor additional cost.
    As food stuffs are not being used to make biomass ethanol, your statement is nonsense.
    Which has nothing to do with ethanol. He is carrying many states due to the entertainment factor. Nothing more.
     
  7. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,905
    Likes Received:
    295
    Cruz is right to be against ethanol. They should have stopped adding it to gasonline long ago.
     
  8. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Ethanol adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than oil.

    The federal government says that we have to use ethanol.

    Fracking has made us essentially energy independent.

    Hoosiers are dumb in comparison to New Yorkers and other swells but Hoosier farmers know which side their bread is buttered on (actually on both sides).

    The use of corn for ethanol raised the price of corn. It affected the price of food internationally.

    Farmers are rich now and land has become highly expensive, thanks to federal mandates.
     
  9. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    This issue shows Trump to be just another pork barrel politician going after the votes of farmers at the expense of general taxpayers and city people oppressed by a government mandate.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,905
    Likes Received:
    295

    How so?
     
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,180
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Wrong. 59% cleaner.
    Nope. The US EPA mandates oxygenateors be added to motor fuel. The demand for ethanol produced from field corn was spurred by the discovery that methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) was contaminating groundwater. MTBE's use as an oxygenate additive was widespread due to mandates in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1992 to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. MTBE in gasoline had been banned in almost 20 states by 2006.
    As of March 2015, 85% of crude oil imports came from (in decreasing volume): Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Colombia. 19% of imported oil comes from the Middle East. The fraction of crude oil consumed in the U.S. that was imported went from 35% immediately before the 1973 oil crisis, peaked at 60% in 2005, and then returned to 35% by 2013 thanks to increased domestic production from the shale oil boom.
    Meaningless drivel.
    You seem not to be paying attention. Second generation ethanol production uses biomass, not corn or sugar cane.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    So Hoosier farmers are too stupid to support Trump because of ethanol...

    No, ethanol emits more carbon dioxide than oil:

    Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, agricultural and environmental scientists at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln conducted a comprehensive life-cycle carbon analysis for biofuels made from leftover residue after corn harvests. The study was among the first to measure how much carbon is released into the atmosphere when corn stalks, cobs, and leaves are turned into ethanol instead of left on the ground to naturally replenish the soil. The scientists found that turning the leftover residue, known as stover, into ethanol caused a net 7 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions versus conventional gasoline.

    http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...rn-residue-increases-carbon-dioxide-emissions
     
  13. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    Goodness. Corn is bad on the human body and bad on cars too. Poor corn just can't win.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1

Share This Page

Loading...