| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/11/07 04:53 PM |
|
Re: Ethanol, again.
|
Quote:
If you average out what the 'pros' offer with what the 'cons' have to say, the economics still look pretty poor.
But that only works if you assume equality in in whats true. You, nor anyone else can deny the enormous financial advantage that the fossil fuel side has. Whats the penalty for putting out false information?, Nothing.
Quote:
I am intrigued with the concept of Hydrogen as an internal combustion engine fuel
The Germans thought it was a great gas for Dirigibles, until the Hindenburg.
Quote:
I think that what Casey's is doing has more to do with making points with the Ag folks than anything else.
Well I believe originally it was to help farmers, the company was conceived and started by Iowa farmers, but the corn surplus has long since passed. As far as Premium goes, thats an industry standard, but I agree its not needed.
I do question why the anti's insist on basing their energy gain/loss on using fossil fuel to raise corn. Does that slant the figures compared to using bio fuels?
The per gallon "subsidy is in the form a tax not collected. Is a tax not collected bad, should we collect more taxes on items, if we don't tax soybean oil or bread as a production tax are we subsidizing them?
Ozark, the CO2 argument works until this question is asked, "How much CO2 is absorbed in extracting oil, compared to how much is absorbed by the corn grown to produce the Ethanol?" How does that balance out with the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel?