# State of the Union- Ethanol



## Militant_Tiger

During the state of the union address Bush claimed that he wants to create new alternative fuels such as ethanol. I have essientally been called an idiot for believing that ethanol was even a possibility. Now that your poster boy has stated that it is a very viable idea and one worth research, what do you say?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Nothing has changed on this issue. i have stated and will continue to state that ethanol from grain products are not at this time new energy. When you make comments about him being a poster boy it shows that you really do not pay attention to what is posted.

While I like most of the things Bush has done or proposed, I do not like everything nor do I support everything. Since that seems to have escaped you I suggest you go back and read some of the threads concerning this issue.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Ron Gilmore said:


> Nothing has changed on this issue. i have stated and will continue to state that ethanol from grain products are not at this time new energy. When you make comments about him being a poster boy it shows that you really do not pay attention to what is posted.
> 
> While I like most of the things Bush has done or proposed, I do not like everything nor do I support everything. Since that seems to have escaped you I suggest you go back and read some of the threads concerning this issue.


Could it be that the statement was not directed at you Ron?


----------



## huntin1

Perhaps it is directed at me then M_T. And as Ron already stated, ethanol that is produced from grain crops that require the burning of petroleum products to plant, care for, and harvest, is not new energy, more energy is expended in the production than what is produced. If ethanol can be produced in a more efficient manner then perhaps it will become viable.

No one has said that new ways of production should not be explored M_T, just that at the current level of technology and the current methods of production, ethanol is not a viable replacement for petroleum based fuels.

I suspect that you are so blinded by your hatred of anything Republican or conservative that you refuse to see that. :eyeroll:

huntin1


----------



## mr.trooper

It uses more gassoline than you out of it in Ethanol. SO WHAT IF TS CLEANER? it will not do anything to help people out...Just make the Fuel prices even higher.

SO what if Bush mentioned Ethanol? You ASSUME that we are all mindless sheep like most of your democratic Comrads. If our leaders say something dumb we wont follow them anymore.

BTW: fuels LIKE ethanol. this could be any number of CHEAPER, MORE POTENT alternative fuels :wink:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

So are you saying that Bush was wrong in his comment about ethenol being a real alternative fuel, or are you willing to retract your statement? You can't argue both sides on this one.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

MT broaden your knowledge here! Biomass products other than grains can be a positive product. However Sen from farm states like ND,SD,IL,IA,and MN to name a few want the bulk of any money spent on grain ethanol.

Hemp,Switch grass, even the dead and broken down tree, from storms have been proven to be positive energy products. That is the stickler with ethanol as it sits today. It may benefit the farms to have ethanol made from grain, but as a renewable source that reduces foreign oil dependency or moves us toward less fossil fuel products it is a no net gain.

If we move in the direction away from grain and towards other biomass I am on board. If we continue down the path we are then I am not.

I hope that clears up your confusion!


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I previously stated that ethanol is a viable option, not ethanol made from any specific biomass. I was shot down for this, and given arbitrary information about how much fuel it takes to make a gallon of ethanol. Thus either Bush is wrong, or those who said it is not viable are wrong.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Pres Bush put forward a Energy bill that was big on research to develop biomass products. What was discussed in the past if my memory serves me was grain ethanol. They are about alike as a pickup and a car. So if you dig a little bit you will find that your assumptions are wrong on both counts.

If Bush supports ethanol from grain it will be political nothing more. Not because it is a viable energy source.


----------



## ej4prmc

It takes *TWICE*as much energy to produce than IT CAN PRODUCE, so where are the savings?


----------



## buckseye

Is that twice as much BTU's or cash??

But if they use ethonol as the energy source to make more ethonol it will come down in production cost eventually. 8)


----------



## ej4prmc

energy,(example) it takes 2 KW to produce, but can only produce 1 KW when burnt.


----------



## buckseye

bummer.... 8)


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Ron Gilmore said:


> Pres Bush put forward a Energy bill that was big on research to develop biomass products. What was discussed in the past if my memory serves me was grain ethanol. They are about alike as a pickup and a car. So if you dig a little bit you will find that your assumptions are wrong on both counts.
> 
> If Bush supports ethanol from grain it will be political nothing more. Not because it is a viable energy source.


I will repeat myself. I stated that ethenol was a viable energy source, not ethenol from grain, just ethenol. I was shot down as an ignorant moron for stating this. Now the president states the same, and it is different. Either he is wrong, or you guys were wrong. You have still not made that choice.



> It takes TWICEas much energy to produce than IT CAN PRODUCE, so where are the savings?


Again meaningless figures, tell that to Bush.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Ethanol from grain is a 1 to 1 product. Meaning for every BTU generated it takes a BTU of energy to produce. MT like I said before that is not the case for many BIOMASS materials that are not receiving funding research in the current energy bill vs the one proposed by Pres Bush.

I also stated that if Bush supports grain ethanol it will be for political reasons of which I am not saying he is not capable or willing to do! Unlike you I am aware of things I do not like about our current Pres policy's nor do I support them just because they came from the Rep side of the aisle.

Show me one thing that you feel that the Dem's are proposing that you are not drinking the KOOL-AID!


----------



## ej4prmc

Ron you stated: "Ethanol from grain is a 1 to 1 product. Meaning for every BTU generated it takes a BTU of energy to produce"

This is wrong. It takes 2.15 times more energy to make than it can produce.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

You are still shying away from my question, were you guys wrong in shooting me down when I said that ethenol is viable, or is your main man Mr. Bush wrong.



> Show me one thing that you feel that the Dem's are proposing that you are not drinking the KOOL-AID!


None of the gun control, I don't drink kool aid, I make decisions independant of the party. I make up my mind before I check where they stand, we simply happen to concur on most of the issues. You should do the same.



> This is wrong. It takes 2.15 times more energy to make than it can produce.


Man I swear they could tell you that the average muslim kills 1.3 Christians in their lifetime and you would spew it back every time you got the chance.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

MT I stand corrected on my comment! You are not in the Gun grabber mode of the left wing Dem's.

ej4prmc since you seem to insist that you know what you are talking about please site the study or report that you have gathered this tidbit of information from. Mine comes directly from the 2002 report on ethanol from the Congressional Budget Office and the Governmental Accounting Office. They reviewed and listed all the studies done on this from 1978 and also those from our European countries that are using ethanol.

The latest study sponsored by the Corn Producers has a 1 to 1.35 BTU gain only after they had added in solar energy gain during the growing of the plant. Yet discount any solar energy gain that occurred in producing the plant matter that we now call oil or petroleum.

Our own accounting offices for the US government have stated that there is no gain in energy and it is essentially a farm subsidy program. They also stated that other forms of ethanol have potential but are not being pursued.


----------



## Plainsman

Ron Gilmore wrote:


> I also stated that if Bush supports grain ethanol it will be for political reasons of which I am not saying he is not capable or willing to do! Unlike you *I am aware of things I do not like about our current Pres *policy's nor do I support them just because they came from the Rep side of the aisle.


Militant Tiger wrote:


> You are still shying away from my question, were you guys wrong in shooting me down when I said that ethenol is viable, or is your main man Mr. Bush wrong.


MT if you don't think Ron has answered the question go through another book of see spot run, see dick jump etc. you definitely have a problem.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> MT if you don't think Ron has answered the question go through another book of see spot run, see dick jump etc. you definitely have a problem.


I've been given a half assed answer that beats around the bush. I either want to hear that your side was wrong, or that Bush is wrong plain and simple. I have heard neither concession, but I think we all know what the real answer is.


----------



## Plainsman

It came across clear as crystal to me. I don't think anyone has changed their mind about ethanol simply because Bush wants it.


----------



## Gohon

Militant_Tiger said:


> During the state of the union address Bush claimed that he wants to create new alternative fuels such as ethanol. I have essientally been called an idiot for believing that ethanol was even a possibility. Now that your poster boy has stated that it is a very viable idea and one worth research, what do you say?


Could you possible produce a cite that mentions ethanol in the state of the union address? Now I know he said "I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles" but I don't recall ethanol being mentioned even once.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Could you possible produce a cite that mentions ethanol in the state of the union address? Now I know he said "I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles" but I don't recall ethanol being mentioned even once.





> And my budget provides strong funding for leading-edge technology -- from hydrogen-fueled cars, to clean coal, to renewable sources such as ethanol. (Applause.)


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 02-11.html

If you don't trust that it's in there either just do Ctrl + F and type in ethanol.


----------



## mr.trooper

Get over yourself tiger. None of us claims that Bush is perfect. he is wrong on this issue, and thats all ther is to it.

So i like Bush? YES. Do i think he is a realy great president? YES. But this doesnt mean that i think he is infallable. he is wrong on the Ethanol issue just like I think he is wrong with what he plans to do with Medicare and his prescription drug plans.

Good people can still be wrong.

Again, we don't follow blindly. When he does something stupid we say so. YOUR the blind sheep MT, not us.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Again, we don't follow blindly. When he does something stupid we say so. YOUR the blind sheep MT, not us.


Lolzor

Oh well thanks for admiting that one of you was wrong, took some guts.


----------



## mr.trooper

We never said he was perfect.

We have just agreed with most of what he has done so far. We are conservative, and we have a conservative president. What did you expect?


----------



## Gohon

mr.trooper said:


> Get over yourself tiger. None of us claims that Bush is perfect. he is wrong on this issue, and thats all ther is to it.


The more I read this thread the funnier it gets. Only one making a mountain out of a mole hill is MT. The President never said he endorsed ethanol. All he said was in his budget there was funding for "leading-edge technology -- from hydrogen-fueled cars, to clean coal, to renewable sources such as ethanol". leading-edge technology probable includes clean ways to burn cow chips also. Only thing he has specifically and personally endorsed with funding is hydrogen-fueled cars. Anyone with a functional brain stem realizes that ethanol cannot and will not ever be a reliable and fuel source.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Anyone with a functional brain stem realizes that ethanol cannot and will not ever be a reliable and fuel source.


And yet he stated that it is viable, so you are essentially calling him a moron.


----------



## Gohon

Militant_Tiger said:


> Anyone with a functional brain stem realizes that ethanol cannot and will not ever be a reliable and fuel source.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet he stated that it is viable, so you are essentially calling him a moron.
Click to expand...

I didn't call the President anything but if you don't understand the difference between reliable and viable then moron may very well be a title that fits you. Come to think of it moronic statements seem to be the order of the day from you.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I didn't call the President anything but if you don't understand the difference between reliable and viable then moron may very well be a title that fits you. Come to think of it moronic statements seem to be the order of the day from you.


For it to be viable it must be reliable. Being that you said it is not reliable, it is thus not viable, and the president is a moron. This is all according to what you've said.


----------



## Longshot

MT,

I see you still can't read and understand the English language in the context that it is stated. Like a 3 year old, your thought process is too concrete to understand what people are saying. :eyeroll:

Ethanol may not be what we are looking for as it is presented today. Although additional research and technology may change that. That should be funded? Shouldn't it?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Longshot said:


> MT,
> 
> I see you still can't read and understand the English language in the context that it is stated. Like a 3 year old, your thought process is too concrete to understand what people are saying. :eyeroll:
> 
> Ethanol may not be what we are looking for as it is presented today. Although additional research and technology may change that. That should be funded? Shouldn't it?


Yet again you are arguing the wrong point. I stated that ethenol is viable and should be researched. For this I was shot down as ignorant of the facts. Now that the president has stated it I said that one of the two groups are wrong, either him or you guys. Some have stuck to what they said, others have not.


----------



## Plainsman

We have all stuck to what we have said. In the beginning of this ethanol thing the argument was corn into ethanol. Not a good option. Then later someone mentioned biomass ethanol. Well that got me to thinking so I mentioned _Panicum virgatum _as an efficient source for efficient ethanol production.

A reliable source means it works, and is readily available through production. Viable means it produces more energy than it takes to make it. Corn ethanol is not a viable energy source, but switch grass ethanol is.

Hasn't this become a my daddy is stronger than your daddy argument? Did Timmy hide your prozak?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> We have all stuck to what we have said. In the beginning of this ethanol thing the argument was corn into ethanol. Not a good option. Then later someone mentioned biomass ethanol. Well that got me to thinking so I mentioned _Panicum virgatum _as an efficient source for efficient ethanol production.
> 
> A reliable source means it works, and is readily available through production. Viable means it produces more energy than it takes to make it. Corn ethanol is not a viable energy source, but switch grass ethanol is.
> 
> Hasn't this become a my daddy is stronger than your daddy argument? Did Timmy hide your prozak?


I argued for ethenol, not ethenol from corn. I was still shot down for this. Your poster boy has contradicted you, and to prevent either of you eating crow you are arguing the wrong point.


----------



## mr.trooper

EVEORYONE JUST DROP IT.

This Debate has gone to far out of hand, as evidenced by Tigers USUAL argumentative behavior. He is now ranting and picking and flying at eveoyone who says anythng at all...over a NON-ISSUE topic.

i suggest we stop before he has a corronary.


----------



## Plainsman

One last point

MT wrote:


> [quoteI argued for ethenol, not ethenol from corn. I was still shot down for this. Your poster boy has contradicted you, and to prevent either of you eating crow you are arguing the wrong point.


[/quote]

Militant_Tiger
guest

Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 1731
Location: Michigan
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject:

"It is not good environmentally or as a matter of petroleum conservation"

You honestly think that burning ethenol is worse for the enviornment than it is to burn petrol? *Not to mention the extra farmers it would put in buisness growing corn*, which is better for hunters.
_________________
If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.

Back to top


----------



## Longshot

Plainsman,

Thanks for posting MT's quote of prior. You beat me to it. It definitely clears up the issue.


----------



## Gohon

You know MT, a long time ago a group of brave men had the courage to write a document we call the Constitution that prevents people with warped views such as yours from ever controlling our government. Unfortunately for you there is nothing you can do about it buy cry. A good debate is healthy for everyone, but it appears to me that you are only intrested in arguements which serve no purpose. There are a lot of little keyboard cowboys like you on the Internet and I know your only purpose is stir things up but I have no intention of a tit for tat game with you. You'll just have to find another sandbox to play in.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Gohon said:


> You know MT, a long time ago a group of brave men had the courage to write a document we call the Constitution that prevents people with warped views such as yours from ever controlling our government. Unfortunately for you there is nothing you can do about it buy cry. A good debate is healthy for everyone, but it appears to me that you are only intrested in arguements which serve no purpose. There are a lot of little keyboard cowboys like you on the Internet and I know your only purpose is stir things up but I have no intention of a tit for tat game with you. You'll just have to find another sandbox to play in.


People with ideas like mine, which are warped. What exactly prevents me from taking office again? As well, I wanted a simple answer, unfortunately as shown the conservatives don't take being wrong very well and change the subject of the argument itself.



> You honestly think that burning ethenol is worse for the enviornment than it is to burn petrol? Not to mention the extra farmers it would put in buisness growing corn, which is better for hunters.


This would be a plus of corn based ethenol. I didn't state that it was the only way to go, just that it had its benefits.



> This Debate has gone to far out of hand, as evidenced by Tigers USUAL argumentative behavior. He is now ranting and picking and flying at eveoyone who says anythng at all...over a NON-ISSUE topic.


I am flying at people? Boy that is some hypocrisy right there.


----------



## huntin1

:eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

huntin1


----------



## mr.trooper

Watch it huntin1, youd better not post so many :eyeroll: shaking smilies, its might be "hypocrisy"....as eveory other simple statement seems to be (or at least the ones he doesnt agree with...)

:box: :splat: :idiot:


----------



## huntin1

I've been trying really hard to restrain myself. 

huntin1


----------



## ej4prmc

Members of the House and Senate are meeting in conference to reconcile the differences between their versions of comprehensive energy legislation (H.R. 4). An issue of significant concern is a federal mandate in Title VIII of the Senate-passed version of the bill that would nearly triple the use of ethanol by 2012. Ethanol is a corn-based additive that serves as a fuel oxygenate. Fuel oxygenates are required in certain areas of the country with excessive carbon monoxide or ozone pollution, as mandated by the Clean Air Act.4 In short, this provision would grant ethanol a "captive" market.

Many feel the ethanol provision is essentially a deal forged between oil companies and the corn lobby that has won the support of the White House and *Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-SD), *despite ethanol's economic and environmental drawbacks. Based on the available evidence, it is clear that mandating additional fuel-ethanol subsidies and use is entirely unnecessary.

There is no justification for including any such provision in a national energy policy, either now or in the future.

The chief reason for imposing an ethanol program on motorists is to enrich farmers and food processors under the guise of environmental enhancement.

*Ethanol is not environmentally safe*. Oxygenates such as ethanol may reduce emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), but can also result in increased emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), a main precursor of smog pollution; and ethanol-blended gasoline can lead to increased emissions of acetaldehyde, a toxic pollutant.

*A study by Cornell University scientist David Pimentel shows that producing ethanol from corn actually requires more energy than the fuel produces, making the United States more fossil-fuel-dependent, not less.*

The ethanol mandate amounts to *blatant "corporate welfare."* Only a handful of large agribusinesses would gain from this ethanol mandate.

Mandating an increase in the use of ethanol would burden both taxpayers and consumers. Expensive production costs, lengthy transportation times, further infrastructure construction, and added blending/production procedures would be absorbed by consumers paying higher prices at the pump.

A BURDEN ON TAXPAYERS AND CONSUMERS
Ethanol is more expensive to produce than gasoline and costs about twice as much as gasoline. Over the years, the federal government has adopted various policies to encourage its use, including a tax incentive that partially exempts ethanol-blended fuels from the standard excise tax on gasoline.

Currently, ethanol-blended fuels receive a 5.3 cent per gallon exemption from the excise tax. This represents a federal subsidy of 53 cents per gallon of pure ethanol. Yet, despite this preferential tax treatment, use of ethanol has failed to expand significantly. Clearly, ethanol's failure to penetrate the marketplace explains the push by the ethanol industry and its friends in Congress to award ethanol a guaranteed market share.

The ethanol provision included in Title VIII of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 4 would increase the price of gasoline by 4 to 10 cents per gallon throughout the United States, essentially burdening consumers with a "new gas tax." Mandating an increase in the use of ethanol would burden both taxpayers and consumers. While taxpayer dollars would be used to pay even higher subsidies to a handful of companies that control the ethanol market, consumers would be saddled with price increases at the pump.

SIPHONING FUNDS FROM THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND
Financing for the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is derived from a variety of federal highway user taxes including excise taxes on motor fuels. Under current law, an ethanol-blended fuel, gasohol, is exempt from 5.3 cents of the federal excise tax on motor fuels. This represents a more than 25 percent break from the standard 18.4 cent excise tax on gasoline. An additional 2.5 cents of the tax received on each gallon is transferred to the General Fund instead of the HTF. Thus, the total loss to the HTF resulting from ethanol-blended fuels as compared to gasoline is 7.8 cents per gallon.

In fact, in July 2002, House Transportation Committee leaders sent a letter to energy bill conferees, stressing the negative effect of ethanol subsidies on the Highway Trust Fund. The letter specifies that

Due to ethanol's federal tax incentive, purchasers of gasohol...contribute less to the maintenance and improvement of the nation's highway and transit systems than do purchasers of gasoline.... Currently, the combined effect of these separate policies results in well over $1 billion per year in foregone Highway Trust Fund revenues.
Currently, approximately 1.7 billion gallons of the 2.0 billion gallons of ethanol produced in the United States each year are consumed.Title VIII of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 4 would nearly triple the use of ethanol by 2012, with increases of 2.3 billion gallons by 2004 and 5.0 billion gallons by 2012. While the current tax exemptions for ethanol-blended gasoline already have a significant negative impact on the Highway Trust Fund, this mandate to increase ethanol use by nearly 200 percent would result in an even greater depletion of highway funds.

At a House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit hearing on fuel taxes, Dr. Peter Ruane, President and CEO of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, testified that ethanol exemptions would reduce funding to the Highway Trust Fund by approximately $4 billion by 2012. Some estimates are even larger. A comprehensive study by Hart Downstream Energy Services reports that "The level of ethanol blending stipulated in [the Senate-passed version of H.R. 4] would reduce [Highway Trust Fund] receipts by approximately $10 billion over the aggregate cost associated with continued use of ethanol under current regulations over the same period."

Others have warned of the devastating impact of legislated market manipulation as well. For example, Marlo Lewis, Jr., of the Competitive Enterprise Institute predicts that

Starting in 2013, the mandate requires refiners to increase the 5 billion gallon target to guarantee ethanol a fixed market share as the nation's overall fuel usage expands.... [T]ripling the sale of ethanol will diminish highway trust fund revenues.... States will not be able to afford new roads, bridges, and other critical infrastructure projects needed to relieve congestion and improve auto safety.
The proposed ethanol mandate will certainly leech needed funds from the Highway Trust Fund, which enables states to keep our nation's critical transportation infrastructure viable. This potential drain on the Highway Trust Fund is yet another significant price that the nation would pay for this irresponsible mandate.

LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO TRANSPORT ETHANOL FUEL
At present, the infrastructure needed to produce, store, and blend more ethanol does not exist. Given that it is most cost-effective to produce ethanol close to its source--corn--approximately 90 percent of the nation's ethanol is produced in five states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska. Likewise, the greatest use of ethanol-blended fuel is currently in the Midwest.

Providing other regions of the country with ethanol-blended gasoline would increase its cost, since additional transmission and distribution lines would be needed to transport blended fuel to these areas. Given that ethanol cannot be transmitted through petroleum pipelines, the costs of transporting ethanol to other regions of the country will be high. Ethanol will have to be transported to other regions by truck, rail, or barge and then blended at a local production facility.

Nationwide use of fuel ethanol would not be cost-effective. The availability and price of ethanol-blended fuel would be affected by lengthy transportation times, further infrastructure construction, and added blending/production procedures. Consumers would be sure to pay more per gallon at the gas station as a result of this legislation. The California Energy Commission reports that states in which ethanol is not produced, including California, could suffer gas prices as high as $4.00 per gallon. Thus, while large and profitable agribusiness gained from a legislated demand for their byproducts, taxpayers and consumers would bear the burden.

ETHANOL'S ENVIRONMENTAL DRAWBACKS
Contrary to widespread misconception, ethanol is not environmentally safe, nor does it necessarily reduce poisonous emissions. While oxygenates such as ethanol do reduce emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), they can also result in increased emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), a main precursor of smog pollution. In addition, ethanol can increase the likelihood that toxins found in gasoline, such as benzene, will seep into groundwater.

During floor debate, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) noted that the "evidence suggests that...reformulated gasoline with ethanol produces more smog pollution than reformulated gas without it." Senator Feinstein also cited a 1999 National Academy of Sciences report, which found that "[ethanol-blended gasoline] will lead to increased emissions of acetaldehyde" (a toxic pollutant).

CORPORATE WELFARE: SUBSIDIES AND PROTECTIONS
The greatest beneficiaries of the ethanol mandate in the Senate-passed version of H.R. 4 would be the handful of companies that control the ethanol market. Many experts feel that the ethanol mandate in the Senate legislation's Title VIII amounts to blatant "corporate welfare."

Of the companies producing ethanol, the top five produce almost 60 percent and the top 10 produce approximately 75 percent of the chemical. One company alone, Archer Daniels Midland, currently produces 41 percent of the nation's ethanol. Reacting to subsidies targeted to this industry, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) declared, "Our citizens' health and the environment are being held hostage to the desire of the ethanol lobby to make ever larger profits."

Not only does Title VIII of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 4 award these companies more subsidies by means of a mandate that would almost triple ethanol use, but it also awards them a "Renewable Fuels Safe Harbor" provision that protects big agribusiness from environmental liability by "protecting industry from suits arising out of defective additives in gasoline...." Senator Schumer states it best:

The Safe Harbor provision gives unprecedented product liability protection against consumers and communities that seek legal redress from the manufacturers and oil companies that produce and utilize defective additives in their gasoline. Not just ethanol; all of them.
INSIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO NATIONAL ENERGY SECURITY
Mandating an increase in the use of fuel-blended ethanol will not contribute to the nation's energy security. Although ethanol has been touted as a "renewable resource," this is not the case. In the course of its production, fuel ethanol must be denatured through a process that uses gasoline. This raises production costs, significantly devalues ethanol as a renewable resource, and contributes very little to the United States' energy security.

According to the Congressional Research Service, some studies suggest that

the amount of energy needed to produce ethanol is roughly equal to the amount of energy obtained from its combustion, which could lead to little or no reductions in fossil energy use. Thus, if the energy used in ethanol production is petroleum-based, ethanol would do nothing to contribute to energy security.
Similarly, a recent study by Cornell University scientist David Pimentel shows that producing ethanol from corn actually requires more energy than the fuel produces, thereby making the United States more fossil-fuel-dependent, not less. *Professor Pimentel's study explains that the amount of energy required to produce 1,000 liters of ethanol is approximately 70 percent more than the amount of energy that the ethanol possesses*.

CONCLUSION
As Senate and House conferees meet to reconcile their respective energy bills, they must be clear about what a mandate for increased subsidies and use of ethanol-blended fuel would and would not do. This mandate clearly defines its winners and losers. Ethanol use neither helps the environment nor improves the nation's energy security. Ethanol is not environmentally friendly and is not an authentic renewable resource; its production may require more energy than the fuel it produces.

Finally, ethanol is not economically advantageous. Mandated increased use would entail additional production costs, transportation costs, infrastructure costs, and environmental costs, the burden of which would fall squarely on consumers.

The ethanol provision in the Senate-passed version of H.R. 4 would simply subsidize a small group of large ethanol producers at the taxpayer's expense. Mandating the use of more fuel ethanol is both costly and unnecessary. The evidence clearly shows that there is no justification for including any such provision in America's national energy policy, either now or in the future.

--Erin M. Hymel


----------



## Gohon

ej4prmc said:


> Members of the House and Senate are meeting in conference to reconcile the differences between their versions of comprehensive energy legislation (H.R. 4). An issue of significant concern is a federal mandate in Title VIII of the Senate-passed version of the bill that would nearly triple the use of ethanol by 2012. Ethanol is a corn-based additive that serves as a fuel oxygenate. Fuel oxygenates are required in certain areas of the country with excessive carbon monoxide or ozone pollution, as mandated by the Clean Air Act.4 In short, this provision would grant ethanol a "captive" market.
> 
> Many feel the ethanol provision is essentially a deal forged between oil companies and the corn lobby that has won the support of the White House and *Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-SD), *


*

This sounds like a old report. Did it pass the house?, was it ever included in any bill for final signature?, is it on the table now? Just how old is it? 
Do you have a link??????????*


----------

