TheAgitator.com
Energized
Thursday, December 20th, 2007Say goodbye to the Edison light bulb.
And that’s not really even the worst of it. The mandates for alternative fuel sources like ethanol would require more corn to be grown in the U.S. solely for ethanol than is currently grown for all other purposes combined. Which means that even though there’s no guarantee the bill will do much of anything to actually conserve energy, one thing it is certain to do, however, is dramatically raise the cost of food, something that’s already happening thanks to Congress’ ethanol subsidy boondoggles.
Perhaps the Democrats can explain to low income people why they’ll soon be spending more at the grocery store so the government can give rich farm corps more federal subsidies to produce an inefficient source of energy.
Bush doesn’t escape blame, either. He signed the damned thing.
“Perhaps the Democrats can explain to low income people why they’ll soon be spending more at the grocery store so the government can give rich farm corps more federal subsidies to produce an inefficient source of energy.”
That’s easy. It’s because the evil grocers are colluding to raise prices. Which means we’ll need more antitrust enforcement to protect against “market failure.”
The great thing about being a statist is that you’ll never run out of people to blame.
Just a quick clarification. The current ethanol subsidy is called a “blenders credit” and goes to the company that mixes the ethanol with gas. Farmers don’t see a dime of this “subsidy.” The direct crop subsidies are countercyclical, which means farmers get subsidies, in various forms, when prices are low. Corn is at record prices, mostly due to ethanol use, but also worldwide grain shortages, therefore farmers are receiving no direct subsidies for corn production and won’t in the future if corn prices stay high. So while the federal government is mostly responsible for high corn prices, no tax money if flowing directly to corn farmers. No doubt farmers are benefiting from federal government policies on ethanol, but your statement that the government will give rich farm corps more federal subsidies is incorrect. The subsidies are, in fact going to energy companies.
You know an issue is fucked up to the nth degree when you, as a minarchist, conservative or libertarian, finding yourself nodding solemnly, muttering “amen, brother” to Fidel Castro.
WTF, we are using a fuel source that doubles as a food source, or is that vise versa.
We are already growing more corn than ever before, and the government wants to increase acerage to grow more, so we can drive more.
I live in MN, which is a “leader” in ethanol production/use. Not only are we using a food source to fuel our cars, but making ethanol from corn is just about a 50/50 proposition with regards to energy used to process and energy outcome. It takes tremendous amounts of water to make it, and corn only has 1 growth cycle per year.
If they are serious about using plants to fuel cars, then look at cellulose from grass. It has multiple growing cycles per year, takes an order of magnitude less energy and water to produce it, therefore increasing yields, but there is not 1 operating cellulose plant in the country.
I’m not sure our current occupant can even pronounce ethanol, but he sure is in faor of it to solve our “crisis” Fuckup
Kurt: don’t forget the tremendous quantities of fertilizers required to grow all that corn too, much of which ends up in rivers after rain hits the fields.
Mike T: Ouch. But yeah, you’re absolutely right. And how do I hate having to agree with anything that fat bastard says.
I’m more worried about the requirement for increased efficiency home heating units. I use anthracite coal and wood for my house. I burn about 4 tons of coal a year, plus wood.
What happens if I have to replace my furnace in years down the road, will I be able to get a coal furnace, or will I be forced to get a oil or worse yet a natural gas burner that will increase our dependancy on foreign oil.
Hemp would be a nice option to have for production of oil (for food or biodiesel), cellulose (for making ethanol or fiber) and requires little fertilizer and is very productive.
I think you missed the part of the energy bill where they were going to figure out how we can eat coal.
I used to be in the energy research business, so this is an area I have a real expertise. Zeb, once again, you assume that if it get’s you high, it must be awesome. Like Kurt mentioned, switchgrass is the holy grail of plants for fuel, or whatever it is they think they’re doing. Of course, in the short term, none of this makes any sense when we have a perfectly good fuel source we can suck out of the ground. As everyone in the energy business knows, the future for cars is batteries. You can generate power much more cleanly and efficiently in a plant than in an engine compartment. Also we have more coal (in total heating value) than the entire world has oil. We really don’t have to be in any big hurry to perfect nuclear power or fill our gas tanks with white lightning.
Of all the libertarian issues, mandatory efficiency for cars is one of the least disturbing to me. Managing roads is one of the most important things a government does these days and keeping a 120-lb lady from driving a 6000 pound death machine wouldn’t be particularly offensive. In fact, preventing that would save more lives than everything MADD has ever done. Also this seems to be the one libertarian issue that all the Sean Hannity’s of the world happily jump on.
“keeping a 120-lb lady from driving a 6000 pound death machine wouldn’t be particularly offensive.”
So much for libertarianism. Everyone’s a statist when it comes to their pet issues. Hypocrite.
It’s lunacy to use corn to produce ethanol anyway. Last figures I saw said that corn produces 300 gallons of ethanol per acre and in most of the US you can only get one crop a year. Sugar Cane produces 480 gallons per acre and probably won’t grow in most of the US. Plain old switchgrass produces 1100 gallons per acre, grows in lots of places not suitable for corn, and can produce 2-3 crops a year in most of the US. Who is getting rich by using the least efficient fuel? It just doesn’t make sense.
I should have read Kurt’s post first, looks like he knows something of the issue.
Alex: Hemp doesn’t get you high.
Questions about the swirlybulbs:
1. Do we want all that mercury next to our food when we have to replace the lightbulb in our fridges?
2. Don’t CFL’s cause migraines in some people? How are they supposed to light their homes if incandescents are not an option? Candles?
3. A lot of people use lightbulbs in their basements or wellhouses to keep their pipes from freezing? What are they supposed to do?