Jump to content

SacramentoE-85

Full Member
  • Content Count

    1,233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About SacramentoE-85

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. And we all know that when a President signs a bill, his whole party agrees with him....like some of the bills that Obama is pushing through...
  2. Dan, you ask us to keep Politics out of the normal topics...but then you start a topic that directly addresses it. Then when those who have less of a liberal bias as your own post over there, you permanently delete them (even though they're not misinformation or threatening). Then you send a "Warning," which is laughable. What gives? I believe that you should remove both of these topics altogether. All this topic does is serve to split the supporters. Or keep yours up if your point is to "beef up" the liberal politicians as much as possible--they will need it in November (though it's really not going to get more than a handful more votes...). ;D
  3. FACT - "Ethanol is something that has had mixed reviews." Sounds right to me. Doesn't make me anti-ethanol to repeat it.
  4. Yes it is important to know that BP and Poet are two very different companies with different ownership. BP does do biofuels research, but it is for other biofuels instead of corn ethanol (which is what Poet is producing).
  5. By picking one piece of legislation that was very Partisan, one can make the case that someone is anti-something (when really it was just that almost everyone in one party voted against it, for various reasons). The EISA 2007 legislation was a Democrat bill, and the Republicans voted against it. What's new? http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-40&sort=party http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2007-226&sort=party
  6. SacramentoE-85 • Sr. Member • • • Join Date: Aug 2008 • Posts: 1226 • o o Re: Election Time..Who Supports Ethanol/E85 « Reply #3 on: Today at 06:15:59 PM » • Quote • Modify I couldn't find anything in a Google search about Bachmann being negative toward corn ethanol, but did find this information which tends to indicate she would be supportive: "According to the organization’s records, Bachmann’s family farm received $251,973 in federal subsidies between 1995 and 2006. The farm had been managed by Bachmann’s recently deceased father-in-law and took in roughly $20,000 in 2006 and $28,000 in 2005, with the bulk of the subsidies going to dairy and corn." http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/michelle_bachman_welfare_queen_20091221/ It is quite likely that many conservatives are silent about corn ethanol support, as many I talk with are supportive. However, the politicians don't want to upset the base of what they feel are anti-corn ethanol folks. Silence usually means support, since most politicians will tell us what they are against, but too often don't risk saying what they support.
  7. This topic has been censored so as that no politician who voted "Nay" to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 cannot be considered to be supportive of ethanol. This must be some kind of litmus test. However... http://aboutpolitics.com/politicians/Minnesota-MN/Bachmann/Energy%20Issues Bachmann voted Yes for: (2008) HR 2638 Continuing Appropriations Outcome: Concurrence Vote Passed (370/58) Summary: -Appropriates funds necessary to continue until March 6, 2009 projects or activities that were conducted in fiscal year 2008 and for which funds or other authority were made available in divisions A, B, C, D, F, G, H, J, and K of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (HR 2764) at the same rate for operations provided in those divisions of that Act, with the exception of some minor changes (Div. A, Sec. 101). -Appropriates $22.88 billion for disaster relief and recovery, $480.25 billion for the Department of Defense, $43.48 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, and $119.92 billion for military construction and veterans affairs (Divs. B-E). -Specifies that the funds appropriated in this act are not subject to a prohibition on use for offshore oil and natural gas preleasing and leasing (Div. A, Sec. 152). -Maintains funding levels at $7.51 billion for 2009 to fund loans of up to $25 billion in total principal for automobile manufacturers and component suppliers to pay for up to 30 percent of the cost of equipping themselves to produce vehicles or components which meet specified emissions and fuel economy standards (Div. A, Sec. 129). -Appropriates $5.1 billion for low-income home energy assistance instead of the previous amount of $2.6 billion (Div. A, Sec. 155). (2008) HR 6074 Prohibiting Foreign States or Associations from Forming a Group to Control Oil Outcome: Bill Passed (324/84) Summary: -Amends the Sherman Act to make it illegal for foreign states to enter into agreements with any group or person that would limit the production, set prices, or restrict the trade of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product (Sec. 102). -Declares that any foreign state violating this act is not immune under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from being tried or convicted in a US court of law (Sec. 102, 103). -Establishes a Petroleum Industry Antitrust Task Force within the Department of Justice to investigate and enforce petroleum industry issues such as price gouging, restricting refinery capacity, anticompetitive market control, and unilateral actions to withhold the supply of petroleum products to inflate prices (Sec. 201). (2007) HR 2264 Preventing the Organization of Petroleum Export Groups Outcome: Bill Passed (345/72) Summary: -Amends the Sherman Act to make it illegal for foreign states to enter into agreements with any group or person that would limit the production, set prices, or restrict the trade of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product. -Declares that any foreign state violating this act is not immune under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from being tried or convicted in a US court of law. These issues are far too complicated to simply say that one vote one way or the other makes someone supportive or not supportive.
  8. Posted previously on Re: Election Time...Who Supports Ethanol/E85 (reposted here by SacE85 as it was permanently deleted by the moderator): http://e85vehicles.com/e85/index.php/topic,4047.msg27566/topicseen.html#new SacramentoE-85 • Sr. Member • • • Join Date: Aug 2008 • Posts: 1226 • o o Re: Election Time..Who Supports Ethanol/E85 « Reply #3 on: Today at 06:15:59 PM » • Quote • Modify I couldn't find anything in a Google search about Bachmann being negative toward corn ethanol, but did find this information which tends to indicate she would be supportive: "According to the organization’s records, Bachmann’s family farm received $251,973 in federal subsidies between 1995 and 2006. The farm had been managed by Bachmann’s recently deceased father-in-law and took in roughly $20,000 in 2006 and $28,000 in 2005, with the bulk of the subsidies going to dairy and corn." http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/michelle_bachman_welfare_queen_20091221/ It is quite likely that many conservatives are silent about corn ethanol support, as many I talk with are supportive. However, the politicians don't want to upset the base of what they feel are anti-corn ethanol folks. Silence usually means support, since most politicians will tell us what they are against, but too often don't risk saying what they support.
  9. Maybe they mean that there will be less recyclable material available for food packaging, driving up food prices? Sheesh, some folks can never be satisfied with "better."
  10. Again to clarify my position--RR doesn't have bad ideas, but he most definitely presents them in a way to damage corn ethanol and that we have gotten to a point of 12 billion gallons. RR says some grandiose things that are actually read by the readers to disparage corn ethanol. Sure it would be great if Iowa were to use only E85 (or E100!), but if you don't read the intent between the lines, then I request that you read his articles again. Nearly every time there is something good to be said for ethanol (like with the Edison 2), he inserts little jabs about how the mileage actually should be decreased 30% or how the price spread isn't enough to overcome it, etc. consumerenergyreport.com/2010/09/17/progressive-insurance-automotive-x-prize/ "This ethanol-fueled (E85) vehicle demonstrated an incredible 102.5 MPGe (miles per gallon gasoline equivalent) on the test track. (RR note: According to the formula for MPGe, that means that actual mileage on E85 was 73 miles per gallon; MPGe divides the actual mileage by the ratio of the energy in the fuel used over the energy in gasoline; for fuels with lower energy density than gasoline, MPGe is greater than actual MPG)." He should have researched further to understand that this was an E85 only engine; tuned to take full advantage of ethanol's properties. No need to decrease the mpg's. I haven't asked RR to keep quiet--much to the opposite, I have only asked that when he writes that he not insert those jabs (which many of us disagree with the figures he uses) and such a negative spin on things; to work with the realities of the situation instead of setting up a straw man to knock down (stating what would be perfect in a perfect world, then saying that corn ethanol is no good since it doesn't live up to that). I wouldn't be doing my job as a commenter if I did not take RR to the mat on these obvious biases and smears, and the tactic to put up corn ethanol as needing to be some perfect fuel, then to tear it down. Especially as he would stand to benefit hugely financially should corn ethanol simply disappear, and his own company's fuels to replace it. And especially when his views are published in major news outlets across the internet. Why would an executive of a fuels company get such coverage across so many outlets, all the while damaging corn ethanol's successes? What if Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobile were doing the same?
  11. Robert Rapier may pick gasoline over ethanol. Or, RR may pick his company's (Merica) biomass biofuels over corn ethanol. I hope it's the latter, because I can respect him competing against corn ethanol for another biofuel, rather than trying to kill off corn ethanol to benefit Big Oil. In the end though, those who know that RR is ex-Conoco and is now trying to gain support for his company's own version of biofuels, it does seem a bit petty for him to be out there trying to kill off corn ethanol. And Growth Energy should be very wary about RR's input for the Fueling Freedom Plan, since RR is trying to kill off corn ethanol in favor of his own company's biofuels (if they eventually come to market, which won't be in any significant volume for many years down the road). If the Blenders Credit is actually going to the consumer by keeping ethanol prices lower, then a removal of the credit will drive up the price of ethanol and make all of those thousands of new ethanol blender pumps useless anyway--the consumer won't buy ethanol priced near the price of gasoline. This very likely is RR's ultimate goal--watch out. http://gigaom.com/cleantech/where-in-the-world-is-robert-rapier-hawaii-working-on-merica/ "For anyone searching for a smart critical analysis of the biofuel industry, Robert Rapier’s blog R-Squared has been like a breath of fresh air. The engineer, who has led teams creating biofuel technology at Accsys Technologies, Conoco Phillips and Celanese, has spent years crunching the numbers on the economics of various biofuels on his blog and used the medium to take startups and investors to task for some audacious claims. Well, now the avid blogger has a lead role in a new biofuel entrepreneurial venture that has its own bold vision of how biofuels will fit into the world." "Rapier told us in an exclusive interview last week that he has taken a position as the chief technology officer of Merica International, a company that is building out a vertically integrated approach to sustainable and localized biofuels. Merica, headquartered on the Big Island of Hawaii, will act as a holding company for a variety of companies, Rapier told us, including Forest Solutions, a forest management group, SunFuels Hawaii, a synthetic biodiesel provider, a yet-to-be-named company that will develop a biomass trading platform, and a company that will concentrate on acquiring and developing biomass conversion technologies. In addition, Merica owns parts of several other clean energy companies that will contribute to the company’s vision, like Choren Industries, a German company that makes waste to fuel gasification technology."
  12. Adjustment on that last point. RR may pick gasoline over ethanol. Or, RR may pick his company's (Merica) biomass biofuels over corn ethanol. I hope it's the latter, because I can respect him competing against corn ethanol for another biofuel, rather than trying to kill off corn ethanol to benefit Big Oil. In the end though, those who know that RR is ex-Conoco and is now trying to gain support for his company's own version of biofuels, it does seem a bit petty for him to be out there trying to kill off corn ethanol. And Growth Energy should be very wary about RR's input for the Fueling Freedom Plan, since RR is trying to kill off corn ethanol in favor of his own company's biofuels (if they eventually come to market, which won't be in any significant volume for many years down the road). If the Blenders Credit is actually going to the consumer by keeping ethanol prices lower, then a removal of the credit will drive up the price of ethanol and make all of those thousands of new ethanol blender pumps useless anyway--the consumer won't buy ethanol priced near the price of gasoline. This very likely is RR's ultimate goal--watch out. http://gigaom.com/cleantech/where-in-the-world-is-robert-rapier-hawaii-working-on-merica/ "For anyone searching for a smart critical analysis of the biofuel industry, Robert Rapier’s blog R-Squared has been like a breath of fresh air. The engineer, who has led teams creating biofuel technology at Accsys Technologies, Conoco Phillips and Celanese, has spent years crunching the numbers on the economics of various biofuels on his blog and used the medium to take startups and investors to task for some audacious claims. Well, now the avid blogger has a lead role in a new biofuel entrepreneurial venture that has its own bold vision of how biofuels will fit into the world." "Rapier told us in an exclusive interview last week that he has taken a position as the chief technology officer of Merica International, a company that is building out a vertically integrated approach to sustainable and localized biofuels. Merica, headquartered on the Big Island of Hawaii, will act as a holding company for a variety of companies, Rapier told us, including Forest Solutions, a forest management group, SunFuels Hawaii, a synthetic biodiesel provider, a yet-to-be-named company that will develop a biomass trading platform, and a company that will concentrate on acquiring and developing biomass conversion technologies. In addition, Merica owns parts of several other clean energy companies that will contribute to the company’s vision, like Choren Industries, a German company that makes waste to fuel gasification technology."
  13. Fleebut, your patriotism is appreciated. We must remember that Washington, D.C. is a collection of human beings who do not always act appropriately. There are some activities you might find interesting: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/mccain-speaks-o.html http://video-cdn.abcnews.com/080502_pol_mccain_middle_east.flv http://www.ttb.gov/public_info/whisky_rebellion.shtml http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/3379-eminent-domain-and-the-kelo-echo http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56491 http://www.examiner.com/cultural-issues-in-national/oil-spill-u-s-allows-bp-to-trample-first-amendment-rights-of-american-journalists-videos These are but a few I could think up in a few minutes' time (much as I begrudgingly post them).
  14. I know the type: I was one of them. "We went to war in the Middle East to bring liberty to the masses, to unseat an insane dictator." No doubt, but that was only part of the reason. At least half of the reason was to create stability in the incredibly important petroleum region, which brings stability to oil (and energy) prices. It took me years to warm up to more of the whole story. What can I say...I was a patriot that thought that our U.S. government did things for altruistic reasons only...? When I lived back there, we thought that this whole thing about Middle East oil was overblown by some sissy peace pacifists on the West Coast. Perhaps it is a little overblown by those folks, but I would say that at least half the reason we have military involvement in the Middle East is to protect petroleum supplies, which protects our economy (that's not to say that when biofuels get large enough in supply, then we won't have to worry so much about the economic effect of not protecting the Middle East). They believe it's only for altruistic reasons because they support U.S. servicemen and women so heavily, that they can't bear to think that they are putting their lives on the line also for the important petroleum supplies. As well, many hold strong beliefs that we need to support Israel (of course we do), and don't like to tarnish that belief with the Middle East petroleum thing. But it's all of this. What I would say to those folks is: "If the Middle East stopped pumping their oil, Europe, India, and China would be bidding up our nearby oil sources, and you know how energy hungry those regions are, right?" Or ask them, "If China stopped shipping toys, what would happen to your Christmas toys budget?" Or tell them that OPEC supplies 35 million barrels of petroleum per day, out of total world consumption of 85 million barrels per day. So, if grain production was reduced by over 1/3, wouldn't you expect corn and soybean prices to soar through the roof, to $10.00+ for corn and $20.00+ for soybeans? The same for petroleum, of course! I trust that the good folks that I communicate with often in the Midwest would understand that logic. But it will take them a good while to get past the part about the U.S. government going to war for major reasons in addition to the altruistic ones. Tell them it's "both and" instead of "either or."
  15. On a recent call, Robert Rapier reports that ExxonMobil is just fine with the ethanol blenders credit expiring. They say that they don't get the subsidy, the ethanol industry and farmer don't get the subsidy, but that it passes through to the consumer. So then why wouldn't they be in favor of it expiring? In their mind, ethanol will become more expensive to the consumer, especially E85. That will keep people filling up on gasoline instead of E85, while gasoline costs many tens of billions annually in social/health ($28 billion in CA alone) and military costs, that the oil companies don't have to pay for (the taxpayer does through their paycheck withholding). The petroleum subsidy passes through consumer's taxes, benefiting the oil companies. http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/09/15/exxonmobil-says-no-to-subsidies/ In this way (since Robert agrees), Robert is in favor of subsidized gasoline being consumed (most of it foreign oil), instead of "much less" subsidized American ethanol being consumed. Nowhere is there a qualifier that the oil companies should send tens of billions of dollars each year to the U.S. government for the military's protection and the social/health costs incurred. Removing one support (ethanol's) while not removing that of petroleum, makes it terribly one-sided. RR picks gasoline over ethanol.
×
×
  • Create New...