Ethanol is supposed to save our country from dependence on oil from other countries. Here are some facts to dwell on: The quantity of carbon dioxide emitted when ethanol is used as fuel will be 1.56 the quantity of carbon dioxide emitted when gasoline is used for fuel. Why aren’t the radical environmentalists screaming about the additional pollution of the air caused by the use of ethanol? They were successful in stopping the growth of the most efficient energy source in the world; nuclear power. (Note that they were not successful in stopping the use of nuclear power in our navy; aircraft carriers, submarines, ect are all powered by nuclear energy) They were responsible for stopping the building of more chemical plants in the U.S. making the cost of imported gas too high to be used by industry and caused the closing 70 chemical plants in the U.S since 2004 at a loss of 100,000 jobs. They and weak politicians are responsible for thousands of laid off workers due to the closing of plants using natural gas in their products; plants producing everyday consumer products from plastic cups to carpets to semiconductors. Of the 120 chemical plants being built around the world with $1 billion dollar price tags, (think jobs) only one is in the US. Talk about outsourcing, our politicians and rad enviros are responsible for many jobs in the energy sector to be lost to countries that have used more common sense than John Kerry and Democrats of his ilk plus a few Republicans. (It’s easy for Kerry, he doesn’t need a job; he married lifetime security.)
The Gulf holds an estimated 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and a lame duck congress has an opportunity to open up 8.5 million acres to natural gas and oil drilling. Failure to act will continue to punish Americans with short supplies and high costs, causing more plant closures and job flight overseas.
All kinds of efforts have been made to use the shale formations in western U.S.; 70% of this shale is located on federal lands. Production has been stymied by high reclamation costs and environmentalists. But Shell claims to be able to make high quality products straight out the ground with little processing to turn into diesel, jet fuel and naphtha. Chevron has a plan using carbon dioxide to break the rock bearing energy shale to release oil in mainly Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Exxon tried but abandoned a 3 billion dollar Colorado project in 1982 and that failure cost the confidence and dollars of a lot of people in the community. So people have a right to be wary.
The future on energy sources remains cloudy. Fortunately, the energy sources we have depended on in our past are still available; we will just pay more or use less. Ethanol, from all I can gather is not the answer. Neither are windmills. We have the resources here in our own country. We just need politicians with guts and reasonable environmentalists’ activists.
And what about those “frog eaters”, French, they were smart enough to get nuclear energy approved and are building more nuclear plants today.
The cost of corn is going up so will the cost of producing ethanol. Eventually, so will the cost of corn produced ethanol at the pump. So will the cost of all products that are produced from corn (think groceries) adding additional costs to the consumer. The beneficiary will be the farmer who already is subsidized by taxes you pay to the government. You also pay taxes to subsidize the ethanol producers, plus the touted energy producing windmills are subsidized with your tax dollars and are blights on the landscape. In fact, subsidies are becoming a way of life with our “spend and borrow” governments. Who will be responsible for tearing down these monstrosities when this country wakes up and fights back against the radical environmentalists and weak stomached politicians and, we, like the French and Russians go back to nuclear power?