ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > The perfect line and other riding myths
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-15-2013, 03:25 PM   #256
joexr
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: S.E.
Oddometer: 3,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albie View Post
The opposite of less gas.
joexr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 05:26 PM   #257
the_sandman_454
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: Coleman, Michigan
Oddometer: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyForNow View Post
I was watching myth busters the other day and they dumped old deep fryer oil in a Mercedes diesel and it ran perfectly. I wonder if the diesel KLR could run off old cooking oil. This would be great for the environment and for dunk'in doughnuts as they would be frequently visited by riders trying to score some old oil.
Diesels can run on just about anything combustable. Cooking oils (fresh or used), etc. Mr. Diesel intended his original design to run on peanut oil as I recall. Just filter for particulates and go. In cold temperatures it may need heating, but diesel could too.
__________________
Tim
09 KLR650
the_sandman_454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 05:39 PM   #258
the_sandman_454
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: Coleman, Michigan
Oddometer: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
Wow, just wow. Just one question. You do understand that monopolies can exist regardless of governmental action and in fact it's the failure to properly enforce antitrust laws that is the problem?
So, where are you seeing a monopoly and how do you think the government forcing companies to produce a product that isn't viable on its' own will help that situation? Ethanol is just not able to be produced cheaply or efficiently enough to make a real difference. As the price of gasoline/diesel continue to rise, we'll see private individuals, investors, and companies developing alternatives. This happens on its' own, without interference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911fan View Post
The ultimate outcome of capitalism is slavery. What do antitrust and warring farmers have to do with the fact the ethanol is crap?



1911fan
That's an interesting theory. If the outcome of capitalism is slavery, then what would you call the outcome of socialism, marxism, communism, or any other system in which the society itself owns each individual, his productivity, and distributes things to him according to "needs" society has determined for him?

I'm not sure what that has to do with a government mandating a given material to be produced in quantities it wouldn't be produced in without said mandate though.
__________________
Tim
09 KLR650
the_sandman_454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 08:22 PM   #259
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 18,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_sandman_454 View Post
So, where are you seeing a monopoly and how do you think the government forcing companies to produce a product that isn't viable on its' own will help that situation? Ethanol is just not able to be produced cheaply or efficiently enough to make a real difference. As the price of gasoline/diesel continue to rise, we'll see private individuals, investors, and companies developing alternatives. This happens on its' own, without interference.



That's an interesting theory. If the outcome of capitalism is slavery, then what would you call the outcome of socialism, marxism, communism, or any other system in which the society itself owns each individual, his productivity, and distributes things to him according to "needs" society has determined for him?

I'm not sure what that has to do with a government mandating a given material to be produced in quantities it wouldn't be produced in without said mandate though.
Your mistake is two fold.

You assume that ethanol isn't price competitive with gasoline and therefore not viable. We currently have the capacity to produce enough ethanol to meet 15% of the country's motor fuel needs. Without this supply gasoline would be at least $1 more expensive and as petroleum prices rise ethanol becomes more competitive.

Your second mistake is in assuming that ethanol or some other substutite would simply spring up organically when it has no access to a distribution infrastructure controlled by a very powerful competitor. That is foolish and naive.

Actually there is a third incorrect assumption in your post. Ethanol plants are the result of billions of dollars in private investment by large companies and small investors alike.

One more point to an earlier poster who decried the fact that 37% of last years corn crop became ethanol. He fails to reconginize that one third of that grain returns to the livestock feed channel in the form of distillers grain.
__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".
stevie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 04:20 AM   #260
Navy Chief
Beastly Adventurer
 
Navy Chief's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Waynesboro, PA
Oddometer: 1,544
So is Ethanol is so wonderful, safe, and harmless to engines what is up with the four gallon minimum for stations that dispense both E-10 and E-15 through the same hose?

Simple answer - the EPA knows that ethanol will cause damage to engines, particularly at concentrations above 10%. So the EPA produced a new rule: if you sell E15, you have to require your customers to buy at least four gallons of gas regardless of what blend they're buying. That's a big enough purchase that the residual fuel in the hose is too small to matter.

People who buy gasoline for outdoor equipment usually only need a gallon or two. Ditto for motorcycles, many of which have gas tanks smaller than four gallons. So at gas stations that sell E15/E10, these folks won't be able to fill up at all because they won't be able to meet the four-gallon minimum.

As far as ethanol and you vehicle warranty - be very careful:
About 12 million of the 240 million cars and light-duty trucks on the road currently have been approved by automakers to use E15 gasoline, according to research by AAA. Cars approved to use E15 include all cars designated as "flex fuel," which means they can run on up to 85% ethanol as well as traditional gasoline; 2013 model-year Fords, 2012 model-year and newer cars from GM, and 2001 model-year and newer Porsches. These approvals extend only to cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles such as SUVs.
Five auto manufacturers -- BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota and Volkswagen -- have said they will not honor any fuel-related warranty claims on cars that use E15 gasoline. Eight automakers -- Ford, GM, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo -- have said that if the use of E15 does not comply with the fuel requirements specified in their owner's manuals, it may void warranty coverage.

Running E15 gasoline in a car that is not approved for it could cause engine problems. Ethanol is known to corrode rubber and some metals and can cause additional moisture in the fuel tank for cars that sit for a while. The EPA feels that all cars that are 2001 model year or newer are built with parts that can withstand a 15% blend of ethanol, but automakers aren't so sure. That's why many have issued warnings or restricted their warranties. Independent research by AAA's auto engineers also finds that using E15 in new and older cars could cause damage to the fuel system, speed up engine wear and cause the "check engine" light to illuminate.

So we are mandating the use of a fuel that is know to cause engine damage, will possibly void your new cars warranty, and we are screwing with with world food supply..

Yep sounds like a great plan to me.......
Navy Chief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 06:05 AM   #261
the_sandman_454
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: Coleman, Michigan
Oddometer: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
Your mistake is two fold.

You assume that ethanol isn't price competitive with gasoline and therefore not viable. We currently have the capacity to produce enough ethanol to meet 15% of the country's motor fuel needs. Without this supply gasoline would be at least $1 more expensive and as petroleum prices rise ethanol becomes more competitive.
Ethanol is not price competitive with gasoline, at least in my local market. My cage is a "flex fuel" Ford Fusion which can run on E85. After some real world personal testing on my commute over multiple tanks of fuel, E85 would need to be priced about $1/gallon lower than the current price of a gallon of 87 octane E10 gas just for me to break even due to the reduced fuel economy when running on it. E85 is never priced $1/gallon less than the cheap E10 gasoline.

Quote:
Your second mistake is in assuming that ethanol or some other substutite would simply spring up organically when it has no access to a distribution infrastructure controlled by a very powerful competitor. That is foolish and naive.
When the automobile was invented, there were no gas stations. Some enterprising folks saw gasoline powered vehicles were the way of the future and set up infrastructure for it, not because they were required by the government to do so, but because they realized what was happening and saw the potential to make a lot of money.

I believe if a technology happens along that really is better, cheaper, and just as easy as gasoline to use, that distribution networks will begin to pop up for it, assuming it can clear all the government mandated hurdles.

This future fuel I'm referring to may well turn out to be ethanol. It needs to become significantly more efficient to produce than it currently is though. After another few jumps in technology, it may very well become a viable stand-alone product. It would have eventually happened regardless of government interference as individuals, companies, and investors realize they can be the ones to fill the demand for a cheaper alternative fuel. The profit motive works, if it isn't squashed out of existence by taxes and regulations.

Quote:
Actually there is a third incorrect assumption in your post. Ethanol plants are the result of billions of dollars in private investment by large companies and small investors alike.
Private investment that happened because of government mandates. If the government hadn't pushed their "renewable" energy mandate, just how many ethanol plants do you really expect we'd see? The numbers and loss of fuel efficiency on ethanol based fuels currently don't add up. As I've said before, once the technology to produce ethanol generates significantly cheaper prices relative to gasoline, and/or as the price of gasoline continues to increase then ethanol may become viable.

I would be very interested to see what would happen if the renewable energy mandate went away today, 16 July, 2013 with a decade long prohibition on a new renewable energy mandate. Do you believe the majority of the ethanol plants would remain open? I believe they would be mothballed until technology improved.

Quote:
One more point to an earlier poster who decried the fact that 37% of last years corn crop became ethanol. He fails to reconginize that one third of that grain returns to the livestock feed channel in the form of distillers grain.
That helps livestock feed prices, but doesn't exactly make my doritos any cheaper, or other corn based human food products that have had prices negatively impacted by the increase in corn prices.
__________________
Tim
09 KLR650
the_sandman_454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 07:27 AM   #262
1911fan
Master of the Obvious
 
1911fan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: North Central Washington
Oddometer: 2,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
Ahhhh, but it's not crap.
You truly believe this, despite empirical evidence to the contrary which has been cited and referred to in many of the posts above.
Base gasoline has 114,000 BTU. Ethanol: 76,100 BTU So it takes roughly 1.5 gallons of ethanol to equal the energy output of 1.0 gallons of gasoline.

That's the simplest I can break it down. Little sentences, and not too many numbers.


1911fan
__________________
Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free.
http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/

Sometimes the light to see your way forward is provided by the bridge burning behind you.
1911fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 07:33 AM   #263
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 18,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_sandman_454 View Post
Ethanol is not price competitive with gasoline, at least in my local market. My cage is a "flex fuel" Ford Fusion which can run on E85. After some real world personal testing on my commute over multiple tanks of fuel, E85 would need to be priced about $1/gallon lower than the current price of a gallon of 87 octane E10 gas just for me to break even due to the reduced fuel economy when running on it. E85 is never priced $1/gallon less than the cheap E10 gasoline.



When the automobile was invented, there were no gas stations. Some enterprising folks saw gasoline powered vehicles were the way of the future and set up infrastructure for it, not because they were required by the government to do so, but because they realized what was happening and saw the potential to make a lot of money.

I believe if a technology happens along that really is better, cheaper, and just as easy as gasoline to use, that distribution networks will begin to pop up for it, assuming it can clear all the government mandated hurdles.

This future fuel I'm referring to may well turn out to be ethanol. It needs to become significantly more efficient to produce than it currently is though. After another few jumps in technology, it may very well become a viable stand-alone product. It would have eventually happened regardless of government interference as individuals, companies, and investors realize they can be the ones to fill the demand for a cheaper alternative fuel. The profit motive works, if it isn't squashed out of existence by taxes and regulations.



Private investment that happened because of government mandates. If the government hadn't pushed their "renewable" energy mandate, just how many ethanol plants do you really expect we'd see? The numbers and loss of fuel efficiency on ethanol based fuels currently don't add up. As I've said before, once the technology to produce ethanol generates significantly cheaper prices relative to gasoline, and/or as the price of gasoline continues to increase then ethanol may become viable.

I would be very interested to see what would happen if the renewable energy mandate went away today, 16 July, 2013 with a decade long prohibition on a new renewable energy mandate. Do you believe the majority of the ethanol plants would remain open? I believe they would be mothballed until technology improved.



That helps livestock feed prices, but doesn't exactly make my doritos any cheaper, or other corn based human food products that have had prices negatively impacted by the increase in corn prices.

Retail gasoline and E85 prices are all over the board depending upon location and regional jobber competition. I can find you examples where E85 is $1.25 per gallon cheaper than gasoline which makes it by far the cheaper fuel to use on a mpg basis.

I can tell you exactly what would happen if the RFS were ended. Ethanol fuel would end, the plants would go bust, an agriculture economic depression would ensue because all commodities have benefitted from the strong corn market and we'd all be paying at least $1 per gallon more for gasoline.

If you're big oil, it's a win/win. If you're anyone else, it's not so sweet. There's a reason the API is pouring millions into ad and lobbying efforts to end the RFS, it's to get rid of competition and enhance their profits. If you think that they give two shits about you then you really are a naive fellow.
__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".
stevie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 07:50 AM   #264
viverrid
not dead yet
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Western Mass
Oddometer: 30,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by GapRunr View Post
For those that are curious, E10 regular is $3.15 and E0 regular is $3.37.
Paying 7% more for E0 isn't worth it on an energy per gallon basis. OTOH for that very low percentage of old, old engines out there, if they really won't accept E10, it would be a bargain. Those engines are aging out of service and are already not mainstream.

The Premium/Regular spilt is harder to figure since the issue isn't energy content itself, but how efficiently the engine can use the energy by running higher compression and greater spark advance.

I am not in favor of forced E10 on general principle, but as a practical matter it's been a non-issue for me for land applications (I don't have a boat). E10 is all I've used for the past 20 years or more, not because I seek it but because that's what's sold around here and I have never even crossed the street trying to find E0.
__________________
Advanced pancreatic cancer found 04/2010. Have outlived +/- 97% of patients with this diagnosis, but 08/2013 cancer now in liver, vascular system and lungs with 20+ lung tumors. Sick/weak sometimes, not riding much. No more treatments & now under Hospice care.
viverrid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 07:53 AM   #265
viverrid
not dead yet
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Western Mass
Oddometer: 30,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
...I can tell you exactly what would happen if the RFS were ended. Ethanol fuel would end, the plants would go bust,...
And that's what we've been trying to tell you. Ethanol for motor fuel in the U.S. is a creature of government. Mandates & subsidies, not the free market.
__________________
Advanced pancreatic cancer found 04/2010. Have outlived +/- 97% of patients with this diagnosis, but 08/2013 cancer now in liver, vascular system and lungs with 20+ lung tumors. Sick/weak sometimes, not riding much. No more treatments & now under Hospice care.
viverrid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 07:56 AM   #266
the_sandman_454
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: Coleman, Michigan
Oddometer: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
Retail gasoline and E85 prices are all over the board depending upon location and regional jobber competition. I can find you examples where E85 is $1.25 per gallon cheaper than gasoline which makes it by far the cheaper fuel to use on a mpg basis.
In those markets, it might make sense to use.

Quote:
I can tell you exactly what would happen if the RFS were ended. Ethanol fuel would end, the plants would go bust, an agriculture economic depression would ensue because all commodities have benefitted from the strong corn market and we'd all be paying at least $1 per gallon more for gasoline.
All thanks to forcing a product to be produced that wouldn't have been produced if the market was deciding things rather than the government. Government interference in the market always causes more problems than it cures. Artificially creating demand for a product via government mandate or subsidies always hurts the market when it eventually ends because the demand wasn't there in the first place.

Corn based ethanol won't be the future of the product anyway. If the product has a future, it will be based on cellulose: grasses, trees, corn stalks, etc.

Quote:
If you're big oil, it's a win/win. If you're anyone else, it's not so sweet. There's a reason the API is pouring millions into ad and lobbying efforts to end the RFS, it's to get rid of competition and enhance their profits. If you think that they give two shits about you then you really are a naive fellow.
I don't care what the oil company thinks about me. They're not in business to care about me. They're in business to make money. They make a product I want that I'm willing to trade them my dollars for. That's the entirety of my relationship with them or any business. Verizon doesn't give a shit about me, and they shouldn't except to the extent that they make sure their service works up to their claims. Kawasaki doesn't give a shit about me beyond making sure their product worked past its' warranty period.

Some folks like to imply or outright state that something is wrong with that. Why? That very thing leads to innovation. If the price of gasoline increases, that causes alternatives to be developed by private entities without government intervention rather than the government forcing the market to produce and accept a product nobody really wants anyway.

By the way the government really hates to see ethanol end. Ethanol causes people to buy more gallons of fuel per week than they'd need to with pure gas. Most fuel taxes are per gallon type taxes, so the more gallons sold, the more tax "revenue" rolls in. Win/win for the government beast that created the ethanol "market" in the first place.
__________________
Tim
09 KLR650

the_sandman_454 screwed with this post 07-16-2013 at 08:50 AM
the_sandman_454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 09:05 AM   #267
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 18,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by viverrid View Post
And that's what we've been trying to tell you. Ethanol for motor fuel in the U.S. is a creature of government. Mandates & subsidies, not the free market.
True in part, but the petroleum industry isn't exactly a free market either. You do have to admit that.


There's the problem with Sandmans philosophy. He assumes that a free market exist where it doesn't and if it doesn't then it is therefore governmental interference that corrupts the mythical free market. In fact it is unfettered capitalism that seeks to destroy free markets because competition hurts profits. Free markets don't exactly have a focus on long range, strategic planning when it comes to economic development either.
__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".

stevie88 screwed with this post 07-16-2013 at 09:13 AM
stevie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 09:15 AM   #268
the_sandman_454
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: Coleman, Michigan
Oddometer: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
True in part, but the petroleum industry isn't exactly a free market either. You do have to admit that.
Who do we have to thank for that, by the way? The same government that gives us the ethanol mandate, the same one that is currently manipulating our currency, pumping $85B into the economy each month, devaluing the dollars you currently own and will make in the future.
__________________
Tim
09 KLR650
the_sandman_454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 09:25 AM   #269
the_sandman_454
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: Coleman, Michigan
Oddometer: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
True in part, but the petroleum industry isn't exactly a free market either. You do have to admit that.


There's the problem with Sandmans philosophy. He assumes that a free market exist where it doesn't and if it doesn't then it is therefore governmental interference that corrupts the mythical free market. In fact it is unfettered capitalism that seeks to destroy free markets because competition hurts profits. Free markets don't exactly have a focus on long range, strategic planning when it comes to economic development either.
Try to build yourself a refinery. Seriously, go on. Let me know when you've got through the miles of red tape and paperwork to get to the point where you can even consider breaking gound on the facility. In the old days if you wanted an oil company, you bought the equipment and made one. Now, you have to spend a small fortune to even get past the initial paperwork to be granted the priviledge of building a refinery.

I'm not saying all regulations are bad. Some aren't a bad idea at all and some need to be carefully analyzed for actual value. The government doesn't understand the law of diminishing marginal returns when it cranks out regulations.

So, how do you figure the oil companies will stop production of new fuels? The oil companies will continue producing fuel, oil, etc until it is no longer profitable. If they're smart, which they are, they will be planning for the future. That will happen without government interference, scientists, or buerocrats. Don't mistake ending ethanol production if mandates ended with stopping research into new fuels. They would end ethanol production because the production of it simply isn't efficient or cost effective enough yet.

That's the fun part of capitalism. There will always be those coming along seeking to make a profit on new products or by producing old products by new, more efficient methods. No government interaction required.
__________________
Tim
09 KLR650
the_sandman_454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 11:14 AM   #270
Navy Chief
Beastly Adventurer
 
Navy Chief's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Waynesboro, PA
Oddometer: 1,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post

I can tell you exactly what would happen if the RFS were ended. Ethanol fuel would end, the plants would go bust, an agriculture economic depression would ensue because all commodities have benefited from artificially inflated corn market and we'd all be paying at least $1 per gallon more for gasoline.

.
Fixed it for you...

This is like everything else where our government decides that it is going to pick winners and losers, in the end we spend billions of dollars and everybody loses in the end anyways.. How about we skip the middle step and let the system work. If the government would step out of the way and allow the markets to work as intended then a financially viable and competitive alternative fuel would emerge, simply because it has to, we are going to run out of oil eventually and something has to replace it. But while the government is screwing around dumping billions and billions of dollars into one particular segment of the market, the rest of them suffer and fall behind. Yes there has been money spent on other alternative fuels, but not nearly to the scale as ethanol. And it is costing us in other areas as a trickle down result:

-Increased Costs to Federal Dairy Programs: a new farm bill program proposed in 2012 would create a profit margin guarantee for dairy producers to compensate for high feed costs that they are currently experiencing (partially due to the fact that over 40 percent of the corn crop is used for ethanol production).

- Increased Food Aid and Countries’ Import Bills: higher crop prices due to corn ethanol production increase costs of food aid to needy countries and reduce the amount of food that developing countries can afford with stagnant or decreasing budgets. Corn exports have actually decreased in recent years as more corn is used for ethanol production. Tufts University researchers found that from 2006 to 2011, U.S. ethanol production cost net corn importing countries $11.6 billion in higher corn prices; ActionAid notes that “more than half this cost was borne by developing countries.”

- Environmental and Public Health Costs: with more and more acres being converted into input-intensive corn and soybean production to meet the RFS and farmers attempting to maximize short-term profits at the expense of long-term soil productivity, fertilizer and chemical runoff has increased, resulting in increased costs for downstream users. Since corn is the largest user of nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides, nearly half of U.S. inputs are applied to corn (46 and 43 percent, respectively). More water pollution has increased water treatment costs for municipalities, resulted in lower returns for fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico (due to the presence of the annual dead zone), and lessened opportunities for fishermen, hunters, and recreational water users to enjoy the benefits of clean water sources and adequate wildlife habitat.

- Increased Food Prices: prices of meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products have increased as greater levels of corn ethanol production contributed to corn prices quadrupling over the past decade. A large percentage of the production costs of these foods can be attributed to corn prices. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also found in 2009 that one-fifth of the increase in corn prices between 2007 and 2008 could be attributed to increased corn ethanol production. The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) agreed, estimating that “40 percent of the rise in corn prices between 2000 and 2007 was due to global ethanol demand.”

- Increase or No Impact on Gas Prices: both government and academic studies have found that overall, ethanol use has either slightly increased gasoline prices or had no impact on gasoline prices at all despite claims from the ethanol industry that ethanol reduces gasoline prices. This is primarily due to the fact that ethanol has less energy content than gasoline and hence results in lower gas mileage for drivers.

- Increased Crop Insurance Payments: taxpayers have seen an increased cost of crop insurance since corn ethanol production has not only contributed to higher crop prices but has also resulted in an expansion of corn and soybean acres. In fact, a recent study by researchers at South Dakota State University found that between 2006 and 2011, 1.3 million acres of grassland were converted to corn and soybeans partially as a result of biofuels mandates and subsidies. Because crop insurance premium subsidies are tied to crop prices, as prices increase, so does the total cost of the highly subsidized federal crop insurance program. In addition, taxpayers are also put on the hook for risky production practices like planting input-intensive crops on land that has never been cropped before because agribusiness can receive subsidies to plant corn on converted grassland and other highly erodible land prone to crop failures. Finally, as the livestock industry’s profit margins are squeezed with more corn being diverted to ethanol production, taxpayers are forced to pay for more insurance indemnities for programs such as the Livestock Gross Margin insurance policy.


Any other facts you would like to ignore???
Navy Chief is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 11:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014