Why is the Federal government subsiding ethanol manufacturing? If it was
such a good flipping deal, why haven't the energy companies gone into
the ethanol business. Ethanol is good for the corn crowers which last I
looked was not the county in general.

There are serious studies that demonstrate ethanol is an energy loser as
it requires more BTUs to manufacture that it provides. Ethanol is the
prime example of the agriculture lobby taking advantage of the energy
panic to have the taxpayers subsidize their over capacity. Factory
automation has eliminated many more jobs than have been shipped
overseas. If the country chooses not to use public money to keep
unprofitable factories open, why must it subside unprofitable
agriculture?


"Jay Masino" wrote in message
...

Despite the fact that mandating ethanol blends would be bad for you,
it's
really better for the country in general. Using ethanol, along with
biodiesel, can go along way towards making our country less dependant
on
foreign oil. I'm torn. I want some sort of alternate fuel to be
developed for my airplane, but it would also be great to tell the
middle
east to kiss our ass. Presently, the autogas STC for my 160hp
Cherokee is
fairly expensive (~$1500 last time I checked), and it requires you to
use
premium unleaded, so the cost savings isn't quite as much. I haven't
been able to verify whether Maryland requires an ethanol blend, but I
think it does, so even if I went back to 150hp pistons, I'd still be
screwed. Anyway, using ethanol and biodiesel is a great idea. I've
even
considered trading my commuter car for some model of VW diesel so that
I
can burn biodiesel. I think that increasing the percentage of ethanol
to
as high as a normal car can stand, is also a good idea. Sounds like
Rep. Nussie isn't that crazy.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com