Ethanol Mandate for Iowa?

More plants cost more money to build and operate. Higher costs and lower
prices must mean bigger losses and even bigger government subsidies.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


.Blueskies. wrote:




Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for)
ethanol?

Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a
profit from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer. The
fact is there are so many ethanol plants up and running and so many
more being built or planned that the price of ethanol will continue to
plummet.

That's a pure political problem. The solution has been at hand for decades.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...


Additionally, how can it other than completely irresponsible to
construct nuclear reactors without having a secure means of for
storing the spent fuel for the required millennia?

Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years

Odd. How do we explain all the 1950s and '60s nuke plants that are still
merrily producing gigawatts of energy today?

I find it difficult to believe what you contend. Have you a source
for your assertion?

Um, well, these aren't quite the '50s and '60s vintage, but Zion Nuclear
Power Plant in Zion, IL, was built in 1970. It's still chugging along 35
years later.

And the Duane Arnold Nuclear Power Plant, which produces almost 10% of the
power needed in Iowa, has been running since 1974 -- 31 years ago.

These took about 8 seconds to find on Yahoo. Both seem to be running beyond
your purported 25 year life span.

Additionally, how can it other than completely irresponsible to
construct nuclear reactors without having a secure means of for
storing the spent fuel for the required millennia?

I believe we've got geologically stable salt mines set to store all the
nuclear by-products that our nuke plants have created. Unfortunately,
environmentalists (through the courts) have been foolishly forcing the power
companies to continue storing on-site at each nuclear power plant. Talk
about a disaster waiting to happen...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Even with the $20,000 and below purchase prices, they still have to
maintain
them. What happens when they have to get a muffler rebuilt or need a $200
gascolator? You're saying that an extra $10 an hour will ground them
financially. If they fly 40 hours a year, then a $400 repair (let's say a
$300 part + labor) will ground them for the ENTIRE YEAR.

I don't know any viable (healthy) owners who fly just 40 hours per year.
And an awful lot of these folks maintain their own planes.

I know a fair number of pilots who probably don't spend $3000 per year on
flying, total. Yet they fly every weekend.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 2005-09-28, Jay Honeck wrote:
I would strongly support a program to make our country more energy
independent by replacing all the dumb new natural-gas-fired power plants
with nuclear plants.

You can't really replace natural gas plants with nuclear plants. Nuclear
plants provide base load power (they can't easily be throttled) for the
continuous supply you always need.

Natural gas plants can be stopped and started in very short order - the
one that's a few miles from where I work essentially is based on the
guts of a couple of Rolls-Royce Trent jet engines coupled to generators.
They can be brought online and shut down as quickly as a Boeing 777 can
be spooled up and shut down. So when demand suddenly starts ramping up,
you can crank up your gas station, and shut it down as soon as the
demand goes away. You can't do that with a nuclear station.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Natural gas fires both steam turbine plants and jet engine turbines.

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2005-09-28, Jay Honeck wrote:
I would strongly support a program to make our country more energy
independent by replacing all the dumb new natural-gas-fired power
plants
with nuclear plants.

You can't really replace natural gas plants with nuclear plants.
Nuclear
plants provide base load power (they can't easily be throttled) for
the
continuous supply you always need.

Natural gas plants can be stopped and started in very short order -
the
one that's a few miles from where I work essentially is based on the
guts of a couple of Rolls-Royce Trent jet engines coupled to
generators.
They can be brought online and shut down as quickly as a Boeing 777
can
be spooled up and shut down. So when demand suddenly starts ramping
up,
you can crank up your gas station, and shut it down as soon as the
demand goes away. You can't do that with a nuclear station.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

George Patterson writes:

You could well be right. I have no idea how much electricity can be produced
by a reactor in say a Ohio class sub. But what ever is done it needs to be
the same few designs used everywhere.

Not a good idea. The Navy uses weapons grade fissionables in its reactors. This
lets it keep the reactors nice and compact and reduces the need for the military
to buy multiple types of material. Commercial power plants use material that is
approximately 4% as pure as weapons grade. It's a lot safer.

Sheesh...you guys want everything - small size, tamper resistance, safety...
http://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug04/Smith.html

--kyler

Newps writes:

Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for) ethanol?

Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a profit
from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer.

Uh...you want to give some details there? Ethanol plants pay about (but
typically *slightly* more) what local grain elevators pay.

--kyler

There are two sets of subsidies at play. From 1995 to 2003, corn was
subsidized to the tune of $37 billion dollars. Ethanol subsidies are tax
credits and loan guarantees to build plants. Unless or until the Federal
corn program can differentiate corn grown for feed or food vs. ethanol,
corn for ethanol is subsidizied.

http://www.ewg.org:16080/farm/region.php?fips=00000

"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
...
Newps writes:

Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for)
ethanol?

Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a
profit
from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer.

Uh...you want to give some details there? Ethanol plants pay about
(but
typically *slightly* more) what local grain elevators pay.

--kyler

"sfb" writes:

There are two sets of subsidies at play. From 1995 to 2003, corn was
subsidized to the tune of $37 billion dollars. Ethanol subsidies are tax
credits and loan guarantees to build plants. Unless or until the Federal
corn program can differentiate corn grown for feed or food vs. ethanol,
corn for ethanol is subsidizied.

That's why the statement "A farmer cannot make a profit from selling the
corn outright to an ethanol producer" still confuses me. Perhaps I'm not
getting all of the implications behind "outright"? Or perhaps "to an
ethanol producer" was just misleading/superfluous?

So...do we get to talk about the billions of dollars subsidizing oil
production?

--kyler