Racefish’s Weblog


More on Ethanol
May 12, 2008, 4:04 pm
Filed under: Gas Crunch, Legislative Foolishness

From the Washington Times:

“Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer yesterday said U.N. and other international aid officials are “flat-out wrong” to call U.S. ethanol production from corn a major factor in world food shortages and riots.”

“Only a very small portion of this problem is ethanol driven,” Mr. Schafer said in an interview with The Washington Times. Global food prices have risen 45 percent since mid-2007.”

“Mr. Schafer, a longtime proponent of biofuels, vehemently disputed efforts by the leaders of the World Bank and the U.N. World Food Program to blame ethanol for rising world food prices. He said his department calculates that competition between food and biofuels accounts only for up to 3 percent of food price increases.”

Now it’s understandable that the “World” is not entirely affected by our use of ethanol from corn, it is also a fact that the increasing use is directly affected by that use in our country.

The amount of land devoted to the production of corn has increased and the price of that product has gone up. This adversely affects the price of food in the U. S. How is that? Let me explain.

Prime beef is a corn fed product that commands more time and corn for production. The cost of feed corn goes up, the expense passed on to the farmer likewise increases. The price of beef has not gone up in proportion to corn. Why is that? Feeders are not keeping cattle in the feedlot for a longer time to get the market weight to the desired level. They are selling off early because they can’t afford to keep them. Consequently the cattle are dumped on the market early and the price may decline. Once the supply decreases to a certain point, the price will start to escalate in proportion to the corn price and become profitable again. Prices for pork and chicken will be similarly impacted.

Other products such as prepared foods dependent on corn starch, and corn syrup are going up now because the corn is being diverted to ethanol production. Sorry, but the cost of nachos at the football game will be higher.

Does using ethanol make sense? No. I conducted a test over the last two weeks as to the actual viability of the addition of ethanol to gasoline as a fuel. I had been running 10% ethanol as a matter of course as my “patriotic” duty to keep the import of foreign oil down. My mileage over a period of time was averaging 12.3 miles per gallon with the 10% blend. I then started using straight “regular” unleaded. I noticed an improvement of 13.4 miles per gallon during the period.

With the non-ethanol blend casting an additional $.10 per gallon, I crunched the numbers and lo and behold, the extra mileage more than made up for the extra cost. Does it make sense to keep burning your food? Not to me.

Advertisements


More Stupidity
May 12, 2008, 1:16 pm
Filed under: Global Warming

Now it’s getting ridiculous. The Estonians are putting a tax on cow farts. Yes, it’s true.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080508/106906451.html?haha

Consider the fact that if this were to happen here, the price of beef would go up and the number of cattle would drop. I think it’s a little discriminatory since they aren’t taxing other ruminants. How many deer, water buffalo, bison, and oter grass munchers contribute to the “methane problem”?

Scientifically, we know that swamps contribute the bulk of methane to the atmosphere. Will Al Gore call for the eradication of swamps and ruminants to combat the problem of global warming? I would think not.

Anthony Watts has a blog that quotes the study of Dr. Roy Spencer that casts doubts on the dogma of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. Dr. Spencer has a lot of data to back up his statements as opposed to the “theory” that many deem holy.



More Strangeness and Hypocracy
May 1, 2008, 3:52 pm
Filed under: Gas Crunch, Political Races | Tags: , ,

Now I’ve seen a good one. It seems Barack has chastised McCain and Hillary for wanting to reduce the gas tax over the summer. Now I’m not really saying that this is out of character for him since he’s never seen a tax bill he didn’t like.

You can see the blog link here that I’ve seen. http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=703

“Obama has stated that some experts say it could mean only a $30 average savings per family. That means those who are still unable to afford to take a vacation, won’t, and for others the savings may be $60 or $90 or more.”

Now to me, that would mean a savings of $85.00 over a three month period but for some people, it could be much more.

A person that has to use the family car for a long commute and business can save that much in a month. But when you figure he’s said he would repeal the Bush tax cuts, I can see that he’d like to have that money in the federal coffers instead of the hands of people who could use it for food and other, to him, non essentials. He would also jack up the inheritance tax and every other means of taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

I don’t understand how this deluded individual got to the point of being the front runner in the party that supposedly stands for the “working person”. From his and the other candidate, they are only interested in the “non-working person”. The answer to the question is that these two are only interested in the unbridled pursuit of power.  They really don’t care about the welfare of the country or the citizenry.

I feel sorry for those African-Americans who’ve bought into the personae of this modern Pied Piper. At the end, he’ll send them to their demise the same as the original, simply because he sees himself as a savior of the masses. I seem to remember that Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin, thought the same.