• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama's Energy Policy Plans Hurt Soda Consumers

Sugar tastes better anyway.

Ethanol is a crock of *&$( though and we need to drop it from our energy plan entirely.
 
Corn is also the main foodstuff we feed our cows at the commercial farms. And c'mon, let's be real, anything that has the word "fructose" in the ingredients label is going to be affected.
 
Yet another brilliant proposal from this democratic regime. Crap.
 
Obama energy policy = push main breaker of your service panel to OFF.
 
The Brazilians have it right with sugar cane based ethanol. Much more energy content and no rise in prices because you have corn to clean up the slack.
 
I would never defend anything Obama says or does under any circumstances he's a worthless piece of Shiite in my book, so here are a few facts.

In 2005, the U.S. produced 42 percent of the world’s corn. Over 50 percent of the U.S. crop is produced in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska or Illinois. Other states in which corn is grown include Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Missouri. In 2005, over 58 percent of the U.S. corn crop was used for feed. The remaining U.S. crop was split between exports (25 percent) and food, seed or industrial uses such as ethanol production (17 percent).
Click to expand...

The production can easily be increased and truth is a slight reduction of the sweeteners in soda would even be noticed.

Corn is not the best crop to use by a long shot.

The following was taken from Scientific American
Grass Makes Better Ethanol than Corn Does: Scientific American
Switchgrass ethanol delivers 540 percent of the energy used to produce it, compared with just roughly 25 percent more energy returned by corn-based ethanol according to the most optimistic studies.
Click to expand...
 
Councilman said:
I would never defend anything Obama says or does under any circumstances he's a worthless piece of Shiite in my book, so here are a few facts.
Click to expand...

Well that is good to know that you can never defend anything the President does.

But for the actual article I am glad to see pushes for alternative fuel, but I do not think corn based is the right way to go. Maybe we can learn from Brazil because sugar for them seems to be doing pretty well.
 
soccerboy22 said:
Well that is good to know that you can never defend anything the President does.

But for the actual article I am glad to see pushes for alternative fuel, but I do not think corn based is the right way to go. Maybe we can learn from Brazil because sugar for them seems to be doing pretty well.
Click to expand...
Where in the USA do you think they should increase production of sugar cane?

.
 
Deuce's energy policy:

Go nuclear. It's the only source that will be able to fill the utterly staggering magnitude of our energy needs.

Running the switchblade math:
11,500 gallons of ethanol per acre per year.
We use about 320 billion gallons per year.
Requires 27.8 million acres of land to replace our oil consumption volume. However, ethanol produces only 70% of the energy per gallon that gasoline produces. Correcting for that, we get just under 40 million acres of land to replace our oil consumption.

Ethanol is a supplement, an additive, not an energy policy. :/
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Florida, LA, possibly Miss.
Click to expand...
There is not much corn grown in those areas. How much additional acreage in those states could be devoted to sugar cane?

.
 
TOJ said:
Where in the USA do you think they should increase production of sugar cane?

.
Click to expand...

White House Garden, supervised by Michelle perhaps!
 
Dutch said:
Yet another brilliant proposal from this democratic regime. Crap.
Click to expand...

Depends how you look at it. High Fructose Corn Syrup is pretty much the key reason why Americans are fat. Making that progressively expensive would promote less fattening substitutes. And sugar does taste better anyways. And cattle are meant to eat grass. They are ruminant for crying out loud. They did not evolve for millions of years eating corn.

And I take it you think that more clean coal and nuclear are stupid? After all, those were in the plan. :2wave:
 
obvious Child said:
Depends how you look at it. High Fructose Corn Syrup is pretty much the key reason why Americans are fat. Making that progressively expensive would promote less fattening substitutes. And sugar does taste better anyways. And cattle are meant to eat grass. They are ruminant for crying out loud. They did not evolve for millions of years eating corn.

And I take it you think that more clean coal and nuclear are stupid? After all, those were in the plan. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Clean coal is not clean. Coal is stupid!

Nuclear has no emissions other than heat and steam, and all of the issues with waste and radiation are easily handled.
 
Deuce said:
Clean coal is not clean. Coal is stupid!
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps.

Nuclear has no emissions other than heat and steam, and all of the issues with waste and radiation are easily handled.
Click to expand...

Easily? Not at the moment. Now, if we went to thorium 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess. One way of dealing with current waste is reprocessing like how the French do it. The issue there is proliferation. With Thorium, there IS no proliferation risk. Furthermore, current nuclear takes huge amounts of space and time and money to build. Thorium in current protoypes doesn't and it's cheaper to run with virtually no waste and much lower half lifes on the waste that does get produced. Instead of millions of years, it's just a few hundred. Man, if we went to thorium before I was born, this would would be a far better place.
 
Joedolla said:
The Brazilians have it right with sugar cane based ethanol. Much more energy content and no rise in prices because you have corn to clean up the slack.
Click to expand...
How you figure that?
 
American said:
How you figure that?
Click to expand...

Because it takes less sugar to produce the same amount of ethanol then corn. Furthermore less energy goes into producing a gallon of sugar ethanol then it does corn. Less energy in production and more ethanol from the same starting weight = higher energy content.
 
TOJ said:
There is not much corn grown in those areas. How much additional acreage in those states could be devoted to sugar cane?

.
Click to expand...

Actually, LESS land is set to be used for the growing of sugar cane. Maybe a year or two ago, Governor Crist signed a law that would spend several billions to purchase 187,000 acres of land owned by U.S. Sugar that was used for growing sugar cane to use it as part of an Everglades Restoration effort. Of course, there will be the usual political wrangling over it, but if you're expecting Florida to grow more sugarcane than you better lobby against the environmentalists who are taking farmland away.
 
Somebody has to get hurt on the way though, right? Therefore i wouldn't pin the blame on Obama's policy (at least this particular policy). What are you complaining about? You caused the mess in the days of regulation-free wasteful energy consumption and unaccountable debt. Bite you lip and take a punch.
 
I bet farmers are happy.

E85 isn't worth a damn though, in my opinion.
 
Wonder if any politician will stand up to corn ethanol. I guess Mcain did but pssss.
 
Lightdemon said:
Corn is also the main foodstuff we feed our cows at the commercial farms. And c'mon, let's be real, anything that has the word "fructose" in the ingredients label is going to be affected.
Click to expand...

Just one small point here....... after the "mash" is cooked to get the alcohol out of it, it actually makes a better stock feed than raw corn.

The stillage is sent through a centrifuge that separates the coarse grain from the solubles. The solubles are then concentrated to about 30% solids by evaporation, resulting in Condensed Distillers Solubles (CDS) or "syrup." The coarse grain and the syrup are then dried together to produce dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS), a high quality, nutritious livestock feed. The CO2 released during fermentation is captured and sold for use in carbonating soft drinks and beverages and the manufacture of dry ice.
Click to expand...

RFA - Resource Center - How Ethanol Is Made

Which is still no reason to subsidize Ethanol and make my corn tortillas scarce and cost more.
 
Guess we start growing sugarcane if we're going to go ethanol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom