Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth

[Team Hesse]

Cruz suffered two huge blows in IA yesterday, Palin's endorsement of Trump, and this from Gov. Branstad:

"Ted Cruz is ahead right now. What we're trying to do is educate the people in the state of Iowa. He is the biggest opponent of renewable fuels. He actually introduced a bill in 2013 to immediately eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standard. He's heavily financed by Big Oil. So we think once Iowans realize that fact, they might find other things attractive but he could be very damaging to our state," Branstad said.

    Branstad added that Cruz "hasn't supported renewable fuels, and I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him."

    Asked if he would want to see Cruz defeated, Branstad said "yes."

As Sioux County, Iowa goes, so goes the Republican caucus. At least, that is the pattern.

And I haven't seen any Cruz lawn signs come down yet.

(Of course, they may be frozen into place!)   

Just to be clear, "renewable fuels" has something to do with corn?  Here in NYC we are of the belief that milk comes from a carton, not a cow.

Dave Benke

Ethanol from corn has become a huge business in Iowa and some of the rest of the major corn producing states. Biodiesel from soybean production also falls under the "blanket" term "renewable fuels."


Lou

[LutherMan]

Don't want or need no corn squeezin's in my cars...

[Dan Fienen]

Don't want or need no corn squeezin's in my cars...

Good luck finding gas stations that sell non ethanol gas, they're around but not plentiful.

[James_Gale]

Cruz suffered two huge blows in IA yesterday, Palin's endorsement of Trump, and this from Gov. Branstad:

"Ted Cruz is ahead right now. What we're trying to do is educate the people in the state of Iowa. He is the biggest opponent of renewable fuels. He actually introduced a bill in 2013 to immediately eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standard. He's heavily financed by Big Oil. So we think once Iowans realize that fact, they might find other things attractive but he could be very damaging to our state," Branstad said.

    Branstad added that Cruz "hasn't supported renewable fuels, and I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him."

    Asked if he would want to see Cruz defeated, Branstad said "yes."

As Sioux County, Iowa goes, so goes the Republican caucus. At least, that is the pattern.

And I haven't seen any Cruz lawn signs come down yet.

(Of course, they may be frozen into place!)   

Just to be clear, "renewable fuels" has something to do with corn?  Here in NYC we are of the belief that milk comes from a carton, not a cow.

Dave Benke

Ethanol from corn has become a huge business in Iowa and some of the rest of the major corn producing states. Biodiesel from soybean production also falls under the "blanket" term "renewable fuels."


Lou

You know more about this than I do, so please do correct me if I'm wrong. 


But as I understand it, ethanol from corn has become a big business in Iowa principally because of the federal law requiring that fuel companies include in their product a mix a specified percentage of "renewable" fuels.  Debates rage as to whether the production and use of ethanol in gasoline is on balance of any environmental value.  There can be no debate, however, over the impact of the renewable fuel standard on the corn market.  The demand and price both are much higher as a result.  If the renewable fuel standard were eliminated, ethanol use would assuredly fall, dragging down the demand and corn prices.  Iowa corn farmers, therefore, are as a group huge fans of the renewable fuel standard.


Who pays a price?  The consumers of corn for purposes other than ethanol.  For the most part, this means food consumers.  Corn is eaten directly by people and is used as feed for livestock.  The price of corn and of corn-fed animals used for meat both are higher as a result of the mandate.


Moreover, the market for corn to some extent is global.  Thus, poor nations and poor people are affected by the elevated prices.


Political conservatives (see. e.g., the Heritage Foundation) tend to oppose the ethanol requirement and other agricultural subsidies because they distort the market to the benefit of corn producers and ethanol sellers but to the detriment of everyone else.  Some of the farmers who support the fuel mandate no doubt are generally conservative politically.  But when one's livelihood is at issue, economic interests sometimes trump political ideology. 


On this particular issue, I think that Cruz is right.  I also think that he'll pay a price in Iowa. 


Again, Lou, I'd welcome your insights.

[Steven Tibbetts]

On this particular issue, I think that Cruz is right.  I also think that he'll pay a price in Iowa. 

The fuel mileage on my diesel Golf is down a good 10-15% because the diesel fuel here in Centrsl Illinois is a bio-blend.  That's part of the price I pay.

As for the price Sen. Cruz might pay, remember that 70-75% or (perhaps) more of the Republican voters attending the caucuses will stand for one of the "losers."  Supporting ethanol subsidies is not, even in Iowa, the make-or-break issue.

Pax, Steven+

[James_Gale]

On this particular issue, I think that Cruz is right.  I also think that he'll pay a price in Iowa. 

The fuel mileage on my diesel Golf is down a good 10-15% because the diesel fuel here in Centrsl Illinois is a bio-blend.  That's part of the price I pay.

As for the price Sen. Cruz might pay, remember that 70-75% or (perhaps) more of the Republican voters attending the caucuses will stand for one of the "losers."  Supporting ethanol subsidies is not, even in Iowa, the make-or-break issue.

Pax, Steven+

I agree.  Of course, each of the candidates has a different notion regarding what constitutes a win and what constitutes a loss.  The number of delegates at stake as small enough not really to matter.  What might matter is the impact of the result on the race going forward.


My sense is that Iowa might be more important for Cruz than for the other candidates.  His targeted base includes the kind of evangelical Christians (over represented in Iowa's GOP caucuses when compared to Republican votes in elections).  I don't know if he needs to beat Trump in Iowa.  But a loss puts him in a challenging position.  Donors and other may start asking if he can win anywhere if he can't win in an Iowa caucus. 


Given all this, losing a few farmers might actually matter to Cruz a great deal.  We shall see soon enough.

[George Erdner]

Just to be clear, "renewable fuels" has something to do with corn?  Here in NYC we are of the belief that milk comes from a carton, not a cow.

Dave Benke

"Renewable fuels" includes ethanol made from corn, as well as other combustible liquids made from other crops. Used frying oil can be easily converted to diesel fuel. Other sources of "biodiesel" include crops of plants with oil-bearing seeds that can be grown in soils and climates where  food crops cannot be grown. There is also research being conducted in obtaining methanol (wood alcohol) from things like lawn clippings. The problem with making ethanol (grain alcohol) from corn is that every bushel of corn used to make alcohol is a bushel not available for use as food. Corn is not only food, it's what food eats. Chickens, pigs, and cattle are fed corn to produce meat.

Ethanol has fewer BTUs available than gasoline, so gasoline/alcohol blended fuels provide fewer miles per gallon. Vehicles that burn E-85, a common "gasohol" blend, cost more to run on E-85 than they do on regular grade gasoline, even though E-85 is much cheaper per gallon. And, since burning "renewable" biofuels is still the combustion of hydrocarbons and oxygen, use of "renewable fuels" won't stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

So far, unless there are some really major scientific breakthroughs, government programs about "renewable fuels" are pretty much a waste of resources. And, James Gale is 100% correct about renewable fuels in Iowa. Though ethanol fuels are nothing more than a boondoggle and "pork barrel politics", the only segment of America that benefits from the "renewable fuels" scam is Iowa corn farmers. 

Don't want or need no corn squeezin's in my cars...

Good luck finding gas stations that sell non ethanol gas, they're around but not plentiful.

A very small amount of ethanol prevents water from condensing in the fuel tank. It's only when the percentage gets too high that it renders the gasoline less useful.

[Team Hesse]

Again, Lou, I'd welcome your insights.

Ethanol is a more complex issue than many realize. It seems to be a boondoggle for corn farmers and arguably bad policy to take corn from the food production chain and turn it into fuel. However, the nation's largest Ag Coop, CHS, recently entered the ethanol business after initially not entering it. Initial entry was not promoted by management because "if ethanol is viable as a fuel we will be buried in ethanol by international sugarcane production because sugarcane is a much more efficient seedstock for ethanol" and "the only thing making corn based ethanol viable is the government tax incentives," at least so we were told initially. When CHS entered the business I went to an open mic at the annual meeting in Minneapolis and asked the blunt question, "what has changed?" The answer I received was that ethanol has become the oxygenate additive of choice for gasoline because of the environmental problems associated with the previously used oxygenate (something like MTBE, or some such acronym which escapes me right now). In short, the product when blended with gasoline helps gasoline be more environmentally benign by reducing carbon monoxide in the exhaust, so the demand for ethanol will continue as long as there is demand for gasoline. The loss of corn for animal feeding due to ethanol production is somewhat overblown--Distiller's dried grains, a by product of ethanol production, is an excellent ruminant feed stuff with nearly as much feed value as the whole corn kernel, when fed to ruminants.


I am still skeptical of the long term usage of corn for ethanol but corn is used for a host of non-food/feed uses already. It is a very versatile plant which is quite good at capturing solar power and converting that energy to a form with a multiplicity of uses. Only the sugarcane family in the plant kingdom is more efficient.... and sugarcane requires a frost free production zone.


Lou

[Charles Austin]

This is very useful information, Lou. Thanks.

[David Garner]

Again, Lou, I'd welcome your insights.

Ethanol is a more complex issue than many realize. It seems to be a boondoggle for corn farmers and arguably bad policy to take corn from the food production chain and turn it into fuel. However, the nation's largest Ag Coop, CHS, recently entered the ethanol business after initially not entering it. Initial entry was not promoted by management because "if ethanol is viable as a fuel we will be buried in ethanol by international sugarcane production because sugarcane is a much more efficient seedstock for ethanol" and "the only thing making corn based ethanol viable is the government tax incentives," at least so we were told initially. When CHS entered the business I went to an open mic at the annual meeting in Minneapolis and asked the blunt question, "what has changed?" The answer I received was that ethanol has become the oxygenate additive of choice for gasoline because of the environmental problems associated with the previously used oxygenate (something like MTBE, or some such acronym which escapes me right now). In short, the product when blended with gasoline helps gasoline be more environmentally benign by reducing carbon monoxide in the exhaust, so the demand for ethanol will continue as long as there is demand for gasoline. The loss of corn for animal feeding due to ethanol production is somewhat overblown--Distiller's dried grains, a by product of ethanol production, is an excellent ruminant feed stuff with nearly as much feed value as the whole corn kernel, when fed to ruminants.


I am still skeptical of the long term usage of corn for ethanol but corn is used for a host of non-food/feed uses already. It is a very versatile plant which is quite good at capturing solar power and converting that energy to a form with a multiplicity of uses. Only the sugarcane family in the plant kingdom is more efficient.... and sugarcane requires a frost free production zone.


Lou

My bigger concern is the fact that, at least in the past, we were told ethanol is net energy negative, meaning it takes more energy to produce than it yields.

Has that also changed?

[Team Hesse]

Again, Lou, I'd welcome your insights.

Ethanol is a more complex issue than many realize. It seems to be a boondoggle for corn farmers and arguably bad policy to take corn from the food production chain and turn it into fuel. However, the nation's largest Ag Coop, CHS, recently entered the ethanol business after initially not entering it. Initial entry was not promoted by management because "if ethanol is viable as a fuel we will be buried in ethanol by international sugarcane production because sugarcane is a much more efficient seedstock for ethanol" and "the only thing making corn based ethanol viable is the government tax incentives," at least so we were told initially. When CHS entered the business I went to an open mic at the annual meeting in Minneapolis and asked the blunt question, "what has changed?" The answer I received was that ethanol has become the oxygenate additive of choice for gasoline because of the environmental problems associated with the previously used oxygenate (something like MTBE, or some such acronym which escapes me right now). In short, the product when blended with gasoline helps gasoline be more environmentally benign by reducing carbon monoxide in the exhaust, so the demand for ethanol will continue as long as there is demand for gasoline. The loss of corn for animal feeding due to ethanol production is somewhat overblown--Distiller's dried grains, a by product of ethanol production, is an excellent ruminant feed stuff with nearly as much feed value as the whole corn kernel, when fed to ruminants.


I am still skeptical of the long term usage of corn for ethanol but corn is used for a host of non-food/feed uses already. It is a very versatile plant which is quite good at capturing solar power and converting that energy to a form with a multiplicity of uses. Only the sugarcane family in the plant kingdom is more efficient.... and sugarcane requires a frost free production zone.


Lou

My bigger concern is the fact that, at least in the past, we were told ethanol is net energy negative, meaning it takes more energy to produce than it yields.

Has that also changed?

Not to my knowledge. But that is also true of nearly every process that involves energy conversion unless the laws of thermodynamics have changed. Point being, there seems to be a use of the product now that justifies a demand that did not exist until society decided it is a priority to reduce carbon monoxide pollution from the burning of gasoline. The alternate oxygenates necessary to meet EPA regulations for the reduction of carbon monoxide have created large groundwater pollution problems in California and other places where oil refining is important. If people want cleaner burning gasoline, it appears there will be an ongoing demand for ethanol. At least that is the thinking of CHS management. With the problems in Flint, Michigan now in the headlines, I see no change in the drive for cleaner water. Ethanol production, oddly enough, is one part of the equation, at least for now, in the desire for a cleaner environment.


Lou

[Randy Bosch]

Again, Lou, I'd welcome your insights.

Ethanol is a more complex issue than many realize. It seems to be a boondoggle for corn farmers and arguably bad policy to take corn from the food production chain and turn it into fuel. However, the nation's largest Ag Coop, CHS, recently entered the ethanol business after initially not entering it. Initial entry was not promoted by management because "if ethanol is viable as a fuel we will be buried in ethanol by international sugarcane production because sugarcane is a much more efficient seedstock for ethanol" and "the only thing making corn based ethanol viable is the government tax incentives," at least so we were told initially. When CHS entered the business I went to an open mic at the annual meeting in Minneapolis and asked the blunt question, "what has changed?" The answer I received was that ethanol has become the oxygenate additive of choice for gasoline because of the environmental problems associated with the previously used oxygenate (something like MTBE, or some such acronym which escapes me right now). In short, the product when blended with gasoline helps gasoline be more environmentally benign by reducing carbon monoxide in the exhaust, so the demand for ethanol will continue as long as there is demand for gasoline. The loss of corn for animal feeding due to ethanol production is somewhat overblown--Distiller's dried grains, a by product of ethanol production, is an excellent ruminant feed stuff with nearly as much feed value as the whole corn kernel, when fed to ruminants.


I am still skeptical of the long term usage of corn for ethanol but corn is used for a host of non-food/feed uses already. It is a very versatile plant which is quite good at capturing solar power and converting that energy to a form with a multiplicity of uses. Only the sugarcane family in the plant kingdom is more efficient.... and sugarcane requires a frost free production zone.


Lou

My bigger concern is the fact that, at least in the past, we were told ethanol is net energy negative, meaning it takes more energy to produce than it yields.

Has that also changed?

Not to my knowledge. But that is also true of nearly every process that involves energy conversion unless the laws of thermodynamics have changed. Point being, there seems to be a use of the product now that justifies a demand that did not exist until society decided it is a priority to reduce carbon monoxide pollution from the burning of gasoline. The alternate oxygenates necessary to meet EPA regulations for the reduction of carbon monoxide have created large groundwater pollution problems in California and other places where oil refining is important. If people want cleaner burning gasoline, it appears there will be an ongoing demand for ethanol. At least that is the thinking of CHS management. With the problems in Flint, Michigan now in the headlines, I see no change in the drive for cleaner water. Ethanol production, oddly enough, is one part of the equation, at least for now, in the desire for a cleaner environment.


Lou

The major consumers of energy (electricity and fuel) are citizens and businesses in major cities - concentrations.  Some of those cities, like New York, proudly claim to be environmentally friendly, "sustainable", etc.,  Yet, such claims never take into account that they export their pollution to the areas of energy production, and by extension their demand for those areas to stop polluting.
   

[George Erdner]

Something to consider about "pollution free" electric cars. If you live in an area where most electricity is generated by burning hydrocarbons, when you recharge an electric car, you're just transferring the pollution from your tail pipe to the electricity generation plant's smokestack.

[Dan Fienen]

Something to consider about "pollution free" electric cars. If you live in an area where most electricity is generated by burning hydrocarbons, when you recharge an electric car, you're just transferring the pollution from your tail pipe to the electricity generation plant's smokestack.

Yet often the electric power plants usually have higher efficiency than does the internal combustion engine automobile.  To make an accurate comparison between an electric car and internal combustion car one would have to take into account any difference in manufacturing and the energy consumption in manufacturing as well as the relative efficiency of the two in turning fossil fuel into miles driven. 

[Dave Likeness]

Donald Trump has made a Populist Appeal to the American
people that the politicians in Washington D.C. are incapable of
properly governing our nation.  He has aimed at the career
politicians who simply have the goal of getting re-elected term
after term and do not solve the problems of America.

It is a tossup if Trump can win the caucus system in Iowa. However,
he has big leads in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primary
polls. This next month will be interesting to see if Americans are
upset and angry enough to vote for the Donald.