Ethanol Follies Continue on in Florida
by Lone Shark
Now that the Iowa Caucus is in the books, one might be tempted to think that the knee-jerk pandering to the ethanol lobby, especially by aspiring presidential candidates (that would mean you, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich) would be over with. One wonders if those candidates’ support for ethanol factored into their respective 1st, 2nd, and 4th place caucus finishes? Quite likely. Unfortunately, the gaseous nonsense about this gas additive is now front and center in Florida, and lawmakers such as current Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam are not helping matters out.
Florida currently has a requirement that all gasoline sold within the state must be blended with ethanol (between 9.0-10.0%, with exemptions for boat engines and aircraft), a law which passed under the much hyped “green” regime of former Republican Governor Charlie Crist. Crist sold the mandate to Floridians by insisting that we would be significantly decreasing our notorious “carbon footprint” and that an influx of green jobs would rush into the state– the former of which never mattered, the latter of which never materialized.
It’s been well documented that the ethanol boondoggle significantly impacts the price of food globally, thus making it harder for malnourished peoples to obtain food in the first place. That fact alone should immediately prompt us to end the use of ethanol as a gas additive on moral grounds. But what’s not widely known is that the use of ethanol actually has a corrosive effect on engines, as its continued use over time allows microscopic contaminants into a modern engine’s fuel system that diminish its performance. And since ethanol burns hotter and quicker than pure gasoline, it also reduces engine life in cars whose engines were not originally designed for ethanol consumption.
So why is Commissioner Putnam stating that a repeal of the ethanol mandate would be sending the “wrong message” for Florida? Here’s what he had to say about repealing Florida’s ethanol mandate-
“Symbolically, it sends the wrong message for Florida about our commitment to renewable energy. So if you’re saying we need to repeal this and modernize it, that’s absolutely right. We do need to repeal it and modernize it to give it the flexibility that reflects the rapidly advancing technologies in renewable fuels. That’s not really what’s being said though. What’s being said is we just need to repeal it.” – Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam
Mandatory ethanol blending laws have simply always been more inane government meddling that only yields unintended consequences. When true alternative fuel sources emerge that can cost-effectively replace gas and petroleum, they will come about through marketplace innovation, not because of government mandates that emerge from the federal government or from Tallahassee. Putnam should realize that a bad mandate is a bad mandate regardless of where it emanates from, and such mandates should be repealed with a full explanation and rationale to the public as to just why they are bad.
Big kudos go to Representative Matt Gaetz for leading the charge to fully repeal the ethanol mandate in the state. I encourage you all to contact your state legislators and help Rep. Gaetz pass HB 4013 which repeals the Florida Renewable Fuel Standard Act.
30 Responses to Ethanol Follies Continue on in Florida
Leave a Reply
The Shark Tank’s Social Media
Paid Advertisements
Good point regarding ethanol, the citizens should make their voices heard. Everyone should realize that the “global warming crisis” was conceived long ago to systematically weaken capitalist economies. Research globalist Maurice Strong’s “Interlocking Speech” from 1992.
He actually specifies the year 2012 to complete the transformation to a global society, all controlled through U.N. doctrine.
“Global warming” is part of the U.N. Agenda 21′s plan to redistribute wealth, and eventually reduce the world population by 95% by eliminating the “useless eaters.” All of this information is available, and easily investigated by the citizens. Thanks for pointing-out the ethanol subsidies, they need to be eliminated. We need to focus on the food production, the world will need it.
We need to write and call our government officials.
When did ordinary Americans start pimping for the oil companies?
This is all oil company bullshit. They’ve been running Indy cars on ethanol for years. The oil companies are against it because it cuts in on their profits.
It works just fine in an auto that is set up for it.
One of the reasons we have problems is because we’ve sent so much of our money out of the country for oil.
Our vehicles should run on alternative fuels so we can preserve our domestic oil supply for generations yet to come, not just burn it up now in a mad rush to make more money for the oil companies.
Our diesels should run on bio-diesel, too.
You folks always fall for the corporate BS. I had a Flex Fuel SUV and it worked great running ethanol almost all the time. The mileage wasn’t bad at all and the price was much cheaper. It would be even cheaper if the oil companies didn’t insist that it had to have some gas mixed in.
Let’s start looking ahead, folks!!
From the consumer energy report regarding ethanol.
Let’s do some quick calculations to demonstrate this. A barrel of crude oil contains 5.8 million BTUs (2) of material that will ultimately be turned into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc. It is well-documented that the average energy return on energy invested (EROEI) for crude oil production is around 10/1 (3). Therefore, we will use up about 580,000 BTUs from our barrel getting it out of the ground. The other major input occurs during the refining process, and it also takes roughly 10% of the contained BTUs in the barrel of oil. The total energy input into the process is 1.16 million BTUs, and the energy output was 5.8 million BTUs. The EROEI is then 5.8 million/1.16 million, or 5/1.
For ethanol, the USDA study reference above showed that for an energy input of 77,228 BTUs, an energy output (when co-products were included) of 98,333 BTUs were generated. The EROEI is then 98,333/77,228, or 1.27/1. The efficiency of producing gasoline is then 4 times higher than for ethanol, which makes sense when you think about it.
Crude oil is a highly energy dense mixture. It is contained in underground deposits, and just needs to be pumped out of the ground. During the refining step, large amounts of water don’t need to be distilled out of the product. Contrast this to ethanol. The corn must be planted, grown, and harvested. Processing must take place to turn the corn into crude ethanol. The crude ethanol is actually mostly water, which must be removed in a highly energy intensive distillation. The final product, ethanol, contains only about 70% of the BTU value of the same volume of gasoline. So it would appear that even without doing any rigorous calculations, producing ethanol would be far less energy efficient than producing gasoline.
So, where did the claim that ethanol is more energy efficient originate? I believe it originates with researchers from Argonne National Laboratory, who developed a model (GREET) that is used to determine the energy inputs to turn crude oil into products (4). Since it will take some amount of energy to refine a barrel of crude oil, by definition the efficiency is less than 100% in the way they measured it. For example, if I have 1 BTU of energy, but it took .2 BTUs to turn it into a useable form, then the efficiency is 80%. This is the kind of calculation people use to show that the gasoline efficiency is less than 100%. However, ethanol is not measured in the same way. Look again at the example from the USDA paper, and lets do the equivalent calculation for ethanol. In that case, we got 98,333 BTUs out of the process, but we had to input 77,228 to get it out. In this case, comparing apples to apples, the efficiency of producing ethanol is just 21%. Again, gasoline is about 4 times higher.
OK, so Argonne originated the calculation. But are they really at fault here? Yes, they are. Not only did they promote the efficiency calculation for petroleum products with their GREET model, but they have proceeded to make apples and oranges comparisons in order to show ethanol in a positive light. They have themselves muddied the waters. Michael Wang, from Argonne, (and author of the GREET model) made a remarkable claim last September at The 15th Annual Symposium on Alcohol Fuels in San Diego (5). On his 4th slide , he claimed that it takes 0.74 MMBTU to make 1 MMBTU of ethanol, but 1.23 MMBTU to make 1 MMBTU of gasoline. That simply can’t be correct, as the calculations in the preceding paragraphs have shown.
Not only is his claim incorrect, but it is terribly irresponsible for someone from a government agency to make such a claim. I don’t know whether he is being intentionally misleading, but it certainly looks that way. Wang is also the co-author of the earlier USDA studies that I have critiqued and shown to be full of errors and misleading arguments. These people are publishing articles that bypass the peer review process designed to ferret out these kinds of blatant errors. I suspect a politically driven agenda in which they are putting out intentionally misleading information.
One of the reasons I haven’t written this up already, is that 2 weeks ago I sent an e-mail to Wang bringing this error to his attention. I immediately got an auto-reply saying that he was out of the office until March 31st. I have given him a week to reply and explain himself, but he has not done so. Therefore, at this time I must conclude that he knows the calculation is in error, but does not wish to address it. In the interim, ethanol proponents everywhere are pushing this false information in an effort to boost support for ethanol.
Look at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture claim again: “the energy yield of ethanol is (1.34/0.74) or 81 percent greater than the comparable yield for gasoline”. If the energy balance was really this good for ethanol and that bad for gasoline, why would anyone ever make gasoline? Where would the economics be? Why would ethanol need subsidies to compete? It should be clear that the proponents in this case are promoting false information.
Why are you pimping for the oil companies? They don’t need your help.
Maybe you missed out but there is only so much oil underground and I don’t see any dinosaurs dying and creating more.
Why would you advocate relying on an energy source that is diminishing rather than one that is replenished yearly? Ethanol can be made from many sources other than corn. It would certainly boost the local sugar cane industry to begin making ethanol from sugar cane like Brazil does.
Now answer this. Is it wise to purchase massive amounts of petroleum from countries that are not necessarily friendly to us and give up huge amounts of our treasure when we can easily create our own alternative fuels? How can we be “secure” when we rely on imported oil? Why burn up what we have? Wouldn’t it be wise to husband what we have for future generations just like the issue with passing debt on to future generations?
The big problem is the oil companies will not make as much money if alternatives are used so they fund massive disinformation programs that you guys grab onto because you see alternative energy or “green” issues as liberal or progressive and naturally oppose them.
Are you one of those guys who is always being chased by the “black helicopters”?
Get real.
The stuff is real Rich, some people have been there.
It’s sad that some are so uninformed, maybe you should travel.
Travel where?
I’ve written my Rep and Senator to vote YES on HB-4013. Most people don’t realize that gasoline mixed with ethanol decreases their gas mileage. Yes, we have tested it without ethanol and we get much better gas mileage. These subsidies need to go away – now!
Ethanol is a major disaster in my state also. Boat motors were not exempted and it causes horrible problems with the fuel system.
Only an idiot would run pure ethanol in an engine that isn’t prepared for it!!
It’s been the fuel of choice in Indy for years.
Plus, IT BURNS MUCH MORE CLEANLY THAN GASOLINE!!!
The federal government constantly interferes in the free market in a vain progressive (socialist) attempt to make things better, since they know better than hundreds of millions of consumers making billions of free market decisions.
The six biggest parts of the household budget are housing, food, energy (transportation), medicine, education, and retirement savings. The federal government has worked hard in all six areas to destroy value. They blew up the housing market with quotas to write low-quality mortgages. They have ruined food prices with ethanol, which consumes 40% of the corn crop (and 25% of the entire grain crop). They are waging war on fossil fuel, 90% of our energy supply. They are trying to take over medicine with ObamaCare. Government schools K-12 are poor quality at very high cost, compared to the rest of the world. They destroy retirement savings with social security and Medicare, which take 15% of all payroll income, and spend it all in the year it is collected, thus destroying the power of compound interest, which would make almost all workers millionaires by retirement if the 15% had been actually invested. It is a Ponzi scheme.
We must drive the federal government completely out of housing, food, energy, education, medicine and retirement savings (and a whole lot more). We must chop federal spending down to 15% of GDP, where it was in 1950.
I totally agree with you Tom!
Go Rick Perry!!
Geez Tom.. I won’t even try to say that better following your sentiments.. Curious what you think of http://www.TheAmericanCareCard.com ..
There never was a “mandate” to write “low quality” mortgages.
Low quality mortgages were a creation of Wall street greed.
Don’t write about what you don’t understand.
I thought “The Fed” mandated that banks follow the government housing policies, or be restricted acquiring funds through the Fed Discount Window.
Big Government meddling have created a mess in all areas, as we know. Ethanol is just another story on the long list.
The government policy was not to writ sub-prime mortgages. Sub-prime mortgages were a creation of NON-BANK lenders, primarily Wall Street firms. Companies like the disgraced Ameriquest. Ameriquest was totally and completely corrupt yet former President Bush appointed its’ founder and CEO to be the Ambassador to the Netherlands. What a way to reward one of the architects of the sub-prime crisis.
Read up a little bit, OK? Don’t just take the work of the talking heads on Faux News who never wrote a mortgage in their lives yet talk like “experts” about what they do not know.
I truly believe that Rick Perry is the only true-blue conservative in this race. He is “Fed Up” with Washington, and so am I. This makes me angry at Putnam . We need to get rid of all the “establishment” politicians and take our country back.
I am thankful for Rick Scott . . .and I think Rick Perry will govern like him.
Go Rick Perry!!!
they need to do away with agenda 21 all together. I have been on some web pages that have a map on the right hand side if you run across it take a read great stuff. GOD BLESS AMERIC
The use of ethanol for fuel only reduces the food supply, adds cost per gallon, and reduces efficiency. The effects of U.N. Agenda 21 can easily be seen in Great Britain, and Europe, the result has been great inconvenience and suffering by their populations. The same programs brought the USA the mandatory use of ethanol, high radiation electrical smart meters on our homes, the restrictions on public lands in the USA that are now regulated under U.N. treaties, and many of the policies being imposed by the EPA. We as U.S. Citizens need to be aware, and push-back on a continuous basis. The repeal of mandatory ethanol use is a great place to start.
I strongly support Representative Gaetz’s bill HB 4013. Corn crap (ethanol) in the gas is stupid and counterproductive!!!
Not to mention that the use of ethanol with its very questionable benefits diverts corn from the food supply and causes the price of food (beef, chicken) to escalate.The government created high artificial demand for corn gives false price signals to the market and creates just another bubble. I prefer shale oil production. We in the US have literally trillions of barrels of oil in this form. If we make proper use of our own resources we can rid overselves of the foreign entanglemets that lead to war. Rick Perry is the most ethical of candidates because he does what is right, not just what gets him votes and thus opposes corn subsidies.Ron Paul is another, but Paul’s ideas are hypothetical, good ones but never really tested in the real world. Rick Perry has applied his ideas which are very similar to Paul’s to the Texas economy with spectacular results.Forget a few so called debate gaffes and focus on the RECORD.And speaking of gaffes that RINO McCain called Romney Obama, was this really a mistake or the accurate characteristics of the man.
We pay farmers not to grow crops. Now they can grow all they want and make ethanol from it.
Do you feel safe and secure knowing that our major source of energy is imported from a part of the world in which we are not really liked?
Does anyone know exactly how much we really have left here?
Why waste it when we can create alternative fuels?
Do you know that Brazil fuels most of its’ vehicles with ethanol made from sugar cane and uses the waste to power electricity generating plants?
Don’t shill for the oil companies!!
It never hurts to keep an open mind regarding alternative energy. How about separate ethanol pumps to run straight ethanol in vehicles that will operate on straight ethanol, and have drivers that will pay the straight price at the pump? Without the subsidy normally paid by the taxpayer (many who could care less), the price per gallon would be somewhat expensive. However, many that could afford the expensive fuel, may feel they are contributing to the environmental movement as they motor in their multi-fuel heavy ethanol guzzling SUV’s. It is Doubtful this product would survive in a free market.
Why not focus on America’s abundance of cheap and clean burning natural gas to power vehicles and power plants?
Currently natural gas is running at very low prices, and the US producers are shipping much of it overseas. Meanwhile, the clean natural gas is being developed in this country, and we barely use it. We are facing EPA mandated closings of coal fired power plants, and many fireboxes in those facilities could be replaced by clean natural gas burning burners to cover energy needs.
Power plants heat water, produce steam which powers turbines to turn generators that produce electricity.
The source of heat is a matter of choice.
Ethanol might sound green, but it takes many acres of corn to produce a relatively small amount of ethanol. The process still takes a lot of energy, from the farmer, the transportation, and the conversion process. That’s the reason the free market will not sustain the cost without government subsidy. Meanwhile, the price of food rises, and plants still require carbon dioxide to survive.
Read some of the articles about how Brazil does it.
A majority of their autos now run on ethanol and are doing just fine.
You folks all fall for the oil companies propaganda.
Of course they don’t like ethanol, it cuts into their profits!!
They don’t care about what’s right, only what’s PROFITABLE!!
A thought on Brazil’s ethanol use.
Socialist Brazil also decimates rain forests, hosts the U.N. Agenda 21 Earth Summits in Rio, takes billions in U.S. dollars to drill for oil, and keeps the majority of their population in relative poverty. Brazil is another experiment with your subsidies through U.N. and International Aid.
Rich is a flat earth no growth idiot. He says we depend on unreliable sources of imported oil, but it is watermelons like him who prevent us from tapping our gigantic supplies of domestic fossil fuels. As for “no more dinosaurs,” fossil fuels come from plant life, you dope. As for the finite amount in the ground, yes fossil fuels are not infinite; we only have several thousand years of known DOMESTIC supplies left, a real emergency situation. Hey Rich, which nation has the greatest amount of fossil fuel (oil, natural gas, coal) reserves? Answer: The United States of America and we would be just fine if we could get you greenie imbeciles out of the way so we could access it.
Hey, buddy. It’s nice to know that an idiot can figure out how to use a computer!!
If I remember correctly, all or most of the easy to get oil is already out of the ground and what remains is more difficult to get out.
Now, if we can have renewable fuels that are cheaper and cleaner, why wouldn’t we want to preserve what oil is still there for future generations and for those purposes that can’t be filled by alternative, renewable fuels?
Folks like you who have to insult people to make a point are obviously intellectually challenged. I’m sorry that you paid so little attention is school and have such limited capacity to formulate a truly cogent thought.
When you can argue a point like an adult, we’ll talk. Until then, keep your insults to your conservative oil company pimping self.
Good discussion concerning ethanol and green energy.
A little research will confirm that the same “investors” and “philanthropists” that control “big oil”, are the same people that control and invest heavily in the “green agenda.” Remember, induced crises are opportunities for profits by the few. Every new crisis is an opportunity to take more of YOUR money. Research the founders of “big oil”, and follow the relationships between G.E. (wind turbines, electrical smart meters, solar components), Westinghouse, and other large global corporations. Remember, B.P. is a British Organization that manages most of the oil production in Kuwait, they also build “wind farms” in the USA. The global warming crisis originated in Britain, and their population is paying heavily. It all comes down to how much money they can steal from the citizens by manipulating the game. We all have good intent, but we must realize that the game is rigged.
Please research.
Rick Perry did not pander to the ethanol-subsidy crowd. I saw this on Red State and liked it, so I hope you will read it and if you like it send it on to your friends. It also has a video embedded, but I didn’t know how to link that?
http://www.redstate.com/explodinghead/2012/01/08/time-for-a-perry-surge/
Santorum came out of nowhere in Iowa. The press coverage of his surge was enough to help him come in second and earn the title of frontrunner.
It’s time to promote our own surge for Perry in South Carolina. Perry was leading the state originally; it seems that people liked what they saw on policies and record, until the early debate stumbles. For those who think that Perry is dead, that is what the talking heads said about Santorum just one week ago.
Remember why you liked Perry:
1. His record of job creation and a strong economy in Texas
2. His energy plan
3. His jobs plan
4. His flat tax plan
5. His willingness to fight Obama on Obamacare and the EPA
6. His proud support of the TEA party
7. His strong contrast to the values and policies of Barack Obama
Let’s revisit our choices and the MSM meme for each candidate:
a. Mitt Romney.
Mr. Inevitable, the establishment choice, will be attacked as Mr. Bain Capital, Mr. Wall Street, and the author of Romneycare. Seventy-five percent of Republicans don’t want him as their nominee; this lukewarm support will hurt us down the ballot. The MSM wants him as the nominee; therefore I doubt that he can win.
b. Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich is open to attacks on his adultery, his payout from Freddie Mac, and his ethics problems as Speaker. He supports the global warming crowd and wants to spend government – meaning our – money on Alzheimer’s research. His approach is that big government is fine as long as he decides what programs get our money.
c. Rick Santorum.
Santorum is already being attacked as a homophobe, a racist, and a right-wing extremist. More importantly, his electability: he lost his last election by a landslide. He is not a fiscal conservative – he took ear-marks and campaigned against Jim DeMint for being against earmarks. He is pro-union, having supported the Davis-Bacon Act (a government regulation of wages) and having voted against the national right to work bill. He is already being portrayed as too extreme on social issues; that’s not a problem in the primary, but huge in the general election. He likes big government and voted for too many big government programs. He has no executive experience and no jobs record. He was able to win Iowa only because no one attacked him and he supported ethanol subsidies. He lost his own state in his last election. He cannot beat Obama.
d. Rick Perry.
The MSM wants to convince us that he’s stupid. He was awful in the first few debates, but he has improved dramatically. Conservatives criticize him for in-state tuition for illegals and mandating the HPV vaccine mandate. The in-state tuition issue has been argued ad nauseum, but it was a state issue where most Texans agreed with him; he has said that he would not do it in the rest of the country. He absolutely will secure the border – just ask Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Gardasil is old news; parents could opt out and he admitted his mistake when he withdrew the mandate.
He is very strong on securing the border. You cannot build a fence in the middle of the Rio Grande; it would be prohibitively expensive and would take away the property rights, water access, and living of many farmers. But you can put troops along our side of it to stop those that would try to come here illegally.
He has the best record of job creation among our candidates. Texas has a balanced budget and a good economy when the rest of US is struggling. Perry has governed the 13th largest economy in the world and it’s doing fine; compare that to California or Massachusetts. Texas under Perry passed medical tort-reform, which helped to get more doctors into Texas. Perry is a strong believer in states rights: he fought Obama on Obamacare and the EPA.
Governor Rick Perry has a record of job creation in Texas that outpaced the rest of the country. This election should be about jobs and cutting spending. As Bill Clinton said,”It’s the economy, stupid.” Obama cannot win against Perry’s job numbers.
Perry, not Santorum or Gingrich, has the executive experience and the job-creation record to beat Obama. Santorum lost his home state by a landslide; he is primarily seen as an unbending social conservative and an ex-member of Congress. He alienates too many voters. He doesn’t have a jobs record to run on; his actual record is supporting union-backed bills that kill jobs. He supports earmarks and questionable government sending programs, like the Medicare prescription drug act. He is most likely unelectable. He certainly was the last time he ran in his home state.
Perry has a compelling personal story: He served his country in the Air Force. He comes from a humble background, so has no family wealth to attack. He married his high school sweetheart – no adultery. Perry is a man of strong faith. And Perry is proud of America.
This is where you, the people of South Carolina, come in.
Perry just needs us to change the MSM’s “he’s stupid” meme. We have the power to make him the nominee and help him win South Carolina, then Florida. The MSM have already done everything in their power to destroy him. They cannot tie him to adultery, lobbyists, ethics violations, Wall Street, or their ridiculous obsession with class-warfare. Perry is not part of the Washington crowd, like Gingrich and Santorum. Perry is not the establishment man that Romney is. He supports the TEA party and will cut the Washington establishment’s spendthrift budget. Perry is the most electable conservative.
South Carolina can change the outcome of this election. You have the power to choose our nominee; you can give him your vote. You can have the Perry surge, just like Santorum got his in Iowa. But Perry has the record, the organization, and the personal integrity to beat Obama. This could be our own Operation Chaos against the MSM and the RINO establishment.
If the people of both South Carolina and Florida vote for Governor Perry, you can give him a surge that knocks the MSM off their pre-planned Romney-is-inevitable script, and
gives us the strongest conservative to go up against Obama. This election is about beating Barack Obama. Obama is a strong campaigner; he won’t lose to a disorganized, underfunded campaign like Santorum’s. He also won’t lose to an Obama-light candidate like Romney. We need a strong candidate with a conservative contrast.
Perry was your first choice or second choice until the media started their “he’s stupid” meme. Are you prepared to have the media choose your candidate? Obama thinks there
are 57 states and never leaves home without his teleprompter. Yet the MSM says Obama is highly intelligent. Don’t buy their propaganda: Rick Perry is not stupid.
Why did you shy away from Gingrich and Santorum in the first place? In the back of your mind, you knew that the MSM and the establishment would dig up the dirt from their past, including big government spending and lobbyist ties, making it tough for them to beat Obama.
Gingrich and Santorum are not as fiscally conservative as Perry based on their records. They are “big government” conservatives – which ought to be impossible! Both
have liabilities that the MSM have already begun to exploit: Gingrich as ethically challenged, an adulterer, and a shill for Freddie Mac and Santorum as extremely right-wing, homophobic, earmark-loving, and Dc insiders. I’m not saying I agree with the MSM, I’m just saying that the MSM are about to crucify Santorum, weakening him to the point that he cannot win in the general.
The MSM can’t attack Perry for adultery, or lobbying, or being wealthy, or being a homophobe, or for ethics violations. He has presented himself well in all the recent debates and comes across fine in one-on-one interviews, even smacking down Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. The media has had a Perry blackout until the day after Iowa, because they don’t want him to rehabilitate his campaign. The MSM wants you to forget Perry. People of South Carolina and Florida, you can take control of your own fate and throw out the establishment and media script. You can control this election outcome; you can overcome the ethanol-subsidy lovers of Iowa and the strategic aisle-crossers of New Hampshire.
We – the rest of the people – are tired of letting the Democratic states of Iowa and New Hampshire give us the RINO of establishment choice. We tried their perfect candidate with McCain. McCain lost. The MSM will always attack a true conservative candidate.
You have the power to humiliate the MSM and the Washington RINO establishment. Imagine their shock when Rick Perry – against all odds – wins South Carolina and Florida, and the “Romney-is-inevitable” meme dies a shocking death.
Conservatism can win. South Carolina can change this election. The surge starts today.
Many people as you seem to be are uninformed about the real issues of Ethanol. What most folks do not know is that the first model T’s were run on Ethanol. We had Ethanol plants up and running for that very reason. Cheap dirty oil came on the scene and the rest is history. Ethanol can be run in any vehicle made with very little modification. Much of the negative info circulating is by the oil industry. With Ethanol we can produce a muck cleaner fuel that is locally produced with waste feedstock that is not a food source. Our company is now prepared to place refineries that use waste products from the orange industry, from bottling facilities and farming operations to name a few. Ethanol is the sustainable answer to fuel for our world. Cmon folks this is the answer.