Thread: Student Loans Good or Bad?

Originally Posted by dex71

It takes a mega-shit ton of fossil fuels to make e85. Much more than it saves. We aren't doing anyone any favors by financially propping it up, least of all the Earth. I am all-for alternative fuel sources, but only when they actually conserve something. e85 doesn't fit that description. It's a scam.

Again, I would argue that big oil is a scam. The industry has PROFITS of more than $1 Trillion/decade. What the fuck? They continue to get tax breaks and continue to charge high prices at the pump.

With Only $93 Billion in Profits, the Big Five Oil Companies Demand to Keep Tax Breaks | Center for American Progress

Big Oil, Big Profits: Industry Tops $120 Billion in 2012 | Taxpayers for Common Sense

Again, I am not saying that using ethanol is a good thing. I am saying that pulling the ethanol scam out of production will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, impact to farmers, and only give more money to the big oil companies.

If you want to rally at eliminating subsidization, I am all for it, but only if you target the logical groups first. Big Oil? Big Tobacco? Look at the breakdown by industry!

Over Half of All U.S. Tax Subsidies Go to Four Industries. Guess Which Ones? | ThinkProgress

Healthcare makes up 0.9% of overall subsidies, yet Food/Beverages/Tobacco gets 3.9%? Don't be fooled, this subsidization is mostly from farming of which a shit ton is Tobacco farming. Fuck, even Big Pharma gets 4.4%. That table actually makes me pretty sick to my stomach.

This is also pretty interesting if you look at it from a corporation level instead of an industry level:

10 Corporations Receiving Massive Public Subsidies From Taxpayers - Mic

There is plenty to complain about just by reviewing this list.

I'm not against subsidies as a whole. I against subsidizing products that do more harm than good, and make no sense. Like e85. Every job that e85 provides didnt exist 10ish years ago. We'll survive without it. Use the money to further alternitive fuels that are actually viable.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by AetheLove

The core value here isn't the ethanol. It isn't the corn. The core value is the land. You can grow lots of things, and in the long-run you need to grow the thing that makes economic, strategic, and environmental sense.

That last part is sort of where I am stuck.

Environmental
Ethanol is a renewable resource that is considered better for the environment than regular gas as it reduces carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and hydrocarbon emissions.

Economic
The industry creates jobs for farming, engineering, science/chemistry, and transportation as ethanol cannot yet be delivered via pipelines.

Strategic
There is potential for a win/win with ethanol. The purpose of using an increasing amount of ethanol is to reduce our dependence on non-renewable resources. But it comes at a cost. Efficiency in our vehicles declines. While price/gallon may remain the same or increase, the bottom line is that if we drive the same distance, we will be filling up our vehicles more frequently, costing the consumer.

Without a doubt, the increased use of ethanol is hitting us at our wallets. This is why the government has increased the standards for fuel economy at an alarmingly increasing rate. By 2016, the average MPG for manufacturers is required to be at 35.5 MPG (22.4% increase from current) and should reach 54.5 MPG by 2025.

Autos must average 54.5 mpg by 2025, new EPA standards say - The Washington Post

The end result will be less dependency on non-renewable (mostly foreign) oil and likely more dependency on renewable energy resources. So even if the cost/gallon for ethanol increases over time, the average consumption by citizens will decline. In addition, it is very likely that alternative methods of renewable energy will be discovered and perfected over the next decade. The whole point is to find methods that are good for the environment, but also able to be produced by the masses from our auto manufacturers.

Tying this back in to college and student loans, this is exactly why we need scientists and engineers. We need smart people to help move these industries forward. What we don't need is the oil, tobacco, and banking industries continuing to get tax breaks and subsidies just because of lobbyists and political influences. If there is a long term plan for ethanol to help us get away from dependency on the oil giants, I am all for it. Is it picking the lesser of two evils? Sure. But I will always pick the lesser of two evils in hopes that something better will come along in the future.

Originally Posted by dex71

I'm not against subsidies as a whole. I against subsidizing products that do more harm than good, and make no sense. Like e85. Every job that e85 provides didnt exist 10ish years ago. We'll survive without it. Use the money to further alternitive fuels that are actually viable.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

I know there are studies out there about ethanol and bio diesels that consume more energy to produce than the fuel can produce, but I think the challenge goes back to engineering and manufacturing. The government should create a timeline for alternative energy standards.

Realistically, the same can be said about the batteries being used in hybrid vehicles. The materials that go into manufacturing the battery, mining the materials, shipping/transport, and then recharging the battery almost surely negate the fuel benefits. But that doesn't mean we should abandon production for hybrids and alternative energy sources. It just means we need to keep working at it, because we are screwed if we don't keep trying to make this stuff better.

There is a ton of money going to alternative fuels, but that doesn't change the fact that oil is non-renewable, and we need alternatives NOW in order to slow consumption. It is estimated that by 2040, we will only be able to produce 20% of the oil that we use, which means 2 things:

1) We will still have oil reserves in 30 years. The supply will be less, so the price/barrel will be exponentially higher.

2) If alternatives are not being both used currently and continued to be researched, the cost/barrel will increase over time, impacting much of our transportation, air travel, shipping/freight, let alone the impact to farming/food production as farm equipment isn't exactly run by the sun.

So I agree with you, Dex, that we will survive without ethanol. But ethanol is the primary alternative to oil dependency right now, and if we completely abandon it, I don't think life as we know it today will survive if we put all of our faith in big oil to keep prices reasonable in 20 years.

Oil Price: Latest Price & Chart for Crude Oil - NASDAQ.com

Look at the 10 year chart for the price/barrel of crude oil. From 2005 to current, it has doubled, and in some instances more than tripled, but the trend of the chart is clear. Prices are rising. Income by household is not.

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/inco...cal/household/

Check out the files for median household income by year. You will notice that in current dollars to the year shows mean income for all households increasing by 14%. In 2013 dollars, due to inflation, the mean income for all households is actually declining by about 2.5%. Basically, we are making less each year, but the cost of oil continues to increase. That is a problem.

Originally Posted by dex71

Millions are starving to death around the World, and we put food in our gas tanks. Saving the Planet, Democrat style.

Sorry for the recent books, but I have to add by going back to this...

I think you need to re-read history and recognize that Bush gave the big breaks to the ethanol industry during his second term. Pointing fingers at a particular party is not only wrong, but just pointless seeing how the other party hasn't done anything except encourage the extended use of "clean coal" and encouraged more off shore drilling. Basically, they are ignoring the problem.

But I will admit that overall, food costs are on the rise. The cost of milk and eggs has increased significantly. The good news is that I don't consume a gallon of milk for every 20 miles I drive my truck. I don't rely on eggs to get me to work each day. There are people that are starving not only in our country, but also in the world, and I think that is another problem that needs to be looked at.

Soylent Green, a fictional story, might actually become a reality. All it takes is running out of natural resources and food.

Maybe if ethanol production for fuel was more efficient...maybe. Or, maybe if it could replace airplane fuel.

Originally Posted by HeavyG

Sorry for the recent books, but I have to add by going back to this...

I think you need to re-read history and recognize that Bush gave the big breaks to the ethanol industry during his second term. Pointing fingers at a particular party is not only wrong, but just pointless seeing how the other party hasn't done anything except encourage the extended use of "clean coal" and encouraged more off shore drilling. Basically, they are ignoring the problem.

But I will admit that overall, food costs are on the rise. The cost of milk and eggs has increased significantly. The good news is that I don't consume a gallon of milk for every 20 miles I drive my truck. I don't rely on eggs to get me to work each day. There are people that are starving not only in our country, but also in the world, and I think that is another problem that needs to be looked at.

Soylent Green, a fictional story, might actually become a reality. All it takes is running out of natural resources and food.

The Democrats I am referring to are more of the local flavor. Here in corn country, if you talk about killing ethanol, it would be political suicide. The Democratic Farmer Labor Party (DFL) is very strong here, and always has been the cheif proponent to ethanol production.

And e85 costs about twice as much as dino fuel. You won't ever see that price at the pump because it wouldn't be able to compete. It takes a shit-ton of dino fuel to produce ethanol, so it really isn't an alternative to anything. It takes more energy to produce than it saves, which doesn't make it efficient, but rather a complete waste.

As for hybrid vehicles.......What will we be doing with millions of huge batteries that no-longer hold a charge? What kind of toxic waste wii we be left with? Worse yet would be electric cars. Powering all of our vehicles with coal would be a massive step in the wrong direction.

I think that some are missing the big picture once again. Just like with the light bulbs. Ethanol is the CFL of the fuel world. It seems like a good idea, but in the long run is a complete waste, and a giant step backwards. Both cause much more damage to the environment than they ever saved.

And it is still wrong to be putting the most powerful food we have into our gas tanks while people are starving. It's just plain wrong. Also, if we didn't artificially inflate the price of corn with ethanol production, farmers would grow other crops more often, and the price of food in general would drop.

Subsidize students, not farmers. Feed people, not vehicles.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Batteries can be rebuild. The question is will people actually buy a remanufactured battery? Some will but most will probably take in mind that remans dont last as long and at the price they want for them you might as well buy the new one.

As for starving to death send them some seeds. But then again they're starving because nothing fucking grows there. If it was me i would pack up my head luggage and walk to where shit grows. It should be easy to find. When you see green shit unpack.

When u rebuild a battery,what gets removed, and what is done with that material?

As for the food, its a matter of principal. Besides that, what of the food we brinv to places that have been affected by disaster? Corn meal is a lifesaver. Ask a Hatian. Either way, we dont need to artificially inflate the price of corn.

Wait until all of the farmers are growing weed. Then we'll see how much a gallon of corn fuel costs. Lol.


Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk