the pipeline, they should have some skin in the development and building game. You guys really do reach don’t you?

A good investment for a supply of energy that actually works. Can you say the same about corn? I think not!

So many RINO’s so little time!

In 2916, the cafe standard will be 39 mpg for a car and 30 mpg for a light truck.
Raise the mpg for vehicles while at the same time make us use a fuel that gets miles to the gallon.
Destroy an industry, anyone.

…was a passionate proponent of ethanol, citing all the reasons that were eventually pitched by agribusiness concerns to congress prior to the current government fuel mandates. Unfortunately, he passed away before seeing the real world consequences of this advocacy, chiefly, higher food and feed costs. What would Mr. Harvey say about it now, were he alive today to do so?

she gets to be a major influence on policy without having to compromise. Look at the achievements of Edward R. Murrow, William F. Buckley, George F. Will and many others. Each has influenced national policy, and not a one of them ever had to hold public office to do so–and in so doing, never had to compromise with the other side.

Sarah Palin is not popular in Alaska. A lot of people took it personally when she ended her term as governor after only about two years. Also, they don’t like the fact that she has commercialized Alaska both in politics and blatantly on her television show.

Alaska only “elected a true conservative in Palin” because everyone absolutely hated the alternatives. She won the republican primary because everyone was livid by the fact that Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter (Lisa) to finish his term in the senate. Then, Palin won the general election because people were afraid of another Tony Knowles governorship. Back in 2006, she was a new face and a mayor of a booming small town (even though Wasilla’s growth was more about population growth than her policies).

And yes, we elect big spending RHINOs….another fact. For years our republicans have run on “seniority” and how they can acquire tons of pork barrel spending. This is what helped re-elected Lisa Murkowski over tea-party Joe Miller in 2010. Lisa would not have won without a lot of RHINO republican support.

Yes, Alaska is more liberal than people think- we are a huge union state; we are second only to New York in percentage of workforce in unions.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t05.htm

Also, the native corporations have great influence in the state. The native corporations got huge amounts of land given to them by the federal government in 1971, and they are given first preference on government contracting. Therefore, they make millions from oil royalties, land access fees, and Davis Bacon contracts. They use their money to buy further influence among our RHINOs who continue the money cycle. They do all this while their people suffer greatly from addiction, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, molestation, suicide, and economic malaise in the villages- but that is a rant for another time.

You have made the error of looking at Sarah Palin from the paradigm of a lower 48er. Only Alaskans and dead people are allowed to vote in our state elections. Her popularity elsewhere does not matter.

Also, Alaskans like being separate from the lower 48; it is difficult to describe if you don’t live here, but if the lower 48 were to push for Sarah Palin, many Alaskans would defect out of spite. Don’t ask me to explain that aspect further.

Side-note: This is also one of my concerns about why she would have difficulty winning a general election…there would be SO many Alaskans willing to be in Obama’s commercials talking about why she is disliked in her own state. I have seen many bumper stickers of her around town with the simple word “quitter”.

…and I reiterate my title.

But if you want, I’ll chase you round the circle you’r plowing some more.
You are blind to all facts except your own.
But of course, I suppose I would argue the bennifits of ethanol if I got subsidies from the government also.

I have no problem whatsoever with a factual case for scaling down ethanol and agricultural subsidies. I have advocated this for the long term health of my industry. What I do have a problem with is the sensational demonizing of ethanol, which seems to be all the vogue in media circles recently.

If you require some sort of anti-ethanol litmus test to be a conservative, well either you have an agenda, or need some bigger fish to fry in today’s political climate. I expect better.

You and Right Reason would seem to be on the same side. Thanks to both for the information.

I think it likely that her decision will be a good one, good for her and good for the country.

1. No matter who gets paid, IT IS STILL A SUBSIDY.

2. It does not and cannot fully replace soybean meal. DDGs is 20-30% protein vs. 48% for soybean meal. And it is deficient in several key amino acids – notably lysine, which must be supplemented at a very high cost. It most certainly DOES NOT lower feed costs. Ask any poultry farmer.

3. You’re moving the goalposts. First, you argued it’s positive net energy. Now you argue it’s environmental benefits. I refuted the first. As to the second, that’s not a reason to subsidizie it.

4. We will blame ethanol, because ethanol is partly to blame.

5. The rate of return doesn’t change simply because the price goes up. Ethanol demand for grain does not immediately make our grain a “strategic lever.” If we refuse to export grain for political reasons, we cannot simply turn it all into ethanol. There are very few ethanol plants that process grains other than corn. Any export embargo would still result in a steep drop in domestic prices.

6. Again you change the argument. First, it’s supply security. Now, its market stabilization. Increased and more diverse domestic supply will reduce prices and stabilize the market. OPEC cannot easily curtail production to raise prices when we have domestic supply to fill in the gap. It will not eliminate market fluctuation, but neither has – or will – ethanol.

It’s also long past time for the US to get its finicky regulatory system stable enough so that investors don’t have to completely redesign a nearly complete nuclear plant on the basis of a “tiny” change in regulations on the building of nuclear plants, as was common in the 90s. Get rid of both the subsidies and many of the needless soccer mom over-regulation and nuclear power will be quite affordable as one of many sources of energy in a free market.

Because, of course, we all take Greenpeace’s musings on the Endangered Species Act as unbiased, right? Or the ACLU’s on the PATRIOT Act? If your answer to either of those questions is “no”, then you also shouldn’t take what the Union of Concerned Scientists says without a grain of salt the size of Texas. The organization has been political from the start, being part of the then-embyronic nuclear freeze movement before branching out to oppose SDI and support other forms of Leftist-affiliated hackery.

As for the study that prompted the wire service report you linked to, it consists of fifty pages of whining about how EIA systematically undercounts “hidden” subsidies to various “legacy” electrical generators. When you’re arguing about what even constitutes a “subsidy” in the first place you’re already fighting a losing economic battle, and to get to the point that that the report’s author does he has to engage in so much deconstruction of what the term “subsidy” means as to leave it so that it is entirely plausible to argue absudities like concealed carry laws “subsidize” firearms makers. To say nothing of the shoddiness of its methodology, producing an estimate that subsidies account for between 13 and 98 percent of the value of electricity produced by nuclear power. When your headline figure features a spread of 85%, methinks you need to go back to the drawing board with your criticisms.

The Union of Concerned scientists is hardly a disinterested party. I read a prortion of the report you cited. They state that the value of the “subsidies” is approximately 7 cents per kw/ hr (pretty specific). However, if you read a little farther, you’ll not that one of the author states taht most of the “subsidies’ involve laws that control risk, so the actual cosdt is difficult to calculate. in other words, they made up the 7 cents/ kw hr figure.

So let’s go through the “subsidies”

Loan Guarantees – no paymnts are actually made by the governmnet unless the utility defaults. Before the NRC regulations jacked up construction times durin the Carter administration, the Nuclear industry generally built the plants without any loan guarantees. Without regulatory uncertainty, there would be no need to offset risk.

Price Anderson Act – All the Price Anderson act did was establish rules to form an insurance pool to cover nuclear power. All insurance fees are paid by the utilities. There is no transfer of government funds or actual “subsidies” here.

Waste disposal – The government does not provide any subsidy for waste disposal. In fact the utilities have paid billions of dollars into a fund to cover operation of Yucca Mountain, which the government has not opened. As a result, the government has been paying the costs of the interim storage of spent fuel at Nuclear power plant sites, not as a subsidy, but as a result of legal judgements against the government from their breach of contract by not opening Yucca mountain on time. no real subsidies here.

You get the general theme. There aren’t any real cash payment subsidies here.

Where is there a nuclear plant being built in the US? Last one came on line in 1986.

Any nuclear plant is being built in the US? Last one came on line in 1986.

Any nuclear plant is being built in the US? Last one came on line in 1986.

It’s a shame we don’t have more candidates standing up and saying this. It’s time for handouts of all varieties to end.

Palin’s already broken a few rules. No reason to believe if she runs that she won’t break a few more, one of which may be that she continues to speak her mind regardless of how circumspect a candidate is supposed to be. Like her or not, everybody pays attention to her. It would be smart for the GOP leadership to use that as an advantage to reach voters. Of course, that would mean having to admit she’s right on at least some things.