Jul 30, 2014
Home| Tools| Events| Blogs| Discussions| Sign UpLogin


April 2009 Archive for U.S. Farm Report Mailbag

RSS By: U.S. Farm Report, US Farm Report

Comments, questions, opinions...this is your chance to speak out regarding anything and everything reported on U.S. Farm Report. Viewer feedback updated regularly.

Lots of Letters

Apr 28, 2009
Editor's Note:  The April 25-26 edition of U.S. Farm Report drew lots of viewer response, covering everything from ethanol to the death tax to wind energy.  Take a read for yourself...

*LETTER #1:
   Congress is now pondering what it will do with the Agricultural Death Tax.  This bill involves much more than just keeping the family ranch or family farm in the family.  The looming crisis is how to keep the family farm or family ranch producing food.  Under the current IRS codes, rising operating costs, rising property costs and the stupidity that has become the norm in Washington, how long will we be able to feed ourselves (U.S.A.).  We have seen a decline in agricultural exports from 30% of our total production in 1960 to the current 30% shortfall.  We now import 30% of our food needs and as Ethanol grows in demand the Dairy and Beef industries will have to rely on foreign corn and other grains to feed our cattle.  As this out sourcing escalates so will the prices at the grocery stores.  Your Wheaties are going to get real expensive.  Social programs such as welfare, health care and education are extremely important but they pale in comparison to a nation that can’t feed itself.  We can stop our loss of agricultural lands but it has to happen now.  We spend billions each year on the preservation of our Federal Wilderness Areas, State and Federal Parks and our U.S. Forests.  I would think politicians would be as philanthropic towards a declining industry that struggles to feeds them.  Ranchers (or farmers) don’t want subsidies or bailouts we just want to be left alone to feed American, do our cowboy thing and hand down our heritage to our children.
Gary Walker
Walker Ranches
Pueblo, CO

*LETTER #2:
To all at USFR,
To date, yall have not failed to deliver an excellent program, Congrats to all!!! This week's show, (4/ 25-26/ 2009), was outstanding for two reasons -
   1) Mr.'s Scott and John gave an extended dialogue after the news highlights. Even for just
a couple of minutes longer that usual. I believe it give us a bit of insight into the thoughts of not
only those who report the media events but a reasoning out of events. Given the situations
with the Budget, Congress, Environment and other matters I found it refreshing.
   2) The Video Mailbag response. I do hope you will be able to do this again. Mr. Corzine's feedback was insightful and informative. He mentioned many facts and figures that do not make it to the general population from most of the news media, (USFR is among those who are the
exception).
   Yep, this show was a trend setter and ranks up in the top. Yall keep up the GREAT WORK !!!!!
Yall have a Gud-un now, Ol James.
James Heath  

*LETTER #3:
Saturday morning you mentioned the top  5   wind states.  Where does  North Dakota fit?  I did not see it ..with only 650,000 residents  and rated more windy than Chicago the windy city,,how do we get more of that business?
David Poll

*LETTER #4:
John,
     You are the first corn farmer that I have heard say ethanol is not the greatest thing since slced bread.  The fellow who rebutted you last week's comments on ethanol was more than a little disengenuous.
    
When he said that burning ethanol reduced tailpipe emissions by 30% he neglected to mention that ethanol has only 77000 BTUs and 30% more will have to be burned to produce the same energy as burning a gallon of gasoline. Could this be no decrease in total tailpipe emissions? 
  
  He also infered that using corn to make ethanol does cause the price of corn to increase. I have been led to beleive that supply and demand have an effect on price.   He said nothing about the $0.51 per gallon subsidy, paid by the taxpayers, that the blender is paid. As an example an acre of corn yielding 155 bushels of corn being used to produce 2 1/2 gallons of  ethanol per bushel would cost the taxpayers $197.62. For the farmer growing 1000 acres of corn it would be far cheaper to give him $100000 and a rocking chair to sit in and grow weeds on the 1000 acres. The weeds would take in CO2 and emit O2 and placate the greenies. 
     I would love to catch this fellow in his local coffee shop and discuss ethanol with him.
Jim Rose
Stockton, California.  
***RESPONSE FROM LEON CORZINE:
    THE 30% GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATE ALREADY TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE ENERGY DENSITY OF ETHANOL VERSUS GASOLINE. MORE RECENT PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH FROM THE U. OF NEBRASKA SUGGESTS CORN ETHANOL REDUCES GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY NEARLY 50% COMPARED TO GASOLINE.
THE BLENDERS CREDIT HAS BEEN REDUCED 12% TO 45 CENTS AND AS YOU STATED, THE TAX CREDIT IS PAID TO BLENDERS, NOT ETHANOL PRODUCERS OR CORN FARMERS. THIS IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE ETANOL INDUSTRY IS DEPENDENT UPON ITS BIGGEST COMPETITOR (OIL COMPANIES) FOR ENTRY INTO THE MARKETPLACE. THERE HAS TO BE AN INCENTIVE TO MAKE OIL COMPANIES REPLACE THEIR OWN PRODUCT. THE TAX CREDIT IS ALSO NECESSARY BECAUSE OIL IS HIGHLY SUBSIDIZED THROUGH A VARIETY OF FAVORABLE TAX PROGRAMS, LOAN PROGRAMS, ETC.   I NOTICED JIM IS FROM STOCKTON, CA. WHILE SOME DISTANCE FROM LOS ANGELES, HAVE YOU NOTICED THE SMOG REPORTS THAT ARE ABSENT SINCE USING ETHANOL? YOU ALSO DO NOT HAVE THE GROUNDWATER, LAKE, AND WELL CONTAMINATION SINCE ETHANOL REPLACED MTBE.

  
LETTER #5:
I feel I must comment on the gentleman who spoke in favor of ethanol on your April 25th program. First , farmers are not the majority of the people in the United States, but farmers are subsidized by the majority of the people. To arrogantly stand in front of the camera and poor mouth the producers of corn. Oh the poor (rich) farmers are being hurt by the oil company's and the food distributors . When the truth about ethanol is that it is the worst thing to come down the pike for internal combustion engines since rust. It gums up the engines of fleet trucks (documented many times). It gums up carborators of outboard motors.(personal experience) motor bikes and other RV equipment. The Ethanol lobby has forced a law on the public that all gas must include ethanol, so we the public are forced to use it even if we know how bad it is. But the real immorality of ethanol is the fact that we trade food for fuel. And people starve (yes they do) and the rest of us pay more for the food we need so the ethanol industry will will prosper. I place ethanol producers in the same category as immoral Wall Street brokers and bankers. The biggest mistake the farmers can make is to align themselves with the ethanol lobby. Because I am not the only person who holds the ethanol lobby in such contempt. Farm Report can(and often does) do better than this. I remain a steady viewer of your program.
Tom Ferrell
*RESPONSE FROM LEON CORZINE:
I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT EITHER POOR OR RICH FARMERS; WE ARE ALL OVER THE SPECTRUM JUST LIKE ANY OTHER SECTOR OR BUSINESS CATEGORY.
LOOK AT TODAY’S CORN PRICE! NEARBY FUTURES PRICES ARE IN THE $3.75/BU. RANGE AND CASH PRICES ARE MUCH LOWER IN MOST MARKETS. THESE PRICES ARE NOT HISTORICALLY ABNORMAL, DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE WILL PRODUCE RECORD AMOUNTS OF ETHANOL THIS YEAR. LAST YEAR’S PRICE SPIKE WAS LARGELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SURGE IN ENERGY PRICES, RECORD GLOBAL DEMAND FOR CEREAL CROPS, AND PRICE SPECULATION RESULTING FROM MIDWEST FLOODING CONCERNS. WHILE IT IS LIKELY THAT THE INCREASED USE OF CORN FOR ETHANOL HAS HAD SOME IMPACT ON THE PRICE OF CORN, MOST ECONOMISTS AGREE THE EFFECT DUE TO ETHANOL IS PROBABLY IN THE RANGE OF 20 TO 40 CENTS PER BUSHEL.
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE JUST RELEASED A REPORT SAYING ETHANOL ATTRIBUTED LESS THAN 1% OF THE FOOD INCREASE. BY THE WAY CORN PRICES ARE ½ WHAT THEY WERE AND I HAVE NOT SEEN GROCERY PRICES REDUCED.
IT IS UNFORTUNATE PEOPLE DO STARVE AND THEY ARE TODAY. CORN EXPORTS WERE SETTING RECORDS LAST YEAR WHEN THE PRICES WERE HIGH. CORN PRICES ARE NOT THE ISSUE AND WE DO NOT TRADE FOOD FOR FUEL. 
HENRY FORD MADE HIS CARS TO RUN ON ETHANOL. BRAZIL RUNS ON 20% TO 97% ETHANOL. ETHANOL IS AN OCTANE BOOSTER AND ENHANCES PERFORMANCE. IT ALSO CLEANS OUT FUEL SYSTEMS. IF THERE ARE ENOUGH IMPURITIES FROM GASOLINE IN YOUR TANK ETHANOL WILL CLEAN IT AND MAY CAUSE A NEED TO CHANGE YOUR FUEL FILTER.

The Ethanol Debate...Continued...

Apr 23, 2009
***Editor's Note:  We continue to receive viewer feedback regarding John's recent comments on ethanol.  Along with the feedback below, we have posted a transcript of John's comments...
 
I have watched with disbelief the last 2 weeks regarding John Phipps’ comments on the ethanol industry.  First, he mischaracterized the request for a higher blend of 15% as a new “mandate,” which it is not.  It is merely the request for the flexibility to blend higher rates based on market signals.  Then, in this past week’s diatribe, he responds to a livestock caller who agreed with his “mandate” stand, saying ultimately the taxpayers will have to pick up the tab, and urging those who oppose a higher blend to contact their legislators ASAP.  When he stated this week that corn ethanol brings only marginal environmental benefits, and basically it is not sustainable, and really causes an increase in petroleum imports from the middle east, he went too far with his inaccurate portrayal.  There are peer reviewed studies that say otherwise.  If he would have just talked about reliance on the importation of foreign oil, he would have had to say it different.  The first oil imports reduced would naturally be the most expensive ones, and OPEC oil is not the most expensive.  But to state that corn ethanol does not do much to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is simply inaccurate.  The amount of corn ethanol used today amounts to the total liquid fuel used in my state of Ohio.  That is significant.  If he has a personal bone to pick with the corn ethanol industry, I wish he would deal with it off air.  I think it is embarrassing that the US Farm Report would allow such one-sided perspectives to air. 
 
In the future I would hope if John continues to pick on biofuels and their subsidized unsustainable existence, then he also needs to apply the same argument to subsidized unsustainable production of gasoline.  Perhaps we just need to go back to the horse and buggy.
 
Sincerely,
Fred Yoder
Plain City, OH


John,
    I should have contacted you a few weeks ago when you had negative comments about ethanol and the waiver request but I failed.  Your comments this weekend showed you are dangerously missing facts and are harming agriculture and I believe our country.
   First to the comment a few weeks ago.  The primary miss was the request to allow up to 15% you promoted as a mandate and it is not.  It is to only to allow up to 15% which makes a lot of sense when you look at the facts, which leads me to this week’s comments.
   You begin by agreeing with the caller who inferred ethanol is harming all small engines. This is false.  I (and my father before me) have used ethanol in every gasoline engine on the farm with NO adverse effects.  To the contrary, ethanol in the gasoline has eliminated any water in the gas caused by engines setting for extended periods.  Ethanol has helped my spark plug life as well by burning cleaner.  This includes 2 cycle engines as well as the 4 cycle ones.  In fact I have been running 20% and higher blends with no problems.
   You mention environmental benefits in a negative tone.  How much more documentation do you need?  From Argonne to the American Lung Association have the facts and are proponents of ethanol use.  You may call the benefits small but ethanol blended gasoline has removed millions of tons of carbon dioxide from the air and is proven to clean up the air from Chicago to Los Angeles.  This is one of the biggest environmental gains we have in practice today, especially in regards to liquid fuels and you trash it. 
   Your statement that ethanol is not economically viable with oil prices below $60 is just your ill-informed opinion and should not be stated as fact until you get current facts.
   Your economic misinformation continues when you talk about mandates and subsidies.  They are a way of life in the energy industry.  Did you ever try to add up the subsidies for the petroleum industry?  We are building a new industry that is trying to compete in a highly subsidized market so why pick on ethanol (when you should be a supporter).  On economics think about this one: every new or untapped source of oil is more expensive than the last so the real cost continues to go up.  Ethanol production from the farm to the gas tank is getting more efficient and the real cost continues to come down.  Just another factoid that gets lost.
You finish with a comment I do not understand how you can make.  “Ethanol production is the cause for an increase in imported oil.”  This is not even close to a fact.  Study after study shows the net energy gain from corn based ethanol and once again we continue to get better.
   John, I am shocked you would fall into the anti ethanol camp.  Your background should serve you better.
 
Leon Corzine

Editor's Note:  Below is the full transcript of John's comments on ethanol that aired as part of the Farm Report Mailbag segment the weekend of April 18-19, 2009:

    TIME NOW FOR OUR WEEKLY LOOK INSIDE THE FARM REPORT MAIL BAG...
    OUR STORY LAST WEEK ABOUT EFFORTS IN MINNESOTA TO RAISE THE SO-CALLED BLEND WALL PROMPTED SOME OBJECTIONS LIKE THIS PHONE CALL FROM BUCK JOHNSTON IN COUER-D'ALENE, IDAHO.
    "BOAT OWNERS HERE ARE HAVING GREAT DIFFICULTY WITH TEN PERCENT BLENDS, AND ANYONE WITH A SMALL ENGINE IS STRUGGLING WITH CLOGGED FILTERS AND DISSOLVED SEALS. GOING TO 20 PERCENT WILL ONLY MAKE THE PROBLEMS WORSE, AND THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT FORCE THIS DECISION."
    THANKS FOR CALLING BUCK, AND YOUR CONCERNS MATCHED THOSE OF OTHERS WHO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE USE OR POLITICS OF ETHANOL.
    BUT HERE IS THE SITUATION AS I SEE IT. WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRY DRIVING MUCH OF THE INCOME GROWTH IN AGRICULTURE WHICH IS BUILT ON VERY SHAKY ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING FOUNDATIONS. WITH OIL BELOW ABOUT $60 EVEN THE CHEAPEST ETHANOL CANNOT COMPETE WITH GASOLINE.
    MEANWHILE THE ENVIRONMENTAL GAINS ARE AT BEST MODEST. FINALLY, CLAIMS OF ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ARE SIMPLY NONSENSE. AS WE MAKE MORE ETHANOL WE ARE IMPORTING MORE - NOT LESS - MIDEASTERN OIL.
    THE ONLY WAY ETHANOL CAN SURVIVE IS BY FORCE OF LAW, AND EVERYONE IN THE INDUSTRY IS AWARE THAT MANDATES, SUBSIDIES, AND TARIFFS ARE KEY TO ANY FUTURE FOR BIOFUELS. CONSEQUENTLY THOSE WHO THINK CONSUMERS AS WELL AS OTHER CORN CUSTOMERS LIKE THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY ARE GETTING A RAW DEAL NEED TO BE IN THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS' FACES RIGHT NOW.
    ALSO THE EPA, WHICH WILL BE MAKING THE FINAL DECISION TO RAISE THE BLEND RATE OR NOT IS CURRENTLY SOLICITING PUBLIC COMMENTS. CHECK OUR HOMEPAGE FOR MORE INFORMATION HOW TO ADD YOUR VOICE.
 

  

John Visits an Auction

Apr 14, 2009
Over this weekend I watched an episode of U.S. Farm Report, as I regularly do.  I found this week's version of "John's World" with John Phipps in reference to an auction he attended to be particularly enjoyable--equal parts humor, sensibility, and truth ("any excuse to gossip with old friends seems like a good idea these days").  I am only 27 years of age, but look forward to the commentary of folks like Phipps and Orion Samuelson on a regular basis.
 
After Phipps' segment he asked for feedback and this e-mail address popped up.  So...I have a small suggestion.  How about a portion of your website where his commentary segments are archived in print?  I have the ability to get RFDTV with my local satellite dish carrier, but I have family and friends who would thoroughly enjoy his thoughts but do not have the luxury of viewing them.  I would like to pass them along via a link or e-mail if that were made possible.
 
Thanks for your consideration and keep up the great work.
  
Josh Fiedler
 
Waite Park, MN

EDITOR'S NOTE:  Printed transcripts are available for each edition on the U.S. Farm Report home page, listed under "weekly recaps".  Below is a copy of the commentary that aired April 11-12, 2009:

 
 
I STOPPED BY A NEARBY LAND AUCTION ON MY WAY TO SOUTH BEND TO TAPE THE SHOW THIS WEEK. THERE ARE FEW SPECTATOR SPORTS MORE ENJOYABLE FOR FARMERS THAN WATCHING A NEIGHBOR SPEND ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY IN PUBLIC.
 
JUST LIKE CHURCH, THE BACK ROWS WERE CROWDED WITH ONLOOKERS AND SECRETIVE BIDDERS, WITH THE MORE SERIOUS PARTICIPANTS SEATED SOMEWHAT CLOSER. I WAS STRUCK BY THE AGE OF THE AUDIENCE - IT'S NOT TOO OFTEN WHEN I'M IN A PUBLIC GATHERING AND REALIZE I'M BELOW THE MEDIAN AGE.
 
BUT AUCTIONS LIKE THIS ARE A GREAT PLACE TO SEE NEIGHBORS WHO WE MAY HAVE MISSED DURING THE WINTER, AND I VISITED WITH SEVERAL BEFORE THE BIDDING BEGAN. I FOUND OUT ABOUT FAMILY HAPPENINGS AND CHILDREN UPDATES, DIVORCES AND DEATHS, AND OF COURSE, WHO WAS FARMING WHAT LAND THIS YEAR.
 
THE AUCTION WAS SLIGHTLY DISAPPOINTING FOR MANY I THINK. A NEIGHBORING FARMER BOUGHT ONE ADJACENT PARCEL, AS WE ALL EXPECTED. THE SECOND PARCEL WAS PURCHASED BY A FATHER-SON PARNERSHIP IN THE AREA AFTER REMARKABLY BRIEF BIDDING. ON THE WHOLE, FEW OF US COULD REACH ANY CONCLUSION ABOUT WHAT THESE TWO SMALL FIELDS MEANT TO THE OVERALL LAND MARKET.
 
STILL, I'M GLAD I WAS THERE. NOT EVERY AUCTION CAN BE A NAIL-BITING DRAMA, BUT ANY EXCUSE TO GOSSIP WITH OLD FRIENDS SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA THESE DAYS.
  

Where Are You???

Apr 13, 2009

John,

I've been an avid viewer of U.S. Farm Report for years on our local CBS affiliate at 6 am on Saturdays and Sundays (Ch 19 in  Charlottesville, VA). When I discovered you were on Direct TV's cable  channel 225 at 8 am EDT on Saturdays, I was delighted. The past two weeks, when I turned to channel 225, the title comes up as U.S. Farm Report but has paid programming instead. I've gone to your Web site to see if there's been a time change and can't find that.

 I'm a small Virginia farmer in my semi-retirement and a 1961 Iowa State ag journalism major. My father Dr. Louis Thompson, who will be 95 next month, was associate dean of agriculture at ISU for over 30 years and author of the largest selling agronomy text book over the past 50 years, "Soils and Soil Fertility" published by McGraw-Hill.

Can you help me?

Louis Thompson, Jr.
Orange, VA

EDITOR'S NOTE:  U.S. Farm Report can now be seen on both DIRECTV (Channel 345) and DISH Network (Channel 231) on RFD-TV.  The program airs Saturday morning at 10 a.m. EST and Sunday afternoon at 4:00 p.m. EST...

The Wind Power Debate

Apr 09, 2009
Good Morning Mr. Phipps,
 
It took me by surprise when I saw a reply to my question on Mail Bag on Sunday, April 6, 2009 regarding industrial wind turbines. In DeKalb County, IL, the situation is different because of the following:
 
1.  This is not west Texas which is sparcely populated with few people per square mile.  DeKalb County has many rural and rural/residential properties.  In Feb., 2009, we counted about 107 rural/residential properties (less than 10 acres) in Shabbona Township (DeKalb Co.) alone.  Many of these properties were originally purchased from farmers who profited by selling a few acres with old buildings they had no use for.  After remodeling, these are now much more valuable properties, paying high real estate taxes.  
 
2.  In DeKalb County, 1/3 of the proposed industrial wind turbines are located on property owned by absentee landlords.  30 of the turbines are located on land owned by people from outside the United States (Germany, Italy and Venezuela).   
 
3.  As wind complexes develop, it is becoming clear that wind energy has many drawbacks.  Research states that wind energy is about 20% efficient.  Were it not for large federal and state tax subsidies, we would not have industrial wind turbines complexes.  There are many health and safety issues (see www.nowindfarms.com) such as noise, ice fling, low level vibrations, lightening strikes, turbine collapse and/or blade malfunction, fire, not to mention bird and bat kills.  The public should be appraised of the true monetary cost of wind energy. 
 
4.  The property value of homes in the footprint of an industrial wind turbine complex is reduced at least 25% to 30% according to Michael McCann, Certified Appraiser, specializing in wind farms.  Mary Wells, Community Outreach Manager for Florida Power and Light Energy said to me on April 1, 2009 that there is "no evidence that property values are reduced."  After Ms. Wells admitted that there is little population density in west Texas where there are numerous turbines, it became obvious that FPL uses arbitrary figures of dissimilar properties.  John, if you were not making money from an industrial wind turbine, would you want a 40 story turbine, 1400 feet from your home creating noise, shadow flicker, vibration etc.?
 
5.  Most importantly, in DeKalb County our A-1 agricultural zoning prohibits the construction of anything that dominates the landscape. 
 
Thank you for your time. 
 
As a devoted listener of US Farm Report, sincerely,
Mark Johnson
 
EDITOR'S NOTE:  Below is a transcript of the Mail Bag Segment that aired last weekend on U.S. Farm Report:

MARK JOHNSON IN DEKALB COUNTY, ILLINOIS PHONED IN WITH HIS OBJECTION TO WIND TURBINES.

"WHY ARE YOU ONLY REPORTING THE GOOD ASPECTS OF WIND TURBINES AND NOT THE NEGATIVE?"

MARK, WITH RESPECT, I THINK WE DO POINT OUT THE DRAWBACKS TO WIND TURBINES, BUT I TRY TO EMPHASIZE OBJECTIVE PROBLEMS, LIKE THE ECONOMICS AND ENGINEERING ISSUES.

I REALIZE MANY FOLKS HAVE COMPLAINTS ABOUT TURBINES SPOILING THE LANDSCAPE, BUT THAT VALUE JUDGMENT IS NOT UNIVERSAL AND MORE TO THE POINT, IN PLACES LIKE DENMARK WHICH HAVE HAD TURBINES FOR DECADES NOW, PUBLIC ATTITUDES RAPIDLY ADJUST TO THEIR PRESENCE. IN SHORT, WE KNOW THAT 10 YEARS AFTER WIND FARMS ARE INSTALLED MOST LOCAL RESIDENTS HARDLY NOTICE THEM.

OTHER OBJECTIONS LIKE INJURIES TO MIGRATING BIRDS ARE UNSUBSTANTIATED. THERE ARE NO PILES OF DEAD BIRDS UNDER OPERATING TURBINES. SIMILARLY, MANY OF THE EARLY NOISE COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED BY BETTER DESIGN. IF A TURBINE IS MAKING NOISE THOSE VIBRATIONS CONTITUTE AN INEFFICIENCY, AFTER ALL.

I HAVE READ CAREFULLY REPORTS OF SHODDY CONSTRUCTION AND UNNEEDED DAMAGE DURING THE BUILDING PROCESS, AND WHILE REGRETTABLE, MY INFORMATION SHOWS CURRENT CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES TO BE MUCH IMPROVED AND ESSENTIALLY SATISFACTORY TO LANDOWNERS.

THE REAL INARGUABLE PROBLEMS WITH WIND ENERGY ARE THE TINY OUTPUT - ONE 2 GIGAWATT COAL PLANT IS WORTH 1000 TYPICAL TURBINES; THE LAVISH SUBSIDIES NEEDED, AND THE INABILITY OF OUR CURRENT GRID TO ACCOMMODATE MORE THAN A SMALL AMOUNT OF THE VARIABLE OUTPUT FROM WIND FARMS.

WIND FARMS ARE FEEL-GOOD ENERGY PLACEBOS REQUIRING EXTRAVAGANT PUBLIC SUBSIDIES THAT WILL BE DECADES BECOMING COMPETITIVE WITH COAL OR NUCLEAR POWER.

 

    
 

Water, Water, Everywhere...

Apr 01, 2009
But not a drop to drink!
In light of the chronic flooding or the Mississippi, Missouri and their tributaries and the equally chronic need for water here in Colorado, why not invest some stimulus money into a water diversionary system?  A pipeline/aqueduct to the Great American Desert would be nice, but simply providing funds to shovel up snowfall in the area and dump it into plastic lined coal-cars headed to reservoirs in the southwest would also do the trick.
 
Get hold of Salazar and get it done!!!
 
Steve Luera
Colorado Springs, CO
Log In or Sign Up to comment

COMMENTS

Receive the latest news, information and commentary customized for you. Sign up to receive Beef Today's Cattle Drive today!. Interested in the latest prices for cattle in your area? See highlights of the latest for-sale cattle in the Cattle-Exchange eNewsletter.

Hot Links & Cool Tools

    •  
    •  
    •  
    •  
    •  
    •  
    •  

facebook twitter youtube View More>>
 
 
 
 
The Home Page of Agriculture
© 2014 Farm Journal, Inc. All Rights Reserved|Web site design and development by AmericanEagle.com|Site Map|Privacy Policy|Terms & Conditions