Off Topic - Ethanol

[rweatherford]

I've found on a few forums I am on that there are people that seem to be very against ethanol production.

I was curious why the animosity against such production of an alternative fuel that allows us to import less oil, employ americans, raise the standard of living in rural america (the flyover zone), reduce emissions, and use up excess crop inventories that would otherwise go overseas.

There is an ethanol plant within 25 miles of my house, another within 60 and probably several within 150 miles. There have been very positive effects from this in our area.

 

[jandree22]

America consumes 400,000,000 gallons of gasoline each and every day... x0.85 for the blend and that's 340,000,000 gallons of ethanol required each and every day. That'd take 124,000,000,000 (billion) gallons of ethanol a year. Beyond that, it has less BTU's per unit, so you need more of it to get the job done.

I'm taking this to the extreme by assuming 100% of vehicles would use E85, but maybe this somewhat illustrates the limitations on corn for fuel. I just feel it's a lost cause because ultimately, we don't have the resources to make E85 a reality. Just my $.02 on the issue.

Fuel cells on the other hand still have their own set of issues/complications to work out, but if that ever takes off we'll at least have a virtually endless supply of H2

 

[rweatherford]

Yea I think that is an extreme. I don't think we are going to run out of oil tomorrow so we have some time to work things out. Even corn yields raise almost every year. It's quite amazing to watch the yields increase. Every year we think we've seen the best. Unless there is a drought, the yields seem to keep increasing on average.

I think it would be good if we just displaced 10-30% of current gasoline production. That combined with lower consumption can buy a lot of time for creation of other technologies.

What is our current % of imported oil?

 

[leetpcguy]

The problem is we can only get ethanol from things like corn and soy beans. But, with the help of new enzymes and such, we can get it from the corn STALKS instead of the stuff us humans can eat.

 

[rweatherford]

Yes they are now working on many methods. The latest I have read about is getting ethanol even from landfill waste and old tires. Now that will be interesting.

When was the last time you worried about having enough corn to eat? I've seen it stored outside in giant piles like small mountains because there was no where to put all of it. Can't say that for many other items produced.

I had not seen ethanol produced from soybeans? We do use 20% bio-diesel produces from soy oil in all of our equipment.

 

[Donas64]

cannibalizing food source for fuel = not a good idea. BUT if the stalks and other such inedible (by human standards) parts can be used instead of just thrown away then go for it. If that doesn't happen, I can see it now. "Evil American uses starving kids tortilla to fuel hummer H3"

 

[happy and angry]

Ethanol produced from corn is an awful idea.

use up excess crop inventories that would otherwise go overseas.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22902512/

That's what happens when the "excess crop" doesn't go over seas. Or corn flour prices triple in Mexico driving up the price of tortillas - a food staple - and leading to people being unable to afford to eat. Maybe this doesn't sink in, but first world countries account for the majority of the resource and wealth on this planet. This includes food. First world countries and their populations are vastly outnumbered by second and third world countries and their populations, and yet we use more of the worlds energy, resources, and food. When we decide to take the food we don't use and convert it to fuel, we starve other countries, and drive up food prices to the point where the poor in our own nations can barely afford to eat.

It's also not an improvement on emissions to go to corn based ethanol. It contains less energy by volume than gas, so you end up burning more of it to do the same amount of work.

It's also not as efficient to manufacture and ship, because infrastructure isn't there.

It's also not going to be possible to meet the energy needs of the US, even if 100% of the available crop space is converted to corn production used for ethanol. I remember reading somewhere that we'd be able to hit around 20% of our energy needs in North America if Canada and the US went full time ethanol production with 100% of the corn crop. We'd still be dependent on another source of fuel.

Ethanol is an incredibly stupid idea, sold to you and me by people in the corn industry and people who want to create an overly inflated market for corn. Corn based ethanol isn't green, isn't going to eliminate a dependence on foreign oil, and the impact it'll have on the rest of the world (and even North America) will be enormous, BUT - it has the potential to create an entirely new market, which means a very select few stand to make a LOT of money from it. Corn based ethanol at the very least is not the solution to our energy problems.

I'd rather see more investment in hydrogen fuel - like the Hydrogen powered Honda Civic or the BMW 7 series that runs on Hydrogen. Or electrics, like the Tesla (http://www.teslamotors.com/). Or more research into new drilling techniques so we can get to all the oil in the rockie. In Canada and the US we have more oil than the OPEC nations combined (although it's harder to get to).

 

[Knox Joe]

Ethanol is stupid because it costs far more to refine, adn really every step of the process is costlier. The only reason it is semi affordable now is because of Govt' subsidies.

What happens when the Govt' stops the hand outs and starts taxing it like every other good?

Ethanol in true cost would be over $5 a gallon, produce less burn, resulting in less miles traveled per gallon. Not my idea of an alternative fuel source.

 

[rweatherford]

Ethanol produced from corn is an awful idea.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22902512/

That's what happens when the "excess crop" doesn't go over seas. Or corn flour prices triple in Mexico driving up the price of tortillas - a food staple - and leading to people being unable to afford to eat. Maybe this doesn't sink in, but first world countries account for the majority of the resource and wealth on this planet. This includes food. First world countries and their populations are vastly outnumbered by second and third world countries and their populations, and yet we use more of the worlds energy, resources, and food. When we decide to take the food we don't use and convert it to fuel, we starve other countries, and drive up food prices to the point where the poor in our own nations can barely afford to eat.

I guess we can go back to you subsidising mexico's food source then. That's where we were two years ago. I don't like to see people go hungry, but I would like Mexico to take care of Mexico. We are the most generous country on earth and it is likely to stay that way until we can't do it anymore. No where in this article does it say ethanol production caused this. It mentions a lack of rice, which we do not produce much of in the US.

IF you could blame all the raise in grain prices to ethanol (which you cannot, the article mentions rising fuel cost , which effects costs of production of crops), you could be happy because there have been no price support $$ coming from the government for farmers in our area for corn, beans, and wheat. One less tax load. Another is to remember that the farm bill is not just for farmers. Much of the budget is for other rural initatives.

It's also not an improvement on emissions to go to corn based ethanol. It contains less energy by volume than gas, so you end up burning more of it to do the same amount of work.

True. I do think it reduces pollution when added to gas because it is an oxygenate. Otherwise why would we have started using it at all?

It's also not as efficient to manufacture and ship, because infrastructure isn't there.

The same could be said for electricity and the telegraph early last century.

It's also not going to be possible to meet the energy needs of the US, even if 100% of the available crop space is converted to corn production used for ethanol. I remember reading somewhere that we'd be able to hit around 20% of our energy needs in North America if Canada and the US went full time ethanol production with 100% of the corn crop. We'd still be dependent on another source of fuel.

Agreed. I see it as a part of the entire solution. Perhaps best left as a regional fuel.

Ethanol is an incredibly stupid idea, sold to you and me by people in the corn industry and people who want to create an overly inflated market for corn. Corn based ethanol isn't green, isn't going to eliminate a dependence on foreign oil, and the impact it'll have on the rest of the world (and even North America) will be enormous, BUT - it has the potential to create an entirely new market, which means a very select few stand to make a LOT of money from it. Corn based ethanol at the very least is not the solution to our energy problems.

I'm afraid that if ethanol production were to cease, there would be a big financial collapse in the rural economy IF the prices were to go back down. Rent, fuel, fertilizer, seed, basically all input costs have doubled. Crop prices have doubled. If they return to previous prices business will close, jobs will be lost and the "flyover zone" might start to look like current day Michigan.

I'm not sure I would agree with the fact that it does not help america. I've seen the changes in the last 5 years in my area. It has made a difference. There is a better tax base, many jobs that were not here before, and many support jobs that cater to the plants being in the area. It extends further than just the physical plant. One of the plants here even generates electricity as a backup if power goes down for the city.

Also, even though most ethanol plants look like "large companies", they are mostly owned by local investors. This money is spent in the local economy. I know these people.

The other things that people don't realize is that there is more than one product from an ethanol plant. The one close to my location also produces CO2, a corn syrup product used for animal feed, and DDGs (dried distillers grain) that is a low cost feed that rivals bean meal and other type feeds. It is high protein, lower cost, local, and used for both cattle and swine production. I might even be missing some of the products.

The ethanol can be put into train tankers and shipped by rail, which is much more efficient than trucks. Plants can also be built in many locations making the transportation end of the deal less significant except for the coastal areas where crops are not as abundant. More plants = less driving by farmers and less transportation distance for the ethanol. There is also a decentralizing benefit. If one plant goes "down" it's not a big deal. If one of the big pipelines goes "down" the entire southeastern US is in a gas crisis.

I'd rather see more investment in hydrogen fuel - like the Hydrogen powered Honda Civic or the BMW 7 series that runs on Hydrogen. Or electrics, like the Tesla (http://www.teslamotors.com/). Or more research into new drilling techniques so we can get to all the oil in the rockie. In Canada and the US we have more oil than the OPEC nations combined (although it's harder to get to).

I think all of those things are good solutions and they will come down the "pipeline" when they are ready. People are working on them every day. I'd love to have an electric car to plug in.

Ethanol is stupid because it costs far more to refine, adn really every step of the process is costlier. The only reason it is semi affordable now is because of Govt' subsidies.

What happens when the Govt' stops the hand outs and starts taxing it like every other good?

Ethanol in true cost would be over $5 a gallon. Not my idea of an alternative fuel source.

Can you site a source for that? Ethanol in my state is taxed just like regular gasoline. Some states do give a little break on the tax. Recent studies show ethanol production has a positive net energy and financial gain. The plants have been more efficient as time goes on. Crop yields increase yearly. Inputs are trimmed as research into crop production and conservation methods increase.

 

[Knox Joe]

Can you site a source for that? Ethanol in my state is taxed just like regular gasoline. Some states do give a little break on the tax. Recent studies show ethanol production has a positive net energy and financial gain. The plants have been more efficient as time goes on. Crop yields increase yearly. Inputs are trimmed as research into crop production and conservation methods increase.

I've done my research a long while ago, I'm not hunting down my sources for you. You asked a question on a forum, I gave you my take on it based on my research. If you want sources, scour the net, don't ask a message board.

A little break on taxes? LMAO

The Govt' funding going towards Ethanol is insane. Take it away and it's $5 a gallon. The only reason Ethanol producers can even stay open is from massive Govt' funding.

I don't know about you, but I don't want farmer joe to get more of my tax money because he realized if he grew corn instead of XX crop he'd get a Govt' handout. It makes no sense at all. This is a free market, and if the free market could use ethanol we would have had it already. The fact the Govt has to push it so hard is enough evidence that it won't work.

There will be a new fuel soon enough, but it won't be ethanol.

Oh, side note, ethanol can break down (I think rubber, maybe another material) seals in your motor.

 

[KZL_99ES]

agreed with the electric car!

hydrogen cars will run you about million to buy right now it will take about 15 or 20 years before the price goes down to a reasonable level (20k) and with stations all over the country too...

read up on Brazil, the majority of their energy fuel comes from ethanol, but not corn ethanol, sugar cane ethanol... hence you don't have to break down the corn into sugars, you already have the sugars...ethanol is a good idea when it makes economical sense...

i like the air compression powered car the best, thats sounds interesting...

 

[jandree22]

Bottom line, some people will think Ethanol is the perfect answer, others will think it's ridiculous. What you *think* doesn't really matter though. As gay as this sounds, whatever's meant to be, will be.

IMO, at most we'll get to the break even point where supply balances out with demand. When too many people purchase E85 vehicles in 10 years from now and E85 blend is $6 a gallon while E10 is $4.50, that will be the point where people stop purchasing new E85 vehicles (or at least filling with E85).

So back to my first point, you can think it's the best thing since sliced bread, but that doesn't necessarily mean it'll work. No offense, but you seem to have a large bias towards the concept being it's your local economy and you want to support it. That's understandable and I'm all for supporting US economy, ESPECIALLY agriculture because farmers, like teachers, bust their ass for meager return... but once again, that compassion won't make the average Joe go for E85 necessarily. If Shell has regular ol' 87 octane (that's more efficient) for $3 a gallon and your local E85 station has it for $4.50, he'll buy Shell... once again making the point that right now prices may be similar, but when that supply demand threshold is hit, E85 will skyrocket in price (much faster than oil does in the same situation).

 

[bulwnkl]

Below is a partial list of the things that ethanol as a fuel does not accomplish:

allows us to import less oil, employ americans, raise the standard of living in rural america (the flyover zone), reduce emissions, and use up excess crop inventories that would otherwise go overseas.

Ethanol from corn, soybeans, etc., is a net energy loser. There may be a 'recent' study or two that shows it the other way, but the fact is that the totality of all the study of the energy question shows ethanol to be somewhere between a massive net loser to approximately a break-even proposition. So every drop of ethanol you make that way increases petroleum consumption.

Employ Americans? So, we take petroleum refinery employees and put them to work at ethanol plants. That's a zero-sum game or worse if you have to move across the country to 'keep' your job. Plus, why in the world do you think that American-grown corn, soybeans, or any other ag product is cheaper than things like sugar cane, general rain forest flora, etc? I'll give you a tip: it ain't. Not even close. So, supply for the ethanol plants remains foreign. That doesn't improve our trade balance vs. petroleum nor does it help increase American jobs nor help rural America(ns).

Reduce emissions? Oxygenates are used basically as a way to improve emissions performance of non-emission-controlled vehicles. However, as was noted up this thread, more fuel is needed due to lower energy content so you're not accomplishing as much as you think. Plus, in a properly catalyzed vehicle, you're not achieving hardly anything.

'Excess' crop inventories that would otherwise go overseas? What in the world are you talking about? That's called sales! I never cared a bit whether I sold my wheat or potatoes or... you get the idea... in America or overseas. I just wanted to sell it at a price I could make a living from. To decry countries like America for using more energy per capita than a country like (insert favorite country here) but ignore the fact that we're producing most of the food they eat is ridiculous. Agricultural commodities are one of the very few things we have a trade surplus in. ...and you're saying that's bad. What happens to Americans if we never raise a surplus of food and one year there's a drought? What does this part of your argument even mean???

There's another thing that basically nobody anywhere ever thinks of. You can't treat an agricultural field like a strip mine forever. If you always grow crops (any kind; doesn't matter what) and never put any of the biomass back into the soil, you destroy the land. That's exactly what you're doing when you decide to use the 'wasted' corn stalks into ethanol instead of back into the ground. Now, things will still grow in the most barren waste of sand there is (ask me, I've done it), but the yields go down, not up, which messes up the energy balance thing even more.

Did I mention the part about how ethanol fuels are taxed at a significantly lower rate throughout the production cycle such that ethanol fuel, at a comparable price to gasoline/diesel, leaves us with no tax base to build or repair roads?

If we'd get over our irrational phobia of nuclear power, we could address a huge part of our energy problem. Nuclear power is about the cheapest, most environmentally friendly source there is. Plus, we could power cars from the byproducts and not need to invent ludicrous schemes to proclaim ourselves 'green.'

 

[rweatherford]

I've done my research a long while ago, I'm not hunting down my sources for you. You asked a question on a forum, I gave you my take on it based on my research. If you want sources, scour the net, don't ask a message board.

Well perhaps "long ago" is too long ago. Things change rapidly in emerging technologies. I thought it would be courtesy to allow you to argue your point with some backup. I've looked and I can't find where your $5 a gallon comes from.

Mine come from several sources including the US government. Some are obviously pro-ethanol.

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/
http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Ethanol_FAQs_fall_07.pdf
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf
http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/NTU_study_off_the_mark_72406.pdf

A little break on taxes? LMAO

The federal tax credit I found was around $0.50 a gallon and that will expire in 2010. I guess time will tell if it works. I guess you know that tax credits are also given to the oil industry? Take those away too please. Again, if you can show me the $5 a gallon ethanol I'd like to take a look at it. I'm sure you could care less though.

I don't know about you, but I don't want farmer joe to get more of my tax money because he realized if he grew corn instead of XX crop he'd get a Govt' handout. It makes no sense at all. This is a free market, and if the free market could use ethanol we would have had it already. The fact the Govt has to push it so hard is enough evidence that it won't work.

I think that is wrong. Did you know the government has a program to pay people to upgrade their current TV's so that next year they will be able to receive broadcast TV signals when all stations go to digital broadcast? Is this "pushing" the technology proof that it won't work. That logic makes no sense. What they are doing is leveling the playing field in the early stages of ethanol so that it can be competitive now, and then later that will be gone and it will have to stand on it's own feet. As an additive it will. I don't think E85 is the answer. I see it as an additive that is good for US and reduces oil imports. It also uses some fossil fuels that are abundant here in the US.

There will be a new fuel soon enough, but it won't be ethanol.

I think we will all be glad when there are more alternatives.

Oh, side note, ethanol can break down (I think rubber, maybe another material) seals in your motor.

You must be driving an OLD car. Low concentrations have shown to do nothing. I wouldn't recommend running E85 in a non-E85 car though. High concentrations can deteriorate some rubbers. However an engine could be produced to make use of E85 exclusively would have very high compression ratios due to the 110+ octane rating.

I agree with everyone that ethanol is not a fuel to replace gasoline. It's not gonna happen. But I am still amazed at how and why you are against the current production. The US now produces more ethanol than Brazil. There are currently over 70 plants in the US underconstruction to boost output further. For some reason it is great for Brazil, but not for us. There are ethanol technologies coming that are not corn based.

Jandree,

Around here the teachers have the good paying jobs.... (nana) I should know my father was one.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29/29205.html
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29/29121.html

I guess I'm just trying to educate people on what is actually going on out here in the sticks... I can't know everything that goes on in Chicago or LA and no news crew comes out here to tell people what a difference this is making. However they will quote any professor or study that uses old information to make financial predictions on an emerging sector of energy producution. What if they were so negative about hydrogen? You can also find studys an reviews of hybrid cars that say they are a waste of time, but I don't agree with that. I think they are great. My family just doesn't fit in a Prius. I was looking at them before I decided that the Mazda 5 was my most efficient solution.

 

[rweatherford]

Below is a partial list of the things that ethanol as a fuel does not accomplish:



Ethanol from corn, soybeans, etc., is a net energy loser. There may be a 'recent' study or two that shows it the other way, but the fact is that the totality of all the study of the energy question shows ethanol to be somewhere between a massive net loser to approximately a break-even proposition. So every drop of ethanol you make that way increases petroleum consumption.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf

This is from 2002. Things are only continuing to improve.

Employ Americans? So, we take petroleum refinery employees and put them to work at ethanol plants. That's a zero-sum game or worse if you have to move across the country to 'keep' your job.

Um... No. Everyone seems to try to stick ethanol into the gasoline "replacer" department, which I don't think it is. I think it is a supplement that improves the US economy. (at least in my area) Gasoline record profits do nothing here in this area.

Plus, why in the world do you think that American-grown corn, soybeans, or any other ag product is cheaper than things like sugar cane, general rain forest flora, etc? I'll give you a tip: it ain't. Not even close.

Please show where I said that. Perhaps I missed what I said?

So, supply for the ethanol plants remains foreign. That doesn't improve our trade balance vs. petroleum nor does it help increase American jobs nor help rural America(ns).

Please expand this idea because I don't understand where supply for the ethanol plants is forign. I'm guessing you are saying that we will import bio-mass? Why? We throw away TONS of bio-mass every day in the garbage.

Reduce emissions? Oxygenates are used basically as a way to improve emissions performance of non-emission-controlled vehicles. However, as was noted up this thread, more fuel is needed due to lower energy content so you're not accomplishing as much as you think. Plus, in a properly catalyzed vehicle, you're not achieving hardly anything.

I tend to agree with this, but the EPA mandates the additives. If you have to add something why not ethanol instead of MTBE?

'Excess' crop inventories that would otherwise go overseas? What in the world are you talking about? That's called sales!

Sales at a reduced price for the most part. Low demand here, sales must be made overseas and we must compete with labor in brazil, china, etc. Same thing that has happened to the auto, textile and other industries. High local demand also keeps the government from buying excess stocks, which has happened in the past.

Agricultural commodities are one of the very few things we have a trade surplus in. ...and you're saying that's bad.

Didn't say that is bad. I'm saying that excess that is wasted is bad. I've seen corn stored in a pile outside because there was no where to go with it.

What happens to Americans if we never raise a surplus of food and one year there's a drought? What does this part of your argument even mean???

We are not near this point. I understand the concern, but we are not there. If the price of ethanol in MO raises to above the price of gasoline, NO ethanol is required in the fuel.

There's another thing that basically nobody anywhere ever thinks of. You can't treat an agricultural field like a strip mine forever. If you always grow crops (any kind; doesn't matter what) and never put any of the biomass back into the soil, you destroy the land. That's exactly what you're doing when you decide to use the 'wasted' corn stalks into ethanol instead of back into the ground. Now, things will still grow in the most barren waste of sand there is (ask me, I've done it), but the yields go down, not up, which messes up the energy balance thing even more.

I completely agree. Corn stalks are used for erosion control and soil tilth buiding via cattle grazing.

If we'd get over our irrational phobia of nuclear power, we could address a huge part of our energy problem. Nuclear power is about the cheapest, most environmentally friendly source there is. Plus, we could power cars from the byproducts and not need to invent ludicrous schemes to proclaim ourselves 'green.'

Works for me......

 

[coolmazda5]

I believe the real consequences of mass producing Ethanol go beyond my economy competence grasp but some off-topic off-topic comments :

That's where we were two years ago. I don't like to see people go hungry, but I would like Mexico to take care of Mexico.

That is a very old way of thinking. The world economy nowadays is quite interdependent so if something breaks with you Southern or Northern neighbor, something will break on your own yard soon. You can no longer isolate yourself and just take care of your own. I still remember when due to some irrational border initiatives Mexican customers decided to boycott cross border shopping in a Texan border city for a couple of days... Do you know how much that affected the Texas economy for the whole year? Same has happened in places north, like close between the Buffalo NY and Ontario borders. Last time I went to a shopping mall somewhere there during a Thanksgiving trip there were more Ontario license plates than from allover the US combined...

We are the most generous country on earth and it is likely to stay that way until we can't do it anymore.

I think this concept is so complex that is it difficult to qualify it just as that. The term "generosity" does not require anything in return or does not imply that there is a particular/key interest behind the action (like economical, political, financial, social, etc.). Most of the latest generous actions I've seen have a very strong interest behind.

In addition, the term "generous" country does not only apply to the government or their foreign policies, but also to its citizens. I've met citizens in other countries much more generous than here...

My 2 pesos, or around 0.15 Canadian dollars

 

[happy and angry]

No where in this article does it say ethanol production caused this.

This is where reading and comprehension skills kick in. From the article:

Food prices around the world have spiked because of higher oil prices, needed for fertilizer, irrigation and transportation. Prices for basic ingredients such as corn and wheat are also up sharply, and the increasing global demand for biofuels is pressuring food markets as well.

Notice the part about corn? What, pray tell, has been driving up the cost of corn in the global markets?

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/05/22/corn.html

Yes, I wonder. Read between the lines.

I guess we can go back to you subsidising mexico's food source then.

That's not even the issue. The rising price of corn also affects the food stuffs that they pay to import.

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/04/corn_prices_in_.html

IF you could blame all the raise in grain prices to ethanol

I don't HAVE to blame ALL the raise on ethanol. That's shoddy, black and white thinking. A big portion of the raise IS the pressure from ethanol - this has been one of the biggest financial stories of the last 12 months, overshadowed only by the recent housing market plunge.

True. I do think it reduces pollution when added to gas because it is an oxygenate. Otherwise why would we have started using it at all?

Because it allows us to burn less fuel and do about the same amount of work. It's not that much cleaner as an additive.

The same could be said for electricity and the telegraph early last century.

Ethanol is being marketed as an interim solution for which the infrastructure does not exist. Building massive support infrastructure for it takes it from an interim solution to something entirely different.

Agreed. I see it as a part of the entire solution. Perhaps best left as a regional fuel.

I don't think you understand what I was saying. If every single square inch of land was converted to corn growing to be used as a fuel, maybe 20% of what we need in North America could be produced, and the downside would be massive price increases for your now $30 bowl of corn flakes. 50% of land use for corn growth for fuel - 10% of our energy needs. Currently, about 15% of the corn stock is used for fuel, and corn is by no means using 100% of the land. The amount of fuel we are able to produce is a fraction of what we use, less than a 1/10th. And the cost is a serious impact on global food prices.

I'm afraid that if ethanol production were to cease, there would be a big financial collapse

I don't want it to cease, I want it to stop being sold as a brilliant and complete answer to a fuel problem, because it isn't.

There is a better tax base, many jobs that were not here before, and many support jobs that cater to the plants being in the area.

And the inner-city poor who already have high costs of living and higher food prices simply because of where they live are now spending more on food. We are all spending more on food. Yes, pushing corn as a fuel source helps some people and provides jobs. It also hurts others, and makes it harder for them to pay to put food on their plate. I'm not a big fan of that.

I read your post and I can't help but see it as short sighted "Me and mine" mentality. Yes, it helps rural areas. Yes, there are byproducts of ethanol production that can be used as livestock feed. So what? That doesn't tell me that ethanol is the best use of corn, only that we have gotten financially smarter about waste (because those ethanol byproducts also sell for money). Turning a staple food crop into a fuel source in a world that already struggles to keep people fed is more than a little selfish. At its current level of production, it works, more or less. We have corn to eat, and ethanol to burn, without really lacking in either area. The push to remove dependence on foreign oil via ethanol is a quick bandaid solution approach that is more financially motivated than anything else, but at the expense of people being able to eat.

The ethanol can be put into train tankers and shipped by rail, which is much more efficient than trucks.

This is an argument for efficiency within a new market, not a comparison to how efficient oil distribution currently is. Trains are more efficient than trucks, yes. Oil pipelines are more efficient than both. We've got lots of oil in the rockies. Go dig it up. Use current infrastructure. Continue to produce enough ethanol to extend our oil supplies. Push more money into research for more sustainable renewable fuel sources.

I think all of those things are good solutions and they will come down the "pipeline" when they are ready.

They are basically "ready." The US hates diesel despite it being more efficient use of fuel. Hydrogen fueling stations already exist in Europe, and BMW has been making production vehicles that can make use of them.

You asked a question, you got an answer. My biggest issue with corn based ethanol production is it's not even the best idea, it has an incredible impact on the global food supply, and it's not even a green solution.

 

[jandree22]

Jandree,

Around here the teachers have the good paying jobs.... (nana) I should know my father was one.

I didn't mean to generalize this, but my sister-in-law is a public high school teacher in Tulsa, OK and my bro-in-law is a civilian lawyer for the Army Corp. of Engineers. Not to divulge specific numbers, but my sister-in-law only brings home about 1/4 their income.

I digress a little bit here, but that's where my comment regarding teachers came from. Farmers, regardless, do deserve every $$$ they make and more.

 

[rweatherford]

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/05/22/corn.html

Yes, I wonder. Read between the lines.

I read it. 3-4% gain in food prices over a year vs 100% raise in corn price. That should tell you how little the actual food cost is in the final product. The article also insensuates that this is largely due to ethanol production, but negates the fact of 3-4% percent of living costs on average for most products, which also go into that food production.

This is from here....

http://www.micorn.org/downloads/NCGA_Food_Prices.pdf

'Over the past 25 years (1982-2006), commodity prices have fluctuated for fundamental reasons (weather, government policy, demand), but have been stable in an overall sense. Crude oil prices (nominal) have gravitated to a $22-26 range over time, with other energy products following the lead of crude oil. At the same time, corn prices have tended to revert back to an average price of $2.40. Thus while food inflation has averaged 2.9% over the past 25 years, none of the inflation has been the result of rising commodity prices.'

I encourage you to look at that article.

That's not even the issue. The rising price of corn also affects the food stuffs that they pay to import.

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/04/corn_prices_in_.html

Perhaps I missed a few items here? This article talks about how prices have risen in Mexico, but the government still is restricting the importation of US corn to protect thier own producers at the cost of the people trying to buy corn tortillas. The artificial trade barrier only increases the cost to the end consumer. You also don't know that Mexico also restricts the importation of corn syrup as a sweetener to protect thier own sugar producers. All of this increases the cost of products for Mexican consumers. Then at the end it says that four tortillas are gaining in popularity due to being less expensive. I'm not sure about you, but that sounds like basic supply and demand at work. When I want beef, but it's twice as high as chicken, I'll eat chicken. I think beef tastes better, but I will have to restrict it for special occasions. This is the way pricing works here in the US.


Ethanol is being marketed as an interim solution for which the infrastructure does not exist. Building massive support infrastructure for it takes it from an interim solution to something entirely different.

I don't think you understand what I was saying. If every single square inch of land was converted to corn growing to be used as a fuel, maybe 20% of what we need in North America could be produced, and the downside would be massive price increases for your now $30 bowl of corn flakes. 50% of land use for corn growth for fuel - 10% of our energy needs. Currently, about 15% of the corn stock is used for fuel, and corn is by no means using 100% of the land. The amount of fuel we are able to produce is a fraction of what we use, less than a 1/10th. And the cost is a serious impact on global food prices.

I understand. We all agree that this is not a solution to replace gasoline, therefore we will not ever get to the situation as you describe. It has already been said that people will not pay more for ethanol than gasoline. So as long as ethanol is under the price of gasoline the corn price will not skyrocket. You point is a completly hypothetical situation that is never going to happen. I believe this makes it an invalid point and more of a "sky is falling" knee jerk reaction.

I don't want it to cease, I want it to stop being sold as a brilliant and complete answer to a fuel problem, because it isn't.

We agree!

And the inner-city poor who already have high costs of living and higher food prices simply because of where they live are now spending more on food. We are all spending more on food. Yes, pushing corn as a fuel source helps some people and provides jobs. It also hurts others, and makes it harder for them to pay to put food on their plate. I'm not a big fan of that.

I understand and agree. I guess we need some of those people to move out of the city, back to the country to work in jobs that only a few people like me and the new growing latino population are interested in. Many of those people you describe are living on government handouts AFAIK. I will admit to not understanding all the issues there and would defer that discussion to someone with experience.

I read your post and I can't help but see it as short sighted "Me and mine" mentality. Yes, it helps rural areas. Yes, there are byproducts of ethanol production that can be used as livestock feed. So what? That doesn't tell me that ethanol is the best use of corn, only that we have gotten financially smarter about waste (because those ethanol byproducts also sell for money). Turning a staple food crop into a fuel source in a world that already struggles to keep people fed is more than a little selfish. At its current level of production, it works, more or less. We have corn to eat, and ethanol to burn, without really lacking in either area. The push to remove dependence on foreign oil via ethanol is a quick bandaid solution approach that is more financially motivated than anything else, but at the expense of people being able to eat.

Thanks for seeing my side of the issue in that it helps rural communities. I feel that your accessment of me as short sighted based upon one thread and one issue to be a bit disappointing since you know basically nothing about me. My goal was accomplished in having you see that the current ethanol production does have a good side, which is almost never shown in news articles. I do think that the struggle to keep people fed is more than just a cost of food issue. Much of it is also a distribution problem. There are also times when food aid is sent to countries only to be wasted or mis-allocated by those local governments, which is disappointing.

They are basically "ready." The US hates diesel despite it being more efficient use of fuel. Hydrogen fueling stations already exist in Europe, and BMW has been making production vehicles that can make use of them.

I personally look forward to these new technologies. I agree that mainstream US does not seem to gravitate toward diesel, which I don't really understand. I like them, but didn't need a 1-ton pickup truck to haul my family of soon to be 6 around to the grocery store. You'll notice in another thread about a possibility of a diesel powered Mazda5, that I'm all for it!

You asked a question, you got an answer. My biggest issue with corn based ethanol production is it's not even the best idea, it has an incredible impact on the global food supply, and it's not even a green solution.

I appreciate your response. I did get to learn a few things, which is part of the reason I asked. There are usually valid points on both sides of issues and I just wanted to get them out there so I would understand them too. Being in my area you are more likely to get the good side, perhaps in your area you are more likely to get the bad side.

 

[bulwnkl]

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf

This is from 2002. Things are only continuing to improve.

Yes, that's an interesting read. Notice how the studies they cite which show the largest NEV deficit are the only ones to account for all the machinery and facilities it takes to process the ethanol into fuel? That's very important to do, and almost always overlooked by the proponents of ethanol. Do those studies use too low an energy conversion efficiency rate? Perhaps, but that adjustment is insufficient to eliminate the huge deficit. Also, the 'byproducts credit' is something I'm not comfortable with. I'm not saying I eliminate it, but I'm dubious since those by-products are already being made/used (right?) and thus I suspect they are not relevant to the question of net energy balance.

At all events, it is clear that the question of NEV really depends utterly upon what you choose to account for in your analysis and how. Thus, any two people could argue that NEV is both positive and negative simultaneously.

Employ Americans? So, we take petroleum refinery employees and put them to work at ethanol plants. That's a zero-sum game or worse if you have to move across the country to 'keep' your job.

Um... No. Everyone seems to try to stick ethanol into the gasoline "replacer" department, which I don't think it is. I think it is a supplement that improves the US economy. (at least in my area) Gasoline record profits do nothing here in this area.

If it's not a gasoline replacement, then the argument about jobs is out the window (which was your point I was rebutting). If it's just 'extra' fuel, then there's lots of potential sources and nothing to suggest that the ethanol option will yield more American jobs than a great number of the other options.

Plus, why in the world do you think that American-grown corn, soybeans, or any other ag product is cheaper than things like sugar cane, general rain forest flora, etc? I'll give you a tip: it ain't. Not even close.

Please show where I said that. Perhaps I missed what I said?

Perhaps you did. You were talking about American jobs and ethanol being good for rural America(ns). If the source of the ethanol is not an American agricultural product, as you pointed out that it wouldn't be in your reply to me, your argument is again completely out the window. It appears from your newer post(s) that you agree with me that corn, soybeans, etc. are poor choices for the ethanol 'feedstock,' and so you also agree (even if you don't realize it) that ethanol doesn't suggest more jobs for America(ns).

What happens to Americans if we never raise a surplus of food and one year there's a drought? What does this part of your argument even mean???

We are not near this point. I understand the concern, but we are not there. If the price of ethanol in MO raises to above the price of gasoline, NO ethanol is required in the fuel.

I'm sorry, you won't see this kind of switching back and forth between basic fuel sources unless the investment to completely supply everything both ways is made, thus raising the price of both before production even begins. Then, the farmers you talk about (and of which I was one) are put in a gigantic jam when OPEC increases production next August and the price comes down. What are they supposed to do with all the extra stuff they were growing for your ethanol plant? Make you eat it? And you suddenly want them all to go back to producing that stuff again when OPEC cuts back 18 months later. Sorry, no sale. But wait, I forgot, you don't want farmers producing the ethanol at all because there are other, better, cheaper sources from which to make it.

I have no problem with using landfill stuff to make ethanol. In fact, I kind of like the idea. The thing is that a cornerstone of your (and so many people's) original argument was American jobs. This is a crock and your posts reflect the fact that you know it is, so please leave that basic tenet of your argument out of it.