# EPA and ethanol



## EatenByLimestone (Oct 14, 2010)

Just heard they mandated 15%.

Could be interesting with the snow blowers, chainsaws and trucks/cars.

http://southeastagnet.com/2010/10/14/concerns-over-epa’s-e-15-ethanol-decision/

Matt


----------



## zknowlto (Oct 14, 2010)

Corn based ethanol just doesn't make sense as an energy source.  Even the most optimisitc estimates show that it yields about 20% more energy than is put in producing (as opposed to hundreds of times more for, say coal).  In addition to the problem you noted with small engines, cars operating on gasoline/ethanol blends get lower gas mileage as ethonal contains less energy than gasoline.  Not to mention that fact that using corn for ethanol drives up not only the cost of livestock feed, as the article notes, but also human food products around the globe.  Frankly, allowing the rise from 10% to 15% seems like bad policy and a give away to big agriculture.


----------



## jharkin (Oct 14, 2010)

Its not a mandate per say... it only going to be for 2007 & later cars. No idea how they are going to pull that off.  What gas station is going to want to have to add the extra pumps/tanks?

So I wouldn't worry about your blower. E10 is not gong anywhere.


(BTW, totally agree that corn ethanol is pointless in general)


----------



## precaud (Oct 15, 2010)

jharkin is right; they're not mandating it, but allowing it. Testing is ongoing for 2000-2006 vehicles.

I hope this gets killed in the market. I certainly won't buy it.


----------



## semipro (Oct 15, 2010)

I believe there are new regulations for outdoor equipment coming anyway that may make Ethanol in gas less of an issue.  Propane powered units for one are already out there.  Doesn't ethanol content in gasoline also reduce air pollutants? 

While using corn to make ethanol with current technology is a losing proposition, development of methods to make it from cellulosic sources such as grass etc. are in the works.  In general we need these sorts of regulations to create a market for bio-fuels if we're ever want to be able to wean ourselves of the teat of mid-eastern oil sources.  And while cars and trucks are moving towards hybrid or totally electric propulsion systems this is not realistic for aircraft for the foreseeable future, and aircraft use way more than their fair share of energy per mile.  Development of bio-fuels for aviation is badly needed. 

I have at least 15 infernal combustion engines in various equipment around the place that may not like the added ethanol content but we need to progress.  Haven't these sames sorts of issues applied to the amount of sulfur in diesel fuel and hasn't that been much less of an issue than alarmists would have had us think?


----------



## Corey (Oct 15, 2010)

meh - farmers don't blow up buildings and bomb subways, so I'm happy to use all the ethanol I can.  E85 in my vehicles (105 octane does keep the turbo happy!) - E10 in most everything else.    Terrorists and foreign dictators can keep their oil as far as I'm concerned.

I think E15 was approved for '07 and up motor vehicles only.  So there will still be a supply of E10 or crappy E0 for quite some time to come.


----------



## billb3 (Oct 15, 2010)

blender pumps will allow you to dial in what  per centage you want to buy.
they may have to  keep prices the same across per centages so people don't buy whichever is cheaper - could cause  problems
quite a few engines can handle  even 20%

despite the corn angle - it is a renewable resource


you can't claim to want to get off petroleum and then  reject all the  alternatives. 

funny - you read one article that claims  the  corn growers and  processors need the business and another  that claims there isn't enough of the resource and food prices will go up. It can't be both, even with all the subsidy.


----------



## oldspark (Oct 15, 2010)

If people would have been conserving all these years we would not be in the mess we are now, still a bunch of gas pigs out there, I love the fact the gov. gave money out for 20MPG SUV's. People need to put up or shut up!


----------



## jharkin (Oct 15, 2010)

cozy heat said:
			
		

> meh - farmers don't blow up buildings and bomb subways, so I'm happy to use all the ethanol I can.  E85 in my vehicles (105 octane does keep the turbo happy!) - E10 in most everything else.    Terrorists and foreign dictators can keep their oil as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> I think E15 was approved for '07 and up motor vehicles only.  So there will still be a supply of E10 or crappy E0 for quite some time to come.



My objection to corn ethanol is that a lot of studies have shown that almost as much fossil fuel energy - or possibly even more - is used in producing it than it provides as energy (that energy is in the form of oil based pesticides, natgas based fertilizers,  gas/coal generated electricity in the processing plant,  diesel to run the farm machines,etc).  

Not to mention what it does to food prices.

I think cellulose ethanol has promise. I think algae derived biofuels that are chemical identical to oil are an even better bet long term.


----------



## Jags (Oct 15, 2010)

June 15, 2005:

Washington, DC –  The  U.S. Senate today approved an amendment to the Energy Bill that would *mandate* the use of 8 billion gallons of ethanol in the  U.S. by 2012. 

Me:
The only way to meet that goal was to allow a higher percentage to be mixed with motor fuel.  The EPA is "allowing" the higher percentage mixture for 2007 and up vehicles (as of right now).

Whether your with it or against it: it was a directive of the feds.  Take from that what you wish.


----------



## oldspark (Oct 15, 2010)

We crapped in our own nest and now we get to live with it.


----------



## blades (Oct 15, 2010)

The idiots in Washington have no idea of the ramifications. It sounds good in the news bite " hey were doing something about the environment" . And that is as far as their collective brains are capable of thinking. The complete cost of growing corn to convert to fuel exceeds any savings at this time.  My source is a PHD in organic chemistry and he would know better than any one else as this is one of the areas of research he is involved in.


----------



## zknowlto (Oct 15, 2010)

blades said:
			
		

> The idiots in Washington have no idea of the ramifications. It sounds good in the news bite " hey were doing something about the environment" . And that is as far as their collective brains are capable of thinking. The complete cost of growing corn to convert to fuel exceeds any savings at this time.  My source is a PHD in organic chemistry and he would know better than any one else as this is one of the areas of research he is involved in.



I think this whole thing is just "greenwashing" for another subsidy to big agricultural.  Concerning cellulositic ethanol, I agree that the idea has some promise, especially if significant quantities can really be produced from the waste of current agricultural processes, such as wheat chaff or cornstalks.  However, most plans seem more interested in planting different sorts of fast growing species, such as switchgrass.  This would still require the use of heavy agricultural machinery (using "foreign oil").  Additionally, this stuff would have to be grown somewhere, either on exisiting farmland (higher food prices) or newly cleared land (huge release of sequestered CO2 and great reduction in biodiversity).


----------



## Jags (Oct 15, 2010)

One must also concern themselves with using the "waste" part of the plant.  For each pound of material removed from the land, it will take additional nutrients to bring the land to a balance.  Using the stalk of the corn plant, for instance, would increase the amount of fertilizer that the farmer needs to apply next year.  I know farmers that after the wheat harvest, if a bale of straw is not within a specific price point, they won't bother to bale it.  It is worth more in the nitrogen that it will return to the ground.  Just say'in.

I am not really a proponent or opponent of ethanol.  It has its good and bad sides.  But for arguments sake, most reports considering the "economy" of corn ethanol do not take into account the DDG's that come off as a by product.  This is a very marketable product to cattle farmers and much of it is being shipped overseas at a very lucrative price.  Add that into the formula and it changes the dynamics of the whole thing.

Note: DDG = Dried Distillers Grain.


----------



## Hunderliggur (Oct 16, 2010)

We have one E85 capable vehicle (a 2004 Ford Explorer) and would lik to use E85, but the E85 is 20 miles away, costs more, and give lower mileage.  Maybe if they dropped the highway tax from E85....  I think the solar roadways http://www.wimp.com/solarhighways/ has more promise than food based E85.  BTW - I have livestock (chickens and goats) and E85 is a big reason why your food costs more.  Animal feed has doubled in 5 years when inflation has basically been zero.


----------



## Corey (Oct 16, 2010)

jharkin said:
			
		

> cozy heat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Admittedly, corn is somewhat of a stop-gap.  But even today, cellulose, trash, algae and other sources of ethanol are coming on line or in advanced research stages.  Corn ethanol has allowed millions of flex-fuel vehicles to be produced and on the road...which means millions of drivers have a fuel choice and could switch instantaneously to what ever fuel is more economical.

Modern ethanol production has advanced far beyond the 'break even' energy input you quote.  Plus, a lot of the energy used - as you say...coal, gas, hydro, etc...are energy sources from right here at home.  So even though we may get 2 units of ethanol energy for 1 unit of input, 70% of that 1 unit input is also domestic energy which further leverages the effect.

Everyone mentions food prices.  Many studies have shown ethanol actually keeps food prices lower by reducing the cost of fuel needed for transport and processing of those foods.  But what could ethanol actually do?  A 16 ounce box of cornflakes is $3.29 at the local store.  Even today, with grain speculation running wild, corn is running about 5.60/bushel or 10 cents a pound.  So the other $3.19 is what??  Manufacturing, marketing, distribution, profit?!?!  Even if the price of corn tripled, there would only be about 30 cents worth of corn in a box of corn flakes.


----------



## Dune (Oct 16, 2010)

Methanol. METHANOL.  Am I out of my mind or what. We have 5 million acres of fallow pulp wood. These forests have always been used to create carbon mass, with rotation of growing and harvesting areas.. With the last papermill in N.H. closing, it is obvious we sould be fueling our cars with methanol, 100%.

The poster above is completely misinformed of the true cost of corn ethanol. 

Throughout known history, food costs 1/3 of an average persons income. After the industrial revolution, by 1900 food costs were reduced to 10% and remained so for 100 more years. 

At this time, food cost is 1/3 of income again. In less than ten years. 

Thousands upon thousands of additional deaths from starvation occured and continue  in undeveloped nations all over the world in imediate aftermath of the cost increase in food, all so we can pay more for a fuel which gives us lower mileage.


----------



## ihookem (Oct 16, 2010)

I think ethanal is a huge mistake. It has too many processes to make. It would be a whole lot easier to take corn and make biodiesel. It's so easy you can make it in a garage. Bio has almost no emissions or pollution. Bio diesel is way more efficient. I can take a small diesel like a VW Jetta and get 50 mpg. Try getting 50 mpg on ethanol.


----------



## Hunderliggur (Oct 17, 2010)

" Many studies have shown ethanol actually keeps food prices lower by reducing the cost of fuel needed for transport and processing of those foods. "

Let me see, E85 at 3.00/gallon, 15% less MPG, E10 at 2.70/gallon.  How does E85 redue costs for transport, particularly considering the vast majority of thetransport is diesel?  I am planning on making metholated B100 from fryer grease (the local Chinese resturant will geive me all that I may need for my friend and myself).  B100 home brew? $1.00/gallon, although I will need to pay my Federal Highway Tax ;-)  Commercial B100 is economically viable since it uses waste products to make a usable fuel.  Whole Foods is a HUGH buyer of B100.


----------



## North of 60 (Oct 17, 2010)

EatenByLimestone said:
			
		

> Just heard they mandated 15%.
> 
> Could be interesting with the snow blowers, chainsaws and trucks/cars.
> 
> ...



 We never see any ethanol period?


----------



## Corey (Oct 17, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> The poster above is completely misinformed of the true cost of corn ethanol.
> 
> Throughout known history, food costs 1/3 of an average persons income. After the industrial revolution, by 1900 food costs were reduced to 10% and remained so for 100 more years.
> 
> At this time, food cost is 1/3 of income again. In less than ten years.



Food costs 1/3 of your income, seriously?  I would either get a better job, or find a better place to shop.  You can get a big-mac with fries - which is almost the recommended caloric intake for an entire day - for about 6 bucks.   You surely make more than $18 a day.  The stores are littered with lots of heat-and-eat items which are only a couple bucks a piece or cheaper, and it's considerably cheaper than that to get the 'raw materials' and actually make food from scratch. Heck even a bushel of corn is less than 6 bucks, and that is 56 pounds worth.  If you were to truly go 'bare bones' - how long would 56 pounds of grain last?

I'd wager my total family food bill is around 0.33% of the total family income, not 33%.

[edit - oops as pointed out later in the thread, I was looking at months food/years salary, so this is off by a factor of 12.  So it would be more correct to say food is around 4-5%]


----------



## North of 60 (Oct 17, 2010)

cozy heat said:
			
		

> Dune said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Our cost is about $165.00 a week to feed 4 people. No restaurant's. 80% of our meat is taken off of the land. Fish, beef etc...


----------



## ihookem (Oct 17, 2010)

NORTH OF 60, your food cost is very expensive. Most likely from living a long ways from where it's grown and also a 13% health care tax. It is 13 % isn't it?  We pay 150 a week but we don't get a whole lot from the land. We raise chickens and have a garden but this  year  the weeds won. My wife sais it includes soap, detergent toilet paper ETC. She said it really went up though. This comes to about 15% of our income.  And I still say biodiesel is a much better idea than ethanol. Just press the heck out of the heated corn and there ya go, can't get drunk on it, or poison you. Take the by product and feed the chickens too, take the chicken poop for nitrogen for plants.


----------



## jharkin (Oct 17, 2010)

cozy heat said:
			
		

> Food costs 1/3 of your income, seriously?  I would either get a better job, or find a better place to shop.  You can get a big-mac with fries - which is almost the recommended caloric intake for an entire day - for about 6 bucks.   You surely make more than $18 a day.  The stores are littered with lots of heat-and-eat items which are only a couple bucks a piece or cheaper, and it's considerably cheaper than that to get the 'raw materials' and actually make food from scratch. Heck even a bushel of corn is less than 6 bucks, and that is 56 pounds worth.  If you were to truly go 'bare bones' - how long would 56 pounds of grain last?
> 
> I'd wager my total family food bill is around 0.33% of the total family income, not 33%.



#1 - Big macs are part of the reason that we are far LESS heatlthy in general than people a few generations ago.  Fast food is barely worthy of the word "foord"

#2 - If your food costs are 0.33% of your income you must be *quite* wealthy.  I have a good professional job in high tech (one of the few left that haven't been offshored by those crooks called CEOs)  and with my wife about to stay home full time (kids on the way) groceries work out to about 10% of our family GROSS income.   If I was only making the state meidan income it would be closer to 20%.  Add in one restaurant meal a week and 30% would be easy to hit.


----------



## Dune (Oct 17, 2010)

This is a perfect example of the problem today. Not only do the wealthy not realize the significant cost increases to the lower income citizens, they deny the problem even exists.

Obviously, it is as a percentage of net or spendable income, not gross, and I said average.

As jharkin said, you must be quite wealthy. Most of the rest of the people in the  world, and this country make a lot less money than that.


----------



## zknowlto (Oct 17, 2010)

cozy heat said:
			
		

> Admittedly, corn is somewhat of a stop-gap.  But even today, cellulose, trash, algae and other sources of ethanol are coming on line or in advanced research stages.  Corn ethanol has allowed millions of flex-fuel vehicles to be produced and on the road...which means millions of drivers have a fuel choice and could switch instantaneously to what ever fuel is more economical.
> 
> Modern ethanol production has advanced far beyond the 'break even' energy input you quote.  Plus, a lot of the energy used - as you say...coal, gas, hydro, etc...are energy sources from right here at home.  So even though we may get 2 units of ethanol energy for 1 unit of input, 70% of that 1 unit input is also domestic energy which further leverages the effect.
> 
> Everyone mentions food prices.  Many studies have shown ethanol actually keeps food prices lower by reducing the cost of fuel needed for transport and processing of those foods.  But what could ethanol actually do?  A 16 ounce box of cornflakes is $3.29 at the local store.  Even today, with grain speculation running wild, corn is running about 5.60/bushel or 10 cents a pound.  So the other $3.19 is what??  Manufacturing, marketing, distribution, profit?!?!  Even if the price of corn tripled, there would only be about 30 cents worth of corn in a box of corn flakes.



The price of corn affects a lot more than the price of corn flakes.  First, it is a basis for many animal feeds.  As it usually requires five to ten times the feed weight to produce the same weight increase in livestock, large increases in corn prices are likely to drastically increase meat prices.  Second, one would expect that if corn is fetching very high prices, farmland growing other types of food crops would begin producing corn .  This would lead to general increase agricultural products.  Finally, there are many parts of the world that are extremely poor and are reliant on relatively low prices of commodity crops to feed themselves.  Even if you don't think its necessary for the US to ensure these people are fed, populations that can't feed themselves tend to be very unstable politically and can cause problems for the United States abroad.

Again, the new ethanol regulations just seem like a giveaway to big agriculture.  Increasing the amount of ethanol this country uses is not likely to lead to any environmental effects and most likely harm low income people around the world.


----------



## Corey (Oct 17, 2010)

Go Blue! said:
			
		

> cozy heat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The main byproduct of ethanol production is dried distillers grains - which is an excellent high-protein animal feed.  It can be made into products for human consumption if the ethanol plant is maintained in a 'food grade' condition.  Then you've also got corn oil and a host of other byproducts.  Ethanol production really only uses a small part of the corn kernel.  

The beef association quotes about 2.6 pounds of actual corn to produce a pound of beef.   The rest is low grade food, grazing on marginal land and items which are unfit for human consumption.  A pound of hamburger is running about $1.80 around here - so corn is about 26 cents of that.  Doubling corn price moves that to $2.06?

I don't claim to be 'quite wealthy'  heck, I cut and haul my own wood 'cause I don't want to pay for it, and keep the stove fired to cut down/eliminate the natural gas bill.  Guess it may be more frugal shopping...using coupons, specials, bulk buys, bought 1/2 a steer for meat - works out to barely $2/pound and the freezers are stocked with all manner of steak, brisket, ribs, roast, burgers and more.

I think many people underestimate the cost of gasoline.  Do you really think it costs only $3 per gallon to build the largest floating structures ever conceived, tow them hundreds of miles out to sea, drill 5 miles into the earth, pump that oil to a super tanker - which took it's own army to build, carry it half way around the world, refine it, pump it half way across the country, put it in a tank and sell it to you?  And that is the easy stuff...We're not even talking maintaining a standing army, propping up  foreign dictators, dealing with the effects of our oil dollars being used to kill us.

Even ~IF~ ethanol is just a give away to 'big ag', 'big ag' isn't bombing us and destroying buildings with the money - they are just employing more people to build more machinery and distill the product for us to use.


----------



## benjamin (Oct 17, 2010)

Ethanol subsidies are a giveaway to agriculture, that should be as obvious as solar subsidies being a giveaway to greens, and Obama's SS bonus being a giveaway to seniors.  

Growing corn just to produce ethanol (or burn for that matter) doesn't seem to make sense to me, but to think that corn only produces ethanol is to be completely ignorant of the agricultural economy.  I would expect Craig to preach about the possible utopian future that we'll have when Jupiter aligns with Mars, but the rest of us should know that there is a place called Iowa, and there isn't much there besides corn, and they have to do something with all of this corn or it will smother them.  Some of it is fed to livestock, some of it is fermented to produce ethanol and then fed to livestock, some of it is exported (to the consternation of honest campesinos), and a very small part of it is actually eaten by people here in this country.  

Ethanol causing hunger is absurd, anyone who has ever driven through Iowa should know this. The people who think ethanol causes hunger probably think guns kill people ("guns don't kill people, people kill people)


----------



## kenny chaos (Oct 18, 2010)

This should go in the Ash Can where people waffle on about things they have no control over and can't begin to understand the forces involved.
Most of our options are controlled by the ultimate organized crime outfit and we don't even know who that includes.
They don't however, control all your options.  I think a body's time and energy is better served considering those options. :coolcheese:


----------



## Dune (Oct 18, 2010)

The United States is the breadbasket of the world. Half of all food is grown here. When food prices rise here, they rise all over the world. 

The moral compunction alone should be enough to end this progam, nevermind the economic damage being done in our own country. 

This topic belongs where it is.


----------



## kenny chaos (Oct 18, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> The United States is the breadbasket of the world. Half of all food is grown here. When food prices rise here, they rise all over the world.
> 
> The moral compunction alone should be enough to end this progam, nevermind the economic damage being done in our own country.
> 
> This topic belongs where it is.






Compunction?  You know best, Dune.


----------



## Corey (Oct 18, 2010)

LOL  - so the argument basically boils down to..."Ethanol is bad...we should continue to buy oil from terrorists and foreign dictators so we can feed the hungry people of the world."

No thanks, I think I'll stick with burning ethanol, sc*@# the terrorists, and hope the hungry realize the reason they are hungry is because the live in the middle of a desert and food doesn't -and never will- grow there.  If they need assistance, it's to move to a place where there is food, not for us to continue to supply food and them to live in a desert.


----------



## kenny chaos (Oct 18, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> The United States is the breadbasket of the world. Half of all food is grown here. When food prices rise here, they rise all over the world.
> 
> .








I'd ask for a referance but I believe this Commy; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUK6zjtUj00


----------



## Dune (Oct 18, 2010)

cozy heat said:
			
		

> LOL  - so the argument basically boils down to..."Ethanol is bad...we should continue to buy oil from terrorists and foreign dictators so we can feed the hungry people of the world."
> 
> No thanks, I think I'll stick with burning ethanol, sc*@# the terrorists, and hope the hungry realize the reason they are hungry is because the live in the middle of a desert and food doesn't -and never will- grow there.  If they need assistance, it's to move to a place where there is food, not for us to continue to supply food and them to live in a desert.



I don't know about the rest of the country, but here hamburger is2- 3 times as expensive as the price you quoted. Another massive spike in food costs will throw many more of our own citizens into dire straights.  Beleive me, I am very much in favor of reducing foriegn oil importation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_vs._fuel


----------



## Corey (Oct 18, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> I don't know about the rest of the country, but here hamburger is2- 3 times as expensive as the price you quoted.



Fair enough, but I suspect our crab and lobsta' may run substantially more than the price you pay, or be half the quality, or both.   So looking at the price of 'exotic imports' or food which has a high cost due to high local taxes isn't the best way to judge the overall cost of food.  IOW, the reason your beef is so high is likely because of shipping, local cost of living and/or taxes, not because the farmer is actually getting paid that much.


----------



## Dune (Oct 18, 2010)

cozy heat said:
			
		

> Dune said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Didn't say or imply the farmer is getting paid too much. Also don't consider hamburger exotic.


----------



## jharkin (Oct 18, 2010)

Cozy-

I suspect that when you claimed food was 0.33% that was just a gut feel, and you didn't do the math.  Even if you bill was dirt cheap, say $50 a week, that would work out to an income of $800,000 a year.  Which would put you in the top 1% US household income, and probably in the top 0.1% of worldwide household income.

I just got out my calculator and did some math and found out in about 2 minutes that my weekly grocery bill is on average 9% of my income.  So I made a research informed statement and it didnt take much effort.

So I would ask you - is your position on corn ethanol also a "gut feel" or did you do research? Do you know how much diesel fuel and natural gas/coal is really used in the production of each bushel of corn? I've done some limited reading and I find the statistics are all over the place depending on the source. Some saying that when you add up the oil.coal, water usage and impact on food supply the net cost is much higher than oil. OTOH I do believe we have to start working off of fossil fuels in general ASAP so I I think biofuels are worth pursing but we have to be smart and make decisions on data, rather than what just feels good and will get farm belt votes.

It seems all to easy for folks to see some isolated number and draw wild conclusions when the context is unknown. Perfect example of this is the Deepwater Horizon. I got in a discussion with some guy about this months ago, and he kept saying - "look that thing is gushing millions of gallons of oil a day, how can anybody think we can ever  run out of oil"  And this is not an uncommon belief.  But the fact is that without an context that figure is meaningless.  When you look at the numbers, the 1-2 million gallons per day the well was leaking is about *1 minute* of worldwide oil consumption.  When put into that perspective you draw an entirely different conclusion.

-Jeremy


----------



## Corey (Oct 19, 2010)

Yes, you are correct and a good catch in the math.  My mistake - I was looking at a months food vs a years salary, so I stand corrected and my estimate was off by a factor of 12.  Though I would caution I did also look at my total 'grocery' bill - but then consider that also includes things like toilet paper, shampoo, laundry/dish detergent plus other odds-n-ends which really aren't food 'groceries'.  Plus there may be some consideration - should the grocery amount be compared to gross income - with the admission that the government is grabbing a huge chunk of everything we make or is it better to consider net income.

Either way, I would still contend - and think the math is fairly undeniable - corn as an actual product is a tiny fraction of the overall cost of food. A few years ago, corn was 8+ a bushel - people were howling about 'corn driving up the price of food'.  A few months ago, corn was hovering in the $3 bushel range...did food prices fall by 60% too?  No, because at pennies per pound,  corn simply isn't a major cost factor even in products which are corn intensive to produce.  Conversely - even if they gave corn away for free, the price of food would hardly drop.


----------



## jharkin (Oct 19, 2010)

Thanks cozy. I got your point.

Now if only our politicians could discuss issues as civilly, maybe something would actually get done for once.


----------



## zknowlto (Oct 19, 2010)

cozy heat said:
			
		

> LOL  - so the argument basically boils down to..."Ethanol is bad...we should continue to buy oil from terrorists and foreign dictators so we can feed the hungry people of the world."



You've got me laughing!  So the counter argument is "Ethanol is good...so we should continue to buy oil from terrorists and foreign dictators to produce it and, while were at it, cause economically painful food spikes the world's very poor.



> No thanks, I think I'll stick with burning ethanol, sc*@# the terrorists, and hope the hungry realize the reason they are hungry is because the live in the middle of a desert and food doesn't -and never will- grow there.  If they need assistance, it's to move to a place where there is food, not for us to continue to supply food and them to live in a desert.



I can't tell if you're being facetious when you say this or not.  I'll just point out that plenty of people in the US live in deserts and other agriculturally marginal land, while plenty of people who live in poverty are located in relatively productive farming areas.  Also, the very poor generally don't have the option to move around that much, though I'm sure many of them would like to reside in a country where it's easier to grow food, like the United States.

Overall though, I find the food cost issue something of a red herring.  The reason I don't think we should be producing corn ethanol is that I believe the Cornell studies that show it yields a net energy loss.  If you think that it does yield a net energy gain (I believe USDA claims the energy gain for corn ethanol gain is 30%) then this proposal may make sense.  Even so, I think (admitting that I haven't actually done the math) most would find that the amount of land dedicated to producing enough ethanol to significantly reduce dependance (say the 40% needed to rely entirely on domestic oil production) totally unacceptable.


----------



## Corey (Oct 20, 2010)

I was wondering when someone would throw the Cornell/Pimentel card.  He is pretty widely regarded in the industry as an oil company shill, doing half baked studies which often cite sources only as wide ranging as ....(ta da)...other studies he has done.  If it is the study I'm thinking of, it's nearing 30 years old - technology has advanced quite a bit since then.

With that said, it's extremely hard to calculate the btu which go into production of either ethanol or oil.  Do you consider processing (probably)....what if the heat comes from a waste heat source such as a powerplant cooling loop used to boil ethanol 'beer' for distillation?  Do you count the mining of steel to make a tractor? (possibly) ...then do you consider the steel for all the oil rigs, ocean platforms, refineries, supertankers, pipelines, trucks, etc?  Do you consider economics of maintaining a standing army to protect foreign oil fields and the effects of money which is hemorrhaging out of the US economy, directly into foreign governments and oil field workers,  and do you also consider money for ethanol is basically circulating back INTO the US economy, paying American workers?

It's agreed corn ethanol can't possibly replace all the nations fuel needs - though it's getting pretty darned close to being able to replace most of the more despicable dictators and questionable countries contribution.  Almost 15% of the entire nations fuel supply.

And with that, I've pretty much come full circle repeating earlier posts.  So, to quote Forrest, "That is all I got to say about that."


----------



## Jags (Oct 21, 2010)

These pro/con arguments on ethanol give me a little giggle.  I have seen it stated many times on this board that "we should add a dime to every gallon of fuel in the name of conservation and going towards alternative energy".  Yet, when we have an alternative energy that costs a dime more it gets heckled.

Funny stuff really.


----------



## Delta-T (Oct 21, 2010)

Jags said:
			
		

> These pro/con arguments on ethanol give me a little giggle.  I have seen it stated many times on this board that "we should add a dime to every gallon of fuel in the name of conservation and going towards alternative energy".  Yet, when we have an alternative energy that costs a dime more it gets heckled.
> 
> Funny stuff really.



It is funny stuff Jags, and I chuckle with you. I wonder how predictable/sustainable a huge industry based on corn ethanol could be. It is, after all, an agricultural product, susceptible to bad weather, mold/fungus/insect infestations, odd diseases and stuff like that. Could make for a much less stabile industry.


----------



## Jags (Oct 21, 2010)

Delta-T said:
			
		

> Jags said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



About as stable as a wind generator with no wind or a solar panel in a cloudy environment.  ;-P 
That is why when it comes to renewable energy, there is no one silver bullet.  It needs to be attacked from multiple directions.  Ethanol has its place as a potential augmentation to our motor fuel.  The real argument is whether or not corn is the proper feed stock.  At first blush, the infrastructure that we had in place for corn was the ONLY infrastructure large enough to make a dent and all of our farmers knew how to grow corn and had the equipment to deal with it.  That is one of the main reasons that ethanol in the states is corn based (as of now). Not to mention that we grew so much corn that there was a MAJOR overstock of it for many years.

So in retrospect - if it wasn't for corn - we would be nowhere with ethanol.  Maybe now is the time to take the next step into "growing" the ethanol industry by using other feed stock or improved processes, etc.  But the fact is - it wouldn't have happened in the US with out starting with corn.  And we need to start somewhere, sometime.


----------



## Dune (Oct 21, 2010)

Jags said:
			
		

> Delta-T said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The primates in Washington based our ethanol plan on Brasil's.

Problem is, Brasil's plan works, ours doesn't.

If we were using the whole plant, like Brasil does it would be a different story. 

Methanol also addresses the enviromental vageries you mention, and does not subtract available arable land.


----------



## Dune (Oct 21, 2010)

Jags said:
			
		

> These pro/con arguments on ethanol give me a little giggle.  I have seen it stated many times on this board that "we should add a dime to every gallon of fuel in the name of conservation and going towards alternative energy".  Yet, when we have an alternative energy that costs a dime more it gets heckled.
> 
> Funny stuff really.



Adding a dime to every gallon of fuel costs the user of the fuel more money. Making fuel from food costs everyone who eats food more money. Why should  starving children subsidize the cost of driving in the United States?


----------



## Jags (Oct 22, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> Jags said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dune - its been pretty much accepted that the price of corn going up a few percentage points will have a long drawn out decimal position on the cost of food.

We create more ethanol from corn today, than we ever have, yet the price per bushel is pretty stable.  The 2008 floods in Iowa did more to increase prices of corn than the ethanol market ever has.  AND....the simple fact is that farmers cannot sustain business when corn is at $2.50 per bushel.  Todays rates are probably a more true and fair market for corn than those years of the 2.50 corn.

*Hijacked from a .gov website:*

Higher corn prices increase animal feed and ingredient costs for farmers and food manufacturers, but pass through to retail prices at a rate less than 10 percent of the corn price change.


Given that foods using corn as an ingredient make up less than a third of retail food spending, overall retail food prices would rise less than 1 percentage point per year above the normal rate of food price inflation when corn prices increase by 50 percent.


Even this increase may be partially tempered by changes to corn use in food production.

I'm not a shill for ethanol - I just like the truth, whatever that be.


----------



## Dune (Oct 22, 2010)

I like facts too. Here is another link from the gov.  http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.htm


----------



## Jags (Oct 22, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> I like facts too. Here is another link from the gov.  http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.htm



Good read.

I did pick this out of the stats though:
"The cost of labor is the biggest part of the total food marketing bill, accounting for nearly half of all marketing costs."

While labor outside of the farm was double the cost of the farm's share.  Interesting.  It does somewhat back up the logic that the actual cost increase in the grain is waaay down on the scale of what the costs of a food product is.


----------



## Delta-T (Oct 22, 2010)

isn't Brazil using cane sugar to produce the ethanol? this is more efficient as far as I know (higher yield). They just happen to have the right climate for it. We might be able to make the same thing happen with beets, but I dunno how intensive that is. Any beet farmers on the forum?


----------



## Jags (Oct 22, 2010)

Delta-T said:
			
		

> isn't Brazil using cane sugar to produce the ethanol? this is more efficient as far as I know (higher yield). They just happen to have the right climate for it. We might be able to make the same thing happen with beets, but I dunno how intensive that is. Any beet farmers on the forum?



There are lots of options for feed stock.  From corn to switch grass to beets and sugar cane (down south).  The current problem with those options are the logistics.  We raise corn and beans.  Lots of them.  We have the infrastructure to deal with it.  Many changes (and expensive ones at that) would need to be made to change over to another feed stock other than switch grass.  Most farmers can still bale the stuff.


----------



## begreen (Oct 22, 2010)

I think it is more about entrenched economic interests. The corn industry is huge and subsidized. Their lobbying power is enormous, especially when coupled with the fertilizer and seed company lobbys of ADM, Monsanto and Dow. Switchgrass just grows, no profit there. Miscanthus is a great feedstock and easy to grow too. Actually, hemp is also a great source of feedstock. It grows and harvests super easily. And even though this is not reefer style plants and the fact that it used to be a required crop on large farms for our national interests, it is not on the table. However, there are some saying that municipal solid waste, MSW, may be one of the better feedstock out there in cheap and ready supply. Poop on! http://fulcrum-bioenergy.com/thermo-chemical-conversion.html


----------



## Jags (Oct 22, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> I think it is more about entrenched economic interests. The corn industry is huge and subsidized. Their lobbying power is enormous, especially when coupled with the fertilizer and seed company lobbys of ADM, Monsanto and Dow.



No doubt that there is plenty of political pull from these folks.  But the corn industry being "huge" was part of the draw.  It could immediately supply a current feedstock that was in ready supply.  There would have been staggering costs as well as some learning curve to change the average farmer (that were already in dire straights because of $2.50 a bushel corn).  HOPEFULLY we can look into some of the more "no brainer" feed stocks in the near future.

But of course - we would be consuming land that COULD grow food   (sorry Dune, I had to buddy)

I really wish we could get past the politics and lobbying when we are considering our future energy needs.  Its just too darn important to the rest of us.


----------



## begreen (Oct 22, 2010)

I'm basically opposed to a using plant that is also a food for fuelstock. The huge monocrops of corn are very threatening to the world's food supply. It's way too vulnerable to a disease spreading like wildfire throughout the world crops due to lack of genetic diversity. And it sucks the life out of the soil instead of returning nutrients. This leads one down to the rabbit hole of soil exhaustion. Corn is a bad idea for fuel. There are much better feedstocks. 

Your wish is a good one, but unlikely in a corporatocracy. The needs of the individual are now secondary to the needs of the corporation and shareholders. Unless another corporation or the defense dept. has the need, it probably isn't going to happen until the cost causes unrest in the flock.


----------



## benjamin (Oct 23, 2010)

I'm opposed to using any alcohol as an automotive fuel.  None should be diverted away from it's rightful purpose of getting somebody shellaced.  

Where is Blutarsky when you need him.


----------



## Dune (Oct 23, 2010)

Delta-T said:
			
		

> isn't Brazil using cane sugar to produce the ethanol? this is more efficient as far as I know (higher yield). They just happen to have the right climate for it. We might be able to make the same thing happen with beets, but I dunno how intensive that is. Any beet farmers on the forum?



Wood is our sugarcane. http://methanol.org/ 

We have 5 million acres of fallow pulp wood forest. The infra-structure to harvest exists still today.

Wood is already the largest source of renewable fuel, and presently underutilized.


----------



## Delta-T (Oct 23, 2010)

and methanol doesn't mess with the drinkable alcohol supply either, bonus points for that one.


----------



## Wallyworld (Oct 23, 2010)

One other thing to consider is ethanol is very corrosive, the State of Maine forced gasoline dealers to change underground pipe that might have had issues with 10% ethanol. Cost alot of money and put small businesses out of the gas business as some couldn't afford to change the pipe. 15% is pushing the limits of present gasoline equipment so I expect more piping and possibly pumps, meters and valving to come out if this goes ahead.


----------

