# Ethanol from corn...What they're not telling you.



## keyman512us (Mar 31, 2007)

Hey all...
With all the "talk" in the news about ethanol...do you think there is something that is not being brought up? I'll ask this question...then see where it goes:

Do you think ethanol is a "waste of time and money". Ethanol is "blended" into gasoline for oxygenation purposes. Do you know what the other chemical is? Should it be "banned" from use? The chemical I'm reffering to is MTBE (Methy-Tert.-Butyl-Ether). How much do you know about it? And the hazzards it poses?

Perhaps the industry is shifting focus to Ethanol...to cover it's tracks?

What do you think? 

Do "A little research on it" you may be surprised what you find...at the very least you might be a little more cautious with Gasoline "around the homestead"...especially if you have a well.

Intro:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1469436&pageindex=1

Very good article:
http://2the4.net/mtbe.htm


----------



## keyman512us (Mar 31, 2007)

http://www.efoa.org/mtbe/pdf/appendix6.pdf

I have no "Concrete proof"..but I was told that MTBE is what makes old gas "Smell"...and "go bad". MTBE is said to smell "like turpentine". Read between the lines...look at everything close. The $$$ issue is going to dictate whether or not MTBE goes "Bye-Bye". The makers of fuel stabilizers? How much you want to bet what their opinion is?

We got rid of leaded gasoline....only to replace it with something potentially far worse?

I'm not a chemist...but anyone with that level of inteligence...should have taken into account the damage this chemical can do.

At current levels...average daily US production of MTBE is 72,000 barrels/day. How much corn do you think it takes to make 72,000 barrels of ethanol?

If anyone "takes shots at you for burning wood"...saying you damage the enviroment fire back at them with these facts...The car you drive...is putting out a lot more toxins than people realize.


----------



## keyman512us (Mar 31, 2007)

I can't believe I'm going to post this link...I can hear it now "Keyman get's his facts from "Kwiky Mart"...lol

http://www.cleanairnet.org/baq2004/1527/article-59235.html

Just goes to show how far you have to go to escape Corporate interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE

States that have banned MTBE:

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/winter2000/winter0013.html


----------



## keyman512us (Mar 31, 2007)

I can't believe Massachusetts is not one of the states that has banned MTBE!

Any of my fellow Massachusetts residents...would you support a petition to get MTBE banned in the state of Massachusetts?


----------



## Sandor (Mar 31, 2007)

keyman512us said:
			
		

> Hey all...
> With all the "talk" in the news about ethanol...do you think there is something that is not being brought up? I'll ask this question...then see where it goes:
> 
> Do you think ethanol is a "waste of time and money". Ethanol is "blended" into gasoline for oxygenation purposes. Do you know what the other chemical is? Should it be "banned" from use? The chemical I'm reffering to is MTBE (Methy-Tert.-Butyl-Ether). How much do you know about it? And the hazzards it poses?
> ...



Ethanol is a waste of time and money. Its EROEI is nearly 1:1. 

MTBE was/is being banned because it has a nasty habit of showing up in groundwater supplies.

Go to theoildrum.com to read about the raging ethanol debate. (Will have to searh for past postings)


----------



## keyman512us (Apr 1, 2007)

Sandor:





> Go to theoildrum.com to read about the raging ethanol debate. (Will have to searh for past postings)



Thanks for the link. Anyone with other good links please feel free to post em'.


----------



## wg_bent (Apr 1, 2007)

Sandor said:
			
		

> keyman512us said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So if MTBE is bad (and I think all agree with that) and Ethanol is a waste of time and Money, what is the alternative?  

Don't say electric or hydrogen or any of the other  "green" technologies that are not viable yet.  

Seems to me that ethanol is the right answer for now.


----------



## Sandor (Apr 1, 2007)

Warren,

There really is no great substitute fuel (in great quantities) for IC engines.

Electrification is the answer. (Unless you believe the Olduvai Theory)

I have been following this closely for the last several years... and the more you know, the more concerned you will be. There is no magic bullit. 

Once you understand how much farmland and corn (plus fertilizer and desiel fuel) you need for ethanol to replace one single 10kbpd oil well in Saudi Arabia (KSA), then it will hit you like a ton bricks.

Oh, I just read last week. I believe 9 gallons of gasoline is equivelent to about 1 year of human manual labor.

So, your Suburban can go about 108 miles on 9 gallons. How long would it take you to push that SUV 108 miles?


----------



## webbie (Apr 1, 2007)

Sandor said:
			
		

> MTBE was/is being banned because it has a nasty habit of showing up in groundwater supplies.
> 
> Go to theoildrum.com to read about the raging ethanol debate. (Will have to searh for past postings)



My daughters current job is to kick the asses of the oil companies over this chemical. Turns out that it has polluted thousands of municipal wells all over the country AND THE OIL COMPANIES KNEW IT WAS HAPPENING. And who pays? YOU - because the cities and towns have to BOTH drill new wells and also install expensive equipment to monitor and remove the stuff.

And, believe it or not, these patriotic oil companies do not want to pay for the mess they created - even with hundreds of billions of dollars profit IN ONE QUARTER. They think you should pay!

Ethanol - I have to agree with Castro on this one - a dangerous precedent to turn the #1 food crop in the world into Hummer Fuel....I'd rather a super efficient diesel/electric hybrid with the idea of large scale electric from wind, solar and other such sources. 

But try telling this to Archer Daniels Midland or Monsanto......The GOP is screaming about 75 million to peanut farmers, while billions are going to waste on Ethanol....and the reason is - They think you are distracted by this and truly believe they have the renewable energy interests of our country/future in mind.

Stuff like this makes me want to the government NOT to promote alternative fuel.


----------



## Sandor (Apr 1, 2007)

Craig, I agree with you 100%.

But I also believe that the govt required the use of MTBE to clean up emissions.


----------



## BrotherBart (Apr 1, 2007)

Sandor said:
			
		

> Craig, I agree with you 100%.
> 
> But I also believe that the govt required the use of MTBE to clean up emissions.



The govt wanted "something" added to clean up emissons. The oil companies pushed MTBE because at the time it was a hazardous waste by-product of gasoline production that was costing them a ton of money in disposal costs. Adding it back to reformulated gasoline essentially turned a costly waste disposal by-product into something that could be sold through the gas pump for a couple of bucks a gallon.


----------



## webbie (Apr 1, 2007)

Wow, BB, what a deal!

That's like me selling my sewage line contents back to Taco Bell.

The oil companies could have (and eventually were forced to) upgrade the tanks and systems in the local gas stations to deal with this and other problems....but it look like another example of one step forward and two steps back.

Cleaner air, and dirtier water......and more $$ in the pockets of oil companies.

Why am I not surprised? Capitalism DOES NOT WORK when corporate responsibility is taken out of the equation. Think about it - Exxon made what.....was it 75 BILLION in profit for the quarter or the year? And they fight tooth and nail against giving even a percent or two of it back to stop cancer and other problems caused by the leaks!

Shame on them - and shame on us for allowing them to use our system to enrich themselves without basic responsibility.


----------



## Kilted (Apr 1, 2007)

Warren said:
			
		

> Sandor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



BUT I do say electric IS ONE of the answers.  I DO NOT say it is the answer for everyone.  I currently have 5.2kw of PV solar and I drive a Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) Toyota Rav4EV.  The solar powers the house, replaces gasoline, fetchs cuts and splits my fire wood.  The firewood offsets my use of natural gas.

I say the answer will be mix of energy sources, choose the one most suitable for your location.

-- Brandy


----------



## keyman512us (Apr 1, 2007)

Warren:


> So if MTBE is bad (and I think all agree with that) and Ethanol is a waste of time and Money, what is the alternative?
> 
> Don’t say electric or hydrogen or any of the other “green” technologies that are not viable yet.
> 
> Seems to me that ethanol is the right answer for now.



To answer your Question Sir..."I'm not leaning any particular way...or trying to be a 'cheerleader' on the subject...i'm approaching this issue (as I approach any issue and all that respond to it) from a neautral stanpoint". I'm not trying to heat anyone up...and anyone that knows me will tell you...I treat anyone the way I would want to be treated...I don't try to force an opinion on anyone...just try to "point things out and offer a different perspective to help someone make an informed, educated opinion or view"...others (and a lot of 'people here' already do)would be wise to do the same. Having said that:
Ethanol should be "Pursued" but should thouroughly be put into perspective...If people get involved in the issues...the PT,PR,PC, and other 'cheerleaders' could be kept in check. MTBE/Ethanol for oxygenation purposes is a moot point these days...Industry trends are such that now with cleaner burning engines...oxygenated fuel is, for the most part...no longer required. Many states are now applying for waivers to the CAC of 1990 becuase of this fact. While there still are a "few old relics on the road" their numbers are dwindling to the point that they are not really worth considering in the equation...the biggest of their number have already gone to the scrap heap. Take a really good look at the links I posted above...and it will paint the picture. The People need to get involved...and shape the Energy outlook of the future...based on lessons from the past...MTBE is a lesson we can't afford to forget.


----------



## webbie (Apr 1, 2007)

It is so obvious to anyone who looks that conservation is the ONLY answer which addresses most of these shortcomings...that is, of the cure being worse than the disease!

The USA could cut our energy use by 50% - over a decade or two - with a minimum effect on quality of life. In fact, we would create entire industries, jobs as well as cleaner air and water, so we might say that quality of life will increase. Of course, this does not mean that the average Sq Ft of a house would increase nor the average size and weight of a car!

By cutting our energy use, it allows us to use more of our renewables - water, wind, sun......and close down our dirty coal plants, so the savings in pollution would be VASTLY more than 50%. Instead, we are currently BUILDING and updating dirty coal plants....which are still dirty, although less so than before. 

We need a plan. A plan that does not change every 2 years or 4 years with elections. Have we ever had such a thing? Seems as what happens is that some dude gets elected by making a scapegoat of a program that does not work, and next thing you know they thrown the baby out with the bath water.

I have pretty much given up on this being solved by national policy. There is much more chance of it being solved by economics.......when oil spikes to over $100 and stays there.


----------



## jqgs214 (Apr 1, 2007)

Craig,

You are 100% correct.  Economics will rule this situation.  Change happens when the People want change.  Right now with gas prices approaching 3.00/gallon people grumble.  Its a REALLY soft grumble.  When gas gets to $10.00/gallon.  Like what they nearly pay in europe the grumble will get louder.  When it hits shout level it when the gov't acts.  Is it 10.00/gallon for a shout?? Only time will tell.  My guess is around that number.  I also guess that number comes within the next 10 years.  There is a finite # of gallons of fuel on this planet and we are eating up faster and faster everyday.  The Industrial revolution is 120 years old, real industry is only maybe 60 years old when the car started hitting everyones doorstep.  Rough calulations say over 1/2 the earth's supply of fossil fuels is gone! in 60 years!!  We heat with wood here, we help a little but not enough.  As many alternatives need to be explored as quickly as possible but it wont get done until we all stand up and shout for it.


----------



## keyman512us (Apr 1, 2007)

> Warren - 01 April 2007 08:20 AM
> 
> Sandor - 31 March 2007 11:04 AM
> keyman512us - 31 March 2007 04:15 AM
> ...



Kilted...Cool!
I don't know if you have noticed (from some of my posts)....that even though I'm not a "cheerleader(someone dead-set one way on something)"...I'm definately a fan of PV...AND EV technologies. Out of curiousity...if you wouldn't mind sharing a few details I would like to hear about it 'firsthand'(like what state you live in,what that EV lists for,your thoughts performance wise etc.) Check out some of my posts ("How green is your locale" for instance)...The 5.2kw of PV must be SWEET! I've "worked in/on PV houses rated at 2KW(as an electrician)" and I was "very impressed to say the least". Any photos of the PV array/controls? Is it "utility connected" as well...or solely stand alone?


----------



## wg_bent (Apr 2, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> It is so obvious to anyone who looks that conservation is the ONLY answer which addresses most of these shortcomings...that is, of the cure being worse than the disease!
> 
> The USA could cut our energy use by 50% - over a decade or two - with a minimum effect on quality of life. In fact, we would create entire industries, jobs as well as cleaner air and water, so we might say that quality of life will increase. Of course, this does not mean that the average Sq Ft of a house would increase nor the average size and weight of a car!
> 
> ...



I agree with Craig here.  Conservation is key.  You have to realize I was attempting to keep the conversation grounded a bit in MTBE vs Ethanol VS some other Oxygenator for gas.   PV isn't there for the masses yet.  Sure a few here have it, but I certainly can't afford an all PV house and a PV car, nor can I afford to build a home that is truely designed the way I think one should be.  Most people in the country fit this mode, so conservation is the cheapest way for now.  Purchase a Toyota pickup with a 4 banger instead of the V8 Nissan Opec friend.  (by the way according to friends who have trucks, the ones that get the WORST mileage are either the Nissan Titan or Dodge with V8)  

Cars like the diesel Jetta should be sold in all states, and should not cost 2500 (or what ever it is) more than a gas version.  Why not subsidise all vehicles that get over 50 mpg?   You'd see the car companies start building a lot of them.  If VW and toyota can, why not Ford or Chevy?  

Have the "Plan" Craig is looking for add 1 or 2 MPG to that number every year.  Add R10 to all home building codes.  Mandate that any store that is not open must have all lights off after 11:00 PM including signs.   Why not go back to all stores closing after 8pm. and closed on Sundays.  (I'm not going for any religious angle here... only conservation.  Make it a Wednesday for all I care.)  There are a LOT of things we could do.  Then do a Manhattan style program (instead of dumping money into Iraq... woops too late) that takes 50billion or large # to put the wind and solar in place.  Incent the oil companies to be part of it if your (you being bush) worried about them making money.


----------



## Codeman812 (Apr 5, 2007)

I am the proud neighbor of one of the 1st Ethanol plants in WNY. Well I don't know how proud yet, it isn't finished. I heard we were importing ethanol, at one time last year. I would rather have this in my front yard than import it. It is good for our economy in this area as well, and our economy could definitely use a little budge. I, however agree it the best thing for "right now." I am not worried about the view or being so close as the other pic shows what was there when we moved in. It is safe to say that when I start getting 2 years ahead on my wood then they have nothing to complain about either.


----------



## TMonter (Apr 5, 2007)

> Capitalism DOES NOT WORK when corporate responsibility is taken out of the equation.



That's the rub Web, what's happening is not capitalism it's mercantilism. 

By following the government "safe" guidelines, they exempt themselves from any responsibility if the product they sell harms others. This is a government induced problem we're facing with MTBE.

MTBE actually has a negligible effect on newer car emissions with computer controlled engines and modern emissions reduction equipment.


----------



## Gooserider (Apr 21, 2007)

Seems one technology that is NOT getting mentioned, but which IMHO is far better and has more potential than corn is hemp (aka Marijuana...)  At least according to it's proponents (who seem to have numbers to back it up) it is at least as energy efficient to turn hemp into ethanol or other synthetic fuels as corn is, but hemp is FAR less energy intensive to grow, it doesn't need the fertilizer (it enhances soil rather than depleting it, as it is a "nitrogen fixer"), doesn't need as high grade soil (leaving farmland available for other crops?) or as much agricultural handling to harvest - just mow it and bail it...

Allegedly hemp and hemp products could eliminate much of our energy problems, and some of the other issues...

1. Hemp can be made into paper - allegedly one reason it was opposed by the Hearst newspaper syndicate was it threatened their profits from the pulpwood industry (which they are still a major owner of)
2. Hemp can be made into petrochemicals - Supposedly a threat to DOW chemical etc. as it could undercut them
3. Hemp can be made into cloth that is better, cheaper, and longer lasting than cotton - and less environmentally damaging than cotton farming
4. Hemp can be made into structural items, sort of like OSB or particle board, but with longer fibers giving it mechanical properties more like plywood, or it can also be made into structural "engineered wood" beams
5. Hemp can be used as a "fiberglass" substitute - allegedly FORD made a car in the 30's that used hemp based body panels - at a lower cost and lighter weight than steel...
6. As mentioned earlier, Hemp can be turned into gasoline substitute...
7. Hemp can be used for NON-recreational pharmaceuticals - before it was outlawed it was actually one of the major ingredients in medicines - however note that hemp grown for agricultural uses is NOT psychoactively useful.

Lots of other uses as well,

Gooserider


----------



## mikeathens (Apr 25, 2007)

Gald the hemp issue was brought up...never smoked a fatty, probably never will.  I don't understand how this government and the majority (I'm assuming) of our population can be so scared of this?  Our founding fathers used hemp oil to keep their lamps burning, hemp rope for hoisting the sails on their ships, and hemp paper to write on (isn't the constitution drafted on hemp paper?).  And here we are, government leaders pretending to give a crap by promoting the most ineffective or unviable alternative fuels available (ethanol, hydrogen)...legalize it already   Potheads will always be potheads whether it's legal or not.  Perfect crop for fallow fields.


----------



## Gooserider (Apr 26, 2007)

Mike from Athens said:
			
		

> Gald the hemp issue was brought up...never smoked a fatty, probably never will.  I don't understand how this government and the majority (I'm assuming) of our population can be so scared of this?  Our founding fathers used hemp oil to keep their lamps burning, hemp rope for hoisting the sails on their ships, and hemp paper to write on (isn't the constitution drafted on hemp paper?).  And here we are, government leaders pretending to give a crap by promoting the most ineffective or unviable alternative fuels available (ethanol, hydrogen)...legalize it already   Potheads will always be potheads whether it's legal or not.  Perfect crop for fallow fields.



When the GF and I went to Europe a couple years ago, we did a few days in Amsterdam, did inhale, and enjoyed it very much thank you...  I don't in the US, but might occaisionally if it were legal in about the same way I use alcohol...  

There is plenty of evidence that the founding fathers knew of it's "recreational" uses, as well as all it's practical applications - There is a letter from the first George instructing his farm manager to grow a certain field at Mt. Vernon in a way consistent with making "good stuff"  More recently, and a bit of a mixed blessing, we got the 2nd and 3rd Georges thanks to hemp - when George II bailed out of that perfectly good airplane in WWII, his parachute harness and rigging was made from hemp.  (And this isn't to discuss the reputation George III got while he was at Yale... though that was more related to a powdery inhalant)
The final copies of both the Declaration and the Constitution were written on parchment, but the rough drafts were on hemp - all of the agricultural Founding Fathers grew it, The USS Constitution sailed with tons of it (both the rigging and the sails), etc.

Gooserider


----------



## babalu87 (May 21, 2007)

More "great" news from the Ethanol World

http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...WiWPWox_jaHb4rBiWVpIo_20070528.html?mod=blogs



> GARLAND, N.C. -- When Alfred Smith's hogs eat trail mix, they usually shun the Brazil nuts.
> 
> "Pigs can be picky eaters," Mr. Smith says, scooping a handful of banana chips, yogurt-covered raisins, dried papaya and cashews from one of the 12 one-ton boxes in his shed. Generally, he says, "they like the sweet stuff."
> 
> ...



Incentives for oil companies, they set records on news that gas prices set records and they get incentives while the farmer putting food on your table is driving a 1992 pickup............


----------



## jpl1nh (May 21, 2007)

Wow, great thread!  Goose, your hemp idea has the added benefit of making many people too laid back to want to drive anywhere and then if they did, they'd tend to drive much slower.  Think of the energy savings right there!   %-P Seriously though, your point about hemp touches on the fact that ethanol can be made from all sorts of different bio-mass materials, including switch grass, sugar cane, poplar, etc.  That we choose corn as the source, ironically one of the most energy demanding crops to grow, to me, speaks to all sorts of political protectionist issues, protecting the petro-agrocultural complex of big business.  And boy what a marketing propaganda effort there is going on about the wonderful benefits it's giving us!  In my mind, its not the product, ethanol, that's the issue, its how we are producing it.  And no mattter what, ethanol can never be the solution by itself.  I don't believe there is any one solution.  I feel our best shot is encouraging polulation stabilization or reduction, conservation, wind, solar, hydro, hydrogen, other bio-mass energy sources (like wood), and probably nuclear  :long:  It is going to take a combination of everything we can muster.  Craig, re the MBTE issue that your daughter is working on, may I say you raised her well!!


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 27, 2007)

Good, I'm thrilled that corn prices are going up.  I want to see corn farmers become rich men. Maybe that pig farmer should grow corn instead.  There are farms in Massachusetts that are just hanging by a thread.  Corn grow up here so this could be a good high-cash crop.

E85, ethanol fuel will solve all our problems.  The Federal Tax on gasoline should be doubled and any taxes on ethanol should be eliminated.


----------



## Sandor (May 28, 2007)

Jabberwocky said:
			
		

> Good, I'm thrilled that corn prices are going up.  I want to see corn farmers become rich men. Maybe that pig farmer should grow corn instead.  There are farms in Massachusetts that are just hanging by a thread.  Corn grow up here so this could be a good high-cash crop.
> 
> E85, ethanol fuel will solve all our problems.  The Federal Tax on gasoline should be doubled and any taxes on ethanol should be eliminated.



E85 will create more problems than it will solve. The ERoEI of nearly 1:1 is not going to work.


----------



## webbie (May 28, 2007)

The government pays ethanol producers 51 cents a gallon! It also slaps a 50 cent a gallon tax on ethanol from Brazil!

But not on oil......from Venezuela!

No, they won't help with your wood stove! 

Strange........

As far as hemp, one of the main reasons the government is scared of it....well, it's a long story. But they don't want people who are laid back and generally happy. It does not make for a good worker class. They want people who tow the line, wake up early and climb over each other for the next buck. 

The actual historic reason for hemp being illegal is more of the same as we see right now. Turns out the users were mostly mexican and black. The southwest states lobbied the US government to make it illegal because:

"after the Mexican Revolution of 1910, a flood of Mexicans immigrated to the United States and introduced recreational marijuana use. A public misconception that Mexicans and other minorities committed violent crimes while under the influence of marijuana, which caused many states to criminalize marijuana, was promoted by Harry J. Anslinger's media interviews, faulty studies, and propaganda films that claimed marijuana caused violent, erratic, and overly sexual behavior.

In the 1930s, marijuana was targeted on a federal level with the passage of the Uniform State Narcotic Act, the Marijuana Tax Act, and the creation of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. DuPont and William Randolph Hearst played a role in the criminalization of marijuana, as hemp was threatening their company's respective products."

So Dupont didn't want natural products competing with his chemicals, and folks didn't want mexicans (and black) enjoying themselves. The same forces exist today.

I would guess that hemp could provide some nice bio pellets and logs.....after the other parts of the plant have been used.

As far as smoking the stuff, that's up to the individual. Certain personalities seems to fit better with it, and others do not. I remember being in Jamaica when I was 18 and there it is generally smoked only by males. "It makes me crazy" was a typical comment from the women. I remember a watershed article years ago in Rolling Stone explaining why my generation stopped smoking the stuff (largely). I thought the article was pretty accurate.

It said that when we were teens and smoked the stuff, we looked at the dog and thought it was funny.
But now, we were the Dog! The idea being that at first it provided an escape from ourselves, but now it made us more self conscious and perhaps paranoid. Certainly that is not true for all, but the article obviously reflected the feelings of many.


----------



## Sandor (May 28, 2007)

Sandor said:
			
		

> Jabberwocky said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here is a link to read to really understand the reality about ethanol.

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/11/cellulosic-ethanol-reality-check.html


----------



## Gooserider (May 28, 2007)

It is worth pointing out when discussing hemp, that the stuff grown for "recreational" use is totally different than that grown for agricultural / fuel / other uses.  

1. The recreational stuff is selectively bred for chemical effect, (Though the gov'ts claim of "several times stronger" is false - the difference is more on the order of different varieties of grapes or apples.  The actual MEASURED amounts of canabinoids has stayed almost the same)

2. More importantly the GROWING techniques for recreational pot is different from agricultural - recreational plants are grown with lots of room, careful separation of the male and female plants (only the female plants are useful) and great effort is made to protect the female plants from pollination.   The plants either make seeds or make canabinoids, so a pollinated plant makes much lower grade product, nearly worthless...  In essence the plants have to be grown almost individually

3. "Agricultural" hemp is grown with a much higher plant density (How dense depends on what you are after as the primary purpose in your harvest), no effort is made to segregate the plants, and pollination is desired (especially if growing for seeds) the plants are basically treated like a hay or wheat field.

4. The "street name" for Agricultural stuff is "Ditch Weed" or "lousy crap" - it has minimal effect, you could almost think of it as the equivalent of "naturally denatured"

Now I'm not going to pretend that if agricultural plants were being grown, there wouldn't be a certain amount of seeds diverted into recreational growth, but that would just lower the price on the existing supply to a reasonable level - In Amsterdam, where it's quasi-legal, a gram of high-quality pot (a Cannibus Cup winning strain) goes for about the same as a good bottle of table wine ~10-15EU.  The amount of work needed to grow the stuff for recreational use is such that it is unlikely to get a lower price no matter how large the potential supply.

OTOH, in the few places where agricultural hemp is grown, despite the limited supply, it is priced by the TON - which gives some indication of relative values.

Products MADE from agricultural hemp are non-psychoactive, most don't even contain enough cannabinoids to be detected - so burning your hypothetical compressed hemp bio-log would likely be dissapointing in everything but the amount of heat output... :coolhmm: 

Gooserider


----------



## DaveR (May 28, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> And, believe it or not, these patriotic oil companies do not want to pay for the mess they created - even with hundreds of billions of dollars profit IN ONE QUARTER. They think you should pay!
> 
> Ethanol - I have to agree with Castro on this one - a dangerous precedent to turn the #1 food crop in the world into Hummer Fuel....I'd rather a super efficient diesel/electric hybrid with the idea of large scale electric from wind, solar and other such sources.
> 
> ...



Ethanol does not consume the entire corn kernel.  It consumes the starch leaving several possible by-products depending on the process (wet milling vs. dry milling) that have nutritional and commercial value.   DDGs are one of these byproducts being sold as feed.  Furthermore, ethanol is not the only industrial use of corn.  Check Out some other industrial uses that are growing for corn as a feedstock because of higher petroleum prices ...

http://www.ontariocorn.org/classroom/products.html

The government does not subsidize producers of ethanol.  The government subsidizes blenders of ethanol and gasoline.  While corn ethanol is not the most energy efficient choice it is a step in the right direction and soon to be followed by cellulosic ethanol with many industry leaders looking to transition existing facilities over to more competitve technologies.  I for one would be interested in seeing reductions in Government tariffs on sugar imports and ethanol along with reductions in Government subsidies beyond covering American agriculture from uncertainties in the natural environment including pests, disease, and weather.  I for one would not force energy conversion through artificial market manipulation with wrong headed carbon taxes and carbon cap and trade schemes that transfer income and wealth from average American citizens into government coffers.  I would encourage alternative energy through expansion of tax credits for energy efficiency and conservation, renewable energy technology, and biofuels left to compete in the free markets based upon the economic value delivered to consumers.   

Castro is wrong along with other communist nations that have been unable to feed much of their own populations because of wrong headed command and control economies and have enjoyed the benefit of cheap subsidized American corn in global markets to prop up their own  failed policies and tyrannical governments.  Read up on agricultural production in the former Soviet Union under their audacious five year plans and farm collectives.  Studied Soviet economic in college back in the eighties before anyone really believed the mighty Soviet Union would collapse.  Agriculture was a disaster requiring the Soviets to purchase cheap American Corn and Wheat.  Chavez will soon destroy Venezuela's economy and agricutural base and be looking for cheap commodities in global markets to prop up his dictatorial regime.  I suspect it would be better if these tyrants and dictators found it more difficult to make the choice between guns and butter.  It might help to keep their expansive political designs in check.  Besides soda pop, cookies, candy and a host of other sweetened American foods relying on corn syrup instead of sugar are hard to defend as essential to American diets and relative to health care costs have extracted a high toll on the American economy because of existing government policy.  

Government subsidy of agriculture falls as market prices for corn and other agricultural commodities better cover production and economic costs that have risen dramatically with higher energy costs and increasing land values.  This is not a bad thing for America.   Nearly two billion bushel of corn have been exported annually into global markets at great expense to American taxpayers and little return to American farmers.  It represents a hemorrhage of America's wealth.  That corn along with other excess agricultural production and capacity is better utilized at home for renewable energy initiatives that improve agricultural commodity prices and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Besides the U.S. has been repeatedly critized by most nations because of Agricultural subsidies that have supposedly flooded global markets with American corn and produce keeping global markets prices too low for their own domestic producers to compete.  These many countries should now be happy their domestic producer do not have to compete with American Agriculture that is increasingly focused on meeting America's needs for food and renewable energy.

Ethanol, biodiesel, and direct combustion of biomass that utilize America's excess agricutural production and capacity for renewable energy initiatives to benefit American farmers, American rural economies, American citizens, and American government is not a bad thing.  While these renewable energy initiatives are not likely to replace oil and natural gas, they offer opportunity to leverage American renewable eenrgy resources to break the pricing power of foreign energy cartels and reduce the flow of American energy dollars into the coffers of America's adversaries.  American energy dollars spent in support and benefit of American Agriculture, Rural Economies, American Citizens, and Government is not a bad thing.

Just for fun take those nearly two billion bushel of corn exports and assume they have an effective energy content in direct combustion applications of 7000-7500 BTU/Lb of energy at current market prices.  Compare that to an equivalent energy content in one barrel of crude oil at current market prices and then determine the potential swing in America's trade balance from keeping these energy dollars invested in American Renewable Energy Initiatives.  Maybe the free market would better allocate these resources over the long run.  It has before.  Maybe Americans should let the rest of the world step up and grow food for their own people instead of spending so much for guns and weapons often used against Americans.  The world just might become a better place.


----------



## webbie (May 28, 2007)

AGENERGY said:
			
		

> The government does not subsidize producers of ethanol.  The government subsidizes blenders of ethanol and gasoline.



This is semantics. You are talking to intelligent people here. Yes, the credit is 51 cents a gallon and is given only to the blender, but that means E85 gets a credit of 85% of 51 cents per gallon.

And surely you know that ADM is the largest receiver of this tax credit in the country? 

So it's plain silly, IMHO, to try to claim that the government does not subsidize producers. By giving ADM over 50 cents a gallon, they add vast profits to ADM, who therefore will buy more at higher prices. 

Even the ethanol industry association claims only a small "net gain" in energy as to the total BTU of fossil fuel input needed to make the ethanol. Others claim it is a net loss. For debates sake, let's call it equal. That stinks if it is true.

It seems a shame to build a false economy on a shaky foundation. This would also be bad for those who want to burn corn and other biomass, since a 50 cent a gallon subsidy increases the price of the commodity for everyone. So maybe we will pay this extra "tax" on everything from tacos to corn syrup, in order to fool ourselves that we have "clean" fuel. But it certainly isn't clean if even 50% of the energy is fossil fuel based, let alone taking my tax money.

As to Cuba, that is a whole nother story, but they do spend $236. a person yearly on health care - and they have as long of a life expectancy, and much lower infant mortality. Taking politics aside, we should be able to do a lot better considering we spend at least 15-20X as much per person (and often more). I know I spend over 15K and the doctors office is tough to get into! I get voice mail and they rarely call me back. In any case, as with climate change, the issue of corn being fuel instead of food in the end will not affect you and me as much (except for the extra "tax" mentioned above), but it will effect the poor and hungry of the world.....as usual, we could care less as long as we have some "clean" fuel for the tank.


----------



## begreen (May 28, 2007)

Ironically, the surge in ethanol subsidies seems to be affecting the building of oil refineries. Would you want to compete in this arena when congress is pushing for a 5 fold increase in biofuels? Here's an interesting take on the market. I think the WSJ quote at the end is right on:

http://marketpower.typepad.com/market_power/2006/04/ethanol_subsidi.html

And from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/business/24refinery.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin

Our policies are poorly thought out and lack strong incentives for conservation, innovation and diversification. All it will take is another natural disaster to bring this home.

“If we get a bad corn crop, we will end up paying for it at the pump and on the food shelves,” he said. “We are not buying security. We are increasing volatility.”

Simply put, demand is outstripping supply. If Americans want to bring down gas prices - drive less. If every American drove say 2 miles less per week, to save (at our national average of 16.7 mpg) say 16 oz. of gas per week, that would equal 30 million gallons of gas! Or put another way, 30 million gallons of gas equals the entire output of the west coast's largest refinery (running 24/7) in 8.5 days.


----------



## DaveR (May 28, 2007)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Ironically, the surge in ethanol subsidies seems to be affecting the building of oil refineries. Would you want to compete in this arena when congress is pushing for a 5 fold increase in biofuels? Here's an interesting take on the market. I think the WSJ quote at the end is right on:
> 
> http://marketpower.typepad.com/market_power/2006/04/ethanol_subsidi.html
> 
> ...



Here is another perspective from the NCGA for consideration.  Food prices do not necessarily seem directly affected by corn prices.  Have you noticed food prices moderating as corn prices have reached historic lows when adjusted for inflation?  No but you have seen profit margins improve for processors and food companies while farmers have struggled against the odds for decades to keep the family farm viable.

http://www.ncga.com/news/OurView/2007/052507.asp

Corn supply is increasing with critics finding reason to be critical of this expansion also.  Criticism is easy, finding real solutions that are economical and do not negatively affect average Americans citizens already over taxed and over burdened by higher energy costs is the challenge. 

Government policy in the guise of tariffs and limits on sugar and ethanol imports keep prices for food and ethanol higher than free markets would likely establish.  I am not a big ADM supporter and would remind everyone ADM has done well no matter which political party has controlled government.  You might be surprised to find ADM was a big supporter for tariffs on sugar imports also.  But ADM is not the only ethanol producer in the country although they are the largest getting a head start on everyone else in ethanol back during the Carter Administration's policy initiatives for renewable energy.  Check it out.  Many ethanol producers are independent operations and many investors are farmers who have seen corn prices fall while energy and production costs have risen.

It is easy to attack a single sentence when I clearly stated favoring a reduction in tariffs and subsidies to allow free market allocation of the resources.  I believe competition is good for Average American citizens and that government policy as represented by taxes, tariffs, and subsidies are far too reactionary, focused on short term posturing rather than long term outcomes, and resistant to reasonable change when market realities change.  I'll trust free markets where accurate information is available to consumers and reasonable regulation by government keeps the markets and process honest to better allocate these resources.  I'll trust the American people to keep government honest and hope more citizens accept this responsibility.

As for energy, conservation is important with well insulated homes, high efficiency furnaces and central air conditioners, and adoption of renewable energy technologies that make economic sense critical for improved energy security.  However, unapologetic energy development of coal, oil, and natural gas along with increased refinery and electric capacity are critical with supply of these resources artificially constrained by government policy for the past couple of decades by many of the same consituencies that oppose ethanol, nuclear energy and other alternatives that can meet growing demand and reduce pricing pressure for energy that is negatively affecting disposable income of average American citizens, especially those with fixed incomes or low incomes.

Conservation alone will not address the problem although it is part of the solution.  By the way my family favors the smaller economy car that gets 40 miles/gal over the truck that gets only 25 miles/gal.  We are conserving like many other consumers choosing more fuel efficient vehicles at great expense to Detroit's Big 3.


----------



## webbie (May 28, 2007)

I didn't mean to jump on a sentence. After all is said and done, my biggest interest is exactly how much energy it takes to make ethanol. This takes out the confusion. Only a fool (or a profiteer) would choose to make one form of energy from another one without an extremely good input to output ratio. This is even more so when greenhouse gases are concerned, because we have much more of those when we use 1/2 gallon of fossil fuel to make 1 gallon of ethanol (this assume it take 70,000 BTU to make 90 something).... then we have the greenhouse gases from the total 1 1/2 gallons!

Perhaps there are solutions to the problem of poor output vs. input. But until the numbers are nailed down, I'd rather burn the corn straight or eat/process it.

Pretty good article here showing both sides:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/05speeches/ethanol-oped.htm

Their summary pretty much matches my opinions:
Pimentel thinks we'd get more return on our energy investment by growing trees for woodstoves or other such uses. "Wood is an extremely valuable resource," he says. "We already get 3 percent of our energy from biomass – the same as we get from hydropower. But that's thermal energy, not liquid fuel."

Patzek thinks the U.S. needs a two-pronged approach, neither of which involves ethanol. First, he says, we need more efficient cars. Doubling the average car's fuel efficiency would cut gasoline needs in half, while converting all of the nation's corn production into ethanol would only satisfy 12 percent of current needs, he says.

Similarly, he says, we could reduce fuel needs by redesigning cities to be livable, rather than "drive-in deserts."
Secondly, he says, we need to remember that corn is merely a natural means of converting solar energy into chemical energy, and that it's not really all that efficient at doing so. Solar cells are much more efficient, and could be harnessed to make hydrogen fuel.
Rather than subsidizing ethanol production, Patzek says, we should invest in research designed to make it possible to produce these cells more efficiently.

-------------end quoted material......

Think of it that way - corn is just a way of collecting solar energy, but must be regrown every year, processed, pollutes the water, etc. etc. - What if that corn field was covered with a solar array? Or, better yet our roofs.

It's a similar argument that vegetarians like myself make. You can eat 1 lbs of wheat, corn or soybean protein. Or, you can feed 16 lbs of the same stuff to cows and get one pound of beef. The rest turns to farts, CO2, Manure, etc.

The material seems to show that efficiencies and yields are getting better - but IMHO they are not better enough. Maybe if one gallon of fossil fuel would make 3 gallons of ethanol, then it might be acceptable, but this does not even seem possible at this point.

So let them keep working on it, but prove that it makes sense before we buy it.


----------



## DaveR (May 29, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Think of it that way - corn is just a way of collecting solar energy, but must be regrown every year, processed, pollutes the water, etc. etc. - What if that corn field was covered with a solar array? Or, better yet our roofs.
> 
> It's a similar argument that vegetarians like myself make. You can eat 1 lbs of wheat, corn or soybean protein. Or, you can feed 16 lbs of the same stuff to cows and get one pound of beef. The rest turns to farts, CO2, Manure, etc.
> 
> ...



I am familiar with Pimentel's perspectives on Ethanol.  Here are some other studies done by Cornell University and Ohio State University on the Energy content of corn and other biomass converted into ethanol or direct combustion.  You may find the information of interest.

http://www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.B.2Biomass.pdf

http://www.cornell.edu/landgrant/resources/RenewableEnergy.pdf

http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/ocamm/keener3.htm

It is no suprise that direct combustion of various biomass yields better energy economics than converting it into liquid fuels.  You will see why wood wastes and switchgrass are viewed with growing interest by the ethanol industry because of improved energy yields.  Some ethanol plants are even beginning to look at biomass for process steam and heat and possible electric generation to improve the energy yields which critics bemoan.  Ultimately free market economics often yield better outcomes than government forcing through taxation, subsidies, and tariffs.  I would agree with those who encourage a phaseout of tariffs on foreign ethanol and subsidies of domestic ethanol.

However, the following article discussing Chinese ethanol exports arriving in the U.S. is cause for pause and concern.  We subsidize corn production to support farm policy and assure abundant supplies of corn for domestic markets and then ship surplus corn production oversees at market prices below production costs into countries like China who in turn produce ethanol to ship back into the U.S.  There is something wrong with government policy that encourages this kind of outcome.  Not necessarily surprising but still disturbing.  So we may well find agreement that Government may not be the best at promoting renewable energy initiatives through taxation, tariffs, and subsidies.  I personally would prefer free market economics to guide these outcomes.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/05/business/ethanol.php

Modern farming practices have greatly improved efficiencies and moderated pollution of waterways.  Many criticisms are almost reflexive and recycled from bygone days with little regard for modern farming practices that minimize inputs and maximize outputs through technology.  As for solar energy, if it was an economically viable technology with decent payback on investment we would already be using it more extensively than we are.  If you were to cover those corn fields with sufficient solar arrays to replace current electric generation capacity from coal, you and the rest of the world would very likely go hungry.  I believe technological innovation will make solar energy an increasingly viable alternative for niche markets.  With advances in material sciences likely to bring new break through technology into the market within a generation solar will grow as free market economics justify its advancement.  It is not likely to replace coal as a primary and low cost energy source for electric generation.  Reasonable regulation can balance economic and environmental concerns over coal with much improvement already evident when compared to the industry just 3-4 decades back.  IMHO solar is no more market ready for mass commercialization than ethanol, biodiesel, and direct combustion technologies.  It has its place and is certain to grow as humanity faces the necessity of harnessing cleaner,  efficient, and more economical renewable energy alternatives.  Until this transition occurs aggressive unapologetic energy development offers the energy resources necessary to sustain the economy and fund R&D essential to drive this natural market evolution in energy.

As for food choices, I am strictly an omnivore by nature.  However, if the cattle, swine, and poultry industries do decide to raise prices on U.S. consumers because of higher corn prices I would think this might be good news for vegetarians.  It seems all industries look for reasons to raise prices but when costs recede few seem anxious to follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion of lower prices.


----------



## babalu87 (May 29, 2007)

AGENERGY said:
			
		

> Food prices do not necessarily seem directly affected by corn prices.



Really?

http://enterprise.southofboston.com/articles/2007/05/26/news/news/news03.txt

_Food prices have increased 6.7 percent since Jan. 1, more than three times the 2.1 percent of all of 2006, according to figures released by the U.S. Department of Labor. _

Nothing to do with the fact that they are making fuel from corn right?

_The biggest increases are being seen in beef and poultry and fresh produce, according to Brian Todd Brian Todd of The Food Institute, a New Jersey-based food information network. And, the cost of eggs is expected to be 16 percent higher than a year ago._

Again, it cant be that silly fuel issue right?

*He attributed the recent surge in prices to the high cost of feed for livestock * 


_“Nationally, food prices are forecast to increase 3 to 4 percent,” Todd said. “Four percent is the highest since 1990.”_

Here is my favorite nugget from the story, sounds like some of our posters 

_Even with the rising prices, Todd said grocery stores report steady sales._

DUH, grocery stores and funeral homes. Business is always steady.


----------



## Sandor (May 29, 2007)

babalu87 said:
			
		

> AGENERGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great post Babs!

Converting food into liquid fuel, what a great idea! Corn ethanol has an ERoEI of nearly 1:1. Insanity! (unless I'm drinking it)

Electrified transportation is really the only answer.


----------



## webbie (May 29, 2007)

Ag, it sounds like you may agree - in a roundabout way - that ethanol may not be the fuel of the future. Rather that direct combustion may be so much more efficient. The trouble, as you know, with many studies on the ethanol thing....is that they only take the energy input into account AFTER the corn is grown. They do not take the diesel the farm tractor uses, the fertilizer NG input (very large) and all the other assorted inputs. 

Sort of like saying "the firewood is already here, split and seasoned, and all I have to do is figure out how much energy it takes to get it into the stove". No, the truck and chain saw and human time and energy do count!

I support direct combustion of biomass, even food stuffs if they prove to be the best inputs. Notice the IF. If it turns out that another crop can be grown or harvested (wood waste, grass, other bio that is usually thrown away...peanut hulls, etc.), then I support that. Actually, even if they are close in input/output I support all of them.

But we agree on that the corn market is mature enough that we don't need to pay people to burn it. And, if public policy did call for this, I would support a direct tax on fossil fuels to be used on the other end of the equation...that is, take from the fossil fuels and invest in the renewables.

All in all, it's probably good that we are exploring all these avenues....even the ones that will not work out. One mistake leads to a better way.....except for those forever subsidies, which sometimes reward mistakes. In the scheme of things, it's not a lot of money. And, I'd rather give money away to Americans...even ADM stockholders and farmers (in turn), than use it to fight useless wars (burning oil all the way). Sometimes it is the best of evils. In a perfect world, we'd do all the research first.....and then make policy. In this one, we just listen to the lobbyists and look for stuff that makes a good 15 second news blurb.

BTW, welcome to the forum Ag and thanks for posting! Don't take us all too seriously......some old grumps (yours truly included) here.


----------



## DaveR (May 29, 2007)

babalu87 said:
			
		

> AGENERGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Really.  If energy costs increases are not recovered by Agricultural producers in the market price received for corn and other commodities grown, who do you think pays to keep American agriculture viable via taxes and subsidies?  Agriculture subsidies fall as market prices rise to cover production costs.  You have been paying for rising energy costs impact on Agriculture all along but through the backdoor with taxes and a growing budget deficit.   Food costs have been rising often in the form of reduced portions sold for the same price which is not captured in inflation numbers.  You just have not thought about it because this is left out of popular mass media reporting.  Too difficult for Americans to think about.

Energy costs are the driver behind price increases even though some would like to deflect the spotlight away from oil, electric, and natural gas as the culprit for obvious reasons.  Reduce tariffs on sugar and all of that corn syrup driving up health care costs in America would be replaced by lower cost imported sugar.  Reduce tariffs on Brazilian ethanol and the domestic industry would have to become more competitive.  Reduce regulation and restrictions on domestic energy exploration, refining capacity, and electric generation to increase supply and prices for energy would fall.  Government policy and energy costs are the main drivers behind rising prices for energy and food.  It is really kind of laughable to blame corn prices which are only now at levels that cover economic costs of production.  It was estimated economic costs for the production of corn in Illinois averaged from $2.74 to $3.11/Bushel in 2006.  You can read about it for yourself in the following link.  Those low corn prices everyone loved were far below the cost to produce the commodity and market prices now better reflect those higher costs.  

http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/manage/newsletters/fefo07_05/fefo07_05.html

Did American consumers really see benefit from these low commodity prices or were they paying for it all along?

Do you really find it hard to believe that there has already been a tremendous increase in production and distribution costs because of energy prices affecting the food chain from farm to retail to consumer?  It has just not been recognized by consumers nor reported by the popular mass media because it was another inconvenient truth.  Electric is our salvation?  You may want to consider where all the additional electricity is going to come to fuel the transportation sector from in an already strained electric grid with the proponents of Electric conveniently forgetting their opposition to expansion of coal and nuclear electric generation.

You might want to get some balanced information from farm state publications.


----------



## DaveR (May 30, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Ag, it sounds like you may agree - in a roundabout way - that ethanol may not be the fuel of the future. Rather that direct combustion may be so much more efficient. The trouble, as you know, with many studies on the ethanol thing....is that they only take the energy input into account AFTER the corn is grown. They do not take the diesel the farm tractor uses, the fertilizer NG input (very large) and all the other assorted inputs.
> 
> BTW, welcome to the forum Ag and thanks for posting! Don't take us all too seriously......some old grumps (yours truly included) here.



Actually I support ethanol as a viable alternative to supply some of the transportation sector Energy requirement.  However, I do believe we would all be better off letting the free market allocate the resources to their highest and best use based upon price which is the most unbiased method devised for resource allocation.  Government policy in the guise of taxes, tariffs, and subsidies often introduce bias into this allocation that suboptimizes outcomes and leads to greater waste of resources.  I believe ethanol is one of many possible alternatives and that cellulosic ethanol will improve energy yields that you are rightly concerned about.  However, I do not believe it is necessary for an analysis to take into account the energy required to grow corn if corn's market price reflects its costs of production and the price of ethanol in the market reflects its cost of production relative to alternative fuel choices (i.e. gasoline, Brazilian ethanol, electricity, hydrogen, etc.).  That is the wonderful thing about free markets and the invisible hand that guides pricing when information and process is kept honest and true for consumers to make informed choices.  Government policy in the guise of taxes, tariffs, and subsidies often interjects bias into free markets resulting in a host of negative and unintended consequences which Government is ever so loathe to admit and change long after problems are recognized by average American citizens.  But I do digress.

Is ethanol the fuel of the future, no I do not necessarily think so.  But it is a step in the right direct and the natural market evolution of new energy sources is not likely to occur overnight.  Remember there is yet great debate on the origins of humanity that may offer insight into those who trust free market evolution of energy vs those who would attempt to force new energy into being with Government policy.  It is always interesting to see the contortions humanity will put itself into to frame a debate.  I along with everyone else.  The transportation sector of energy is vital to the economy and we are rightly concerned to lessen dependence of foreign oil to protect vital national interests.  If ethanol, biodiesel, and biomass diversify our energy sources in the short term, then I support their development.  

Here is another possible technology on the horizon that may well displace ethanol and biodiesel sooner rather than later.  The good news is some of America's best and brightest minds uncluttered from the chains of the past are keenly focused on the opportunities of the future to meet one of humanity's greatest needs for survival in an uncertain and unpredictable world.  Energy has fueled humanity's advance and civilization's progress.  I am optimistic that new solutions lie just over the horizon. 

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070314AgrawalBiomass.html



> March 14, 2007
> 
> New biofuels process promises to meet all U.S. transportation needs
> WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - Purdue University chemical engineers have proposed a new environmentally friendly process for producing liquid fuels from plant matter - or biomass - potentially available from agricultural and forest waste, providing all of the fuel needed for "the entire U.S. transportation sector."


----------



## jjbaer (May 30, 2007)

AGENERGY said:
			
		

> Electric is our salvation? You may want to consider where all the additional electricity is going to come to fuel the transportation sector from in an already strained electric grid with the proponents of Electric conveniently forgetting their opposition to expansion of coal and nuclear electric generation.
> 
> You might want to get some balanced information from farm state publications.



Actually, AG....it is our salvation but for the moment you are also correct about the grid not being able to handle it. At current electric prices, you get about 150 miles per gallon equivalent when using all electric! The new car GM is working on (GM Volt Concept) has battery power for 40 miles (most like the Prius only have battery charge for a few miles and they're not plug-in-the-wall capable) and, when the GM car runs on battery power, the cost is 2.1 cents per mile which equates to about 150 miles on $3 or the price of 1-gallon of gas......hence, 150 miles per gallon and it charges off a 120 volt house circuit......now...when the battery is exhausted, it acts like the Prius and an on-board gas engine charges it but the GM car may also have a fuel cell option instead. 

As for the grid issue, it (grid) will catch-up in relation to the demand for electricity. And, for those who say "we're just transferring the emission problem from a gas engine tail pipe to a power plant stack", the emissions are actually estimated to be reduced about 27% when they come from a power plant because they're more tightly regulated and monitored than are car engines. So, short of getting fusion, electricity is the way to go. Also, the "holy grail" is no gas engine at all............and doing this reduces a whole host of other problems......little to no oil or gas needed for the gasoline engine (stick that up the Middle Easts ass), potentially no gear box and no gear oil, zero emissions at the tailpipe, etc......


----------



## sstanis (May 30, 2007)

In my humble opinion,  I agree corn-based ethanol is not the way to go.   However, we need to look at it for what it really is--a stepping stone to cellulose derived ethanol.  Eventually, cellulose ethanol will be cost competitive.  So having corn-based now allows for the infrastructure to be in place for the transition.    The future, in my humble opinion, will be some type of plug in hybrid with bio-based, or partially bio-based fuels.   Plug in gybrid is the key.  Unfornately, at night our base load for electricity goes wasted.  with on-board computers, it is no problem for a vechile to charge at reduced demand rates.  Think of it as using waste.

As far as the notion of food prices increasing b/c of corn based ethanol  I am all for them increasing.  As a physician, I continually see the detrimental health effects of our obese society.  Type II diabetes is a national health crisis.  we are a nation based on inactivity coupled with cheap food


----------



## jjbaer (May 30, 2007)

sstanis said:
			
		

> As a physician, I continually see the detrimental health effects of our obese society. Type II diabetes is a national health crisis. we are a nation based on inactivity coupled with cheap food



I made the same comment concerning the fact that about 40% of medical costs are due to obesity (diabetes, bad joints, heart disease, etc.).....society shouldn't have to pay huge medical costs associated with people who chose to be overweight and who won't exercise personal responsibility and lose weight.....I went as far as to say they should be denied medical insurance if they're not willing to do their part and stay fit.........but ah


----------



## webbie (May 30, 2007)

The questions of energy, food supply and medical costs affect us all. But that is what a country is! I would say to Cast that there are many countries in the world where the people are fitter, and therefore they don't have to pay as much. Cuba is one....average of $250 a person per year for all medical costs and they live as long as we do.

Lots of countries in Europe too. I'm sure they all need engineers.

IMHO you are either a member of our country and society or not. You cannot exclude everyone because of all these issues.

Anyway, that is getting off subject again, and high corn prices are not likely to stop people from consuming more fat....in the USA. In Cuba, it works....since they have plenty of food, but not many times as much as they need.

I do agree that all of these things are part and parcel - plug-in hybrids would be nice. Up here in Ma. they use the electric to pump the water up to the top of a mountain and then use the generation capacity during the day when it falls back down. It must lose a LOT of efficiency in the process of going up and back down (anyone know how much?).

Every little bit helps.

I hope we look back someday and see this as the start of something that actually continues, as opposed to our usual path of scraping all the improvements as soon as energy gets cheap again.


----------



## begreen (May 30, 2007)

What is even sadder and more immoral is that we are exporting our way of life, as fast and aggressively as possible. In many cases, especially with BT crops and the herbicides that go with them, we have strong armed nations into accepting them against the will of their people and leaders. Nations that never had an issue with diabetes, depression, osteoporosis, heart disease, etc. have in one generation learned what can happen by striving for the American ideal.


----------



## jjbaer (May 30, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> The questions of energy, food supply and medical costs affect us all. But that is what a country is! I would say to Cast that there are many countries in the world where the people are fitter, and therefore they don't have to pay as much. Cuba is one....average of $250 a person per year for all medical costs and they live as long as we do.



You're saying the same thing I am, Craig...IF we were more fit, we wouldn't be paying such outrageous medical premiums........we're saying the same thing....


----------



## jjbaer (May 30, 2007)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> What is even sadder and more immoral is that we are exporting our way of life, as fast and aggressively as possible. In many cases, especially with BT crops and the herbicides that go with them, we have strong armed nations into accepting them against the will of their people and leaders. Nations that never had an issue with diabetes, depression, osteoporosis, heart disease, etc. have in one generation learned what can happen by striving for the American ideal.



It's NO COINCIDENCE that Americans got fat about the same time the agricultural and food processing weenies found that there was an unwilling audience for their "liquid sugar"....i.e., fructose, etc. is shoved into everything we eat and drink.....even bread........ That and very cheap, fat-filled fast food....don't believe me......ask sstanis...he's a doctor, isn't he.......???


----------



## DaveR (May 30, 2007)

castiron said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't blame agriculture.  Government policy in the guise of taxes, tariffs, and subsidies drove the advance of corn syrup back in the seventies and eighties.  The same government policy launched the ethanol industry.   Agriculture relative to family farms have found little lasting benefit to any of this and have struggled through many ups and downs with little to show for it but survival after several decades.


----------



## webbie (May 31, 2007)

2 liter bottles of coke at the local super - 10 of them for $10.

Wow, I think you could distill that stuff and burn the sugar/syrup and make out!


----------



## babalu87 (May 31, 2007)

Maybe now there will be a reason to ditch this folly of an idea

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18941618/



> AYING, Germany - Like most Germans, brewer Helmut Erdmann is all for the fight against global warming. Unless, that is, it drives up the price of his beer.
> 
> And that is exactly what is happening to Erdmann and other German brewers as farmers abandon barley — the raw material for the national beverage — to plant other, subsidized crops for sale as environmentally friendly biofuels.
> 
> "Beer prices are a very emotional issue in Germany — people expect it to be as inexpensive as other basic staples like eggs, bread and milk," said Erdmann, director of the family-owned Ayinger brewery in Aying, an idyllic village nestled between Bavaria's rolling hills and dark forests with the towering Alps on the far horizon.



Looks like its time to start homebrewing again.


----------



## webbie (May 31, 2007)

"A very emotional issue". That's good.

Even here in the USA, they say "watch out" when you propose new taxes on beer and....it used to be on smokes. But the smokers have given up on that one.

First they come for your fatty snacks.
Then they come for your cigs.
Then they come for your Cuban cigars.
Then, when they come for your beer, you ask "why me"?

Yeah, in Germany, pure beer is like clean air. A birthright. Good thing is doesn't use corn (or does it?).


----------



## DaveR (May 31, 2007)

keyman512us said:
			
		

> Sandor:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is always two sides to every issue.  Thought for those who would like to become more informed about agriculture from producers perspective, the links below to the National Corn Growers Association and Illinois Farm Bureau would be a good starting point.  Keep in mind that corn producers are glad to see market prices for corn finally covering significantly higher production costs caused by higher energy prices.  In any business, if market prices do not cover production costs over the long run you have only hard choices to make.  Many family farms have already disappeared over the past several decades because of market dynamics.  Check out average corn prices over the past few years as compared to the economic costs discussed earlier.  Read some of the information on modern farming practices that significantly reduce inputs while increasing outputs and do a better job of protecting the environment.  Sometimes its too easy to be critical when you do not stop to investigate the other side of an issue and are far removed geographically, socially, and generationally from agriculture.  Just sharing the links as means for those who are interested in becoming better informed than would otherwise occur from popular media reporting.

You might find something of interest like even with increasing ethanol production corn exports have continued to grow.  You might be surprised to learn that corn has been used as an industrial feedstock for a long time replacing petrochemicals for plastics and other applications far removed from its primary use as food and livestock feed.  You might be surprised to learn than corn production has increased while land use for growing corn has declined significantly because of technology and better yields.

http://www.ncga.com/WorldOfCorn/main/environment.asp

http://www.ilfb.org/?r=0.5485193


----------



## babalu87 (Jun 5, 2007)

Even more good news..........

http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-6/1181018191176330.xml&coll=1



> Retail milk prices have crept higher in recent months, echoing dramatic spikes on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, where millions of dollars in milk, cheese, butter and other dairy commodities are sold each day and eventually find their way into chocolate bars and boxes of macaroni and cheese. The price of a 40-pound block of cheddar hit $185.50 on the exchange Thursday -- up 53 percent from $121 a year earlier. ..........................Dairy market forecasters are warning consumers can expect a sharp increase in dairy prices this summer. By June, the milk futures market predicts, the price paid to farmers will have increased 50 percent this year -- driven by higher costs of transporting milk to market and increased demand for corn to produce ethanol. ................Dairy industry experts see more price increases on the horizon, and they blame such disconnected phenomena as increased milk drinking by the Chinese, a drought in Australia that squeezed milk production and ethanol plants that are crowding out cows at the nation's corn trough.



Of course those "in the know" will have some type of spin on this I am sure


----------



## DaveR (Jun 5, 2007)

babalu87 said:
			
		

> Even more good news..........
> 
> http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-6/1181018191176330.xml&coll=1
> 
> ...



It would have been good if you had included the paragraph from the article that quoted the industry spokesman to say prices were expected to move lower in 2008 as producers increased milk supply to meet growing demand.  Production and distribution costs for agriculture be it corn producers or dairy producers are substantially higher because of "Energy" costs.  Energy costs will drive food prices higher even though there is often a market lag in commodity prices for corn, soybeans, wheat, oats, milk, cheese, beef, poultry, pork, etc.  The food processors have been doing alright even though farm incomes have suffered the disconnect between rising energy costs and commodity prices with some assistance from government subsidies.  Check out ADM, Tyson, Kellogs, and Walmarts earnings.  They have fared much better than agricuture producers earnings over the past few years and many have hedged raw material costs in the markets buffering their earnings from the increase in commodity prices while unapologetically raising prices on consumers.  How many of those compalining about rising food costs own stock in any of these processors and retailers and have enjoyed the benefit of stock appreciation at the expense of manufacturing and agriculture for the past two decades?  How many of those complaining about rising food costs have been vocal in resisting and active in frustrating unapologetic domestic energy development in the U.S. to meet growing energy demand for the past two decades?  No new refineries, No LNG terminals along America's coasts, No new coal fired electric generation, No new Nuclear generation, No oil and natural gas exploration off America's Coast or in ANWR, No ethanol, No biodiesel.  No real energy development sufficient to meet growing demand.  Energy still powers the economy and will ultimately affect the prices of all other commodities and products even in the information age.  There has been a lag for many reasons including stagnant wages, improved efficiencies, and excess capacity in global markets but we are likely reaching the limit of these factors influence on restraining prices.  Is this really surprising?  The effect of supply and demand on market prices should not be a surprise to anyone.  The expansive effect of rising energy prices on other prices should not be a surprise to anyone.       

Global demand is growing giving new life to commodity markets with higher prices increasing the incentive to produce more supply.    Economics 101 at work.  I have more trust in free markets than command and control government policy that inevitably leads to mass shortages and extreme rationing of products and services.  Blaming corn prices that only recently are reflecting higher production (Energy) costs for driving food prices higher is a stretch from reality.  No spin just the facts.


----------



## Sandor (Jun 5, 2007)

AGENERGY said:
			
		

> babalu87 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am not even going to read this. I went cross-eyed in less than 20 seconds.

Learn how to articulate your ideas into meaningful paragraphs.


----------



## jjbaer (Jun 8, 2007)

Sandor said:
			
		

> AGENERGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sandor,

take an Evelyn Wood speed reading course......LOL....nobody reads more slowly than an engineer like me yet I read this guys post in about a minute...what he's saying is that Bab "cherry picked" words from the article and that the complete picture is that they expect prices to decrease in 2008...for an overall rise of not very much when looked-at long term.........


----------



## jjbaer (Jun 8, 2007)

Sandor said:
			
		

> keyman512us said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sandor,

the way around this argument is this: let's say for arguments sake that the net return is negative......it still gets us off foreign oil...........I don't care if it takes, for example, 100 BTU's of coal burned to get, say, only 15 BTU's of ethanol because we have tons of coal and the ethanol weans us off foreign oil........so, short term, whatever it takes to get off foreign oil, I'm for.......


----------



## jjbaer (Jun 8, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Only a fool (or a profiteer) would choose to make one form of energy from another one without an extremely good input to output ratio.




Craig,

Or, he'd have to be crazy as a fox.......there is a reason we'd want to do this. Picture this: we have unlimited coal. Use whatever coal it takes to turn corn into ethanol, even if it has a negative overall energy return because this gets us off foreign oil and all the politics that oil dependency comes with...............same argument with cutting our own wood.......the overall cost with gathering the wood (chains, saws, time, gas, etc) might be greater for some of us than in buying natural gas but many do it for another reason: so that when/if alternative heating sources spike in price, that you're not held hostage to energy companies.....same with making ethanol.....whatever it takes, DO IT and let's get the hell off the Arab oil pipeline and not be held hostage to middle east politics through oil.............


----------



## begreen (Jun 8, 2007)

castiron said:
			
		

> the way around this argument is this: let's say for arguments sake that the net return is negative......it still gets us off foreign oil...........I don't care if it takes, for example, 100 BTU's of coal burned to get, say, only 15 BTU's of ethanol because we have tons of coal and the ethanol weans us off foreign oil........so, short term, whatever it takes to get off foreign oil, I'm for.......



I don't agree that any resource, including coal is unlimited. There's a lot, but it is finite. And adding a lot more fossil fuel CO2 will be shooting ourselves in the foot and a zero-sum gain. Conservation is the first step, there really is no other viable alternative. But it's a moot point. The rail system is already at capacity. Freight trains are already running 24/7 out of Wyoming. Coal to produce fuel is not a solution in the short term and in the long term it sucks.  

But let's say we go with it and succeed in reducing consumption via ethanol to cut off using Saudi crude (totally unlikely). Even if we're not beholding to the Saudis, then to whom? We're reaching the point where nations want the resources for themselves first. North Sea crude is in decline as is Mexican. If not the middle east then who -Venezuela, Russia? As long as we're the addicts, it doesn't matter, they'll be able to pull the strings and we'll dance to them. In the short term we need to go on the wagon. In the long term we need a national strategic initiative to develop alternatives. Of course, as long as our policy is to divert half of our wealth towards empire building, this isn't going to happen.


----------



## Sandor (Jun 9, 2007)

castiron said:
			
		

> Sandor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cast, the problem is that we are burning diesel in many different ways to bring the ethanol to market. Thats the problem. I'll keep posting the anti-ethanol threads as long as it takes. Fertilizer is made from Natural Gas, and there are issues there as well. Oh, takes alot of water too, check out whats happening in the Carolinas.

The coal issue is just starting to get going. There isn't a couple hundred years worth of energy there either if we expand the used for coal.

The latest ethanol thread from TheOilDrum.com.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2615


----------



## DaveR (Jun 10, 2007)

As we continue to discuss the potential to utilize excess American agriculture production and capacity in renewable energy technologies including ethanol, biodiesel, and direct combustion, I continue to believe the concern over renewable energy competition with food while worthy of consideration is overblown.  Coupling market prices for agricultural commodities to energy markets is certain to result in more rational market prices relative to real production costs driven by energy costs.  The free market is more likely to better allocate these resources at optimal prices than government policy as represented by taxes, tariffs, and subsidies.  The U.S. and European nations have faced extreme criticism from developing countries because of government agricutural subsidies which are claimed to keep developing nations from sustaining domestic agriculture.  If the U.S. pursues new domestic markets for renewable energy technologies like ethanol, biodiesel, and direct combustion, the wealth of the nation serves to benefit the greater good of the nation and reduces criticism from developing nations on U.S. Agricutural Policy.  I would suggest for those interested that searches for information on U.S. Agriculture Subsidies, Tariffs, and GATT.  It makes for interesting reading.

Here is some information for consideration from various sources.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741588397_2/Globalization.html



> The United States enjoys some of the greatest advantages. Because of government payments, U.S. farmers can sell their products at 20 percent below their cost of production in overseas markets. United States corn exports represent more than 70 percent of the total world exports of corn. The United States ships half of the world’s total exports of soybeans and a quarter of all wheat exports. Farmers in the United States can sell these grains at half of what it costs to produce them. The resulting artificially low world prices hurt producers in poorer countries where there are no government subsidies.
> 
> For example, in 2002 the president of the United States authorized $4 billion in subsidies to America’s 25,000 cotton farmers. This action lowered world cotton prices by one-fourth. As a result West African countries lost hundreds of millions of dollars, and the region’s 11 million cotton-producing households suffered increased poverty.



http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article1629405.ece

http://www.tradeobservatory.org/headlines.cfm?refID=18661

http://law.jrank.org/pages/4201/Agriculture-Subsidies.html

Biodiesel can help fuel agricutural production, ethanol can help fuel the transportation energy sector, direct combustion can help fuel the residential heating energy sector.  All can help reduce dependence on foreign oil and leverage America's excess agricutural production and capacity to the greater good of America while offering potential to break the pricing power of foreign energy cartels and oil producing countries hostile to American interests.  This is not not about replacing oil, coal, natural gas, or nuclear energy sources.  It is about expanding energy alternatives, marshaling  America's resources to reduce dependence on foreign oil and benefit America, moderating energy costs for the American economy and citizens, and taking a step in the right direction toward greater reliance on renewable energy alternatives. 

Developing nations that have complained about U.S. agricutural subsidies and their effect on global commodity markets should welcome this transition.


----------



## JBinKC (Jun 10, 2007)

I am not really a fan of ethanol but it will buy us some time fairly inexpensively in changing our infrastructure to different alternatives which is currently almost a solely liquid energy based transportation economy. I feel it can only alleviate the liquid fuel shortage for maybe a decade or two and will become very damaging to current ecosystems over time especially if it is forced to expand much farther. I can see as the oil industry is really not willing to expand refinery capacity(which I would think would be the logical explanation to oil nearing peak production).

I think the key to our future will rely on our ability to improve the efficiency and especially the storage of energy. If we fail I think our civilization may follow the Olduvai theory if it is let to play out.


----------



## begreen (Jun 11, 2007)

It's not the ethanol per se that is the issue, but our use of corn as the source which I object to. If it were the sugar beet, then it would make a bit more sense. And if they turned the depressed parts of Mississippi and Louisiana in to sugar cane fields, then perhaps it would be ok. (Maybe include the whole state of Fla. ;-)) But corn, no. But then of course there is no bio-engineered version of the alternative crops and that won't help Monsanto, Dupont et al.  

And lest we think this is all glorious, sorry, biodiesel is not all coming from American agriculture. Seeing the handwriting on the wall with soy bean crops being displaced by corn plantings, biodiesel is currently turning to palm oil, from Malaysia. Wonder how long before we lose out in that competitive arena too?


----------



## babalu87 (Jun 11, 2007)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Seeing the handwriting on the wall with soy bean crops being displaced by corn plantings, biodiesel is currently turning to palm oil, from Malaysia. Wonder how long before we lose out in that competitive arena too?



Aye, and there is the rub.
Until the profit margin is reduced we are all doomed.


----------



## jjbaer (Jun 11, 2007)

Sandor said:
			
		

> castiron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree there isn't a couple hundred years worth of coal left but we don't need it that long.....here's the game-plan: 1)  use as much coal now as it takes to develop ethanol and get us off the Arab pipeline NOW! 2) in the interim, work on other means of ethanol production (from celluose, switch grass, etc) so that we can wean ourselves off corn as the sole source for ethanol and this in turn helps keep corn prices low and finally, 3) we only need to use coal for about 15-40 years more because fusion is just around the bend...........so.....we don't need coal for that long but we use it now to help make ethanol and tell the Arabs to stick it "where the oil doesn't flow".......LOL.........


----------



## begreen (Jun 11, 2007)

Very naive plan, the numbers don't back it up. First, if ALL US corn production went to ethanol it still would make less than a 10% dent in our oil consumption. We are at capacity in our rail systems, how does the additional coal go anywhere? And show me the science behind cellulosic ethanol, where is the timetable for it to get into cost effective production? Maybe 10 years? Think the country can go 10 years with no corn to get a 10% reduction in oil imports? Well then, I have a bridge in NY for sale cheap that is looking for a buyer.

If you want to really cut off the import of oil (only 10% is Arabian by the way), then reduce consumption! It would be faster and a much more realistic goal. But the truth is we won't do it. Even if we reduce consumption by 10%, it won't be Saudi oil we're cutting off. Our govt. and the Bush family are much to close the the royal family of Saudi Arabia. And the bottom line is they want us to stay addicted regardless of public spin.


----------



## jjbaer (Jun 11, 2007)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Very naive plan, the numbers don't back it up. First, if ALL US corn production went to ethanol it still would make less than a 10% dent in our oil consumption. We are at capacity in our rail systems, how does the additional coal go anywhere? And show me the science behind cellulosic ethanol, where is the timetable for it to get into cost effective production? Maybe 10 years? Think the country can go 10 years with no corn to get a 10% reduction in oil imports? Well then, I have a bridge in NY for sale cheap that is looking for a buyer.
> 
> If you want to really cut off the import of oil (only 10% is Arabian by the way), then reduce consumption! It would be faster and a much more realistic goal. But the truth is we won't do it. Even if we reduce consumption by 10%, it won't be Saudi oil we're cutting off. Our govt. and the Bush family are much to close the the royal family of Saudi Arabia. And the bottom line is they want us to stay addicted regardless of public spin.



BeGreen....what's naive is doing nothing and complaining that we "can't do anything"......do you want red meat or fish with that "whine"....LOL.......but seriously, I agree that conservation is what can make the biggest, fastest and cheapest dent in the amount of oil we import however, I don't care where it comes from, if it ain't home grown, then it comes with baggage (strings attached)..........so, either way, we need to get off oil......

Also, it's closer to 14% that could displace gas.........1 acre of corn yields about 328 gallons of ethanol. There are about 91 million acres of corn so if all corn went for ethanol we'd get 29 billion gallons of ethanol and since it only has about 67% of the BTU value of gasoline, that's about 20 billion gallons of gas equivalent. We consume 146 billion gallons of gas per year in the US so 20/146 = 13.6 or about 14% but you're correct, it's small. The point you miss however, is that ethanol is only one layer of a multi-layerd approach to solving this problem. Conservation, hybrids, electric etc are all part of a larger effort to beat this problem. And, I think you're wrong on cullelotic production...we're already able to do this......and it's not me saying this but rather the ethanol industry itself!! In fact, they've been able to do this since 2004 but there are other hurdles (financing, etc) to overcome. See the ethanol industries response here:

http://www.ethanolproducer.com/expert-details.jsp?expert_id=6


----------



## begreen (Jun 11, 2007)

No whining here, I've been suggesting aggressive steps from the get go, but there's been an administration in the way. - LOL - And I'm not opposed to ethanol, but as noted, just don't think we should be getting it from corn.

Thanks for the link on cellulosic. Cool site, I'll spend some time there later.AFAIK, there still is no plant in commercial production and the test facilities. While they show it can be done, it is still not proving cost effective. Given the lower energy content of ethanol, current cellulosic costs are equivalent to oil at about $120/barrel.  It appears there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue. But I agree it's coming and can't wait for golden waves of hemp growing across the country again . 

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/08/guest-post-on-cellulosic-ethanol.html


----------



## jjbaer (Jun 12, 2007)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> No whining here, I've been suggesting aggressive steps from the get go, but there's been an administration in the way. - LOL - And I'm not opposed to ethanol, but as noted, just don't think we should be getting it from corn.
> 
> Thanks for the link on cellulosic. Cool site, I'll spend some time there later.AFAIK, there still is no plant in commercial production and the test facilities. While they show it can be done, it is still not proving cost effective. Given the lower energy content of ethanol, current cellulosic costs are equivalent to oil at about $120/barrel.  It appears there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue. But I agree it's coming and can't wait for golden waves of hemp growing across the country again .
> 
> http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/08/guest-post-on-cellulosic-ethanol.html



I propse we just suck the "ether" out of the air and power our vehicles with that.........LOL....if that doesn't work, we can use "dark matter".....LOL


----------



## Sandor (Jun 12, 2007)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> No whining here, I've been suggesting aggressive steps from the get go, but there's been an administration in the way. - LOL - And I'm not opposed to ethanol, but as noted, just don't think we should be getting it from corn.
> 
> Thanks for the link on cellulosic. Cool site, I'll spend some time there later.AFAIK, there still is no plant in commercial production and the test facilities. While they show it can be done, it is still not proving cost effective. Given the lower energy content of ethanol, current cellulosic costs are equivalent to oil at about $120/barrel.  It appears there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue. But I agree it's coming and can't wait for golden waves of hemp growing across the country again .
> 
> http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/08/guest-post-on-cellulosic-ethanol.html



I read Rapier's blog several times a week.


----------



## DaveR (Jun 13, 2007)

babalu87 said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Excessive profits invite increased production and competition if not artificially restrained by monopolies or government policy.  This is where real inequities build in markets and command and control economies typically result in greater inequities than free markets where information and process are jealously guarded to support informed decisions.

Let's just reduce the profit margin on everything sold in the U.S. to zero and then the world will be the perfect utopia.  What is the optimal sales price that yields an optimal profit margin?  Does one price fit all?  Do bureaucrats know what the optimal sales price or profit margin is for all the goods and services traded in U.S. markets across the continent?  Do bureaucrats know what value consumers are looking for, how much volume is needed to satisfy demand, where resources should be allocated to optimize market value, what new technologies are going to offer the optimal return on investment?  Even with super computers capable of crunching unimaginable volumes of data modern bureaucrats are no better prepared to compete with free markets for setting prices, determining optimal profit margins, or allocating resources than Soviet Technocrats were in establishing fallacious five year plans.  This has been tried many times with disasterous failure and misery for average citizens.  The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Venezuala and many other examples of command and control economies that decided the profit motive was what was wrong with the world and concluded bureaucrats were better at managing market prices and resource allocation are good indicators of expected outcome when the profit motive is cast aside.  Even President Nixon tried this approach with wage and price freezes in the seventies with disasterous results lasting for a decade.  For some these places might seem to offer utopia but I will stay in the United States and continue to support free people and free markets.  

What is needed is rationalization of Government policy in the form of taxes, subsidies, and tariffs to reflect current market realities.  Reduce taxes, subsidies, and tariffs that introduce political bias and interfere with free market allocation of these resources and you will see some immediate changes relative to ethanol, biodiesel, sugar, corn syrup, and food costs that I suspect would yield better outcomes over the long run.  Incentivize energy effeciency through tax credits for renewable energy technology, energy efficient technology in homes and transportation, and R&D at levels that deliver shorter return on investment timeframes for individuals and businesses and loose free market forces to change energy markets.  Aggressive unapologetic domestic energy development is also needed to increase supply suffcient to sustain economic growth and market evolution toward new energy sources.

Long live free people and free markets.  Long live the profit motive.


----------



## Sandor (Jun 13, 2007)

AGENERGY said:
			
		

> Long live the profit motive.



Oh, you mean the profit motive that sent the US manufacturing base to China?

I don't think that the Chinese people are exactly free, and neither are their markets.


----------



## begreen (Jun 14, 2007)

Yep, the same profit motive that has reduced our healthcare system into a shambles. It used to be that doctors were concerned with how to keep the patient in the best health. Now it's all about keeping the insurance companies happy and off their backs. The same profit motive that made Love Canal and the other 1305 superfund sites we're paying to clean up. The same profit motive that is giving the finger to the next generation - our kids. 

Our current track is like a snake eating its tail. Eventually, there's no snake left. As long as profits come before sustainability, its a one-way street that ends in a literally dead end.


----------



## webbie (Jun 14, 2007)

Wow, how do we get from Ethanol to free markets and free people? If markets are really free, all of AG's agricultural friends should be sending their government subsidies back to Uncle Sam....ah, but I guess that is one decision of the bureaucrats they can get behind. And so it goes, when the gravy train is headed our way we champion those "free markets", but when it goes to someone else we feel the pain.

Rather than "free markets" we should call them "expensive markets" because that is what they are! There is nothing free about them! Next time we have a natural disaster, buy some generators at your local HD and drive to the scene of the devastation...and sell them for double what you paid....

YOU WILL BE ARRESTED. Yes, there are laws against that. Try paying an employee well under the minimum wage.....even if they agree to accept it (that sounds free to me), and you will be breaking the law. 

Please, please, please, please......don't equate free markets and free people....and the profit motive all in one sentence! 
"Certain inalienable rights bestowed by our creator, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I guess the new meaning of liberty is free markets (not free men) and the pursuit of happiness is now the inalienable right to profit from the pain of other (including the taxpayer in subsidies).

We have to stop praying at the altar of "growth", and understand that the pursuit of happiness in this world today is MORE about the right to clean air, clean water and decent medical care than it is about being able to set up a lemonade stand in the desert and charge $10.00 a cup.


----------



## webbie (Jun 14, 2007)

AGENERGY said:
			
		

> What is needed is rationalization of Government policy in the form of taxes, subsidies, and tariffs to reflect current market realities.  Reduce taxes, subsidies, and tariffs that introduce political bias and interfere with free market allocation of these resources and you will see some immediate changes relative to ethanol, biodiesel, sugar, corn syrup, and food costs that I suspect would yield better outcomes over the long run.  Incentivize energy effeciency through tax credits for renewable energy technology, energy efficient technology in homes and transportation, and R&D at levels that deliver shorter return on investment timeframes for individuals and businesses and loose free market forces to change energy markets.  Aggressive unapologetic domestic energy development is also needed to increase supply suffcient to sustain economic growth and market evolution toward new energy sources.
> 
> Long live free people and free markets.  Long live the profit motive.



I agree with most of those actual points. But just so we don't fool ourselves, they have nothing at all to do with free people or free markets. They are an attempt to wean us from a fuel base which appears to be slowly running out and which the supply of could be unstable. They are an attempt to grow domestic industry (although the tax credits apply to Chinese made solar also).  They are an attempt to highly REGULATE markets, which is the opposite of FREE.

I'm not arguing for free markets since I think there is no such thing. I agree with AG that we have to do a number of radical things....and that some will be right, and some will be wrong. BUT, as with any decent business decision, if we have a high % of knowing something is wrong before we start up that road, shift the money around to the right places.

"Free market allocation" was what is known as the gilded age in this country. It was also known as the age of the Golden Rule, that being "He with the most Gold - Rules".

The enclosed pic shows what people do with their "free allocation"....of course, this house was only used 2 1/2 months out of the year. The family had many others.


----------



## DaveR (Jun 18, 2007)

babalu87 said:
			
		

> AGENERGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just another perspective on how the sustained rise in energy costs are increasingly affecting food costs and the economy.  The link below will take you to a couple of recent studies focused on the details of rising food costs for an alternate perspective to that offered by popular media.  Americans could have immediate and dramatic impact on energy costs in the transportation sector by trading in trucks and SUVs for smaller economy cars with dramatically higher fuel efficiency.  Government tax credits to consumers for the purchase of automobiles offering 35+ MPG to encourage this market shift would accelerate existing market trends.  This in turn would help to reduce the inflationary pressure of rising energy costs on food and other goods and services.  Life is about personal responsibility and individual choices to optimize personal wealth.  Don't expect government to be better at making these choices than individual American families adjusting priorities and spending to meet new market realities.  

http://www.ncga.com/news/notd/2007/june/061507a.asp



> “Energy costs have a much greater impact on consumer food costs as they impact every single food product on the shelf,” he said. “Energy is required to produce, package and ship each food item. Conversely, corn prices impact just a small segment of the food market as not all products rely on corn for production. While it may be more sensational to lay the blame for rising food costs on corn prices, the facts don’t support that conclusion. By a factor of two-to-one, energy is the chief factor determining what American families pay at the grocery store.”



Take a look at the study and at least consider its implications.


----------



## begreen (Jun 18, 2007)

AGENERGY said:
			
		

> Government tax credits to consumers for the purchase of automobiles offering 35+ MPG to encourage this market shift would accelerate existing market trends.  This in turn would help to reduce the inflationary pressure of rising energy costs on food and other goods and services.  Life is about personal responsibility and individual choices to optimize personal wealth.  Don't expect government to be better at making these choices than individual American families adjusting priorities and spending to meet new market realities.



And don't expect this government to really help out. What they giveth with one hand, they will take away with another. The AMT tax assures that.


----------



## Sandor (Jun 18, 2007)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> AGENERGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yep. The Govt is what, 9 Trillion in debt with no end in sight. Check out the entitlement programs. Any time a govt can speed up the printing press to pay the bills, inflation is inevitable.

Anyone counting on the Fed's in the future may want to rethink their position and strategy.

The cost of Gasoline (or oil) is NOT increasing! The USD is becoming more worthless on the global market. Think about this carefully!


----------



## jjbaer (Jun 18, 2007)

Sandor said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think that regardless of if we're Dem or Rep, we've all seen first hand how corrupt our Government is.....and this comes to you from a retired Air Force Officer......ok....g-men....come make me a visit and we'll "discuss" it......."make my day"........anyway, they're all corrupt and both parties have been spending us into bankruptcy for 20 years or more.  The only way around this (and it will never happen...see above about our corrupt gov) is for us to have a constitutional amendment to deny deficit spending..........even in time of war...that would mean that the bastards would have to "save money" in a piggy bank to finance wars.......LOL....

Now for the bad news...you say we're 9 trillion or so in debt........how about several times that amount........the Gov accounting standards are corrupt (hey...who'd a thunk it.... a corrupt Gov using corrupt accounting standards) by comparison to those accounting standards that our same corrupt Gov imposes on businesses......put another way, if those same business accounting practices/standards were applied to the Gov, we're about 20 trillion or so in the hole........so.....at what point do we (as the founding fathers envisioned might happen) finally say our government has turned against us?

Oh...and to push those "over the edge" who can't quite force themselves to say our Government has "turned against us", well, just remember that this same corrupt Government now wants to let 100 million illegal invaders become citizens........."where oh where have honorable men and women gone in our time of need".........."?


----------



## Sandor (Jun 18, 2007)

Cast, this is an Ethanol thread, so I'll reply and let it go.

The reason why the govt wants to legalize these aliens is so they pay Federal taxes. There is no Federal sales tax so they are basically not contributing. 

The issue is larger than that. Capitalism cannot work without growth. If you legalize these people, so they can get mortgages, pay Federal taxes, and consume legally, then... Poof! you have growth. Population growth from those that are here is basically flat.

So, this raises more questions. If Capitalism cannot function without growth (and it cannot), where does this all end? Well... not nicely.

Exponential growth cannot continue in a finite world.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 19, 2007)

Sandor said:
			
		

> So, this raises more questions. If Capitalism cannot function without growth (and it cannot),...



I believe it can, but I will be dead before 1.) I get that damned book written and 2.) The 150 - 200 years it will take to cleanse the corporate and governmental gene pool passes.

The interim ain't gonna be pretty. At least Rome had the baths and the troughs.


----------



## webbie (Jun 19, 2007)

I see a "local" future, at least in areas of the country like ours where there is a lot of stuff available (the desert is another story).
If people start working, recreating and shopping close to home - and saving energy in the process, then energy use and perhaps GDP could level out or even drop and things might be OK.

As to that capitalism, there are still plenty of other people and countries in the world that need stuff, so companies can go there for growth.


----------



## begreen (Jun 19, 2007)

Sandor said:
			
		

> Exponential growth cannot continue in a finite world.



Amen, like a snake eating its tail. 

However, if we shift the model so that ever more efficient technologies have high value, then maybe, just maybe, there's a chance. But not before there is a general sense of global corporate citizenship.


----------



## jjbaer (Jun 22, 2007)

Sandor said:
			
		

> Cast, this is an Ethanol thread, so I'll reply and let it go.
> 
> The reason why the govt wants to legalize these aliens is so they pay Federal taxes. There is no Federal sales tax so they are basically not contributing.
> 
> ...



No...the "issue is NOT larger than that", rather, it IS the issue...........illegals put a huge strain on our economy and making them citizens will simply allow millions of them to get welfare and social security for their children, something they can't get now...........and that means HUGE TAX INCREASES....I don't give a s*&t about capitalism if legalizing them means my frickin taxes go through the roof when they become citizens.......you smoking dope Sandor or what part of that don't you understand???????

Another "fine point" that you miss is this: once they become citizens, employers CANNOT continue to low-ball them with low wages and no benefits.....so..........that means wages rise a lot in these jobs and some jobs like agriculture where they cannot rise that much means these once migrant workers (now citizens) will no longer work for those low wages because, guess what....they're US citizens and can get legal jobs at much higher wages and with benefits.....so....what does that leave us with? Answer: millions of jobs that Mexicans once held that they will no longer work in because now even the Mexicans won't work for those low wages.......and what does this culminate in: a HUGE INFLUX of additional illegals to fill these jobs that newly made Mexican citizens will no longer take. Then we have MILLIONS more pour across our borders, and the same traitorous Congress that in 1986 swore after legalizing 4 million said they'd "seal the borders" will again turn a blind eye to these new millions that will pour over and in 2020 they'll want to legalize another 50 million more.....say good bye to your friggin country...........


----------



## begreen (Jun 22, 2007)

Calm down the rhetoric a bit cast. No need for personal attacks. 

The presumption that these people are going on welfare as soon as they become citizens is nonsense and sounds like a racial stereotype. The Mexicans I have seen in the construction trade are typically very hard workers and have a lot of pride in what they do. They will become tax-paying citizens, not welfare clients. I've been on a lot of job sites and it's the lazy Americans that worry me, not the hispanics. As to wages, that is also nonsense. Agriculture is big in Washington. Migrant workers get paid by the harvest, not by the hour. If they work hard, they get paid well. The farmers want them to come back year after year. Good farmers don't treat their workers poorly or pay slave wages. Same thing that I have observed with roofers, landscapers etc. If you have a good worker, you pay him well enough not to lose him. Otherwise you've wasted a lot of training. 

As far as taking "American" jobs, that is also not so - show me the hoards of American workers showing up in the fields and jobsites that are being turned away. Ain't so. Truth is it's hard to find people that will work hard, day after day, at crap jobs that most kids don't want. What the country needs is more jobs in manufacturing of something other than weapons. Mobilize this country towards rebuilding it's infrastructure and pioneering in alternative energy research and products and this will be a non-issue. Of course that would take vision and leadership, something sorely lacking today.


----------



## jjbaer (Jun 23, 2007)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Calm down the rhetoric a bit cast. No need for personal attacks.
> 
> The presumption that these people are going on welfare as soon as they become citizens is nonsense and sounds like a racial stereotype. They will become tax-paying citizens, not welfare clients.
> .




BeGreen,

you're delusional..........you ignore FACTS while spouting bulls^%t.......


FACT:   12-20 million are here illegally...meaning they don't belong here and need to go home.  This isn't racist, but rather it's a FACT...one you ignore....
FACT:   the presence of 20 million illegals here has ALREADY cost us about $20,000 per illegal in the form of unfunded mandates to pay for schooling, hospitals, etc........again, this isn't racist, but rather, a FACT, one that you (again) ignore.....
FACT:  when they become citizens, they'll cease doing many of the jobs they previously did and a new wave of illegals will again invade our country to fill the vacuum of the jobs they no longer will do......and it will be "ground hog day" over and over and over again.......again, this is not racist however, as with the above, you chose to ignore the obvious....


What's "racist" however, is the way you "search for the guilty (illegal invaders) and punish the innocent (people like me who point this out and want them evicted and to have them sent back to Mexico and legally wait in line for entry)"........you however, stand logic on its head and dare call me a racist...........boy do you have a warped sense of right and wrong...............


----------



## Sandor (Jun 23, 2007)

BeGreen - your delusional and I must be a pothead.

Cast's elegant and lucid writing style suggests he has an advanced degree in Economics. At least he knows how to use ad hominem attacks and Straw Man arguments to get his point across.

The ethanol thread has turned to an immigration thread.


----------



## begreen (Jun 23, 2007)

Cast, never called you a racist, just that the argument had racial overtones. Most all of us are immigrants here, so get off the labeling. 

Sandor, yep I guess I've gone off the deep end. Oh well.  

This thread has been hijacked, polluted, polarized and is now way off topic. Closing it down.


----------

