Off Topic - Ethanol

[rweatherford]

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

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

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

[jandree22]

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

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

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

[rweatherford]

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

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

What is our current % of imported oil?

[leetpcguy]

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

[rweatherford]

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

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

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

[Donas64]

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

[happy and angry]

Ethanol produced from corn is an awful idea.


use up excess crop inventories that would otherwise go overseas.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22902512/

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Knox Joe]

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

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

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

[rweatherford]

Ethanol produced from corn is an awful idea.

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

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


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

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



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


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



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

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



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


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



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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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


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

[Knox Joe]

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


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

A little break on taxes? LMAO

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

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

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

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

[KZL_99ES]

agreed with the electric car!

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

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

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

[jandree22]

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

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

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

[bulwnkl]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rweatherford]

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


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

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

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




A little break on taxes? LMAO


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



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


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



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


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



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

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

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

Jandree,

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

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

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

[rweatherford]

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



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




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

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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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

Works for me......

[coolmazda5]

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


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

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


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


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

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

My 2 pesos, or around 0.15 Canadian dollars :D

[happy and angry]

No where in this article does it say ethanol production caused this.This is where reading and comprehension skills kick in. From the article:
Food prices around the world have spiked because of higher oil prices, needed for fertilizer, irrigation and transportation. Prices for basic ingredients such as corn and wheat are also up sharply, and the increasing global demand for biofuels is pressuring food markets as well.Notice the part about corn? What, pray tell, has been driving up the cost of corn in the global markets?

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

Yes, I wonder. Read between the lines.


I guess we can go back to you subsidising mexico's food source then.That's not even the issue. The rising price of corn also affects the food stuffs that they pay to import.

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


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


True. I do think it reduces pollution when added to gas because it is an oxygenate. Otherwise why would we have started using it at all?Because it allows us to burn less fuel and do about the same amount of work. It's not that much cleaner as an additive.


The same could be said for electricity and the telegraph early last century.Ethanol is being marketed as an interim solution for which the infrastructure does not exist. Building massive support infrastructure for it takes it from an interim solution to something entirely different.


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


I'm afraid that if ethanol production were to cease, there would be a big financial collapseI don't want it to cease, I want it to stop being sold as a brilliant and complete answer to a fuel problem, because it isn't.


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

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


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


I think all of those things are good solutions and they will come down the "pipeline" when they are ready.They are basically "ready." The US hates diesel despite it being more efficient use of fuel. Hydrogen fueling stations already exist in Europe, and BMW has been making production vehicles that can make use of them.

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

[jandree22]

Jandree,

Around here the teachers have the good paying jobs.... (nana) I should know my father was one.
I didn't mean to generalize this, but my sister-in-law is a public high school teacher in Tulsa, OK and my bro-in-law is a civilian lawyer for the Army Corp. of Engineers. Not to divulge specific numbers, but my sister-in-law only brings home about 1/4 their income.:rolleyes:

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

[rweatherford]

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

Yes, I wonder. Read between the lines.


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

This is from here....

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

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

I encourage you to look at that article.



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

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


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


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



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


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



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

We agree!



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

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



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

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



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


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



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

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

[bulwnkl]

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

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

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

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





Employ Americans? So, we take petroleum refinery employees and put them to work at ethanol plants. That's a zero-sum game or worse if you have to move across the country to 'keep' your job.
Um... No. Everyone seems to try to stick ethanol into the gasoline "replacer" department, which I don't think it is. I think it is a supplement that improves the US economy. (at least in my area) Gasoline record profits do nothing here in this area.

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




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

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




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

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

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

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

[Rocket]

Don't feed the troll - especially corn.

[happy and angry]

RE: rweatherford in general:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=corn+ethanol+global+food+price&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Pick a link. Read. Start at the first one, the Financial Post article. This is what happens when you start converting a source of food into a source of energy, and while YOU might think "3-4%" inflation adjusted increase over a very short period of time isn't anything to worry about when it comes to food, many (most) experts disagree.

I take serious issue with any plan that contributes to places like Haiti turning mud into a staple food source. We are among the wealthiest 20% of the global population, we account for 80% of global energy and resource use, and apparently we still place employment rates and foreign oil dependence and money as being more important than the inevitable impact our actions will have on the rest of this god damn planet.

Your arguments aren't even worth dissecting, to be honest. They are mostly substance-free talking points that ignore what other people are telling you/showing you/linking to. You asked why people are against ethanol as a primary fuel source. You got an answer. Anything else?

[rweatherford]

Also, the 'byproducts credit' is something I'm not comfortable with. I'm not saying I eliminate it, but I'm dubious since those by-products are already being made/used (right?) and thus I suspect they are not relevant to the question of net energy balance.


CO2 can be made several ways. CO2 in this procedure is a by-product that is scavanged off the process, liquified and then sold to businesses such as Pepsi and Budwiser. The feed products that are produced are higher in protien per ton than regular corn. Therefore you need less to get the same nutritional value for swine and cattle. Since you need less tonnage your transport cost is also lower. The product also cost less to feed. It is a win for corn producers, ethanol producers and livestock producers.




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


I disagree. Is the oil industry actually adding jobs? They have not increased the number of refineries. I'm doubting that any jobs have been added. Ethanol on the other had has added jobs at near 200 plants in the next year or two. It may be true that other fuels will make as many jobs. For now they are not here. Until then we won't know.




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


If in fact other sources become feedstocks for ethanol then corn will just go back to food and these other sources will replace it. Current facilities will change over to the other feedstocks. If it is financially feasable it will happen.





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


This has already happened. You just don't realize it. The investment has been made and the government has paid the oil companies $0.51 cents a gallon for doing it. This is the "Blenders Tax Credit" you read about but some studies apply to the Ethanol plants as a gift from the government, but it doesn't go to them. Ethanol is mixed at the distribution point of the pipeline and gas is trucked to your local gas station. If the price of oil goes down (man I hope so) in MO ethanol mixing of 10% will not be required. Of course if there is an excess of corn because of this we will eat it or send it overseas just like "normal". That is what most people are complaining about here. They don't seem to think this will happen and we will run out of food. Time will tell.



The thing is that a cornerstone of your (and so many people's) original argument was American jobs. This is a crock and your posts reflect the fact that you know it is, so please leave that basic tenet of your argument out of it.

Actually I don't know it. I guess I'll work on my understanding how this hasn't helped in my location because it sure seems that it obviously has. I do see how global increasing prices, whatever the reason can hurt the poorest of the poor and that is something to think about. I would not disagree that we are very fortunate to have such plentiful food source in the US.

[rweatherford]

RE: rweatherford in general:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=corn+ethanol+global+food+price&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Pick a link. Read. Start at the first one, the Financial Post article. This is what happens when you start converting a source of food into a source of energy, and while YOU might think "3-4%" inflation adjusted increase over a very short period of time isn't anything to worry about when it comes to food, many (most) experts disagree.


Ok I read and read and read. Most of them are the same and many from Canada. I am suprised at the amount of these negative articles are from Canadian sources and another is the "International Herald Times" which is a Paris based publication and owned by the New York Times. I wouldn't trust the NYT as far as I could throw the paper. Sorry.

Definately food suppy issues need to be watched. If you read the own articles you posted you will find that some give both sides and that either side has a valid arguement.


"In a counterpoint study last month by corn growers and the biofuels industry, higher corn prices were found to be only a small element in rising food costs overall – although higher energy costs for fuel to transport crops and grow them were a larger factor.

"This analysis puts to bed the argument that a growing domestic ethanol industry is solely responsible for rising consumer food prices," Bruce Scherr, CEO of Informa Economics, a food and agriculture research and consulting firm based in Memphis, Tenn., said in a statement.

The "farm value" of commodity raw materials used in foods accounts for 19 percent of total US food costs, down from 37 percent in the 1973. Higher costs for labor, packaging, transportation, and energy were a "key driver" behind higher food costs, the report said. "


From another article that you posted.....

""Currently we are spending about $2 billion a year on a subsidy for ethanol production, two and a half, approaching $3 billion a year on ethanol subsidies and there are estimates that this is saving probably $5 billion to $6 billion in government payments to farmers," he said."

So the tax load for ethanol has been a good investment for the US government. I guess it is a big shell game. Everyone was happy when they just gave it to the farmers so the consumer could eat for cheap.




Your arguments aren't even worth dissecting, to be honest. They are mostly substance-free talking points that ignore what other people are telling you/showing you/linking to. You asked why people are against ethanol as a primary fuel source. You got an answer. Anything else?

I am certainly not ignoring. I also did not ask about ethanol as a "primary" fuel source. I asked about negative reasons about production, which was turned into "primary fuel source" which I never expected ethanol to be. I'm not sure where that came from. I have read all the posts, responded as necessary and reviewed many of the cited sources. I think you are being quite assumptive in such a decision to say that I am ignoring them. I would not expect ethanol to be used as a primary fuel source because I understand that there is not enough production land available for both food and ethanol as a "primary" fuel source.

I guess we'll see if we run out of food. I think it will be difficult to get farmers to stop delivering to the highest bidder. Many times this is not necessarily the ethanol plant. Much of our corn also goes to swine feed mills. All of our soybeans go to ADM in the end because there is almost no other game in town. At least on the corn side there are many choices.


Happy eating. I am proud to produce food for over 150? people myself. (it's some statistic somewhere out there)

[jandree22]

Man, you're really passionate about this E85 crap, aren't ya? lol... Kinda surprised you didn't purchase a FlexFuel vehicle for yourself with the amount of knowledge and support you have in the product. ;)

[rweatherford]

Man, you're really passionate about this E85 crap, aren't ya? lol... Kinda surprised you didn't purchase a FlexFuel vehicle for yourself with the amount of knowledge and support you have in the product. ;)

(smoke) Show me a flex fuel vehicle that seats 6 (four carseats) as well as the Mazda5 and get's this kind of mileage. :p I love my 5. I've been a GM guy for a long time. I never stated that I think E85 is the future as some feel that it is. I have purchased E10 for years, before it was a "talking point" issue. I've never had any problems.

I think reduction in consumption is much more important for the future, which is part of my reason for purchasing the 5. Not many people with six in their family only own one car and make it a small one like the 5. For now that's all I can do. That's why I think some have judged me pretty quickly just because of my stance on support for ethanol as a supplemental fuel.

Anyway I see this as a good discussion and I have learned from it. Hope others have too. I've opened myself up to some new perspectives that I would not normally get in my location, which I feel is important to do for a persons personal growth. I'm not sure what the future holds, but we'll all find out I guess.

[jandree22]

I will give you credit though... on a personal level. Usually when someone is this dedicated to their beliefs and they are found unpopular, the thread usually ends up going downhill into a flame fest... you seemed to have kept your composure well in the face of all of our yammering on the subject :)

I didn't read this thread word for word, but I agree that it was successful in getting a broad spread of viewpoints from both ends. While I don't think E85 is the end-all, be-all answer to our energy problems, I'll concede that it's at least a forward thinking approach and a relatively successful concept. We may not have enough of it, but at least it's a renewable resource.

[Donas64]

Nuclear power works for me. Cases like chernobyl, while tragic, are in the vast minority and the technology has come a long way. France uses it to great effect. Theres one BIG reason nuclear power is not being widely used in the US of A.

Anyone care to take a guess?

[jandree22]

Theres one BIG reason nuclear power is not being widely used in the US of A.

Anyone care to take a guess?
Do I win teh prize? I $hit you not, this is true :rolleyes:

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i199/jandree22/I_glow_at_night.jpg

[1sty]

I am not terribly well read on the subject but I will toss my thoughts in the ring.

I have found that the average person is 2-5 years behind technology in understanding that technology. So often something is far more capable then the public thinks it might be based on out dated assumptions. Ethanol is a good case for this.

As for the corn becoming to expensive argument...I find this very unlikely. As with any commodity, as it becomes more profitable, more people grow it. People are only considering the mid-west where growing crops is still economically feasible. However, the US has millions of acres of land that could also grow crops and that inf act, did grow crops. Thinking of New England alone, we used to me nothing but farms now they hard to find. If Ethanol is found to be profitable enough you will see lots of new farms open. This will allow a completely localized process of fuel production in most all areas of the US. Add to this if the demand goes up for ethanol based on its ever increasing efficiencies and the ever decreasing stock of gasoline then the price should balance out.


Cars are not built to run on pure E85 and if they were the public may be more accepting to them as they would be more efficient then the duel purpose vehicles. Think about a hydrogen, an electric, or even a hybrid. Their is only one fueling system involved so they are inherently more efficient.

Corn, to my knowledge, is not yet been bio-engineered for fueling purposes. So it is very possible that the corn, or other sources of ethanol will be developed that are a far higher yield of ethanol.

I am by no means endorsing ethanol; I admit to being rather uneducated on the subject. So I am doing my best to apply rational thinking on a developing technology that is only fractionally established as what it seeks to supplement.

That said, I have a REAL problem with how fake other technologies are that people latch onto. Hybrids really piss me off in that they are a flat out waste of money. The average person will never make back the extra expense of a hybrid in fuel savings compared to the gasoline equivalent or the diesel alternative. On this subject, most of the alternative energy cars I have seen are wispy little things not fit for the real world. Given the same weights as these cars, I can make a gasoline car with 35 horse power get 100 mpg too. Its not hard when the vehicle only weighs 1000 pounds.

I think the real problem people have with E85 is the government invovlement in its developement compared to teh alternative fuel they like:
Hydrogen - Yeah, lets use water to power our cars becuase god knows there is enough clean water around.
Hybrid - Why did we not just buy cheaper car?
Electric - AWESOME lets use the least effecient form of energy we have today to power more stuff. There is a good reason that people have moved to propane and natural gas heating instead of electricity. Nuclear power could certainly help here. I doubt the current state of things involving extremists of all verities will allow this.
Compressed air - 1000 pounds, takes 3 hours to refueled by electricity cause more pollution and wasted energy then gasoline. Bah.


BEST CAR EVER!!!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/IT_%28South_Park%3B_The_Entity%29.jpeg

[rweatherford]

Do I win teh prize? I $hit you not, this is true :rolleyes:

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i199/jandree22/I_glow_at_night.jpg

Hey you're pretty close. Mine is about 60 miles away from one in MO. I think MO also has one of the highest number of nuclear weapons stored underground pointed to the sky.

[coolmazda5]

Hey you're pretty close. Mine is about 60 miles away from one in MO. I think MO also has one of the highest number of nuclear weapons stored underground pointed to the sky.

Hey, Homer Simpson has always taught me that it is safe nowadays (shocked). Mine is about 12-14 miles away... It is nice to see that steam coming out on a cold morning... (lol2)

http://getsustainable.net/blogfiles/uploaded_images/Homer-768568.jpg

[coolmazda5]

rweatherford now you made me read :D. I remembered seeing this on one magazine, and I found it online. Very interesting if you have the chance to read it. No silver bullet, but options for producing ethanol w/o using food crops...

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/15-10/ff_plant

Some excerpts:

Cellulosic ethanol, in theory, is a much better bet. Most of the plant species suitable for producing this kind of ethanol — like switchgrass, a fast- growing plant found throughout the Great Plains, and farmed poplar trees — aren't food crops. And according to a joint study by the US Departments of Agriculture and Energy, we can sustainably grow more than 1 billion tons of such biomass on available farmland, using minimal fertilizer. In fact, about two-thirds of what we throw into our landfills today contains cellulose and thus potential fuel. Better still: Cellulosic ethanol yields roughly 80 percent more energy than is required to grow and convert it.

Epilogue
The Forecast

Skeptics argue that rosy projections for cellulosic ethanol ignore its drawbacks — mainly, that cars need to be converted to run on it, that existing oil pipelines can't transport it, and that we don't have the land to grow enough of it. Advocates counter that if the fuel is cheap and plentiful enough, the infrastructure will follow. "If we could make ethanol at a large scale in a way that is sustainable, carbon-neutral, and cost-effective, we would surely be doing so," Lynd says, citing the fact that most cars can easily be converted to run on ethanol, something already done with most new cars in Brazil. "Meeting these objectives is not limited by the fuel properties of ethanol but rather by the current difficulty of converting cellulosic biomass to sugars."

Neither government funding nor venture capital, of course, guarantees research breakthroughs or commercial blockbusters. And even ardent proponents concede that cellulosic ethanol won't solve our fuel problems — or do much to stop global warming — without parallel efforts to improve vehicle efficiency. They also worry that attention could again fade if the first demonstration plants fail or oil prices plummet. "To get this industry going, you need some short-term breakthroughs, by which I mean the next five to seven years," says Martin Keller, a micro biologist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and director of its new BioEnergy Science Center. "Otherwise, my fear is that people may leave this field again."

The problem comes from the quotidian difficulties of making benchtop science work on an industrial scale. Undoubtedly, even some well-funded efforts will fail. But the proliferation of research — the prospect of Lee Lynd's superbug, the evolution of current cellulases, and the addition of new enzymes harvested from nature — stacks the deck in favor of cellulosic ethanol.

Alexander Karsner, assistant secretary for the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, says that with plants going up around the country, the industry could make cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive within six years. "I think there won't be a silver-bullet process, where you say, 'That has won, and everything else is done,'" he says. "So you need many of these technologies."

Having known lean times, Lynd is reluctant to predict the future. But given the freedom of fat wallets, he says, "I truly think that in five years all the hard issues about converting cellulosic biomass to ethanol may be solved."

The researchers' vision, of green and gold switchgrass fields feeding a nationwide network of ethanol plants and filling stations, often has an effortless quality to it — as easy as a few steps sketched out on a blackboard. The money and momentum is here. Solve the science, they argue, and the market will take care of the rest.

http://www.wired.com/images/article/magazine/1510/gr_formula_enzyme_350_f.jpg

[rweatherford]

coolmazda5,

Looks pretty promising. I had heard of switchgrass and the company that designed the local ethanol plant is working on a switchgrass design. I'm assuming it will be more economical to build another plant than retrofit, but perhaps they will come up with a way to merge the two designs together so that one plant can do both.

[jandree22]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/114364

[dreamym5]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/114364


i remember the days. when 1 gal of water(cheers) is cheaper than 1 gal of gasoline.(wiggle). Oh i miss those days..(boom03)

[rweatherford]

I think the real problem in the west is lack of rain for decades. This does cause some problems obviously.

I was curious about the "Yuma County—one of the top three corn-producing counties in the country" quote. This must be a very large county. I was going to look it up, but the National Ag Statistics Service database is down for repair. Colorado only has 7.7% of the acres by state when compared to IL or IA. Only 4% of the Ogallala water is under Colorado. 65% is under Nebraska.

There are many interesting studies on the Ogallala.

http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/~GEL115/115CH18miningwater.html

I guess the old supply and demand economics will work itself out in the end, just as it has in the past.

[1sty]

Just nuke the ice caps.
Should have all the water we need after that.

Stupid Ice

[downtube]

In the end, mother nature can take care of herself. if we get de-selected as a species because of our collective stupidity, life will go on.

[dbthompson]

... Only 4% of the Ogallala water is under Colorado. 65% is under Nebraska. ...
There are many interesting studies on the Ogallala.
http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/~GEL115/115CH18miningwater.html
...

If you check a map of aquifers, you'll see that the Ogallala covers almost all of Nebraska, with the exception of small bits in the NW, NE, and a bigger chunk in the SE.

BTW, you're probably over one of the Mississippian aquifers.

Here's a link to the USGS maps of aquifers:
http://nationalatlas.gov/natlas/natlasstart.asp?AppCmd=AQMAP

[rweatherford]

For some reason I can't get the atlas page to load either.... :(

[WhiteStar III]

The ethanol bust

The ethanol boom is running out of gas as corn prices spike.
By Jon Birger, senior writer

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Cargill announces it's scrapping plans for a $200 million ethanol plant near Topeka, Kan. A judge approves the bankruptcy sale of an unfinished ethanol plant in Canton, Ill.. And that was just Tuesday.

Indeed, plans for as many as 50 new ethanol plants have been shelved in recent months, as Wall Street pulls back from the sector, says Paul Ho, a Credit Suisse investment banker specializing in alternative energy. Financing for new ethanol plants, Ho says, "has been shut down."

How can the ethanol industry be slumping only two months after Congress passed an energy bill most experts consider a biofuels boon? The answer is runaway corn prices.

Spurred by an ethanol plant construction binge, corn prices have gone stratospheric, soaring from below $2 a bushel in 2006 to over $5.25 a bushel today. As a result, it's become difficult for ethanol plants to make a healthy profit, even with oil at $100 a barrel.

Just look at Verasun (VSE). In the third quarter of 2007, Verasun's gross profit margin shrank from 37% to 12%, as its corn costs rose from $2.05 a bushel to $3.32 a bushel. And, remember, corn prices today are 60% higher than they were back then (whereas wholesale ethanol prices are up only 30%.)

The margin crunch now afflicting ethanol producers is something I predicted when I first wrote about the "Dot-Corn" boom in Fortune last March (see "The Great Corn Gold Rush" [full article below]). Here's an excerpt:

[In the summer of 2006] when corn was $2 a bushel and oil was $70 a barrel, ethanol plants were minting money. They averaged $1.06 in profit for every gallon of ethanol sold, according to Credit Suisse. Today, with oil at $60 and corn at $4, ethanol producers typically net an average of only 3 cents...

If corn spikes to $5 -- a real possibility, says A.G. Edwards commodities analyst Dan Vaught -- or oil declines to $50, ethanol's once-fantastic margins would turn negative. That possibility is creating tensions between ethanol producers and corn growers, two groups whose lobbyists are normally attached at the hip.

Looming over all this is a huge catch-22: $4 corn is a result of the 31 new ethanol plants built since 2005, but investors won't keep bankrolling new plants if $4 corn keeps eating up their profits.

The shakeout was inevitable. That said, the ethanol business isn't going away, at least so long as the federal government continues to mandate the use of biofuels -- 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, up from 7 billion last year-and impose hefty tariffs on imported ethanol. There is an oversupply of ethanol right now, but the yearly increase in the biofuels mandate means that demand will eventually catch up with supply.

What probably has changed permanently are ethanol economics. The days of cheap corn are over, and the industry's new, lower profit margins clearly favor ethanol leader Archer Daniels Midland (ADM, Fortune 500) over all the smaller producers like Verasun, privately-held Poet Energy and the many, many farmer-owned ethanol cooperatives. ADM's massive 200 million-gallon-a-year ethanol plants simply have better economies of scale than their 50-million-gallon-a-year rivals. And the fact some of ADM's big plants run on coal instead of natural gas makes ADM's cost advantage that much greater.

Of course, I'm not saying anything that Wall Street doesn't already understand. Since the new energy bill was signed by President Bush on Dec. 19, Verasun and Pacific Ethanol (PEIX) are each down 38%.

And ADM? It's up 10%

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/27/magazines/fortune/ethanol.fortune/index.htm

[WhiteStar III]

The great corn gold rush

The price of America's most important crop has just doubled, and farmers have ethanol to thank for the jackpot, reports Fortune's Jon Birger. But are they now sitting on a 'dot-corn' bubble?

By Jon Birger, Fortune Magazine senior writer
March 30 2007: 10:37 AM EDT


NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Drive down the empty back roads that lead to Gerald Tumbleson's Martin County, Minn., farmhouse, and you'd never know you were riding through one of America's newest boomtowns. It's February, and Tumbleson's cornfields lie fallow under a foot of windswept snow. Tractors sit idle as local farmers await a thaw that won't come for weeks. The clearest evidence of life is the manure stench drifting from Tumbleson's pig barn.

The one giveaway things have changed: all the new bins. Tumbleson now has nine of them - each steel silo rising 60 feet above his front yard contains some 30,000 bushels of corn. Corn growers, you see, didn't used to store so much corn. Farmers delivered most of their crop to the local grain terminal or elevator at harvest time and took whatever price they could get. But that was before the ethanol boom.
There are now four ethanol plants (and two more being built) within 60 miles of Tumbleson's farm, each with a ravenous and constant appetite for corn. In Martin County and all across the Cornbelt, ethanol plants are bidding up corn prices and persuading farmers like Tumbleson to bypass traditional grain markets and sell corn to them year-round instead.

"Farmers tend to be pessimists," says Tumbleson, a 64-year-old veteran of Minnesota farming who has seen freak hailstorms destroy entire crops but never thought he'd see a sustained run of $4-a-bushel corn. "Around here, that's starting to change."

Four-dollar corn. The price probably doesn't mean much to many Fortune readers, certainly not the city slickers who wouldn't know a combine from a planter. But in farm country, $4 corn is more than a big deal. It's a phenomenon. "It's the center of conversation in the center of the country," says Elizabeth Hund, head of agricultural lending for U.S. Bancorp.

In the span of just eight months, the price of the U.S.'s most important crop - our biggest agricultural export as well as the staple feed for our livestock - has doubled from $2, about where it had been stuck since the late 1990s, to $4 a bushel. The cause is soaring demand from ethanol plants, which bought 2.2 billion bushels last year, 34% more than in 2005. Previous price spikes were short-lived and usually caused by drought, but the futures market thinks this rally has legs.

May 2008 corn recently traded at $4.20 a bushel, while December 2010 futures were at $3.74. This means farmers can lock in terrific prices not just for the 2007 crop but for the three after that as well.

Problem is, what's good for farmers - and even better for the companies selling them tractors, seeds, and fertilizer - has started to roil other parts of the economy. The feed costs of cattlemen and hog farmers have skyrocketed. Ethanol producers have seen their profits slashed. Food companies are being squeezed and are starting to pass along higher costs to consumers. (This isn't just a U.S. problem: Mexico is in an uproar over soaring tortilla costs.)

Dirty side to clean energy investing

Corn growers themselves wonder whether they're in a bubble. Some joke about "dot-corn," even as true believers preach of a "new plateau" - a refrain reminiscent of late '90s "new paradigm" talk. But if there's one thing everyone in corn country agrees on, it's this: 2007's crop should be a moneymaker of historic proportions.

The returns on last year's crop were good but not great- much of the harvest was sold well before corn hit $4- but 2007 is shaping up to be a most extraordinary year for Midwest corn growers. According to United Agtech, a Martin County crop consultant, local growers stand to net around $270 for every acre of corn they grow this year- ten times the profit they were realizing just three years ago. (That assumes an average yield of 180 bushels an acre and price of $3.50 a bushel.)

Put a little differently, the farmer who was making $27,000 raising 1,000 acres of corn in 2004 is in a position to earn $270,000 from 2007's crop. Of course, this requires some cooperation from Mother Nature, which, as farmers are quick to point out, is never a sure thing. Nationwide, corn growers' total profits from the 2007 crop could top $13 billion, a tally already rippling through the farm economy.
Demand for farm equipment and inputs (seed, fertilizer, herbicide, insecticide) is soaring. Many Deere dealers sold out of combines in January, around the same time Monsanto sold out of its top-of-the-line, triple-stack hybrid corn seeds (valued for their resistance to rootworm, corn borer bugs, and Roundup herbicide).

"There is unusual optimism," says Michael Pragnell, CEO of Syngenta, a Swiss ag-chemical company that produces herbicides and Garst-brand corn seeds. "No question- this is going to be a strong year in the Midwest for inputs." And while the dollars that individual farmers are spending on themselves pale in comparison to what they're plowing into their fields, there have been some celebratory splurges.
Nebraska Furniture Mart, a home furnishings and electronics superstore with locations in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska, reports that sales growth among customers with rural zip codes was six times higher during the 2006 Christmas shopping season than in 2005. Says Irv Blumkin, CEO of the Berkshire Hathaway - owned retailer, "Farmers are feeling better than they've felt in a long time."

Still, talk to farmers in southern Minnesota about the wealth being created here, and you'll discover there's almost as much anxiety as euphoria. Gerald Tumbleson embodies this as well as anyone. A former National Corn Growers Association president, Tumbleson sees current corn prices as the culmination of a decades-long campaign by corn growers to promote ethanol and create a new market for their crops.

Corn: The inflation crop

Ethanol production is expected to consume 26% of this year's corn harvest, up from 11% in 2004, and Credit Suisse (Charts) energy banker Paul Ho expects that number to hit 36% by 2008. Still, Tumbleson is wary of how fast corn prices have risen. Sitting at his kitchen table one February morning, Tumbleson lays out a scenario in which $4 corn proves to be the ruin of many growers. "A young person just coming into farming now could get hurt really bad by these prices," Tumbleson says, his wife Joanne nodding in the background while she prepares roast chicken and a delicious rhubarb cobbler for lunch.

Tumbleson's nightmare: With so many farmers trying to cash in on $4 corn, land sale prices and rents skyrocket. (Tumbleson and two sons rent about 3,000 of their 4,000 acres, a fairly typical mix.) All the while, farmers are upping how many acres of corn they're planting, often at the expense of wheat, cotton, or soybeans. This shift pushes up prices for equipment, seed, and fertilizer, as corn is a more input-intensive crop to grow.

Eventually, land and input costs rise so much that farmers are making no more off $4 corn than they were at $2. Worse, their businesses are now riskier: higher fixed costs mean farmers have less safety net should drought or storm hit. Then there's the short-term threat. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's latest planting survey estimates 90 million acres of corn will be planted this year, the most since 1944 and a 15% increase from last year's 78 million acres. You don't need a degree in economics to see the risk all that new supply poses to corn prices. Were a market crash to take corn back to $2.50 a bushel, it could bankrupt farmers who had bet the farm on $4 corn.

Experience is all that keeps Tumbleson from making such a bet. He mortgaged his farm to the hilt in the early '80s to buy more land, so convinced was he that corn prices would keep rising. (They didn't.) "Jo is married to a whole different farmer from the one she first married," Tumbleson quips. "Back then I was a plunger - nothing was going to stop me. We were leveraged so deep, it's a wonder we're still farming." Tumbleson isn't alone in his worries. "Four-dollar corn is a bad thing - write that down," says Steve Sodeman of United Agtech, who in addition to being a crop consultant also grows corn of his own. "Greenspan talked about excessive exuberance - well, sad to say, I can tell you that farmers and their landlords suffer from that too."

Land prices in Martin County have already exploded, rising from an average of $2,900 an acre in 2005 to $4,100 today. The last time prices were this high, says local farm auctioneer Allen Kahler, was 1981, when good farmland sold for $4,000 an acre. Within a few years, though, corn prices were down, and many farmers couldn't afford their mortgage payments - especially with interest rates north of 10%. Eventually, land prices fell to $1,500 an acre. "A lot of good people got forced out," remembers Kahler, his voice tinged with melancholy.

So far, land rents have yet to catch up to land prices, but that's only because of a fluke in the farming calendar. Rents are set in September, which last year came before corn prices began their surge. With landlords itching to cash in, farmers may face their steepest rent increases ever this September.

Equipment costs are also rising. Prices on used combines, tractors, and other farm equipment have risen 20% since last fall, Kahler says. As for new equipment, those prices would be up too - if dealers had any inventory. Kelly Artz, manager of Mindeer, Martin County's John Deere dealership, says he's been sold out since January of combines that can be delivered for this year's harvest. All told, his dealership sold 25 new combines for 2007, which is a lot given that new combines retail for as much as $225,000. Still, Artz thinks he could have sold another ten or 15 if Deere had had them available. Asked about tractors, Artz just sighs. "I don't even have one for my showroom," he says.

CEO Robert Lane explains that Deere used to have a bad habit of overproducing tractors and combines during good times and then getting stuck with unsold inventory whenever demand fell short. So while Deere has increased production - responding to what Lane calls "very positive macroeconomic conditions" - it's doing so cautiously. "We're trying to be very disciplined and not overbuild," he says. Deere expects sales of agricultural equipment to be up 8% in 2007.

Beef: What's for dinner could cost more

The demand for Deere's newest equipment reveals a lot about how lucrative the business of growing corn has become. The cabs on its tractors and combines are surprisingly comfortable, equipped with air conditioning, AM/FM stereos with CD players, and seats with adjustable lumbar support. Xenon headlights - yes, the same ones available on luxury cars - are an option, as are, for combines, computerized yield-mapping systems that monitor how much corn is being harvested and which acres are producing the best yields.

Perhaps the hottest option of all is GPS. Deere's global positioning satellite systems allow tractors and combines to literally steer themselves, giving farmers time to multitask - for example, be on their phones or laptops - while out in the fields. More important, when uploaded with data from yield monitors or an agronomist's soil tests, GPS systems can automatically vary fertilizer, insecticide, and herbicide applications depending on what's needed where. And because the system knows where each seed was planted, the application of inputs is incredibly precise.

Tumbleson suspects the biggest beneficiaries of $4 corn will be companies like Deere and the other ag suppliers. "I'll probably upgrade a couple tractors myself," he says. "I'll use a little more fertilizer this year too." He doesn't have much choice when it comes to fertilizer. Like many Martin County farmers, Tumbleson plans on growing 80% corn this year instead of evenly dividing his crop between corn and soybeans, as he has done before.
When farmers plant "corn on corn" - grow corn on the same fields in consecutive years - they need to use more fertilizer. "Our profits will probably be double what they were a few years ago," says Kevin Jones, manager of local fertilizer dealer NuWay Cooperative. All this is music to the ears of ag-stock investors like Bob Turner, founder and chief investment officer of Turner Investment Partners, which has $23 billion under management. Turner considers agriculture the nation's newest growth sector and believes ag stocks are at the dawn of a "supercycle," a rally that could last into next decade.

Turner has been investing in a range of farm-related stocks such as Deere (Charts), Monsanto, and fertilizer maker Agrium (Charts). He even has one of those dot-com-era baseball metaphors to explain where we are in the ag- sector growth curve: "We're still singing the national anthem," says Turner, who grew up in rural Illinois and owns some farmland there. "The farmers who leveraged up may get their heads handed to them," he adds, "but the secular trend of more grains being grown for biofuels isn't going away."

Right now that trend has tremendous popular support, given the desire to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and use cleaner-burning fuels. There are some chinks in ethanol's armor: Ethanol plants are water hogs, a rallying cry for some environmentalists and other NIMBYists. And while ethanol boasts lower greenhouse emissions than gasoline, the advantage is diminished the more producers like ADM burn coal to power their plants.

But the biggest test of all will come once the impact of $4 corn hits supermarket shelves. Campbell Soup, Hormel Foods, Smuckers, and Tyson have all warned of higher food prices, citing the high price of animal feed and food ingredients. Soft-drink prices may be headed up too, as the price of high fructose corn syrup has increased 53% in two years, according to the USDA.

"We're clearly feeling the pinch," said Coca-Cola executive Scott Young at a recent food industry conference. It's not just food execs who are grumbling. Four-dollar corn is creating a rift within the farm community, pitting farmers who raise corn against those who raise livestock and use corn for feed. Doug Bettin, 47, a Martin County hog farmer, says he would have a hard time making ends meet if he didn't grow half of his own corn. "I just didn't think it would hit this hard, this quick," he says of rising feed costs. "Hopefully, hogs are going to go up in price to compensate us." Unfortunately, lean hog prices have actually declined 20% since last August.

One cheap feed alternative is distillers grains, a high-protein byproduct of ethanol production. (Ethanol plants are essentially distilleries that turn corn's carbohydrates into grain alcohol.) Ethanol producers like ADM and VeraSun are quick to tout distillers grains whenever questions are raised about ethanol's impact on feed prices. But Bettin says the value of distillers grains has been oversold, at least for hogs. "If you use too much of it, it softens the fat so much they can't be used for sausage," he says. Cows and steer fare better on partial diets of distillers grains than hogs, but that hasn't placated ranchers and cattle feeders.

[WhiteStar III]

Four-dollar corn was the hot topic at February's annual meeting of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association in Nashville. "I don't think the government should be subsidizing one group of farmers to the detriment of the cattle feeders," says Leo Vermedahl, a Texas feedlot operator on the NCBA's executive committee. The NCBA passed a resolution urging Congress to phase out the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on cheap Brazilian ethanol and the 51-cent-a-gallon refiners tax credit two subsidies crucial to the profitability of U.S. ethanol. (It's a wash for taxpayers: $4 corn has greatly reduced the cost of farm subsidies that effectively set a floor under corn prices.)

For now the NCBA is fighting an uphill battle, given the support for ethanol in Congress and among leading presidential candidates. (Credit the Iowa Caucus for the latter.) Unless beef prices rise enough to offset higher feed costs, cattlemen have some very tough choices. "We're looking at the biggest structural change this industry has faced in 50 years," says NCBA chief economist Gregg Doud.
For instance, do feedlots deal with higher corn costs by squeezing the ranchers who sell them calves and young steers? Or do they switch to a diet heavy on distillers grains, though some experts believe it reduces the marbling that gives beef flavor? "If you're used to eating USDA choice beef, you may have a harder time finding it," says beef industry consultant Len Steiner. "Generally speaking, I'd say the more of the corn crop that's consumed by ethanol, the more the American public has to think about higher food prices."

There is another industry threatened by $4 corn, only this one doesn't dare complain. It's the ethanol industry. Last summer when corn was $2 a bushel and oil was $70 a barrel, ethanol plants were minting money. They averaged $1.06 in profit for every gallon of ethanol sold, according to Credit Suisse. Today, with oil at $60 and corn at $4, ethanol producers typically net an average of only 3 cents. To be sure, ethanol plants buy corn through long-term contracts, and most aren't yet paying $4. Nevertheless, the trend is worrisome.

If corn spikes to $5 - a real possibility, says A.G. Edwards commodities analyst Dan Vaught - or oil declines to $50, ethanol's once-fantastic margins would turn negative. That possibility is creating tensions between ethanol producers and corn growers, two groups whose lobbyists are normally attached at the hip.

The Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol trade group, is withholding support for a seemingly pro-ethanol measure that President Bush proposed in his State of the Union address: increasing mandated usage of alternative fuels from 7.5 billion gallons yearly by 2012 (a level likely to be hit this year) to 35 billion by 2017. For the record, RFA spokesman Matt Hartwig insists that its position has nothing to do with protecting ethanol profits from policies that could lead to even pricier corn: "Our board simply believes that a bigger renewable fuel standard doesn't need to happen before the current one is fully implemented."

Looming over all this is a huge catch-22: $4 corn is a result of the 31 new ethanol plants built since 2005, but investors won't keep bankrolling new plants if $4 corn keeps eating up their profits. That's why Credit Suisse's Ho thinks a corn correction is inevitable.

Back in Minnesota, Tumbleson isn't waiting around for the market to change. Using crop insurance and forward sales contracts, he and his sons have all but locked in a $144-an-acre profit on half their 2007 crop. Sure, some neighbors think $4 corn is a pit stop on the way to $5 and are holding out for an even bigger payday. But Tumbleson has seen too much go wrong during 40 years of farming to get greedy now. "We're talking 2,000 acres times $144 an acre in profit," he says. "Why in the world would you not take that?"

[ProtoType5]

That article states that oil is $60/barrel...That's not what I'm hearing..so the data is obviously older or incorrect...

#1 thing we should do is drop the tariff on imported ethanol...A recent National Geographic article compared the efficiency of distilling ethanol from corn vs. sugar cane. The ethanol created by corn uses nearly as much energy to produce/distill as it can create in combustion. So corn for ethanol is a dead end as far as manufacturing...By comparrison Sugar cane creates an enormous amount of ethanol in production compared to the energy used to create it....

Corn should be food, not ethanol...There are much better sources for ethanol than corn.

[coolmazda5]

A good read from the AAA magazine. Their AAA battery trucks use it in the Mid-Atlantic area it seems...

Philadelphia Fry-o-Diesel is a world leader in producing renewable, cleaner burning fuel from waste grease.

Founded in 2004, Philadelphia Fry-o-Diesel (PFoD) has developed patent-pending technology for the conversion of extremely distressed waste greases, like trap grease, into high quality diesel fuel. PFoD owns and operates a pilot plant in North Philadelphia demonstrating this technology.

Companies in urban locales across the U.S. are implementing plans to convert food wastes—including used vegetable oil—into biodiesel fuel. The contribution to overall biodiesel output is small, experts say, though reliable production figures are not readily available. Still, policymakers are starting to
take note, their interest piqued by the promise of tackling a variety of
urban environmental woes at once.

http://www.fryodiesel.com/

[pick41]

The Used grease diesel is nice, and from what I understand is pretty easy to turn into fuel, I look at some people I know running it, and know it can't be that hard. Even if purchasing new veggie oil is a nice way to go. The only thing that scares me about veggie is the gel temps, and keeping the filters clean. Oh and it makes the exhaust smell like french fries!
The Soy Based Bio-Diesel (B5, B20, ect) is nice as well, just harder to come by at least where I'm at, but can find it at the CO-OP in the town I work. The only thing I truly noticed was a slight decrease in MPG, and less smoke WOT. HP and everything else seemed fine, and last time I filled up with B20 (not farm fuel either) the price was a little higher than straight #2 Diesel.

Back to the Ethanol. My brother runs it and likes it in his Ram 1500 4x4, the MPG is down a little, but with the price here, his weekly fuel bill has went from $60+ a week to $45 a week. I don't think its really the answer, but at least its another choice for people. And for those who want to feel like they are going GREEN and saving the plant.

On a personal note: If Ethanol is causing corn prices to rise, good. Its helping out the farmers, I'm for it. The price of farming hasn't went down. Its sad to see 100+ years of a family's blood, sweat, and tears sold off 10 acres at a time, because of low corn, bean, cattle, swine prices. But that's just me.

[WhiteStar III]

That article states that oil is $60/barrel...That's not what I'm hearing..so the data is obviously older or incorrect...

"The margin crunch now afflicting ethanol producers is something I predicted when I first wrote about the "Dot-Corn" boom in Fortune last March (see "The Great Corn Gold Rush")."


On a personal note: If Ethanol is causing corn prices to rise, good. Its helping out the farmers, I'm for it. The price of farming hasn't went down. Its sad to see 100+ years of a family's blood, sweat, and tears sold off 10 acres at a time, because of low corn, bean, cattle, swine prices. But that's just me.
How is inflation good for anyone, farmers included?

[pick41]

"The margin crunch now afflicting ethanol producers is something I predicted when I first wrote about the "Dot-Corn" boom in Fortune last March (see "The Great Corn Gold Rush")."


How is inflation good for anyone, farmers included?


Wasn't saying that Inflation is a good thing, but its going to happen. Look at car prices. The same base Hyundia Accent I bought new in 1995 for $6,499, w/A/C but no radio, is now $12,799, granted that price does now get you A/C and a Radio.

[rweatherford]

It's not good. All farm inputs are basically double what they were last year. So everyone wants a piece of the pie....