Should the Ethanol Bubble Burst?

[zugmann]

Hydrogen is a technology that is being designed to fail.  California also had that emissions bill which resulted in the GM EV1 and Rav-4 and Ford Ranger electrics.  Look how far that got  (and plug in electrics are a lot easier to implement than hydrogen).

 

 

KING OIL HIT CLOSE TO 115 A BARREL TODAY...

ETHANOL IS A BANDAID FIX. WE GET 15 MILLION BARRELS OIL DAILY. WHEN ALL 150 ETHANOL PLANTS ARE RUNNING THE OUTPUT WILL BE LESS THAN 10 PERCENT INCREASE IN GASOLINE STOCKS. THAT AINT MUCH.SAY 500,OOO BARRELS A DAY?

MEANWHILE ONLY ONE STATE IS GETTING ITS S**T TOGETHER,CALIFORNIA. HYDROGEN AUTOS MADE BY HONDA AND TOYOTA (WHERE IS GM FORD) ARE BEING AVAILABLE FOR ONLY CALIF.

WE ARE LIKE A CRACK ADDICT ADDICTED TO CRACK. THE ONLY WAY TO GET OFF IS TO QUIT. CALIFORNIA HAS ITS S**T TOGETHER AND IS TRYING TO DO THAT.

YOU DONT HAVE TO BE A ROCKET SCIENTIST  TO FIGURE THAT. WHY DOESNT WASHINGTON PASS A BILL TO MAKE IT HAPPEN IN OTHER STATES.  WE ARE KILLING OURSELVES WHEN THERE IS A SOLUTION. HYDROGEN USES NO OIL AND DOESNT POLLUTE.SIMPLE SIMON

PROBLEM SOLVED....NEXT?? 

[Convicted One]

A very recent issue of Time magazine explores the biofuel question with a particular focus upon the side effect it's having on rising food prices...well worth the read.  It also mentions that ethanol motorfuels are worse carbon emitters than gasoline, per mile driven, because the growing and distillation processes emit so much CO2 themselves, in addition to the 'combustion for motive power'  end use process,... so E85 is not the envirosavior many have touted it to be.

They also present that one person can be fed for one year on the amount of corn required to make sufficient motorfuel to fill up the fuel tank of one SUV.

[Convicted One]

And before someone tries to nail me about the carbon emited during the growing process, I'm well aware that the actual photosysthesis of the growth phase is a carbon eater. what the are talking about is the carbon emissions of the farm machinery used in farming the corn, just as they are talking about the carbon emmissions of the energy source used for heat for the distillation process

[Murphy Siding]

They also present that one person can be fed for one year on the amount of corn required to make sufficient motorfuel to fill up the fuel tank of one SUV.

That might actually be relevant, if humans ate the field corn that is used for ethanol production.

[Anonymous]

They also present that one person can be fed for one year on the amount of corn required to make sufficient motorfuel to fill up the fuel tank of one SUV.

That might actually be relevant, if humans ate the field corn that is used for ethanol production.

Don't humans eat the animals that eat the field corn?

[Convicted One]

That might actually be relevant, if humans ate the field corn that is used for ethanol production.

 

No, it IS RELEVANT.  Notice the  wording they use.....One person can be fed for one year. It's a subtle twist on the old paradigm of taking food out of people's mouths to make motorfuel

They are saying one person COULD be fed for a year on that amount of corn (assuming one diverted ethanol bound corn to somone's dinnertable) .I've eaten field corn before, you just have to get it before it gets tough and "woody"

[Murphy Siding]

They also present that one person can be fed for one year on the amount of corn required to make sufficient motorfuel to fill up the fuel tank of one SUV.

That might actually be relevant, if humans ate the field corn that is used for ethanol production.

Don't humans eat the animals that eat the field corn?

Sure they do, but no humans other than ConvictedOne do.  The point is, the corn being used to make ethanol is not the same corn being grown for human consumption.  I guess *technically* one person can be fed for one year on the amount  of switchgrass(?) and sugarcane required to make sufficient motorfuel to fill up the fuel tank of one SUV; if you wish to eat them as well.

[Murphy Siding]

They are saying one person COULD be fed for a year on that amount of corn (assuming one diverted ethanol bound corn to somone's dinnertable) .I've eaten field corn before, you just have to get it before it gets tough and "woody"

  Remind me to turn down all dinner invitations at your house.

      "Ever eat a pine tree?  Many parts are edible"  -Ewell Gibbons/Grapenuts commercials of old

[jeffhergert]

A very recent issue of Time magazine explores the biofuel question with a particular focus upon the side effect it's having on rising food prices...well worth the read.  It also mentions that ethanol motorfuels are worse carbon emitters than gasoline, per mile driven, because the growing and distillation processes emit so much CO2 themselves, in addition to the 'combustion for motive power'  end use process,... so E85 is not the envirosavior many have touted it to be.

They also present that one person can be fed for one year on the amount of corn required to make sufficient motorfuel to fill up the fuel tank of one SUV.

I wonder if these comparisons take into account the energy used to extract, transport and refine oil into gasoline.

Watch out what field corn you eat.  There are some genetically modified variaties that aren't approved for human consumption.  It probably won't hurt you, it's just not been OK'd.  I guess it's OK to eat animals that have been fed it.

Jeff 

   

[Andrew Falconer]

The only alternative that is easily available is to produce combustable gasses like methane from animal and human waste.

Andrew

[RRKen]

That might actually be relevant, if humans ate the field corn that is used for ethanol production.

 

No, it IS RELEVANT.  Notice the  wording they use.....One person can be fed for one year. It's a subtle twist on the old paradigm of taking food out of people's mouths to make motorfuel

They are saying one person COULD be fed for a year on that amount of corn (assuming one diverted ethanol bound corn to somone's dinnertable) .I've eaten field corn before, you just have to get it before it gets tough and "woody"

 You folks need to learn how to read with your eyes open for a change.  

 Corn in.   Byproduct out.  Byproduct fed to animals as feed.   Cheaper than whole grain corn.

 What part of that don't you understand???????

[RRKen]

And where has all this bleating been since 1972??????????  All of a sudden, ethanol has become a bad thing?    You people just amaze the heck out of me.  Do you ever think an independent thought at all?  Or are you spoon fed by the media????

 Do you all realize how silly you sound? 

[solzrules]

And the same could be said about you.  There is no market for this product, only a law stating that we have to use it.  Don't you find it interesting that ethanol became a big deal AFTER the gov decided we have to use it in gas?  Seems to me the economics weren't there before, and there aren't there now.  The only thing that has changed is the politics.

[Anonymous]

From what i have read, farmers may switch from corn to switch grass, pardon the pun. Switch grass is a native American prarie grass that yields a much greater amount of energy than corn.

Ethanol made from switch grass is ethanol, is it not? So, the same ethanol tank cars would be used.

Switch grass can be planted once, and when harvested, will grow back without reseeding as corn must be reseeded each year. Switch grass can grow well on poor soils with no fertilizer and little water, but if continually harvested it would need fertilizer to replace nutrients used and watering would increase yield. Hebicides would also be used, as with other crops.

An acre of switchgrass can produce about 1000 gallons of ethanol versus 665 for sugar cane (a la Brazil) and 400 gallons for corn, according to Wikipedia (hope they're correct on this one). There is debate about whether one gets as much engey out as put in, ranging from less out than in (not good) to 4 out for 1 in (looks good to me). 

Unlike corn that will produce a crop the year the first seeds are planted, it takes about three years for a switchgrass field to come to its full potential. Once it does, it is about 5-6 feet tall with roots about asdeep as it is tall, making for an excellent deep loam.

This begs the quetion of creating food shortages because a field planted in switch grass would not be a field planted in corn. I do not know if the greater energy yield of switch grass would mean fewer acres planted in the stuff versus planted in corn. It depends on greed and need. If so, that could help the food problem somewhat. With switchgrass being able to get 2.5 times as many gallons per acre then we might only need 40% of corn planted for ethanol if we used switchgrass instead.

It would be supremely ironic if switchgrass, a native grass that was probably considered a weed, would turn out to help alleviate this biofuel mess we have gotten ourselves into.

The law of unintended consequences that turn around and bite us should give us pause before we give 1% of GDP the world over to well intended but arrogant medlers with the ecological balance we call the planet earth, still in operation and spinning nicely after billions of years. What other mechanism can boast that? Hubris may well do us all in.

[Anonymous]

 You folks need to learn how to read with your eyes open for a change.  

 Corn in.   Byproduct out.  Byproduct fed to animals as feed.   Cheaper than whole grain corn.

 What part of that don't you understand???????

This part:

 

Given that:

 

1)    The byproduct is cheaper than corn.

 

2)    The byproduct has higher nutrition content than corn.

 

QUESTION:

 

How many pounds of corn does it take to make one pound of byproduct, and what is the nutrition content of that quantity of corn, compared to the nutrition content of the one pound of byproduct?

[Anonymous]

They also present that one person can be fed for one year on the amount of corn required to make sufficient motorfuel to fill up the fuel tank of one SUV.

That might actually be relevant, if humans ate the field corn that is used for ethanol production.

Don't humans eat the animals that eat the field corn?

Sure they do, but no humans other than ConvictedOne do.  The point is, the corn being used to make ethanol is not the same corn being grown for human consumption.  I guess *technically* one person can be fed for one year on the amount  of switchgrass(?) and sugarcane required to make sufficient motorfuel to fill up the fuel tank of one SUV; if you wish to eat them as well.

What am I missing?  Field corn is fed to beef cattle and people eat beef.  Field corn is fed to dairy cattle and people drink milk.  Field corn is fed to chicken and people eat chicken and chicken eggs.  People to not eat field corn directly, but they eat the animal products that are produced by feeding animals field corn.

Therefore, if you create a shortage in supply of field corn, you drive up its price, and that price increase in turn drives up the price of beef, chicken, milk, and eggs that humans eat.

[Convicted One]

      "Ever eat a pine tree?  Many parts are edible"  -Ewell Gibbons/Grapenuts commercials of old

 

LOL!  I remember from my jungle survival training in the Marine corps, that the smart soldier can find a veritable buffett table under every rock.  Some species of slug have a taste that is indistinguishable from roasted pecans

[Convicted One]

 You folks need to learn how to read with your eyes open for a change.  

 Corn in.   Byproduct out.  Byproduct fed to animals as feed.   Cheaper than whole grain corn.

 What part of that don't you understand???????

 

Calm down Ken, take a deep breath.....relax.   The thought processes  presented here are somewhat evolved , so allow me to elucidate.....They are making an abstract reference to the amount of protein contained in the amount of corn required to fuel up one suv, and offering in comparison how long one person could be nourished therefrom. I know that sometimes these  advanced concepts  can get tricky, so feel free to ask again on the real toughies

[Convicted One]

  I wonder if these comparisons take into account the energy used to extract, transport and refine oil into gasoline.

Watch out what field corn you eat.  There are some genetically modified variaties that aren't approved for human consumption.  It probably won't hurt you, it's just not been OK'd.  I guess it's OK to eat animals that have been fed it.

Jeff 

   

 

That is a good question, although they did not go into extended detail to explain, the article claimed that the means of production was factored in for both ethanol as well as gasoline derived from oil.

One other point I forgot to mention earlier, is that the carbon emited from clearing the fields to make them available to farming is factored in for ethanol as well...many varieties of forest trees are top knotch sequesterers of carbon, while the corn stalks that replace them are not.

One final note on my personal consumption of field corn, I have not eaten any since my rebellious teenager days, when we would raid farmer's fields just to be anarchistic

 

 

[Convicted One]

.  Do you ever think an independent thought at all?  

 

You mean such as "In spite of the fact that the ethanol  business is good for railroading, perhaps there might be a bigger picture worth examining?"  independant thought  such as that? thank you!!

[Convicted One]

And the same could be said about you.  There is no market for this product, only a law stating that we have to use it.  Don't you find it interesting that ethanol became a big deal AFTER the gov decided we have to use it in gas?  Seems to me the economics weren't there before, and there aren't there now.  The only thing that has changed is the politics.

 

Ethanol is great for the businesses who harness the subsidies, and the related industries that service those businesses.

My prediction? in 5 years those who have spent additional money for an E85 compatible car, will still be watching HD-DVD's..and insisting that their betamax's had a superior picture

[Anonymous]

I believe that RRKen has provided well-reasoned arguments throughout this thread, and has been met with derision.  

The majority of the other posters here are posting what I consider to be over emotional responses ranging from "its a government conspiracy" to "the entire world will starve as a result of ethanol production".

I'd like to see some reasoned argument as to why ethanol production is bad...preferably from a contributor who has the bonafides to make such an argument.

Because I'm not convinced by any of your arguments that ethanol is a bad thing 

 

 

[Convicted One]

I believe that RRKen has provided well-reasoned arguments throughout this thread, and has been met with derision.  

 

At 10:27 PM yesterday, RR Ken posted: "Do you all realize how silly you sound?"

My my yes...what sound, logic based reasoning

[Anonymous]

I believe that RRKen has provided well-reasoned arguments throughout this thread, and has been met with derision.  

 

At 10:27 PM yesterday, RR Ken posted: "Do you all realize how silly you sound?"

My my yes...what sound, logic based reasoning

 

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps its because of some of the ignorant (and snide) comments....to include yours?

Don't give me sarcasm...Lets have a reasoned argument here.

I haven't seen anyone arguing against ethanol here state anything but knee-jerk emotion.

What a way to contribute to a thread. 

 

 

[RRKen]

And the same could be said about you.  There is no market for this product, only a law stating that we have to use it.  Don't you find it interesting that ethanol became a big deal AFTER the gov decided we have to use it in gas?  Seems to me the economics weren't there before, and there aren't there now.  The only thing that has changed is the politics.

 Before the mandate, specifically, the energy bill of 2005¹, Ethanol was moving in good quantities to places like Pipola, Arizona and Chicago, Illinois.   That has been happening since 1977.  No one mandated that ethanol specifically, prior to 2006, be used in gasoline.  Yet, there was a market to support 8 large scale plants.  

 

¹ "The RFS is a national flexible program that does
not require that any renewable fuels be used in any particular area or state,
allowing refiners to use renewable fuel blends in those areas where it is most
cost-effective. " 

[zugmann]

Or if the ethanol business goes away completely (which I doubt), those people in their E85 compatible cars will just be running them off of regular gasoline. Only thing different would be the faded decal on the trunk.   

 

 

 

Ethanol is great for the businesses who harness the subsidies, and the related industries that service those businesses.

My prediction? in 5 years those who have spent additional money for an E85 compatible car, will still be watching HD-DVD's..and insisting that their betamax's had a superior picture

[Murphy Siding]

What am I missing?  Field corn is fed to beef cattle and people eat beef.  Field corn is fed to dairy cattle and people drink milk.  Field corn is fed to chicken and people eat chicken and chicken eggs.  People to not eat field corn directly, but they eat the animal products that are produced by feeding animals field corn.

A fair question deserves a fair answer.  The wording of the statement is misleading.  It's made to make people think that we are literally taking food out of people's mouths, in order to make ethanol.  That is not the literal truth.  Certainly, there are arguements to be made about the effects of ethanol on the food supply and price>>different issue.

     Replace the word corn, in your above paragraph with the word grass.  You can then make a case against the wastefullness of mowing lawns, when we should be feeding that grass to the farm animals.  Neither my example or the corn/SUV example are about logic, they are about emotion; that's the part that makes me shake my head.

     For the record, I don't think ethanol makes sense from an economic standpoint.  Each gallon has to be subsidized to the tune of about a dollar.  Were there no subsidy, there would be no ethanol industry.  Whether that is right or wrong, depends on which side of the fence you are on.

     Fair enough?  Stop over later.  ConvictedOne is coming over, and we're cooking up some field corn, slugs, pine trees and grass clippings.

[Murphy Siding]

 You folks need to learn how to read with your eyes open for a change.  

 Corn in.   Byproduct out.  Byproduct fed to animals as feed.   Cheaper than whole grain corn.

 What part of that don't you understand???????

This part:

 

Given that:

 

1)    The byproduct is cheaper than corn.

 

2)    The byproduct has higher nutrition content than corn.

 

QUESTION:

 

How many pounds of corn does it take to make one pound of byproduct, and what is the nutrition content of that quantity of corn, compared to the nutrition content of the one pound of byproduct?

If the cattle producers around here are buying the byproduct to feed, instead of the corn, does that sort of answer the question?

[Convicted One]

Don't give me sarcasm...Lets have a reasoned argument here.

 

 

**ahem**...from your earlier post:

 

The majority of the other posters here are posting what I consider to be over emotional responses ranging from "its a government conspiracy" to "the entire world will starve as a result of ethanol production".

 

EXACTLY what about your extrapolations and exaggerations do you consider "well reasoned"?

Your theatrics are thusly noted.

[Convicted One]

Or if the ethanol business goes away completely (which I doubt), those people in their E85 compatible cars will just be running them off of regular gasoline. Only thing different would be the faded decal on the trunk.   

 

 

No, one OTHER THING that will be different will be the premium price they were duped into paying for a trendy-gone obsolete "flexi-fuel" pie in the sky vehicle