Comment bout why not use coal. Has anyone considered how much diesel fuel RR's use?
If the RR's converted to electric power how many gigawatts would they need? And how much liquid diesel fuel would be saved?
Could anyone say how much diesel fuel the Railways use in a year?
Yes I know look it up on the internet.
rgds IGN
vsmith wrote: - No one, not even me, is going to knock the people who have a legitimate uses for such vehicles,-I ask...what percentage of those big truck/SUVs are actually owned and operated by people who use them as legitimate working vehicles? -I really beleive that you should drive what you like, -
It sounds like you really believe that you should drive what you like as long as it is legitimate.
Andrew Falconer wrote: greyhounds wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Andrew Falconer wrote: Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.Corn is a grass. The type of corn used for livestock feed is planted densely, generates few ears -- less than one per plant -- and is generally harvested prior to the ears even ripening. No one raises corn to feed livestock because of the corn kernels. It is a C-4 grass that generates substantial carbohydrate biomass compared to other temperate zone grasses or, in particular, alfalfa. Makes a good silage which cows and hogs like to eat. Just wanted to make sure this one wasn't deleted.I was just making a broad generalization. Just like everbody else.It was a broad-leaf generalization.Andrew
greyhounds wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Andrew Falconer wrote: Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.Corn is a grass. The type of corn used for livestock feed is planted densely, generates few ears -- less than one per plant -- and is generally harvested prior to the ears even ripening. No one raises corn to feed livestock because of the corn kernels. It is a C-4 grass that generates substantial carbohydrate biomass compared to other temperate zone grasses or, in particular, alfalfa. Makes a good silage which cows and hogs like to eat. Just wanted to make sure this one wasn't deleted.
MichaelSol wrote: Andrew Falconer wrote: Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.Corn is a grass. The type of corn used for livestock feed is planted densely, generates few ears -- less than one per plant -- and is generally harvested prior to the ears even ripening. No one raises corn to feed livestock because of the corn kernels. It is a C-4 grass that generates substantial carbohydrate biomass compared to other temperate zone grasses or, in particular, alfalfa. Makes a good silage which cows and hogs like to eat.
Andrew Falconer wrote: Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.
Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.
Corn is a grass. The type of corn used for livestock feed is planted densely, generates few ears -- less than one per plant -- and is generally harvested prior to the ears even ripening. No one raises corn to feed livestock because of the corn kernels. It is a C-4 grass that generates substantial carbohydrate biomass compared to other temperate zone grasses or, in particular, alfalfa. Makes a good silage which cows and hogs like to eat.
Just wanted to make sure this one wasn't deleted.
I was just making a broad generalization.
Just like everbody else.
It was a broad-leaf generalization.
Andrew
Andrew, you have misunderstood my intention.
narig01 wrote:Could anyone say how much diesel fuel the Railways use in a year?
I can't really say, but I know that BNSF is the nation's #1 consumer of diesel. Only the US Navy uses more. I would reckon that UP must be close on their heels.
Some facts published by BNSF -
narig01 wrote:Comment bout why not use coal. Has anyone considered how much diesel fuel RR's use?If the RR's converted to electric power how many gigawatts would they need? And how much liquid diesel fuel would be saved?Could anyone say how much diesel fuel the Railways use in a year? Yes I know look it up on the internet. rgds IGN
Well, UP says that they use 3 million gallons per day, BNSF a little less, say NS and CSX about 80 percent as much. Do the math.
vsmith wrote: -I always get this same aurgument from the rural contingient. I live in the urban-suburban zone, where MOST of the country lives and we get a very different perspective of who drives what...
Don't forget where ya'll get your food. We in ruralopolis are the ones who work the 16 hour days to feed you folks in urbania. Come to think of it, we're the ones sending you all that cheap hydro electricity as well.
And what do we get for our efforts? A bunch of jaded third world wannabes who want to legislate away our pickups and breach our dams.
Looks like ya'll are getting the better of that deal, huh?
How about you folks in urbania try and be self sustaining for a change? Guess how long that'll last? You can't grow what you eat, you can't even begin to produce what you consume. Yet you have the *expertise* to tell us what and how to function!
The opposition to drilling in ANWR et al comes from urbania, not from ruralopolis. The push for those idiotic CAFE standards come from urbania, not ruralopolis. The demand for mandated renewable standards comes from urbania, not ruralopolis. Oxymoronic statements like "Support our troops, oppose the war" comes from urbania, not ruralopolis. Washington Senator Maria Cantwell standing in from of a windmill and proclaiming "These windmills will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil!" Yep, the same MC who opposes increased domestic hydrocarbon development. And apparently she's of the majority in the Senate on that little tidbit of oxymojo!
Please understand this - We complain of high fuel prices not due to that little misperception of yours, but because we know intuitively that it is unnecessary if we simply are allowed to develop out own energy resources we have at hand within our own borders.
Democracy cannot survive if a majority of the voting public is that mentally addled. Too bad our Founding Fathers didn't hard wire a requirement for minimal cognitive abilities for genuine US citizens before one is allowed the priveledge of voting, let alone the sacred honor of public service. Pretty much anyone with a heartbeat can do either these days!
PS - You're right: I don't use my pickup for work related travel, it's strictly for show and comfort. But it does come in handy once in a while to buck a snowdrift or two!
My whole thing on this is as follows: global warming is true and is happening, who cares about the rest of the worlds food reserve when they don't do anything to help us out, the railroads are the most fuel efficient mode of transportation, and the current fuel crisis is all fabricated to justify the high price at the pump. I could expand on everything but it would turn into an even larger political debate then it already is. The one thing I will say is this the US doesn't want to ultimately back Ethanol production too much because all the rich politicians that get their pay checks from the oil industry and every industry that depends on oil. Basically everyone is greasing everyone else to keep profits up and their wallets full (stock owners too). All they want to do is keep the EPA happy and say they are using more environmentally sound methods. But just this last month the EPA has lowered the gas MPG standards by as much as 40% on autos for the first time in what 20 years. Which means that the EPA is helping the oil industry keep the prices where they are currently at by saying that its OK for automakers to make less fuel efficient cars to "justify increased demand at the pumps"
Anyone else have any insights in what is going on with the US and its "oil sortage crisis" and what they are doing to balance this with alternate fuel sources.
derailedtrainofthought wrote: My whole thing on this is as follows: global warming is true and is happening, who cares about the rest of the worlds food reserve when they don't do anything to help us out, the railroads are the most fuel efficient mode of transportation, and the current fuel crisis is all fabricated to justify the high price at the pump. I could expand on everything but it would turn into an even larger political debate then it already is. The one thing I will say is this the US doesn't want to ultimately back Ethanol production too much because all the rich politicians that get their pay checks from the oil industry and every industry that depends on oil. Basically everyone is greasing everyone else to keep profits up and their wallets full (stock owners too). All they want to do is keep the EPA happy and say they are using more environmentally sound methods. But just this last month the EPA has lowered the gas MPG standards by as much as 40% on autos for the first time in what 20 years. Which means that the EPA is helping the oil industry keep the prices where they are currently at by saying that its OK for automakers to make less fuel efficient cars to "justify increased demand at the pumps"
You're right, it's all a huge conspiracy by The Rich & Powerful to keep you poor and unhappy.
Man, you really are off the tracks ...
Maybe,
But I would prefer it to be the other way around....where they have to trade what we want for food credits.
No tradie, no eatie the Wheaties...
Personally, as long as people, kids in particular, go hungry in this country, regardless of their circumstances or how they got there, the rest of the world can take a hike.
Give me one good reason why any child in America should go hungry.
TheAntiGates wrote: edblysard wrote: If we choose to lessen our dependence on oil as a fuel for our cars, and substitute ethanol for parts of that fuel, then that's our choice to make...and if it means other countries have to find a better way to feed them selves,...then so be it. Maybe we could trade corn for carbon credits?
edblysard wrote: If we choose to lessen our dependence on oil as a fuel for our cars, and substitute ethanol for parts of that fuel, then that's our choice to make...and if it means other countries have to find a better way to feed them selves,...then so be it.
If we choose to lessen our dependence on oil as a fuel for our cars, and substitute ethanol for parts of that fuel, then that's our choice to make...and if it means other countries have to find a better way to feed them selves,...then so be it.
Maybe we could trade corn for carbon credits?
23 17 46 11
CAZEPHYR wrote:Brazil is using Sugar Cane to make their fuel, not corn like we are using. Sugar Cane can be raised in many warmer states and will be probably used in lieu of corn or as a replacement for corn in some areas.
Brazil is using Sugar Cane to make their fuel, not corn like we are using. Sugar Cane can be raised in many warmer states and will be probably used in lieu of corn or as a replacement for corn in some areas.
The Us is not a very good sugar producer, which is why we have both large tariffs on sugar and price supports to keep rural southern sugar farmers wealthy. I'd be interested in Brazil's capacity to actually export sugar and satisfy their own demand if sugar is used for fuel. I'd wager it's not possible, but I don't know that for a fact.
so far this thread has produced the usual "we shoudl address global warming at any cost, regardless of long term impact or sustainability" and "i live in a city, it's SUV driving lumpen idiots causing the whole problem" (AFAIK, the second one is patently false.
Let's face it, the US government didn't all of a sudden get worried about the environment. they saw an opportunity to sell the public a false book of goods because they are worried about the environment and most of us don't know much about supply, demand, or the impact on the environment. the science behind global climate change is about as clear as mud. It's happening but no one knows how much we control or what we can do about it. What the government knows is that it can sell the public on this and make their buddies at ADM (and other interests) rich off of it. Like Farm Aid, they can pretend they're helping family farmers while continuing to distort world markets and destabilize poor countries (the second half of that isn't intended, it's just a consequence).
PS-government subsidized agricultural output went unchecked from WWI until the Great Depression. Farmers stripped land of its natural cover to cash in on government checks. It caused the "dust bowl" and red rain of the 1930's. do we really want that again?
In the long run, are we better off than if that money were used to beef up rail infrastructure nd alternative fuel research?
Datafever wrote: Some facts published by BNSF -
That should read *facts*.
On average, railways are more than three times more fuel efficient than trucks.
On average, that's correct. But let's not forget modal differentiation..........
Nearly one billion gallons of fuel per year could be saved if only 10 percent of the freight that currently moves by truck were moved by rail.
But do the railroads really want that traffic?
Bottom line: I don't believe there is 10% of any type of truck traffic that the railroads can move better, other than as TOFC/COFC/bi-modal. And the railroads seem fairly cool to the idea of more domestic intermodal service offerings.
Freight railway fuel efficiency has risen 74 percent since 1980.In 2004, a gallon of diesel fuel carried a ton of freight nearly 410 miles on the U.S. freight railways.
Both true, but remember the kicker - that's mostly due to the loss of shortline, branchline, and intermediate terminalization. The resulting loss in certain types of hauls has defaulted to either truckload or shutdown. The carload branchline service getting that measley 150 ton/miles per gallon may likely have shifted to trucks getting 60 ton/miles per gallon. Thus, in many of the cases the overall supply chain fuel efficiency numbers have dropped rather than improved.
BTW - I'm not picking on railroads, just their current modus operandi. I'd personally like to see greater competitive capacity added to the US rail network, and let third party transporters try their hand at those niche markets that have defaulted to OTR truckers. But, some get kinda testy when I bring that up.......
Bucyrus wrote: vsmith wrote: - No one, not even me, is going to knock the people who have a legitimate uses for such vehicles,-I ask...what percentage of those big truck/SUVs are actually owned and operated by people who use them as legitimate working vehicles? -I really beleive that you should drive what you like, - It sounds like you really believe that you should drive what you like as long as it is legitimate.
I think mostly what we have here, is a failure to understand our perspectives, I'm looking at this from a strickly urban traffic commute viewpoint, others here are looking at it from a more "these are vital work vehicles out here" viewpoint, I said earlier that I know these vehicles have real uses. I'll agree the term "legitamate" is debatable, (legitimate use = real use) but...
When you consider that the great majority of these large SUVs nationwide never get more demanding use than taking the kids to a school they could likely walk to, or driven to work by a single occupant.
AS I SAID: You can drive whatever you like,
Just please dont whine if you buy it and you suddenly realize that you can't afford the car payment, insurance and fuel costs at the same time.
Please dont whine about your 2hr one way commute at 9 mpg if you have access to a effective and clean transit alternatives like light rail, employer vanpools or carpools.
Please dont whine if gas goes back to $3.50+ a gallon and it cost you $100+ to fill the thing...
I think part of the problem here is that unless you've lived in a denser urban area and have had to deal with some of these issues on a daily basis, you'll never "get it" from my perspective...Oh well. I've had to deal with people, who somehow think that its their God given handed to them personally by Jesus in flaming stone tabletes right as an American to pay nothing for the gas needed to fill their enormous big wheeled ego inflaters. Sheesh!
Anyway, 'nough said, back to topic...need gas? eat at McDonalds, I get gas everytime I go there
Have fun with your trains
It could lead to upheavel, riots and all of the other you mentioned. It depends on how it is handled. As for CO2 being bad, I have to question their methods. If anything burns clean like natural gas the by product is CO2. If the ethenol burns completly then it's by product will be CO2. Am I missing something here?
Coal and oil are not renewable which means that in time we will run out. If we don't have an alternative fuel what do we do then?
As far as the ethenol operations cutting into our economy, and other nations, I can say that up here in Pennsylvania there are a lot of farmland growing weeds and I am sure that is pretty true across the nation.
vsmith wrote: Bucyrus wrote: vsmith wrote: - No one, not even me, is going to knock the people who have a legitimate uses for such vehicles,-I ask...what percentage of those big truck/SUVs are actually owned and operated by people who use them as legitimate working vehicles? -I really beleive that you should drive what you like, - It sounds like you really believe that you should drive what you like as long as it is legitimate.I think mostly what we have here, is a failure to understand our perspectives, I'm looking at this from a strickly urban traffic commute viewpoint, others here are looking at it from a more "these are vital work vehicles out here" viewpoint, I said earlier that I know these vehicles have real uses. I'll agree the term "legitamate" is debatable, (legitimate use = real use) but...When you consider that the great majority of these large SUVs nationwide never get more demanding use than taking the kids to a school they could likely walk to, or driven to work by a single occupant. AS I SAID: You can drive whatever you like, Just please dont whine if you buy it and you suddenly realize that you can't afford the car payment, insurance and fuel costs at the same time.Please dont whine about your 2hr one way commute at 9 mpg if you have access to a effective and clean transit alternatives like light rail, employer vanpools or carpools.Please dont whine if gas goes back to $3.50+ a gallon and it cost you $100+ to fill the thing... I think part of the problem here is that unless you've lived in a denser urban area and have had to deal with some of these issues on a daily basis, you'll never "get it" from my perspective...Oh well. I've had to deal with people, who somehow think that its their God given handed to them personally by Jesus in flaming stone tabletes right as an American to pay nothing for the gas needed to fill their enormous big wheeled ego inflaters. Sheesh!Anyway, 'nough said, back to topic...need gas? eat at McDonalds, I get gas everytime I go there
So what your saying is that is ok for you to whine about someone whining? And I live in a dense ubran area, drive 25 miles each way a day, and deal with the same issues that you are crying about. And I still don't your perspective.
Bert
An "expensive model collector"
Suburban Station wrote: The Us is not a very good sugar producer, which is why we have both large tariffs on sugar and price supports to keep rural southern sugar farmers wealthy. I'd be interested in Brazil's capacity to actually export sugar and satisfy their own demand if sugar is used for fuel. I'd wager it's not possible, but I don't know that for a fact.
Since we grow a lot of beets up this way for sugar, it is more expensive than cane, hence the product to the consumer would cost more. If the market went away, I am sure the producers here would go to another crop, and we would be stuck being a net importer.
Suburban Station wrote:Let's face it, the US government didn't all of a sudden get worried about the environment. they saw an opportunity to sell the public a false book of goods because they are worried about the environment and most of us don't know much about supply, demand, or the impact on the environment. the science behind global climate change is about as clear as mud. It's happening but no one knows how much we control or what we can do about it. What the government knows is that it can sell the public on this and make their buddies at ADM (and other interests) rich off of it. Like Farm Aid, they can pretend they're helping family farmers while continuing to distort world markets and destabilize poor countries (the second half of that isn't intended, it's just a consequence).
I personally get quite tired of folks spouting off about ADM and ethanol, without knowing what percentage they hold in the market. They only account for 18% of the total production as of today. While ADM has been the largest single company involved in Ethanol since the 1970's, they hardly control the market today. They have to compete with other co-ops, farmer/investors, and private companies. When the first plant here opened, it was farmers getting together $50 million to build it. Small towns like Lakota, Iowa have seen millions invested in their community, as well as jobs created. That is a hell of a lot of money being invested from people world wide. Do you really think people would plunk down all that money for a whim or some "goverment conspiracy"? These are normal folks with no more influence than you or I. Do you think that Trinity Industries or Union Tank would make such investments if they were a sham? I doubt it. They are acting upon demand. The same can be said for a lot of smaller companies who are suppliers to the industry, the railroads, and countless others. And believe me, the market is competitive. The industry has added billions of dollars of new revenue that did not exist in 1999. Billions.
And the last item about family farms. Several other engineers I work with have farms and produce corn and other grains. They own the land (or in some cases, rent more than they own), and produce income from them. Then there are corporate type farmers who own a lot of land. These are people in the community who over the years made a lot of purchases from other familys or other concerns. Just like the single family farm, they take care of their investements, or go broke. They all have one thing in common, when they sell their grain, they look close at the markets for the best offers. In the past, it used to be either ADM, feeder lots in Texas, or the local elevator. Or maybe all three to try and get the best dollar for their crops.
It cost them money to ship grain (or the price the elevator was lower because of transportation), as well, they had contracts just in case the market that year went belly up. Now, they can sell they grain to the local ethanol plant, and get a better price without having to pay shipping costs associated with other markets. Prices are usually .15 to .20 cents higher than other markets. So how can they not afford to?
And what about other markets? Well they just have to ante up or go out of business. And that is just the point. Demand is up world wide, not just in the U.S. either. Other producing countries have the same opportunity to sell their grain if they are competitive. Do you think for one moment a farmer in North Iowa will sell his grain for less just because other countries cannot compete? Would you? The answer to both questions is, of course not. Who profits? Everyone involved from the producer, the marketer, and the processor.
In 2007, we will see increased pressure on the corn market as demand increases. Planting intentions will change from traditional crop rotation for some producers using new hybrids designed for "corn-after-corn" promising higher yields. As well, other hybrids just for ethanol will be planted in many fields this year. So they are trying to increase yields both in the field and in the plant with limited increse of plantings.
n012944 wrote: vsmith wrote: AS I SAID: You can drive whatever you like, Just please dont whine if you buy it and you suddenly realize that you can't afford the car payment, insurance and fuel costs at the same time.Please dont whine about your 2hr one way commute at 9 mpg if you have access to a effective and clean transit alternatives like light rail, employer vanpools or carpools.Please dont whine if gas goes back to $3.50+ a gallon and it cost you $100+ to fill the thing... So what your saying is that is ok for you to whine about someone whining? And I live in a dense ubran area, drive 25 miles each way a day, and deal with the same issues that you are crying about. And I still don't your perspective. Bert
vsmith wrote: AS I SAID: You can drive whatever you like, Just please dont whine if you buy it and you suddenly realize that you can't afford the car payment, insurance and fuel costs at the same time.Please dont whine about your 2hr one way commute at 9 mpg if you have access to a effective and clean transit alternatives like light rail, employer vanpools or carpools.Please dont whine if gas goes back to $3.50+ a gallon and it cost you $100+ to fill the thing...
Yeah. What he said.
derailedtrainofthought wrote: My whole thing on this is as follows: global warming is true and is happening, who cares about the rest of the worlds food reserve when they don't do anything to help us out, the railroads are the most fuel efficient mode of transportation, and the current fuel crisis is all fabricated to justify the high price at the pump. I could expand on everything but it would turn into an even larger political debate then it already is. The one thing I will say is this the US doesn't want to ultimately back Ethanol production too much because all the rich politicians that get their pay checks from the oil industry and every industry that depends on oil. Basically everyone is greasing everyone else to keep profits up and their wallets full (stock owners too). All they want to do is keep the EPA happy and say they are using more environmentally sound methods. But just this last month the EPA has lowered the gas MPG standards by as much as 40% on autos for the first time in what 20 years. Which means that the EPA is helping the oil industry keep the prices where they are currently at by saying that its OK for automakers to make less fuel efficient cars to "justify increased demand at the pumps" Anyone else have any insights in what is going on with the US and its "oil sortage crisis" and what they are doing to balance this with alternate fuel sources.
Whoa.
I am not even sure how to respond to that one......
RRKen wrote: I personally get quite tired of folks spouting off about ADM and ethanol, without knowing what percentage they hold in the market. They only account for 18% of the total production as of today.
what's your point? ADM, Monsanto, et al will undoubtedly benefit the most. just as 85% of farm subsidies go to agribusiness. as if we shoudl be paying for their farms to begin with. let's not bring up folks living in nyc and DC who receive farm welfare.
RRKen wrote:While ADM has been the largest single company involved in Ethanol since the 1970's, they hardly control the market today. They have to compete with other co-ops, farmer/investors, and private companies. When the first plant here opened, it was farmers getting together $50 million to build it. Small towns like Lakota, Iowa have seen millions invested in their community, as well as jobs created. That is a hell of a lot of money being invested from people world wide. Do you really think people would plunk down all that money for a whim or some "goverment conspiracy"? These are normal folks with no more influence than you or I. Do you think that Trinity Industries or Union Tank would make such investments if they were a sham? I doubt it. They are acting upon demand. The same can be said for a lot of smaller companies who are suppliers to the industry, the railroads, and countless others. And believe me, the market is competitive. The industry has added billions of dollars of new revenue that did not exist in 1999. Billions.
who said it was a government conspiracy? or is that your underhanded way of discounting my point? the way the government works isn't a conspiracy, special interests are of act of life. It's always been that way in the US for better and for worse. Ethanol isn;t a sham, it's a market distorted by government subsidies. why a few farmers have benefitted, it will be companies like ADM who win out in the long run at the expense of US taxpayers. ( not that subsidizing an inefficient fuel source or paying farmers' to raise the cost of food production are good ideas).
RRKen wrote: And the last item about family farms. Several other engineers I work with have farms and produce corn and other grains. They own the land (or in some cases, rent more than they own), and produce income from them. Then there are corporate type farmers who own a lot of land. These are people in the community who over the years made a lot of purchases from other familys or other concerns. Just like the single family farm, they take care of their investements, or go broke. They all have one thing in common, when they sell their grain, they look close at the markets for the best offers. In the past, it used to be either ADM, feeder lots in Texas, or the local elevator. Or maybe all three to try and get the best dollar for their crops.
RRKen wrote:It cost them money to ship grain (or the price the elevator was lower because of transportation), as well, they had contracts just in case the market that year went belly up. Now, they can sell they grain to the local ethanol plant, and get a better price without having to pay shipping costs associated with other markets. Prices are usually .15 to .20 cents higher than other markets. So how can they not afford to?
good for them, bad for everyone else. that's okay I guess, for them.
RRKen wrote:And what about other markets? Well they just have to ante up or go out of business. And that is just the point. Demand is up world wide, not just in the U.S. either. Other producing countries have the same opportunity to sell their grain if they are competitive. Do you think for one moment a farmer in North Iowa will sell his grain for less just because other countries cannot compete? Would you? The answer to both questions is, of course not. Who profits? Everyone involved from the producer, the marketer, and the processor.
what's the point? that poor countries that don't have uncle sam subsidizing their crop will have to "up the ante?" Or that american consumers woudl have to pay more so your buddies can make more money? do other producing countries have an opportunity or will the same farmers who push for trade protection on everything they can't produce as well as other countries push for the same subsidies that protect them in such markets as cotton or sugar which they dump on the open market? I realize you have a lot of farm friends, but it seems somewhat contradictory to me for your to espouse the free market and competition but then turn around and praise farm welfare be it in the form of ethanol, parity, or tariffs. Reminds me of this quote
Major Major's father was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age. He was a long-limbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. His speciality was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any...."The Lord gave us farmers two strong hands so that we could take as much as we could grab with both of them," he preached with ardor on the courthouse steps or in front of the A & P as he waited for the bad-tempered gum-chewing young cashier he was after to step outside and give him a nasty look. "If the Lord didn't want us to take as much as we could get," he preached, "He wouldn't have given us two good hands to take it with." And the others mummured, "Amen."
and this one from an environmentalist website
< Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:29 AM n012944 wrote: vsmith wrote: Bucyrus wrote: vsmith wrote: - No one, not even me, is going to knock the people who have a legitimate uses for such vehicles,-I ask...what percentage of those big truck/SUVs are actually owned and operated by people who use them as legitimate working vehicles? -I really beleive that you should drive what you like, - It sounds like you really believe that you should drive what you like as long as it is legitimate.I think mostly what we have here, is a failure to understand our perspectives, I'm looking at this from a strickly urban traffic commute viewpoint, others here are looking at it from a more "these are vital work vehicles out here" viewpoint, I said earlier that I know these vehicles have real uses. I'll agree the term "legitamate" is debatable, (legitimate use = real use) but...When you consider that the great majority of these large SUVs nationwide never get more demanding use than taking the kids to a school they could likely walk to, or driven to work by a single occupant. AS I SAID: You can drive whatever you like, Just please dont whine if you buy it and you suddenly realize that you can't afford the car payment, insurance and fuel costs at the same time.Please dont whine about your 2hr one way commute at 9 mpg if you have access to a effective and clean transit alternatives like light rail, employer vanpools or carpools.Please dont whine if gas goes back to $3.50+ a gallon and it cost you $100+ to fill the thing... I think part of the problem here is that unless you've lived in a denser urban area and have had to deal with some of these issues on a daily basis, you'll never "get it" from my perspective...Oh well. I've had to deal with people, who somehow think that its their God given handed to them personally by Jesus in flaming stone tabletes right as an American to pay nothing for the gas needed to fill their enormous big wheeled ego inflaters. Sheesh!Anyway, 'nough said, back to topic...need gas? eat at McDonalds, I get gas everytime I go thereSo what your saying is that is ok for you to whine about someone whining? And I live in a dense ubran area, drive 25 miles each way a day, and deal with the same issues that you are crying about. And I still don't your perspective. BertShheeee-iiioooott! Sorry Guys! Looking back at it this AM...Guess I was whining more than a bitDont know where my mind was yesterday. Bad day I guess. Better get some cheese to go with that whineBrie anyone? Have fun with your trains Reply penncentral2002 Member sinceMay 2006 From: Richmond, VA 200 posts Posted by penncentral2002 on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:37 AM Given ADM's history with regard to price fixing and anti-trust violations (remember the choice quote "our competitors are our friends, our customers are the enemy"?), I don't think that their percentage of market share tells the full story of their influence in the market place. Zack http://penncentral2002.rrpicturearchives.net/ Reply RRKen Member sinceMay 2004 From: Mason City, Iowa 901 posts Posted by RRKen on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:52 AM Way of the Wolf wrote: Coal and oil are not renewable which means that in time we will run out. If we don't have an alternative fuel what do we do then?As far as the ethenol operations cutting into our economy, and other nations, I can say that up here in Pennsylvania there are a lot of farmland growing weeds and I am sure that is pretty true across the nation.Not true at all unless you are talking about conservation acreage. http://users.dwx.com/~kcschmidt/Jan_07/Glennville_MN.jpg Not all land is tillable. That includes wetlands, low ground, and natural topography. Even in the most productive areas of corn production, some producers will use buffer zones instead of "fence post to fence post" practices. http://users.dwx.com/~kcschmidt/Jan_07/Farmland_a.jpg By installing drainage, some low lands can become productive, however it depends on the producer to make that choice. Most like to have buffer or CRP land to encourage wildlife such as pheasant. It is my personal opinion that more land can be set aside for conservation or buffers as they make great places for absorbtion and prohibit certain run-offs. I believe this can be done without a significant impact on crop numbers, and may improve yields. In looking at the local numbers, there was still ample crop to divide between ethanol and other uses such as exports, although we were left with much less carry over than in previous years. With the current expansion of new plants, the carry over from previous crop years may become a thing of the past, and the current practice of crop rotation may also change with some producers and I have previously mentioned in other posts. But in my opinion, the sky is not falling. I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming. W. C. Fields I never met a Moderator I liked Reply RRKen Member sinceMay 2004 From: Mason City, Iowa 901 posts Posted by RRKen on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:40 AM Suburban Station wrote: RRKen wrote: I personally get quite tired of folks spouting off about ADM and ethanol, without knowing what percentage they hold in the market. They only account for 18% of the total production as of today. what's your point? ADM, Monsanto, et al will undoubtedly benefit the most. just as 85% of farm subsidies go to agribusiness. as if we shoudl be paying for their farms to begin with. let's not bring up folks living in nyc and DC who receive farm welfare. Do you even understand how the farm program works for producers? I can almost assure you that the producers who got payments last year, will not this year due to market prices. RRKen wrote:While ADM has been the largest single company involved in Ethanol since the 1970's, they hardly control the market today. The industry has added billions of dollars of new revenue that did not exist in 1999. Billions. who said it was a government conspiracy? or is that your underhanded way of discounting my point? the way the government works isn't a conspiracy, special interests are of act of life. It's always been that way in the US for better and for worse. Ethanol isn;t a sham, it's a market distorted by government subsidies. why a few farmers have benefitted, it will be companies like ADM who win out in the long run at the expense of US taxpayers. ( not that subsidizing an inefficient fuel source or paying farmers' to raise the cost of food production are good ideas). The way it read, your disdain for government was clear to me, they are working behind the scenes to screw the consumer. I will not argue that there is a lot of behind the scenes arm twisting on Capital Hill, and always has been, not just for agriculture either. Also, I state again, the farmer is not setting the price of commodities. It is simple supply and demand plus transportation. Any farmer who sells his grain for a better price cannot be faulted. If he chooses the local ethanol plant, so be it. And if he is a member/investor of the plant, it becomes a win-win situation. ADM has nothing to do with his decision, as I said in a previous post, ADM is only 18% of the total production, and only markets for a few other small plants. ADM does not influence Eco-Energy, Renewable Products Marketing Group, Murex, or the other ethanol marketing companies. Instead, the compete for each and every contract with petroleum distributors. I will not hang a halo on ADM, to do so would be ignoring fact and past practices. Yet I do not view them as evil either. RRKen wrote:It cost them money to ship grain (or the price the elevator was lower because of transportation), as well, they had contracts just in case the market that year went belly up. Now, they can sell they grain to the local ethanol plant, and get a better price without having to pay shipping costs associated with other markets. Prices are usually .15 to .20 cents higher than other markets. So how can they not afford to? good for them, bad for everyone else. that's okay I guess, for them. I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Is it that the producer has no right to make a buck, to seek higher payments for what he has grown? The same can be applied to other industries too. RRKen wrote:And what about other markets? Well they just have to ante up or go out of business. And that is just the point. Demand is up world wide, not just in the U.S. either. Other producing countries have the same opportunity to sell their grain if they are competitive. Do you think for one moment a farmer in North Iowa will sell his grain for less just because other countries cannot compete? Would you? The answer to both questions is, of course not. Who profits? Everyone involved from the producer, the marketer, and the processor. what's the point? that poor countries that don't have uncle sam subsidizing their crop will have to "up the ante?" Or that american consumers woudl have to pay more so your buddies can make more money? do other producing countries have an opportunity or will the same farmers who push for trade protection on everything they can't produce as well as other countries push for the same subsidies that protect them in such markets as cotton or sugar which they dump on the open market? I realize you have a lot of farm friends, but it seems somewhat contradictory to me for your to espouse the free market and competition but then turn around and praise farm welfare be it in the form of ethanol, parity, or tariffs. Who praised it? I was stating fact, that both the consumer, who in most markets pays less for E-10 than Unleaded clear, even considering the lost BTU's does ok, and producers get better prices at the plant. They did not have to import oil to run their vehicle. Ethanol replaced a product, MTBE that spoiled groundwater when leaked. As far as my "buddies", they have weathered many years of production with low prices. In 2001, they sold corn for less than it cost to produce. It put many other producers in a tight spot financially. Since we do no longer produce sugar beets out this way, I have no idea the impact of those programs. Same holds true for rice and cotton. Besides, they are not used for ethanol production. Overall, ADM's fourth-quarter profit rose 18 percent, as compared to the same quarter of the previous year -- a substantial rise but not quite enough to make Wall Street analysts gush forth with Exxon comparisons. I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming. W. C. Fields I never met a Moderator I liked Reply OldBNfan Member sinceJuly 2006 43 posts Posted by OldBNfan on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:24 AM I've been burning corn to heat my house for the last four years, saving $100's of dollars a year versus propane (I live in Michigan). Since corn burns so cleanly compared to fossil fuels, does anyone know if we've ever tried corn in a coal boiler? Reply Suburban Station Member sinceAugust 2006 72 posts Posted by Suburban Station on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:52 PM RRKen wrote: Do you even understand how the farm program works for producers? not as much as you do, but I do understand a few things.Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years. Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice...Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post....The checks to Matthews and other landowners were intended 10 years ago as a first step toward eventually eliminating costly, decades-old farm subsidies. Instead, the payments have grown into an even larger subsidy that benefits millionaire landowners, foreign speculators and absentee landlords, as well as farmers...Most of the money goes to real farmers who grow crops on their land, but they are under no obligation to grow the crop being subsidized. They can switch to a different crop or raise cattle or even grow a stand of timber -- and still get the government payments. The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html EDEN, Md. -- Roger L. Richardson, a vigorous 72-year-old who grows corn on 1,500 acres of prime Eastern Shore farmland, had a good year in 2005. Thanks to smart planning, shrewd investing and a little luck, he grossed a healthy $500,000 for his crop.But the federal government treated him as if he needed help and paid him $75,000...Since September, the program has cost taxpayers $4.8 billion.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/02/AR2006070200691.html Weeks later, de Boer was startled to learn that he was one of hundreds of East Texas ranchers entitled to up to $40,000 in disaster compensation from the federal government, even though the nearest debris landed 10 to 20 miles from his cattle. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701237.htmlneed i go on? why do you think it's okay to subsidize a crop that encourages farmers to grow too much, then dump it on the world market and send smaller economies into a tailspin and their farmers into starvation? because they've never done anything for us? why woudl they do anything for us when folks like you just want to screw them? RRKen wrote: I can almost assure you that the producers who got payments last year, will not this year due to market prices... Also, I state again, the farmer is not setting the price of commodities. It is simple supply and demand plus transportation. Any farmer who sells his grain for a better price cannot be faulted. If he chooses the local ethanol plant, so be it. And if he is a member/investor of the plant, it becomes a win-win situation. ADM has nothing to do with his decision, as I said in a previous post, ADM is only 18% of the total production, and only markets for a few other small plants. ADM does not influence Eco-Energy, Renewable Products Marketing Group, Murex, or the other ethanol marketing companies. Instead, the compete for each and every contract with petroleum distributors. ADM may not influence other companies, but they do influence uncle sam, which has made them obscenely rich. just so there is no misunderstanding that the market for ethanol is subdized: The "blender" buys gasoline and ethanol at their "rack" (wholesale) prices and blends them. The blender then gets the 51¢ credit for each gallon of ethanol purchased. Hence, if the wholesale price of ethanol is $3.51 and the bender gets a $0.51 subsidy, the blender figures the ethanol really costs only $3.00. So we save $0.51 because the blender passes on a lower price of ethanol, but we have to pay the $0.51 subsidy in our taxes, so it's just the same as if the ethanol really did cost $3.51 and there were no subsisdy.The subsidy for ethanol production is $0.51/gallon, plus a small-producers credit of $0.10/gallon for producers of up to 60 million gallons per year (up from 30 with new energy bill). This is reported in the CRS Issue Brief for Congress, IB10041, Energy Tax Policy, June 17, 2005, page 14. The total subsidy per year is estimated at $1.49 billion for FY2005 and rising.http://zfacts.com/p/63.html RRKen wrote:I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Is it that the producer has no right to make a buck, to seek higher payments for what he has grown? The same can be applied to other industries too. he has a right, just not the right to sell at subsidized prices and then claim it's market demand. RRKen wrote: Who praised it? I was stating fact, that both the consumer, who in most markets pays less for E-10 than Unleaded clear, even considering the lost BTU's does ok, and producers get better prices at the plant. They did not have to import oil to run their vehicle. Ethanol replaced a product, MTBE that spoiled groundwater when leaked. As far as my "buddies", they have weathered many years of production with low prices. In 2001, they sold corn for less than it cost to produce. It put many other producers Reply RRKen Member sinceMay 2004 From: Mason City, Iowa 901 posts Posted by RRKen on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:27 PM I did say for the record, that other programs are something which I cannot speak to, and not a part of this threads topic. Not about Ethanol, cannot comment.Do we know how much Mr. Richardson got for his commodities? How did he qualify under the LDP or price support programs? If he plants in 2007, and the bottom drops out of the market, what will become of his farm? What incentive will he have to continue farming? Might you be suggesting we let the land go fallow, and import corn and other grains? What social and economic impact will that have on the U.S. as a whole? Are you perhaps suggesting that producers in other countries should be the producers of choice, and our farmers go broke? One cannot have it both ways. It is called competition. The reason that other countries are not selling grain, is they have none to sell. The price in the world market is set depending on the supply, not the U.S. farmer or Government. If the U.S. ran out of corn tomorrow, I am sure China and Argentina would gladly sell what they have at the same prices that U.S. farmers are getting now, and other countries would pay that price. Again, not about Ethanol, so I will not comment.You missed my point completely. ADM is a small portion of Ethanol production. 18 percent. Less than one fifth. They could not tell congress how to legislate an Ethanol when the legislation has been there since 1973. In 1973, ADM did not own the facility in Clinton, and Cedar Rapids had not even been planned, much less built. Hence, their only facility was in Decatur, IL. Did ADM bend Jimmy Carter's arm into asking for that legislation?Two thoughts. First, Ethanol has about 6% of the total automobile fuel market. If you take that away, what will the remaining gasoline cost? Well what happens when fuel supply gets lower? Price goes up. How much is hard to guess, much less figure. Suffice it to say, it will not be a bargain. Second, and just as important, ethanol is part of a very price volatile commodity, gasoline. In less than a year, gasoline pump prices have varied well over $1.50 per gallon. How does one stimulate someone to invest in a bio-fuel with such variation of price? Or is your line of thinking, we don't need no stinking Ethanol, or the investment and jobs it has brought to rural America? Well then bring it on. And when you become dependant on foreign food, cattle feed, and fuel, it will be justice in your eyes I am supposing. But the aftermath of such thinking will extend to all Americans, not just those who invested in Ethanol, or agriculture. Let me restate again, price supports only kick in when corn prices reach a certain threshold. After that, there are no payments. You also must not understand agriculture markets either. In March, when a farmer looks at the forecasts for grain, and makes his decision to plant, there is no guarantee the price at harvest will be sufficient to cover his costs. He has to gamble with the loan, and other payments that price will cover his needs. And what if it does not? Does he quit farming? He surely cannot make up those loans at a total liquidation. And what happens to him, happens to the county, region and state. Land prices fall, and those loans can become due. What then? He cannot even afford to plant the next season, and gamble on that crop's fate. And in your closing quote, you bring up big bad ADM again. Well what about Lyle & Tate? ConAgra? Deere & Co.? Cargill? DeBruce Grain? CHS? FCStone, LLC? KMA Consulting? Lubrizol? Union Pacific? Arent Fox PLLC? CoBank? WR Grace? They all contribute to the sin of Ethanol. They and others should be targeted as well. Lets not leave any guilty party out as long as we are pointing fingers. I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming. W. C. Fields I never met a Moderator I liked Reply Tharmeni Member sinceJuly 2003 From: Southwestern Florida 501 posts Posted by Tharmeni on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:33 PM This thread is a good argument for not posting any topic that is "OT". Do they discuss railroads on the Ethanol forums? I suspect not. Let's get back to railroading. Reply StillGrande Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: Alexandria, VA 847 posts Posted by StillGrande on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:46 PM There have been a bunch of similar articles recently in a bunch of newspapers. I guess it is the easiest story this week to hype. Just to hit on some of the items brought up on this chat:Prices of corn used by Mexicans has increased dramatically in recent weeks, even though the corn used by Mexicans to make tortillas is white corn, not the yellow corn used in the US. The only reason it is rising is because the markets are color blind for the corn. White corn prices are tied to yellow corn prices, even though the supply of white corn has not changed. Brazil is now self sufficient in enegy. Last year they exported 600,000 barrels of ethanol to the US. They expect to increase this to 2.1 million barrels this year. The ethanol industry can actually get more product out of the rest of the corn plant than the seed corn head. The real target is switch grasses, which are something like 8 times more efficient for production. The US has cut subsidies for corn from $8.1 billion to $2 billion this year. If prices remain high, they expect to be able to cut the subsidy this year almost entirely, which would also end complaints from several nations who complain about the price assistance US growers get. The US still stores more grain than they use. Now they just store less. $350 billion sent to people who hate us could be redirected to fuels we make here as alternatives are developed. I doubt any growers are crying that the prices they get are too high, and I also doubt that anyone who could grow corn is not going to grow more just because they might actually get more money for the crops. Sure there will be other products which will be impacted, but do you really need to use corn syrup as a sweetener in everything. There are alternative products. Coal isn't going anywhere. There is a 300 year supply in the US. We have more than the rest of the planet. We could use it better. Lots of people are working on just that. The big cost for anything new is the startup. Have to build the infrastructure. Big oil and our "friends" overseas get nervous when prices approach the point where alternatives look more attractive. They can't eat the stuff and can't produce their own food. They may have gone too far last year. The issue has not dropped with the falling prices for fuel. Might even see real progress in growing the alternative market this time. People and industry are showing real interest in the hybrid and alternative fuel car market, even if the price of the car does not show an economic benefit to the individual (pay more for the car than you save, but it is the principal of sticking it to the man!!!) Dewey "Facts are meaningless; you can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true! Facts, schmacks!" - Homer Simpson "The problem is there are so many stupid people and nothing eats them." Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:07 PM Tharmeni wrote: This thread is a good argument for not posting any topic that is "OT". Do they discuss railroads on the Ethanol forums? I suspect not. Let's get back to railroading. Or you could merely go skip this and go on to a rail-releated thread that strikes your fancy. Your choice. Reply Edit Suburban Station Member sinceAugust 2006 72 posts Posted by Suburban Station on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:14 PM RRKen wrote: Not about Ethanol, cannot comment.you asked if I knew how farm subsidies worked. RRKen wrote: Do we know how much Mr. Richardson got for his commodities? How did he qualify under the LDP or price support programs? If he plants in 2007, and the bottom drops out of the market, what will become of his farm? What incentive will he have to continue farming? Might you be suggesting we let the land go fallow, and import corn and other grains? What social and economic impact will that have on the U.S. as a whole? Are you perhaps suggesting that producers in other countries should be the producers of choice, and our farmers go broke? pure speculation with teh intent on scaring people into paying farmers to produce something we are obviously not in need of (extra corn). from a country's perspective, we don't care if it's corn or widgets. RRKen wrote:One cannot have it both ways. It is called competition. The reason that other countries are not selling grain, is they have none to sell. so the US is the only country with grain? with farm production?competition is called subsidizing farmers? man, i really fell asleep in class. RRKen wrote: The price in the world market is set depending on the supply, not the U.S. farmer or Government. nice theory, but if the government sets the supply, then it sets the price. by incentiving crops that have little value on the open market, they are effectively lowering the price. RRKen wrote: If the U.S. ran out of corn tomorrow, I am sure China and Argentina would gladly sell what they have at the same prices that U.S. farmers are getting now, and other countries would pay that price. woudl they be eligible for the subsidies as well? RRKen wrote: You missed my point completely. ADM is a small portion of Ethanol production. 18 percent. Less than one fifth. They could not tell congress how to legislate an Ethanol when the legislation has been there since 1973. In 1973, ADM did not own the facility in Clinton, and Cedar Rapids had not even been planned, much less built. Hence, their only facility was in Decatur, IL. Did ADM bend Jimmy Carter's arm into asking for that legislation? huh? influence is measure with dollars, not market share. however, since you asked about 1973 The preference for high fructose corn syrup over cane sugar amongst the vast majority of American food and beverage manufacturers is largely due to U.S. import quotas and tariffs of sugar, supported with the campaign finance courtesy of agricultural corporations. Most predominantly, the Archer Daniels Midland corporation is currently amongst the leading contributors of such campaign finance.[7] Since local and federal laws often put a limit on how much money one particular lobbyist can contribute, Archer Daniels Midland's contributions are often given by numerous smaller entities under the authority of Archer Daniels Midland. This is commonly called bundling political contributions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup RRKen wrote:Two thoughts. First, Ethanol has about 6% of the total automobile fuel market. If you take that away, what will the remaining gasoline cost? Well what happens when fuel supply gets lower? Price goes up. why would price go up? ethanol is more expensive than gas. government expenditures would also decrease as well as transportation costs. RRKen wrote:How does one stimulate someone to invest in a bio-fuel with such variation of price? Or is your line of thinking, we don't need no stinking Ethanol, or the investment and jobs it has brought to rural America? not if it means wasting billions on a technology that offers no beenfit outside of the few "farmers" who benefit leading us down a dead end road. will it reduce our oil dependence more than additional rail infrastructure? heavy transit in urban areas? one of the largest users of energy (and therefore foreign oil) are rural farmers who also contribute a large portion to greenhouse gases. RRKen wrote: Well then bring it on. And when you become dependant on foreign food, cattle feed, and fuel, it will be justice in your eyes I am supposing. I already am. where was you tractor built? hwo about the parts in your car? how abou tyour clothes? RRKen wrote:But the aftermath of such thinkin Reply zugmann Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Canterlot 9,575 posts Posted by zugmann on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:24 PM Ethanol is not the proverbial silver bullet. There is no silver bullet for our energy needs. But ethanol may be a part of the solution. (and being a home grown fuel is an advantage to this american). So what if it is subsidized - there are so many other things in our country so oversubsidized, I can not get all worked up about ethanol. Unfortunately, this country will only really address their energy problems when the price goes sky-high. When it levels off, many new initiatives will be abandoned if not for the continuous influx of government money. It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now. The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any Reply 1234 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
n012944 wrote: vsmith wrote: Bucyrus wrote: vsmith wrote: - No one, not even me, is going to knock the people who have a legitimate uses for such vehicles,-I ask...what percentage of those big truck/SUVs are actually owned and operated by people who use them as legitimate working vehicles? -I really beleive that you should drive what you like, - It sounds like you really believe that you should drive what you like as long as it is legitimate.I think mostly what we have here, is a failure to understand our perspectives, I'm looking at this from a strickly urban traffic commute viewpoint, others here are looking at it from a more "these are vital work vehicles out here" viewpoint, I said earlier that I know these vehicles have real uses. I'll agree the term "legitamate" is debatable, (legitimate use = real use) but...When you consider that the great majority of these large SUVs nationwide never get more demanding use than taking the kids to a school they could likely walk to, or driven to work by a single occupant. AS I SAID: You can drive whatever you like, Just please dont whine if you buy it and you suddenly realize that you can't afford the car payment, insurance and fuel costs at the same time.Please dont whine about your 2hr one way commute at 9 mpg if you have access to a effective and clean transit alternatives like light rail, employer vanpools or carpools.Please dont whine if gas goes back to $3.50+ a gallon and it cost you $100+ to fill the thing... I think part of the problem here is that unless you've lived in a denser urban area and have had to deal with some of these issues on a daily basis, you'll never "get it" from my perspective...Oh well. I've had to deal with people, who somehow think that its their God given handed to them personally by Jesus in flaming stone tabletes right as an American to pay nothing for the gas needed to fill their enormous big wheeled ego inflaters. Sheesh!Anyway, 'nough said, back to topic...need gas? eat at McDonalds, I get gas everytime I go thereSo what your saying is that is ok for you to whine about someone whining? And I live in a dense ubran area, drive 25 miles each way a day, and deal with the same issues that you are crying about. And I still don't your perspective. Bert
Way of the Wolf wrote: Coal and oil are not renewable which means that in time we will run out. If we don't have an alternative fuel what do we do then?As far as the ethenol operations cutting into our economy, and other nations, I can say that up here in Pennsylvania there are a lot of farmland growing weeds and I am sure that is pretty true across the nation.
Not true at all unless you are talking about conservation acreage. http://users.dwx.com/~kcschmidt/Jan_07/Glennville_MN.jpg Not all land is tillable. That includes wetlands, low ground, and natural topography. Even in the most productive areas of corn production, some producers will use buffer zones instead of "fence post to fence post" practices. http://users.dwx.com/~kcschmidt/Jan_07/Farmland_a.jpg By installing drainage, some low lands can become productive, however it depends on the producer to make that choice. Most like to have buffer or CRP land to encourage wildlife such as pheasant. It is my personal opinion that more land can be set aside for conservation or buffers as they make great places for absorbtion and prohibit certain run-offs. I believe this can be done without a significant impact on crop numbers, and may improve yields.
In looking at the local numbers, there was still ample crop to divide between ethanol and other uses such as exports, although we were left with much less carry over than in previous years. With the current expansion of new plants, the carry over from previous crop years may become a thing of the past, and the current practice of crop rotation may also change with some producers and I have previously mentioned in other posts. But in my opinion, the sky is not falling.
Suburban Station wrote: RRKen wrote: I personally get quite tired of folks spouting off about ADM and ethanol, without knowing what percentage they hold in the market. They only account for 18% of the total production as of today. what's your point? ADM, Monsanto, et al will undoubtedly benefit the most. just as 85% of farm subsidies go to agribusiness. as if we shoudl be paying for their farms to begin with. let's not bring up folks living in nyc and DC who receive farm welfare.
Do you even understand how the farm program works for producers? I can almost assure you that the producers who got payments last year, will not this year due to market prices.
RRKen wrote:While ADM has been the largest single company involved in Ethanol since the 1970's, they hardly control the market today. The industry has added billions of dollars of new revenue that did not exist in 1999. Billions. who said it was a government conspiracy? or is that your underhanded way of discounting my point? the way the government works isn't a conspiracy, special interests are of act of life. It's always been that way in the US for better and for worse. Ethanol isn;t a sham, it's a market distorted by government subsidies. why a few farmers have benefitted, it will be companies like ADM who win out in the long run at the expense of US taxpayers. ( not that subsidizing an inefficient fuel source or paying farmers' to raise the cost of food production are good ideas).
RRKen wrote:While ADM has been the largest single company involved in Ethanol since the 1970's, they hardly control the market today. The industry has added billions of dollars of new revenue that did not exist in 1999. Billions.
The way it read, your disdain for government was clear to me, they are working behind the scenes to screw the consumer. I will not argue that there is a lot of behind the scenes arm twisting on Capital Hill, and always has been, not just for agriculture either. Also, I state again, the farmer is not setting the price of commodities. It is simple supply and demand plus transportation. Any farmer who sells his grain for a better price cannot be faulted. If he chooses the local ethanol plant, so be it. And if he is a member/investor of the plant, it becomes a win-win situation. ADM has nothing to do with his decision, as I said in a previous post, ADM is only 18% of the total production, and only markets for a few other small plants. ADM does not influence Eco-Energy, Renewable Products Marketing Group, Murex, or the other ethanol marketing companies. Instead, the compete for each and every contract with petroleum distributors.
I will not hang a halo on ADM, to do so would be ignoring fact and past practices. Yet I do not view them as evil either.
RRKen wrote:It cost them money to ship grain (or the price the elevator was lower because of transportation), as well, they had contracts just in case the market that year went belly up. Now, they can sell they grain to the local ethanol plant, and get a better price without having to pay shipping costs associated with other markets. Prices are usually .15 to .20 cents higher than other markets. So how can they not afford to? good for them, bad for everyone else. that's okay I guess, for them.
I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Is it that the producer has no right to make a buck, to seek higher payments for what he has grown? The same can be applied to other industries too.
RRKen wrote:And what about other markets? Well they just have to ante up or go out of business. And that is just the point. Demand is up world wide, not just in the U.S. either. Other producing countries have the same opportunity to sell their grain if they are competitive. Do you think for one moment a farmer in North Iowa will sell his grain for less just because other countries cannot compete? Would you? The answer to both questions is, of course not. Who profits? Everyone involved from the producer, the marketer, and the processor. what's the point? that poor countries that don't have uncle sam subsidizing their crop will have to "up the ante?" Or that american consumers woudl have to pay more so your buddies can make more money? do other producing countries have an opportunity or will the same farmers who push for trade protection on everything they can't produce as well as other countries push for the same subsidies that protect them in such markets as cotton or sugar which they dump on the open market? I realize you have a lot of farm friends, but it seems somewhat contradictory to me for your to espouse the free market and competition but then turn around and praise farm welfare be it in the form of ethanol, parity, or tariffs.
what's the point? that poor countries that don't have uncle sam subsidizing their crop will have to "up the ante?" Or that american consumers woudl have to pay more so your buddies can make more money? do other producing countries have an opportunity or will the same farmers who push for trade protection on everything they can't produce as well as other countries push for the same subsidies that protect them in such markets as cotton or sugar which they dump on the open market? I realize you have a lot of farm friends, but it seems somewhat contradictory to me for your to espouse the free market and competition but then turn around and praise farm welfare be it in the form of ethanol, parity, or tariffs.
Who praised it? I was stating fact, that both the consumer, who in most markets pays less for E-10 than Unleaded clear, even considering the lost BTU's does ok, and producers get better prices at the plant. They did not have to import oil to run their vehicle. Ethanol replaced a product, MTBE that spoiled groundwater when leaked. As far as my "buddies", they have weathered many years of production with low prices. In 2001, they sold corn for less than it cost to produce. It put many other producers in a tight spot financially.
Since we do no longer produce sugar beets out this way, I have no idea the impact of those programs. Same holds true for rice and cotton. Besides, they are not used for ethanol production.
Overall, ADM's fourth-quarter profit rose 18 percent, as compared to the same quarter of the previous year -- a substantial rise but not quite enough to make Wall Street analysts gush forth with Exxon comparisons. I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming. W. C. Fields I never met a Moderator I liked Reply OldBNfan Member sinceJuly 2006 43 posts Posted by OldBNfan on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:24 AM I've been burning corn to heat my house for the last four years, saving $100's of dollars a year versus propane (I live in Michigan). Since corn burns so cleanly compared to fossil fuels, does anyone know if we've ever tried corn in a coal boiler? Reply Suburban Station Member sinceAugust 2006 72 posts Posted by Suburban Station on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:52 PM RRKen wrote: Do you even understand how the farm program works for producers? not as much as you do, but I do understand a few things.Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years. Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice...Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post....The checks to Matthews and other landowners were intended 10 years ago as a first step toward eventually eliminating costly, decades-old farm subsidies. Instead, the payments have grown into an even larger subsidy that benefits millionaire landowners, foreign speculators and absentee landlords, as well as farmers...Most of the money goes to real farmers who grow crops on their land, but they are under no obligation to grow the crop being subsidized. They can switch to a different crop or raise cattle or even grow a stand of timber -- and still get the government payments. The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html EDEN, Md. -- Roger L. Richardson, a vigorous 72-year-old who grows corn on 1,500 acres of prime Eastern Shore farmland, had a good year in 2005. Thanks to smart planning, shrewd investing and a little luck, he grossed a healthy $500,000 for his crop.But the federal government treated him as if he needed help and paid him $75,000...Since September, the program has cost taxpayers $4.8 billion.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/02/AR2006070200691.html Weeks later, de Boer was startled to learn that he was one of hundreds of East Texas ranchers entitled to up to $40,000 in disaster compensation from the federal government, even though the nearest debris landed 10 to 20 miles from his cattle. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701237.htmlneed i go on? why do you think it's okay to subsidize a crop that encourages farmers to grow too much, then dump it on the world market and send smaller economies into a tailspin and their farmers into starvation? because they've never done anything for us? why woudl they do anything for us when folks like you just want to screw them? RRKen wrote: I can almost assure you that the producers who got payments last year, will not this year due to market prices... Also, I state again, the farmer is not setting the price of commodities. It is simple supply and demand plus transportation. Any farmer who sells his grain for a better price cannot be faulted. If he chooses the local ethanol plant, so be it. And if he is a member/investor of the plant, it becomes a win-win situation. ADM has nothing to do with his decision, as I said in a previous post, ADM is only 18% of the total production, and only markets for a few other small plants. ADM does not influence Eco-Energy, Renewable Products Marketing Group, Murex, or the other ethanol marketing companies. Instead, the compete for each and every contract with petroleum distributors. ADM may not influence other companies, but they do influence uncle sam, which has made them obscenely rich. just so there is no misunderstanding that the market for ethanol is subdized: The "blender" buys gasoline and ethanol at their "rack" (wholesale) prices and blends them. The blender then gets the 51¢ credit for each gallon of ethanol purchased. Hence, if the wholesale price of ethanol is $3.51 and the bender gets a $0.51 subsidy, the blender figures the ethanol really costs only $3.00. So we save $0.51 because the blender passes on a lower price of ethanol, but we have to pay the $0.51 subsidy in our taxes, so it's just the same as if the ethanol really did cost $3.51 and there were no subsisdy.The subsidy for ethanol production is $0.51/gallon, plus a small-producers credit of $0.10/gallon for producers of up to 60 million gallons per year (up from 30 with new energy bill). This is reported in the CRS Issue Brief for Congress, IB10041, Energy Tax Policy, June 17, 2005, page 14. The total subsidy per year is estimated at $1.49 billion for FY2005 and rising.http://zfacts.com/p/63.html RRKen wrote:I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Is it that the producer has no right to make a buck, to seek higher payments for what he has grown? The same can be applied to other industries too. he has a right, just not the right to sell at subsidized prices and then claim it's market demand. RRKen wrote: Who praised it? I was stating fact, that both the consumer, who in most markets pays less for E-10 than Unleaded clear, even considering the lost BTU's does ok, and producers get better prices at the plant. They did not have to import oil to run their vehicle. Ethanol replaced a product, MTBE that spoiled groundwater when leaked. As far as my "buddies", they have weathered many years of production with low prices. In 2001, they sold corn for less than it cost to produce. It put many other producers Reply RRKen Member sinceMay 2004 From: Mason City, Iowa 901 posts Posted by RRKen on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:27 PM I did say for the record, that other programs are something which I cannot speak to, and not a part of this threads topic. Not about Ethanol, cannot comment.Do we know how much Mr. Richardson got for his commodities? How did he qualify under the LDP or price support programs? If he plants in 2007, and the bottom drops out of the market, what will become of his farm? What incentive will he have to continue farming? Might you be suggesting we let the land go fallow, and import corn and other grains? What social and economic impact will that have on the U.S. as a whole? Are you perhaps suggesting that producers in other countries should be the producers of choice, and our farmers go broke? One cannot have it both ways. It is called competition. The reason that other countries are not selling grain, is they have none to sell. The price in the world market is set depending on the supply, not the U.S. farmer or Government. If the U.S. ran out of corn tomorrow, I am sure China and Argentina would gladly sell what they have at the same prices that U.S. farmers are getting now, and other countries would pay that price. Again, not about Ethanol, so I will not comment.You missed my point completely. ADM is a small portion of Ethanol production. 18 percent. Less than one fifth. They could not tell congress how to legislate an Ethanol when the legislation has been there since 1973. In 1973, ADM did not own the facility in Clinton, and Cedar Rapids had not even been planned, much less built. Hence, their only facility was in Decatur, IL. Did ADM bend Jimmy Carter's arm into asking for that legislation?Two thoughts. First, Ethanol has about 6% of the total automobile fuel market. If you take that away, what will the remaining gasoline cost? Well what happens when fuel supply gets lower? Price goes up. How much is hard to guess, much less figure. Suffice it to say, it will not be a bargain. Second, and just as important, ethanol is part of a very price volatile commodity, gasoline. In less than a year, gasoline pump prices have varied well over $1.50 per gallon. How does one stimulate someone to invest in a bio-fuel with such variation of price? Or is your line of thinking, we don't need no stinking Ethanol, or the investment and jobs it has brought to rural America? Well then bring it on. And when you become dependant on foreign food, cattle feed, and fuel, it will be justice in your eyes I am supposing. But the aftermath of such thinking will extend to all Americans, not just those who invested in Ethanol, or agriculture. Let me restate again, price supports only kick in when corn prices reach a certain threshold. After that, there are no payments. You also must not understand agriculture markets either. In March, when a farmer looks at the forecasts for grain, and makes his decision to plant, there is no guarantee the price at harvest will be sufficient to cover his costs. He has to gamble with the loan, and other payments that price will cover his needs. And what if it does not? Does he quit farming? He surely cannot make up those loans at a total liquidation. And what happens to him, happens to the county, region and state. Land prices fall, and those loans can become due. What then? He cannot even afford to plant the next season, and gamble on that crop's fate. And in your closing quote, you bring up big bad ADM again. Well what about Lyle & Tate? ConAgra? Deere & Co.? Cargill? DeBruce Grain? CHS? FCStone, LLC? KMA Consulting? Lubrizol? Union Pacific? Arent Fox PLLC? CoBank? WR Grace? They all contribute to the sin of Ethanol. They and others should be targeted as well. Lets not leave any guilty party out as long as we are pointing fingers. I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming. W. C. Fields I never met a Moderator I liked Reply Tharmeni Member sinceJuly 2003 From: Southwestern Florida 501 posts Posted by Tharmeni on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:33 PM This thread is a good argument for not posting any topic that is "OT". Do they discuss railroads on the Ethanol forums? I suspect not. Let's get back to railroading. Reply StillGrande Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: Alexandria, VA 847 posts Posted by StillGrande on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:46 PM There have been a bunch of similar articles recently in a bunch of newspapers. I guess it is the easiest story this week to hype. Just to hit on some of the items brought up on this chat:Prices of corn used by Mexicans has increased dramatically in recent weeks, even though the corn used by Mexicans to make tortillas is white corn, not the yellow corn used in the US. The only reason it is rising is because the markets are color blind for the corn. White corn prices are tied to yellow corn prices, even though the supply of white corn has not changed. Brazil is now self sufficient in enegy. Last year they exported 600,000 barrels of ethanol to the US. They expect to increase this to 2.1 million barrels this year. The ethanol industry can actually get more product out of the rest of the corn plant than the seed corn head. The real target is switch grasses, which are something like 8 times more efficient for production. The US has cut subsidies for corn from $8.1 billion to $2 billion this year. If prices remain high, they expect to be able to cut the subsidy this year almost entirely, which would also end complaints from several nations who complain about the price assistance US growers get. The US still stores more grain than they use. Now they just store less. $350 billion sent to people who hate us could be redirected to fuels we make here as alternatives are developed. I doubt any growers are crying that the prices they get are too high, and I also doubt that anyone who could grow corn is not going to grow more just because they might actually get more money for the crops. Sure there will be other products which will be impacted, but do you really need to use corn syrup as a sweetener in everything. There are alternative products. Coal isn't going anywhere. There is a 300 year supply in the US. We have more than the rest of the planet. We could use it better. Lots of people are working on just that. The big cost for anything new is the startup. Have to build the infrastructure. Big oil and our "friends" overseas get nervous when prices approach the point where alternatives look more attractive. They can't eat the stuff and can't produce their own food. They may have gone too far last year. The issue has not dropped with the falling prices for fuel. Might even see real progress in growing the alternative market this time. People and industry are showing real interest in the hybrid and alternative fuel car market, even if the price of the car does not show an economic benefit to the individual (pay more for the car than you save, but it is the principal of sticking it to the man!!!) Dewey "Facts are meaningless; you can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true! Facts, schmacks!" - Homer Simpson "The problem is there are so many stupid people and nothing eats them." Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:07 PM Tharmeni wrote: This thread is a good argument for not posting any topic that is "OT". Do they discuss railroads on the Ethanol forums? I suspect not. Let's get back to railroading. Or you could merely go skip this and go on to a rail-releated thread that strikes your fancy. Your choice. Reply Edit Suburban Station Member sinceAugust 2006 72 posts Posted by Suburban Station on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:14 PM RRKen wrote: Not about Ethanol, cannot comment.you asked if I knew how farm subsidies worked. RRKen wrote: Do we know how much Mr. Richardson got for his commodities? How did he qualify under the LDP or price support programs? If he plants in 2007, and the bottom drops out of the market, what will become of his farm? What incentive will he have to continue farming? Might you be suggesting we let the land go fallow, and import corn and other grains? What social and economic impact will that have on the U.S. as a whole? Are you perhaps suggesting that producers in other countries should be the producers of choice, and our farmers go broke? pure speculation with teh intent on scaring people into paying farmers to produce something we are obviously not in need of (extra corn). from a country's perspective, we don't care if it's corn or widgets. RRKen wrote:One cannot have it both ways. It is called competition. The reason that other countries are not selling grain, is they have none to sell. so the US is the only country with grain? with farm production?competition is called subsidizing farmers? man, i really fell asleep in class. RRKen wrote: The price in the world market is set depending on the supply, not the U.S. farmer or Government. nice theory, but if the government sets the supply, then it sets the price. by incentiving crops that have little value on the open market, they are effectively lowering the price. RRKen wrote: If the U.S. ran out of corn tomorrow, I am sure China and Argentina would gladly sell what they have at the same prices that U.S. farmers are getting now, and other countries would pay that price. woudl they be eligible for the subsidies as well? RRKen wrote: You missed my point completely. ADM is a small portion of Ethanol production. 18 percent. Less than one fifth. They could not tell congress how to legislate an Ethanol when the legislation has been there since 1973. In 1973, ADM did not own the facility in Clinton, and Cedar Rapids had not even been planned, much less built. Hence, their only facility was in Decatur, IL. Did ADM bend Jimmy Carter's arm into asking for that legislation? huh? influence is measure with dollars, not market share. however, since you asked about 1973 The preference for high fructose corn syrup over cane sugar amongst the vast majority of American food and beverage manufacturers is largely due to U.S. import quotas and tariffs of sugar, supported with the campaign finance courtesy of agricultural corporations. Most predominantly, the Archer Daniels Midland corporation is currently amongst the leading contributors of such campaign finance.[7] Since local and federal laws often put a limit on how much money one particular lobbyist can contribute, Archer Daniels Midland's contributions are often given by numerous smaller entities under the authority of Archer Daniels Midland. This is commonly called bundling political contributions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup RRKen wrote:Two thoughts. First, Ethanol has about 6% of the total automobile fuel market. If you take that away, what will the remaining gasoline cost? Well what happens when fuel supply gets lower? Price goes up. why would price go up? ethanol is more expensive than gas. government expenditures would also decrease as well as transportation costs. RRKen wrote:How does one stimulate someone to invest in a bio-fuel with such variation of price? Or is your line of thinking, we don't need no stinking Ethanol, or the investment and jobs it has brought to rural America? not if it means wasting billions on a technology that offers no beenfit outside of the few "farmers" who benefit leading us down a dead end road. will it reduce our oil dependence more than additional rail infrastructure? heavy transit in urban areas? one of the largest users of energy (and therefore foreign oil) are rural farmers who also contribute a large portion to greenhouse gases. RRKen wrote: Well then bring it on. And when you become dependant on foreign food, cattle feed, and fuel, it will be justice in your eyes I am supposing. I already am. where was you tractor built? hwo about the parts in your car? how abou tyour clothes? RRKen wrote:But the aftermath of such thinkin Reply zugmann Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Canterlot 9,575 posts Posted by zugmann on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:24 PM Ethanol is not the proverbial silver bullet. There is no silver bullet for our energy needs. But ethanol may be a part of the solution. (and being a home grown fuel is an advantage to this american). So what if it is subsidized - there are so many other things in our country so oversubsidized, I can not get all worked up about ethanol. Unfortunately, this country will only really address their energy problems when the price goes sky-high. When it levels off, many new initiatives will be abandoned if not for the continuous influx of government money. It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now. The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any Reply 1234 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
RRKen wrote: Do you even understand how the farm program works for producers?
not as much as you do, but I do understand a few things.
Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years. Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice...Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post....The checks to Matthews and other landowners were intended 10 years ago as a first step toward eventually eliminating costly, decades-old farm subsidies. Instead, the payments have grown into an even larger subsidy that benefits millionaire landowners, foreign speculators and absentee landlords, as well as farmers...Most of the money goes to real farmers who grow crops on their land, but they are under no obligation to grow the crop being subsidized. They can switch to a different crop or raise cattle or even grow a stand of timber -- and still get the government payments. The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards.
Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years.
Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice...
Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post.
...
The checks to Matthews and other landowners were intended 10 years ago as a first step toward eventually eliminating costly, decades-old farm subsidies. Instead, the payments have grown into an even larger subsidy that benefits millionaire landowners, foreign speculators and absentee landlords, as well as farmers...
Most of the money goes to real farmers who grow crops on their land, but they are under no obligation to grow the crop being subsidized. They can switch to a different crop or raise cattle or even grow a stand of timber -- and still get the government payments. The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html
EDEN, Md. -- Roger L. Richardson, a vigorous 72-year-old who grows corn on 1,500 acres of prime Eastern Shore farmland, had a good year in 2005. Thanks to smart planning, shrewd investing and a little luck, he grossed a healthy $500,000 for his crop.But the federal government treated him as if he needed help and paid him $75,000...Since September, the program has cost taxpayers $4.8 billion.
EDEN, Md. -- Roger L. Richardson, a vigorous 72-year-old who grows corn on 1,500 acres of prime Eastern Shore farmland, had a good year in 2005. Thanks to smart planning, shrewd investing and a little luck, he grossed a healthy $500,000 for his crop.
But the federal government treated him as if he needed help and paid him $75,000...Since September, the program has cost taxpayers $4.8 billion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/02/AR2006070200691.html
Weeks later, de Boer was startled to learn that he was one of hundreds of East Texas ranchers entitled to up to $40,000 in disaster compensation from the federal government, even though the nearest debris landed 10 to 20 miles from his cattle.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701237.html
need i go on? why do you think it's okay to subsidize a crop that encourages farmers to grow too much, then dump it on the world market and send smaller economies into a tailspin and their farmers into starvation? because they've never done anything for us? why woudl they do anything for us when folks like you just want to screw them?
RRKen wrote: I can almost assure you that the producers who got payments last year, will not this year due to market prices... Also, I state again, the farmer is not setting the price of commodities. It is simple supply and demand plus transportation. Any farmer who sells his grain for a better price cannot be faulted. If he chooses the local ethanol plant, so be it. And if he is a member/investor of the plant, it becomes a win-win situation. ADM has nothing to do with his decision, as I said in a previous post, ADM is only 18% of the total production, and only markets for a few other small plants. ADM does not influence Eco-Energy, Renewable Products Marketing Group, Murex, or the other ethanol marketing companies. Instead, the compete for each and every contract with petroleum distributors.
ADM may not influence other companies, but they do influence uncle sam, which has made them obscenely rich. just so there is no misunderstanding that the market for ethanol is subdized:
The "blender" buys gasoline and ethanol at their "rack" (wholesale) prices and blends them. The blender then gets the 51¢ credit for each gallon of ethanol purchased. Hence, if the wholesale price of ethanol is $3.51 and the bender gets a $0.51 subsidy, the blender figures the ethanol really costs only $3.00. So we save $0.51 because the blender passes on a lower price of ethanol, but we have to pay the $0.51 subsidy in our taxes, so it's just the same as if the ethanol really did cost $3.51 and there were no subsisdy.The subsidy for ethanol production is $0.51/gallon, plus a small-producers credit of $0.10/gallon for producers of up to 60 million gallons per year (up from 30 with new energy bill). This is reported in the CRS Issue Brief for Congress, IB10041, Energy Tax Policy, June 17, 2005, page 14. The total subsidy per year is estimated at $1.49 billion for FY2005 and rising.
http://zfacts.com/p/63.html
RRKen wrote:I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Is it that the producer has no right to make a buck, to seek higher payments for what he has grown? The same can be applied to other industries too.
he has a right, just not the right to sell at subsidized prices and then claim it's market demand.
RRKen wrote: Who praised it? I was stating fact, that both the consumer, who in most markets pays less for E-10 than Unleaded clear, even considering the lost BTU's does ok, and producers get better prices at the plant. They did not have to import oil to run their vehicle. Ethanol replaced a product, MTBE that spoiled groundwater when leaked. As far as my "buddies", they have weathered many years of production with low prices. In 2001, they sold corn for less than it cost to produce. It put many other producers Reply RRKen Member sinceMay 2004 From: Mason City, Iowa 901 posts Posted by RRKen on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:27 PM I did say for the record, that other programs are something which I cannot speak to, and not a part of this threads topic. Not about Ethanol, cannot comment.Do we know how much Mr. Richardson got for his commodities? How did he qualify under the LDP or price support programs? If he plants in 2007, and the bottom drops out of the market, what will become of his farm? What incentive will he have to continue farming? Might you be suggesting we let the land go fallow, and import corn and other grains? What social and economic impact will that have on the U.S. as a whole? Are you perhaps suggesting that producers in other countries should be the producers of choice, and our farmers go broke? One cannot have it both ways. It is called competition. The reason that other countries are not selling grain, is they have none to sell. The price in the world market is set depending on the supply, not the U.S. farmer or Government. If the U.S. ran out of corn tomorrow, I am sure China and Argentina would gladly sell what they have at the same prices that U.S. farmers are getting now, and other countries would pay that price. Again, not about Ethanol, so I will not comment.You missed my point completely. ADM is a small portion of Ethanol production. 18 percent. Less than one fifth. They could not tell congress how to legislate an Ethanol when the legislation has been there since 1973. In 1973, ADM did not own the facility in Clinton, and Cedar Rapids had not even been planned, much less built. Hence, their only facility was in Decatur, IL. Did ADM bend Jimmy Carter's arm into asking for that legislation?Two thoughts. First, Ethanol has about 6% of the total automobile fuel market. If you take that away, what will the remaining gasoline cost? Well what happens when fuel supply gets lower? Price goes up. How much is hard to guess, much less figure. Suffice it to say, it will not be a bargain. Second, and just as important, ethanol is part of a very price volatile commodity, gasoline. In less than a year, gasoline pump prices have varied well over $1.50 per gallon. How does one stimulate someone to invest in a bio-fuel with such variation of price? Or is your line of thinking, we don't need no stinking Ethanol, or the investment and jobs it has brought to rural America? Well then bring it on. And when you become dependant on foreign food, cattle feed, and fuel, it will be justice in your eyes I am supposing. But the aftermath of such thinking will extend to all Americans, not just those who invested in Ethanol, or agriculture. Let me restate again, price supports only kick in when corn prices reach a certain threshold. After that, there are no payments. You also must not understand agriculture markets either. In March, when a farmer looks at the forecasts for grain, and makes his decision to plant, there is no guarantee the price at harvest will be sufficient to cover his costs. He has to gamble with the loan, and other payments that price will cover his needs. And what if it does not? Does he quit farming? He surely cannot make up those loans at a total liquidation. And what happens to him, happens to the county, region and state. Land prices fall, and those loans can become due. What then? He cannot even afford to plant the next season, and gamble on that crop's fate. And in your closing quote, you bring up big bad ADM again. Well what about Lyle & Tate? ConAgra? Deere & Co.? Cargill? DeBruce Grain? CHS? FCStone, LLC? KMA Consulting? Lubrizol? Union Pacific? Arent Fox PLLC? CoBank? WR Grace? They all contribute to the sin of Ethanol. They and others should be targeted as well. Lets not leave any guilty party out as long as we are pointing fingers. I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming. W. C. Fields I never met a Moderator I liked Reply Tharmeni Member sinceJuly 2003 From: Southwestern Florida 501 posts Posted by Tharmeni on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:33 PM This thread is a good argument for not posting any topic that is "OT". Do they discuss railroads on the Ethanol forums? I suspect not. Let's get back to railroading. Reply StillGrande Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: Alexandria, VA 847 posts Posted by StillGrande on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:46 PM There have been a bunch of similar articles recently in a bunch of newspapers. I guess it is the easiest story this week to hype. Just to hit on some of the items brought up on this chat:Prices of corn used by Mexicans has increased dramatically in recent weeks, even though the corn used by Mexicans to make tortillas is white corn, not the yellow corn used in the US. The only reason it is rising is because the markets are color blind for the corn. White corn prices are tied to yellow corn prices, even though the supply of white corn has not changed. Brazil is now self sufficient in enegy. Last year they exported 600,000 barrels of ethanol to the US. They expect to increase this to 2.1 million barrels this year. The ethanol industry can actually get more product out of the rest of the corn plant than the seed corn head. The real target is switch grasses, which are something like 8 times more efficient for production. The US has cut subsidies for corn from $8.1 billion to $2 billion this year. If prices remain high, they expect to be able to cut the subsidy this year almost entirely, which would also end complaints from several nations who complain about the price assistance US growers get. The US still stores more grain than they use. Now they just store less. $350 billion sent to people who hate us could be redirected to fuels we make here as alternatives are developed. I doubt any growers are crying that the prices they get are too high, and I also doubt that anyone who could grow corn is not going to grow more just because they might actually get more money for the crops. Sure there will be other products which will be impacted, but do you really need to use corn syrup as a sweetener in everything. There are alternative products. Coal isn't going anywhere. There is a 300 year supply in the US. We have more than the rest of the planet. We could use it better. Lots of people are working on just that. The big cost for anything new is the startup. Have to build the infrastructure. Big oil and our "friends" overseas get nervous when prices approach the point where alternatives look more attractive. They can't eat the stuff and can't produce their own food. They may have gone too far last year. The issue has not dropped with the falling prices for fuel. Might even see real progress in growing the alternative market this time. People and industry are showing real interest in the hybrid and alternative fuel car market, even if the price of the car does not show an economic benefit to the individual (pay more for the car than you save, but it is the principal of sticking it to the man!!!) Dewey "Facts are meaningless; you can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true! Facts, schmacks!" - Homer Simpson "The problem is there are so many stupid people and nothing eats them." Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:07 PM Tharmeni wrote: This thread is a good argument for not posting any topic that is "OT". Do they discuss railroads on the Ethanol forums? I suspect not. Let's get back to railroading. Or you could merely go skip this and go on to a rail-releated thread that strikes your fancy. Your choice. Reply Edit Suburban Station Member sinceAugust 2006 72 posts Posted by Suburban Station on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:14 PM RRKen wrote: Not about Ethanol, cannot comment.you asked if I knew how farm subsidies worked. RRKen wrote: Do we know how much Mr. Richardson got for his commodities? How did he qualify under the LDP or price support programs? If he plants in 2007, and the bottom drops out of the market, what will become of his farm? What incentive will he have to continue farming? Might you be suggesting we let the land go fallow, and import corn and other grains? What social and economic impact will that have on the U.S. as a whole? Are you perhaps suggesting that producers in other countries should be the producers of choice, and our farmers go broke? pure speculation with teh intent on scaring people into paying farmers to produce something we are obviously not in need of (extra corn). from a country's perspective, we don't care if it's corn or widgets. RRKen wrote:One cannot have it both ways. It is called competition. The reason that other countries are not selling grain, is they have none to sell. so the US is the only country with grain? with farm production?competition is called subsidizing farmers? man, i really fell asleep in class. RRKen wrote: The price in the world market is set depending on the supply, not the U.S. farmer or Government. nice theory, but if the government sets the supply, then it sets the price. by incentiving crops that have little value on the open market, they are effectively lowering the price. RRKen wrote: If the U.S. ran out of corn tomorrow, I am sure China and Argentina would gladly sell what they have at the same prices that U.S. farmers are getting now, and other countries would pay that price. woudl they be eligible for the subsidies as well? RRKen wrote: You missed my point completely. ADM is a small portion of Ethanol production. 18 percent. Less than one fifth. They could not tell congress how to legislate an Ethanol when the legislation has been there since 1973. In 1973, ADM did not own the facility in Clinton, and Cedar Rapids had not even been planned, much less built. Hence, their only facility was in Decatur, IL. Did ADM bend Jimmy Carter's arm into asking for that legislation? huh? influence is measure with dollars, not market share. however, since you asked about 1973 The preference for high fructose corn syrup over cane sugar amongst the vast majority of American food and beverage manufacturers is largely due to U.S. import quotas and tariffs of sugar, supported with the campaign finance courtesy of agricultural corporations. Most predominantly, the Archer Daniels Midland corporation is currently amongst the leading contributors of such campaign finance.[7] Since local and federal laws often put a limit on how much money one particular lobbyist can contribute, Archer Daniels Midland's contributions are often given by numerous smaller entities under the authority of Archer Daniels Midland. This is commonly called bundling political contributions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup RRKen wrote:Two thoughts. First, Ethanol has about 6% of the total automobile fuel market. If you take that away, what will the remaining gasoline cost? Well what happens when fuel supply gets lower? Price goes up. why would price go up? ethanol is more expensive than gas. government expenditures would also decrease as well as transportation costs. RRKen wrote:How does one stimulate someone to invest in a bio-fuel with such variation of price? Or is your line of thinking, we don't need no stinking Ethanol, or the investment and jobs it has brought to rural America? not if it means wasting billions on a technology that offers no beenfit outside of the few "farmers" who benefit leading us down a dead end road. will it reduce our oil dependence more than additional rail infrastructure? heavy transit in urban areas? one of the largest users of energy (and therefore foreign oil) are rural farmers who also contribute a large portion to greenhouse gases. RRKen wrote: Well then bring it on. And when you become dependant on foreign food, cattle feed, and fuel, it will be justice in your eyes I am supposing. I already am. where was you tractor built? hwo about the parts in your car? how abou tyour clothes? RRKen wrote:But the aftermath of such thinkin Reply zugmann Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Canterlot 9,575 posts Posted by zugmann on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:24 PM Ethanol is not the proverbial silver bullet. There is no silver bullet for our energy needs. But ethanol may be a part of the solution. (and being a home grown fuel is an advantage to this american). So what if it is subsidized - there are so many other things in our country so oversubsidized, I can not get all worked up about ethanol. Unfortunately, this country will only really address their energy problems when the price goes sky-high. When it levels off, many new initiatives will be abandoned if not for the continuous influx of government money. It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now. The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any Reply 1234 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
I did say for the record, that other programs are something which I cannot speak to, and not a part of this threads topic.
And in your closing quote, you bring up big bad ADM again. Well what about Lyle & Tate? ConAgra? Deere & Co.? Cargill? DeBruce Grain? CHS? FCStone, LLC? KMA Consulting? Lubrizol? Union Pacific? Arent Fox PLLC? CoBank? WR Grace? They all contribute to the sin of Ethanol. They and others should be targeted as well. Lets not leave any guilty party out as long as we are pointing fingers.
This thread is a good argument for not posting any topic that is "OT". Do they discuss railroads on the Ethanol forums? I suspect not. Let's get back to railroading.
There have been a bunch of similar articles recently in a bunch of newspapers. I guess it is the easiest story this week to hype.
Just to hit on some of the items brought up on this chat:
Prices of corn used by Mexicans has increased dramatically in recent weeks, even though the corn used by Mexicans to make tortillas is white corn, not the yellow corn used in the US. The only reason it is rising is because the markets are color blind for the corn. White corn prices are tied to yellow corn prices, even though the supply of white corn has not changed.
Brazil is now self sufficient in enegy. Last year they exported 600,000 barrels of ethanol to the US. They expect to increase this to 2.1 million barrels this year.
The ethanol industry can actually get more product out of the rest of the corn plant than the seed corn head. The real target is switch grasses, which are something like 8 times more efficient for production.
The US has cut subsidies for corn from $8.1 billion to $2 billion this year. If prices remain high, they expect to be able to cut the subsidy this year almost entirely, which would also end complaints from several nations who complain about the price assistance US growers get.
The US still stores more grain than they use. Now they just store less.
$350 billion sent to people who hate us could be redirected to fuels we make here as alternatives are developed.
I doubt any growers are crying that the prices they get are too high, and I also doubt that anyone who could grow corn is not going to grow more just because they might actually get more money for the crops.
Sure there will be other products which will be impacted, but do you really need to use corn syrup as a sweetener in everything. There are alternative products.
Coal isn't going anywhere. There is a 300 year supply in the US. We have more than the rest of the planet. We could use it better. Lots of people are working on just that.
The big cost for anything new is the startup. Have to build the infrastructure. Big oil and our "friends" overseas get nervous when prices approach the point where alternatives look more attractive. They can't eat the stuff and can't produce their own food. They may have gone too far last year. The issue has not dropped with the falling prices for fuel. Might even see real progress in growing the alternative market this time. People and industry are showing real interest in the hybrid and alternative fuel car market, even if the price of the car does not show an economic benefit to the individual (pay more for the car than you save, but it is the principal of sticking it to the man!!!)
Tharmeni wrote: This thread is a good argument for not posting any topic that is "OT". Do they discuss railroads on the Ethanol forums? I suspect not. Let's get back to railroading.
Or you could merely go skip this and go on to a rail-releated thread that strikes your fancy.
Your choice.
RRKen wrote: Not about Ethanol, cannot comment.
you asked if I knew how farm subsidies worked.
RRKen wrote: Do we know how much Mr. Richardson got for his commodities? How did he qualify under the LDP or price support programs? If he plants in 2007, and the bottom drops out of the market, what will become of his farm? What incentive will he have to continue farming? Might you be suggesting we let the land go fallow, and import corn and other grains? What social and economic impact will that have on the U.S. as a whole? Are you perhaps suggesting that producers in other countries should be the producers of choice, and our farmers go broke?
pure speculation with teh intent on scaring people into paying farmers to produce something we are obviously not in need of (extra corn). from a country's perspective, we don't care if it's corn or widgets.
RRKen wrote:One cannot have it both ways. It is called competition. The reason that other countries are not selling grain, is they have none to sell.
so the US is the only country with grain? with farm production?competition is called subsidizing farmers? man, i really fell asleep in class.
RRKen wrote: The price in the world market is set depending on the supply, not the U.S. farmer or Government.
nice theory, but if the government sets the supply, then it sets the price. by incentiving crops that have little value on the open market, they are effectively lowering the price.
RRKen wrote: If the U.S. ran out of corn tomorrow, I am sure China and Argentina would gladly sell what they have at the same prices that U.S. farmers are getting now, and other countries would pay that price.
woudl they be eligible for the subsidies as well?
RRKen wrote: You missed my point completely. ADM is a small portion of Ethanol production. 18 percent. Less than one fifth. They could not tell congress how to legislate an Ethanol when the legislation has been there since 1973. In 1973, ADM did not own the facility in Clinton, and Cedar Rapids had not even been planned, much less built. Hence, their only facility was in Decatur, IL. Did ADM bend Jimmy Carter's arm into asking for that legislation?
huh? influence is measure with dollars, not market share. however, since you asked about 1973
The preference for high fructose corn syrup over cane sugar amongst the vast majority of American food and beverage manufacturers is largely due to U.S. import quotas and tariffs of sugar, supported with the campaign finance courtesy of agricultural corporations. Most predominantly, the Archer Daniels Midland corporation is currently amongst the leading contributors of such campaign finance.[7] Since local and federal laws often put a limit on how much money one particular lobbyist can contribute, Archer Daniels Midland's contributions are often given by numerous smaller entities under the authority of Archer Daniels Midland. This is commonly called bundling political contributions.
RRKen wrote:Two thoughts. First, Ethanol has about 6% of the total automobile fuel market. If you take that away, what will the remaining gasoline cost? Well what happens when fuel supply gets lower? Price goes up.
why would price go up? ethanol is more expensive than gas. government expenditures would also decrease as well as transportation costs.
RRKen wrote:How does one stimulate someone to invest in a bio-fuel with such variation of price? Or is your line of thinking, we don't need no stinking Ethanol, or the investment and jobs it has brought to rural America?
not if it means wasting billions on a technology that offers no beenfit outside of the few "farmers" who benefit leading us down a dead end road. will it reduce our oil dependence more than additional rail infrastructure? heavy transit in urban areas? one of the largest users of energy (and therefore foreign oil) are rural farmers who also contribute a large portion to greenhouse gases.
RRKen wrote: Well then bring it on. And when you become dependant on foreign food, cattle feed, and fuel, it will be justice in your eyes I am supposing.
I already am. where was you tractor built? hwo about the parts in your car? how abou tyour clothes?
RRKen wrote:But the aftermath of such thinkin Reply zugmann Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Canterlot 9,575 posts Posted by zugmann on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:24 PM Ethanol is not the proverbial silver bullet. There is no silver bullet for our energy needs. But ethanol may be a part of the solution. (and being a home grown fuel is an advantage to this american). So what if it is subsidized - there are so many other things in our country so oversubsidized, I can not get all worked up about ethanol. Unfortunately, this country will only really address their energy problems when the price goes sky-high. When it levels off, many new initiatives will be abandoned if not for the continuous influx of government money. It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now. The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any Reply 1234 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Ethanol is not the proverbial silver bullet. There is no silver bullet for our energy needs. But ethanol may be a part of the solution. (and being a home grown fuel is an advantage to this american). So what if it is subsidized - there are so many other things in our country so oversubsidized, I can not get all worked up about ethanol. Unfortunately, this country will only really address their energy problems when the price goes sky-high. When it levels off, many new initiatives will be abandoned if not for the continuous influx of government money.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.