# Failure of ethanol



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think this is the first government report that doesn't praise ethanol.



> May 21 (Bloomberg)-The U.S. Postal Service purchased more than 30,000 ethanol-capable trucks and minivans from 1999 to 2005, making it the biggest American buyer of alternative-fuel vehicles. Gasoline consumption jumped by more than 1.5 million gallons as a result.
> 
> &#8230;A Postal Service study found the new vehicles got as much as 29 percent fewer miles to the gallon. Mail carriers used the corn-based fuel in just 1,000 of them because there weren't enough places to buy it.
> 
> ...


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I would say that ethanol is a good source of clean burning energy, I think we need to create a new type of motor that uses it better. This country needs a miracle or some much more innovative thinking when it comes to all energy.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

AAA says you will experience on avaerage A 25% reduction in mileage using E85 compared to pure gas. A 10% blend of ethanol results in a 3.4% reduction in mileage.

And as mentioned, look what it has done to food costs :******:

I said it several times--Ethanol is the biggest scam the Big Ag COs have ever duped the public with in selling us a bogus bill of goods in that it is "good for us" in its "green" campaign.

Screw ethanol--buy ONLY pure gasoline.

ANd related to this, many have heard me say in the last month about how the speculators are driving up the crude oil prices. Even the Iraqi and Suadi Oil MInisters have said it is oil speculators is the main force of the inflation of oil prices, as there is even supply. It SHOULD be in the 60-70 range, not 130 like it is now based upon avaible supplies.

Here is a link to the US Senate hearing on the specualtive market pushing up the oil prices.

http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/052008Masters.pdf


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> Screw ethanol--buy ONLY pure gasoline.


With a 10% blend my truck drops from 22 mpg to 19 mpg.


----------



## varmit b gone (Jan 31, 2008)

hofwlr for President! :beer:


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

:beer:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

We have been over this issue countless times and Plainsman this is not the first report that has pointed out the failure of Ethanol from corn. Just about every GAO report has stated this. But we are in a farm state and people have bought into this fallacy as being good for the farmers and touting it as a way of reducing imports of oil.

Dorgan and Conrad have voted against sound fiscal energy plans in the past in order to push ethanol from corn. They now are being force to acknowledge that grain based ethanol is not the future of ethanol.

Poor Joel the big promoter of ethanol cut off his guest on Tuesday that grain based ethanol is not viable and is not cost affective. The guest only acknowledged that the building of plants now means they will be available sooner to be retrofitted to produce biomass ethanol.

So the media knows it now, the public is becoming aware of the fallacy and the politicians continue to pork barrel ethanol and place tariffs on Brazil ethanol to increase prices. The same group who sat and grilled big oil for causing the high oil and gas prices.

You either have to be dumb, blind or a hard Kool aid drinker not to realize that there will not be any type of solution to come out of Washington. I hear people on the radio and TV saying the Gov needs to do something. Really the only way for the Gov to do anything would be to seize all of the oil and set the price like China does for gas and diesel.

Remember also that the Dem's are the ones that pushed and allowed for rule changes for rail abandonment which has increased truck traffic and fuel consumption. The Rep sat back and allowed it to happen with no fight or red flag warnings. They are not faultless in this mess.

So in reality, unless we the consumer stop sending people to Washington that continue to restrict imports of energy and whine about the consumer costs. Then those who voted for these people need to shut up and enjoy what they have voted for.


----------



## bjertness07 (Jan 4, 2005)

Plainsman, do you hold a personal grudge against everything ethanol? Bio-mass ethanol, with a much more efficient process, is the way we should go. I know this will raise alot of criticism...but for crying out loud guys...it's proven that fossil fuels are running out. They are nonrenewable, and that's a fact. Period. Where else do you think we should go!? Just keep burning fossil fuels with no ATTEMPTS at progress to fix the future? Ethanol is an attempt, and although wrought with problems, it's a start.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

bjertness07 said:


> Plainsman, do you hold a personal grudge against everything ethanol? Bio-mass ethanol, with a much more efficient process, is the way we should go. I know this will raise alot of criticism...but for crying out loud guys...it's proven that fossil fuels are running out. They are nonrenewable, and that's a fact. Period. Where else do you think we should go!? Just keep burning fossil fuels with no ATTEMPTS at progress to fix the future? Ethanol is an attempt, and although wrought with problems, it's a start.


Its not a "start" its a pathetic boondoggle that undermines serious atttempts to move to an alternative source while robbing the public of their hard earned money in subsides to a few farm states with powerful politicians.

The big difference is when the private sector realizes they have made a mistake they stop, scrap the idea and move to another option. Not the govt they just continue to pour money down a rat hole, our money.


----------



## bjertness07 (Jan 4, 2005)

And just what do you have in mind that IS viable??? I'm completely confused here...it seems like a bunch of guys bashing something that they have no fix for...just bashing it to prove a point?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

bjertness07 said:


> And just what do you have in mind that IS viable??? I'm completely confused here...it seems like a bunch of guys bashing something that they have no fix for...just bashing it to prove a point?


You are either very naive or simply have not followed the debate over ethanol from grain. Myself for example, I have been critical of ethanol from grain for at least 6 years. I highlighted the the reasons all of which had nothing to do with wildlife. I have however been a proponent of biomass ethanol and have been highly critical of the fact that funding for the enzyme research was critically underfunded. I pointed to the Canadians who had a small scale plant in Canada that was a working biomass production operation. Then they decided to build a full scale plant.

I also pointed out that we need to be working in other areas as well such as research into using biomass residue for things we currently are producing from oil. All of these things need funding but instead we continue to spend $.51 a gallon on a subsidy for the blenders to put grain ethanol in the public realm. We continue to tax( tariffs) imported ethanol from Brazil. Cold Fusion research and testing is taking place. All indicators show a break through has been made and could result in cheap and clean energy in a few years. Yet funding of this is cut for more pork barrel spending on grain ethanol.

Do you get the point now? There are a host of potential energy sources, the ocean for example is one. I can go on and on where money spent on ethanol from grain has a much higher potential and long term solution viability that continues to be shelved for pork barrel votes in the farm belt.

I have call Dorgan,Conrad and Pomeroy, The Three Stogies from ND for this very reason. While in the short run, it benefits ND, the long run it leaves us looking in from the outside.

Until real alternatives are found, oil is still going to drive our economy and make the wheels turn. Not grain ethanol! I have found over the last 5-6 years that many growers of corn have come to the same conclusion. Granted they will raise corn if the market dictates, but those with the ablity to think and reason see grain produced ethanol for what it is!!!!!

The biggest and boldest lie ever set upon the American people. Because of people who have challenged it, and asked the tough questions and the spike in food costs. The spotlight has turned on grain ethanol and the real truth, most of which if you look back people like Plainsman and others have been sounding the alarm on. I noticed in the most recent ads that the E-85 promoters are using that they no longer are making the claim of it being a real factor in reducing imports.

The science field as well has challenged and proven that the claims of overall energy have been inflated. They used heat factors of food stock made from residue as being higher in value than it is. The process of extracting the sugar from corn for example renders a good portion of the claimed left over energy unavailable to cattle for absorption. The list is long and through.

So if you do a bit of research on this site alone, you will find that many opponents of grain ethanol are not opponents of ethanol in general. Nor do we see oil as a product of no supply limits. We have though seen that technology has increased the recoverable supply of oil immensely. The Balkan formation is one. So is the deposits in Mexico and off the coast of Brazil. So the threat of oil shortage is not two years or 5 years away. It has moved at present rate of consumption and projected increases in consumption out to a point of 200+ years from now.

We will have developed other ways of producing energy to run our vehicles and transportation way before then. In fact I would bet that 70% of the oil deposits left will never be drilled or touched.
It is not that hard to learn of these things if one has a mind to find out the truth. But accepting the truth and how it may affect ones pocket book is another matter!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

bjertness07 said:


> And just what do you have in mind that IS viable??? I'm completely confused here...it seems like a bunch of guys bashing something that they have no fix for...just bashing it to prove a point?


Nuclear power and electric cars or plug in hybrids would meet the lowest emmisions and cheapest cost criteria, that should be a 20-30 plan with serious alternatives researched and developed during that period.

This is the only currently known technology possible and yet the very people that claim global warming is an emergency fight tooth and nail against zero emmisson nuclear power.

That should tell you they have an ajenda and its not lower carbon emissions, their claims of waste storage problems are bogus.
We have already b uilt the storage facilites at tremedous cost.

80% of the people in this country commute less than 40 miles per day electric cars already can do 100miles per charge.

80-90% of the power in France is nuclear and its based on technology they copied from the USA


----------



## bjertness07 (Jan 4, 2005)

Perhaps I was off base in grouping many users in this forum together. I felt they were completely against ethanol of any sort. I once talked about corn ethanol, but with a little outside research, have found that biomass is a much better way to go. Excuse me to questioning your responses, I must have been a little slow on the draw...??


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> cheapest cost criteria,


I'm gonna contest that one. Currently with little or no demand for electrical energy by electric cars it IS cheap. Add several million electric cars onto an already taxed power grid and you can be assured prices WILL go up. And while battery technology has greatly advanced and continues to do so weight is still a big issue along with availability of raw matterials to produce large numbers of such stotage units and disposal of the hazardous contents when they need to be disposed of. And in at least 1/3 of this country temperature is still a limiting factor in the performance of electrical storage cells. An electric car that may get 100miles per charge may be lucky to get 1/2 that at -10 degrees.

We really need to look toward multi-fuel/energy vehices to maximize our needs for the future.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Why do you only look at half of my statement? Clearly I also said to build nuclear power plants to supply clean cheap electrical power.

Georgia is finally starting to build a third one.

AS for the temperature issue thats probably valid now, but when there are thousands of battery driven cars there will be much great market forces due to profit incentive to develop better batteries and even if you cannot taking the demand of all the southern cities will greatly reduce the price of gasoline for the rest of the country. Demand drops... prices will follow.

Lastly recycling of batteries would be another industry unto itself if there were enough battery driven cars to make it profitable, today there are not.

What kills me is how people can claim we cannot build a reliable electric car ina country that just sent a vehicle up to Mars to drill and explore.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> We have been over this issue countless times and Plainsman this is not the first report that has pointed out the failure of Ethanol from corn.


I know, but I am sure there are some people that will still not get it after we talk about it ten times so I like to go for number eleven. Twelve would be ok too.



> Plainsman, do you hold a personal grudge against everything ethanol? Bio-mass ethanol, with a much more efficient process, is the way we should go.


That's why I bring the subject up no one pays attention. If you look back for two years you will see not only have I talked about biomass, but I gave you species and rate of efficiency. If you look at switch grass (_Panicum virgatum_) you will find that you get seven units of energy out for ever unit invested.

For those who say it is clean that is as naïve as thinking electric home heating is real clean. I have electric, but I am fully aware that somewhere out west smoke belches in the air to produce it, or a nice river valley is flooded. Nothing is for free. Also if your going to talk about how clean ethanol is you better add the hydrocarbons from the ethanol, plus the hydrocarbons from the 1.2 units of energy used to produce it. It is a net energy loss, and a greater polluter when you think about it correctly.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_ ... n_the_tank 
AP IMPACT: *What makes up the price of gas?*
By JOHN PORRETTO and JOHN WILEN
AP Business Writers

Consider the game of chicken that plays out every day across Pennsylvania State Highway 441. In Marietta, where the road hugs the Susquehanna River, a Rutter's Farm Store gas station stands on one side, a Sheetz gas station on the other.

Kelly Bosley, who manages Rutter's, doesn't even have to look across the highway to know when Sheetz changes its price for a gallon of gas. When Sheetz raises prices, her own pumps are busy. When Sheetz lowers prices, she has not a car in sight.

She calls Rutter's headquarters to report the competition's new price and wait for instructions.

"I call a lot of times and say, 'They went down, hurry up! Hurry up! Call me! Call me!' Or it could be where theirs goes up, and I'll say, 'Take your time! You know, I like being busy.' But I have no control over that."

You think you feel helpless at the pump?

Bosley makes a living selling gas - and even she has little control over what it costs.

So how exactly are gas prices set? What determines the hair-pulling figure you see displayed in large electronic or plastic numbers? Why is a gallon of gas, say, $4.11 - not $4.10 or $4.12? Why is the price different across the street?

It all starts with oil.

The biggest factor in the skyrocketing price of gasoline is the historic ascent of crude oil, which has surged from $45 per barrel in 2004 to more than $135 this past week, setting new record highs all the while.

In the first quarter of this year, based on a retail price of gas that now seems like a steal - $3.11 a gallon - crude oil accounted for all but about a dollar, or 70 percent, of the cost, according to the federal government.

The rest is a complex mix of factors, from the cost of turning oil into gas to taxes to marketing costs to, sometimes, nothing more than the competitive whims of your local gas station owner.

Not that understanding the breakdown makes it any less cringe-inducing to fill 'er up.

___

First a primer on how gas gets to your tank:

Once oil is pumped from the ground, it can be sold on the spot market, a last-minute trading arena where oil companies and distributors buy and sell to each other, or straight to refiners. After it's brewed into gasoline, the product can again be sold on the spot market, or directly to wholesalers, who in turn can supply their own stations or sell it to other retailers.

Each step of the way, buyers and sellers negotiate a price until, finally, drivers pay the ultimate tab at the pump.

At the starting point of all this is the price of oil - which, like the oil itself, is nothing if not crude.

The knee-jerk villains are the oil companies, fat with multibillion-dollar profits, frequent targets of populist anger. But wait: The oil companies don't set the price of oil or the cost of a gallon of gas.

Prices are a function of the open market, the result of futures contracts being traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, or Nymex, and other exchanges around the world.

Buying the current July crude oil futures contract means you're buying oil that will be delivered by the end of July. But most investors who trade futures have no intention of ever accepting the underlying oil: Like stock investors who frequently buy and sell their holdings, they're simply betting that prices will rise or fall.

Of late, on the Nymex, oil futures have been rising.

Why? Blame the falling dollar. Oil is priced in U.S. dollars, and the weaker the dollar gets, the more attractive dollar-denominated oil contracts are to foreign investors - or any investor looking for a safe haven in the turbulent stock market.

The rush of buyers keeps pushing oil futures to a series of new records, and the rest of the energy complex, including gasoline futures, has followed. That pushes up the price of gas that goes into your tank.

"Crude is the driver," said Jim Ritterbusch, president of energy consultancy Ritterbusch and Associates in Galena, Ill. "As long as it stays up there, gasoline's not going to be able to decline much at all, even if demand slips. That's just the way it is."

There is some evidence Americans are buying less gas as the price marches higher, and common sense suggests they would cut back even more if gas rose to $4.50 or $5 a gallon.

Lower demand should mean lower prices - but it takes time for that to happen, given the enormous scale of refining operations that produce gasoline.

"Once demand begins to slow, that needs to translate into inventories, then you get some price weakening," Ritterbusch said. "But it takes a while."

Oil and gasoline prices often move in the same direction, but they aren't linked directly. In fact, while oil prices have more than doubled in the past year, gasoline is only up about 19 percent during the same time.

Oil prices often fluctuate with production decisions from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which supplies about 40 percent of the world's crude, or when conflict in the Middle East or Nigeria threatens supplies.

For example, oil prices rose $2.46 in one day last month amid reports a ship under contract to the Defense Department fired warning shots at two boats in the Persian Gulf that may have been Iranian.

A Navy spokesman later said the origin of the boats was unclear, but the news raised concerns that a conflict between U.S. and Iranian forces could cut oil supplies from the region. That same day, gas prices rose another 2.1 cents to a then-record national average of $3.577 a gallon on other supply concerns.

And the rise has only grown more dramatic. Oil sprinted higher this past week, rising more than $4 a barrel on Wednesday alone and past $135 on Thursday.

As for gasoline prices: They're closely tied to demand from U.S. drivers and how efficiently refineries are operating. Falling production or inventories often send prices skyrocketing.

Those prices can vary greatly depending on the region.

The Gulf Coast is the source of about half the gasoline produced in the United States, and areas farthest from there tend to have higher prices because of the cost of shipping gas via pipeline and tanker truck all over the country.

Some of those places, like California and New York, also have higher local taxes that push the price higher.

Oil companies may not set the price of oil and gasoline, but not everyone is willing to sit back and let them claim to be innocent bystanders.

In particular, for the second time this year, Big Oil's biggest executives were on Capitol Hill in recent days getting pummeled by many in Congress for their record profits while Americans struggle with record fuel prices.

"Where is the corporate conscience?" Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked the top executives of the five largest U.S. oil companies.

___

Soaring gas prices have led to cries for a variety of answers, from Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain's suggestion to suspend the federal gas tax this summer to President Bush's call to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and some offshore waters that are now off limits to oil development.

Others have suggested a windfall profits tax on oil companies, although some economists say that might actually hurt supply. Oil companies say they're not to blame for spiking fuel prices, and their earnings, measured against revenue, are in line with other industries.

On top of that, rising oil prices have sharply cut profit margins for refining, and that hits the major oil companies - which both pump oil and refine it for use as gasoline.

A giant like Exxon Mobil can handle the blow. Its refining and marketing profits for the first quarter were down 39 percent from a year ago, but Exxon still banked a nearly $11 billion profit because of the hefty prices earned on crude it pumped out of the ground.

Smaller refiners aren't so fortunate. Sunoco Inc.'s refining and supply business lost $123 million in the first quarter, hurt by lower margins. Tesoro Corp. lost $82 million for the same period.

In any case, huge profits at big oil companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron aren't because of high prices at the pump. Their massive profits are tied to their exploration and production arms, which are benefiting from record crude prices.

Higher crude costs also have squeezed profits at the refining arms of companies like ConocoPhillips, which don't produce enough crude themselves to refine at full capacity without buying more oil from other producers.

CEO Jim Mulva said ConocoPhillips, the second-largest U.S. refiner behind Valero Energy Corp., buys about 2 million barrels of crude a day at market prices to refine into gasoline and other products.

"If oil costs us $30 a barrel or $40 a barrel or $120 a barrel, that's why the cost of gasoline is what it is," he said. "It's not because of taxes. It's not because of ... refining and distribution. It's because of the cost of oil."

___

But it's not only about the price of oil. Other costs are a factor - though they've remained relatively stable.

For example, federal and state taxes added 40 cents to a gallon of gas in the first three months of this year, roughly the same amount as they added four years ago.

California's 63.9 cents of tax is the nation's highest, Alaska's 26.4 cents the lowest. How the money is used varies from state to state, though the federal take helps to build and maintain highways and bridges.

Marketing and distribution costs - the tab for delivering gasoline from refiner to retailer - were 27 cents to start the year, only 6 cents above the cost four years ago.

The cost of refining added 27 cents to a gallon in the first quarter of this year, a nickel less than what it added in 2004, according to the Energy Information Administration.

That refining occurs at sprawling industrial complexes across the U.S., with most of the biggest along the Gulf Coast. Barrels of crude arrive each day by pipeline, ship and barge. The refineries, by heating, treating and blending the raw oil, turn out products like diesel and lubricating oil.

And, of course, gasoline.

___

What happens when that gasoline makes its way to your neighborhood gas station?

Major oil companies own fewer than 5 percent of gas stations. Most are owned by small retailers - and many of them say they're struggling these days to turn a profit on gas. That's because wholesale gasoline prices have risen sharply in recent months - again, blame it on crude - but station owners have been unable to raise pump prices fast enough to keep pace.

And you can't keep jacking up the price when drivers are buying less.

Gas station owners face a balancing act: They must try to maintain a price that allows them to afford the next shipment of gasoline but not give the competition an edge.

Stations pay tens of thousands of dollars for each gas shipment before they see a cent in the register. Eventually, many make only a few cents on a gallon of gasoline, a margin that can disappear altogether when credit card fees are added in.

Thank goodness for beef jerky and sodas.

Most gasoline retailers long ago got past any illusion they can make money by selling gas. They rely on gas sales to drive traffic to their shops, where they hope auto repairs or food and drink sales will help them turn a profit.

"You're always out there competing with the guy next door - literally with the guy across the street - and worried too about how you're going to pay for your next supply," said Rayola Dougher, a senior economic adviser at the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's trade association.

In the Philadelphia suburb of Havertown, Pa., earlier in the week, Sunoco station operator Steve Kehler received a load of gasoline - 9,000 gallons - which, at a wholesale price of $3.729 a gallon, cost him 4 cents more than the previous load.

That left him in a sticky situation: Should he raise prices right away to recoup some of his higher gasoline expenses, or should he hold off for a couple of days in hopes his competitors will also have to raise their prices?

"I'm surrounded by $3.89's, and I'm already at $3.91," said Kehler, referring to his prices and those of some nearby competitors. "I'm going to play a little waiting game right now."

The $33,600 Kehler must pay for his overnight gasoline delivery won't be debited from his bank account for a few days. That gives him a little breathing room, time to hold prices steady. Hiking prices too quickly will hurt sales.

"I'll probably change it tomorrow night, at closing," Kehler said. "I'll go up 4 cents."

That will put Kehler at a gross margin of about 20 cents a gallon. After paying credit card fees, labor and rent, Kehler will be lucky to break even on his gasoline sales.

But many times, he loses money selling gas. Kehler, like most other service station operators, relies entirely upon his car repair business for income.

Of course, the plight of retailers is little consolation for drivers.

Mayra Perez said she works two fast-food jobs to help support her family, and gasoline is becoming harder to afford. She said perhaps the government should step in to help ease the burden, possibly by placing price limits on gasoline.

She was filling the tank of her compact car in Miami this past week to the tune of $3.89 per gallon for regular gas.

"This is horrible," she said. "On the weekend, my husband and I use only one car to save on gas.

"But then there's the cost of food, milk, eggs, the rent."

___

AP Business Writer Adrian Sainz in Miami contributed to this story.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Here is the answer to all the energy problems :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ ... re=related


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I fully understand the comparison of Hugo Chavez and Maxine Waters. Both socialists, and both wanting to push their agenda on the people. Maybe I should say use the people to achieve socialism. If the Washington handles that like everything else we will see $8 at the pump, and people like Maxine will think we shouldn't complain because they aren't doing it for personal profit.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

*Ethanol's popularity wanes amid rising food prices *
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... lems_N.htm

Food shortages and rising costs have sparked calls for a rollback of a federal mandate to boost ethanol use. 
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. - Not long ago, the fledgling ethanol industry was the darling of investors, farmers, the federal government and a lot of Americans who liked the idea of turning corn into fuel. 
Suddenly, it doesn't have nearly as many friends.

Rising global food prices and shortages have spurred calls in Congress to roll back the federal mandate to blend more ethanol and other biofuels with the gasoline supply. Critics say so much corn is being used for ethanol that there's less available for people and animals to eat, raising prices of everything from tortillas to meat.

What's more, investors aren't seeing the returns they'd hoped for as once-record profits began to fall.

"Consumers are starting to get restless, and Washington is starting to listen," said Morningstar analyst Ann Gilpin, who follows Decatur, Ill.-based Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the No. 2 U.S. ethanol producer.

The ethanol market would be severely limited if Congress rolled back the mandate for annual increases in the amount of biofuels added to the fuel supply - 9 billion gallons by the end of this year, increasing to 36 billion by 2022.

That would most hurt companies that rely exclusively or primarily on ethanol, which include small, often locally owned distillers - already under pressure since ethanol prices fell and corn prices rose sharply - as well as larger publicly traded firms such as VeraSun Energy (VSE), the largest ethanol producer.

"If you sell one product and the only reason there's a market for it is because the government makes a law requiring consumption - if that law goes away, obviously you're in trouble," Gilpin said.

The odds of Congress changing that mandate this year are slim because the 10 states that produce more than 80% of U.S. ethanol have almost half of the 270 electoral votes needed to win a presidential election, said analyst Kevin Book of Friedman Billings Ramsey.

After the election, sentiment may change. Congress took a mild swipe at ethanol in the new farm bill, shaving a tax credit for refiners that blend ethanol into gasoline from 51 cents to 45 cents. President Bush vetoed the bill Wednesday but the House already voted to override the veto and the Senate is expected to do so Thursday.

Ethanol loses market favor

Investor disappointment also is weighing on ethanol-only companies, particularly smaller and privately held businesses, says Rick Kment, an ethanol-industry analyst for agricultural data company DTN.

He said much of the public and private investment was made when profits were as high as $2 a gallon. "It is very unlikely we will see that kind of profit again."

Shares of Brookings, S.D.-based VeraSun have fallen more than 15% since April 1, and Pacific Ethanol (PEIX), another major maker, has fallen about 30% in the same period.

After VeraSun posted first-quarter profits last week that fell short of expectations, some analysts raised worries about the industry.

"We remain cautious on the entire sector as we expect sustained higher corn and natural gas prices with little relief in sight," Calyon Securities' George Kotzias wrote in a note to investors.

VeraSun officials did not return a call seeking comment.

On the other hand, analysts say ethanol producers such as ADM, which distill it as one of many businesses, appear better positioned.

ADM doesn't break out the profit it makes from ethanol, but the unit that includes those operations accounted for about 20% of earnings last year. In the most recent quarter, when profit in that unit fell by almost a third, companywide profit increased 42%. At the time, ADM called the volatility in the quarter "unprecedented" as corn prices set a record above $6 a bushel. But CEO Patricia Woertz said retreating from biofuels would be a mistake. ADM said Tuesday that the company had no further comment.

Ironically, the turmoil about ethanol has grown even as some industry vital signs have stabilized.

Corn has eased back a bit. Ethanol sells for more than it did last year, but at 60 cents to 70 cents a gallon less than wholesale gas, it's still cheap enough to be an attractive option for refiners looking to make oil go further, Kment says. And demand is steady.

Food price drop would help

ADM Executive Vice President John Rice believes pressure on the industry would ease with a drop in food prices.

"I think globally, it'd be very good to have a large corn crop and a large oil seed crop," he told analysts at a conference last week. "I think it would eliminate some of this debate, the food vs. fuel."

Ethanol companies have gone on a public relations campaign the past few weeks, citing studies that raise doubts about the degree to which ethanol is affecting food prices. They also argue that gasoline blended with a small amount of ethanol is saving drivers money.

"Consumers today who are filling up with the blended fuel are saving somewhere around a dime (a gallon)," said Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, an industry lobbying group.

----------

See that last line? What he did not say is you will get 3.4% less mileage using a 10% ethonal blend. 3.80 x 3.4% = a 13 cents a gal LOSS You are going BACKWARDS 3 cents with every gallon.

So BEWARE of the smoke screen that the Ethanol lobby is promoting. As again more evidence of their scam is apparent.

I say NO MORE subsidies for corn based Ethanol Plants and the product they produce!!! Many receieved huge tax breaks, even striaghjt out grants. + they get 5 cents a gal subsidy on top of it. And we consumers are paying for their greedy profits. I just paid 3.59 for a loaf of whole wheat (heavy) bread last night at Cub Foods. Enough is enough as the average working stiff in America can NOT afford the effects of corn ethanol to the food prices, and that incliudes meat prices too.

Call your congressmen and Senators and ***** to them --enough of ethanol subsidies for corn based ethonal. and tighten the the commodities futures market on oil. Lets put a stop to this absolute MADNESS of outrageous prices. And the only way is to ***** to your US congressmen abd Senators! Tell them do something or we'll vote you of office!


----------



## whisker (Dec 5, 2005)

Very good thread guys,...for the most part.
It's good to read posts (pro & con) by people who are actually showing informative sources to back their opinions.

I'm one who simply doesn't use it because the lower cost doesn't compensate me for the lower gas mileage. :-?


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Just thinking out loud but if it takes 4 gallons of ethanol at $10 or 3 gallons of gasoline at $10 to get from point A to Point B, isn't that a push pull with a benefit of cleaner air. I thought the only two goals of ethanol was clean air and getting away from the dependency on fossil fuel.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

Corn is much better used for other things than to burn in your car and don't forget how much water is used to make ethanol that what is left over has to be cleaned before being put back in the streams.

Hydrogen fuel cells :beer:

Biomass ethanol _maybe_ depending on how much _water waste _it makes, I don't know as much as some of you about these different types of energy but if the only byproduct from fuel cells is water that doesn't sound to bad to me.

Back in the day, if the government would have subsidized my freinds little steam outfits on the creek banks they could have made good money. They only kept hireing more revenuers to hunt them down and chop up the outfits.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cwoparson said:



> Just thinking out loud but if it takes 4 gallons of ethanol at $10 or 3 gallons of gasoline at $10 to get from point A to Point B, isn't that a push pull with a benefit of cleaner air. I thought the only two goals of ethanol was clean air and getting away from the dependency on fossil fuel.


CW you have to count the 1.2 units of fuel burned to produce the one gallon of ethanol. Which is cleaner, burning one original unit of fuel, or burning 1.2 + 1 which equals the pollution from 2.2 units of fuel. That also makes us more dependent on mideast oil, not less.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> CW you have to count the 1.2 units of fuel burned to produce the one gallon of ethanol. Which is cleaner, burning one original unit of fuel, or burning 1.2 + 1 which equals the pollution from 2.2 units of fuel. That also makes us more dependent on mideast oil, not less.


Plainsman I was simply pointing out the two goals of ethanol which was not a cheaper product nor a more efficient product. However I would point out to you your information is outdated and not accurate. Here is a quote from a more up to date source. 


> " Every gallon of ethanol requires a small amount of petroleum, mostly for farming. The equivalent of 5-8% of the energy in ethanol goes to such uses as diesel for farm tractors, fuel to ship corn to a processing plant, and more fuel to ship the finished ethanol to a pump. Most of the energy used at a processing plant comes from natural gas or coal. Thus, ethanol is highly effective at displacing oil; just one gallon of oil is required to make 12-20 gallons of ethanol. On this point, it makes little difference whether the ethanol is made from corn, sugar cane, or cellulose."
> 
> "The term "energy balance" refers to the difference between the amount of fossil energy needed to produce a fuel and the energy the fuel contains. It takes energy to transform any product from one form into another. (For example, electricity contains less than 40% of the energy of the coal used to make it.) For every unit of energy delivered at the pump, corn ethanol requires 0.76 units of fossil energy, and gasoline requires 1.22 units. The use of ethanol thus results in the consumption of 40% less fossil energy than the gasoline it replaces. Papers by a Cornell entomologist and a Berkeley petroleum geologist have asserted a more negative view of ethanol and have received much attention - but their methodology has been disputed by their peers."
> 
> "Most of the fossil energy consumed in making corn ethanol goes to processing the feedstock - from cooking and distilling to drying the distillers grains. Very little fossil energy is needed to make ethanol if renewable energy is used for processing. For example, in Brazil, sugar cane waste, known as "bagasse," is used for boiler fuel. Thus Brazilian ethanol contains eight times more energy than was required to make it. Ethanol from cellulose is expected to have a similar fossil energy balance (and therefore greenhouse gas balance). In one assessment, cellulosic ethanol from wood residue required 0.16 units of fossil energy per unit of delivered energy; corn stover required just 0.09 units. The fossil energy balance of corn ethanol would improve if corn stalks, wood waste, or methane from cattle manure were used for its process heat, as a couple of U.S. facilities already do."


I don't know enough about ethanol to take a hard stance one way or the other as far as its viability for future use, but I do know enough to take what is said in a forum with a grain of salt over that which is published by people working directly in the field. As far as I can tell, with new technology coming on line each and every day, ethanol usage and production is changing rapidly. Kind of like a computer. What was good six months ago is outdated today.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

cwoparson, the efficiency of the modern plants are extracting about all of the availible energy from the product. But ethanol is still not creating more energy per say than it consumes when all of the factors are figured in. To arrive at a positive net of a slim 25% gain in volume only they need to add in the BTU value of the sun and also a inflated BTU value of the residue as food stock for livestock.

Recent studies done in Michigan are indicating that the latest figures being used by the Ethanol industry are overinflated to a point that at best we are looking at a minimal gain of just 5%! Now factor in the costs related to grain ethanol and it is a loser and will remain a loser no matter how they dress it up.

Put a pig in a dress and you still have a pig!


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> the efficiency of the modern plants are extracting about all of the availible energy from the product. But ethanol is still not creating more energy per say than it consumes when all of the factors are figured in.


But does it really matter if we are using energy from something we have a abundance of such as wind, solar,natural gas, or coal to produce a energy substance which we have a shortage of to fuel our cars, buses, planes and trucks with and at the same time not use fossil fuels? To many people are trying to tie the production of ethanol to the use of fossil fuels when that doesn't appear to really be the case. This is especially troublesome when the term energy is used to confuse the masses into thinking of energy from oil only. If you do that, then yes ethanol is a losing proposition but with the bi-products from ethanol being reused as energy mass for the plants as some countries are already doing then how can it be a loser?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

cwo, it matters very little where the energy comes from because if it was not used to produce ethanol from grain it could be used for other needs. Hence even if every single plant was run on wind energy it really matters not. The bold fact is that we have put a huge amount of money and time into a energy source which is not viable as an alternative to supplying our needs for transportation and one that is very much weather dependent.

Right now most of ND is dry and it has been cold. While we are not the only producer of corn, the fact remains that our state wide dryness has been multi state many times. Our supply of food stocks normally is not affected by these impacts to crops because of the surplus we have been producing. Many farmers sat on crops when prices where down. But the high commodity prices we saw the past year has dwindled our on hand supply on the farm to the lowest levels in years.

If for no other reason than weather, we should never have moved in the direction of grain ethanol as a fuel for our vehicles.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> But does it really matter if we are using energy from something we have a abundance of such as wind, solar,natural gas, or coal to produce a energy substance which we have a shortage of to fuel our cars, buses, planes and trucks with and at the same time not use fossil fuels?


Sure it matters because we have shortages of electricity in areas also. We have had brown outs in California, and we can use all the wind energy and solar we are producing now for other uses. 
Also, factor in the carbon to produce electricity from coal. In the end ethanol is not a clean alternative to petroleum. 
Cellulose ethanol ok, corn ethanol no.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

The brownouts in California were three years ago and were not due to a shortage of electricity but to the high usage during a heat wave that overloaded the grids, tripping them off line. Apples to oranges just like the study about the postal service vehicles. Stop and go running 10 hours a day, what did they expect. Typical political blunder and then blame it on something else. There is no shortage of electricity in this country so just what are the other usages for solar and wind power you think are needed? We have a abundance of spare energy as I pointed out that is available for usage without short changing anyone or anyplace.

Ethanol is not and never was meant to be a alternative to petroleum. It is simply one of many alternatives that someday will be in use to power transportation. Everything else is far into the future. As other alternatives come on line with new technology, corn ethanol may very well be phased out or cut down to little use or no use but right now it is the best we have for the present.

I'm not promoting ethanol one way or the other as a cure all, but with each passing day it's use gradually will delay the clock when the disappearance of fossil fuels puts us in a deep freeze. We need nuclear power for our home energy and we need burnable fuel for our transportation needs. Everything else is far into the end of this century to become reality.

If I didn't know better I'd think I was listen to a bunch of do nothing Washington politicians that were looking for something magical to fall from the skies. Everyone wants to complain but no one has a viable solution for right now. This is not about tomorrow. It is about today.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

cwo you maybe missed my first post on this. Viable solutions are what need exploring and research to reach them is not being funded. Instead we are spending money on a dead end program that from the get go was not and is not viable when made from grain.

You seem to think that we who oppose grain ethanol are anti ethanol period. That is far from the truth!!!

In regards to the brown outs. It is in part lack of supply. Whether there was enough power to meet the demand is debatable, but part of the energy crunch is the ablity to supply the demand. If the grid is not keeping up with demand, it equates to a shortage. What causes the bottle neck? Part is lack of power generated locally for those people. As you pointed out nuclear is going to be needed. But having a plant in Idaho and needing it in CA is not proper utilization.

Same thing with ethanol and the energy being used to make it. Look at MN for example. They are hoping the Big Stone plant gets approved, as they are in need of more power as MPLS/St Paul area continues to expand. So power diverted to ethanol plants increases demand and load. Thus creating the possibility of overload on current grid.

Now look at transportation costs and demand. Ethanol cannot at this time be shipped via pipeline. So it has to be trucked or shipped by rail. So we build a corn ethanol plant in an area of demand and ship the corn from MN and SD to Delaware or Vermont or New Jersey for processing. When in reality if the financial effort had been put forward that was put into grain ethanol. We cannot undo that, but we should be crying loudly for no more to be put into it and instead put into biomass research which states out east which are not Ag dominate, but are rich in biomass.

Do you see the difference in what is being debated. It is not ethanol overall, but where and what we are currently subsidizing to make it!!!!!!!

I pointed out a while back that algae in TX is producing 100,000 gal of bio diesel per acre and with the best crop of corn or soybeans producing at best 30-80 gals. Do you see what we are talking about know?

Sometimes it amazes me how something as simple as this gets missed. Cost is also a factor, and until ethanol becomes economically viable regardless of what it is made from to burn vs fossil fuels the public is going to go with the less expensive.

By the way cwo, I do not buy the idea that we are going to run out of oil, I do believe we will run out of cost affective oil to retrieve. So I will dispute your blanket statement.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Ron, I understand what you are saying and for the most part I agree with you. I'm not trying to be argumentative on the subject. It just seems to me that there are those, some right here on this forum that have the same mind set as the anti ANWR or coastal drilling crowd. They think nothing is better than what is presently being done because scientist will come up with a magic bullet and what is being done should just be flat shut down.

Yes we do need more funding. We need to do our own drilling. More refineries need building. Nuclear power plants need to be built and the countries grid system is in need of serious overhaul. And, as you said we need to shout louder but what we don't need is to cut of our noses in spite of our face. Corn ethanol is not the complete answer by any means but the success of it in and of itself has generated experiments with other alternatives that were unheard of not so long ago. Every little bit helps, even if it is not enough.

As for the running out of fossil fuel statement. I guess it was kind of like the McCain 100 years in Iraq statement. Bone dry or not cost affective to retrieve, same difference.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

One thing that really bugs me is when people (Ron Gilmore) dont know anything about ethanol and come on here like God . Ron , do the math corn yields 150 bu per acre, refines out just shy of 3 gallons per bushel, which equals 450 gallons of ethanol per acre, (not 60 -80 or whatever made up number you wrote) 
And for h2fowler, the price of your beloved loaf of bread has little or nothing to do with ethanol , as no wheat is distilled into ethanol. The price of wheat has risen because of a 3 year drought in Australia and other production shortcomings in the WORLD. Also the chickens have come back to roost for the millers of wheat , as in years past they have discounted the price paid to farmers for vomitoxin, test weight , or basiclly whatever reason they wanted to screw the farmer. Farmers are smart enough to quit and switch to a a more profitable crop, either beans, peas , canola corn etc. The main reson for the price spike is DIESEL in transportation for your beloved loaf of bread. Still only 10% of the price is for the grain in the wheat , 90% for markup and middleman.
PS I hope you pay $7.00 for bread next year , if it means the farmer gets what is rightly his. Or pay 35 of your income for food like other countries


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

Plainsman, show me the 1.2-1 ratio on 450 gallons of ethanol per acre??? With this you are saying it takes 540 gallons of hydrocarbons per corn acre?? Remarkably decieving . Show me how big oil is subsidized in the middle east. Not only 30 BILLION per month in cash outlays for Iraq, but the value of our boys lives. What price do you put on that to keep the supply of crude coming from terrorists who dont give a crap about us? The sooner we are independent of the sand nags the better


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

F350 said:


> Plainsman, show me the 1.2-1 ratio on 450 gallons of ethanol per acre??? With this you are saying it takes 540 gallons of hydrocarbons per corn acre?? Remarkably decieving . Show me how big oil is subsidized in the middle east. Not only 30 BILLION per month in cash outlays for Iraq, but the value of our boys lives. What price do you put on that to keep the supply of crude coming from terrorists who dont give a crap about us? The sooner we are independent of the sand nags the better


"Big" oil and the war in Iraq and you talk about Ron???

we have trillions of barrels of shale oil in the american west just not the political will to get it, so oil running out is not really true its just a matter of a political crisis not a oil scarcity crisis


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Every little bit helps, even if it is not enough.


That's just it, corn ethanol is not helping, it is hurting.



> Ron , do the math corn yields 150 bu per acre


I don't know where your from, but I doubt corn runs 150 bushel to the acre where Ron is at.



> 450 gallons of ethanol per acre


We are not getting 450 gallons to the acre anywhere around here.



> if it means the farmer gets what is rightly his.


You shouldn't say that with your hand in the taxpayers pocket. I wish you would get what is rightly yours, it would mean a lot less taxes for me. Subsidizing agriculture is one of the most expensive expenditures for this nation. If corn ethanol can survive without my tax dollars then let it.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

F350 you are looking at ethanol, my comment was based on bio diesel. Press 150 bu of corn and tell me how much oil you get from it?

Also lets talk about carbons and the trade off!!!! Carbons and pollutants are equal to or greater than fossil fuels when the components of raising corn are added in and they need to be added in. Grass land for example stored 226 tons of carbon, corn stores 30 tons.

Then there is the efficiency conversion of ethanol per gal to regular gas. So if you get two gallons of ethanol per bu or three as you claim when converted it can be as much as a 1/3 reduction depending upon the vehicle.

Funny how none of the farmers I know that run gas pickups will attempt to tow anything with E-85 and given the choice will run unblended gas especially when the price is within pennies.

So it is not acting as a GOD as you put it. It is about making sure the BS that has flowed from the ethanol industry IE Corn Growers is countered with facts.

So the ball is in your court. Tell us how many gallons of corn oil are produced from a 150 bu an acre crop!!!!!!!!! Same for soybeans! Seems to me it equates to about 1/2 so I say my *GOD* figures are pretty accurate!!!!!!!!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> we have trillions of barrels of shale oil


Yes we do, I've seen the core samples and it will be hundreds if not thousands of years before most of it has migrated and become recoverable. As we read and write it is under pressure and heat from the planet forming pockets, pools and layers of crude oil.

Anyone ever seen a B52 fly, they burn alcohol with water injection. Lots of it too!!


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> That's just it, corn ethanol is not helping, it is hurting.


I don't think so but you keep repeating that same line again, and again, and again. Maybe you'd like to put something on the table to explain that.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

What we have is what is called a drive by posted by F350! I am sure he is either a shill for the Three Stogies from ND, or the Corn Growers etc...

They never want to debate this issue on merit and fact, instead they try and shift this to the common rah rah talking points.

Plainsman, yields have increased in many areas, as last fall south of you a lot of farmers did get over 150 bu an acre on the corn. The guys renting our land said it was the first time they had cracked that level for dry land corn. County average is well below that level.

Just making sure F350 has the facts!!!!!!!


----------



## waterfowladdict (Mar 23, 2008)

My view point is this....

If you have to push something that hard it cant be that good. A good thing sells itself.

There is oil everywhere but the libs and environmentalists wont let us drill.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Think of it as a new kind of greenhead duck that can be made abundant so the daily limit is 20. But this new duck tastes like crap and can't be eaten, our ethics say we must not waste this little flying beast so we try and try again until we figure out how to make it edible.

Some duckology I guess... :lol: :beer:


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

> Think of it as a new kind of greenhead duck that can be made abundant so the daily limit is 20. But this new duck tastes like crap and can't be eaten, our ethics say we must not waste this little flying beast so we try and try again until we figure out how to make it edible.


Except this duck will make all the others taste like crap too...


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

No the real greenhead is still available just a different limit. Actually the treehuggers have taken the limit down to .75 duck per hunter.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cwoparson said:


> > That's just it, corn ethanol is not helping, it is hurting.
> 
> 
> I don't think so but you keep repeating that same line again, and again, and again. Maybe you'd like to put something on the table to explain that.


If it takes more energy than it yields how is it helping? If the energy to produce it plus the ethanol when burned produces more carbon how is it helping? Following that logic I say corn ethanol is a net loss.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Just for the record I don't like ethanol or buy ethanol but I do believe it is a stepping stone in the right direction. We need most people to feel the need for change before we will see inventions that further renewable energy development.



> If it takes more energy than it yields how is it helping?


If it doesn't fuel our cars it might fuel change.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman.....you also forgot to mention:
1. higher food prices

2. more corn going into the ground and less crop rotation so the ground will get raped of nutrients

3. loss of ground cover so more run off so that will equal poor water quality

4. More use of ground water (I don't know the stats...but it takes lots of water to make ethanol.)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If it doesn't fuel our cars it might fuel change.


 :huh:

I thought Obama was going to do that.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

Ron , look at the subject , its ethanol , not corn oil , take it to the corn oil forum. The nation wide yield last year was 156 bu/ acre, All acres , USA. 
Irest my case . And yes there was 200 bu corn in the Oakes area too .If your renter cant hit 150 in Cass county, time to change renters and rent to one who can. Consistently.
Referring to the common "rah rah " points , must be a compliment. They are facts that arrogant Fargo fools cant make sense of because they are fact. No stooge for our delegation to DC here, just because they are in the MAJORITY, both repubs and Dems that have vision to follow Brazil and get us off of oil dependence.
The food analogy is soooo laughable. How many times have you sat down and ate a full plate of #2 yellow corn. Corn prior to ethanol was and is cattle food that is turned into #[email protected]$. The ethanol is taken off and , walla , 30 protein cattle feed which is VALUABLE.
You mention the carbon content . My organic matter content in my soils that grow corn is 3.7 % Take that times total tonnage and its way more than a paltry 226 tons. Or 30 tons as you made up . Once you realize your credability is judged by misstatements (lies) , your arguement will not be laughed off the board.
One question Ron, do you have trouble finding permission to hunt with the arrogant attitude toward production agriculture?? Thought so......


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> If it takes more energy than it yields how is it helping?


There you go again with the energy spin, trying to fool everyone. Lets put it this way Plainsman. I expend a lot of my energy gathering wheel weights, cleaning them, smelting then into ingots, melting those ingots in a lead pot, casting that lead into bullets, and then lubing the bullets. Now if I had a mind to I could expend far, far less energy by sitting in front of the computer and simply ordering bullets. But I have a abundance of the energy I use. What I don't have is a abundance of is money in my wallet to to order bullets. So I'm expending my over abundance of energy to produce something that keeps me from having to depend on something I don't have a abundance of. That is just common sense and it is helping. The energy you keep talking about is energy we have an abundance of and you know it.



> plus the ethanol when burned produces more carbon


Personally I'd like to see and read a source that states that as fact. I'm sure you have one so if you would kindly link it I would appreciate it.

Now, to support in part what you are saying about more carbon, I'm sure you know new carbon is released from petroleum every time a gallon of gasoline is burned. This carbon is out in the atmosphere a geologically long time. The carbon from burning biofuels releases carbon that has been part of the carbon cycle's atmosphere reservoir. In essence, burning petroleum is adding additional carbon, while burning biofuels is simply re-cycling it. I'm aware that carbon is stored in the ground and using land that was once idle will release additional carbon the ground has captured but won't the growing crops recapture most of that carbon? Seems to me over time that carbon will be recycled to a point of no return where as the continued use of fossil fuels will just add more to the reserves. Sounds like a win situation to me. Tell me where I'm wrong.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

F350, first and foremost, lets cut through the crap. Ethanol from corn is a net/net at best energy producer. To have a net gain in energy the Corn Growers sent the study back to Northwestern and said find a way for us to have a net energy gain. So they added in the BTU value of the number of days it takes corn to grow under the sun. Plus the study did not include the processing and manufacturing and shipping costs of fertilizer and other chemicals used in the production of corn.

Then there is the environmental impact. Corn ethanol supporters tout it as being cleaner burning, but fail to mention that in places where smog is prevalent the waste product of ethanol put out 5 times the amount of gas that causes smog to forum. Not to mention the nitrate runoff that it is causing as well.

The studies done show that corn ethanol is not a viable alternative to our energy requirements based on todays usage to fuel our autos. We do not have enough land period.

Thus as a tax payer it galls me to no end that we continue to subsidize this fallacy instead of funding other viable options. Now I do not know what the yield average is of corn in Cass County. I would assume it would be pushing the 150 mark or above for dry land corn. The reason is our land is not in Cass County.

And assess to land is not an issue for me. Most of the people who's land I hunt know where I stand. Most also agree with me on ethanol and all of them are corn growers. Now in regards to food costs. For people in the US I agree freight and packaging are the primary cost of our food. But in other parts of the world that is not the case. High corn prices are causing a lot of people to go hungry especially in under developed nations. Our church sponsors a mission outreach program that is geared towards providing better nutrition for children in one of these nations. While dollar amounts increased this past year they distributed less food than they have in 10 years all due to the rise in prices of corn and rice.

So let's set the record straight. I am not opposed to ethanol made from biomass, which can be made from the stalks of corn, the straw from wheat etc. after the grain has been harvested. Yield or gallons per acre are much higher than from the grain. In the case of land for pure ethanol production, plants such as switch grass and others are a real winner. Less energy costs going into the growing and harvesting of the product. After it is established fertilizer and chemical for spray is greatly reduced. These are facts. Not hyperbole or false claims that we have seen and heard from the Corn industry and the chemical companies that supply them.

These acres also are environmental winners as well. They are carbon sponges and natural filters and slow the runoff reducing flooding issues as well. So lets get all of the information on the table and not just the spin that comes from the Corn lobby and ethanol lobby.

Take away the subsidized marketing of grain ethanol and the market will drop. Verasun has seen its stock values drop by 25% or more because the truth of this product is making it into the main stream media. I understand that as of now we are stuck using corn ethanol as a blender for gas now that MTE is off the market. But it is totally ignorant to believe that grain produced ethanol can and will ever reduce our dependence on imported oil which mostly comes from Canada and Mexico and Brazil.

Which brings up another issue, if ethanol is the future then why are we taxing Brazilian produced ethanol for import? If it is cleaner and better for the environment and is such a good product then we should be importing it instead of refined gas made from oil.

Dorgan, Conrad and Pooperboy have you snowed. Ethanol from corn is like the old fable The Emperors New Clothes!!!!!


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> why are we taxing Brazilian produced ethanol for import?


Come on now, you know the answer to that one and you also know it has nothing to do with whether ethanol is cleaner or good for the future.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> There you go again with the energy spin, trying to fool everyone.


 No one is trying to fool anyone. If we have such an abundance of energy you better let Washington know. You may spend less energy ordering bullets, but someone expends energy to make them even if you don't.

Personally I'd like to see and read a source that states that as fact. I'm sure you have one so if you would kindly link it I would appreciate it.

Sorry, my source was personal contact with scientists working on these projects. Actually, they are working on the switch grass alternative, and comparing it to corn. If corn is so great CW why don't we drop the huge subsidies? Surely it can stand on it's own if it is half what you think it is. I would say if there is any spinning your doing it CW. More carbon from ethanol, carbon from gas, carbon from coal fired electric generators, etc, yet you keep saying, but it is clean. Right.



> I'm aware that carbon is stored in the ground and using land that was once idle will release additional carbon the ground has captured but won't the growing crops recapture most of that carbon?


It would if the new crop wasn't harvested, and the ground worked again.



> Sounds like a win situation to me. Tell me where I'm wrong.


Your kidding right? We have been doing that over and over , and over.



> Come on now, you know the answer to that one and you also know it has nothing to do with whether ethanol is cleaner or good for the future.


Sure I know the answer. Politicians protecting ag and ag welfare to buy votes.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> If we have such an abundance of energy you better let Washington know.


I don't have to tell them, they already know. We have enough coal and natural gas to reach far into the future. Build nuclear plants and it is indefinite source of heat for energy production.



> You may spend less energy ordering bullets, but someone expends energy to make them even if you don't.


Simply unbelievable. My analogy was using "I" as the USA. Since you are worried about the someone else in that analogy then we should notify the mid east they are expending to much energy getting that oil out of the ground for us. They could better use their energy somewhere else.



> Sorry, my source was personal contact with scientists working on these projects.


Hmmm



> Sure I know the answer. Politicians protecting ag and ag welfare to buy votes.


Thats right and that tariff is what is paying the subsidies for the corn ethanol. You think the farm lobby is going to give that up?

Once again you try to mis-characterize what someone says to support something that you yourself cannot pass for more than just your opinion. I never said corn ethanol was great. I never said it was a replacement for gasoline. I never said it was clean. As a matter of fact I specifically said at first there would be more carbon produced only later to be captured and reduced. Don't try and spin what I said to the unsuspecting reader.

Plainsman all my opinions on this subject are what I'm reading and trying to learn. As I've stated before my knowledge on this subject is not that far up the ladder but if you think for one minute that I should accept something just because you say it is so, then my friend you are nuts. Just as I would be if I thought you should outright accept my opinion as absolute.

You yourself made the comment in another thread that you felt you had to educate someone on the difference between Bush and McCain even only if one person got the message. Surprisingly though you seem not to want to support anything you say on this subject. If I'm wrong on this then guide me towards the correct facts. Don't just say because I said so.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Thats right and that tariff is what is paying the subsidies for the corn ethanol.


Oh, please. That pays only a fraction. The vast majority of those payments come from the taxpayers pocket.

Cwparson wrote:


> I never said it was clean.


Cwparson previously wrote:


> Just thinking out loud but if it takes 4 gallons of ethanol at $10 or 3 gallons of gasoline at $10 to get from point A to Point B, isn't that a push pull with a benefit of cleaner air.





> Ethanol is not and never was meant to be a alternative to petroleum.


Then what the heck are we doing putting it into our cars?



> burning petroleum is adding additional carbon, while burning biofuels is simply re-cycling it.


That's convoluted thinking. Ethanol produces more carbon that petroleum products, but you want to call it recycling. Lets make this simple. If it produces any carbon is it adding to the atmospheric carbon or not?


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

another Gilmore rant
These acres also are environmental winners as well. They are carbon sponges and natural filters and slow the runoff reducing flooding issues as well. So lets get all of the information on the table and not just the spin that comes from the Corn lobby and ethanol lobby

Excuse me , in cellulosic ethanol all the residue is basiclly "hayed" and baled up, leaving no more than 6 inches of the carbon sponge. Also since switchgrass is not able to fix nitrogen, it will need to be fertilized much the same as corn. I also saw a rant of somebody comparing corn to "mining" the soil of nutrients. On crp we broke out, with a full grass stand the soil test indicated 4 POUNDS of NITROGEN in the top 2 feet . Now what crop will mine the ground like that.Think about it Chuck Smith, it was grass that mined it
another incorrect Gilmore rant\
Verasun has seen its stock values drop by 25% or more because the truth of this product is making it into the main stream media

Truth is $6 corn is why vera sun stock dropped. Margins are the driving force .
the most illogical rant yet

To have a net gain in energy the Corn Growers sent the study back to Northwestern and said find a way for us to have a net energy gain. So they added in the BTU value of the number of days it takes corn to grow under the sun. Plus the study did not include the processing and manufacturing and shipping costs of fertilizer and other chemicals used in the production of corn. 
Excuse me ,( btu value for the #of days,) show me the link to that study Im dieing to see it or maybe its just another made up statement from a janitor.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Oh, please. That pays only a fraction. The vast majority of those payments come from the taxpayers pocket.


Do you even know how much ethanol we import from Brazil? Why do you think this last bill from congress dropped the subsidy from 51 cents to 45 cents. Maybe the incoming money is outstripping the out going money because of production increase?



> Cwparson previously wrote:
> Just thinking out loud but if it takes 4 gallons of ethanol at $10 or 3 gallons of gasoline at $10 to get from point A to Point B, isn't that a push pull with a benefit of cleaner air.


That's right Plainsman. Even though ethanol itself is not as dirty as you yourself want everyone to believe it still results in cleaner air. Not pure air but cleaner air. kind of like when you take a shower. You may not get all the dirt off but you are cleaner. Least I hope so.



> Then what the heck are we doing putting it into our cars?


To reduce our dependency on foreign oil as priority one with number two being cleaner air.



> That's convoluted thinking. Ethanol produces more carbon that petroleum products, but you want to call it recycling. Lets make this simple. If it produces any carbon is it adding to the atmospheric carbon or not?


Of course it is adding carbon back to the atmosphere. But only what was already there. Fossil fuels adds carbon that was not in the atmosphere. Is that really so hard to understand?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Of course it is adding carbon back to the atmosphere. But only what was already there. Fossil fuels adds carbon that was not in the atmosphere. Is that really so hard to understand?

Yes. It's not like there is separate carbon for fossil fuel and a different carbon for ethanol. :homer:

Your going in circles:
You get clean air
I didn't say you get clean air 
You get cleaner air 

F350


> Excuse me , in cellulosic ethanol all the residue is basiclly "hayed" and baled up, leaving no more than 6 inches of the carbon sponge.


The greatest carbon storage isn't the above ground biomass, the greatest carbon storage is in the root system and stored below ground when roots die and new roots form. Of course when you work the ground you loose it all again.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

plainsman wrote

The greatest carbon storage isn't the above ground biomass, the greatest carbon storage is in the root system and stored below ground when roots die and new roots form. Of course when you work the ground you loose it all again
Ive seen studies with production estimate(very overinflated) of 4-10 metric ton per acre of above ground dry matter. Soooo you are telling me there is more than that in the ground....... Im from Missouri!!!
okayyyyyyyyyyyyy........... :eyeroll: 
As for ethanols place for mtbe, It is an oxygenate compound that aids in a cleaner(not pure) burn. This is due to the OH moecule on the carbon chain in ethanol. Yes oxygen, or more correctly a hydrate molecule, where any petro doesnt

A QUICK LESSON IN CARBON BONDS

ethanol 2 carbons one OH molecule

diesel, gas etc 5(cetane) carbons, 8(octane) no OH

Tar long carbon chain

the longer the carbon chain, yes more energy, no disputing, but with the longer chain comes the risk of incomplete combustion , ie more smoke. Think how tar burns with its long carbon chain vs how much smoke at INDY where alcohol is the fuel. Alcohol is not perfect , but you get my point


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

As far as support from the govt. if they didn't help keep the farms small the whole country would quickly be owned by big business. You would have Microsoft wheat and Exxon fertilizer. If you want to buy your food from that type of business folks I guess I can't help you. I for one see the need to keep many outlets called farmers providing our food sources along with any other product that helps limit dependency on big business.

The same people who complain about subsidizing farmers are probably the same ones who would have liked to see Russia or China get control of the energy in the middle east.

I also believe the squeaky wheel gets the grease so I like to be a part of the squeak.


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

F350 said:


> another Gilmore rant
> These acres also are environmental winners as well. They are carbon sponges and natural filters and slow the runoff reducing flooding issues as well.


F350,

Please explain your first paragraph? Are you saying corn acres are better than wheat or grass?


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Well lets try it this way. You have a 100 gallon water tank we'll call the atmosphere. In the tank is 90 gallons of water we'll call carbon. Now we'll dip a 5 gallon bucket which we'll call a plant into the water tank, filling up the bucket with carbon from the atmosphere. You now take the bucket (plant) with 5 gallons of water (carbon) and dye a old pair of jeans which we'll label processing. When finished you have a new and different pair of jeans (ethanol). You now take the bucket of water back to the water tank and pour it into the water tank but there is now only 4 gallons of water in the bucket. Your water tank now has a total of 89 gallons of water in it. Next day you do it differently. You draw 5 gallons of water (carbon) from a faucet (fossil fuel). This time your dyed jeans come out a different color (gasoline). You take the 4 gallons of faucet water and now pour it into your water tank and what did you just do? You increased the water in the tank (carbon) to 93 gallons. All this was accomplished with your own personal and renewable energy. Fossil fuels adds carbon to the atmosphere. Renewable fuels from plants recycles the carbon already there.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

Tumblebuck, that is a quote from Ron Gilmores diatribe, I cant make up something like that


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

My take on the rise in food prices is this...

Yes you wont eat a plate of corn.....but like mentioned corn is fed to our cattle, chickens, hogs, etc. So if the price of corn is high so will the feed for these animals. Then the price of these animals will rise as well. Then the cost of producing these animals for the dinner plate will also rise on down the line.

I am all for the farmers making money. But right now ethanol is a short term answer to our long term problem.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

Chuck , it isnt that way in production agriculture. Farmers ( or ranchers)absorb price increases and go on with the program> I know I raise both.In fact , everytime there is a spike up in the price of corn , cattle futures usually follow to the downside.Corn goes down , cattle go up.Do you follow?? The main reason for the increase in food prices is ENERGY, ie diesel. Dont even get me started on what the low sulfer mandate has done to diesel.

The market will take care of itself concerning feed sources. The cattle people need to get Korea open , and other marketing avenues to increase demand. But then you will still sqeal to high heaven about the price of beef due to the demand created and blame it on ethanol


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

OK I'll start with the 100 gallon atmosphere. The farmer wants to plant so he breaks up prairie, and releases 25 tons per acre into the atmosphere( I know it stores five tons per year, but now it will release all of it). So per acre lets say we now have 125 gallons in that 100 gallon atmosphere. 100 gallons would be natural, but now we are above that and starting the greenhouse affect. There is a pond in his field so he drains that and adds 35 tons per acre to the atmosphere so we have 160 gallons in a tank that refuses to run over. How much diesel did he burn breaking up the prairie and draining the wetland?
Now he wants corn so he burns how many gallons of diesel per acre to plant and harvest his corn? Then after harvest he plows the field and releases any remaining carbon into the atmosphere. Trucks take his corn to market burning diesel. Once there electricity and other forms of energy are used to turn his corn into ethanol. The electricity uses coal so more carbon is poured into the atmosphere. Once we have the ethanol we burn more diesel to truck it to where it will be sold. Then the ethanol is burned producing more carbon. The atmosphere doesn't care if this is from ethanol or diesel, or plowed ground, or drained wetland it is carbon and carbon is carbon. Some cycles through the atmosphere, some comes from petroleum. The truth is that carbon was locked in the ground until land was used to produce corn for ethanol. It was locked in the ground the same as petroleum. 
All this and we have not even talked about the energy to produce fertilizer and chemicals, or the diesel to ship fertilizer and chemicals around the country. Also, how much energy went into the machinery requirements etc. If you want to talk carbon budget you must include everything.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Good grief F350, lets get this straight. You are claiming that ethanol equates to less carbon in the atmosphere? You really need to get up to speed. Carbon increases in the atmosphere when ground is tilled and plant matter dies. The resulting exchange is equivalent to us burning fossil fuels especially when fossil fuels are used to transport the final product.

You seem to think that people are against ethanol in general, which is not the case. As I stated before, ethanol has its place and made from the right products can be very environmentally friendly. Thus why I have advocated a switch from subsidized corn ethanol to research into economically feasible enzymes needed to break down biomass.

The same thing applies to bio diesel and what it is made from. Bio diesel is a very good product but once again it is being made from a product that is not long term viable.

I also am not opposed to a farm program, but the current program has created a unfair playing field for new and beginning farmers. These farmers as history has shown tend to be much more environmentally sound operators.

So once again, biomass produced ethanol made from perennial plants store carbon in the soil. Corn produced ethanol stores 75% less. Now I am not overly concerned about carbons as I think they are off base on their affects and also the impact of man produced carbons have. But the political climate indicates that we are moving to a reduction in carbon output.

So biomass produced ethanol has a two fold benefit, one being less fossil fuel needed for the growing and harvest, and the other a increased level of storage. This is where having the Gov involved makes for a real nightmare. On one hand they promote and subsidize a crop for ethanol that is as great a carbon producer as fossil fuels and have ignored a crop or crops which are carbon collectors and will reduce the carbon footprint.

Both corn based and biomass based ethanol are high water consumption processes. But biomass is the only one that promotes the recharging of aquifers.

So no matter how you try and spin it, corn made ethanol is not a viable option for long term sustained use as a motor fuel. Biomass may not be either, but it is most definitely much more environmentally friendly with reduced needs of fossil fuel produced products, increased air quality, increased water quality as well.

It should not matter one way or another what is raised on a piece of land if the value of that crop produced is equivalent. Biomass can and will be of equal or greater overall net value for production with lower input costs, lower harvest costs and about equal transportation costs if the sole purpose of raising that product is to be made into ethanol.

Now look at the idea of using the existing biomass left in the field to decay and the potential of biomass ethanol rises to a a level that grain ethanol will never reach simply because of production limits imposed by climate.

I did not take the time to look for the study done that I refereed to, But I think the Prof that wrote the report and worked on the study was named Wang. In his study he included the BTU value of the sun based on average growing days for corn raised in MN,WI,SD,IA and IL. In doing this, he came up with a .77 factor of energy increase with wet milled corn and .51 increase of dry milled corn. Without that BTU input and the calculation of heat from the animal feed byproduct, the numbers show ethanol from corn based on 136 bu average yield to be a net loss in overall energy based on BTU values of around 5% or in reality a net/net energy producer. Which means all that is done is the delivery vehicle has changed.

There have been other studies done by Cornell and Standford that are equally as skewed in showing ethanol as a energy drain. The Cornell study did not use modern day production techniques but did include the BTU value of the sun in its calculations. The Standford Study included a lot of energy values of production that I did not deem relevant such as an energy value of the man hours for planting and harvesting. If those factors are taken out, it also showed a net/net value of energy from corn.

I know a lot of people who hunt are upset with the loss of CRP due to the rise in ethanol demand and use. While it bothers me as well, it is the least important factor in regards to my views on ethanol from corn. My view is long term and what is happening concerning carbons. It makes absolutely no sense to promote grain ethanol at at time when we are talking about carbon caps. So remember that as well, because the electricity needed to produce that grain ethanol is going to be affected by the same carbon caps that corn raised ethanol drives up!!!!!!!!!!

But I am sure you are unwilling to look that deep or that far down the road on this subject.

So if you think my veiws are simply rants, you are saddly mistaken. I look at how corn ethanol is going to affect the price of electricity,water, and our ablity to sustain and meet the demands of a growing nation with the Congress seemingly bent upon putting a carbon cap in place.

You should as well, because with less disposable money to spend on food and fuel, demand is going to go down, and with it prices. But your short term thinking most likely will not allow you to grasp that fact!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

F350...

I know fuel has a big factor with the rise in food prices.....

Ranchers/farmers do not absorb all of it.....the consumer does some. Another way the public absorbs is goverment programs. Take Federal crop insurance......right now farmers are locking in at a certain price. If they don't get that price....they can get paid if they bought that coverage. Then were does this money come from.....taxes and what not.

Again I don't mind farmer making $$$ or ethanol. but it is a short term answer for a long term problem.

One thing about farmers making money is it will help out the economy....because farmers spend money! Think of it this way....new machines, the machines need to be fixed or maintained, buying land, buying everything. It is good to see farmers making $$$.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> If you want to talk carbon budget you must include everything.


That is correct but do it on a fair scale. The amount of diesel used is small potatoes compared to the amount of vehicles burning fossil fuel removed from the highways. In time those diesel burning tractors and trucks will be burning alternative fuels just like in time lead gas burning cars went into the history books. As for electricity, nuclear power will take care of that end of the problem, not to mention some of the newer plants are using bi-products to create steam generated plants that make them self sufficient. No coal used there. Yes indeed, lets include everything but more importantly lets get started instead of complaining and waiting for that magic bullet only to find out there are no more guns to shoot it from.



> "The FY08 DOE request includes $2.7 billion for the President's Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), which is $557 million above the FY07 request of $2.1 billion. The AEI includes funding for the development of clean energy technologies, as well funding for basic and applied energy research in areas such as biomass, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, and nuclear technologies."


Ron how much funding do you figure we need?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Funding of biomass research is a small portion of that figure. If 1/2 of the current subsidy spent on grain ethanol was put into the research area of enzyme development the estimate is that we would have a manufacturing process and on line supply at affordable costs within 3 years. As it sits now with current research spending we are looking at 10-12 years.

That make it easier to understand?

Lost in the rhetoric from F350 is that even the most ardent supporters of grain ethanol have acknowledged that biomass is going to be the product of the future. Most of the current ethanol plants being built have already put in place configuration systems that will allow them to transition to this when the enzymes are available. The plant in Casselton from what I understand is not and that may be because of its location and proximity to the Valley. I do believe the Richard ton plant though was fitted up that way as well as the plant in Hankison.

That alone should be telling everyone what direction the ethanol industry sees this moving to and away from grain!!! So if we are going in that direction why continue propping up a non viable product???????

Two of the Mfg that supply a good deal of parts for these plants in Fargo are even seeing older plants that are upgrading for efficiency order this.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

From Gilmores rant---- 
Good grief F350, lets get this straight. You are claiming that ethanol equates to less carbon in the atmosphere?

Never did say anything about that,must bethe cleaning fumes making you halucinate??? Or is it my knowledge of the chemistry and the explanation of such that has you befuddled. I"ll say it REAL slow for even a janitor could catch on , ethanol has 2 carbon atoms with a OH on the end , diesel is has formula is c16 h34. A LONGER carbon chain per molecule. If you dont believe me go to SU and look up any organic chemistry professer

I really dont give a rats arse about anything carbon affecting the way we live. Less than 1/10 of ONE PERCENT of the atmosphere is carbon related compounds. 99.9 isnt and you tell me this affecting weather?? Give me a break.

The reason I am a proponent of corn based ethanol is it is quick , easy a nd proven. When will these magical enzymes be coming for cellulosic ethanol, I want to know. 1 year ? 10 years ? 20 years?? Im not gonna sit back and wait
Next time , dont spend so much time rambling on your wandering diatribe, because its just like a college term paper, only the first part is read and graded.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

oh and throwing money at the research issue as a solution for cellulosic ethanol will not be the "cure all" you advertize. If this were true diabetis, cancer and md to name a few would have been cured decades ago


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

So plainsman, if I get you right all is wonderful in the world if we go back and use ALL that diesel and ALL that fertilizer to produce corn and run it through a cow or pig and turn it to #@#$ , but its not Ok to make it into a product that everyone benefits from??? hmmmm :roll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

F350 said:


> So plainsman, if I get you right all is wonderful in the world if we go back and use ALL that diesel and ALL that fertilizer to produce corn and run it through a cow or pig and turn it to #@#$ , but its not Ok to make it into a product that everyone benefits from??? hmmmm :roll:


Everyone benefits from food while no one benefits from excess carbon. If you want to really recycle carbon as cwoparson suggest you run plant material through an ungulate, then you eat the ungulate.



> I really dont give a rats arse about anything carbon affecting the way we live.


I figured as much. Is there anything other than yourself that you are concerned about?



> The reason I am a proponent of corn based ethanol is it is quick , easy a nd proven.


Nothing could be further from the truth.



> I"ll say it REAL slow for even a janitor could catch on


You don't need to do that for Ron, and I am a retired scientist.

You evidently are financially tied into corn ethanol at some level and your going to loose your behind. Get your money out now if you have invested. If your growing corn make the most of it in the next year or two because the government gravy train is leaving the station.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

> I am a retired scientist.
> 
> Like I am supposed to be in awe, doesnt add one iota of credibility.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

> Everyone benefits from food while no one benefits from excess carbon. If you want to really recycle carbon as cwoparson suggest you run plant material through an ungulate, then you eat the ungulate.
> 
> A "scientist" should have heard of ddg's , the 30% protein byproduct of ethanol production that is fed to "ungulates"


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

And 



> I also am not opposed to a farm program, but the current program has created a unfair playing field for new and beginning farmers.


Not entirely true, the CRP coming out has helped a few I know get into farming. CRP coming out has helped pretty much everyone that had it, with grain prices as they are it couldn't have come out at a better time.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

buckeye, more land available helps only if the price of the cash rent is within a reasonable level. For those that rented land coming out before the spike in price they are doing fine. But anything in our area that came out is being rented at levels never seen or heard of before! Couple that with the increases in fuel and fertilizer and chemicals for weed and insect control and now the dry conditions across most of the state, tell me how the past Farm Bill and the current bill is going to help those people?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Ron all that you just wrote is true, CRP coming out helps by increasing the size of existing farms so their kids can get into farming too. It's hard to get into farming without family lands but can be done.

Older folks are passing on at a staggering rate and freeing up great numbers of acres to be purchased by a younger family member or many times a new son-in-law which starts a new name in the business.

Good Luck to all Farmers, hang in there and don't let anybody put words in your mouth. Just BEER :beer:


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

F350, so far this thread has been a little lively at times but with I think some pretty good comments from both sides of the isle. But I think you're close, if not already there in dragging this into the gutter. I would suggest you back off a little bit on some of the personal remarks. With that in mind I think I'll just back out of here for awhile.


----------



## coyote_buster (Mar 11, 2007)

I'm hearing alot of moaning about ethanol and am begining to understand both sides point of view, one thing I don't here much about is soy biodiesel, does it have the same problems as ethanol, and about ethanol from corn is not the answer, what about switchgrass, that would produce i think it was 7 times as much ethanol, would that make the crisis any better.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

coyote_buster said:


> I'm hearing alot of moaning about ethanol and am begining to understand both sides point of view, one thing I don't here much about is soy biodiesel, does it have the same problems as ethanol, and about ethanol from corn is not the answer, what about switchgrass, that would produce i think it was 7 times as much ethanol, would that make the crisis any better.


I agree. Second post page 1.



> That's why I bring the subject up no one pays attention. If you look back for two years you will see not only have I talked about biomass, but I gave you species and rate of efficiency. If you look at switch grass (Panicum virgatum) you will find that you get seven units of energy out for ever unit invested.


I don't know much about biodiesel, other than my truck doesn't like it as well as number two. It would be great if someone here could bring us up to speed on biodiesel. Ron, what can you tell us about it?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

F350 said:


> > I am a retired scientist.
> >
> > Like I am supposed to be in awe, doesnt add one iota of credibility.


My point was you didn't need to say:


> I"ll say it REAL slow for even a janitor could catch on


 I don't look down on janitors so what was your point? Maybe you better not explain it. :eyeroll:


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

F350 said:


> Tumblebuck, that is a quote from Ron Gilmores diatribe, I cant make up something like that


Alright...I got who said what now....

You disagree?

Are you familiar with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)? If not, I suggest you look into a bit. It's an eye opener when comparing erosion due to row crops vs. others land uses.

But then it was developed by government scientists....so there's no credibility :eyeroll:


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

Tumblebuck , I'll keep this civil , but yes to your sarcastic question , I am familiar with Rusle. We have been no till (row crops too ) for over 20 years so that pretty much ALL residue is on the soil surface. Its an "eyeopener" in the reduction of soil erosion. Not to mention it is the only way to qualify for a tier 3 CSP contract


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

The question wasnt sarcastic, but your last statement set the tone........


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Plainsman Bio diesel from all indicators has a net positive energy value, upside of bio diesel is it is cleaner burning because of the makeup. It can be made from a variety of grains, sunflowers, soybeans, safflower etc.. just about any type of oil seed.

Downside is that it does not work well as of now in cold weather but I do believe that formulations and additives are being developed to help solve this issue. Earlier I posted about the use of algae to produce bio diesel and it is a very viable option. Cost and productivity are its biggest assets.

For example in TX where it is being researched presently they are producing as I said 100,000 gallons of bio diesel per acre compared to 30 from soybeans if the average yield was 60 bu an acre.

I read recently where algae was being harvested from the ocean and converted as well, but I do not remember the cost and or energy trade off.

Now to be honest, I would not say an algae farm in ND will produce what we are seeing coming out of TX, but the viability of a year round production facility would most likely be next to a mfg plant that has excess heat that could be captured and transfered. One example would be the coal gasification plants and recently I heard of some interest from one of the beet processing plants that have the space.

But bio diesel from grains faces the same limitations we see with ethanol from grain. Not enough acres to make it viable as a true impact of fossil fuel replacement. Its use though in regards to air quality cannot be overlooked. I will dig around and see if I can find the articles regarding bio diesel use and the impact it has on air quality in cities where the buses are using it exclusively. This product is a horse of a different color than ethanol. It is a good use of excess oil products, soybeans are it primary crushing product, and the down side there is erosion especially wind in regions like ND when we have little or no snow cover.

Some first hand information I do have is from semi drivers who's company runs it during the spring through early fall. They see no downside to the product that is purchased from a reliable supplier and Mfg. Engine wear was lower, oil life also was longer. Filter changes where more frequent, but not significantly. Both drive about 50,000 miles a year using this product and one uses it in his diesel pickup when he can.

I know a few construction companies that have switched to it as well, but really have not asked what kind of results they are seeing. It would be interesting to find out if any of the mines out in western ND are using it as well. They monitor equipment and input costs so closely it is amazing!

If there is a plus or minus long term someone like that would be where I would look. I know that for wheel loader for example they buy many times based on overall average cost of operation based on the life expectancy of the machine. If a John Deere was $10,000 cheaper new, than a Cat of equal size but cost more to own and operate based on fuel, maintenance and resale the Cat would be what they buy!


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

F350,

Kudos for using no-till!

You're right...my last statement was half sarcastic/half dig at Plainsman.

Now....you are using no-till and no doubt have seen some benefits from using it. You are also familiar with RUSLE and, I assume from your statements, have seen the results for different farming methods. Why then are you refuting Ron's statement regarding the benefits of grass type covers vs. row crops?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> half dig at Plainsman.


 



Ron, thanks much. Since I have retired I have been working more on my honey do list than keeping up to speed on things. I value your input because it would appear you are putting a lot of time into staying abreast of biodiesel, ethanol, and the farm program in general.

Often when I go through Bismarck I have filled my truck with biodiesel to see how it does, but usually I am pushing a strong west wind so I still have no idea first hand.


----------

