1 Your people call it corn.  My people call it maize.

2 I am not retarded, and I resent the use of such a slur.

3

Nature intended corn for sodas, not gas tanks.

4 You can use corn either for food or for fuel, but you not both.

5 If I had a nickel for every slack-jawed jackanape who ever posted (explained to me like I was a dim child), about how ethanol was not only perfectly clean, but it was going to solve the world's energy problems in no time flat, I wouldn't be living here in a van down by the river.

6 Logic and reason have no place in this argument.

7 We need to get some chemists working on a political bullshit to ethanol process stat.  We got no shortage of bullshit.

8

Whole heartedly concur. My degrees in animal science and agribusiness econ. held up the idea that you cannot creat a reliabel fuel source from a food-based renewal resource. It just doesnt add up and someone somewhere in the line gets the short end of the stick.

Ethanol had the idea, and a little bit of a market for it, but they never had the process down efficiently enough or the purveyor strong enough (read: ethanol ready cars and gas stations) to make it feasible. And after the grain run of 2008, the prices were just rediculous for a short time.

It'll never work, but I wish the non-farming people in the ag industry would quick closing thier eyes and think if they wish just a *little* harder, it'll work.

9 Its always been a lose/lose proposition all the way around

Well not for me it hasn't.

10

ahhh but every Taxpayer Motors truck and SUV is rolling off the line with oh so green FlexFuel medallion emblazoned on the ass end of it.  Never mind that out here in CA you can't buy E85, the medallions are proof positive that Taxpayer Motors is right up there with the Japanese and their fancy Hybrid cars. 

So in the end, the taxpayer is doubly beholden (To GM and to the corn farmer) to pay for this stupid nonsense that tricks some into thinking they are protecting the enviroment when actually we are hampering the food market with no benefit to the enviroment whatsover. 

11 Great...getting lectured on market economics by communists again.

12 You'd think people would catch on, too, the way the ethanol plants are going belly up so fast. But that's what I get for thinkin'...

13 That there corn squeeze is fer drinkin', boy.

14 The Chinese are racist against Corn-Americans!

15 E85 is cheaper (due to subsidies) per gallon than gasoline. Unfortunately even with the subsidies it still costs more per mile than gasoline. So I'm guessing it is mostly sold to greenies and people who are mathematically challenged.

16 Tom Freidman will not be pleased.

17 What about fuel from non-foodstuff bio thingies? (Don't look at me like that, I was born and raised in the suburbs.) I mean weeds, sawgrass, corn remnants, all that shit? Is that feasible?

18 I happen to live in a state (NC) where the gas stations are NOT required to post how much ethanol content is in their gas. My lawnmowers, etc. have very short life spans, and are generally marked with a warning against "E85" (?) which I believe is 15% ethanol, or greater. Local news reports are starting to come out that show motorboat motors are particularly susceptible to crappy green gas, and are breaking down all over the state. According to a quick Google search, there are a few places where the owners advertise low or no ethanol, but the closest one to me (that I've found) is 45 minutes away.

19 One thing that was so maddening about the initial greenie push for ethanol in gasoline was that you can't pipe ethanol over long distances, so you'd have to truck in the ethanol to the refinery.  How anybody could argue that this is saving gas in the long run is beyond me.

20
Corn squeezed into every conceivable hole until it oozes out and gums up the entire planet?
You're welcome

21 Shuck Big Corn!!! Shuck Big Corn!!! Shuck Big Corn!!!

22 I'm all for corn-based ethanol but what's with this putting it in your gas tank?

Isn't that what Val-u-rite is for?

23 Ethanol works very well and will help us break our addiction to foreign oil. (and fill my coffers with campaign cash)
-Senator Dick Durbin (Retard-Archer Daniels Midland)

24

@ 17

I think it is technically feasible but the technology isnt there to make it economically sound. A large-ish movement recently was to use corn stalks and similar high cellulotic fiber as a fuel source. (the little nubbins you see sticking out of the ground all winter after harvest.) However, same with ethanol, while it can be done, its not sustainable on its own sans subsidies. also, lots of cattle farmers like to set thier cows out there to graze those in winter. The cellulos fiber helps keep them warm b/c it takes so much energy to digest and its a more or less free feed source.

25 Which politician will have the balls to tell ADM and Iowa caucus?

The GOP platform calls for an end to ethanol subsidies, but many Sens and Reps(of both parties, of course) are still liplocked on Corn tit.

McCain was instrumental in forging the GOP platform - a reminder that he isn't a complete dipshit.

An anti illegal-immigrant, anti ethanol candidate would sure be attractive.

26 The Chinese have seen the failure of the great society and can smell a rat.

27

 My lawnmowers, etc. have very short life spans, and are generally marked with a warning against "E85" (?) which I believe is 15% ethanol, or greater.

I may be mistaken, but E85 is 85% ethanol, 15% real gasoline.

28 do the city slickers not realize why farmers grow corn and not switchgrass in the first place? do they know what field corn is used for?

29 My lawnmowers, etc. have very short life spans

I have noticed this also. My theory is that on engines that may sit dormant the alcohol attracts water that corrodes carburetor parts. I've been adding STA-BIL the last couple of years and that seems to be helping.

30 Posted by: Count de Monet No shit? Off to Google I go. I'm back: (from wiki) E85 is an alcohol fuel mixture that typically contains a mixture of up to 85% denatured fuel ethanol and gasoline or other hydrocarbon (HC) by volume. On an undenatured basis, the ethanol component ranges from 70% to 83%.

31 28 do the city slickers not realize why farmers grow corn and not switchgrass in the first place? do they know what field corn is used for?

Posted by: colby at August 13, 2010 02:49 PM (qpjy/)

No, but I'd sure like one of those hay rolls for my front yard Halloween decorations.  Do you deliver?

32

If congress really wanted to do something about gas prices it would be pretty easy actually, all they'd have to do is pass a federal law that mandates a single fuel standard.

One of the biggest expenses that refinery's face is the fact that they have to make all sorts of different fuel grades to satisify all the individual requirements of each individual state.  It's a royal pain in the ass and rather expensive when it's all said and done.  If they could just refine the fuel to a single standard, costs would go down.

Also a prime example of what happens when you make decisions based on nonsensical government regulations rather than letting market forces decide what is best practice.

But of course that won't happen, and they'll never get rid of this idiotic ethanol subsidy thing, even though it too probably does little more than drive up fuel prices since the ethanol has to be mixed with all these different fuel grades after they are refined. 

If the government didn't subsidize ethanol nobody would ever buy it, because it would be a lot more expensive than the standard unleaded fuel.

Yet another example of our incredibly inefficient and bloated government at work.

33 When the Communist Chinese know more about economics than our ruling junta... (On this issue, though, I'd have to indict all of Congress)

34 Where I live I'm surrounded by cornfields, but can I buy fresh, local corn?

Nooo - gotta go to the Krogers and get corn from Florida - 3 states away.

35 Well, geez, I'm know frickin' engineer of burny stuff, but it seems to me that an engine designed specifically to burn gasoline MIGHT have a bit of trouble running on Everclear. I'm really shocked that it's 85% ethanol and not the other way around. That's bullshit on multiple levels, least of all the "gas" stations I've been buying this crap from.

36

A while back I read a pretty credible analysis of the actual energy expenditure involved in different ways of propelling a motor vehicle -- gas, diesel, ethanol, natural gas, electricity and fuel cell.  The takeaway was that if all energy expended in the production of energy is taken into account, plain old gasoline was the most efficiently produced fuel and had the smallest negative impact on the environment.

People tend to overlook the fact that the gas-powered internal combustion engine has 100 years of refinement behind it.  A modern one is an amazingly efficient user of energy even compared to 20 years ago.  Other forms of energy may look cleaner driving down the street but their enviromental impact will still be manifested somewhere else.

Unfortunately, most people who consider themselves "green" never look beyond the tailpipe, or simply want to make a statement about how "evolved" they are.

37 When Iran gets the bomb - which is a certainty at this point - without even using it, they will control the straits of Hormuz - through which passes 50% of the worlds oil. Global economy will collapse. At this point, those ethanol plants will be worth their weight in gold. The only fucking retard around here is the part time plumber, purple avenger.

38

>>> Where I live I'm surrounded by cornfields, but can I buy fresh, local corn?

It must not be the sweet, sweet eat'n kinda corn.

39 If I recall correctly from a post months ago, it takes a gallon of gas to produce five more gallons of gas, but it takes four gallons of that hated imported gas/petroleum to create five gallons of home-grown ethanol. With the added bonus of carting away our own topsoil. Win!

40 Corn is meant to be made into liquor.

41 O/T -- Obama finally found a czar he didn't need!

The transparency czar, natch.

42 Massive subsidies are a solution every corn farmer can agree on. They shield people from the negative effects of competition, and they help fill American bellies with healthy cereals and corn syrup. Corn syrup is so delicious, in fact, that most people don't even realize that much of their food isn't sweetened with sugar.

Delicious corn, nature's candy! Try some today!

43 Had to Bing denatured vs undenatured.  So E85 is 70% to 83% drinkable alcohol (corn squeezins), plus 2% to 15% poison so you won't decant your gas tank at your next backyard BBQ, and 15% other stuff (real gasoline that does the work?)

44 Yep, the fucking idiots have finally come to realize that it's pretty damned stupid to burn your food in an engine.

45 I've got electrolytes.

46

Brazil makes it work with sugar cane, which is better and more economical than corn for the same process.  Time for another sugar subsidy.

*the Everglades shudders*     

47 $5 billion is what percentage of $1.3 trillion?

48 Are comments about the First Wookie still out?

49 You know what? I take back what I said about the benefits of a Chinese style government.

50 Hey fucking retard, go look at drudge....

51 37 When Iran gets the bomb - which is a certainty at this point - without even using it, they will control get nuked hard by the Israelis, causing massive radiation and fallout contamination to the straits of Hormuz - through which passes 50% of the worlds oil. Global economy will collapse.

Fixed for likeliest scenario.  Sadly, I otherwise have find no factual fault with his conclusions, given current trends.

52 people who don't even know the difference between field corn and sweet corn are now experts?

53

the US congress which keeps flogging that same dead retarded 3-legged horse.

Yes, dammit! Enough is enough!

 

54 the corn that is used for ethanol is field corn, not sweet corn, its used as feed for livestock not food for people. and its not totally burned up in an ethanol plant, the byproducts of ethanol are still used for feed for livestock.

55 46

Brazil makes it work with sugar cane, which is better and more economical than corn for the same process.  Time for another sugar subsidy.

Did you know that the current one is a big reason we aren't using sugar cane derived ethanol instead?  Funny how that works out...

56 And aren't the E85 pumps a different color and the pump nozzles a different size to make it a bit more difficult to put E85 into a conventional gasoline motocar? 

57 Libertarians are like liberals - single issue people who cannot link somewhat disparate events unless they take their adhd meds.

58 Corn is for feeding animals so they can grow up to be BBQ fodder.

59 I happen to be a mechanic and as was posited earlier E85 is in fact 85% alcohol. Yes, it is extremely corrosive and will destroy a small engine such as a lawnmover or weed eater. Cars that are labeled as E85 have completely different fuel lines, hoses, injectors, O rings etc. Now as to the question as to whether ethanol makes any sense the answer is that it does. Just not from corn. Sugar beets are extremely efficient in producing ethanol. So good in fact you wouldn't have to subsidize it to keep it price competitive. One problem. Sugar beets don't grow well in America and you have that whole corn lobby thing going on. Did you know that it is actually illegal to use ethanol in gasoline here that did NOT come from corn? Now chemically speaking ethanol is ethanol. It's C2H5OH. Now it doesn't make a damn if the source was corn or sugar beets. Unless of course you are on the take from the corn lobby. I wish I could blame this insanity on the demonrats but republicans are just as guilty in supporting this bullshit.

60 51: yeah i was going to insert that scenario but forgot; when i see idiocy of this level i blow a gasket.

61

Aren't the Feds reviewing the "up to 5%, 10% 15% ethanol" in regular gasoline to make it "up to 20% ethanol" so to meet promised ethanol incentives and volumes?

62 52 people who don't even know the difference between field corn and sweet corn are now experts?

Posted by: Blue Yankee at August 13, 2010 03:03 PM (NRr+T)

What's your point?  If ethanol could compete in the open market without any government subsidies I doubt that anyone here would care.  The fact is that it is less efficient to produce less efficient in your engine.  Can you refute that?

63 You can use corn either for food or for fuel, but you not both.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at August 13, 2010 02:23 PM (9hSKh)

I choose neither.  What do I win?

64

Brazil makes it work with sugar cane, which is better and more economical than corn for the same process.  Time for another sugar subsidy.

the cars that run on gasoline in Brazil amount to only around 25-30% of the total number of cars in Brazil. the rest of them run on diesel.

65 I wish I could blame this insanity on the demonrats but republicans are just as guilty in supporting this bullshit.

Posted by: Midaz at August 13, 2010 03:06 PM (mcIYx)

Agreed.

Two words: Tobacco Subsidies

66 Land is not infinite. If you grow corn for ethanol, less land will be available for other crops. It takes more  then a gallon of diesel to produce a gallon of ethanol.

67 Is there a hemp to ethanol process the hippies can get behind?

68 60 Trust me, it's still a scam.  It's just that we have one set of disastrously bad ideas interlocking with another, which a rational person should understand as 'Not A Coincidence'.

Like I said elsewhere.  Crimes against frakkin' humanity.

69 Don't worry, I will make Brazil a net oil exporter soon thanks to my buddy in the White House extending those loans to Petrobras. 

70 Where I live I'm surrounded by cornfields, but can I buy fresh, local corn?

Nooo - gotta go to the Krogers and get corn from Florida - 3 states away.

Posted by: Bonnacon at August 13, 2010 02:54 PM (/7xUl)

Of course you can buy fresh local corn.  All the fresh local corn you want.  Just come out into the cornfield.

71 Posted by: Count de Monet at August 13, 2010 03:04 PM

Nope. Nowadays, only diesel nozzles are different. Likewise, when unleaded fuel first was being mandated, carmakers put restrictors in the fuel filler necks so the larger nozzles of leaded fuel pumps wouldn't fit.

In the whole "natural, non-petroleum" fuel scam discussion, it isn't often mentioned that ethanol is less efficient than gasoline. Your car will burn a larger amount of the former to do the same work.

72 67 Is there a hemp to ethanol process the hippies can get behind?

Posted by: Jean at August 13, 2010 03:10 PM (c4APe)

 

Wiping monitor now.

73 You need to go to Brazil and understand the pollution, transport, and energy markets before proposing a sugar to ethanol solution here. Simply isn't going to happen. Although the dual flow vehicles in Brazil; that switch between gasoline, ethanol, and propane make some sense.

74 66:  Of course, if you live in an ethanol-using country with a lot of rainforest in the way of agriculture (like, I don't know, Brazil) then we all know there's ways to get more land for growing the stuff.

Which has its own costs.

75 55 46

Brazil makes it work with sugar cane, which is better and more economical than corn for the same process.  Time for another sugar subsidy.

Did you know that the current one is a big reason we aren't using sugar cane derived ethanol instead?  Funny how that works out...

Posted by: DarkLordOfTheIntarWebs at August 13, 2010 03:04 PM (IkEhE)

Corn ethanol was 9 times more costly in terms of development and production than petroleum gasoline. Saw grass ethanol was only 3 times more costly, before factoring in that saw grass has the potential to be harvested more than once a year.

76 Hemp subsidies.

77 Speaking of China, alcohol, and getting f*cked. The Obama Regime is spending $2.6 million to study alcohol abuse among Chinese prostitutes.

78 Gregory - there has to be Kennedy behind that one.

79 If we use sugar cane to produce ethanol it will not be economical but it should raise the price of sugar and ethanol sufficiently to completely screw Iran's new terrorist allies the Brazilians.

80

OT  Federal Appeals Court overturns District Court:  Congress can defund ACORN.

 

http://www.ktuu.com/

Global/story.asp?S=12975806

81 Gregory - there has to be Kennedy behind that one.

Posted by: Jean at August 13, 2010 03:16 PM (R891G)

I think Dodd always took the rear position.

82 79 If we use sugar cane to produce ethanol it will not be economical but it should raise the price of sugar and ethanol sufficiently to completely screw put a lot of money in the pockets of Iran's new terrorist allies the Brazilians.

FIFY

83 Posted by: Mikey NTH at August 13, 2010 03:18 PM

Maybe they can.

The question is: will they?

Osama Obama and his regime will find a way to slip the bucks to his most effective campaign machine no matter what Congress does.

84 You are 100% incorrect. Corn ethanol makes perfect sense. There is a man in Texas named Tito who makes a fine vodka with corn. 

85 Subsidies of corn-ethanol makes perfect sense when viewed from the perspective of the massive troughs of cash that Dwayne Andreas and ADM have been serving up to both parties for decades.  It would be truly shocking if it were otherwise.

86 The Obama Regime is spending $2.6 million to study alcohol abuse among Chinese prostitutes.

Hey, at reast I'm not a clack whole!

87
If the oil spill in the gulf has proven one thing it is we have shitloads of oil there for the taking.

Drill here. Drill now.

88 No our entry into Brazil's ethanol  market will take the fuel away from them. Like to see ADM sweat out the removal of subsides.

89 Do they need any more researchers for the drunken china ho project?

90 Might as well drill in the gulf now. How much worse could it get?

91
It'll be funny when Obama & his ugly wife 'briefly' visit the gulf.

They'll buy a couple of ice cream cones and leave, thus stimulating the local economy by spending $4.72.

92

why does it have to be corn?

why not make it from sugar beets or hemp, the yield is higher and nobody, including animals eat sugar beets or hemp.

oh, I forgot hemp is easy to grow, doesn't need pesticide or insecticide or genetic alteration and you could make other useful things out of the byproducts, like paper or cloth.

hemp is so evil - it's marijuana ya know.

93 Who wants a sober Chinese prostitute?

94 Wasn't there somebody looking into getting ethanol out of kudzu?

95

Who wants a sober Chinese prostitute?

 

The question is:  How can one be sober and want a Chinese prostitute.

96 My '05 Taurus will run on corn squat, it just won't crank on it.
I heard on TV that it costs 1.25  to make a dollar's worth of that crap. Scam just like global climate change! It's friggin' August, that's why it's hot.

97 As bad as you've made the ethanol boondoggle sound ... it's even worse than that:

http://tinyurl.com/2dngh5g

98 Let's try that link again:

http://tinyurl.com/2dngh5g

99

I heard on TV that it costs 1.25  to make a dollar's worth of that crap. Scam just like global climate change!

Here's the funniest thing about corn ethanol.

It takes 1.6 gallons of ethanol to produce the same amount of energy and replace 1 gallon of gasoline.

1 bushel of corn, to grow and then turn into ethanol (not counting transporting it to a station) requires 2 gallons of gasoline worth of energy.

1 bushel of corn produces 2.5 gallons of ethanol.

2.5 gallons of ethanol replaces 1.5 gallons of gasoline.

In other words... it takes 3.2 gallons of ethanol to produce 2.5 gallons of corn ethanol.

It's the perfect industry for the government. All they do is waste half of what they started with and produce nothing.

If the farmers who grew the corn and the distillers who refined the ethanol used the same ethanol they produced to power thier production (not counting the truckers and railroad engineers who ship the corn and the ethanol around!) they would use up ALL the ethanol they produced and still need .4 gallons of gasoline per bushel to finish the job with nothing but smoke left to show for it.

That'll really screw those Saudis.. You wanna REALLY piss em off why don't we just purchase and chuck 5 million gallons of gas a day into a hole and light it on fire...

100 The "don't burn our food" argument seems like typical leftist BS to me.  Controlling the cost of energy (which the Saudi's and global warming crap intend to do) is probably killing more starving people than a lack of corn or rice.

A higher price for corn means a better trade balance means less money to enemy nations.

One gallon of liquid fuel can be turned into 6 gallons of liquid fuel, using coal or natural gas for the production process.  We have a lot of coal and natural gas.

Corn has some subsidies I guess, but so does oil.  Greenspan suggested we needed to go to war to keep the oil flowing, for the economy's sake ... as I recall.

Most of the trash talk of ethanol uses numbers from 25 years ago, Pimental being the main proponent of old and bad numbers.  Efficiencies keep improving.

Developing homegrown ethanol is not hurting and is helping, though a better crop will probably come along at some point.  Farmers are trained and equipped for corn and beans right now.

We really need to learn to love coal and natural gas and nukes, and drill baby drill.  It is all this "carbon credit" crap that is killing us, and a prez' that hate U.S.  (more CO₂ is great for crops, btw)

http://tinyurl.com/2887kcy
The energy balance of corn ethanol: An Update
by USDA (I know, it must be all lies)

101 entropy, I'm pretty sure those are bad numbers ...
the numbers on my link show a positive return ... not doubling, but something like one in, 1.4 out ... all costs considered.

102

No, I take that back. HEre's the funniest thing about corn ethanol.

They have to denature it or otherwise pollute and poison it to stop people from drinking it.

Imagine if they had E-100? Or E-95?

When I was 16 I had to drive to a bad neighborhood and pay some unemployed man $20 for a 12-pack.

Could you imagine what it would be like to have access to 100%  grain alchohol at 4 bucks a gallon? Mix up some kool-aid packets to mix it with you know how many beers/wine coolers a GALLON of pure hooch will make?

I'd have no damn liver.

Ace can get off the fancy expensive Value-Rite.

Imagine when you get up to go to work in the morning and find some dude siphoning all the gas out of your tank... to drink it.

103

Bill,

Those jackasses got payed big bucks to do that study. If you want me to do my own study to corroborate or contradict them, or even spend any great time researching their own methodology and numbers... you're going to have to fund my ass.

In the mean time, let's just take their own numbers from their own damn study. The graph on page 2.

Net energy production, BTU's per gallon:

Pimentel (1991)        -33,517

Pimentel (2001)        -33,562

Keeney and DeLuca (1992)     -8,438

Marland and Turhollow (1990)      18,154

Lorenz and Morris (1995)      30,589

Ho (1989)      -4,000

Wang et al. (1999)       22,500

Agri. and Agri-Food Canada (1999)       29,826

Shapouri et al. (1995)      16,193

This study (2002)       21,105

Sooo.... depending on who you ask and which study you cite, ethanol yields somewhere between 30k BTU's per gallon and NEGATIVE 33k BTU's per gallon on average.

You tell me why I should trust the USDA study over any of the others. We have a range. Not everyone is as efficient a farmer as everyone else... not every distiller has upgraded to T5 HO florescent lighting.

For the sake of the argument, can we just take the median and agree to say ethanol produces somewhere around...oh....  0 BTU's of energy per gallon (+/- 30k BTU's)?

104 The Russkies were known for drinking their jet fuel, as I recall.

105 I thought it was honest of them to include Pimental, who has been proven wrong.  They comment on why his numbers are so far off.  He is the one using 25 year old number, plus not including the cattle feed that is left over after production.

I don't care if your ass does your own study, but making up numbers out of thin air is pretty cheap.

106 Why not?  We do it all the time!

107

I have a better idea than corn ethanol.

Let's all put windmills on top are car roofs.

I have a question.. if you created a car that ran on love and sunshine, wouldn't that mean it consumed and converted love and sunshine? So every mile you drove there'd be less love and sunshine in the world?

108 Oh, and don't forget the fact that 50-55% of the american people are pretty sanguine about shutting down all of america's domestic oil production. What if obama gets a second term?

109

Better watch out Purple Avenger, Archer, Daniels, Midland and Cenex just put a contract out on ya for shining a light on their game! Run, man. Run!

I'm in the Peoples Republic of Minnesota and I guarantee you the whole corn ethanol thing is a total scam on the taxpayer/consumer. All you have to do is look back at what Congress did to importing cane ethanol (and other sources) from countries that make the stuff very cheaply by the tanker ship load and you'll understand. It's particularly stupid when you consider that the sea ports are located in the states with the least corn production so that cheap imported ethanol would be the economically proper thing to do considering that you can't pipeline the stuff from here to there.

This scam really hurt the third worlders. Corn is chicken feed, literally. Also hogs, etc. It's a debacle on a world scale.

110

Seriously... so Pimental is a jackass (cuz I say so) and his shit is WRONG. What about Ho? Ho is an oil company ho? And Keeny and DeLuca, I heard those two were a little busy playing hide the salami, IFKWIMAITYD, NTTAWWT. Wink wink knudge knudge say no more.

Well, what if I say the USDA scientists smoke crack coccaine? What's the retort? "Nuh-uh!"? How can you just arbitrarly credit some studies over others without an in-depth analysis? Why is the USDA more credible than Lorenz and Morris or the Canadian agriculture study? The canucks claim 29k btu's, but even the FDA says they're in la-la land.

E=MC² bitches. Unless and until they start splitting protons into quarks, if you want power you go for splitting the nucleus, not the molecular bonds. That's where all the mass is.

We have unlocked the power of the sun, but some cousin-humpin bumfuck farmer from Iowa wants us to burn corn for fuel instead.

BURN CORN? That's your bright ass idea?

The only reason anybody went for that is because you have the first caucus.

111 67 Is there a hemp to ethanol process the hippies can get behind?

Posted by: Jean at August 13, 2010 03:10 PM (c4APe)

Actually, according to a buddy of mine...yes.  But it's some other form of hemp, not what he refers to as "sticky weed."

As for ethanol, I did my research for school on this shit, and actually just got done with a two day biofuel conference.  The people telling you anything is "just about to be viable" are full of it.  Cellulosic ethanol?  It's been five years away from from economic feasibility for 15 to 20 years.  Biodiesel from algae?  I heard a biochemist say "it's 5 years from economic feasibility" yesterday.

I laughed out loud.  Economists shouldn't do biochemistry, biochemists shouldn't do economics.

I'm all for research, but people shouldn't believe the snake oil that's out there.  As for corn based, well, it's the closest we got to being feasible, and, without subsidies, it's not. 

That should tell you something.

112

Corn derived ethanol was one of the biggest, most inhumane, most environmentally irresponsible scams ever (to say nothing of the economic disaster that it is).

However...very few farmers will not jump like a bunch of trained mutts for any politician who promises them big, fat subsidy checks for it.  That they have gotten burnt on the deal doesn't stop it's popularity.

I watched nearly every freaking farm in my area (and throughout the state when I had to drive on business) plant corn, with no regard for crop rotation or market forces...because the dickheads that run this state, backed by the federal dickheads were politicking left and right about "green energy" and the money shot -- subsidies for ethanol. 

Some of these stupid assholes will drive their ground into sterility and themselves into eventual receivership just for the chance to grab some of that sweet, sweet subsidy loot (or even the promise of it) -- and they'll vote accordingly.  Unfortunately it won't be just them that suffer -- I live in an area that has some of the most productive ground in the country, and I have watched that ground lose quality over the past 40 years, slowly but inexorably.  The world cannot afford that to keep going on (but it is...because we're, as in humanity, is much more worried about Al Gore's Church of Manbearpig).

God, this topic pisses me off.

113

92  Actually, animals do eat sugar beets and hemp.  Feed companies have been switching to alternative feed sources for livestock (and companion animals) for the last 15 years, at least.  It's really ramped up in the last 5 - 10.

And I have seen the effects on the animals' condition; it's noticeable.

114 >>Some of these stupid assholes will drive their ground into sterility and themselves into eventual receivership just for the chance to grab some of that sweet, sweet subsidy loot (or even the promise of it) -- and they'll vote accordingly. Unfortunately it won't be just them that suffer -- I live in an area that has some of the most productive ground in the country, and I have watched that ground lose quality over the past 40 years, slowly but inexorably.>> So you're saying people would willingly destroy their most valuable asset for a few extra thousand dollars a year? You really believe this? Can you cite any real world examples, or are just an hysterical chick?

115

114 I can believe it because I'm sitting right in the middle of it.

Yeah, old Dicky Durbin came down in one of his rare campaign visits, pandered ethanol, ethanol, ethanol...and the farmers (not all -- a few old boys I know smelled the rat right off -- but enough of them) were eating out of Dicky's dirty hands.

You don't plant corn in a field three frakking years running without doing some damage to the soil...and there were guys doing that, a lot of guys doing that...because they wanted some sweet, sweet, subsidy money (and the dream of selling out and buying a condo in FL more than likely after sending junior to college to be a lawyer, so they don't give a shit about the future productivity of that ground).

116 114 And for a hundred bucks will you stop being a shit for brains dick? (since I'm an "hysterical chick")

117 Yeah ... how in the world do you figure they are destroying their land?  Yields keep increasing, practices are improving.

118 Entropy, they tell you all the things wrong with the Pimentel and other studies .  Largely they use very old numbers.  The dates of the studies are 10-20 years old, but those are the ones the "ethanol deniers" keep using.  (lol)  As efficiencies improve, pretty soon you have ten numbers of by 15% each and you final numbers are 100% off.

119

Do you understand the idea behind crop rotation?  Do you realize the amount of nutrients that a corn crop takes out of the soil?  You can't just throw heavier loads of fertilizer on the ground and make it "all better" -- might work in the short run, but eventually it will catch up.  Practices are improving -- yeah, but the global burden to increase or maintain production isn't lessening.  Eventually, something will give.

But what the heck do I know?  I just grew up and lived in a farming community my entire life.

120 Can you cite any real world examples, or are just an hysterical chick?

Look at the acreage devoted to it.  I'm sure DeptAg has those figures. 

121 unknownJane .. a lot of farmers with better ground do "continuous corn".  Some rotate corn and soybeans more because of pests and disease than fear of making their ground "sterile", whatever you mean by that.

They watch their ground very carefully since that is essential to produce a strong crop the next year.  People that think farmers are so stupid, sound pretty stupid to most farmers.

122 Yields keep increasing, practices are improving.

What are those fertilizer usage tonnage figures again...refresh my memory.

123 People that think farmers are so stupid, sound pretty stupid to most farmers.

No, people think that when government subsidies distort a market (which is the whole point of subsidy), that farmers will react accordingly.

124

121  Really, because I come from a family of "those farmers" (well, not exactly "those farmers" because my immediate family has never done such a thing, or supported it politically) -- and continuous corn is a completely bullshit idea that some really stupid farmers have bought into, courtesy of the USDA (but hey, they're [you're?] doing a grand job of keeping Monsanto in the money -- hey, wanna know who they donated a lot of campaign money to?)  I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Republicans.

Like I said: you might be able to get away with it for a while, but eventually something will give.  It's right beneath you're feet.

 

125 121 and I mean "sterile" as in, "can't grow crops on it for shit" because the fertility of the soil has been used up...you know...soil conservation 101 (do they teach that sort of stuff anymore?)

126 Subsidies distort everything, including oil.

Yeah, fertilizer in the future might become tight, but that was not my point.  I was saying they could keep producing corn without making their ground "sterile".

Ethanol might be less efficient than drilling oil, but it is renewable and the chosen one wants moratoriums on all fossil fuels, at least for U.S.  If we can get double the money for our corn exports, that is good for US all.  But yeah, I'd rather start using our vast reserves of coal, natural gas and build nuke plants. 

Still we need liquid fuels, and corn could turn one gallon liquid into 6 gallons, using coal or nat gas.  What else do you want to do with all the extra corn we can produce?

127 unknownJane ... I do no-till corn/soybeans in west central Illinois ... very small amount of ground.  I have a horticulture degree, from 30 years ago, can't say I remember much.

Acres are producing more than ever, so I don't know how you think fertility can be saved by crop rotation.  What part of fertility is disappearing.  They used to let land sit fallow for a year with some believe that it would magically heal, but that has been shown to be urban rural legend, as far as I understand it. 

128

127 Bill, I'm from east central LOL, and while I do not have a degree in ag; I used to teach at a college and saw what the ag departments were teaching -- some of it needs to be questioned, but many young farmers do not do that.

And I'd love to hear the theory on why leaving the ground fallow (which it really isn't, because you can still produce off of it -- just not the main two crops) is an "urban legend".

I also worked closely with the USDA for a while...the ties between the USDA and the ag schools and who is in power in government is a very worthwhile study for everyone, not just farmers.

Like I said, keep continuous planting corn -- try tracking the amount of fertilizer that has to be used and how the yields pan out -- do it for the next 20 years...and at the end of it, when I'm very old and grey, we'll talk about "soil sterility" (how much do you know about nitrogen fixing as it pertains to the ground's ability to do this?).

129 The bottom line is corn ethanol makes no economic sense, never did, and when the total environmental impact end-to-end from dirt farm to tailpipe is considered, its even worse than ordinary gasoline. Its always been a lose/lose proposition all the way around, and many of the environmental groups have started to cool on their enthusiasm for it as the real cost/impacts manifested themselves.

Late to the thread, didn't read one comment and maybe get the last word in. Ethanol has a extremely valuable purpose. Look at the history of octane inhibitors; lead and MTBE. Which one do you prefer we return to?

Me? I'd rather have a little ethanol in my groundwater as opposed to MTBE or lead blowing in my face.

130

OK Bill.

Pimentel:

Pro-ethanol people make it out to be positive by omitting many of the inputs that go into corn production. For example, they omit the farm labor -- I'm not talking about the farm family, I'm talking about the farm labor. They omit the farm machinery. They omit the energy to produce the hybrid corn. They omit the irrigation. I could go on and on. Anyway, if I did all of those manipulations, I could achieve also a positive return.

However, that's not the way these assessments are made. You can go check the noted agricultural economists who have looked at corn as well as other crops, and they do include the labor, they include the farm machinery, they include repair of the farm machinery, and so forth and so on. And so, those are all inputs that the ag economists include. Why are the pro-ethanol people leaving them out?

When you say that the ethanol crowd fails to include the farm machinery, are you talking about the energy that's needed to manufacture a tractor, for example?

That's right. Or an automobile used by the farmer.

From your experience, how do these researchers justify that omission?

They don't. They just omit it.

Table 2 page 5.

Energy:

Diesel Gallons/acre 4 5 4 5 18 5 7 6 8 6.85

Gasoline Gallons/acre 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3.4

Yeah.... Per year. You telling me a guy farming 1 acre in IL used only 8 gallons of fuel the whole year? Seems sketchy to me.

Another place where you clash with other researchers is over the byproducts of ethanol: stuff like distillers grains that go into animal feed, etc. For those researchers, byproducts are what push ethanol's energy balance solidly onto positive ground.

We do account for it. Distillers grains, incidentally, are being used as a substitute for soybean meal. So we went back to the soybean meal, and examined how it's produced, and the energy that is required to produce it. Instead of giving [distillers grains] a 40 to 60 percent credit as the pro-ethanol people do, we found that the credit should be more like 9 percent. They [pro-ethanol researchers] are manipulating the data again.

131

they tell you all the things wrong with the Pimentel and other studies . 

Oh. They tell you! Of course.

That doesn't really explain what makes them the authority. That's just another appeal to their authority.

Pimentel tells you what's wrong with their study, too.

132 Well some have been doing it much longer than 20 years ... and yields are still increasing.  Instead of waiting 20 years, maybe you could just tell me what you think will go wrong, or what should have gone wrong by now for those that have done this for several decades.

I don't really know what was supposed to be accomplished by letting ground "rest" for a year.  I can only surmise that they used to have worse practices and ground might get compacted ... letting it sit might allow worms or weeds to rebuild the structure a little.  Now they put tractors on tracks or go no till, and put in terraces and drain tile and leave more residue, with less deep plowing.

I did start as a chem major, but I haven't studied the chemistry of nitrogen fixation.  There are several ways to add nitrogen to the soil, so you'll have to give me more hints as to why you think that soil might lose the ability to "fix nitrogen", if that is what you're saying.  I have beans this year, last year I put in anhydrous ammonia ... yielded 162/acre ... pretty good for my place.

I went to U of Illinois ... my mom's cousin just visited ... he had a career there and was "famous" for his corn root worm studies, long ago.  But I enjoy the hills on this side of the state instead of the grid iro on the east side. 

133

Ethanol might be less efficient than drilling oil, but it is renewable

Understatement of the year. It's also not the only alternative, but pointedly, it's not nearly the best alternative.

Beyond that....

How sure are you oil isn't renewable?

Do you know exactly where oil comes from and at what rate it is produced? Biogenically and abiogenically?

If you do, please call your local university geology department and let them know because they're very curious and dying to know.

134 thanks for replying entropy

as I said, they refer to Pimentel, but update his numbers.  As far as I could tell, they kept all that "fuel to produce the tractor" stuff in.  The main thing is his numbers are so old. There will of course be major improvements over 25 years in yield, tractor efficiency, chemical efficiency, improved genetics, etc.

So if you have 10 factors that you are multiplying, and they are all off by 10%, your end result will be off by about 300%.

8 gallons is too high.  3 gallons for no-till, 4 or 5 for heavy tillage.  See what I mean?  That number is off by at least 50%.

http://fwd4.me/Kqb
left side of table one show fuel usage per acre

I don't know about the soybean meal you mention, I was looking at corn ethanol, but I probably don't have the expertise to know what he means by a "9 percent credit".  I thought they just figured how much they were able to sell the by product for as feed.

135 good point on oil entropy ... it may be slowly renewable, or there may be incredible reserves that we just aren't being allowed to tap.  and yeah, it didn't necessarily all come from dinosaurs or even vegetation, as I understand some think now.

and some say some of these "tapped out" wells might refill from deeper down ... not sure if that was ever verified.

I'm all for drill baby drill, but I'd rather see farmers make $4.50 for corn than $2 .. and that is good for the country since we export so much.  We don't have OPEC for corn, so maybe ethanol accomplishes that to a degree.

136

By the way, here's some fun numbers.

Let's say - HYPOTHETICALLY, for the sake of the argument, that Bill and the FDA were right, and corn ethanol yields a net gain of 21k btu's per gallon.

That's with a "high heat value" of 84k btu's contained within one gallon.

So if an 84k btu gallon yields 21k btu's... now wait.

That's ONLY if you credit it with the amount of energy that it would have taken to produce it's byproducts - you can't even actually use that much. The actual figgure as far as gallons in and gallons out to run the tractor is 7k btu's. You got some free feed grain in the deal, but gallons in, gallons out - each gallon only nets you 7k btu's of tractor time with the FDA's numbers.

But fuck it. I am a super genorous guy. I'm fuckin Santa Claus. 21k BTU's.

84/21 = 4.  25% net gain. That means burn 3 gallons of ethanol to make 4 and net 1.

1 acre of farmland yields 328 gallons of ethanol.

328 / 4 = 82.  246 gallons are used and distill the corn, netting 82 gallons per acre of ethanol left over, by the FDA's numbers (not really - 7k btus... you've got less ethanol and some 'byproducts' instead but let's be generous). So net, 82 gallons per acre.

1.5 gallons of ethanol replaces 1 gallon of petroleum gasoline.

According to the US Dept of Energy, in 2008 the US used 138.2 billion gallons of gas.

138.2B gallons of gas would take (138.2B * 1.5) 207.3 billion gallons of ethanol.

At 82 net gallons per acre produced, 138,200,000,000 / 82 = 1,685,365,853.

1.6 BILLION acres of corn.

Total farmland in the US: about 950 million acres.

In fact... Total (arible, desert, mountain, tundra or otherwise) landmass of the US: about 2.3 billion. We haven't even 1.6 billion acres to grow corn on.

Even if we did, we wouldn't be selling it to the chinese (who are too crever to farr for it anyway), we STILL wouldn't be producing enough to replace our oil usage.

Only.... now we'd have 0 food crops whatsoever and we'd need to import wheat and shit and be dependant on other countries for food. Which wouldn't be cheap, because the US is a major food exporter, and if we converted all our farmland in the whole country to ethanol (and it still wouldn't be enough) it would create massive global famine and scarcity would cause global food prices to skyrocket. Amidst the starvation there would be social unrest and political upheaval throughout the third world, multiple governments would become destabilized by riots and likely fall, leaving anachy in their wake and setting the stage for pirates and terrorists to establish bases of operation by wielding the remaining food supply as a weapon, like the junta in Ethiopia did back in the 80's.

We would seriously need a fucking wall down south. If you think they're hot to hop the border now you ain't seen nuthin yet buddy. If anyone lives in Texas or Arizona... I'd move. You got a cattle ranch? Not for long you don't, when hungry mexicans come hopping the border with AK's.

We sell our excess corn as it is.. to eat. We can NEVER replace oil with ethanol. We haven't even got to the fact that even if we reduced or GASOLINE use to ZERO overnight, we would still consume just as much OIL as country, and simply sell off the excess gas to recoup some of the expense.

It can never be more than piss in a bucket to our energy supply.

And who will we sell the bit of ethanol we do produce to? American consumers - we'll never have excess to export as we CAN'T make enough for ourselves - stupid enough to pay as much or more for a gallon as gas, and get a fuel that contains less energy and gets less miles to the gallon, raising energy costs and harming the whole economy consistent with however much we use, while doing hardly jack shit to the bottom line for the Saudi's.

So, bill... why are we making this?

137

farmers make $4.50 for corn than $2 .. and that is good for the country since we export so much. 

We export CORN, not ethanol.

We can't make enough ethanol for ourselves. We won't be exporting for major profit when it costs more than gas.

And how funny the farmer wants farmers to make more. Well no shit. Farmer's special interest. That's what I've been saying from square 1. It's your political clout that's got the ethanol subsidies going gangbusters which is the only reason ethanol is even affordable to begin with.

Plus the cost of corn - regular corn, not ethanol - goes up to match the ethanol prices. The cost of even Coca-Cola goes up.

You're taking money for farmers from everyone else and pretending it's in everybody's best interest.

That's all it boils down to - going green, oil dependancy, energy efficiency, blah blah blah - it's not about anything, except raising corn prices. Corn farmers want to raise corn prices. Quelle shock.

138

I'm sorry. I screwed up.

138.2B gallons of gas would take (138.2B * 1.5) 207.3 billion gallons of ethanol.

At 82 net gallons per acre produced, 138,200,000,000 / 82 = 1,685,365,853.

1.6 BILLION acres of corn.

You see what I did there?

138,200,000,000 207,300,000,000 / 82 = 2,528,048,780.

1.6 2.5 BILLION acres of corn.

Total landmass of the US, lakes, mountains, desert, tundra and all : 2.3B.

139 "We export CORN, not ethanol."

ethanol limits supply, raises price the Chinese pay ... trade deficit reduced.

we make some ethanol with our excess corn, reduces (slightly) amount of oil we import ... more supply, lower gas prices

Those two things are definitely in the national interest.  Also maintaining a strong food supply is in everyone's interest ... farmer's make more, install more drain tile, become more efficient producers, keep CAT in business making tractors, etc.  trickle down ...

Corn is a very small percentage of the price of Coca-Cola.  When did I say we could replace oil?  This is just a good use of the excess corn, but we should be drilling everywhere, and California should open drilling rather than beg for a bailout from everyone else. 

Illinois has vast coal, and the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal ... our enemies don't want us to use it, and it would almost seem that makes those AGW nuts (like Gore) our enemies.

We need all our resources, instead of shutting down everything as Obama seems intent on doing.

140

ethanol limits supply, raises price the Chinese pay ... trade deficit reduced.

I don't even follow. I have no idea what you mean.

Ethanol limits the supply of what... CORN? Food is a basic neccessity. Rising food prices is good for no one except farmers, who are the only one's who's wages will rise accordingly from it.

You justify it by taking pennies from the pockets of billions to put dollars (or hundreds of them) in the pockets of a few farmers. Claiming rich farmers is good for the US and who can't spare a penny?

Well that logic works for every special interest in existance.

I want everyone to contribute a penny to my paycheck so I can make mad bank and then I promise to use it to stimulate the economy too.

we make some ethanol with our excess corn, reduces (slightly) amount of oil we import ...

Except we're not. Foreigners aren't that stupid and they're selling our ethanol domestically. It's your non-farmer neighbor that's paying for it (whatever part he hasn't already payed in taxes for subsidies that is).

And we haven't any 'excess corn'. We can sell it for food. You're talking about cutting off corn exports and replacing them with ethanol exports and throwing half the world into destabilized chaos to make a buck or two more a bushel.

And you naively think the scam is coordinate and will stop there - that the profitably of ethanol won't cut into domestic foodstock or that goobers won't buy the ethanol locally.

 more supply, lower gas prices

More supply? Lower gas prices? NO. You are not listening.

2.5B acres.

Supply will not go down that much. The most we can make is piss in a bucket. It will have no notable effect on the energy market unless we go suicidally overboard with it. It will not touch gas prices.

What it WILL do, in proportion to how much we use it, is raise energy prices domestically. Which any economist will tell you is bad.

141 But corn-holing is ok, right?

142

And to add to Entropy's wonderful post: Bill, repeated applications of higher and higher concentrations of fertilizer have been found to reduce the soil's ability to fix nitrogen on its own.  And don't give me the baloney that continuous corn has been going on just swell for the past 20 years and everything's okie dokey.  I've seen fields where guys did that -- and after a while that ground looks, to use a quaint folksy-ism from my grandpa,  tired.  Topsoil loss is a very BFD, but it gets very underreported -- why is that?

As for crop rotation and laying a field fallow -- uh, you don't just till the damn thing up and leave it open like that for a year or two.  You set it aside, use it for something like hay and let the sod recuperate itself for a minimum of 3 years (preferrably 5).  It's still working for you...it just isn't making as much money.  You can lay tile, no till, contour plow...and yeah, it helps, but soil conservation has to be done all in...or you risk losing it down the road (or you can make a lot of money and screw later generations -- because that's what you're doing -- sound familiar?). 

But that sort of diversification leads to people not relying on as much of a chemical fix...and we certainly can't have farmers learning or doing that sort of thing. (oh, and Uof I is in my northern "backyard"; they've been very, very complicit -- but they'll go all in for you to get your subsidies though).

143

the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal

The US is also the Saudi Arabia of oil, if Saudi Arabia declared a federally protected wildlife refuge everywhere they found oil.

Wherever oil comes from, there is a shitload of it.

Peak oil is nonsense, except in the sense that it's been manufactured as a self-fulfilling prophecy so because so many people are vested in seeing a peak oil scenario to validate their misanthropic delusions.

We have metric mega-shit-tons of oil yet to burn through and if we were serious about exploiting it we could bust gas back down below a buck.

144

ethanol limits supply, raises price the Chinese pay ... trade deficit reduced.

I don't even follow. I have no idea what you mean.

Ethanol limits the supply of what... CORN? Food is a basic necessity. Rising food prices is good for no one except farmers, who are the only one's who's wages will rise accordingly from it.

Well, anyone that sells anything to the farmer will make more if the farmer makes more.  I don't know what argument you are making with "food is a basic necessity", unless you are communist when it comes to food, and "we" have to supply food for everyone in the world and make minimal profit.  Then you might as well be communist when it comes to oil and everything else. 

Last I saw we DO have an excess of corn ... China is stockpiling commodities partly because they want to cash out of the dollar.  Our food is a resource, and while we get blackmailed for oil, you think we should give away our food?  Africa doesn't produce because they are busy killing each other and blowing up their own oil production.

I'm listening ... ethanol increases supply ... a little.  Gas around here all has 10% ethanol.  It is more than pissing in a bucket. 

What it WILL do, in proportion to how much we use it, is raise energy prices domestically. Which any economist will tell you is bad.

What?  Or did you mean "raise food prices"?  Corn could double and it would raise food prices 5%, except the middle men would raise it more and blame the farmer.

Why do you think we don't have excess corn?  I think we do .. but don't have data on hand, though I did read that not long ago.   I just read we produce something like 17% more calories than needed for the world, but distribution is the problem.  Are we responsible for that for the whole world now?

145

Well, anyone that sells anything to the farmer will make more if the farmer makes more.  I don't know what argument you are making with "food is a basic necessity", unless you are communist when it comes to food, and "we" have to supply food for everyone in the world and make minimal profit.

Again - we are not selling ethanol as a major export. We are selling it domestically, and everyone pays for it domestically.

And they pay again in increased food costs.

What I mean by it being a neccessity is no one gets out of it. Not rich, not poor, not old, not young, not anyone. Everyone must by food, whatever the cost.

So increases to the cost of food are born out by everyone, and benefit no one except the food suppliers.

Where do you think the extra money you are making comes from Bill?

You seem to think it is coming from China.

It is not.

Our ethanol is used domestically. In fact, congress has MANDATED the domestic use of ethanol, which is what created the market for you to sell into, without which it would not exist.

If ethanol is a viable fuel alternative, why do you need mandates and subsidies?

Why doesn't ethanol get produced and sold without perverse government incentives?

I'm listening ... ethanol increases supply ... a little.  Gas around here all has 10% ethanol.  It is more than pissing in a bucket. 

Yes... and see how it's brought gas prices down?

146

What?  Or did you mean "raise food prices"? 

No, I mean raise energy prices.

You think the 10% ethanol makes the gas LESS expensive? Oh hell no.

Even with the subsidies, no one would touch ethanol without the mandates if the gas prices weren't held hostage.

As I've said - the US government could drive gas prices back below a buck if it wanted to.

No one can touch a gallon of ethanol for a buck.

147 jane ... I think the "bottoms" here run continuous corn mostly, though they may do beans every few years.  That has been going on for decades and it is still the top dollar ground.  Minimal tillage can also help maintain soil structure, which is all I can think of that would relate to what you call "tired".  

I really think improved practices have made a major difference in the last 10 and 20 years.  Proper practices may actually allow roots to go much deeper than average, which introduces organic matter deep in the soil profile.  Nitrogen fixation is a bacteria thing, as I understand it, so I don't get what "tired soil" has to do with that.

You can do legumes or various cover crops ... lots of interesting possibilities.  But I just don't see topsoil being lost ... I'll look around to see what you might mean.

But I agree the chemical and seed corps want you addicted to their products, and a lot of the wealth gets spread around their way.  But so far I don't see that using those products does the soil harm, it is just expensive.  But it can help the soil by saving trips through the field, and yields go up.  But $200-300 for a bag of seed corn hurts a little.

Figuring taxes and inputs, a farmer might shell out $400/acre in an effort to "spread the wealth around" when they grow corn.  Lately that has been working out OK for them.

148

Corn could double and it would raise food prices 5%

I know that.

That's what I said.

Pennies from everyone to make dollars for a few.

Justify it by saying it's only a few pennies. It would raise the cost of all godawful sorts of foods, most foods... BUT, it would raise them by 1% here, 3% there. Maybe 100% for popcorn but hey and 80% for corn flakes.

So? Everyone has to pay. Again, it's a justification. Hey, give me a penny.

It's just a penny. It's not much. Gimme. Everyone. Everyone gives me a penny. Now. No big deal right? And then I'm rich. It seems OK.

But if 1 person can do it, another person can do it. And when a hundred people start demanding a penny each from you, that adds up to a buck.

This ethanol business will just - on net - cost every american (except for the farmers) a few more pennies.

In and of itself we can survive it and the farmers sure would love it.

But it's not just ethanol in and of itself, it's the whole damn system and your a part of it.

It'll be death by 1000 cuts. Because who's to say which of the thousand caused the death, after all?

149 entropy .. you seem to be saying the US is secretly driving gas prices higher to help ethanol ... that seems backwards to me.  Wasn't it OPEC that drove prices below $10 to drive out competitors, then limited supply to drive prices up?

Now Obama may be trying to skyrocket prices, but if it was done before, it was probably just to make more money on the oil, not to prop up ethanol, as I see it.

So increases to the cost of food are born out by everyone, and benefit no one except the food suppliers.

Where do you think the extra money you are making comes from Bill?

You seem to think it is coming from China.

The increase (from higher corn) in the cost of food is minimal ... soda makers like corn syrup because it is cheap.  There is a little higher percentage increase for beef, but those prices have gone down I think.  The extra money does come from China, and everyone else.  But it is the export part that helps us as a country. 

Anything that helps our trade deficit is a good thang.  They don't even allow many of our products there, but they have to have our food ... so we should not give it away.  If we want to give some to starving countries, that is different. ... we have enough, and produce more every year.

150 It also makes muh Harley run like shit. tD

151 Time magazine and lefty MFM nuts are against ethanol ... that is my closing argument. 

152 moshi monsters binweevils ear wax build up