So does just about everybody I know who has any real knowledge of the issues surrounding ethanol, and that's a lot of guys around upstate NY and all over PA.
here are just a few bullet points for you..
1. In the early 90's, ethanol is not even a blip
2. Various politicians on both sides of the aisle invest in ethanol plants.
3. mysteriously, ethanol becomes law of the land in many states and anyone who invested $10k in ethanol before that time is not a millionaire.
4. Ethanol uses more fuel to produce than it yields
5. Ethanol yields less carbon emissions per gallon then traditional gasoline, but because your fuel mileage is worse than the old gas you actually burn more thus eliminating the carbon benefit.
6. Farmers are now growing corn instead of other crops thus driving up prices of those other crops
7. Corn has become more expensive and since it is used for feed, that has also driven up the price of beef and also dairy.
8. Ethanol has almost ruined the boating industry requiring people to replace fuel tanks in older boats, etc etc
I am stopping here because now I am just too pissed off.
Biofuels need tobe looked at in the context of US dependence on oil from the Mid East that can be affected by the policies of other countries or the interruption of safe passage of tankers.The development of biofuels (not necessarily corn),hydro-fracking,nuclear energy or the keystone pipeline is a must.Saying no to all new forms of energy makes no sense.
This is not saying no to all new forms of energy. Â
This is not even the government subsidizing something that will likely make sense in the very long run, and for which putting the infrastructure in place now is a good idea (see, recycling).
This is subsidizing a good because of strong lobbyists in position to help their constituents benefit.
If you want to know what's wrong with this country, look no further than the farm bill. Its pork-barrel Washington politics at its finest. None of this changes until there's a third-party. Farm bill is a good example of there's no really any difference between the (D) and (R).
I think another gift from ethanol is that the nitrogen (?) run-off from the farms growing the corn travels down the Mississippi River and when it hits the Gulf it creates these huge dead zones.
years old without reading the rest of the thread. Who didn't know this?
Just last week, my daughter came home asking why "corn gas" is good for the environment when it' just mixed with regular gas anyway? I'm guessing her teacher doesn't know.
but the article cited isn't about that, and alone isn't enough to base a conclusion on use of afterproducts. Good science requires reciprocity in outcomes - if additional studies come to the same conclusion it's valid, but not until then.
In 2000, over 90% of the U.S. corn crop went to feed people and livestock, many in undeveloped countries, with less than 5% used to produce ethanol. In 2013, however, 40% went to produce ethanol, 45% was used to feed livestock, and only 15% was used for food and beverage (AgMRC).
The United States will use over 130 billion gallons of gasoline this year, and over 50 billion gallons of diesel. On average, one bushel of corn can be used to produce just under three gallons of ethanol. If all of the present production of corn in the U.S. were converted into ethanol, it would only displace 25% of that 130 billion.
But it would completely disrupt food supplies, livestock feed, and many poor economies in the Western Hemisphere because the U.S. produces 40% of the world’s corn. Seventy percent of all corn imports worldwide come from the U.S. Simply implementing mandatory vehicle fuel efficiencies of 40 mpg would accomplish much more, much faster, with no collateral damage.
Excuse me, 14 years, not 20.
Those who remember the energy source debates, will recall I was never a proponent of corn as a ethanol base.
Corn prices tripled within a few month when corn based ethanol became the rage. They have now leveled off at about 4x. How many acres that were dedicated to other commodity crops were switched over to corn? What were the price increase to those commodity crops? What was the effect to the environment? No crop rotation, no fallow year,increased fertilized use do to these practices?
How does an energy product that takes more energy to produce that what itself produces be more friendly to the environment? You have to take in account that other 1.5 gallons used to produce 1 gallon. That's the combined effect of burning 2 1/2 gallons and releasing those byproducts into the atmosphere vs. 1 gallon of gasoline.
Quote:
hir.harvard.edu › Agriculture › Features‎
Harvard International Review
Oct 26, 2009 - Furthermore, to produce corn ethanol, 46 percent more fossil energy is required to produce a liter of ethanol than than is yielded. Oil therefore ...
Mike why should a teacher know about this?
If it wasn't for the fact that my whole corn feed prices went up 300% in a few months in the early 2000's, I never would have educated myself as I did.
Now am I anti ethanol? Hell no.
There are promising materials that can be used that take minimal energy to produce that will not affect commodity crops. Kelp being one as an example of something looking promising.
So new news? No. The information has been out there.
What is news is that a study that is a basically a slap in the face to politicians, environmentalists, and an international industry touting corn ethanol ever saw the light of day.
releasing C through burning instead of composting it back into the soil obviously will release more C into the atmosphere. The article header stated it releases more C than simply using conventional fuels, but the article itself doesn't really address the matter, so that aspect remains a mystery without further journalistic investigation.
At present, it would appear to be small potatoes. The gov't is trying to stimulate biofuels, and it appears that it's only requiring 17 mil gallons (instead of the original ambitious billions of gallons). at a buck a gallon subsidy, that's hardly a blip on the gov't waste radar. What happens, though, when the process takes off? If you get to the 1.75 bil gallons envisioned, that's some serious subsidy.
I am all for reducing our dependence on fuel from Â
the middle east. However, that does not mean the solution is go to ethanol which then results in higher food costs for our entire population. There is nothing wrong with drilling domestically until we find a REAL alternative that makes sense. Right now, when you look at our escalating population and the rising costs of commodities... the only thing that we are guaranteed to do is increase poverty levels in this country.
domestic solar. there's a domestic manufacturing industry ready to explode, but China is underselling everyone and putting the hurt on our solar industry.
put more subsidy money into electric vehicles and infra structure.
quit wasting it on ethanol.
Pay for it by taxing low MPG vehicles.
Drilling is not a solution. It's just postponing what's going to have to happen eventually.
with bio fuels is that there is really no such thing as 'waste'. industry uses everything. So taking corn stover is simply robbing one part of the system to feed another.
Just what are corn stalk and cellular Ag "waste" now used for? Hint, it ain't plowed under. What do you think is a big fodder used for feed lots, dairy farms etc?
If you take something that is used for one thing and use it for another, something else must be used for that original use.
What do you suggest growing to replace the fodder that those corn stalks now provide? How many acres will that take away from other commodity crops?
How much will food prices go up due to removing that feed source?
There is little cellular waste in Ag operations. Even sugar cane needs to burnt to process.
domestic solar. there's a domestic manufacturing industry ready to explode, but China is underselling everyone and putting the hurt on our solar industry.
put more subsidy money into electric vehicles and infra structure.
quit wasting it on ethanol.
Pay for it by taxing low MPG vehicles.
Drilling is not a solution. It's just postponing what's going to have to happen eventually.
I disagree. What we should do is eliminate subsidies altogether. When government chooses one technology over another, it almost always does a bad job. Because decisions are generally made based on how many jobs a company will create in influential congressmens' states or districts, rather than what is the best tech and the best company to provide it.
The solution is simple: raise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. This provides benefits across the board. It encourages the use and development of high MPG vehicles. It encourages use of mass transit. And it gives all alternatives to petroleum an equal effective subsidy, letting the market determine the best and most cost effective alternative.
OK. But what you quoted and wrote about was about producing ethanol from actual corn, not from corn waste. You keep saying that the article is old news, which it clearly is not.
Also: while some corn stover is used for animal feed, most if it IS plowed under. The point of the article is that turning it into ethanol instead and then burning it puts more net carbon into the atmosphere than plowing it under and using petroleum products instead. Whether this particular study is correct in its conclusions reminds to be seen.
of it is NOT plowed under. Corn fields are about as slick as concrete when harvested for fodder. If it's left up it is for other purposes. Holding wild bird population for hunting etc.
Every ting is done for an economical purpose already.
I look to you as one of the go to energy posters on here.
I just think you barking up the wrong tree on this one.
As I opined, I'm not against bio fuels, just using land and substances that are already used for important (in their own right) purposes.
Is used for feed when there is livestock nearby to graze upon it. It is also baled and sold relatively locally. But it's not profitable to ship it any significant distance. There is more corn stover in many high corn producing states than cn be used by the nearby livestock. So it's plowed under. Which is not in itself a waste of the product, since it provides nutrients to the soil.
Is used for feed when there is livestock nearby to graze upon it. It is also baled and sold relatively locally. But it's not profitable to ship it any significant distance. There is more corn stover in many high corn producing states than cn be used by the nearby livestock. So it's plowed under. Which is not in itself a waste of the product, since it provides nutrients to the soil.
Jim I can't speak to corn specifically but there is a lot of direct seeding being done into stubble all over North America. Zero till and minimal tillage are very popular practices as well and do not call for stubble to be plowed under. Soil types and climate pay a huge role into the agricultural practices in an area but the zero till fields I see in my line of work are rough as all hell because they do not plow them as minimal tillage is believed to save nutrients and the top soil.They use small discs or narrow points to open the soil for the seed. Very often soybeans are direct seeded into corn stubble, making it an absolute bitch to harvest if the crop is downed. But again I don't have a lot to do with the corn industry specifically so I can't speak to all corn production and stubble management techniques.
The trouble occurs when they become legacy handouts.
I'm not denying that there's a lot of abuse of gov't subsidies.
I guess asking gov't to judiciously apply subsidies for new business is about as useless as asking gov't to get rid of all subsidies.
Absolutely hate the idea of taxing the shit out of gasoline. I'm relatively efficient when it comes to my vehicles. why should I be penalized along with all the rest because I actually consider mpg when buying a car? tax the shit out of low mpg vehicles. you want to go vroom, vroom or pretend that you need a SUV to drive your kid to soccer? fine by me. but you pay a fee for it. If you drive an efficient vehicle, you should be rewarded, or at least not pay a penalty.
Taxing low MPG cars, except under some very restrictive assumptions, Â
will absolutely strike the consumers of more efficient cars. But it will be a hidden tax.
A gasoline tax on all impacts people differentially and is much more transparent. As well as hits out at the fact that even efficient MPG cars have some net negative impact that are much worse than some people think (i.e., driving more, carpooling less).
Sorry you object to higher gas taxes. Everyone of course always objects to paying a higher tax, but always supports the other guy paying more. If you buy efficient cars as you say, your tax would be much less than those who buy gas guzzlers.
At the very least we could start by returning the gas tax to the level it was 20 years ago. Inflation erodes the tax every year; as a result it has functionaly been reduced 40% since 1993. That's why our roads and bridges are falling apart - the gas tax is the primary source of funds for them and we've been starving them. It's no way to run a road system in a modern economy.
Beyond that, the current tax in no way reflects the environmental damage caused by burning gasoline, nor the economic damage and security risks to the country due to reliance on a fuel that must be imported in large quantities.
Anyway, you're already currently paying in income taxes to fund subsidies that have been completely ineffecive in dealing with out transportation energy problems. Instead, I propose a tax that would actually attack the problem head on.
But, then again, there are environmental and political costs that affect the consumers of a low real gas tax rate. As well as the revenue issues linked to our infrastructure woes. That also doesn't take into account behavioral responses (less aggregate cars) that could help consumers.
If you wanted to mitigate some of the lower end impacts of the gas tax, you can marginally increase the minimum wage or even expand the phase in portion of the EITC.
my point was that those people who are already energy conscientious would also be hurt under your plan. Why? when you can just as easily rake those who aren't being energy conscious without penalizing the forward thinkers?
Because energy conscious individuals already pay a lower tax burden, in terms of tax per mile.
We already know that, even for those who are environmentally conscious, there is a severe underpricing, in terms of the gas tax, for the harm dome by drivers.
my point was that those people who are already energy conscientious would also be hurt under your plan. Why? when you can just as easily rake those who aren't being energy conscious without penalizing the forward thinkers?
And you are being taxed comensurate with your usage; same rate for everyone. You use less and thus pay less. Those driving inefficient vehicles get hit harder. And some of those people have needs that require larger, less efficient vehicles. Hitting them even harder than the higher hit they would get would be overkill.
Clean and renewable - ( New Window )
1. In the early 90's, ethanol is not even a blip
2. Various politicians on both sides of the aisle invest in ethanol plants.
3. mysteriously, ethanol becomes law of the land in many states and anyone who invested $10k in ethanol before that time is not a millionaire.
4. Ethanol uses more fuel to produce than it yields
5. Ethanol yields less carbon emissions per gallon then traditional gasoline, but because your fuel mileage is worse than the old gas you actually burn more thus eliminating the carbon benefit.
6. Farmers are now growing corn instead of other crops thus driving up prices of those other crops
7. Corn has become more expensive and since it is used for feed, that has also driven up the price of beef and also dairy.
8. Ethanol has almost ruined the boating industry requiring people to replace fuel tanks in older boats, etc etc
I am stopping here because now I am just too pissed off.
The notion of ethanol millionaires isn't true, for the most part, by the way.
Joey's right.
This is subsidizing a good because of strong lobbyists in position to help their constituents benefit.
I think another gift from ethanol is that the nitrogen (?) run-off from the farms growing the corn travels down the Mississippi River and when it hits the Gulf it creates these huge dead zones.
Anyway...
Actually this is new. It's not what you think it is about, which if you bothered to read before commenting you would know.
Just last week, my daughter came home asking why "corn gas" is good for the environment when it' just mixed with regular gas anyway? I'm guessing her teacher doesn't know.
The United States will use over 130 billion gallons of gasoline this year, and over 50 billion gallons of diesel. On average, one bushel of corn can be used to produce just under three gallons of ethanol. If all of the present production of corn in the U.S. were converted into ethanol, it would only displace 25% of that 130 billion.
But it would completely disrupt food supplies, livestock feed, and many poor economies in the Western Hemisphere because the U.S. produces 40% of the world’s corn. Seventy percent of all corn imports worldwide come from the U.S. Simply implementing mandatory vehicle fuel efficiencies of 40 mpg would accomplish much more, much faster, with no collateral damage.
Excuse me, 14 years, not 20.
Those who remember the energy source debates, will recall I was never a proponent of corn as a ethanol base.
Corn prices tripled within a few month when corn based ethanol became the rage. They have now leveled off at about 4x. How many acres that were dedicated to other commodity crops were switched over to corn? What were the price increase to those commodity crops? What was the effect to the environment? No crop rotation, no fallow year,increased fertilized use do to these practices?
How does an energy product that takes more energy to produce that what itself produces be more friendly to the environment? You have to take in account that other 1.5 gallons used to produce 1 gallon. That's the combined effect of burning 2 1/2 gallons and releasing those byproducts into the atmosphere vs. 1 gallon of gasoline.
Harvard International Review
Oct 26, 2009 - Furthermore, to produce corn ethanol, 46 percent more fossil energy is required to produce a liter of ethanol than than is yielded. Oil therefore ...
Mike why should a teacher know about this?
If it wasn't for the fact that my whole corn feed prices went up 300% in a few months in the early 2000's, I never would have educated myself as I did.
Now am I anti ethanol? Hell no.
There are promising materials that can be used that take minimal energy to produce that will not affect commodity crops. Kelp being one as an example of something looking promising.
So new news? No. The information has been out there.
What is news is that a study that is a basically a slap in the face to politicians, environmentalists, and an international industry touting corn ethanol ever saw the light of day.
Link - ( New Window )
At present, it would appear to be small potatoes. The gov't is trying to stimulate biofuels, and it appears that it's only requiring 17 mil gallons (instead of the original ambitious billions of gallons). at a buck a gallon subsidy, that's hardly a blip on the gov't waste radar. What happens, though, when the process takes off? If you get to the 1.75 bil gallons envisioned, that's some serious subsidy.
This is not about producing ethanol from corn. It is about producing cellulistic ethanol from agricultural wastes such as corn stalks and wheat straw.
put more subsidy money into electric vehicles and infra structure.
quit wasting it on ethanol.
Pay for it by taxing low MPG vehicles.
Drilling is not a solution. It's just postponing what's going to have to happen eventually.
Just what are corn stalk and cellular Ag "waste" now used for? Hint, it ain't plowed under. What do you think is a big fodder used for feed lots, dairy farms etc?
If you take something that is used for one thing and use it for another, something else must be used for that original use.
What do you suggest growing to replace the fodder that those corn stalks now provide? How many acres will that take away from other commodity crops?
How much will food prices go up due to removing that feed source?
There is little cellular waste in Ag operations. Even sugar cane needs to burnt to process.
put more subsidy money into electric vehicles and infra structure.
quit wasting it on ethanol.
Pay for it by taxing low MPG vehicles.
Drilling is not a solution. It's just postponing what's going to have to happen eventually.
I disagree. What we should do is eliminate subsidies altogether. When government chooses one technology over another, it almost always does a bad job. Because decisions are generally made based on how many jobs a company will create in influential congressmens' states or districts, rather than what is the best tech and the best company to provide it.
The solution is simple: raise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. This provides benefits across the board. It encourages the use and development of high MPG vehicles. It encourages use of mass transit. And it gives all alternatives to petroleum an equal effective subsidy, letting the market determine the best and most cost effective alternative.
Also: while some corn stover is used for animal feed, most if it IS plowed under. The point of the article is that turning it into ethanol instead and then burning it puts more net carbon into the atmosphere than plowing it under and using petroleum products instead. Whether this particular study is correct in its conclusions reminds to be seen.
Every ting is done for an economical purpose already.
I look to you as one of the go to energy posters on here.
I just think you barking up the wrong tree on this one.
As I opined, I'm not against bio fuels, just using land and substances that are already used for important (in their own right) purposes.
Jim I can't speak to corn specifically but there is a lot of direct seeding being done into stubble all over North America. Zero till and minimal tillage are very popular practices as well and do not call for stubble to be plowed under. Soil types and climate pay a huge role into the agricultural practices in an area but the zero till fields I see in my line of work are rough as all hell because they do not plow them as minimal tillage is believed to save nutrients and the top soil.They use small discs or narrow points to open the soil for the seed. Very often soybeans are direct seeded into corn stubble, making it an absolute bitch to harvest if the crop is downed. But again I don't have a lot to do with the corn industry specifically so I can't speak to all corn production and stubble management techniques.
The trouble occurs when they become legacy handouts.
I'm not denying that there's a lot of abuse of gov't subsidies.
I guess asking gov't to judiciously apply subsidies for new business is about as useless as asking gov't to get rid of all subsidies.
Absolutely hate the idea of taxing the shit out of gasoline. I'm relatively efficient when it comes to my vehicles. why should I be penalized along with all the rest because I actually consider mpg when buying a car? tax the shit out of low mpg vehicles. you want to go vroom, vroom or pretend that you need a SUV to drive your kid to soccer? fine by me. but you pay a fee for it. If you drive an efficient vehicle, you should be rewarded, or at least not pay a penalty.
A gasoline tax on all impacts people differentially and is much more transparent. As well as hits out at the fact that even efficient MPG cars have some net negative impact that are much worse than some people think (i.e., driving more, carpooling less).
It actually encourages rent-seeking (trying to get subsidies for your project, and then keep the subsidies) much more.
At the very least we could start by returning the gas tax to the level it was 20 years ago. Inflation erodes the tax every year; as a result it has functionaly been reduced 40% since 1993. That's why our roads and bridges are falling apart - the gas tax is the primary source of funds for them and we've been starving them. It's no way to run a road system in a modern economy.
Beyond that, the current tax in no way reflects the environmental damage caused by burning gasoline, nor the economic damage and security risks to the country due to reliance on a fuel that must be imported in large quantities.
Anyway, you're already currently paying in income taxes to fund subsidies that have been completely ineffecive in dealing with out transportation energy problems. Instead, I propose a tax that would actually attack the problem head on.
Yeah - a 30 year peak that still didn't reach the level of the original tax rate.
BTW - note that 2 of the 3 increases shown on the chart above were enacted by that famous champion of higher taxes -- Ronald Reagan.
I'm even fine with a floating rate that would increase the tax quarterly or annually if the Lundberg survey showed a price decline.
But with all the consumer is facing these days I think an increase would do more harm than good.
If you wanted to mitigate some of the lower end impacts of the gas tax, you can marginally increase the minimum wage or even expand the phase in portion of the EITC.
We already know that, even for those who are environmentally conscious, there is a severe underpricing, in terms of the gas tax, for the harm dome by drivers.
And you are being taxed comensurate with your usage; same rate for everyone. You use less and thus pay less. Those driving inefficient vehicles get hit harder. And some of those people have needs that require larger, less efficient vehicles. Hitting them even harder than the higher hit they would get would be overkill.