Another Look at Ethanol

Status
Not open for further replies.
We may be ants on an anthill but the fact is we burn fossil fuels at a stupendous rate, equalling about 1/3 of what naturally transitions between the atmosphere and ocean. Not insignificant by any means.

I'm from a different upbringing - my late dad was a well-respected astrophysicist, wrote a ground-breaking paper on cosmic rays in the 1950s, was a contributor to the NASA Voyager missions of the '70s and happen to have presented a few lectures on climate change during retirement. He explained the basics to me and having been exposed to the techniques of science during my seven years at university chasing an engineering degree, I'm entirely confident our scientists are telling it exactly like it is.

In an understated style, scientists describe their findings in words suited for the critical eye of other scientists. It's not neatly marketed and packaged for the general public like a new underarm deodorant. When they say they are 95% sure, you know darn well they are 100% sure but can only reveal the actual statistical confidence level.

As for the Earth's climate changing throughout it's history - sure it did, but that doesn't mean it was good for life forms. Only over many tens of thousands of years has it stabilized sufficiently for life forms to evolve and succeed to what we know today.

It's the greenhouse effect of CO2 and numerous other "greenhouse" gases that are wreaking havoc with the heat balance of the atmosphere. That in turn warms and increases the equilibrium levels of CO2 in the ocean, allowing more CO2 in the atmosphere and continuing the cycle. Stuff in the ground that slowly absorbed CO2 over a hundred-million years has been mined and turned back into CO2 gas in a relative instant. And it's not just the fault of fossil fuels either, it's methane from cows and other rotting vegetation and lack of CO2 absorption due to deforestation. Unfortunately, all mostly due to stuff humans have done to survive and progress.

You might suggest this has happened before due to natural events such as hugh comets hitting the Earth - sure it has, and 10 thousand years later the climate settled down again. Are you willing to wait it out?

For myself, the amazing thing is that the predictions are appearing to becoming true in my lifetime, something I didn't expect. The polar vortex and floods in the UK are all part of the same weather disturbance due to arctic warming, to say nothing of dozens of other unusual weather events. But, it's not statistically significant to scientists until we have seen 30 years of similar data. Are you good with waiting for the final answer, even though anyone with a common sense of self-preservation would run for cover?

You can say "climate change is good for us." It might be ... where I live we will get Mediterranean-like grape-growing weather with occasional droughts. Sounds great! Are you happy with the predictions pertaining to the part of the world where you and your offspring live? One thing for sure, we will all get far more variable weather than we have ever seen before.

After relying on science to bring us the computer to our desks to easily express our views, I have to wonder if people now don't want to believe the science because they think their "toys" will be taken away. Yeah, I don't want to give up my car either but really the true power behind denial comes entirely from oil money, not from any actual "truth." If you are part of that, good luck to you but I'll bet most of you are not.

We all know that like the frog in the slowly-warming water that doesn't realized he's being boiled, nothing will even get done about this. Politicians are only interested in their own careers and yet we blindly vote them in for the short term, then rely on them to guide us for the long term. All we can really do is adapt and that means more conflict and war as we battle over the one resource that is the most difficult to transport, that is - water.
 
Too true, since we started this experiment (one in which we are actually living inside the test-tube), we humans, have through our actions materially altered the atmospheric composition of gasses, to a measurable degree.

That fact is inescapable, and not applicable to any other action of any other species or event in history.

When it comes to consequence I'm a partial fence sitter, however believe that we should have a prudent use of finite resources, and if it stays off something big, then all the better.

When the tractors and farm equipment are all run on E100, then I'll believe that it's part of a "solution".
 
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
We may be ants on an anthill but the fact is we burn fossil fuels at a stupendous rate, equalling about 1/3 of what naturally transitions between the atmosphere and ocean. Not insignificant by any means.

I'm from a different upbringing - my late dad was a well-respected astrophysicist, wrote a ground-breaking paper on cosmic rays in the 1950s, was a contributor to the NASA Voyager missions of the '70s and happen to have presented a few lectures on climate change during retirement. He explained the basics to me and having been exposed to the techniques of science during my seven years at university chasing an engineering degree, I'm entirely confident our scientists are telling it exactly like it is.

In an understated style, scientists describe their findings in words suited for the critical eye of other scientists. It's not neatly marketed and packaged for the general public like a new underarm deodorant. When they say they are 95% sure, you know darn well they are 100% sure but can only reveal the actual statistical confidence level.

As for the Earth's climate changing throughout it's history - sure it did, but that doesn't mean it was good for life forms. Only over many tens of thousands of years has it stabilized sufficiently for life forms to evolve and succeed to what we know today.

It's the greenhouse effect of CO2 and numerous other "greenhouse" gases that are wreaking havoc with the heat balance of the atmosphere. That in turn warms and increases the equilibrium levels of CO2 in the ocean, allowing more CO2 in the atmosphere and continuing the cycle. Stuff in the ground that slowly absorbed CO2 over a hundred-million years has been mined and turned back into CO2 gas in a relative instant. And it's not just the fault of fossil fuels either, it's methane from cows and other rotting vegetation and lack of CO2 absorption due to deforestation. Unfortunately, all mostly due to stuff humans have done to survive and progress.

You might suggest this has happened before due to natural events such as hugh comets hitting the Earth - sure it has, and 10 thousand years later the climate settled down again. Are you willing to wait it out?

For myself, the amazing thing is that the predictions are appearing to becoming true in my lifetime, something I didn't expect. The polar vortex and floods in the UK are all part of the same weather disturbance due to arctic warming, to say nothing of dozens of other unusual weather events. But, it's not statistically significant to scientists until we have seen 30 years of similar data. Are you good with waiting for the final answer, even though anyone with a common sense of self-preservation would run for cover?

You can say "climate change is good for us." It might be ... where I live we will get Mediterranean-like grape-growing weather with occasional droughts. Sounds great! Are you happy with the predictions pertaining to the part of the world where you and your offspring live? One thing for sure, we will all get far more variable weather than we have ever seen before.

After relying on science to bring us the computer to our desks to easily express our views, I have to wonder if people now don't want to believe the science because they think their "toys" will be taken away. Yeah, I don't want to give up my car either but really the true power behind denial comes entirely from oil money, not from any actual "truth." If you are part of that, good luck to you but I'll bet most of you are not.

We all know that like the frog in the slowly-warming water that doesn't realized he's being boiled, nothing will even get done about this. Politicians are only interested in their own careers and yet we blindly vote them in for the short term, then rely on them to guide us for the long term. All we can really do is adapt and that means more conflict and war as we battle over the one resource that is the most difficult to transport, that is - water.


Best post I've ever read on BITOG.
 
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: hatt
Not to mention the research that indicate that if there were to actually be global warming, it would be good for us. Too bad we appear to be going into a cooling period. Something about a huge fireball somewhere doing something. Don't know how that'd have any effect on the Earth.


Of course, absolutely none of the above is actually true, but carry on...

Which part? The Sun having an effect on Earth's climate? Warm periods good for humans?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6017/578.abstract
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
 
Last edited:
Warm periods good for humans? Maybe when we were nomadic tribes. Turn the Midwest into deserts and see how good for humans it is.
 
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Warm periods good for humans? Maybe when we were nomadic tribes. Turn the Midwest into deserts and see how good for humans it is.

Why would the Midwest turn to desert? Is the warming going to cause a new mountain range to form cutting off moisture to the region? Temperature has no bearing on whether a place is a desert or not. Warmer temp will absolutely open up additional area that were previously to cold to agriculture.
 
No it shifts the jet stream north. The corn belt in the Midwest depends on summer thunderstorms that ride on the south edge of the jet stream.
 
Steve part of the reason I injected the climate change issue is the democrats seem to be committed to protecting the environment and this program does nothing but hurt the environment. I think this angle has the best chance to get this mandate thrown out. The other being corn lobbyist like to blame all their criticism on big oil and the UN has nothing to do with big oil.
 
Ethanol has devolved into a massive job and farm subsidy without directly coming from the Agriculture Department.

Each plant also uses over a million gallons a day of water. They were going to put one up in my county but this nixed that idea. Too many farmers and others depend on a stable water table.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Warm periods good for humans? Maybe when we were nomadic tribes. Turn the Midwest into deserts and see how good for humans it is.

Why would the Midwest turn to desert? Is the warming going to cause a new mountain range to form cutting off moisture to the region? Temperature has no bearing on whether a place is a desert or not. Warmer temp will absolutely open up additional area that were previously to cold to agriculture.


Here is where the most food is grown in the world. Well not actually food anymore.
frown.gif


grawk-earth-photosynthesis-crop-660x410.jpg


Fluorescence Reveals the Incredible Productivity of America’s Corn Belt
 
Actually, if you check in with many geologists, we are in a relative cool phase of planetary history. There have been many occurrences of far warmer temps globally than anything we are even close to. And a news flash, and you didn't hear it here first.... ever since the last ice age we have been warming. I know that may shock some folks.

Problem is, no one is defining what is "normal". And the reason is, because no one really knows. Much of this hoopla over greenhouse gasses and climate change stuff is a recent phenomenon that is not based on a starting point of what is normal. No one even takes time to consider that the climate we are in is in the abnormal category and the planet if slowly changing to a more normal cycle. It is purely stupid to base an idea on a blip in time instead of the whole picture. Many here would concede that a single oil sample does not show a trend line. Well, a couple of hundred years of humans even giving a rip about the climate is about the same thing.

Given that equatorial fauna has been shown to have grown at all locations on the planet at one time, including the polar regions, I think we have a long way to go. Even most geologists agree that there have been several times in earth history when the so-called greenhouse gasses were far higher than they are now, and that they really didn't have that great of an effect in the climate.
 
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Ethanol has devolved into a massive job and farm subsidy without directly coming from the Agriculture Department.

Each plant also uses over a million gallons a day of water. They were going to put one up in my county but this nixed that idea. Too many farmers and others depend on a stable water table.


Ok.... I'll bite. I live within 3 hrs driving of over 42 ethanol plants. I have yet to see any of them use 1 million gallons of water a day. Well, maybe the monster Conagra biofuel facility in Blair, NE. But they get their water from the Missouri river, and that wiped out a lot of folks a couple of years ago with massive flooding. And why is it then, many farmers still install drainage tile into their cropland to keep the water table at a more moderate level if water is such a short commodity on crop land? This is done in the vast majority of the corn belt, with special emphasis on MN, IA, IL, IN, OH, and MI which are the heaviest producers of corn though there is not one major ag state that doesn't have drainage tile installed. Been doing that for over 100 years and it hasn't slowed one bit. I have passed several farms recently that have newly installed tile drainage systems. I grew up doing this line of work with my dad. My neighbor just bought out a tile installer operation and he is hurting for enough hours in the day to get all the work done for farmers in my area. No... it is not used for irrigation purposes, it is for removing excess water and keeping the water table from fluctuating. Of all the farmland in the U.S., only about 15% is ever irrigated, and most of that is done by produce farms in the SW part of the country. Very little cropland used for corn production is irrigated, in relation to the total grain production of the U.S. You really need to have a chat with your state university ag extension service office. They can fill you in.

There are no subsidies for ethanol. I will concede there was in the past. But not for the last few years. And farmers have not been paid subsidies for growing corn this century. Subsidies are based on a floor price of $1.79 a bushel. Corn has been above $4 a bushel all this century. And there is a government limit on the amount of ethanol that can be produced from corn... 14 billion gallons per year. Last year, we produced 13.7 billion gallons, so we are at the cap now. Just can't produce any more from corn. That is why we import ethanol from outside the country. The only way we can go now is cellulosic ethanol and ethanol from biomass, neither which is cost effective right now.
 
That is the testimony that the proposed plant gave to the county board about the million gallons a day. It was the main reason they were denied.How do you know what they use unless you can get readings from their meters?

There is a federal EPA mandate to use ethanol in gasoline. it that is not a subsidy I don't know what you call it. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/

As far as field drainage that is to speed up the drainage of water so they can get planted in the spring.

Corn subsidies .... http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn
 
This is like calling a tax credit a subsidy. A subsidy is a direct payment by the government to the entity in question. Government also mandates air bags, impact bumpers, seat belts, etc, etc, etc. So should all those others be thrown under the bus also? After all, isn't this also a "jobs program"? I don't want to pay for a lot of this stuff either.

Now, I deal directly with most of these ethanol plants. I haul feed products from them to feed mills across the midwest. I see almost daily their operation. I don't get my information from magazines and newspaper articles written by people who barely know how to raise a garden, let alone understand the agriculture sector. The limit on corn ethanol production is from the government themselves. And the water use, there are many of these ethanol plants that do not have access to the amounts of water per day that you read. Some do, like a stated. The massive (and I do mean massive) biofuels complex at Blair, NE might actually need the water level you state. But that water is freely available from the Missouri river, which Conagra's demands would not even put a dent in that water flow. I suggest you take a look at the ethanol plants near Galva, IA, Sheldon, IA, New Cambria, MO, Worthington, MN, Claremont, MN, just to name a few. They are not any large source of water, and the local farming interests are not even affected. I have seen these facilities first hand and they do not use the level of water that you claim.

Now, to be fair, there are different methods for making ethanol from corn. The most adapted methods used by the majority of average production ethanol plants use approximately 2.5 gallons of water for each gallon of ethanol produced. The typical ethanol plant will produce ballpark 100 million gallons of ethanol per year. That equates to just under 7000 gallons of water per day on a 365 cycle. The Claremont facility I mentioned publishes this information freely. These facilities also eliminate liquid discharge and recycle a large portion of the water they need for production.

The reason for field drainage is only partially due to getting into fields sooner in the spring. But that is mostly handled by intake pipe systems installed along the tile drainage lines. Drain tile is primarily for keeping the water table at a preferred level so that root systems will develop deeper for stronger, healthier plants, which in turn enhances yield potential. High water tables limit root structure growth, then when the drier parts of the year occur, the plants do not have the deep root systems to survive the drier parts of the growing season. Also, the deeper root systems are less likely to be detrimentally affected by root rot and various pests. Like I stated, I grew up doing this stuff. My dad was a consultant to Iowa State University regarding the methods for doing this. He was also a past President of the Iowa Land Improvement Contractors Association. I know the topic very intimately. Plus we were farmers. We know what crops need to grow properly. And drain tile systems are CRITICAL for effective crop production.

On the subsidy issue, not one farm operation in the area I live has received one dime of corn subsidies this century, as non of them have qualified because the corn price has not dropped below the basement price of $1.79 a bushel. I can't speak to contracts that have their own game going on. And crop insurance programs are across the board on all production, regardless the crop in question. It is analogous to the flood insurance program. it pays if the the crop is destroyed by natural weather. That is not a direct subsidy to the farmer in any way. And in your chart, crop insurance programs garnered the largest portion of money. Actual crop price protection garnered barely blip.
 
Ok I see you are part of the ethanol industry so obviously you are partial to it's use.

I don't want it. I live in the middle of the corn belt. I sure don't want E15 because the gasoline use is dropping and along with it the ethanol usage so the only way to comply with the Renewable Fuels Act is to up the concentration of ethanol in gasoline. I do not want half my sales tax money being refunded to the station operators who sell E10 in Illinois.

The million gallons a day was what they said they would use. Why would they say that if it were not true? Ask your local ethanol production plants how much water they use.
coffee2.gif
 
Last edited:
What's the reason for the mandate? Replace oil usage right. EROI on corn ethanol is said to be about 1.07. It takes roughly .93 units of fossil fuel energy to get one unit corn ethanol energy. So when we use one unit corn ethanol energy we have actually used 1.93 units of energy. Is this what we call good energy conservation? Five million acres of setaside land put back into crop production is taking a toll on the environment. It's really hard to find one positive for this program. Sure it keeps farmers busy and employs more people, but the money it burdens on the consumer actually hurts the economy more. What business wouldn't do better if the government mandated the purchase of their product. I have yet to see where the true corn ethanol lobbyist are satisfied with the 14 million cap. Most places I have seen they want this cap removed. 50% of the corn crop in the corn belt is going into this program with little or no reduction in our oil usage. How much corn can be allowed to go into this program? Almost every major study talks about the negative effects on food security. The major reason for E15 is to eventually place even a larger burden on the consumer.
 
Tax credits are bought and sold. They are real, and they are just like money. They have the exact same effect as a subsidy or a mandate.

The program should stand on its own. It saves no oil at all, and it costs us all in environmental damages and waste. Not to mention pollution of air and water. The closer you look the less you'll like it, unless you're drinking it...
 
By reducing your fuel mileage 2%-5% it also increase you taxes paid. In Illinois there is a fuel tax and a sales tax on gasoline as well as the federal tax.
 
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
What's the reason for the mandate? Replace oil usage right. EROI on corn ethanol is said to be about 1.07. It takes roughly .93 units of fossil fuel energy to get one unit corn ethanol energy.


If that were true why is ethanol less than the cost of gasoline/diesel?

Many people are math challenged and that really frustrates me. There's really no excuse in this day and age.
 
Turtlvette ethanol is selling at $2.34 and gasoline $3.00, at 2/3 the energy it needs to sell for $2.00 to break even. Very seldom in the past 6 years has it been break even or less. A good example is it cost 20% more to use E85 in a flex vehicle. This program is heavily supported by the government thus hiding a lot of true cost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top