Get ready for E15. The push is real...

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: jhellwig


That was going to happen regardless of ethanol. It was happening long before the ethanol boom. Anytime grain prices skyrocket land is pushed into production. Ethanol is a small portion of corn demand to begin with.

And the pheasant population has been increasing in the last 15 years.

On top of all that over the last 10 years companies that produced ethanol as a byproduct of corn syrup production actually cut ethanol production due to corn syrup demand.
Around 40% doesn't sound like "small portion of corn demand" to me. HFCS is another product that I have no use for. I'm sure lobbyists are working on a mandate there too.
Nice job using a number directly from a google search from an article that cites no sources and has a disclaimer at the bottom that it is an opinion.
LOL is all I can say. You guys don't even try to form coherent arguments.

This from Iowa State lists actual and projections from 36.6% to 43.1 depending on year. If that's not "around 40%" I don't know what is. I'm sure there's more updated info available but I'm not looking for them. Let you guys wouldn't read them if they were posted. I doubt you click on this one.
https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/outlook/cornbalancesheet.pdf

 

[turtlevette]

Lots of things are "mandated" some you people agree with, some you don't. The mandate doesn't bother me a bit.

The slow increase in bio fuel percentage is part of an energy policy designed to prevent oil price and demand problems in the future.

Do you folks agree with having the oil storage in Louisiana? This is also part of a strategy to prevent mayhem in the oil markets.

Saudi and Russia manipulate the oil market. Shall we have no counter to that?

 

[nap]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Wow, so to get 134 gallon equivalent energy units of ethanol, you need to burn 100 gallon equivalents of something else.

Yes for 134 units of usable energy you actually need to burn 234 total units of energy. In EPA parlance it’s called “energy conserving”.

Also, from an imports and carbon dioxide perspective, we can now augment oil imports energy by 34%, through emitting 234% of the carbon dioxide, as compared to not augmenting said imports via ethanol production.

 

[Linctex]

Originally Posted By: hatt
The farmers have no control. They're basically slaves having to buy more land, bigger equipment, and fancy chemicals and seed to play in the game. The big multinationals run this show.


sad....... but very very very true...

 

[jhellwig]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: jhellwig


That was going to happen regardless of ethanol. It was happening long before the ethanol boom. Anytime grain prices skyrocket land is pushed into production. Ethanol is a small portion of corn demand to begin with.

And the pheasant population has been increasing in the last 15 years.

On top of all that over the last 10 years companies that produced ethanol as a byproduct of corn syrup production actually cut ethanol production due to corn syrup demand.
Around 40% doesn't sound like "small portion of corn demand" to me. HFCS is another product that I have no use for. I'm sure lobbyists are working on a mandate there too.
Nice job using a number directly from a google search from an article that cites no sources and has a disclaimer at the bottom that it is an opinion.
LOL is all I can say. You guys don't even try to form coherent arguments.

This from Iowa State lists actual and projections from 36.6% to 43.1 depending on year. If that's not "around 40%" I don't know what is. I'm sure there's more updated info available but I'm not looking for them. Let you guys wouldn't read them if they were posted. I doubt you click on this one.
https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/outlook/cornbalancesheet.pdf


Never mind.....

 

[turtlevette]

I keep hearing opinions about how land should be farmed. Isn't that the decision of the land owner?

Preventing someone from planting a crop because you don't like how the harvest will be utilized is your own kind of "mandate"

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I keep hearing opinions about how land should be farmed. Isn't that the decision of the land owner?

Preventing someone from planting a crop because you don't like how the harvest will be utilized is your own kind of "mandate"

What did you hear that? I haven't seen anyone say farmers should be forced to not farm their land.

 

[Shannow]

That's the next part of the turtle dance...note still no evidence of 50 times fracking etc.

 

[turtlevette]

Your side doesn't want any "mandates" ie they don't want to force people to do anything they don't want to do. But they don't have a problem telling farmers they can't grow corn for "non food purposes".

Where is free market in all that rhetoric?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Your side doesn't want any "mandates" ie they don't want to force people to do anything they don't want to do. But they don't have a problem telling farmers they can't grow corn for "non food purposes"


OK, your claim, show us THAT evidence...of your claim.

The general statement is that ethanol, if a viable fuel should stand on it's own two feet, not through mandates, subsidies, or tax breaks.

How is THAT telling anyone what to do ?

If they want to grow it, sell it, and someone wants to buy it and turn it into ethanol for fuel...have at it.

Now where's your evidence to your statement as to what people are saying ? ... in this thread...

(Oh, and the 50 times fracking thing too would help)

 

[turtlevette]

You don't want any "mandates" or burdensome laws unless it benefits you in some way. Then you're a fan of regulation.

A vague number "millions of acre's" was thrown out. Its at least 50 times that vague number. Probably many hundreds. Just about everything gets fracked here unless state law prohibits it.

The ethanol subject brings out all the people who think their oil production based job will be threatened. Nothing else explains all the strong feelings and hate.

 

[hatt]

Millions of acres was an accurate statement. Tens of millions is also accurate if I wanted to use it. Your statement was simply made up nonsense.

Why would anyone in the oil business be worried about ethanol? It takes a lot of oil to make ethanol. Then you mix it on gas to get less mpgs. Business is booming.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Why would anyone in the oil business be worried about ethanol? It takes a lot of oil to make ethanol. Then you mix it on gas to get less mpgs. Business is booming.

I don't get it then. Maybe you can shed some light.

I know shannow hates wind and solar because it hurts his coal power plant and he's worried about job security

Things almost always break down to basic human emotions.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I don't get it then. Maybe you can shed some light.

I know shannow hates wind and solar because it hurts his coal power plant and he's worried about job security

hates...that's the word that you apply to discredit my discussion every time.
It's typical of your tribe to use that word.

When I bring up frequency control, governor response, system inertia, capacity factor...all words in an industry that you claim to be a professional in...you resort to "hate" every time...unless you are stating that I have no qualifications, which you've done on a couple of occasions.

While you throw out numbers as facts...and have not once resorted to backing them up with anything except ad hominem.

 

[turtlevette]

It sure feels like hate. I guess you guys are just very passionate to prove progressive technology is not needed nor "wanted" for the future.

Still have to wonder why all the effort to do this if the technology is not viable. Why all the jumping up and down, yelling, screaming and crying? Its not fair, its not fair you keep saying.

Its not your qualifications that are a problem. Its just that you've been in management too long.

 

[hatt]

LOL. Viable tech doesn't need laws and regulations and taxpayer money requiring its use. There are billions of reasons to force immature or bad tech on the public.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: hatt
LOL. Viable tech doesn't need laws and regulations and taxpayer money requiring its use. There are billions of reasons to force immature or bad tech on the public.


When gas hits 5 bucks a gallon it'll take off. As will new drilling, and WTI crude and a lot of that needs to be trucked. Just when things get moving, market manipulators will have the price of crude fall off a cliff again bankrupting drillers, ethanol plants and existing producers. An energy policy would help but that's law and regulation.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: hatt
LOL. Viable tech doesn't need laws and regulations and taxpayer money requiring its use. There are billions of reasons to force immature or bad tech on the public.


When gas hits 5 bucks a gallon it'll take off. As will new drilling, and WTI crude and a lot of that needs to be trucked. Just when things get moving, market manipulators will have the price of crude fall off a cliff again bankrupting drillers, ethanol plants and existing producers. An energy policy would help but that's law and regulation.

How will $5 gas make it take off? Ethanol, as we know it, is tied to the price of petroleum.

 

[nap]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Nothing else explains all the strong feelings[...]

...until you have to replace a snowblower carburetor. Preferably at -15C after a snow storm. Oh, you didn't have a spare one? Shovel time baby, all 20" of the white, iced stuff. Best way to start your day.

http://blog.briggsandstratton.com/avoid-unnecessary-snow-blower-repair-ethanol-damage/

The protest is not against E-15 existing. It is against E-0 being discontinued.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
yet another dept of Agriculture report.....

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/energy_balance_of_corn_ethanol.pdf

Here is a portion from the conclusion of this report.....

Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34 percent energy gain


Wow, so to get 134 gallon equivalent energy units of ethanol, you need to burn 100 gallon equivalents of something else.

That's bordering on digging holes and filling them in, and demonstrative of absolute waste of time, effort and energy for a boondoggle.

You surely can't be proud of that...but at least are more honest than claiming that the ratio is "4"...i.e. 400 gallon equivalents for the 100 gallons burned.

As to the other claim of no mandate...
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/RFS.html

Quote:
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a federal program that requires transportation fuel sold in the United States to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels.


regardless of the "look over there, a bunny"...it's a mandate.


But petroleum based fuels take energy to produce also. Drilling, pumping transporting, refining, transporting, etc. You act as if they don't have the same problem. The net result of all the associated energy costs to produce ethanol is less than the energy output of the ethanol itself.

For every 1 unit of energy needed to produce the finished product of ethanol, the ethanol delivers 1.34 units of energy back. That is a 34% net gain in energy output vs. energy input. Not sure how some folks have trouble with that and come up with goofy stuff like 234 units of energy to produce 134 units of energy.

And how much feed stock is available after refining a barrel of crude? None. How much feed stock is available from a bushel of corn after ethanol production? About 17-18 lb of high protein feed stock. And also that one bushel of corn provided corn oil to the biodiesel plant, polymers for plastics production, even a component of spark plug insulators production.

Well, ethanol as a part of the entire energy policy of the U.S. is indeed a mandate. That it is your only gasoline option at the pump is not a mandate. At least at the Federal level. If you are not offered any other choice than E10, that is your state that set that policy, not the Feds. Many states offer both ethanol and non ethanol gasoline at the pumps and let their people choose what they want. Here in the heart of ethanol production in the U.S., surrounded by 46 ethanol plants, I can buy ethanol free gasoline at any of a dozen places all within 15 miles of my house. Even closer if I actually lived in town and not 11 miles from the nearest town. Likewise, I have choices of E10, E15, E20, E30, E50, and E85. I love having the smorgasbord of fuel choices and a flex fuel vehicle that can take advantage of all of them. I have a good working average of what each type of fuel delivers for MPG so I can the select what fuel offers the best overall value based on the prevailing price at the pump.