The ethanol scam

[Jay Honeck]

As gas -- and corn -- prices creep ever higher, everyone in my great
State of Iowa is all ablush with talk of riches pouring in, thanks to
ethanol production. They can barely contain their glee at this
remarkable turn of economic fortune. (Remember, just a few years ago
farmers here had one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana
peel...)

Thus, I feel like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills, trying to get a
word in edgewise about the absurdity of it all. Of course, since
subsidized ethanol production is the single greatest farm subsidy
program in US history -- and since Iowa remains largely an
agricultural society -- facing facts is not a popular passtime here.

But it must be done, or our country is being led down the primrose
path to perdition. The fact remains that converting corn into
ethanol, for the purpose of fueling automobiles, is simply absurd.

Here is a quote that sums it up nicely, IMHO:

"Overall (farming, distillation), it takes 129,600 BTU to produce a
gallon of EtOH (ethanol), but the energy value of a gallon of EtOH is
only 76,000 BTU. In SI units [conversions in footnote 3]: it takes
45.7 MJ to produce a kilogram of EtOH, but the energy value of that
kilogram of EtOH is 26.8 MJ."

"There is thus a net energy loss of about 54,000 Btu for every gallon
(18.9 MJ for every kilogram) of EtOH produced. Unlike the old joke
about the tailor who claims he loses money on every suit, but stays in
business by 'making up for it in quantity', there is no deception
here. It's a losing proposition."

You can read the whole article here:
http://www.energyadvocate.com/etohscam.htm

Write your Congress Critters. The politicians are leading us down
this path for purely political purposes, and it's up to us to stop it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gatt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> As gas -- and corn -- prices creep ever higher, everyone in my great
> State of Iowa is all ablush with talk of riches pouring in, thanks to
> ethanol production. They can barely contain their glee at this
> remarkable turn of economic fortune. (Remember, just a few years ago
> farmers here had one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana
> peel...)

Are they still subsidized? If (if) they're making money growing and selling
corn such that taxpayers don't have to subsidize their farms it seems like
there's
a general economic benefit in there.

Still doesn't solve the oil problem. Brazil uses sugarcane, which the US
could do on a smaller scale, but CNN is correct in that we can't grow enough
corn to meet our own needs.

-c

[RomeoMike]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> "Overall (farming, distillation), it takes 129,600 BTU to produce a
> gallon of EtOH (ethanol), but the energy value of a gallon of EtOH is
> only 76,000 BTU. In SI units [conversions in footnote 3]: it takes
> 45.7 MJ to produce a kilogram of EtOH, but the energy value of that
> kilogram of EtOH is 26.8 MJ."

Does anyone know how much energy it takes to pump crude out of the
ground, ship it to a refinery, and the refine it to make a gallon of
gas? I don't, just asking for a comparison.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:31:40 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote in om>:

>The fact remains that converting corn into
>ethanol, for the purpose of fueling automobiles, is simply absurd.
>
>Here is a quote that sums it up nicely, IMHO:
>
>"Overall (farming, distillation), it takes 129,600 BTU to produce a
>gallon of EtOH (ethanol), but the energy value of a gallon of EtOH is
>only 76,000 BTU. In SI units [conversions in footnote 3]: it takes
>45.7 MJ to produce a kilogram of EtOH, but the energy value of that
>kilogram of EtOH is 26.8 MJ."
>
>"There is thus a net energy loss of about 54,000 Btu for every gallon
>(18.9 MJ for every kilogram) of EtOH produced. Unlike the old joke
>about the tailor who claims he loses money on every suit, but stays in
>business by 'making up for it in quantity', there is no deception
>here. It's a losing proposition."
>
>You can read the whole article here:
>http://www.energyadvocate.com/etohscam.htm

While I agree with you about the gasohol boondoggle, consider that the
energy necessary to distil the ethanol needn't be petroleum based.

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
"Gatt" > wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > As gas -- and corn -- prices creep ever higher, everyone in my great
> > State of Iowa is all ablush with talk of riches pouring in, thanks to
> > ethanol production. They can barely contain their glee at this
> > remarkable turn of economic fortune. (Remember, just a few years ago
> > farmers here had one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana
> > peel...)
>
> Are they still subsidized? If (if) they're making money growing and selling
> corn such that taxpayers don't have to subsidize their farms it seems like
> there's
> a general economic benefit in there.
>
> Still doesn't solve the oil problem. Brazil uses sugarcane, which the US
> could do on a smaller scale, but CNN is correct in that we can't grow enough
> corn to meet our own needs.

Sugar cane has a higher sugar (and therefore energy) content than corn.
Approximately 7-10 times the energy content of corn.
A WSJ article this week reported that a US university has modified a
grass that can be broken down without the use of acids and has an energy
content 7 times greater than corn.
Just think, everyone could plant their yards with this grass, mow and
bag the clippings, have them picked up curbside and taken to the
processing plant. Corn prices drop back down to food levels and more
ethanol gets produced from our lawns.

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

Couldn't agree with you more, and that's the argument I've been touting
since the gobment started subsidizing ethanol plants. And the numbers WILL
get worse. This year's expected corn production will include corn from an
ADDITIONAL 14,000,000 acres that was not planted to corn last year. A large
majority of these acres will not be prime ag-land acres. They are acres
that were historically planted to alfalfa, grass, left fallow, and are
mainly not irrigated. They will not produce the yields that the prime land
has, and they will require MORE oil to produce corn to turn into ethanol...
so the efficiency of these additional acres will be less than historical
acres.

The congress critters, as well as the news media, continually confuse the
"energy savings, foreign oil dependency" argument with the environmental
argument. The primary markets for ethanol are the formulated gasoline areas
mandated by the EPA. It has NOTHING to do with reducing any dependency on
foreign oil or any kind of energy conservation.

I heard a joke today about a man walking down the street and upon meeting
his friend he said "Joe?! Is that you? They told me you had died!" Joe
says "nope, can't you see for yourself? I'm alive and well!" And Joe's
friend refuses to listen retorts back with "Nope, you just have to be dead,
because the guy that told me runs the funeral home, he's much more of an
expert on dead people than you."

Chris Matthews has a self promoting commercial on MSNBC where they cut to a
snip of him saying "Absolute BS, does anybody check these politicians
anymore?!"

Ethanol vs. foreign oil dependency... not even a fight... not even close to
an argument.... just a talking point pushed onto the American public by
politicians.

Jim
Farmer of several thousand acres of corn.

[Gatt]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...

> Just think, everyone could plant their yards with this grass, mow and
> bag the clippings, have them picked up curbside and taken to the
> processing plant.

That would be huge. Could probably get a lot more citizens to sign on if we
reactivated the term "Victory Garden."

I wonder how much lawnmower fuel I could produce from my own grass compost.
If every lawnmower-operating family or business did that, it really would be
substantial.

-c

[AES]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> "There is thus a net energy loss of about 54,000 Btu for every gallon
> (18.9 MJ for every kilogram) of EtOH produced. Unlike the old joke
> about the tailor who claims he loses money on every suit, but stays in
> business by 'making up for it in quantity', there is no deception
> here. It's a losing proposition."
>
> You can read the whole article here:
> http://www.energyadvocate.com/etohscam.htm
>
> Write your Congress Critters. The politicians are leading us down
> this path for purely political purposes, and it's up to us to stop it.
> --
> Jay Honeck

As a reality-based rather than faith-based individual myself, I'm
genuinely delighted to have you post this, Jay. Agrees exactly with
what I hear from scientific colleagues. But just who are the villains
here?

* Farm-subsidy-addicted Midwest voters?

* The politicians they elect?

* Big corporate firms like ADM, who'll gladly accept (and defend)
similar subsidies, even while knowing full well that they're
absolutely undeserved, and while spouting free market rhetoric in
all directions?

* The politicians they bribe?

* The Bush/Cheney administration, with its near-endless record of
suppressing scientific reality in any and every area where they
find the facts inconvenient?

* The voters who elected them?

Lots of villains around -- not all of them politicians

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"john smith" wrote:

> Just think, everyone could plant their yards with this grass, mow and
> bag the clippings, have them picked up curbside and taken to the
> processing plant. Corn prices drop back down to food levels and more
> ethanol gets produced from our lawns.

That sounds like a terrific idea, if you could get folks over their
compulsion to have to have a manicured lawn.

How high does it grow? How many times a year would you cut the stuff? I cut
my lawn about 14 times/year. Reducing that to once or twice would sell me on
the idea!

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

Just to put your subsidy comments in proper perspective, last year the grand
total of our government program receipts amounted to less than 0.5% of our
total farm income. 100% of that amount was from the corn program and for
our operation it is the monetary maximum that any single entity can receive.
It's also less than 4% of our non-officer/owner wages. And it's less than
18% of our fuel bill. It's not a lot of money and we receive the maximum.
It might buy a fancy pickup truck, but it sure wouldn't swing my vote.

I've never advocated farm subsidies. For those who depend on them, they
produce a false economy that can cause them to spend and expand during
markets when they should be contracting and conserving. In recent years the
cash payments from most programs have been drastically cut in favor of low
interest loans and crop insurance premium programs. Have a building blow
down? Don't have insurance? They'll give you a low interest loan. (why
didn't you have insurance on your building?) Heavily financed and your bank
demands crop insurance? They'll help you with the insurance premium BUT be
warned, you'll have to insure ALL your crops... and good luck trying to
collect if you have a disaster. huge $ Nowadays, if you're dependent upon
any kind of farm subsidy, you're probably farming off your credit cards and
aren't long for the farming world anyway.

I understand that the subsidy's to the ethanol plants for construction and
initial operation are all but over. They'll get a real welcoming into the
real world soon.

Jim



"AES" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> > "There is thus a net energy loss of about 54,000 Btu for every gallon
> > (18.9 MJ for every kilogram) of EtOH produced. Unlike the old joke
> > about the tailor who claims he loses money on every suit, but stays in
> > business by 'making up for it in quantity', there is no deception
> > here. It's a losing proposition."
> >
> > You can read the whole article here:
> > http://www.energyadvocate.com/etohscam.htm
> >
> > Write your Congress Critters. The politicians are leading us down
> > this path for purely political purposes, and it's up to us to stop it.
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
>
> As a reality-based rather than faith-based individual myself, I'm
> genuinely delighted to have you post this, Jay. Agrees exactly with
> what I hear from scientific colleagues. But just who are the villains
> here?
>
> * Farm-subsidy-addicted Midwest voters?
>
> * The politicians they elect?
>
> * Big corporate firms like ADM, who'll gladly accept (and defend)
> similar subsidies, even while knowing full well that they're
> absolutely undeserved, and while spouting free market rhetoric in
> all directions?
>
> * The politicians they bribe?
>
> * The Bush/Cheney administration, with its near-endless record of
> suppressing scientific reality in any and every area where they
> find the facts inconvenient?
>
> * The voters who elected them?
>
> Lots of villains around -- not all of them politicians

[Gig 601XL Builder]

AES wrote:

> As a reality-based rather than faith-based individual myself, I'm
> genuinely delighted to have you post this, Jay. Agrees exactly with
> what I hear from scientific colleagues. But just who are the villains
> here?
>
> * Farm-subsidy-addicted Midwest voters?
>
> * The politicians they elect?
>
> * Big corporate firms like ADM, who'll gladly accept (and defend)
> similar subsidies, even while knowing full well that they're
> absolutely undeserved, and while spouting free market rhetoric in
> all directions?
>
> * The politicians they bribe?
>
> * The Bush/Cheney administration, with its near-endless record of
> suppressing scientific reality in any and every area where they
> find the facts inconvenient?
>
> * The voters who elected them?
>
> Lots of villains around -- not all of them politicians

Yes to all including Bush/Cheney but not for the reason you list. I only
blame them for not shouting from the roof tops how stupid the corn for fuel
plan is.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:


> But it must be done, or our country is being led down the primrose
> path to perdition. The fact remains that converting corn into
> ethanol, for the purpose of fueling automobiles, is simply absurd.

Oh, man, have you pushed my hot button!

If you were looking for one example that sums up practically everything
that's wrong with U. S. politics and government, you couldn't find a better
one than corn-ohol subsidies.

Most Americans are getting ROBBED by this scam, while a few big farmers and
Ag Corp's are getting rich.

Not only are we getting our money stolen directly by the gov't giveaways, but
the diversion of corn to etanol and land to corn production has driven up the
price of other crops, especially livestock feeds. This is producing snowball
effects in all sorts of commodity pricing. Have you checked the current cost
of a gallon of milk vs. a couple of years ago?

This country has serious energy problems, but we're not electing leadership
with the gumption to do anything real about solving them. Write your
congress people and *demand* an end to corn ethanol subsidies. They won't do
anything unless we push them.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:

politicians
>
> Yes to all including Bush/Cheney but not for the reason you list. I only
> blame them for not shouting from the roof tops how stupid the corn for fuel
> plan is.


Why should they?

If I were an oil man, I'd *love* the corn ethanol scam for two reasons: it
will never provide a viable supplement to the nation's energy suppy, and it
may end up giving the whole biofuel idea a bad name.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
AES > wrote:

> In article om>,
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> > "There is thus a net energy loss of about 54,000 Btu for every gallon
> > (18.9 MJ for every kilogram) of EtOH produced. Unlike the old joke
> > about the tailor who claims he loses money on every suit, but stays in
> > business by 'making up for it in quantity', there is no deception
> > here. It's a losing proposition."
> >
> > You can read the whole article here:
> > http://www.energyadvocate.com/etohscam.htm
> >
> > Write your Congress Critters. The politicians are leading us down
> > this path for purely political purposes, and it's up to us to stop it.
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
>
> As a reality-based rather than faith-based individual myself, I'm
> genuinely delighted to have you post this, Jay. Agrees exactly with
> what I hear from scientific colleagues. But just who are the villains
> here?
>
> * Farm-subsidy-addicted Midwest voters?
>
> * The politicians they elect?
>
> * Big corporate firms like ADM, who'll gladly accept (and defend)
> similar subsidies, even while knowing full well that they're
> absolutely undeserved, and while spouting free market rhetoric in
> all directions?
>
> * The politicians they bribe?
>
> * The Bush/Cheney administration, with its near-endless record of
> suppressing scientific reality in any and every area where they
> find the facts inconvenient?
>
> * The voters who elected them?
>
> Lots of villains around -- not all of them politicians

I am sure that all of the above should be on the list of "usual
suspects" -- but -- you forgot the environmentalist crowd, who, for
years have sought ways to cripple our economy and way of life. The old
leftists, who lost their cause when communism went TU, found a ready
home in the environmental movement. Much of the "climate change"
"science" is hokum and poorly-devised models, resulting in
Garbage-garbage out.

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

Never fear Dan,
We actually reduced our corn acres this year in favor of vegetable contracts
(green beans, sweet corn, peas) but it is a result of the high corn prices.
For the first time in a long time the vegetable processors were forced to
raise their prices to compete for acres that would be planted to corn. So
it made the vegetable contracts profitable... so far... the biggest problem
now is the increased input costs as a result of the corn/ethanol deal....
Fertilizer prices are up across the board 30% since December and that's IF
you can find it. We have 4 local suppliers and each of them run out of
product at least weekly. Some of this is due to foreign demand, but a lot
of it is due to the fact that corn requires more fertilizer than soybeans or
wheat, both of which have had acreage reductions this year.

The biggest fat cats are the large independently owned Ag organizations that
own farm land and actually farm it (so they can produce their own corn),
sell fertilizer ( so they can buy at wholesale prices to use on the corn
that they grow), and own an ethanol plant that is still currently building
or expanding an ethanol plant (still receiving govt subsidies), located on a
rail line (cheap freight in and out and non dependent upon local corn
supply/demand).

Jim

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
>
> > But it must be done, or our country is being led down the primrose
> > path to perdition. The fact remains that converting corn into
> > ethanol, for the purpose of fueling automobiles, is simply absurd.
>
> Oh, man, have you pushed my hot button!
>
> If you were looking for one example that sums up practically everything
> that's wrong with U. S. politics and government, you couldn't find a
better
> one than corn-ohol subsidies.
>
> Most Americans are getting ROBBED by this scam, while a few big farmers
and
> Ag Corp's are getting rich.
>
> Not only are we getting our money stolen directly by the gov't giveaways,
but
> the diversion of corn to etanol and land to corn production has driven up
the
> price of other crops, especially livestock feeds. This is producing
snowball
> effects in all sorts of commodity pricing. Have you checked the current
cost
> of a gallon of milk vs. a couple of years ago?
>
> This country has serious energy problems, but we're not electing
leadership
> with the gumption to do anything real about solving them. Write your
> congress people and *demand* an end to corn ethanol subsidies. They won't
do
> anything unless we push them.
>
> --
> Dan
> T-182T at BFM
>
>

[ktbr]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Write your Congress Critters. The politicians are leading us down
> this path for purely political purposes, and it's up to us to stop it.
> --

They are not interested in logic... they are driven by polls and
elections. They will say and do whatever is expedient in order to
get the glowing admiration of the press and Hollyweird.

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

I recently watched a BBC documentary on U-Tube that stated that nearly word
for word and added that scientists requesting funding for nearly any type of
research had better link it to an environmental issue or it would surely be
denied. They also interviewed scientists who had been shunned from the
scientific community for asking even the most innocent or logical questions
if those questions shed any skepticism on the climate change theory. Of
course, this might lead to hundreds if not thousands of projects loosing
their funding.. so I guess if it's funded, it must be science? and of
course all science is good science? wait.. all funded science is good
science! or would the prefer "only funded science is good science"?
Jim

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote
> I am sure that all of the above should be on the list of "usual
> suspects" -- but -- you forgot the environmentalist crowd, who, for
> years have sought ways to cripple our economy and way of life. The old
> leftists, who lost their cause when communism went TU, found a ready
> home in the environmental movement. Much of the "climate change"
> "science" is hokum and poorly-devised models, resulting in
> Garbage-garbage out.

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

Boy, nothing burns me up more than the press sticking a microphone in front
of an actor walking down the red carpet at a movie premier and asking them
"Who are you supporting in the presidential election?" as if the public is
supposed to blindly follow the politics of an actor just because they may be
a fan of their acting ability???!! WTF?!

Are these the future press room questions?: "I ask you Madam President,
since you received such glowing endorsements from the Hollyweird Elite, when
will you begin your scientologist approved, vegetarian and PETA endorsed eco
tour of Africa so you can illegally adopt a child of your own? Will this be
before your anorexia/alcohol/drug/racial hatred rehabilitation or after
you're released from house arrest from your DUI?"

Jim

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > Write your Congress Critters. The politicians are leading us down
> > this path for purely political purposes, and it's up to us to stop it.
> > --
>
> They are not interested in logic... they are driven by polls and
> elections. They will say and do whatever is expedient in order to
> get the glowing admiration of the press and Hollyweird.
>

[Don Tuite]

Jim could you share with us your take on farm subsidies encouraging
monoculturing and overproduction of corn for high fructose corn syrup
and soy for the protein equivalent?

Ethanol and hydrogen were long ago coopted from the left by big energy
and agribusiness, but there has been a fair amount of press recently
along the lines of "processed foods are the reason our kids are fat
and lazy," along with data on the increase in production of
high-fructose syrup to show a correlation.

Don

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jim Burns wrote:
> Boy, nothing burns me up more than the press sticking a microphone in
> front of an actor walking down the red carpet at a movie premier and
> asking them "Who are you supporting in the presidential election?"
> as if the public is supposed to blindly follow the politics of an
> actor just because they may be a fan of their acting ability???!!
> WTF?!
>
> Are these the future press room questions?: "I ask you Madam
> President, since you received such glowing endorsements from the
> Hollyweird Elite, when will you begin your scientologist approved,
> vegetarian and PETA endorsed eco tour of Africa so you can illegally
> adopt a child of your own? Will this be before your
> anorexia/alcohol/drug/racial hatred rehabilitation or after you're
> released from house arrest from your DUI?"
>

ROFL.... BUT It isn't Hollywood's fault they are stupid and a lot of them
really think what they are saying is good for the planet/country/whatever.
Add they might actually think they know what they are talking about because
they surround themselves with people who tell them that everything they do
is perfect. Much like the Kings of yesteryear.

It isn't the media's fault because they are just reporting what the public
wants to hear and see. Remember, you live in a country where the two biggest
news stories over last year were "who was the father of a sometimes fat,
dead stripper's baby" and that some little slut that you wouldn't let your
son date spent a couple of weeks in jail.

I also hate to admit it but it isn't the fault of the politicians either.
Many are just like those in Hollywood in that they think their crap doesn't
stink because there are so many people around them telling them so. And all
of them have to get reelected so they fall under the same problem the media
has.

Only one group is to blame and that is us, the voters. Until at least 50% +
1 of us pull our collective heads out of our asses we are well and truly
screwed.

[kontiki]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> Only one group is to blame and that is us, the voters. Until at least 50% +
> 1 of us pull our collective heads out of our asses we are well and truly
> screwed.
>

Government is throwing money hand over fist at the effort to dumb down
America en mass so that that doesn't happen. So far its working well.

[Stella Starr]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> You can read the whole article here:
> http://www.energyadvocate.com/etohscam.htm
>
> Write your Congress Critters.

To tell them I rely on nutball loners like this tiny website for my
facts? Not bloody likely.

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

Sorry for being longwinded, but you asked several interesting questions.

I'm in Wisconsin, not much in the way of high fructose corn refineries here.
Corn and soybeans are simple commodities, raw materials for processors.
Traditionally there hasn't been a large "carry-over" of corn from one year
to the next, so to say that there is an overproduction of corn wouldn't be
entirely accurate, but the percentage of production going towards hfcs has
no doubt steadily increased. I believe that cheap corn has lead to higher
profits for food companies vs if they would be forced to use cane or beet
sugar, but I think that they would still create, produce, and market an
equal amount of products because the demand for those products is there to
be met.

Just look at all the soda that is consumed today vs 10 years ago. I think
that if corn was twice it's current price the soda and food companies would
produce and sell just as much junk food as they do now. Just as with a box
of cereal, monetarily the portion of a finished product that can be traced
back to the corn itself, is very very insignificant, even on a large scale.
I believe that the current social structure in America presents the food
companies with a market is ripe to exploit. Relatively inexpensive pre
packaged and prepared foods, adequate expendable income, sedentary
lifestyles, latch key households, fast food, heck even labor laws have
contributed to more and more kids "having nothing to do" but sit and eat.
And they eat what tastes good.

To your question of monoculture, it's simply economics. The subsidies are
not enough to sway a farmer from planting one crop over another. Most
farmers are more dependent on crops that excel in their particular area,
relying on growing conditions, weather, soil types, and potential yields to
make or break them than what little the subsidies contribute. For instance,
we live north far enough that poor yields and annual harvest conditions
prevent us from even considering soybeans, even if there were a 10-20%
subsidy. Corn works for us because we can plant short maturity varieties
that yield well and harvest conditions are still hospitable well into
October. The current corn subsidy we receive is about $20 per acre, we'll
spend twice that much on electricity to pump water to irrigate it. The seed
costs 10 times that amount.

Often times monoculture is the result of crop rotation. That sounds
backwards but when we plant our other crops up to an acreage limit that we
are financially comfortable at, corn has historically been planted as a
"filler". It's a crop that is predictable, grows well, isn't susceptible to
large weather events, and once dried, it can keep almost forever. We're
shipping corn out right now that is 3 years old, we've held it this long
because this is the first time it's been above the cost of production. So,
to keep a healthy rotation, to add humus to the soil, and to control weeds
between other crops, we plant corn. Most of the time we'd rather raise
something else.

Hope this helped.
Jim

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> Jim could you share with us your take on farm subsidies encouraging
> monoculturing and overproduction of corn for high fructose corn syrup
> and soy for the protein equivalent?
>
> Ethanol and hydrogen were long ago coopted from the left by big energy
> and agribusiness, but there has been a fair amount of press recently
> along the lines of "processed foods are the reason our kids are fat
> and lazy," along with data on the increase in production of
> high-fructose syrup to show a correlation.
>
> Don

[bk]

The term of interest is "Energy Return on Energy Invested" (EROEI)
also called "Net Energy". If the value is less than one, then it takes
more energy to create the fuel than the fuel provides. There's a
pretty in-depth article here...(http://www.theoildrum.com/story/
2006/8/2/114144/2387) and a table here ( http://www.eroei.com/eroei/evaluations/net_energy_list/
). I think modern ethanol production is around 1.2, although some
probably gets produced at a value of 0.8.

The higher the EROEI, the better. Oil has a value of somewhere around
8. Most other sources are much lower.

- Bruce

[Don Tuite]

Thanks JIm.

Don

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:08:01 -0500, "Jim Burns"
> wrote:

>Sorry for being longwinded, but you asked several interesting questions.
>
>I'm in Wisconsin, not much in the way of high fructose corn refineries here.
>Corn and soybeans are simple commodities, raw materials for processors.
>Traditionally there hasn't been a large "carry-over" of corn from one year
>to the next, so to say that there is an overproduction of corn wouldn't be
>entirely accurate, but the percentage of production going towards hfcs has
>no doubt steadily increased. I believe that cheap corn has lead to higher
>profits for food companies vs if they would be forced to use cane or beet
>sugar, but I think that they would still create, produce, and market an
>equal amount of products because the demand for those products is there to
>be met.
>
>Just look at all the soda that is consumed today vs 10 years ago. I think
>that if corn was twice it's current price the soda and food companies would
>produce and sell just as much junk food as they do now. Just as with a box
>of cereal, monetarily the portion of a finished product that can be traced
>back to the corn itself, is very very insignificant, even on a large scale.
>I believe that the current social structure in America presents the food
>companies with a market is ripe to exploit. Relatively inexpensive pre
>packaged and prepared foods, adequate expendable income, sedentary
>lifestyles, latch key households, fast food, heck even labor laws have
>contributed to more and more kids "having nothing to do" but sit and eat.
>And they eat what tastes good.
>
>To your question of monoculture, it's simply economics. The subsidies are
>not enough to sway a farmer from planting one crop over another. Most
>farmers are more dependent on crops that excel in their particular area,
>relying on growing conditions, weather, soil types, and potential yields to
>make or break them than what little the subsidies contribute. For instance,
>we live north far enough that poor yields and annual harvest conditions
>prevent us from even considering soybeans, even if there were a 10-20%
>subsidy. Corn works for us because we can plant short maturity varieties
>that yield well and harvest conditions are still hospitable well into
>October. The current corn subsidy we receive is about $20 per acre, we'll
>spend twice that much on electricity to pump water to irrigate it. The seed
>costs 10 times that amount.
>
>Often times monoculture is the result of crop rotation. That sounds
>backwards but when we plant our other crops up to an acreage limit that we
>are financially comfortable at, corn has historically been planted as a
>"filler". It's a crop that is predictable, grows well, isn't susceptible to
>large weather events, and once dried, it can keep almost forever. We're
>shipping corn out right now that is 3 years old, we've held it this long
>because this is the first time it's been above the cost of production. So,
>to keep a healthy rotation, to add humus to the soil, and to control weeds
>between other crops, we plant corn. Most of the time we'd rather raise
>something else.
>
>Hope this helped.
>Jim
>
>"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
>> Jim could you share with us your take on farm subsidies encouraging
>> monoculturing and overproduction of corn for high fructose corn syrup
>> and soy for the protein equivalent?
>>
>> Ethanol and hydrogen were long ago coopted from the left by big energy
>> and agribusiness, but there has been a fair amount of press recently
>> along the lines of "processed foods are the reason our kids are fat
>> and lazy," along with data on the increase in production of
>> high-fructose syrup to show a correlation.
>>
>> Don
>

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote:

>
> Much of the "climate change"
> "science" is hokum and poorly-devised models, resulting in
> Garbage-garbage out.

The hokum is coming from the deniers' side, Orval.

We've had this discussion in r.a.p before. See the "Al Gore's Private Jet"
thread.

If you wish to discuss further, see you at alt.global-warming

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jim Burns" wrote:

>I recently watched a BBC documentary on U-Tube that stated that nearly word
> for word and added that scientists requesting funding for nearly any type
> of
> research had better link it to an environmental issue or it would surely be
> denied. They also interviewed scientists who had been shunned from the
> scientific community for asking even the most innocent or logical questions
> if those questions shed any skepticism on the climate change theory. Of
> course, this might lead to hundreds if not thousands of projects loosing
> their funding.. so I guess if it's funded, it must be science? and of
> course all science is good science? wait.. all funded science is good
> science! or would the prefer "only funded science is good science"?


Check that video again, Jim; you sure it was BBC? Got a link?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Road Dog]

Jim Burns wrote:
> It might buy a fancy pickup truck, but it sure wouldn't swing my vote.

Maybe not yours but a truck is not insignificant. Heck,
the 2000 election was bought with a $600 tax break.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

kontiki wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>> Only one group is to blame and that is us, the voters. Until at
>> least 50% + 1 of us pull our collective heads out of our asses we
>> are well and truly screwed.
>>
>
> Government is throwing money hand over fist at the effort to dumb down
> America en mass so that that doesn't happen. So far its working well.

Again, blame the public not those that are elected by the public. Just like
you shouldn't blame a gun when it shoots someone or a plane when it hits a
building.

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" wrote:
>
> >
> > Much of the "climate change" "science" is hokum and poorly-devised models,
> resulting in
> > Garbage-garbage out.
>
> The hokum is coming from the deniers' side, Orval.

Really ?

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the flimsy
IPCC case.

Graham

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
> Really ?
>
> The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
> flimsy
> IPCC case.
>

I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's the
allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming that
is disputed, and rightly so.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> As gas -- and corn -- prices creep ever higher, everyone in my great
> State of Iowa is all ablush with talk of riches pouring in, thanks to
> ethanol production. They can barely contain their glee at this
> remarkable turn of economic fortune. (Remember, just a few years ago
> farmers here had one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana
> peel...)
>
<...>

> "Overall (farming, distillation), it takes 129,600 BTU to produce a
> gallon of EtOH (ethanol), but the energy value of a gallon of EtOH is
> only 76,000 BTU. In SI units [conversions in footnote 3]: it takes
> 45.7 MJ to produce a kilogram of EtOH, but the energy value of that
> kilogram of EtOH is 26.8 MJ."
>
> "There is thus a net energy loss of about 54,000 Btu for every gallon
> (18.9 MJ for every kilogram) of EtOH produced. Unlike the old joke
> about the tailor who claims he loses money on every suit, but stays in
> business by 'making up for it in quantity', there is no deception
> here. It's a losing proposition."


Figures don't lie, but liers can figgure...

There are a lot of reports out there from various universities, etc. Pick
the results you want, you can find someone to back it up. Some are from less
than unbiased sources...

There is one individual that has written several papers that come up with
the net loss figure. But, as far as I have seen, everyone else comes up with
a net benifit (there may be exceptions, but I haven't run into them).

FWIW: I've found that Prof. John Heywood at M.I.T. is about as level headed
as anyone I've ever worked with when it comes to this sort of thing. He is a
co-author on:

http://lfee.mit.edu/public/Ethanol%20LCA%20LFEE%20Report%20Paper.pdf

And, for some ideas on energy alternatives for automobiles:

http://lfee.mit.edu/public/LFEE_2007-03_RP.pdf (Warning: It's about 150
pages.)


However, like many things, Ethanol is being hyped like there is no tomorrow
because a lot of groups have a real intrest in either:

selling corn
down playing the real problem
pretending they are doing something
etc.

http://lfee.mit.edu/metadot/index.pl?id=2234 for an index of reports.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Jim Burns]

Yep, which I didn't get either.
Jim

"Road Dog" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Jim Burns wrote:
>> It might buy a fancy pickup truck, but it sure wouldn't swing my vote.
>
> Maybe not yours but a truck is not insignificant. Heck,
> the 2000 election was bought with a $600 tax break.

[Eeyore[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
> >
> > Really ?
> >
> > The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
> > flimsy IPCC case.
>
> I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's the
> allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming that
> is disputed, and rightly so.

I should have said anthropogenic global warming of course.

Graham

[Jim Burns]

Yep, it was the BBC... I actually got the link from Jay. It looks like
U-Tube pulled it due to copy right concerns.. see
http://www.wagtv.com/acatalog/progview.asp?ID=11
Jim

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Burns" wrote:
>
>>I recently watched a BBC documentary on U-Tube that stated that nearly
>>word
>> for word and added that scientists requesting funding for nearly any type
>> of
>> research had better link it to an environmental issue or it would surely
>> be
>> denied. They also interviewed scientists who had been shunned from the
>> scientific community for asking even the most innocent or logical
>> questions
>> if those questions shed any skepticism on the climate change theory. Of
>> course, this might lead to hundreds if not thousands of projects loosing
>> their funding.. so I guess if it's funded, it must be science? and of
>> course all science is good science? wait.. all funded science is good
>> science! or would the prefer "only funded science is good science"?
>
>
> Check that video again, Jim; you sure it was BBC? Got a link?
>
> --
> Dan
> T-182T at BFM
>

[Jim Logajan]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> Much of the "climate change"
> "science" is hokum and poorly-devised models, resulting in
> Garbage-garbage out.

So how many computational models have you written?

What are your qualifications that make your opinion worth considering?

Why should I accept your opinion over the statements of, say, Nobel prize
winner Frank Sherwood Rowland (or Stephen Hawking) - or other
climatologists?

[Jim Logajan]

"Jim Burns" > wrote:
> Yep, it was the BBC... I actually got the link from Jay. It looks
> like U-Tube pulled it due to copy right concerns.. see
> http://www.wagtv.com/acatalog/progview.asp?ID=11

It was NOT a BBC production. It was a production of Channel 4 in the UK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

[Jim Burns]

I stand corrected and my memory has been adjusted! :)
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/
Jim

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Jim Burns" > wrote:
>> Yep, it was the BBC... I actually got the link from Jay. It looks
>> like U-Tube pulled it due to copy right concerns.. see
>> http://www.wagtv.com/acatalog/progview.asp?ID=11
>
> It was NOT a BBC production. It was a production of Channel 4 in the UK:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

[C Gattman]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> What are your qualifications that make your opinion worth considering?
>
> Why should I accept your opinion over the statements of, say, Nobel prize
> winner Frank Sherwood Rowland (or Stephen Hawking) - or other
> climatologists?

Hawking?! That hack? What...next you're gonna tell us the Vatican isn't
the center of the universe!

-c
"The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable
from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally
eretical..." - Cardinal Bellarmine, in condemnation of Galileo.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
>> "Orval Fairbairn" wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Much of the "climate change" "science" is hokum and poorly-devised
>> > models,
>> resulting in
>> > Garbage-garbage out.
>>
>> The hokum is coming from the deniers' side, Orval.
>
> Really ?
>
> The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
> flimsy IPCC case.



Oh, so now you've turned into a smog spotter as well, eh my litle net
kkkkop#/?



Bertie
>
> Graham
>
>

[No Name]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" wrote
>> >
>> > Really ?
>> >
>> > The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
>> > flimsy IPCC case.
>>
>> I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's the
>> allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming
>> that
>> is disputed, and rightly so.
>
> I should have said anthropogenic global warming of course.
>
> Graham
>
Thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't sure.

Here is something to chew on:


Climate Change Science? National Academy of Sciences Global Warming Report
Fails to Live Up to Its Billing

by Gerald Marsh

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of
human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures to rise."

Thus begins the summary of the June 2001 National Academy of Sciences report
"Climate Change Science," which made headlines across the world for
(supposedly) providing additional "proof" that mankind is causing global
warming.

But the headline writers didn't read the fine print.

This often quoted, categorical statement is not supported by the rest of the
NAS report - or the scientific report of Working Group I of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body
frequently cited as a key authority on global warming.

Two sentences later in the NAS summary, readers are told that "The changes
observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human
activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these
changes are also a reflection of natural variability." "Likely mostly due to
human activities"? "Some significant part"? Given these qualifications, and
the very large uncertainties in the science, how could the National Research
Council (NRC) - the research arm of the NAS - approve such a categorical
opening sentence?

The NAS report is a summary rather than a critical review of the IPCC
reports. It was prepared and approved in less than a month after the White
House submitted its formal request. NRC reports, to quote Richard Lewontin
of Harvard University, "always speak with one voice. Such reports... can
produce only a slight rocking of the extremely well gyrostabilized ship of
state, no matter how high the winds and waves. Any member of the crew who
mutinies is put off at the first port of call."1 In other words, there is a
forced consensus, one that tends to provide an oversimplified picture of the
state of scientific research and of the uncertainties.

One must dig carefully through the report to discover that water vapor and
cloud droplets are in fact the dominant cause of greenhouse warming. We are
not told, however, what fraction of the greenhouse effect is due to water
vapor and clouds.2 Nor are we told that carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse
gas - one that accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect -
whose ability to absorb heat is quite limited.3 Adding more carbon dioxide
to the atmosphere only increases greenhouse warming very slowly. Similarly,
decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere only decreases
greenhouse warming very slowly.

Thus, the relatively small changes in the emission of carbon dioxide agreed
to in the Kyoto Protocol would have an insignificant impact on global
warming. The provisions of the Protocol seem singularly innocent of this
fact.

The NAS study also notes that increased radiation from the sun could be
responsible for a significant part of climate change during part of the
industrial era. But the study does not tell us that the warming due to the
increase in solar output4 is comparable to that alleged to be a consequence
of the 25% rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration since the end of
the 18th century. Because carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, and
increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere does not
proportionately increase its greenhouse effect, this rise has had only a
minimal impact on the earth's temperature.

Most people assume that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to
human activity. However, our understanding of the carbon cycle is so poor
that we cannot be certain this is the case.5 Nonetheless, deforestation and
the burning of fossil fuels (which, on a yearly basis, comprises only some
three-and-a-half percent of the two-way exchange of carbon between the earth
and its atmosphere), most likely does contribute to the increased
concentration of this gas.

In 1976, when the earth had been cooling for some three decades, "mainstream
scientists" believed that we were sliding into a new ice age. There has been
significant improvement in modeling the ocean and atmosphere since then, but
the predictions of these models still do not form a sound basis for public
policy decisions. As put by Ahilleas Maurellis of the Space Research
Organization Netherlands, "Until we understand the full picture, perhaps the
best reaction to global warming is for everybody to just keep their cool."6

# # #

Gerald Marsh, a physicist, is a member of the National Advisory Board of The
National Center for Public Policy Research. He served with the U.S. START
delegation and was a consultant to the Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations on strategic nuclear policy and technology for many years. He is
on the Editorial board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Comments
may be sent to .

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" wrote
>> >
>> > Really ?
>> >
>> > The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in
>> > the flimsy IPCC case.
>>
>> I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's
>> the allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global
>> warming that is disputed, and rightly so.
>
> I should have said anthropogenic global warming of course.

Oh of course. Anything les would have lessened your delusion that
attempting to take a suoerior tone weakens your status.

Netkkkkop


Oh, and congrats on finding a new ISP


Bwahawhawhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhh!



Bertie
>
> Graham
>
>

[J. Severyn]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Jim Burns" > wrote:
>> Yep, it was the BBC... I actually got the link from Jay. It looks
>> like U-Tube pulled it due to copy right concerns.. see
>> http://www.wagtv.com/acatalog/progview.asp?ID=11
>
> It was NOT a BBC production. It was a production of Channel 4 in the UK:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

It looks like there are several versions still on-line. Here is one:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566

J. Severyn

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> > Much of the "climate change"
> > "science" is hokum and poorly-devised models, resulting in
> > Garbage-garbage out.
>
> So how many computational models have you written?

Quite a few. How about you, jim?


> What are your qualifications that make your opinion worth considering?
>
> Why should I accept your opinion over the statements of, say, Nobel prize
> winner Frank Sherwood Rowland (or Stephen Hawking) - or other
> climatologists?

How about 30+ years writing missile simulation models and bumping them
against observed phenomena? I know the drill.

I have seen others make incorrect conclusions from data that, on further
investigation, showed opposite conclusions.

BTW, Stephen Hawking is an astrophysicist, not a climatologist.

[Jim Logajan]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> In article >,
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
>> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>> > Much of the "climate change"
>> > "science" is hokum and poorly-devised models, resulting in
>> > Garbage-garbage out.
>>
>> So how many computational models have you written?
>
> Quite a few. How about you, jim?

Not many. A while back I wrote a simple program in C and Python that used
the staggered leap-frog algorithm (CTCS) to simulate the time-dependent
Schrodinger equation. Used it to "experiment" with particles passing
through various potentials - it also generated mpeg videos of the
results. Here's a proto-web page I did a few years ago that was supposed
to be the start of a series of web-articles for a web-based magazine
(that I never got around to finishing) that demonstrated the difficulty
of applying nanotechnology to fusion:

http://www.lugoj.com/NanotechFusion/nanotechfusion.html

I also have done a couple simple plasma simulations (one was a simple 1-d
model of the Farnsworth fusor!) and a CFD model (a minor variation on one
of the algorithms extracted from Laney's "Computational Gasdynamics"
text).

In my youth I wrote some rocket-trajectory simulations and rudimentary
iterative solid rocket design programs in high school (circa 1974; first
version on HP 2000 BASIC; used "Rocket Manual for Amateurs" by Capt.
Bertrand R. Brinley as my source of equations). I tried to build the
resulting rocket in shop class but only ever got to the point of
machining the nozzle. So I didn't confirm whether my programs were giving
reasonable results!

All of the above computational models (with the possible exception of the
QM simulation, which was started by a query from a magazine editor) were
done for my own edification.

However, I admit none of the above is anything to write home about these
days since I expect most physics undergrads are expected to know and have
used various numerical analysis techniques and know the limitations of
numerical analysis.

All that said, there is no value in asking me that question since you are
the one voicing an opinion. Carefully note that I haven't claimed any
opinion - I was asking for your credentials. I am extremely skeptical, to
say the least, that your opinion is both informed and unbiased.

>> What are your qualifications that make your opinion worth
>> considering?
>>
>> Why should I accept your opinion over the statements of, say, Nobel
>> prize winner Frank Sherwood Rowland (or Stephen Hawking) - or other
>> climatologists?
>
> How about 30+ years writing missile simulation models and bumping them
> against observed phenomena? I know the drill.
>
> I have seen others make incorrect conclusions from data that, on
> further investigation, showed opposite conclusions.

That's great. Unfortunately all you posted was an opinion. Since you
neglected to be specific about the problem(s) I don't have much to go on.

> BTW, Stephen Hawking is an astrophysicist, not a climatologist.

I know that well - and can't help noting that you consider your opinion
both more informed and unbiased than Rowland's - and other
climatologists.

(As an aside, growing up in the 60s I read a fair amount of SF and it was
evident "way" back then that the greenhouse effect of CO2 was well known
enough to find its way into SF stories - some of them written in the 50s
and I think possibly earlier.)

[Peter Muehlbauer]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Really ?
> >
> > The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
> > flimsy
> > IPCC case.
> >
>
> I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's the
> allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming that
> is disputed, and rightly so.

You are mistaken.
There is a remarkable cooling since 1998 in global temperature data
due to increasing cosmic ray flux.

http://www.umweltluege.de/images/LT52GT.jpg

Human activity might contribute to GW somehow on a very low level,
but it is neglegible and has no effect to the whole system.

[Jay Honeck]

> > You can read the whole article here:
> >http://www.energyadvocate.com/etohscam.htm
>
> > Write your Congress Critters.
>
> To tell them I rely on nutball loners like this tiny website for my
> facts? Not bloody likely.

Nice come back, Stella -- but not up to your usual standards, I'm
afraid.

Frankly, I haven't seen another source with actual facts that dispute
the figures in this "tiny website". If you have something to refute
the facts, let's see it. Until you do, your comments are, well,
sorry...stupid.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Maxwell]

"Whata Fool" > wrote in message
...
> Regardless, ethanol production is needed, and the more the
> better.
>

What do you consider to be the "pros" of ethanol?

[Jim Logajan]

"Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Whata Fool" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Regardless, ethanol production is needed, and the more the better.
>
> What do you consider to be the "pros" of ethanol?

A pro knows it is best not to drink it! ;-)
(At least not lab grade, which I believe will have some methanol in it.)

Invest in pond scum futures! Remember you read it here first! :-)

[Whata Fool]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:36:33 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>> Really ?
>>
>> The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
>> flimsy
>> IPCC case.
>
>I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer.

No one except people that don't think averaging temperatures
from different locations is meaningful.

>It's the
>allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming that
>is disputed, and rightly so.

Human activity is causing heat islands, even by doing
things the "scientists" don't consider, like making so many "dry" areas
which are not constantly cooled by evaporation.

And adjusting or modifying data sets is silly, but a
necessity in order to try to maintain the meaningless averaging of
temperatures.

Regardless, ethanol production is needed, and the more the
better.

[altheim]

"Peter Muehlbauer" > wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>> "Eeyore" > wrote:
>> >
>> > Really ?
>> >
>> > The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
>> > flimsy IPCC case.
>> >
>>
>> I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's the
>> allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming
>> that
>> is disputed, and rightly so.
>
> You are mistaken.
> There is a remarkable cooling since 1998 in global temperature

Huh? Not according to the graph in the link you posted
below. That shows a dip from 1980 to about 1986 but then
rises again

> data due to increasing cosmic ray flux.

Oh! Puleeeze. I think you should be renamed Müllbauer.

Bet that was your nickname at school, hehe.

> http://www.umweltluege.de/images/LT52GT.jpg
>
> Human activity might contribute to GW somehow on a very low level,
> but it is neglegible and has no effect to the whole system.

That is not even intuitively correct, let alone empirically.

--
altheim

[Denny]

On Jul 20, 1:50 am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "Maxwell" > wrote:
> > "Whata Fool" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Regardless, ethanol production is needed, and the more the better.
>
> > What do you consider to be the "pros" of ethanol?
>
> A pro knows it is best not to drink it! ;-)
> (At least not lab grade, which I believe will have some methanol in it.)
>
> Invest in pond scum futures! Remember you read it here first! :-)

Laboratory grade ethanol will not have methanol in it - the methanol
will mess up chemical reactions where pure ethanol is expected...

denny

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jim Burns" wrote:

> Yep, it was the BBC... I actually got the link from Jay. It looks like

You've been had. That's a load of tabloid bs that was on UK4, not BBC.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's the
> allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming that
> is disputed, and rightly so.

All science is disputed, all the time. That's how science works.

Science does not "prove" things; that's for mathematics. Science develops a
hypothesis, tests it against the evidence and, if the evidence supports the
hypothesis, creates a theory that must be testable, predictive and falsifiable
to be accepted as valid. But no scientific theory ever reaches a point where
it stops being modified by new data and methods of study.

The theory of anthropogenic climate change has reached a stage where it is
generally accepted among the world scientific community as valid. Research
continues over many points still in contention, such as feedback influences.
That does not mean that there is any considerable doubt in the scientific
community that ACC is real. Those wishing to "shoot the messenger" often
resort to cherry picking facts from the various mini-controversies within the
overall research to cast doubt on the theory itself.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote:

>
> The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
> flimsy
> IPCC case.
>

Post some.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote:
> >
> > The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
> > flimsy IPCC case.
>
> Post some.

I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.

Graham

[Jay Honeck]

> The theory of anthropogenic climate change has reached a stage where it is
> generally accepted among the world scientific community as valid. Research
> continues over many points still in contention, such as feedback influences.
> That does not mean that there is any considerable doubt in the scientific
> community that ACC is real. Those wishing to "shoot the messenger" often
> resort to cherry picking facts from the various mini-controversies within the
> overall research to cast doubt on the theory itself.

Scientific theory is all well and good -- but things tend to get
grossly distorted when money and humans are mixed in.

In the case of climate change, the dollars at risk are so huge --
almost inconceivably large -- that it's hard to find a scientist who
hasn't been bought and sold by one side of the debate or the other.

I'm no scientist -- I'm a businessman. As such, I can smell a "deal"
when it is at work -- and IMHO "global warming" research has been
overwhelmingly tainted by the titanic sums of money that are at risk
on both sides of the issue.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Frankly, I haven't seen another source with actual facts that dispute
> the figures in this "tiny website". If you have something to refute
> the facts, let's see it. Until you do, your comments are, well,
> sorry...stupid.

Here's one... just to help Stella out...
http://rael.berkeley.edu/ebamm/FarrellEthanolScience012706.pdf




--

Jay Masino "Home is where My critters are"
http://www.JayMasino.com
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

[Peter Muehlbauer]

"altheim" > wrote
>
> "Peter Muehlbauer" > wrote:
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Really ?
> >> >
> >> > The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
> >> > flimsy IPCC case.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's the
> >> allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming
> >> that
> >> is disputed, and rightly so.
> >
> > You are mistaken.
> > There is a remarkable cooling since 1998 in global temperature
>
> Huh? Not according to the graph in the link you posted
> below. That shows a dip from 1980 to about 1986 but then
> rises again
>
> > data due to increasing cosmic ray flux.
>
> Oh! Puleeeze. I think you should be renamed Müllbauer.
>
> Bet that was your nickname at school, hehe.

You are simply an idiot, assheim.

*PLONK*

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:55:52 -0400, john smith wrote:

> Sugar cane has a higher sugar (and therefore energy) content than corn.
> Approximately 7-10 times the energy content of corn. A WSJ article this
> week reported that a US university has modified a grass that can be broken
> down without the use of acids and has an energy content 7 times greater
> than corn.

This:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118403019523461642.html

?

Searching on the name of the grass (Miscanthus X giganteus) provides
quite a few additional links such as:

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/miscanthus/miscanthus.html

But this is a specific example of a general trend that I hope we're
seeing. Biotech is still a relatively new field. And it's still
only just started to be directed to the idea of "fuel" over the past
ten years or so (at least as far as I've seen). I think/hope we're going
to see some interesting possibilities out of that area.

This does suggest, though, that government fiddling with the market such
that a "winner fuel" is chosen prematurely - esp. by the anti-scientists
currently in the administration - would be a bad thing. While Brazil
does seem to be doing well with sugar cane, our growth environment is
significantly different. And I think it would be repeating a mistake to
chose a fuel not easily/efficiently grown "at home".

BTW, searching on this grass also brings one to links regarding other
possible fuel "grasses".

- Andrew

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>
> Scientific theory is all well and good -- but things tend to get
> grossly distorted when money and humans are mixed in.

So, on that basis you can wave away the scientific consensus on the subject?
Why bother doing any science at all?


> In the case of climate change, the dollars at risk are so huge --
> almost inconceivably large -- that it's hard to find a scientist who
> hasn't been bought and sold by one side of the debate or the other.

That would certainly apply to the few climate scientists who work for the
energy companies. Who "buys and sells" the rest of the scientists in the
world?


> I'm no scientist -- I'm a businessman.

Same here. That doesn't stop me from studying the subject carefully.

> As such, I can smell a "deal"
> when it is at work -- and IMHO "global warming" research has been
> overwhelmingly tainted by the titanic sums of money that are at risk
> on both sides of the issue.

Do you use a lawn mower to wax the floor? Why use business knowledge to
judge a scientific subject? Why not find out how science really works?

--
Dan

"Gut feeling"

Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any
rational thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well
known.

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
> >
> > Scientific theory is all well and good -- but things tend to get
> > grossly distorted when money and humans are mixed in.
>
> So, on that basis you can wave away the scientific consensus on the subject?

Alleged (and alleged is all it is) 'consensus' proves nothing.

I suppose you'd wave away the very well argued objections to the IPCC case ? A
convincing and scientifically sound case wouldn't need to rely on making such
claims.

Graham

[altheim]

"Eeyore" > wrote:
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" wrote:
>> >
>> > The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
>> > flimsy IPCC case.
>>
>> Post some.
>
> I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.

It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
something on your site the moment will have passed and
we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
would you?

--
altheim

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote:

>>
>> So, on that basis you can wave away the scientific consensus on the
>> subject?
>
> Alleged (and alleged is all it is)

Really?

======================
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686


IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific
bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the
matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of
Sciences report, 'Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions',
begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result
of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment
is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The
IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is
likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations
accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this
issue."

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical
Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all
have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human
modification of climate is compelling.

======================

Perhaps you can offer some evidence in refutation of the above.



> 'consensus' proves nothing.

Correct. But to wave it away on no empirical basis is foolish.

>
> I suppose you'd wave away the very well argued objections to the IPCC case
> ?

Indeed not. I have spent a good deal of time examining such objections, and
have not found any that are destructive to the case made in IPCC 4AR.

I'd be grateful if you could post links to some that you think are 'very well
argued.'


> convincing and scientifically sound case wouldn't need to rely on making
> such
> claims.

You mean claims like the one made by deniers that all the IPCC scientists are
distorting the findings so they'll get paid?


--
Dan


"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is wishful
thinking."


- John Derbyshire

[altheim]

"Peter Muehlbauer" > wrote:
> "altheim" > wrote:
>> "Peter Muehlbauer" > wrote:
>> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>> >> "Eeyore" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Really ?
>> >> >
>> >> > The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in
>> >> > the
>> >> > flimsy IPCC case.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's
>> >> the
>> >> allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming
>> >> that
>> >> is disputed, and rightly so.
>> >
>> > You are mistaken.
>> > There is a remarkable cooling since 1998 in global temperature
>>
>> Huh? Not according to the graph in the link you posted
>> below. That shows a dip from 1980 to about 1986 but then
>> rises again
>>
>> > data due to increasing cosmic ray flux.
>>
>> Oh! Puleeeze. I think you should be renamed Müllbauer.
>>
>> Bet that was your nickname at school, hehe.
>
> You are simply an idiot, assheim.
>
> *PLONK*

Ouch! nono c'mon, take me outta there. It's no good hiding your
head in the sand y'know. It's your own fault - you shouldn't have
mentioned "cosmic ray flux".

--
altheim

[Eeyore[_2_]]

altheim wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote:
> > Dan Luke wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
> >> > flimsy IPCC case.
> >>
> >> Post some.
> >
> > I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.
>
> It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
> or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
> something on your site the moment will have passed and
> we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
> would you?

I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to please some one
who also might forget about it in a trice.

However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC case is that
CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global warming.

So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their case, no ?

Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and temperature
numbers are based on data manipulation that is fundamentally flawed.

I also particularly love the way they use tree rings to look at temperature,
when it's well known that atmospheric CO2 affects plant growth. Hey, they say,
the temperature (tree rings) follows CO2. Err.... right. What did they expect ?

Graham

[Dan Youngquist]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Jay Honeck wrote:

> "Overall (farming, distillation), it takes 129,600 BTU to produce a
> gallon of EtOH (ethanol), but the energy value of a gallon of EtOH is
> only 76,000 BTU.

How does that number change if the ethanol is made from something with a
higher sugar content than corn, like maybe milo or sugar beets?

-Dan

[[email protected]]

Dan Youngquist > wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Jay Honeck wrote:

> > "Overall (farming, distillation), it takes 129,600 BTU to produce a
> > gallon of EtOH (ethanol), but the energy value of a gallon of EtOH is
> > only 76,000 BTU.

> How does that number change if the ethanol is made from something with a
> higher sugar content than corn, like maybe milo or sugar beets?

Don't ask on penalty of being dragged naked through the streets by
an angry mob of corn farmers.

And especially, don't ask if there is anything that could just be
squeezed to produce diesel fuel with minimal processing and a better
return on energy.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote:

>> > I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.
>>
>> It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
>> or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
>> something on your site the moment will have passed and
>> we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
>> would you?
>
> I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to please some
> one
> who also might forget about it in a trice.

> However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC case is
> that
> CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global warming.
>
> So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their case, no
> ?
>
> Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and
> temperature
> numbers are based on data manipulation that is fundamentally flawed.

No doubt you could point out those details and why they are flawed, if only
you had the time.

> I also particularly love the way they use tree rings to look at temperature,
> when it's well known that atmospheric CO2 affects plant growth. Hey, they
> say,
> the temperature (tree rings) follows CO2. Err.... right. What did they
> expect ?

That CO2 levels and temperature are inextricably linked. What did you expect?

--
Dan

"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is wishful
thinking."
-John Derbyshire

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> altheim wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote:
>> > Dan Luke wrote:
>> >> "Eeyore" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see
>> >> > in the flimsy IPCC case.
>> >>
>> >> Post some.
>> >
>> > I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.
>>
>> It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
>> or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
>> something on your site the moment will have passed and
>> we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
>> would you?
>
> I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to please
> some one who also might forget about it in a trice.
>
> However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC
> case is that CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global
> warming.
>
> So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their
> case, no ?
>
> Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and
> temperature numbers are based on data manipulation that is
> fundamentally flawed.
>
> I also particularly love the way they use tree rings to look at
> temperature, when it's well known that atmospheric CO2 affects plant
> growth. Hey, they say, the temperature (tree rings) follows CO2.
> Err.... right. What did they expect ?
>


Oh brother, netkkkop finds yet another way to embarrass hisself.


Bertie















> Graham
>
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" wrote:
>> >
>> > The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
>> > flimsy IPCC case.
>>
>> Post some.
>
> I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.


Don't put too much work into it, netkkkop. You'll prolly get booted anyway.



Bertie
>
> Graham
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
>> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>> >
>> > Scientific theory is all well and good -- but things tend to get
>> > grossly distorted when money and humans are mixed in.
>>
>> So, on that basis you can wave away the scientific consensus on the
>> subject?
>
> Alleged (and alleged is all it is) 'consensus' proves nothing.
>
> I suppose you'd wave away the very well argued objections to the IPCC
> case ? A convincing and scientifically sound case wouldn't need to
> rely on making such claims.
>


Is da guv'ment, eh mate?



Sun reading scumbag



Bertie




> Graham
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Eeyore" wrote:
>
>>>
>>> So, on that basis you can wave away the scientific consensus on the
>>> subject?
>>
>> Alleged (and alleged is all it is)
>
> Really?
>
> ======================
> Science 3 December 2004:
> Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
>
>
> IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
> scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
> directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example,
> the National Academy of Sciences report, 'Climate Change Science: An
> Analysis of Some Key Questions', begins: "Greenhouse gases are
> accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities,
> causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to
> rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a
> fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes:
> "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last
> 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
> concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the
> scientific community on this issue."
>
> Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American
> Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of
> Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding
> that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
>
> ======================
>
> Perhaps you can offer some evidence in refutation of the above.
>
>
>
>> 'consensus' proves nothing.
>
> Correct. But to wave it away on no empirical basis is foolish.
>
>>
>> I suppose you'd wave away the very well argued objections to the IPCC
>> case ?
>
> Indeed not. I have spent a good deal of time examining such
> objections, and have not found any that are destructive to the case
> made in IPCC 4AR.
>
> I'd be grateful if you could post links to some that you think are
> 'very well argued.'
>
>
>> convincing and scientifically sound case wouldn't need to rely on
>> making such
>> claims.
>
> You mean claims like the one made by deniers that all the IPCC
> scientists are distorting the findings so they'll get paid?


Just in case you didn't know, Graham is a known net-kook. He spends most
of his time on usenet whining about other's behaviour and netkkoping
them, only to be TOSsed himself...



He's your standard issue facist k00k.


He is fun though! Some of the e-mails my provider has passed on to me
are just priceless.





Bertie
>
>

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote:
>
> >> > I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.
> >>
> >> It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
> >> or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
> >> something on your site the moment will have passed and
> >> we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
> >> would you?
> >
> > I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to please some
> > one who also might forget about it in a trice.
>
> > However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC case is
> > that CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global warming.
> >
> > So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their case, no ?
>
> >
> > Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and
> > temperature numbers are based on data manipulation that is fundamentally
> flawed.
>
> No doubt you could point out those details and why they are flawed, if only
> you had the time.

I would indeed.

Graham

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" wrote:
>>
>> >> > I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.
>> >>
>> >> It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
>> >> or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
>> >> something on your site the moment will have passed and
>> >> we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
>> >> would you?
>> >
>> > I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to
>> > please some one who also might forget about it in a trice.
>>
>> > However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC
>> > case is that CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global
>> > warming.
>> >
>> > So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their
>> > case, no ?
>>
>> >
>> > Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and
>> > temperature numbers are based on data manipulation that is
>> > fundamentally
>> flawed.
>>
>> No doubt you could point out those details and why they are flawed,
>> if only you had the time.
>
> I would indeed.
>



Bwahwahawhawhawhawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhahhwhah¬


Bertie






> Graham
>
>

[AES]

To insert a message into this discussion that continues the global
warming brouhaha, but also actually has some connection -- even if
rather indirect -- to piloting (or at least, to the undesirability of
putting pilots into space, if you want to look at it that way):

============================================

WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 6 Jan 06 Washington, DC

1. POLITICAL RETRIBUTION: DEEP SPACE CLIMATE OBSERVATORY KILLED.

The deep space climate observatory satellite Triana was never able to
overcome its roots, and NASA has now quietly terminated what may have
been its most important science mission.

Critics of programs to limit emissions argue that climate change is
caused by solar variation, not by atmospheric changes. There is one
unambiguous way to tell: locate an observatory at L-1, the
neutral-gravity point between Earth and Sun. It would have a continuous
view of the sunlit face of Earth in one direction, and the Sun in the
other, thus constantly monitoring Earth's albedo.

Al Gore initiated the observatory project in 1998 to inspire school
children with a continuous view of climate unfolding on our fragile
planet. It was even given a poetic name, Triana, the sailor on the Santa
Maria who was first to sight the New World. But Triana's importance to
climate research, perhaps Earth's biggest challenge, was not recognized
until later.

With urging from the National Academy, it was finished in 2001 and given
a new name. It was still waiting to be launched when Columbia crashed.
By then we had a new President and a new "vision." It was put on hold.

The official reason for killing it is "competing priorities." The
priority now is to replace Gore's vision of the world with the Bush
vision of sending people back to the moon. We should all weep.

--------

Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the University
of Maryland -- but they should be.

To subscribe to this newletter please visit:

http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=bobparks-whatsnew&A=1

Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org

[Talk-n-Dog]

AES wrote:




>
> Al Gore initiated the observatory project in 1998 to inspire school
> children with a continuous view of climate unfolding on our fragile
> planet. It was even given a poetic name, Triana, the sailor on the Santa
> Maria who was first to sight the New World. But Triana's importance to
> climate research, perhaps Earth's biggest challenge, was not recognized
> until later.
>

This Al Gore stuff is amazing, I have got to get the Al Gore "Gaia man"
action figure, he's every where. Internet inventing, teaching kids,
inventing satellites, what a guy, and think he could be president right
now, save for the Election stealing Republicans....


--
An ignorant person is one who doesn't know what you have just found out

http://OutSourcedNews.com


The problem with the global warming theory, is that a theory is like a
bowl of ice-cream, it only takes a little dab of bull**** to ruin the
whole thing.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:31:40 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote:

>As gas -- and corn -- prices creep ever higher, everyone in my great
>State of Iowa is all ablush with talk of riches pouring in, thanks to
>ethanol production. They can barely contain their glee at this
>remarkable turn of economic fortune. (Remember, just a few years ago
>farmers here had one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana
>peel...)
>
>Thus, I feel like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills, trying to get a
>word in edgewise about the absurdity of it all. Of course, since
>subsidized ethanol production is the single greatest farm subsidy
>program in US history -- and since Iowa remains largely an
>agricultural society -- facing facts is not a popular passtime here.
>
>But it must be done, or our country is being led down the primrose
>path to perdition. The fact remains that converting corn into
>ethanol, for the purpose of fueling automobiles, is simply absurd.
>
>Here is a quote that sums it up nicely, IMHO:
>
>"Overall (farming, distillation), it takes 129,600 BTU to produce a
>gallon of EtOH (ethanol), but the energy value of a gallon of EtOH is
>only 76,000 BTU. In SI units [conversions in footnote 3]: it takes
>45.7 MJ to produce a kilogram of EtOH, but the energy value of that
>kilogram of EtOH is 26.8 MJ."
>
Although I share your views on using Ethanol from corn, that has to be
old information. The current net energy gain for corn based alcohol
is about 50%. IOW you get back 3 gallons for every two gallons
invested. That includes the entire chain from the farmer growing and
harvesting the crop through fermentation and distillation processes.
That is still not good and it also makes it expensive.

>"There is thus a net energy loss of about 54,000 Btu for every gallon
>(18.9 MJ for every kilogram) of EtOH produced. Unlike the old joke
>about the tailor who claims he loses money on every suit, but stays in
>business by 'making up for it in quantity', there is no deception
>here. It's a losing proposition."

and the information is outdated. The article is dated and copywrite
1997, but some of the references are 1998 which seems a bit strange.
Last I knew you can not post date a copyright.

It was around 10 years ago they passed the beak even point with corn
grown ethanol.

HOWEVER "corn is probably one of the least efficient sources of
alcohol." It helps they can now also use the corn stalks and bacteria
to produce ethanol but it still leaves corn at, or close to the bottom
of the rankings for efficient production. Also that alcohol is
expensive enough to make today's gas prices seem almost tolerable.

In addition, using corn for ethanol production has a dramatic impact
on both the availability of other foods and their prices. The price
of beef is already climbing steadily due to the increased cost of
grain.

OTOH our government, or rather some of our conservative politicians
have a mental block against using the word "hemp" for any crop. Of
course hemp is one of the more efficient sources of ethanol in our
climate and that of Canada as well. Apparently Canada has no
reservations about using hemp for producing alcohol.

The one saving grace about this is the public will only stand for so
much before complaining about food prices. The cost of the corn based
alcohol will have much more of an impact on the cost of living than
any of the recent gas price peaks.As I said above, it not only costs
more, it will cause the availability to go down and price to go up
for many foods

>
>You can read the whole article here:
>http://www.energyadvocate.com/etohscam.htm

You need up-to-date information which still does not make corn look
all that good and it's useable information.

>
>Write your Congress Critters. The politicians are leading us down
>this path for purely political purposes, and it's up to us to stop it.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-07-19 08:31:40 -0700, Jay Honeck > said:

> As gas -- and corn -- prices creep ever higher, everyone in my great
> State of Iowa is all ablush with talk of riches pouring in, thanks to
> ethanol production. They can barely contain their glee at this
> remarkable turn of economic fortune. (Remember, just a few years ago
> farmers here had one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana
> peel...)

There have already been riots in Mexico because of the corn shortage.
But you will have about as much luck fighting "Big Corn" as you did
"Big Oil."



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:04:46 -0600, RomeoMike
> wrote:

>
>
>Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>
>> "Overall (farming, distillation), it takes 129,600 BTU to produce a
>> gallon of EtOH (ethanol), but the energy value of a gallon of EtOH is
>> only 76,000 BTU. In SI units [conversions in footnote 3]: it takes
>> 45.7 MJ to produce a kilogram of EtOH, but the energy value of that
>> kilogram of EtOH is 26.8 MJ."
>
>Does anyone know how much energy it takes to pump crude out of the
>ground, ship it to a refinery, and the refine it to make a gallon of
>gas? I don't, just asking for a comparison.

It's surprisingly inefficient, but using the same stuff for power
makes it relatively inexpensive.
I looked it up a while back and as I recall it was "cost of producing
alcohol compared to processing crude oil into gas" The biggest problem
I found is there is so much conflicting information out there that it
takes time (a lot of it) to filter out what is and is not both correct
and up-to-date. Even where studies are undertaken you really need to
know the criteria under which the studies were conducted.

*Probably* one of the least expensive fuels is hydrogen produced by
gasification of coal, but that process is not clean and produces a
tremendous amount of CO2 as a byproduct. OTOH the byproducts and be
recovered and sold while the CO2 can be sequestered.

[Bertie the Bunyip's more macho brother via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>
>Bwahwahawhawhawhawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhahhwhah¬
>
>Bertie
>
Hey....

call mom

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip's more macho brother via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe>
wrote in news:7579783508db1@uwe:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>
>>Bwahwahawhawhawhawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhahhwhah¬
>>
>>Bertie
>>
> Hey....
>
> call mom
>

Did already, she's fine.


Bertie

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:12:30 -0900, Whata Fool > wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:14:08 -0500, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>
>>"Whata Fool" > wrote in message
...
>>> Regardless, ethanol production is needed, and the more the
>>> better.
>>
>>What do you consider to be the "pros" of ethanol?
>
> For the US, it reduces oil imports, billions of gallons per
>year.
First, when compared to gas none of my statements are negative against
alcohol.

It might, not does and even pushing the implementation to the limits
predictions are it will only be able to take care of the increased
demand for fuels over time.
>
> It will provide the means to do away with farm subsidies,
>if only congress has the brains to make it happen.
>
It might

> It is much cleaner burning, and with the engine tuned for it,
>it has more power, check Indy 500 for details.

Cleaner burning, yes. More power, not a chance. Alcohol only contains
60 of the energy of gas. In Indy they get more power by burning more.
A lot more and under more pressure. They are also running very
expensive engines at very high RPM and expected to last for one race.

>
> It is carbon neutral, as is all animal and human emissions of
>CO2.

It could be if the growing chain also used it rather than fossil
fuels.

>
> The Indy use alcohol because of gasoline fire, but check that
>out too.
>
> When oil becomes too expensive and in short supply, ethanol
>is one of the biofuels that is easy to make.

And expensive although the price is currently hidden in subsidies
rather than showing up at the pump.

>
>
> There is nothing bad about ethanol, although because it has
>an oxygen atom in the molecule, it needs less air, so a bigger tank may
>be needed for the same miles per tank.
> (Miles Per Gallon is not a criteria for different fuels,
>Miles Per Dollar is the important factor).

Time we get done alcohol will be at least as expensive as the highest
price we've seen for gas so far.

>
>
>

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:14:06 -0700, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>On 2007-07-19 08:31:40 -0700, Jay Honeck > said:
>
>> As gas -- and corn -- prices creep ever higher, everyone in my great
>> State of Iowa is all ablush with talk of riches pouring in, thanks to
>> ethanol production. They can barely contain their glee at this
>> remarkable turn of economic fortune. (Remember, just a few years ago
>> farmers here had one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana
>> peel...)
>
>There have already been riots in Mexico because of the corn shortage.
>But you will have about as much luck fighting "Big Corn" as you did
>"Big Oil."

What a revelation<:-)) The game's the same, only the faces change.

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Whata Fool wrote:

> it [ethanol] has more power

Sorry to disappoint you , that simply isn't true.

An engine optimally designed to burn ethanol (usually with a turbo) can indeed
produce more horsepower on ethanol than it does running on gasoline but it does
that at the expense of burning more gallons of the ethanol.

What it does mean is that for a given power output the engine can be smaller if
you use ethanol as a fuel instead of gasoline. And that's why racers like it
since smaller = lighter = faster (or simply more horsepower from the same engine
size).

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Dan Luke wrote:

> That does not mean that there is any considerable doubt in the scientific
> community that ACC is real.

You have to be joking.

It's rapidly and rightly becoming the most disputed lie ever.

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

> Whata Fool > wrote:
>
> > It is much cleaner burning, and with the engine tuned for it,
> >it has more power, check Indy 500 for details.
>
> Cleaner burning, yes. More power, not a chance. Alcohol only contains
> 60 of the energy of gas. In Indy they get more power by burning more.
> A lot more and under more pressure.

And also because an engine runs more efficiently on ethanol if designed properly
to use it.

Ethanol may only have 60% of the thermal energy of gasoline but but the extra
efficiency makes up for about half of that difference.

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

> Time we get done alcohol will be at least as expensive as the highest
> price we've seen for gas so far.

I'm sure it'll never be any cheaper ! That's not what it's about.

Graham

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:
>
>> Whata Fool > wrote:
>>
>> > It is much cleaner burning, and with the engine tuned for
>> > it,
>> >it has more power, check Indy 500 for details.
>>
>> Cleaner burning, yes. More power, not a chance. Alcohol only contains
>> 60 of the energy of gas. In Indy they get more power by burning
>> more. A lot more and under more pressure.
>
> And also because an engine runs more efficiently on ethanol if
> designed properly to use it.
>
> Ethanol may only have 60% of the thermal energy of gasoline but but
> the extra efficiency makes up for about half of that difference.


Good grief. what a fjukwit.



>
> Graham
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Whata Fool wrote:
>
>> it [ethanol] has more power
>
> Sorry to disappoint you , that simply isn't true.
>
> An engine optimally designed to burn ethanol (usually with a turbo)
> can indeed produce more horsepower on ethanol than it does running on
> gasoline but it does that at the expense of burning more gallons of
> the ethanol.
>
> What it does mean is that for a given power output the engine can be
> smaller if you use ethanol as a fuel instead of gasoline. And that's
> why racers like it since smaller = lighter = faster (or simply more
> horsepower from the same engine size).



Whoosh.


Bertie
>
> Graham
>
>

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:28:14 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:04:46 -0600, RomeoMike
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Overall (farming, distillation), it takes 129,600 BTU to produce a
>>> gallon of EtOH (ethanol), but the energy value of a gallon of EtOH is
>>> only 76,000 BTU. In SI units [conversions in footnote 3]: it takes
>>> 45.7 MJ to produce a kilogram of EtOH, but the energy value of that
>>> kilogram of EtOH is 26.8 MJ."
>>
>>Does anyone know how much energy it takes to pump crude out of the
>>ground, ship it to a refinery, and the refine it to make a gallon of
>>gas? I don't, just asking for a comparison.
>
>It's surprisingly inefficient, but using the same stuff for power
>makes it relatively inexpensive.
>I looked it up a while back and as I recall it was "cost of producing
>alcohol compared to processing crude oil into gas" The biggest problem
>I found is there is so much conflicting information out there that it
>takes time (a lot of it) to filter out what is and is not both correct
>and up-to-date. Even where studies are undertaken you really need to
>know the criteria under which the studies were conducted.
>
>*Probably* one of the least expensive fuels is hydrogen produced by
>gasification of coal, but that process is not clean and produces a
>tremendous amount of CO2 as a byproduct. OTOH the byproducts and be
>recovered and sold while the CO2 can be sequestered.
>
Interesting data point:

"ChevronTexaco has installed a solar photovoltaic facility called
Soalrmine to help power oil-field operations near Bakersfield, Calif.
The grid-tie project comprises 4800 flexible, current-producing solar
panels, each about 1.3 feet wide by 18 feet long, mounted on metal
frames.

"At 500 kW, Solarrmine is one of the largest photovoltaic
installations in the U.S. and the largest array of flexible,
amorphous-silicon solar technology in the world. Solarmine covers six
acres, enabling it to take advantage of Uni-Solar's
amorphous-manufacturing economies of scale. (ChevronTexaco owns 20% of
Uni-Solar's parent company, ECD.) "

That's from an article I wrote in 2004. I don't know the current
status.

Don

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:11:54 -0700, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:28:14 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:04:46 -0600, RomeoMike
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Overall (farming, distillation), it takes 129,600 BTU to produce a
>>>> gallon of EtOH (ethanol), but the energy value of a gallon of EtOH is
>>>> only 76,000 BTU. In SI units [conversions in footnote 3]: it takes
>>>> 45.7 MJ to produce a kilogram of EtOH, but the energy value of that
>>>> kilogram of EtOH is 26.8 MJ."
>>>
>>>Does anyone know how much energy it takes to pump crude out of the
>>>ground, ship it to a refinery, and the refine it to make a gallon of
>>>gas? I don't, just asking for a comparison.
>>
>>It's surprisingly inefficient, but using the same stuff for power
>>makes it relatively inexpensive.
>>I looked it up a while back and as I recall it was "cost of producing
>>alcohol compared to processing crude oil into gas" The biggest problem
>>I found is there is so much conflicting information out there that it
>>takes time (a lot of it) to filter out what is and is not both correct
>>and up-to-date. Even where studies are undertaken you really need to
>>know the criteria under which the studies were conducted.
>>
>>*Probably* one of the least expensive fuels is hydrogen produced by
>>gasification of coal, but that process is not clean and produces a
>>tremendous amount of CO2 as a byproduct. OTOH the byproducts and be
>>recovered and sold while the CO2 can be sequestered.
>>
>Interesting data point:
>
>"ChevronTexaco has installed a solar photovoltaic facility called
>Soalrmine to help power oil-field operations near Bakersfield, Calif.
>The grid-tie project comprises 4800 flexible, current-producing solar
>panels, each about 1.3 feet wide by 18 feet long, mounted on metal
>frames.
>
>"At 500 kW, Solarrmine is one of the largest photovoltaic
>installations in the U.S. and the largest array of flexible,
>amorphous-silicon solar technology in the world. Solarmine covers six

Amorphous-Silicon in what configuration? Deposition on a substrate or
polycrystalline?

Hemlock Semiconductor Corporation (HSC), affectionately known around
here as Hemi Semi...just finished up a major expansion program (they
were the world's largest producer of polycrystalline Silicon well
before that expansion) announced a one Billion Dollar expansion that
should again double the plant's capacity.

The problem for us using solar (active and passive) up here, contrary
to many claims made by the state and tourist bureau, is lack of sun
coupled low cost electricity. With electricity costing about 8 cents
per KWH or 10 cents with all surcharges, being 43.37N, in a cloudy
area, and no subsidy we aren't even on the pay-back charts. California
OTOH with peak charges of just shy of 40 cents per KWH and a subsidy
of near 50% last I heard, has a reasonable payback time. Up here an
installation would run about twice the cost of one in California and
we receive no subsidy. That makes the $30,000 to $50,000 for an
installation just a tad steep.

>acres, enabling it to take advantage of Uni-Solar's
>amorphous-manufacturing economies of scale. (ChevronTexaco owns 20% of
>Uni-Solar's parent company, ECD.) "
>
>That's from an article I wrote in 2004. I don't know the current
>status.
>
>Don

[Jim Burns]

Current prices of $3.20 per bu. are relatively high but not at historic
highs, in fact corn has lost about $1 per bushel in the last 2 weeks. In
1996 when the average yearly price for the US hit $3.55, we sold corn as
high as $4.90 and some neighbors got over $5.00. Inflationary periods are
evident from the charts... 1983 and 1984 avg prices were at or above $3.00
and I'm not sure, but I think the 1974 average price of $2.92 was when the
US made a trade deal with China. It's interesting to compare the %
increases of milk to corn over the last 40 years.
http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/manage/uspricehistory/USPrice.asp

Jim

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:14:06 -0700, C J Campbell
> > wrote:
>
>>On 2007-07-19 08:31:40 -0700, Jay Honeck > said:
>>
>>> As gas -- and corn -- prices creep ever higher, everyone in my great
>>> State of Iowa is all ablush with talk of riches pouring in, thanks to
>>> ethanol production. They can barely contain their glee at this
>>> remarkable turn of economic fortune. (Remember, just a few years ago
>>> farmers here had one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana
>>> peel...)
>>
>>There have already been riots in Mexico because of the corn shortage.
>>But you will have about as much luck fighting "Big Corn" as you did
>>"Big Oil."
>
> What a revelation<:-)) The game's the same, only the faces change.
>
>

[Whata Fool]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:14:08 -0500, "Maxwell" > wrote:

>"Whata Fool" > wrote in message
...
>> Regardless, ethanol production is needed, and the more the
>> better.
>
>What do you consider to be the "pros" of ethanol?

For the US, it reduces oil imports, billions of gallons per
year.

It will provide the means to do away with farm subsidies,
if only congress has the brains to make it happen.

It is much cleaner burning, and with the engine tuned for it,
it has more power, check Indy 500 for details.

It is carbon neutral, as is all animal and human emissions of
CO2.

The Indy use alcohol because of gasoline fire, but check that
out too.

When oil becomes too expensive and in short supply, ethanol
is one of the biofuels that is easy to make.


There is nothing bad about ethanol, although because it has
an oxygen atom in the molecule, it needs less air, so a bigger tank may
be needed for the same miles per tank.
(Miles Per Gallon is not a criteria for different fuels,
Miles Per Dollar is the important factor).

[Whata Fool]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:11:50 -0500, "Dan Luke" >
wrote:

>The theory of anthropogenic climate change has reached a stage where it is
>generally accepted among the world scientific community as valid.

You were careful not to say "global warming", weren't you
ding dong?

>Research
>continues over many points still in contention, such as feedback influences.

As if all the cooling processes of water vapor could be
categorized by one or more parameters of "feedback".

>That does not mean that there is any considerable doubt in the scientific
>community that ACC is real.

Maybe about the same as doubt in cold fusion?

>Those wishing to "shoot the messenger" often
>resort to cherry picking facts from the various mini-controversies within the
>overall research to cast doubt on the theory itself.

There is an obvious, very large, factor due to clouds that
has never been mentioned, who will be the first to think of what it is?

[Stella Starr]

C J Campbell wrote:

> There have already been riots in Mexico because of the corn shortage.
> But you will have about as much luck fighting "Big Corn" as you did "Big
> Oil."
>

It may be worth noting that corn growers are getting NO federal crop
subsidies, since the price is currently high. Not as high as it's been
in adjusted dollars in the past, but high enough that the capitalist
system responded in admirable fashion, inspiring growers to announce
plans to plant a record number of acres in corn.

Guess Mexican farmers would be free to do that too, wouldn't they?

[Whata Fool]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:32:47 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)" >
wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:12:30 -0900, Whata Fool > wrote:
>>On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:14:08 -0500, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>>>"Whata Fool" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Regardless, ethanol production is needed, and the more the
>>>> better.
>>>
>>>What do you consider to be the "pros" of ethanol?
>>
>> For the US, it reduces oil imports, billions of gallons per
>>year.
>
>First, when compared to gas none of my statements are negative against
>alcohol.

There is nothing wrong with ethanol, it is a great
opportunity for farmers and small business.

>It might, not does and even pushing the implementation to the limits
>predictions are it will only be able to take care of the increased
>demand for fuels over time.
>>
>> It will provide the means to do away with farm subsidies,
>>if only congress has the brains to make it happen.
>>
>It might
>
>> It is much cleaner burning, and with the engine tuned for it,
>>it has more power, check Indy 500 for details.
>
>Cleaner burning, yes. More power, not a chance. Alcohol only contains
>60 of the energy of gas. In Indy they get more power by burning more.

Not true, they may not get the miles per gallon, but during
the race I heard something about _smaller_ tanks.
Ethanol has more like 80 percent the energy of gasoline, but
cars on the road are detuned to use low octane unleaded.

>A lot more and under more pressure. They are also running very
>expensive engines at very high RPM and expected to last for one race.

I don't think superchargers are allowed, and all cars use
the same engine. Again, it is not the miles per gallon, or how
much energy per gallon, the important thing is more miles per dollar.

>> It is carbon neutral, as is all animal and human emissions of
>>CO2.
>
>It could be if the growing chain also used it rather than fossil
>fuels.

The only reason to use fossil fuels is the availability,
most farm machinery is diesel.

>> The Indy use alcohol because of gasoline fire, but check that
>>out too.
>>
>> When oil becomes too expensive and in short supply, ethanol
>>is one of the biofuels that is easy to make.
>
>And expensive although the price is currently hidden in subsidies
>rather than showing up at the pump.

Ethanol made from sugar or other crops should be cheaper
than gasoline, and it must be, that is why there is an import tax.

>> There is nothing bad about ethanol, although because it has
>>an oxygen atom in the molecule, it needs less air, so a bigger tank may
>>be needed for the same miles per tank.
>> (Miles Per Gallon is not a criteria for different fuels,
>>Miles Per Dollar is the important factor).
>
>Time we get done alcohol will be at least as expensive as the highest
>price we've seen for gas so far.

It will get cheaper relatively as time passes, ethanol can
be made out of almost any hydrocarbon (organic).

[Whata Fool]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:37:41 -0500, "Dan Luke" >
wrote:

>Indeed not. I have spent a good deal of time examining such objections, and
>have not found any that are destructive to the case made in IPCC 4AR.

The fact that the CO2 PPMV does not coincide with the known
production added is a clue that the case is not closed.

The fact that CO2 exists in such a small proportion to the
real greenhouse gas water vapor is a big clue.

The fact that the mass of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is
not enough to capture the amount of thermal energy involved is a bigger
clue.

The fact that evaporation cools many times more than any
possible IR radiation from the atmosphere.

The fact that clouds block incoming radiation causes any
energy budget accounting to be inadequate for the task.

And the fact that some near all time record lows for the
month of July are occurring suggests there is a move toward a cooling
trend.

[AES]

In article >,
Stella Starr > wrote:

> It may be worth noting that corn growers are getting NO federal crop
> subsidies, since the price is currently high. Not as high as it's been
> in adjusted dollars in the past, but high enough that the capitalist
> system responded in admirable fashion, inspiring growers to announce
> plans to plant a record number of acres in corn.

Yes, but just for information, what would have been the "admirable
capitalist response" of all parties involved -- here in the U.S., I
mean -- if the price had instead gone way down?

[This is a question . . ]

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

> Just in case you didn't know, Graham is a known net-kook.

I didn't, but it was becoming obvious.

--
Dan

"Almost all the matter that came out of the Big Bang was two specific sorts;
hydrogen and stupidity."

-Robert Carnegie in talk.origins

[Jim Burns]

What Stella refers to is called the "Loan Deficiency Payment" or LDP.
Google is your friend and it can become complicated. Basically, when local
corn prices fall below a certain level this daily adjustable subsidy kicks
in to hold the price up to that predetermined level. This level varies from
county to county, currently for us it's around $1.75 per bushel for our
county.

If a farmer applies for a federal loan, using his corn for collateral, and
the current market is below the posted minimum county price, the farmer can
apply for the LDP. When the current market is above the posted minimum
county price, as it is at this time, there is no LDP available.

In simple terms, consider it a government price support, although it is at
very low levels compared to the cost of production which is between $2.25
and $2.75 per bushel in our area.

There are two other payments that corn growers can receive. The first is
the direct/guaranteed payment and this is capped at a max of $40,000 per
entity. This maximum requires a history of planting roughly a minimum of
1500 acres per year. Vegetable crops, if planted, count against these acres
and can reduce this payment. It's the governments method of guaranteeing
corn production in lue of other crops that may be more profitable.

The second payment is the counter-cyclical payment and this is a long
confusing government formula based on current markets, the posted county
price multiplied by 88% of your base acres times the historic county average
yield minus $2.60.... if I can remember it correctly... obviously with corn
at $3.20 and higher, this is currently a negative number and will not be
paid.

These payments also require the farmer to comply with local DNR and
Conservation Department planning and recommendation, so they are also used
to protect wetlands and marginal areas that could be farmed, especially if
prices rise high enough, but if the farmer does so he is then barred from
any government programs.

So, the answer to your question would be that the farmer would receive the
guaranteed payment, the counter cyclical payment, and the LDP in varying
amounts to subsidize his corn price up to but not beyond the minimum posted
county price, of roughly 70% of the cost of production.

No need for Ambien, huh :)

Jim



"AES" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Stella Starr > wrote:
>
>> It may be worth noting that corn growers are getting NO federal crop
>> subsidies, since the price is currently high. Not as high as it's been
>> in adjusted dollars in the past, but high enough that the capitalist
>> system responded in admirable fashion, inspiring growers to announce
>> plans to plant a record number of acres in corn.
>
> Yes, but just for information, what would have been the "admirable
> capitalist response" of all parties involved -- here in the U.S., I
> mean -- if the price had instead gone way down?
>
> [This is a question . . ]

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13a4ar220gb1q13
@news.supernews.com:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>> Just in case you didn't know, Graham is a known net-kook.
>
> I didn't, but it was becoming obvious.
>
Thenk yew


Bertie

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-07-20 21:16:26 -0700, Stella Starr > said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> There have already been riots in Mexico because of the corn shortage.
>> But you will have about as much luck fighting "Big Corn" as you did
>> "Big Oil."
>>
>
> It may be worth noting that corn growers are getting NO federal crop
> subsidies, since the price is currently high. Not as high as it's been
> in adjusted dollars in the past, but high enough that the capitalist
> system responded in admirable fashion, inspiring growers to announce
> plans to plant a record number of acres in corn.
>
> Guess Mexican farmers would be free to do that too, wouldn't they?

There are not enough acres in the whole USA to plant enough corn to
meet the President's ethanol goals. If all our corn goes to ethanol,
then we have to import food from somewhere else. Two things happen: we
become dependent on a foreign power for our food, and the impoverished
in other countries suddenly find us outbidding them for their own
produce.

The way we beat the oil cartels during the fuel crisis of the early
'70s was we simply pointed out that we can live for some time without
oil, but those countries were almost wholly dependent on us for food.
Guess who could go longer -- us without oil or them without food? It
was no contest. The end result was simple inflation and oil actually
dropped in relative value to other commodities.

But if we start burning all of our corn we will no longer have that leverage.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007072208012916807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>
> The way we beat the oil cartels during the fuel crisis of the early '70s
> was we simply pointed out that we can live for some time without oil, but
> those countries were almost wholly dependent on us for food.


Wrong on both accounts: first, deregulation kicked up explorartion and
production. Second, we never tied food to oil as that would have been "bad
for the children" (though the kids got very little of the food compared to
all the dictators military/militia forces.

> Guess who could go longer -- us without oil or them without food?

You do know that the US is a net food importer, don't you.

> It was no contest. The end result was simple inflation and oil actually
> dropped in relative value to other commodities.
>
> But if we start burning all of our corn we will no longer have that
> leverage.

The US has more reserves in the Continental shelf than most A-rab countires
combined.

If the people, via the environuts and their enablers in the EPA, want to
keep it off limits, then let "the People" suffer and endure the
consequences.