The ethanol scam

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.

Jay Honeck wrote:


You can read the whole article he
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.

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

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

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

"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

"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 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.

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.

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