PDA

View Full Version : Corn and Ethanol.



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

James48843
02-26-2010, 09:42 PM
E85 after you factor in the reduced MPG is not (marginally) cost effective for the consumer but it does reduce the amount of fossil fuel burned by quite alot. If it helps slow the rate of importing oil, live with it.


The state with the most E85 stations is Minnesota. They have over 325 stations now, so there is competition in the marketplace.

E85 gets you, on average, between 10% and 15% fewer miles per gallon.

Today, the average price of E85 in Minnesota is $2.11 a gallon, and the price of gasoline is $2.59 a gallon. That's an 18.7% price spread.

So it's cheaper to drive per mile on E85.

http://e85prices.com/minnesota.html

Where ever you have true competition, E85 comes out the better deal.

GM is planning on 50% of it's cars and trucks to be E85 capable by 2012, and 80% dual fuel capable by 2015. The problem now is getting more stations to convert and offer customers a choice.

Me? I'll choose AMERICAN MADE renewable fuel, over imported foreign fuel any day.

P.S. Expect gasoline to go over $3 a gallon soon. Some say $3.25 will be the going rate this summer.
When you have a flex-fuel car, you have a choice.

Show-me
02-27-2010, 07:22 AM
Take the taxpayer subsidy away and how efficient is it? And, the tax credit.

WorkFE
02-27-2010, 07:30 AM
James & Show-me, I will not argue the pros and cons, take away all of the tax incentives and subsidies and let stuff survive on its own merits. Changing infrastructure takes a long time, job creation. If tortilla,s have to compete with fuel so be it.

By the way my 2010 Taurus is Flex Fuel capable, just don't find much here in KY.

Show-me
02-27-2010, 07:42 AM
Rice University analysis questions U.S. ethanol subsidies

By Scott Learn, The Oregonian (http://connect.oregonlive.com/user/slearn/index.html)

January 10, 2010, 7:00AM

Federal taxpayers forked over $1.95 a gallon in ethanol subsidies in 2008 on top of the retail gasoline price, a new white paper from Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy (http://www.bakerinstitute.org/) found.

The 118-page analysis (http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/EF-pub-BioFuelsWhitePaper-010510.pdf)from the Houston-based institute says the United States needs to rethink its policy of promoting ethanol. Amy Myers Jaffe (http://www.bakerinstitute.org/personnel/fellows-scholars/ajaffe), associate director of the Rice Energy Program (http://www.bakerinstitute.org/programs/energy-forum) and one of the report's authors, said in a news release that the federal government's aggressive goals for ethanol production could mean "throwing taxpayer money out the window."

Oregon has invested heavily (http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/06/northwests_biofuel_boom_goes_b.html) in ethanol, including granting tax credits for two corn ethanol refineries that filed for bankruptcy after the economy soured. Critics note that biofuels take up a lot of land and often use petroleum-based fertilizers in abundance.

Oregon officials and ethanol backers say the next generation of biofuels will be more efficient, rely on non-food crops and use less land, helping wean the nation off oil. Petroleum supporters are emphasizing the defects of biofuels to take the heat off oil, they say.

In 2008, the U.S. government spent $4 billion on biofuels subsidies, replacing about 2 percent of the U.S. gasoline supply, according to the Baker Institute report, "Fundamentals of a Sustainable U.S. Biofuels Policy." The average cost to the taxpayer was about $82 a barrel, or $1.95 a gallon.

In 2007, Congress mandated that biofuels production increase from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Corn ethanol is capped at 15 billion gallons a year, but the study says even that level will be difficult to reach.

The report also questions the tariff imposed on ethanol imported from Latin America and the Caribbean, mainly made from sugar cane. Because sustainable production of U.S. domestic corn-based ethanol faces limitations, the report finds "tariff policies that block cheaper imports are probably misguided."

-- Scott Learn (scottlearn@news.oregonian.com)
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2010/01/rice_university_analysis_quest.html

Show-me
02-27-2010, 07:48 AM
Archer Daniels Midland:
A Case Study In Corporate Welfare


by James Bovard
James Bovard is an associate policy analyst with the Cato Institute. His most recent book is Shakedown: How the Government Screws You from A to Z (Viking, 1995).


The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

Show-me
02-27-2010, 07:50 AM
Ethanol’s Federal Subsidy Grab Leaves Little For Solar, Wind And Geothermal Energy

As Congress and the incoming Obama administration plan the nation’s next major investments in green energy, they need to take a hard, clear-eyed look at Department of Energy data documenting corn-based ethanol’s stranglehold on federal renewable energy tax credits and subsidies.
Solar, wind and other renewable energy sources have struggled to gain significant market share with modest federal support. Meanwhile, corn-based ethanol has accounted for fully three-quarters of the tax benefits and two-thirds of all federal subsidies allotted for renewable energy sources in 2007.

http://www.ewg.org/reports/Ethanols-Federal-Subsidy-Grab-Leaves-Little-For-SolarWind-And-Geothermal-Energy+

Show-me
02-27-2010, 07:56 AM
What The Ethanol Industry Fears (http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/02/22/what-the-ethanol-industry-fears/)

February 22, 2010 - 4:21 pm



I hadn't intended to write two essays in a row about ethanol policy, but in response to my previous commentary (http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/02/16/washingtons-foolish-fuel-policy/), the ethanol lobby fired a salvo in my direction. Their comments warrant a response.

The point of my previous essay is simple. U.S. taxpayers have provided a tax credit to the ethanol industry for over 30 years. That tax credit, presently known as the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), was created to provide incentives for domestic fuel production. In 2005, mandates were introduced in the form of the Renewable Fuel Standard (http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/index.htm) (RFS). The RFS directs gasoline blenders to mix specific amounts of ethanol into their fuel, and blenders are subject to fines by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) if they fail to comply. Since the EPA can wield a big hammer, companies willingly violate EPA regulations at great corporate risk.

So with a mandate and an enforcement mechanism in place, there is no longer a need for the VEETC. Gasoline blenders won't blend any less than they do now if the credit is eliminated, because of their obligations under the RFS. To continue paying the tax credit is akin to paying people for obeying the speed limit. Without the VEETC, blenders will still buy more ethanol in 2011 than they did in 2010, because it is the law.




"Here are some points to consider, and remember to use these in your own words: * What Rapier is suggesting boils down to a tax increase on an innovative, domestic energy industry. Does Forbes really endorse raising taxes in this tough economic climate? Does Rapier really think raising taxes on an emerging industry is smart? * With domestic, green energy the likely source of hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the United States, why would Forbes and Rapier force a job-killing tax increase on ethanol? * If Rapier is so eager to tax American energy companies, why not end the massive tax subsidies and tax breaks that Big Oil and gas companies get? By some estimates, the oil and gas industry will get around $29 billion in tax breaks from 2008 to 2013. That’s an enormous handout to an industry that sends a billion dollars a day overseas – often to countries that are hostile to the United States. * If the choice were to give a tax credit that helps an American farmer and an American engineer in an American ethanol plant, or giving a tax break to an oil man who is doing business in the Middle East, I’d rather the tax credit stay here on American shores. * The VEETC has reduced farm payments and increased tax revenue that completely offsets whatever the cost of that tax credit is – and in fact generates additional revenue for the federal treasury. In 2007, the $3.3 billion VEETC costs saw farm payments reduced by $8 billion, and generated $8 billion in tax revenue, according to an Iowa State University study."

Show-me
02-27-2010, 07:57 AM
This is the same programs and mentality that got us into the economic crisis we are in. Stop subsidizing and bailing out the free market.

Show-me
02-27-2010, 08:00 AM
Now, if you get rid of that tax credit, oil companies still have to buy the ethanol and blend it into the gasoline. Let the free market determine the price of a gallon of ethanol and a bushel of corn.

More embedded taxation.

burrocrat
02-27-2010, 09:29 AM
GM is planning on 50% of it's cars and trucks to be E85 capable by 2012, and 80% dual fuel capable by 2015.

too bad they weren't planning on avoiding bankruptcy back in '08 instead of pawning off 50% of their assets (100% crap) on the unsuspecting public, but i'm sure they're feeling much better now.


The problem now is getting more stations to convert and offer customers a choice.

yeah, be nice if the taxpayers had a choice.

James48843
02-27-2010, 08:30 PM
Now, if you get rid of that tax credit, oil companies still have to buy the ethanol and blend it into the gasoline. Let the free market determine the price of a gallon of ethanol and a bushel of corn.

More embedded taxation.

The VEETC (Ethanol blending credit) has reduced farm payments and increased tax revenue that completely offsets whatever the cost of that tax credit is – and in fact generates additional revenue for the federal treasury. In 2007, the $3.3 billion VEETC costs saw farm payments reduced by $8 billion, and generated $8 billion in tax revenue, according to an Iowa State University study.

Show-me
02-27-2010, 09:36 PM
The VEETC (Ethanol blending credit) has reduced farm payments and increased tax revenue that completely offsets whatever the cost of that tax credit is – and in fact generates additional revenue for the federal treasury. In 2007, the $3.3 billion VEETC costs saw farm payments reduced by $8 billion, and generated $8 billion in tax revenue, according to an Iowa State University study.

What??? And who paid the "generated $8 billion in tax revenue"???

The consumer again?

If it is such a great fuel, how about letting it stand on its own two feet unsubsidized. Quit play the political tax/tax credit/subsidy shell game and save some trees and quit trying everyone's patience. No change.

Show-me
02-27-2010, 09:37 PM
Sounds like another embedded tax.

SkyPilot
02-28-2010, 07:39 AM
The state with the most E85 stations is Minnesota. They have over 325 stations now, so there is competition in the marketplace.

E85 gets you, on average, between 10% and 15% fewer miles per gallon.

Today, the average price of E85 in Minnesota is $2.11 a gallon, and the price of gasoline is $2.59 a gallon. That's an 18.7% price spread.

So it's cheaper to drive per mile on E85.

http://e85prices.com/minnesota.html

Where ever you have true competition, E85 comes out the better deal.

GM is planning on 50% of it's cars and trucks to be E85 capable by 2012, and 80% dual fuel capable by 2015. The problem now is getting more stations to convert and offer customers a choice.

Me? I'll choose AMERICAN MADE renewable fuel, over imported foreign fuel any day.

P.S. Expect gasoline to go over $3 a gallon soon. Some say $3.25 will be the going rate this summer.
When you have a flex-fuel car, you have a choice.

Actually, e85 is about 25% less efficient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

I live in Minnesota, and my neighbor (an engineer) who is rather focused on the subjuct has monitored his own use and tells me unless he can buy it 30% cheaper than gas, it does not demonstrate a benefit. Plus, we live next to one of those damn plants... the trucks are destroying our roads, the farmers are getting screwed on the corn contracts (plant has already gone bankrupt once) and they are draining our aquifer.

Today
Reg. 2.704
E85 2.32
e85 **E85 MPG/BTU adjusted price 3.065

Break Even Price for e85 2.028 (Today it is .30 a gallon "2.32"from breaking even, much less saving any money.)

That does not even include the tax subsidies granted to keep it at 2.32.

James48843
02-28-2010, 08:11 AM
Actually, e85 is about 25% less efficient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel



It depends on the car. My Dodge Stratus gets 14% fewer MPGs on e85 than on gasoline. Some cars get as little as 10% difference. The Dodge Ram pickup, with it's V10 engine, gets 30% fewer. It's all in the design of the engine.

I'll take my 14% difference, and know that the money is going to American farmers, rather than middle-eastern nations.

Show-me
02-28-2010, 08:32 AM
So lack of efficiency, environmental impact, and cost to the taxpayer takes a back seat to pumped out of the ground of a middle-eastern nation. I say use up their cheap oil and when they run out sell them our ethanol and shale oil reserves.

It is American made but costly to our aquifers for irrigation and production of the end product. Costly to the soil because of the massive artificial nutrients required to grow it and the farming of marginal ground that causes enormous erosion. Very costly to the taxpayer but the Democrats don't really care how much they rape them as long as it has a title of "green" or "made in the USA" no matter how much it is subsidized.

Your arguments are the weak and reek of "no change" due to the fact that ethanol is not a better substitute for oil and legislating its use is tantamount to legislating loans to people who can not afford them so they can feel warm a fuzzy inside from ownership of a house that they will default on and be bailed out by the taxpayer again.

This is not brilliant reasoning in any way, shape, or form considering the nightmare crisis we are in now. This is just more partisan digging your heels in. That argument is ridiculous because we are one world now and you better not sacrifice your Treasury just to have bragging rights of "Made in America".



It depends on the car. My Dodge Stratus gets 14% fewer MPGs on e85 than on gasoline. Some cars get as little as 10% difference. The Dodge Ram pickup, with it's V10 engine, gets 30% fewer. It's all in the design of the engine.

I'll take my 14% difference, and know that the money is going to American farmers, rather than middle-eastern nations.

Show-me
02-28-2010, 09:04 AM
James,

You give me the impression that you and your party have to much personal wealth to burn. You enjoy the high taxes and want to make them higher. You would sacrifice your income and the Nations solvency for the brand "Made in America". If a consumer can buy a widget for $1 and the same widget sells for $5 but is "made in USA". Which will the consumer buy? It is economic and it is on a "global scale" now. You can not legislate jobs. It will fail if it does not work economical and bailing it out with tax money that we don't have is another disaster. Look at Greece, Spain, Ireland, it did not work and now they "mob" is in the streets demanding the taxpayer tit and it is dry.

Have you not observed the auto industries mistakes? It takes time for a massive ponzi scheme to collapse, but it will. As much as you would like to blame it all on CEO's and the Republican's. Toyota, Hyundai, and KIA all are making it work in the USA.

Let ethanol stand on its own to feet and see how it works.

SkyPilot
02-28-2010, 11:06 AM
http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm (http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm)

Ethanol Fuel from Corn Faulted as ‘Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning’

David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.
Mr. Pimentel concluded that "abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuels amounts to unsustainable subsidized food burning".

SkyPilot
02-28-2010, 11:19 AM
If corn ethanol is so efficient, why is it that ethanol plants do not power themselves with their own product, but rather, rely on natural gas and petroleum? Why do farmers who raise the corn use diesel instead of ethanol for their farm equipment?

When ethanol is produced from biomass instead of corn, then we will see actual progress in this area. However, ADM, ConAgra and the others have no vested interest in tree fiber pulp, switchgrass or general waste. This is why countries who can and do rely on ethanol use sugarcane instead of corn.

James48843
02-28-2010, 11:33 AM
http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm (http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm)

Ethanol Fuel from Corn Faulted as ‘Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning’

David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people.



Now that brings us over here to the energy balance thing. Energy balance has been a masterful piece of PR deception by the oil companies for over 40 years. What the proposition is is it takes more energy to produce alcohol than you get out of it. And the first studies that said this pre-1980 were based on beverage distilleries that were from the 1940's that didn't care anything about the price of energy, because they were making whisky. And the price of energy was immaterial to the profit from the whisky. When that cover got blown and the scientists debunked all that, the oil companies came up with a clever way of keeping the argument going. They found the perfect whitewash man in a scientist named David Pimentel. Now David Pimentel, in many fields, is a person I would respect. The guy's an organic bug scientist. In fact, he's the only organic bug scientist I know who has never had a funding problem. And it turned out that he and four other guys together wrote a study in 1982 that said that it takes more energy to make alcohol from corn than you get out of it. The only problem was that David Pimentel was working for Mobil Oil and he was being paid by them when he did that study. Jack Anderson outed that in public, and Mobil Oil was so arrogant that they came out and took out a full page ad saying, "how dare you impugn the credibility of such a man like David Pimentel simply because he was taking money from us?" Well, duh, yeah, exactly. But just like global warming. Whenever there's an article in the paper about global warming, they bring one of the six scientists left in the world who say global warming is a theory, to be balanced, to be the opposite statement for the six thousand who say it's a fact. Pimentel is that one for alcohol, and whenever he speaks, the American Petroleum Institute sends out 10,000 press releases.http://www.communitysolution.org/04conf/af1.html


Sure. Dave Pimentel. On the payroll of Exxon-Mobil. Now there's a credible spokesperson.


Would I pay the same as, or slightly more for E85, and help employ Americans, rather than fork over money borrowed from the Chinese, to give to Middle-Eastern countries?

Darn right I would.

The REAL cost of oil addiction is this-
American lives spent to protect oil fields and sea lanes. Young Americans killed, maimed, blown up, to ensure you get your oil addiction fix.

If my neighbors aren't working, and I can buy something from them, and ensure that they are able to make a modest living, I would be happy to do so. If I can change the world to keep our soldiers, sailors, Marines and Airmen to be needlessly killed in the name of addiction to cheap oil, oil subsidized that doesn't reflect the REAL cost per gallon of keeping it flowing (which should be more like $6-8 a gallon gasoline, by the way, if you added up the real cost).

Then yes, by all means-- I WOULD support finding alternatives to oil. Spend fifteen minutes reading this report- compiled back in 2005, BEFORE the latest price spikes, which found the real price of gasoline, when pump prices were around a buck, was considerably higher:

http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf


8526

Show-me
02-28-2010, 11:45 AM
The VEETC (Ethanol blending credit) has reduced farm payments and increased tax revenue that completely offsets whatever the cost of that tax credit is – and in fact generates additional revenue for the federal treasury. In 2007, the $3.3 billion VEETC costs saw farm payments reduced by $8 billion, and generated $8 billion in tax revenue, according to an Iowa State University study.

http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/59172

Point 5: The VEETC has reduced farm payments and increased tax revenue that completely offsets whatever the cost of that tax credit is...

Response: Irrelevant even if true, because once more I remind you that the blender still has to buy the ethanol. So if it really had the offsets you claim, that won't change by eliminating the subsidy.

If that's the best you have, then I can safely conclude that the emperor has no clothes. You didn't address my arguments at all, because you know you can't. Of course people might be curious as to why you have responded in such a way, but I know why you did. The last thing you want is for people to confront the costs of ethanol at the pump, where they might start to think that our ethanol policy isn't such a good idea after all. That is what you truly fear.

In closing, if you guys aren't afraid to expose your arguments to a bit of scrutiny, I would like to issue a debate challenge. Let's say 3 rounds, 1,000 word limit per round.

Resolved: The ethanol mandates enacted by the U.S. federal government have eliminated the purpose of the ethanol subsidies.

Bullitt
02-28-2010, 11:51 AM
"The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray."

Basically, everything you've laid out in defense of using a FOOD SOURCE as energy is based off of models, stats and subsidization. When a few people based their hypothesis' on a housing model that seemed foolproof a few years back, we brought ourselves to the biggest economic catastrophe in global history.

Without subsidizing the ethanol industry, it won't work. How much of my tax money has been subsidized in the wind energy business? The plan that, "We need to stop relying on enemies for an energy source!", sounds great on paper, but there isn't enough money to go round here.

The economy is in the dumps. New Normal? How about "back to normal". Airline traffic is down, truck traffic is down and trains are soon to be defunct regardless of Warren's 100 year investment. Who are the majority fliers? Businessmen with maybe leisure right behind? Businessmen make global deals with other companies to deliver a product, hence additional oil is burnt in the air by aircraft and on the roads with 18 wheelers to make delivery. With consumption down, oil usage is down, and it's only going to get worse as thousands of baby boomers retire daily while thousands of college educated kids are unable to find work because of cost cutting.

I'm not a believer in Peak Oil as I consider it just another sham thought up by the crooks to get mom and pop to "buy and hold energy stocks for the long term". We take much for granted and yes, we could have a face off with Iran that brings oil shock to the west, but at the same time, what are we going to do when we face our first crop failure in the US?

I am not going to let myself be fooled into believing that the auto industry is on the mend either after 29% of last years sales were fleet sales. My agency has cars in the fleet still buried in snow from November just sitting in the parking lot. Let's see how long we keep ourselves awake for (auto industry) by drinking coffee (stimulus/subsidization) until we completely crash.

I will agree with you on one thing though. Americans haven't learned the lesson from $4 oil shock a few years ago. I say mix in a bicycle or a walk to get from point A to point B. Think of the billions of calories America will burn, billions of dollars America will save in healthcare, and billions of barrels of oil America can save the world. Unfortunately, for anyone who pays taxes and with a mid term election year upon us, expect the finger to once again be pointed at big oil and their 'failure' to produce a viable green energy.

Show-me
02-28-2010, 11:52 AM
And, the people you quote are on a payroll too. Ethanol producers, corn producers, ethanol transporters, green loonies, PETA, DNC, etc. So what, facts are facts. Ethanol is not the answer and it is not cheaper or more efficient. Ethanol producer are gaming the system just like the crooked corporate goons in the lending and housing industry. Just another gaming the system at the taxpayers expense. Rah, rah, rah, go green weenie.:D

Show-me
02-28-2010, 11:53 AM
Lets force everyone to be Amish. Better for the environment and less subsidies.

alevin
02-28-2010, 12:06 PM
Show-Me-I personally agree wholeheartedly about the massive artificial fertilizer inputs, aquifer drawdown, soil erosion, farmng of marginal ground, etc. etc.

My life's vocation has been about Conservation with a capital C-and that includes protecting soil and water as the basic foundation for any other form of conservation. At the same time I've been an Indie/Dem my whole life too-so please don't call ineffective or partial energy conservation solutions a Dem or Green issue-call it an issue of ecological ignorance and short-sightedness and not thinking the whole thing through re long-term impacts.

Tribes around here think in terms of wellbeing of the 7th generation down the line-they make all their tribal government policy and business decisions based on the 7th generation down the line. they're here for the really long haul.

Along with draining aquifers, costly non-renewable energy chemical inputs, and other demands on limited water supply-I became aware recently (through another forum), that producers of seed for Open-Pollinated/Heirloom varieties (read non-commercial) food production are going out of business, converting their acreages to corn due to the subsidies/tax breaks and higher prices for the product thanks to emphasis on ethanol.

The demand for seed from these small producers was so great last year, that the suppliers still in business could barely keep up with the demand last spring and maybe not this spring either (from backyard food farmers, back-to-the landers, Community-supported Agriculture movement, urban neighborhood gardening, people out of work who are trying to cut grocery costs and transportation costs, and need to move affordable quality food supply closer to urban and suburban consumers.

Sustainable/self-sufficient lifestyle (grown your own food/organic/farmers market/Community-supported agriculture) people like me used to be called "greenies" or back-to-the lander hippies, but I'd say now we cross all political boundaries-considering many politically conservative as well as many extremely liberal people on the Heirloom Food Gardening forum I hang out in.

....-BTW did you notice Detroit? the mayor is trying to move people in closer to be able to continue to provide for residual affordable utility and road maintenance, convert outlying areas back to farmland to produce more food locally). It's going to happen other places as well.

Heritage/Open-Pollinated/Heirloom seed (means you can cut your seed-purchase costs, save your own seed to grow your own food year after year). Can't do that if big biz becomes monopoly on seed supply.

Some people could start selling their own excess production at local farmer's markets. one way to to earn money/support your family if can't find a job doing something else more lucrative)-won't happen if corn-ethanol subsidies/tax breaks cause the Heirloom seed growers to leave the business for financial survival reasons.

Just wish people would quit putting all us Dems/libs/Progs/Indies in the same box. We're not all alike and don't all support the same solutions with the same fervor. One reason I'm a Dem/Indie-I try to be independent thinker-no "party line only" here. :rolleyes:

Show-me
02-28-2010, 12:35 PM
alevin,

I am glad to see your post and thrilled that I am not the only person concerned with the aquifers and conservation. The hatred of oil and the marketing of the ethanol industry has blinded the population. I say pump they oil until it runs out. Water, soil, and food are more important and the free market will take care of the oil by pricing, supply, and demand.

James48843
02-28-2010, 01:07 PM
State of the art Ethanol production facility.
dGJbLE2ULKE
Doesn't use corn.
Uses anything that has carbon in it.

Old tires.
Switch Grass.
Wood chips.

Anything that has carbon.


This is where ethanol is going next.

SkyPilot
02-28-2010, 01:28 PM
James, don't get me wrong. I am pro ethanol, just not from corn. It is corporate greed that pushes corn at the expense of taxpayers. The petroleum industrial complex as well as the agricultural mobsters are using corn to bleed the country.

Ethanol from sugar (non tariff), switchgrass, biomass, etc... fine. But we are beign suckered. That's why no one else in the world is pursuing ethanol from corn. Mostly just us.

However, ethanol production as it stand now is deplieting our water supplies and ruining beautiful Minnesota.

nnuut
02-28-2010, 01:35 PM
James, don't get me wrong. I am pro ethanol, just not from corn. It is corporate greed that pushes corn at the expense of taxpayers. The petroleum industrial complex as well as the agricultural mobsters are using corn to bleed the country.

Ethanol from sugar (non tariff), switchgrass, biomass, etc... fine. But we are beign suckered. That's why no one else in the world is pursuing ethanol from corn. Mostly just us.

However, ethanol production as it stand now is deplieting our water supplies and ruining beautiful Minnesota.
I agree with you SP, make it out of trash not food.:o

alevin
02-28-2010, 01:45 PM
trash, not food-and maintain a diversity of food crops within a region-no corn monoculture. the other little problem developing on the east side of the Midwest-is people converting prime farmland back to timberland (for carbon storage credits). :worried:

the east side of the midwest tallgrass prairie was always a naturally fluctuating boundary-trees invaded from the east, fires from the grasslands on the west side would beat the tree line back eastward regularly through natural fire cycles-reason why there used to be buffalo as far east as New York. :cool:

SkyPilot
02-28-2010, 01:50 PM
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=5997

NDSU spearheads sugar beet-to-ethanol project

By Erin Voegele


Report posted Sept. 23, 2009, 6:15 p.m. CST

Attendees at North Dakota State University’s bioenergy event Sept. 22, titled “Northern Plains Bioeconomy: What Makes Sense?” were given the opportunity to learn about a project spearheaded by NDSU that seeks to establish sugar beet ethanol production facilities within the state.

According to Cole Gustafson, a professor in NDSU’s Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, the primary goal of the project is to develop a new industry in North Dakota that will help build local economies. “We are trying to develop an industry…in North Dakota that is locally owned and provides economic opportunities to the region,” he said.

Gustafson said there are a variety of reasons why sugar beet ethanol production makes sense. Unlike many cellulosic technologies, he said sugar ethanol production is a well-established process and considerable quantities of sugarcane-based and sugar beet-based ethanol are currently produced in South America and Europe. “It’s a proven technology,” Gustafson said. “It’s not exploratory.”

When compared to corn ethanol, Gustafson said sugar-based ethanol yields nearly twice the amount of ethanol per acre of production. It also offers a number of advantages from a climate change perspective, which results in lower life cycle carbon emissions. For example, sugar beet cultivation requires less nitrogen input, requires less water, and Gustafson said NDSU’s production process is expected to reduce feedstock transportation needs.

Show-me
02-28-2010, 01:59 PM
Two words that strike home "corn monoculture".

We are back to free range grazing and timber. No feed lot operation here, we feed just enough corn to keep the cattle tame. More like a sweet treat snack.


trash, not food-and maintain a diversity of food crops within a region-no corn monoculture. the other little problem developing on the east side of the Midwest-is people converting prime farmland back to timberland (for carbon storage credits). :worried:

the east side of the midwest tallgrass prairie was always a naturally fluctuating boundary-trees invaded from the east, fires from the grasslands on the west side would beat the tree line back eastward regularly through natural fire cycles-reason why there used to be buffalo as far east as New York. :cool:

Show-me
02-28-2010, 02:03 PM
Here's the deal. When gasoline is at $5 a gallon and they can sell Ethanol for $4 a gallon or less without tax credits and subsidies. Then and only then will I be a believer in ethanol. I still do not like using food for fuel.

James48843
02-28-2010, 02:12 PM
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=5997

NDSU spearheads sugar beet-to-ethanol project

By Erin Voegele


Report posted Sept. 23, 2009, 6:15 p.m. CST

Attendees at North Dakota State University’s bioenergy event Sept. 22, titled “Northern Plains Bioeconomy: What Makes Sense?” were given the opportunity to learn about a project spearheaded by NDSU that seeks to establish sugar beet ethanol production facilities within the state.

According to Cole Gustafson, a professor in NDSU’s Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, the primary goal of the project is to develop a new industry in North Dakota that will help build local economies. “We are trying to develop an industry…in North Dakota that is locally owned and provides economic opportunities to the region,” he said.

Gustafson said there are a variety of reasons why sugar beet ethanol production makes sense. Unlike many cellulosic technologies, he said sugar ethanol production is a well-established process and considerable quantities of sugarcane-based and sugar beet-based ethanol are currently produced in South America and Europe. “It’s a proven technology,” Gustafson said. “It’s not exploratory.”

When compared to corn ethanol, Gustafson said sugar-based ethanol yields nearly twice the amount of ethanol per acre of production. It also offers a number of advantages from a climate change perspective, which results in lower life cycle carbon emissions. For example, sugar beet cultivation requires less nitrogen input, requires less water, and Gustafson said NDSU’s production process is expected to reduce feedstock transportation needs.

While the technology to make ethanol from sugar beets exists, the pricing still doesn't make sense. It costs around $45 a ton for sugar beets, which in turn makes ethanol about $2 a gallon produced from sugar beets, vs. $1.45 from corn.

If there is technology to become more efficient, and it becomes cost competitive, I'm sure we'll see some sugar beet ethanol out there commercially.

Show-me
02-28-2010, 02:20 PM
While the technology to make ethanol from sugar beets exists, the pricing still doesn't make sense. It costs around $45 a ton for sugar beets, which in turn makes ethanol about $2 a gallon produced from sugar beets, vs. $1.45 from corn.

If there is technology to become more efficient, and it becomes cost competitive, I'm sure we'll see some sugar beet ethanol out there commercially.

Sounds like they need a bigger taxpayer subsidy to make it more competitive.

James48843
02-28-2010, 02:31 PM
Lets force everyone to be Amish. Better for the environment and less subsidies.

Now THERE's an idea I can support.


http://estergoldberg.typepad.com/.a/6a0105349ca980970c0128755f201b970c-800wi

James48843
02-28-2010, 02:36 PM
More than 80% of Amish households in one Ohio community now have solar panels.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/06/amish-are-surprise-embracers-of-solar.html

alevin
02-28-2010, 11:47 PM
Now there's an idea I can support too-good for them.

SkyPilot
03-01-2010, 10:57 AM
While the technology to make ethanol from sugar beets exists, the pricing still doesn't make sense. It costs around $45 a ton for sugar beets, which in turn makes ethanol about $2 a gallon produced from sugar beets, vs. $1.45 from corn.

If there is technology to become more efficient, and it becomes cost competitive, I'm sure we'll see some sugar beet ethanol out there commercially.


Quote from same article,,,

According to Gustafson, researchers are currently working to complete a feasibility study for the construction of a 20 MMgy facility that would produce 26.5 gallons of ethanol per ton of sugar beet feedstock. “Our initial statistics show that we have a break-even production cost of ethanol at $1.48 – that is assuming the sugar beets are priced at about $42 per ton,” he said. In addition to producing ethanol, the facility would also produce livestock feed and potash fertilizer coproducts.

SkyPilot
03-01-2010, 10:59 AM
More than 80% of Amish households in one Ohio community now have solar panels.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/06/amish-are-surprise-embracers-of-solar.html


But if they need a ride to the hospital, they ask their Mennonite neighbors for a ride in their Suburbans... :D

James48843
03-01-2010, 07:09 PM
Protec expands E85 in southern states

By Luke Geiver

Posted March 1, 2010

The funding for E85 infrastructure is reaching further south, this time creating 30 new fueling stations spread out through Florida, Georgia and Alabama. Protec Fuel LLC (http://www.protecfuel.com/), a Florida-based company specializing in ethanol programs, recently received funding from the U.S. DOE and announced in February that 18 of the 30 awarded sites are already finished or currently under construction. Partnering with Urbieta Oil, the Renewable Fuels Association, the U.S. Clean Cities Coalitions, and General Motors, Protec says its main goal is to get the E85 infrastructure into the highest use areas.

“Just because there are a lot of flex fuel vehicles in one area, doesn’t mean we will put a blending facility there,” said Todd Garner, managing partner for Protec. “We still have to complete a survey and other research to determine what blending facilities will work in specific locations.” Garner says they start with determining the number of flex fuel vehicles around each proposed site, including the presence of corporate fleets, military vehicles, and the distance between the vehicles and the site. After obtaining this information, Protec believes they can offer a more feasible grant when applying for funding and Garner adds, “Our success rate at our stations average more gallons of E85 than any other stations in the nation.”

More: http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=6399

Buster
03-01-2010, 08:02 PM
But if they need a ride to the hospital, they ask their Mennonite neighbors for a ride in their Suburbans... :D
Yeah, and when the Mennonites need a portable fireplace looking space heater, the Amish are right on it...:D

James48843
03-04-2010, 06:02 PM
G6_PRzP0R88

James48843
04-16-2010, 06:50 PM
http://image.examiner.com/img/header/examiner_logo-header.gif


Flex-Fuel car owners reaping the benefit of cheaper fuel

April 15, 10:35 PM ·
James Pratt -
Detroit Alternative Energy Examiner


While gasoline prices this spring continue to climb towards $3 a gallon, owners of flex-fuel cars are beginning to take advantage of something better. They are discovering cheaper E85 flex-fuel.

Made from 85 percent ethanol and just 15 percent gasoline, the fuel known as E85 has become the better bargain for thousands of Michigan motorists looking to fill up. Those are the motorists who own the many flex-fuel capable vehicles now driving on area roads.

General Motors, Ford and Chrysler have delivered millions of flex-fuel cars over the last decade, but until now, only a small percentage of owners bought flex-fuel. In prior years, the cost of flex-fuel was usually near or above the price of gasoline, so it didn’t make economic sense to buy E85 from a strictly dollars and cents perspective.

The economics changed about two months ago, when the good news of last year’s bumper corn crop collided with increased petroleum demand. Gasoline prices began to rise, and ethanol prices began to fall.

The result?

It’s now far cheaper to fill up on E85. And flex-fuel car owners are loving it.

This week, gasoline prices averaged $2.87 a gallon in Michigan, while E85’s average pump price was just $2.30, according to the website http://e85prices.com. It's now a better deal to use E85.

Today, at a Shell Station on South Waverly Road in Lansing, a young woman in a 2007 Chevrolet Impala stopped to fill with E85 for the very first time.

“I didn’t even think about it until today, when I saw the sign,” the unidentified woman said. “I’ve had this car for a year, and have never tried it before, until today.”

She topped off her blue Impala with E85 at just $2.29 a gallon.


“We’ll see how it works out,” she said.

The Lansing area woman is not alone in not using E85 before. Many owners of flex-fuel cars haven’t tried ethanol, mostly because either it was hard to find, or because the price didn’t make economic sense. Until now, that is.


More:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-44930-Detroit-Alternative-Energy-Examiner~y2010m4d15-FlexFuel-car-owners-reaping-the-benefit-of-cheaper-fuel

James48843
06-11-2010, 08:44 PM
4lx4FuGPAbw

nnuut
06-11-2010, 10:41 PM
The MAN has spoken!!!:cool:
Hey James are you ever going to get that truck to haul ethanol?:) 9553

crws
06-12-2010, 04:50 AM
Have you watched Food, Inc. ?
Corn based ethanol won't make it. Neither will any soybean based fuel either, cuz Monsanto basically owns the patent on the genetic strain of soybean (and corn most likely) used throughout the US.
If you want to see an amazing use of raw material, check how many products are made with raw cotton. Phenomenal!
Of course, will the cotton industry lobby to grow the ultimate plant of industrial versatility? Hemp?

IMO our only way out is CNG, and filling our converted cars right off a compressor-ed second metered line off the main that comes in for our gas heat.
There will need to be separate accounting for hiway taxes and the like.
Perhaps...in our kid's lifetimes...:)

KevinD
06-12-2010, 06:31 AM
IMO our only way out is CNG, and filling our converted cars right off a compressor-ed second metered line off the main that comes in for our gas heat.


+1 to CNG. :)

alevin
06-12-2010, 08:55 AM
I'd buy that, but there'd still need to be massive infrastructure buildout-density of non-residential-filling stations would have to increase on cross-country routes out west in low population density areas where there can be 100 miles between small communities-or more. For the people travelling between towns. Kinda like the old Pony Express/stage stops-which were roughly 20 miles apart.

James48843
06-12-2010, 09:01 AM
CNG= Fossil fuel. Comes out of WELLS, drilled in places like under the ocean. Eventually, we'll run out of CNG (although it will be far later than when oil gets really, really expensive).

Yes, there is a place for CNG in the mix, but there are places for other fuels as well.

Ethanol IS the fuel of the future:


dGJbLE2ULKE

nnuut
06-12-2010, 09:19 AM
Cool! Wood chips and other junk we don't need.
On the other hand this whole thing about ethanol reminds me of the people in the third World countries using wood for heating and cooking, now they have NO TREES!!! I know, I know you don't have to say it but take Natural Gas if we use all of it (I don't think we can) what have we lost, is there a replacement? Yes!
What do these people do with that good old Carbon Monoxide they are making? Dangerous stuff, it killed my older brother and my dad! I know, I know it is broken down and separated and the only waste is water. :cool:

James48843
06-12-2010, 09:27 AM
Blairstown plant turns trash into ethanol

by Matt Kelley (http://www.radioiowa.com/author/mkelley/) on May 28, 2010
in Business & Economy (http://www.radioiowa.com/category/business/)

(http://www.radioiowa.com/category/business/)
A converted ethanol plant near Cedar Rapids that used to process corn is now making a product its owners affectionately call “trash-a-nol.” Craig Stuart-Paul, the C.E.O. of Fiberight, says the plant in Blairstown is using waste fibers from International Paper’s nearby Cedar River mill to make cellulosic ethanol, but he says they have even bigger plans — to turn garbage into “green” gasoline.

“We plan to build another building onsite which will be able to handle residential waste from — starting off with Benton County,” Stuart-Paul says. “We are in discussions with Benton County on the appropriate ways to do that. Their landfill is only 1.7 miles away and that landfill is filling up. We’re able to offer a good solution to Benton County that hopefully saves them a significant amount of money moving forward.” Stuart-Paul calls the source for their new fuel “black bag M-S-W” or municipal solid waste.

“You fill your trash can, generally people use black bags, as opposed to construction waste, which is more difficult to convert,” Stuart-Paul says. “We’re really looking for residential waste.” In the final scene of the movie, “Back to the Future,” a time-traveling scientist up-ends a trash can and dumps household garbage into a processor atop the DeLorean’s engine to use as fuel, everything including coffee grounds and banana peels. Stuart-Paul says the real-life “trash-a-nol” conversion process isn’t quite that simple yet, but constant advances are being made.

Stuart-Paul says, “What we can do is take black bag waste, the stuff you throw out, run it through our process, separate the metals, the recyclables, the plastics, the shall we say ‘other’ material, the smellier stuff, and an awful lot of pulp, which is residual packaging waste, things as diverse as potato peelings and so on, which are high in cellulose and are convertable under our process into biofuel.” International Paper started shipping Fiberight its organic fiber waste at the beginning of May.


More: http://www.radioiowa.com/2010/05/28/blairstown-plant-turns-trash-into-ethanol/


That's ethanol from municipal waste.

alevin
06-12-2010, 09:57 AM
That is an excellent use of waste material. As we become a less wasteful sociey (less consumerism), the waste stream should decline. Much of what is currently "waste" could be going back into the soil as compost-replacing fossil fuel fertilizers and loss of soil nutrients from crop production (it is at my house anyway). competing applications (ethanol vs. compost) to reduce overall dependence on fossil fuels. Price of energy would still go up. We need all options. no single good answer.

The ultimate question will be the relative balance of alternative energy sources.

nnuut
06-12-2010, 10:00 AM
If Carbon Monoxide is what we're looking for why don't they catch all of it that is put out by cars, trucks, coal fired electrical plants compress it and sent it to these folks to make ethanol, NAH, that stuff is free.:)
IT"S MY idea don't try and steal it!!!:suspicious:
Been done holzvergaser!

crws
06-12-2010, 11:44 AM
Blairstown plant turns trash into ethanol


I think there's a bacteria bug for that!
With Moore's Law I suspect the Large Hadron Collider can be reduced in size in 25 years to fit in that Intergalactic HoverRound I'll need to get back and forth on the habitable retirement colony on Venus!

Buster
06-13-2010, 07:05 PM
I think there's a bacteria bug for that!
With Moore's Law I suspect the Large Hadron Collider can be reduced in size in 25 years to fit in that Intergalactic HoverRound I'll need to get back and forth on the habitable retirement colony on Venus!http://www.hummeraddicts.com/Smileys/Lots_O_Smileys/biglol.gifhttp://www.hummeraddicts.com/Smileys/Lots_O_Smileys/biglol.gif

nnuut
06-14-2010, 08:20 AM
What we really need is better FILTERS on exhaust emissions, all of them, then the problem is solved!:cool:
Got any ideas? 9561

Buster
06-16-2010, 12:06 PM
If Carbon Monoxide is what we're looking for why don't they catch all of it that is put out by cars, trucks, coal fired electrical plants !
...Just expressing a little trivia here about Carbon Monoxide (CO).

CO is a result of too much fuel and not enough oxygen (O2) in the combustion process for a complete fuel burn, so some fuel is left unburnt...What is done in fuel oil and coal furnaces, is to meter the oxygen (O2) in at such an excessive level that there is always an excess of unburned (in lay-terms) O2...This combines with the carbon residue from the completely burnt fuel and makes CO2 (Carbon-Dioxide) which is safe for the environment (contrary to Algorites thinking)...So, if internal combustion engines could be tuned to run on more air to fuel ratio..the emissions would be mostly CO2, but they can't yet under current technology..The Catalytic Converters was implemented on Cars and trucks for afterburning (the catalytic process)the CO to produce some hydrogen sulfide and water..

James48843
06-17-2010, 02:12 AM
xWXhmYgHm0M
KAAPA ethanol plant, Minden, Nebraska.

crws
06-17-2010, 05:13 AM
Nice find.
My ignorance is showing...
KAAPA is almost like a co-op. Good on the farmers that got that business off the ground.
I found this bit of trivia the other day:


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zIHtcEiDCGk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zIHtcEiDCGk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>



xWXhmYgHm0M
KAAPA ethanol plant, Minden, Nebraska.

Valkyrie
06-17-2010, 06:10 AM
...Just expressing a little trivia here about Carbon Monoxide (CO).

CO is a result of too much fuel and not enough oxygen (O2) in the combustion process for a complete fuel burn, so some fuel is left unburnt...What is done in fuel oil and coal furnaces, is to meter the oxygen (O2) in at such an excessive level that there is always an excess of unburned (in lay-terms) O2...This combines with the carbon residue from the completely burnt fuel and makes CO2 (Carbon-Dioxide) which is safe for the environment (contrary to Algorites thinking)...So, if internal combustion engines could be tuned to run on more air to fuel ratio..the emissions would be mostly CO2, but they can't yet under current technology..The Catalytic Converters was implemented on Cars and trucks for afterburning (the catalytic process)the CO to produce some hydrogen sulfide and water..

The marxist EPA requires that vehicles with catalytic converters run way too rich 14.7:1 at hwy speeds so that the CC will work. With todays electronics a vehicle could get at least 10 mpg more if the manufactures weren't held to 14.7:1. Honda actually made a car that was using about 25-27:1 ratio but its was banned from being used in calf and NY due to the epa. So of course I think they stopped production in the US. This actually was very very clean burning but didn't meet the 14.7:1.
The epa and osha have destroyed this country and our jobs.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every principle of our socialist program, until one day American will be a socialist nation, without ever knowing how it happened. ...I no longer need to run on the Socialist Party ticket because the Democrat Party has now adopted our platform."
--Norman Thomas. 1944 Socialist Party Presidential Candiate.

James48843
06-17-2010, 09:23 AM
The marxist EPA requires that vehicles with catalytic converters run way too rich 14.7:1 at hwy speeds so that the CC will work. With todays electronics a vehicle could get at least 10 mpg more if the manufactures weren't held to 14.7:1. Honda actually made a car that was using about 25-27:1 ratio but its was banned from being used in calf and NY due to the epa. So of course I think they stopped production in the US. This actually was very very clean burning but didn't meet the 14.7:1.
The epa and osha have destroyed this country and our jobs.


Bunk-

The EPA does not require a air/fuel mixture of 14.7 to 1 for gasoline to burn. The laws of physics do.

and as for your statement of "Honda actually made a car that was using about 25-27:1 ratio but its was banned from being used in calf and NY due to the epa. "

What evidence can you provide to support such a statement?

By the way- the EPA doesn't set state-by-state emissions standards.

I call bunk on the whole post.

Valkyrie
06-17-2010, 10:19 AM
Bunk-

The EPA does not require a air/fuel mixture of 14.7 to 1 for gasoline to burn. The laws of physics do.

and as for your statement of "Honda actually made a car that was using about 25-27:1 ratio but its was banned from being used in calf and NY due to the epa. "

What evidence can you provide to support such a statement?

By the way- the EPA doesn't set state-by-state emissions standards.

I call bunk on the whole post.

your lack of knowledge of how an internal combustion engine works is disturbing when it comes to air/fuel ratios and fuels when u promote ethanol. do your research and prove me wrong.
A vehicle going down the hwy under lite load does not need 14.7:1, it is wasting fuel. every car could be getting approx 10mpg at a leaner a/f. however the cat will not work correctly. do your research and prove me wrong.:)

my mistake it was CARB of ca, however they're in bed with the epa.
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-30/business/fi-1539_1_nitrogen-oxide

crws
06-17-2010, 11:43 AM
sounds like a market for an in-between-testing EEPROM to me


your lack of knowledge of how an internal combustion engine works is disturbing when it comes to air/fuel ratios and fuels when u promote ethanol. do your research and prove me wrong.
A vehicle going down the hwy under lite load does not need 14.7:1, it is wasting fuel. every car could be getting approx 10mpg at a leaner a/f. however the cat will not work correctly. do your research and prove me wrong.:)

my mistake it was CARB of ca, however they're in bed with the epa.
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-30/business/fi-1539_1_nitrogen-oxide

Valkyrie
06-17-2010, 11:59 AM
your lack of knowledge of how an internal combustion engine works is disturbing when it comes to air/fuel ratios and fuels when u promote ethanol. do your research and prove me wrong.
A vehicle going down the hwy under lite load does not need 14.7:1, it is wasting fuel. every car could be getting approx 10mpg at a leaner a/f. however the cat will not work correctly. do your research and prove me wrong.:)

my mistake it was CARB of ca, however they're in bed with the epa.
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-30/business/fi-1539_1_nitrogen-oxide

Edit: should have been "approx 10mpg more at a leaner a/f."

why can't we edit our orginal posts?

crws
06-17-2010, 12:06 PM
you can, but only for 15 minutes after posting...


Edit: should have been "approx 10mpg more at a leaner a/f."

why can't we edit our orginal posts?

nnuut
06-17-2010, 12:41 PM
What does it do to an engine if you run it too lean? 9585
This is a test:
9584

Buster
06-17-2010, 03:02 PM
What does it do to an engine if you run it too lean? 9585
This is a test:
9584

burns the exhaust valves

crws
06-17-2010, 03:22 PM
burns the exhaust valves

ding ding ding ding
YOU WIN!!!:cheesy:
Now put some lead in that fuel and shadddup!

nnuut
06-17-2010, 03:27 PM
Pre ignition, Spark knock, over heating BYE BYE engine!
Buster is the winner and wins the grand prise of a winkidink and a woopi button!!:D:)

crws
06-17-2010, 03:50 PM
'scuse me- 30 minutes, I gather.


you can, but only for 15 minutes after posting...

James48843
06-17-2010, 04:58 PM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future

Valkyrie
06-17-2010, 05:02 PM
What does it do to an engine if you run it too lean? 9585
This is a test:
9584


is that under load, low load or at idle? proper octane? correctly working cooling system? correct type oil? proper oil level? etc. it makes a difference.
very misleading question.

wwwtractor
06-17-2010, 05:54 PM
Check out the engine used in the Honda Insight. It has a special lean burn mode.

Buster
06-17-2010, 06:11 PM
Check out the engine used in the Honda Insight. It has a special lean burn mode.
Norm was talking about this engine...:D

http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/attachment.php?attachmentid=9584&d=1276796436

crws
06-17-2010, 07:59 PM
Jon Stewart & Co. is comic genius.
Thanks for posting.


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future

nnuut
06-17-2010, 08:28 PM
Norm was talking about this engine...:D

http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/attachment.php?attachmentid=9584&d=1276796436
Yeah!!!!!!! 9592

nnuut
06-17-2010, 08:37 PM
Jon Stewart & Co. is comic genius.
Thanks for posting.
I liked that one tooooo~!!!!!:D:laugh:

crws
06-17-2010, 08:45 PM
Hey! are my eyes playing tricks on me or is most of that glass good?


Yeah!!!!!!! 9592

Buster
06-17-2010, 11:18 PM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future


That was totally the best one..I will have to thank you...Great stuff:)

XL-entLady
06-18-2010, 08:06 AM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future
The payoff at the end of the clip was priceless! :D

nnuut
06-18-2010, 08:13 AM
Hey! are my eyes playing tricks on me or is most of that glass good?
The windshield costs Mucho Dinero!!!

crws
06-18-2010, 11:06 AM
Are those yours?


The windshield costs Mucho Dinero!!!

nnuut
06-18-2010, 11:32 AM
Are those yours?
I wish, I found that Pic on the net!!:rolleyes:

CountryBoy
06-18-2010, 12:08 PM
Is that a Buick in the background with an intact windshield also?

nnuut
06-18-2010, 01:17 PM
Is that a Buick in the background with an intact windshield also?
The Chevy was a V8 Power Pack
Buick Yes and it looks like a 1958 notice the dual headlights!
And a 1963 chevy on the right with no hood!:laugh:Really!!

CountryBoy
06-18-2010, 02:40 PM
The Chevy was a V8 Power Pack
Buick Yes and it looks like a 1958 notice the dual headlights!
And a 1963 chevy on the right with no hood!:laugh:Really!!

There is money to be made in junk yards, especially with cars of that vintage. I remember riding in my grandparents '57 chevy as a kid. Those older cars really had interior space.

Good eyes on the '63 chevy, not enough there for me to id. Those were the days when you could easily tell what kind of car it was, not like all the look alikes today, though the Mustang and other old muscle cars coming out now have a more distinctive look. If Detroit was smart they'd bring back more of the older models.

WorkFE
06-18-2010, 03:23 PM
I'm with you CB, I love my ford diesel but if ford or chevy retroed a 50's (ford) or 60's (chevy) I be hard pressed not to be interested. They had a curvier look back then.

crws
06-25-2010, 09:27 PM
I have been trying this in my aging 93 Accord 4dr 2.2L FI Auto for about 2 months now. It has a 17g tank, and I typically fill it at the 2 gal mark, where the empty light comes on.
I have been slowly increasing the amount of Acetone (I use a can I bought from the Depot, it is just Acetone, no water or additives), and with 4oz per 15g I have obtained 26 mpg over a 2 week period of mixed driving which includes 50 miles RT freeway driving for work 5x a week (1/2 of it stuck in 20mph or less rush hour traffic) and various short trips, close by or within 15 minutes of mixed city/freeway driving away.
I can verify no ill effects and a noticeable increase in power. My car is still a gas hog, but definitely more efficient, from once a week fills to 1.5 weeks between fills (390 miles w/ 15g)
The info I read said the acetone worked to decrease the surface tension of gasoline, allowing finer atomization, enabling a more complete burn. The KipKay guy is rather humorous, but ingenious as well.:laugh:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UHAUsGlfbx8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UHAUsGlfbx8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

James48843
06-26-2010, 05:29 PM
Acetone? No. Old Wives tale.
http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/acetone.asp


The added pressure in your tires IS a good tip, as is the part about trying to reduce stops and starts, and turning off your engine while waiting a a long light. Those are all good tips.

However, adding acetone to your tank will NOT affect your miles per gallon. At it's worst- it could damage engine sensors.


You don't have to believe my word for it- for even Snopes, for that matter.

You can go straight to the Car Talk gurus- TOM AND RAY (Don't drive with my brother)...

http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns/Archive/2006/January/08.html

Show-me
06-26-2010, 06:42 PM
We spoke to a fuel-systems engineer who works for one of the major oil companies. He said that because of all these rumors floating around on the Web, his company tested acetone in its own labs and found no increase in mileage.

Are those the same evil oil industry scientist that are making up the lies about ethanol? ;)

nnuut
06-26-2010, 07:31 PM
9627

crws
06-27-2010, 11:30 AM
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/D_oh.jpg
http://www.kjm.org/simpsons/sounds/32dohs.wav


Are those the same evil oil industry scientist that are making up the lies about ethanol? ;)

FundSurfer
07-02-2010, 09:58 AM
I can verify no ill effects and a noticeable increase in power. My car is still a gas hog, but definitely more efficient, from once a week fills to 1.5 weeks between fills (390 miles w/ 15g)

Acetone is a solvent thay may have cleaned your injectors an increased your efficiency a little. That is the only thing I can think of. I would not use it long term.

crws
07-02-2010, 01:54 PM
with variants commonly used in all the various injector cleaners, FWIH.
It's an old car, so I'm not too concerned. I doubt that 4oz/15gal would have significant effect on components.
Next week I will run a full tank test without and see where my mileage ends up.


Acetone is a solvent thay may have cleaned your injectors an increased your efficiency a little. That is the only thing I can think of. I would not use it long term.

James48843
07-02-2010, 09:59 PM
USDA produces short video on ethanol, E85



By Holly Jessen
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=6772

Posted July 1, 2010

Just two weeks after USDA released its “Regional Roadmap to Meeting the Biofuels Goals of the Renewable Fuels Standard,” it now has a short video, touting the importance of ethanol and other biofuels in reducing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.

The ethanol industry needs to go national, said Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, in the video. To build the 527 biorefineries the USDA estimates will be needed to meet the goal of 36 billion gallons by 2022, a variety of feedstocks will need to be used, depending on the strengths of that region. “It’s an opportunity for us to make sure that … ethanol is more readily available to folks in all parts of the country and all four corners of the country,” he said in the video.

USDA has also indicated that infrastructure is an important part of the success of biofuels. “There are a number of potential barriers and bottlenecks in the current ethanol use supply chain,” the report said. “While we expect the market to respond to the infrastructure needs of a growing industry, we recognize that the path from production to actual consumption presents challenges that will need to be anticipated and addressed.”

Besides additional blender pumps, the U.S. needs infrastructure to distribute ethanol by rail or truck as well as blending terminals and storage facilities.

The report also singled out California, Texas and Florida as possible primary targets for more blender pumps and flex-fuel vehicles.


rVs14lhlVhM

Buster
07-02-2010, 11:25 PM
Hey Jim..Whatever happened to your plans to start your Ethanol bulk delivery service?...Is it up and running yet?..That would be cool me thinks.

Hope it's going good for ya!

crws
07-03-2010, 03:56 PM
I thought that ethanol had more acute side effects than gasoline, therefore requiring an updated public awareness campaign on the dangers of unprotected skin exposure vs. the relative minimal effects of gasoline.
I was under the impression that this issue was the primary reason a slow transition was inherent, to educate the public and put forth new standards involved with i.e. u-fill fueling where there would be a minimally controlled environment by a wide variety of users.
I equated this to propane, where filling was limited to trained personnel.

I'd assume this would equate to gloves being provided at fill stations and/or some sort of a quick video or "test" where a disclaimer/acceptance would be required at the new electronic self-fill pumps for a given time until it became part of public culture, probably with MSDS awareness.
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m2015.htm

thoughts?

James48843
07-03-2010, 06:12 PM
I thought that ethanol had more acute side effects than gasoline, therefore requiring an updated public awareness campaign on the dangers of unprotected skin exposure vs. the relative minimal effects of gasoline.
I was under the impression that this issue was the primary reason a slow transition was inherent, to educate the public and put forth new standards involved with i.e. u-fill fueling where there would be a minimally controlled environment by a wide variety of users.
I equated this to propane, where filling was limited to trained personnel.

I'd assume this would equate to gloves being provided at fill stations and/or some sort of a quick video or "test" where a disclaimer/acceptance would be required at the new electronic self-fill pumps for a given time until it became part of public culture, probably with MSDS awareness.
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m2015.htm

thoughts?

First, you pulled the MSDS for Methanol, not Ethanol. Big difference.

Secondly, no, ethanol has very few issues with handling. It's pretty much the same as gasoline, only not quite as bad as gasoline for you. You don't get the benzene cancer causing chemicals with ethanol that you do with gasoline.

crws
07-03-2010, 07:16 PM
oh, good point... my bad:nuts:

nnuut
07-04-2010, 08:28 AM
Ethanol, think Corn Whiskey with additives!;)

crws
07-04-2010, 10:35 AM
I wish I lived nearer to Margaritaville, I'd bring the boiled peanuts and some chicken!


Ethanol, think Corn Whiskey with additives!;)

nnuut
07-04-2010, 11:44 AM
I wish I lived nearer to Margaritaville, I'd bring the boiled peanuts and some chicken!
Too BAD, I Boiled Peanuts!!:( 9667

OBGibby
07-25-2010, 03:44 AM
It's time to end the excessive subsidies for corn ethanol

Saturday, July 24, 2010
The Washington Post
Editorial

".....The fuel was supposed to free America from its dependence on foreign oil and produce fewer carbon emissions in the process. It's doing some of the former and little of the latter. But corn ethanol certainly doesn't need the level of taxpayer support it's been getting. Lawmakers are considering whether to renew these expensive subsidies; they shouldn't.

.....feds give companies that combine corn ethanol with gasoline a 45-cent tax subsidy for every gallon of corn ethanol added to gasoline.

.....The Congressional Budget Office this month estimated (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11477/11477_Summary.pdf) that, all told, the costs to taxpayers of replacing a gallon of gasoline with one of corn ethanol add up to $1.78. The tax incentives alone cost the Treasury $6 billion in 2009....."

Complete editorial at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072304345.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072304345.html)

KevinD
07-30-2010, 10:36 AM
FSN In Depth: Michael C. Ruppert, Confronting Collapse

Confronting Collapse: The Crisis of Energy and Money in a Post Peak Oil World

http://www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour/in-depth/michael-c-ruppert/confronting-collapse


Ruppert outlines a 25-point plan of action, including the creation of a second strategic petroleum reserve for the use of state and local governments, the immediate implementation of a national Feed-in Tariff mandating that electric utilities pay 3 percent above market rates for all surplus electricity generated from renewable sources, a thorough assessment of soil conditions nationwide, and an emergency action plan for soil restoration and sustainable agriculture.

James48843
08-17-2010, 07:49 PM
Ethanol Grand Opening two weeks ago
at Norfolk, Virginia. The first E85 station in
Norfolk.

Something to think about-- It's more than just another alternative fuel- it's part of the solution to break our dependence on foreign oil. Just ask the military people at Norfolk how important it is.
n3iSqXBck1k

Silverbird
08-18-2010, 08:52 AM
Does is work in boats yet? Last I checked it doesn't?

Show-me
08-19-2010, 06:01 AM
It's time to end the excessive subsidies for corn ethanol

Saturday, July 24, 2010
The Washington Post
Editorial

".....At this point, the question should not be whether to allow corn ethanol's tax incentives and trade protections to expire. The debate should be about why corn ethanol deserves any federal protection at all. There are certainly more effective ways to reduce oil consumption and greenhouse emissions."

Complete editorial at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072304345.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072304345.html)

Free trade.

KevinD
08-19-2010, 06:34 AM
We've gotta stop moving "things" half/all the way around the world. Why does California need grapes from Chile when they've got their own?

WorkFE
08-19-2010, 08:07 AM
They took a vote to use their own or import them from Chile. 95% of the citizens voted to use their own but a judge decided that they are not smart enough to make those tough decisions.:laugh:

alevin
08-19-2010, 08:38 AM
Agreed! reduce the supply chain and associated transport energy costs to extent we can. That's what killed Napoleon's expansion of his empire-the supply chain was too long. Produce locally for local consumption, manufacture locally from local resources, only trade the surplus as far away as we need to to find a viable buyer. Perhaps Chile cannot find a better buyer closer to them? hmm.

some regions will produce products more efficiently than others. the northwest will never be a producer of cotton. Ah, but we have wheat to trade! could we produce other things? well yes, maybe, it depends. does it need water? how much? does it require electricity? how much? can the existing grid handle the extra electricity required?

where does the electricity come from? what's the fuel source for electrical production? natural gas? hydro? coal? which of those are available locally. How far away is the source?

Hey, I read about a new experiment a couple regional utilities are starting up. It's called using smart grid to store excess electrical production from intermittent wind power-in household water heaters-it turns them off so they are not drawing energy during the low-demand periods. Water in the water heaters don't lose that much heat that rapidly even if turned off for a few hours. Homeowners can do manual overrides at any time, if they want to use their hot water during off hours. or something like that.

Finally a development with "smart grid" I could buy into. :) I haven't liked the idea of smart grid managing my household thermostats for me. :suspicious:

WorkFE
08-19-2010, 08:59 AM
Perhaps Chile cannot find a better buyer closer to them? hmm.

They need to drink more wine.:D

alevin
08-19-2010, 10:42 AM
They need to drink more wine.:D

:cheesy: maybe FE, maybe. I know that was a joke, but on the serious side, are you a wine drinker? If so, you'd know wine grapes are not table (eating) grapes and vice-versa. would take years for them to convert productive table grape vinyards to equally productive wine grape vinyards-major cap investment with lag time on the returns on capital.

there's this little thing about soil and climate too-I don't know enough about table-grape production to know but the table-grape lands may not be suitable for wine grapes. All I know is-I live in wine-grape country myself and we don't grow table-grapes around here. :)


ok, enough stealing the ethanol-corn thread for grapes and wine and electricity for the day. :o

malyla
08-19-2010, 11:09 AM
:cheesy: maybe FE, maybe. I know that was a joke, but on the serious side, are you a wine drinker? If so, you'd know wine grapes are not table (eating) grapes and vice-versa. would take years for them to convert productive table grape vinyards to equally productive wine grape vinyards-major cap investment with lag time on the returns on capital.

there's this little thing about soil and climate too-I don't know enough about table-grape production to know but the table-grape lands may not be suitable for wine grapes. All I know is-I live in wine-grape country myself and we don't grow table-grapes around here. :)


ok, enough stealing the ethanol-corn thread for grapes and wine and electricity for the day. :o

Agreed. I have drank some wine from all over the world and even if Chile did convert to wine grapes, they will never get the market share. The few Chilean wines I have sampled are grassy is taste with no complexity. The soil and climate just can't compete with France/Germany or the west coast of the USA. Australia has a few good regions as well.

Remember the California raisin commercials? How is it good that we get our table grapes from 4000 miles away. Just who is benefiting on our side? Are we worried that Chile will pose a sercurity risk if we don't prop up their economy by buying their grapes?

Go local, or as local as you can get.

crws
08-19-2010, 11:27 AM
Agreed. I have drank some wine from all over the world and even if Chile did convert to wine grapes, they will never get the market share. The few Chilean wines I have sampled are grassy is taste with no complexity. The soil and climate just can't compete with France/Germany or the west coast of the USA. Australia has a few good regions as well.

Remember the California raisin commercials? How is it good that we get our table grapes from 4000 miles away. Just who is benefiting on our side? Are we worried that Chile will pose a sercurity risk if we don't prop up their economy by buying their grapes?

Go local, or as local as you can get.

Food, INC
They are probably round-up resistant grapes by monsanto...

I need to do something constructive today to lighten my mood.
This progression seems to be suffering the same fate as any other- hardcore resistance to change and adaptation. Is this the reason societies fail?

WorkFE
08-19-2010, 12:42 PM
Fair enough, however you can absolutely make a competitive wine with table variety grapes.
The flavor is different not because of what is inside the grape but much of the flavor and tannins and virtually all of the color comes from the skin. Thick-skinned grapes are desirable because they produce robust, flavorful, tannic and long-lived wines but tough to chew.
Thin skinned grapes are more desireable for eating but for the home wine maker not less desireable for making wines.
From those whom I brew on occasion with. To be fair though, we are not a soffisticated lot.:nuts:

nnuut
08-19-2010, 01:01 PM
Fair enough, however you can absolutely make a competitive wine with table variety grapes.
The flavor is different not because of what is inside the grape but much of the flavor and tannins and virtually all of the color comes from the skin. Thick-skinned grapes are desirable because they produce robust, flavorful, tannic and long-lived wines but tough to chew.
Thin skinned grapes are more desireable for eating but for the home wine maker not less desireable for making wines.
From those whom I brew on occasion with. To be fair though, we are not a soffisticated lot.:nuts:
Don't forget about the Oak Barrels, black berries, cherries.:laugh:

alevin
08-19-2010, 01:14 PM
and plums, cinnamon, mineral, tobacco.....:toung:

WorkFE
08-19-2010, 02:44 PM
A gentlemen I know (I use that term loosely) dropped off several bushels of plums yesterday. They can't get enough of my plum wine, I only make it once a year.

James48843
09-10-2010, 11:53 AM
I just wanted to make this note:


The price of corn had jumped over 25% just since June. In fact, there are now, in the last month or so, a reapearance of the massive number of speculators in corn futures. In fact, the most since back in July of 2008, when speculation in corn futures and other commodities sent prices through the roof.


Not normal market forces, but pure speculation. The result back in July-Sept 2008 was a doubling of prices, then a bursting bubble, and that led, of course, in the fall of 2008, to the stock market debable we all rememer.


Well, corn prices are doing it again. It's not normal market demand, for the actual use of corn. It's market speculators who are driving up prices.


Corn this morning passed $4.87 a bushel, up from the $3.50-> $3.80 which was a normal range price two months ago.

Here is the chart:




9993


My take- BEWARE of rampent market speculation. In the not -too-distant future, my personal opinion is that this has to correct itself and fall. This year's corn forecast crop producion is for an all-time record harvest, and yeilds to be second or third highest ever on record. This is an UN-NATURAL price bubble in corn.


That's my 2cents for today.

crws
09-10-2010, 11:58 AM
I just wanted to make this note:


The price of corn had jumped over 25% just since June. In fact, there are now, in the last month or so, a reapearance of the massive number of speculators in corn futures. In fact, the most since back in July of 2008, when speculation in corn futures and other commodities sent prices through the roof.


Not normal market forces, but pure speculation. The result back in July-Sept 2008 was a doubling of prices, then a bursting bubble, and that led, of course, in the fall of 2008, to the stock market debable we all rememer.


Well, corn prices are doing it again. It's not normal market demand, for the actual use of corn. It's market speculators who are driving up prices.


Corn this morning passed $4.87 a bushel, up from the $3.50-> $3.80 which was a normal range price two months ago.

Here is the chart:




9993


My take- BEWARE of rampent market speculation. In the not -too-distant future, my personal opinion is that this has to correct itself and fall. This year's corn forecast crop producion is for an all-time record harvest, and yeilds to be second or third highest ever on record. This is an UN-NATURAL price bubble in corn.


That's my 2cents for today.

Oil traders switch hitting perhaps?

WorkFE
09-10-2010, 12:11 PM
FYSA:

I live in an area that is mostly soy bean and alpha but this year it is mostly corn. In 10 years I've never seen this much corn grown.
In my opinion your assesment is spot on.
Thanks

Birchtree
09-10-2010, 12:14 PM
I just finished planting my winter corn crop in my small garden - I'll be eating mine.

crws
09-10-2010, 12:19 PM
I just finished planting my winter corn crop in my small garden - I'll be eating mine.

Perhaps you'll start a "Corn and Methane" thread?

James48843
09-10-2010, 02:17 PM
And I just got this from one of my ethanol publcation sources:



Record Corn Crop….Record Speculation: Last Friday, corn futures traders had their most active day in 133 years. According to Drover’s, a record 556,034 corn futures contracts (the equivalent of 2.8 billion bushels of corn!) changed hands last Friday, marking the single busiest day in the corn markets since the Chicago Board of Trade began trading grain in 1877. The recent flurry of activity in corn market is undoubtedly being driven by the resurgence of speculators. Hedge and index funds are descending on the corn market in numbers not seen since the spectacular commodities bubble of 2008. Read the full blog post here (http://renewablefuelsassociation.cmail1.com/t/y/l/clrfy/tujkuliru/i).

Intereting. Most speculation since trading began in 1877.

I smell a bubble ...

SkyPilot
09-10-2010, 07:57 PM
My farmer friends tell me that their ConAgra rep tells them that the fires and drought in eastern Europe will be driving corn futures for some time to come. Exports will be huge, and will drive up many farm commodity prices.

Buster
09-10-2010, 11:00 PM
Well..There goes up the Price of Ethanoil..:rolleyes:

Straight gasoline will be cheaper..

KevinD
09-11-2010, 08:24 AM
Just say no to food-to-fuel. There has to be a better way.

Birchtree
09-11-2010, 09:36 AM
The better way - power by Obama wind. He looked sullen yesterday but the lies were still coming.

Bullitt
09-11-2010, 10:51 AM
Supply and demand will take care of the problem. I'm not saying ethanol is the answer, but farmers will begin to sell into the strength. These guys aren't dumb that run giant farms. Take a look at what has happened to cocoa prices since that hedge fund manager who tried to corner the cocoa market. Of course, he'll never tell you he lost money but he most likely will.

In the end, high corn and wheat prices are good for the USA because it is the only industry we have now that housing and autos are in secular bear markets.

crws
09-11-2010, 11:41 AM
Supply and demand will take care of the problem. I'm not saying ethanol is the answer, but farmers will begin to sell into the strength. These guys aren't dumb that run giant farms. Take a look at what has happened to cocoa prices since that hedge fund manager who tried to corner the cocoa market. Of course, he'll never tell you he lost money but he most likely will.

In the end, high corn and wheat prices are good for the USA because it is the only industry we have now that housing and autos are in secular bear markets.

The unfortunate part is that GMO corn has pervaded the market and Monsanto most likely owns the patent.
The higher prices only offset the debt incurred by the farmers temporarily, as this industry is just like oil- subsidized to the moon, and corn is in everything imaginable.
If the farmers were actually allowed to profit, they would do as you say and fight the hand(s) that feed them.
One can only hope....
If you haven't watched Food, Inc. it is an eye opener...

http://www.naturalnews.com/027921_Monsanto_monopoly.html

http://www.brazzilmag.com/component/content/article/54/8825-dow-dupont-monsanto-and-syngenta-take-over-brazils-corn.html

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/12/monsanto_uses_patent_law_to_co.html
Monsanto uses patent law to control most of U.S. corn, soy seed market
Published: Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 8:07 PM Updated: Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 8:18 PM
ST. LOUIS, Missouri -- Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found.

http://www.globegazette.com/news/local/article_c2186d58-9aa4-5248-8d81-fb2d5b0afe89.html

James48843
09-11-2010, 12:44 PM
Time to break up the Monsanto monopoly, and ensure no single corporation controls more than 10% of the seed market.

How did we let this happen?

We need to break it up NOW!!

alevin
09-11-2010, 12:53 PM
This is exactly the reason I am not in favor of GMO salmon. diversity of food supply. and also why I and many others are going with open-pollinated and/or heirloom seed companies for home veg gardening. maintain genetic diversity and supplier diversity in the food supply. Its small, but its a start.

Here's one company I do business with. there are others. last year many of the heirloom seed companies had a hard time keeping up with demand.

http://www.nativeseeds.org/ should see my sunflowers, I got seed from these guys. Apache Indian strain. 10-12 feet tall, huge flower heads. beautiful. will post a pic on my thread.

James48843
09-18-2010, 09:28 PM
dqZ6Gmv9YpI

crws
09-19-2010, 05:58 PM
dqZ6Gmv9YpI

thanks for digging these up.

Buster
10-27-2010, 09:06 AM
"...My, that's a lovely shade of algae you are wearing..."



Military, gov't increase investment in algae fuels




SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. – The forest green algae bubbling in a stainless steel fermenting tank in a suburban warehouse may look like primordial pond scum, but it is a promising new source of domestically produced fuels being tested on the nation's jets and warships.
In a laboratory just a few steps away from the warehouse, white-coated scientists for a company called Solazyme (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101027/ap_on_re_us/us_algae_fuels_us_navy#) are changing the genetic makeup of algae to construct a new generation of fuels.
These "bioengineered" algae are placed into tanks, where they get fat on sugar beets, switch grass (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101027/ap_on_re_us/us_algae_fuels_us_navy#)or a host of other plants. The sun's energy, which is stored in the plants, is transformed by the hungry algae into oil, which can be refined into jet fuel, bio-diesel, cooking oil or even cosmetics.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101027/ap_on_re_us/us_algae_fuels_us_navy

alevin
01-19-2011, 02:53 PM
So James, can you explain why world food prices are at all time global high according to FAO? If corn prices are up, then farmers plant more corn. Do you have stats that say whether corn acreage is staying the same or is it increasing?

Even if production efficiency is going up-increasing value of corn to unsubsidized farmer means less acreage of competing grains, which means prices to consumer for those other grains going up too due to less acres in production. people getting priced out of basic food.

Governments are falling over food too expensive for poor people to buy. Tunisia is case in point, not the only country facing food riots. poor people don't buy meat. they buy basic grain-except when they can't afford that either.

I shared office space with Tunisian fellow students many years ago. Wonder how they are doing right now? probably better than some, probably middle class, but their government just fell over food prices-who knows what happens next.

sure do hope algae oil hurries up and becomes mainstream-doesn't require big footprint or prime farmland to produce it and the water can be recycled.

nnuut
01-19-2011, 03:07 PM
I couldn't agree more Alevin!!

James48843
01-19-2011, 04:00 PM
So James, can you explain why world food prices are at all time global high according to FAO? If corn prices are up, then farmers plant more corn. Do you have stats that say whether corn acreage is staying the same or is it increasing?

Even if production efficiency is going up-increasing value of corn to unsubsidized farmer means less acreage of competing grains, which means prices to consumer for those other grains going up too due to less acres in production. people getting priced out of basic food.

Governments are falling over food too expensive for poor people to buy. Tunisia is case in point, not the only country facing food riots. poor people don't buy meat. they buy basic grain-except when they can't afford that either.

I shared office space with Tunisian fellow students many years ago. Wonder how they are doing right now? probably better than some, probably middle class, but their government just fell over food prices-who knows what happens next.

sure do hope algae oil hurries up and becomes mainstream-doesn't require big footprint or prime farmland to produce it and the water can be recycled.

I will try and put together the info you request tonight.

Here is a graphic on the yeild per acre of Corn in the US. We're currently around 160 bushels per acre, double what it was in the 1970's.


http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/corn/production/management/harvest/grainyields.jpg

Myth: Ethanol production wastes corn that could be used to feed a hungry world.

FACT: Wet mill ethanol production facilities are also know as corn refineries—and they also produce starch, corn sweeteners, and corn oil—all products that are used as food ingredients for human consumption.

The corn used for ethanol production is field corn typically used to feed to livestock. Ethanol production also results in the production of distillers grains and gluten feed—both of which are fed to livestock as well, helping produce high quality meat products for distribution domestically and abroad.

There is no shortage of corn. In 2007, U.S. farmers produced a record 13.1 billion bushel corn harvest—and some 2.3 billion bushels (about 13 percent) were used in ethanol production. In other words, there is still room to significantly grow the ethanol market without limiting the availability of corn. Steadily increasing average corn yields and the improved ability of other nations to grow corn also make it clear that ethanol production can continue to grow without affecting the food supply. Source: http://ncga.com/killing-myths-ethanol

James48843
01-19-2011, 04:09 PM
Do you have stats that say whether corn acreage is staying the same or is it increasing?

The number of acres is relatively flat at about 90 million acres of corn planted.



http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/graphics/cornac.gif


Despite the actual number of acres planted being relatively flat, the VOLUME of corn has doubled due to better seeed and better techniques. Note that fertilizer use is down about 1/2 of what it was in the 1970's, yet production is double what it was then.

And this note- less than 20% of airable land in the US is in crop production of all crops. Most land is sitting idle in the US. We PAY farmers NOT to grow crops in many areas of the country. The price of crops now allows some of those subsidies we previousy paid to farmers to be reduced. But there is still a great deal of land in the USA NOT in production.

James48843
01-19-2011, 04:11 PM
The grain they would buy in Tunisia, in your example, would NOT be field corn. Field corn is used in cattle feed and other animal feed. It is not generally used for human consumption.

James48843
01-19-2011, 04:17 PM
The food price rises you speak of?

Those are due to a number of factors, including the Russian wheat crop failures, the droughts across Africa and several Indian Ocean and Pacific rim countries DUE, IN PART, TO CLIMATE CHANGE, and lack of rice, wheat, and cerial grains in the middle east. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12119539

And the single greatest contributor to the rise in food prices, is the rise in the price of OIL, which increases transportation costs everywhere.

Buster
01-19-2011, 06:31 PM
The grain they would buy in Tunisia, in your example, would NOT be field corn. Field corn is used in cattle feed and other animal feed. It is not generally used for human consumption.
When I was a kid growing up in Essexville, MI...we would raid the farmer's fields of corn near by the house..We would have to wait until a certain time of the growing season and for only a couple of days..the corn would be perfect for roasting, boiling and then eating..too soon or too late it was crap..but just in those one or two days the ears were wonderful..Sweet and tender...:)

nnuut
01-19-2011, 07:19 PM
The number of acres is relatively flat at about 90 million acres of corn planted.



http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/graphics/cornac.gif


Despite the actual number of acres planted being relatively flat, the VOLUME of corn has doubled due to better seeed and better techniques. Note that fertilizer use is down about 1/2 of what it was in the 1970's, yet production is double what it was then.

And this note- less than 20% of airable land in the US is in crop production of all crops. Most land is sitting idle in the US. We PAY farmers NOT to grow crops in many areas of the country. The price of crops now allows some of those subsidies we previousy paid to farmers to be reduced. But there is still a great deal of land in the USA NOT in production.
How much of this corn was used for ethanol?:confused:

nnuut
01-19-2011, 07:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7scy70fTpag&feature=player_embedded#!

WorkFE
01-19-2011, 07:25 PM
but just in those one or two days the ears were wonderful..Sweet and tender...:)

Oh the memories of our youth. I may have to hit up my local fields this summer.:D

Minnow
01-19-2011, 07:32 PM
Color me skeptical.

Calling something a viable energy alternative yet it has to be heavily subsidized by the government to actually be viable?

Isn't that like someone claiming to have a perpetual motion machine and when I ask how it works, they say, "First you plug it in?"

Lostdawg
01-19-2011, 07:50 PM
USDA site was not very helpful to dig this info out but another site did it for me. Here it is.
Source: Compiled by Earth Policy Institute with corn used for fuel ethanol from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

1980 corn production 169 Million Tons 0.9 Million Tons used for Fuel Ethanol or 0.3%.
1990 corn production 202 Million Tons 8.9 Million Tons used for Fuel Ethanol or 3.1%.
2000 corn production 252 Million Tons 15.9 Million Tons used for Fuel Ethanol or 4.8%.
2009 corn production 312 Million Tons 104.1 Million Tons used for Fuel Ethanol or 26.0%.
Also note that corn used for fuel ethanol in a given year comes from the previous year's crop; therefore, the 104.1 million tons of corn used for fuel ethanol in 2009 is reported as 26 percent of the 2008 crop of 307 million tons. (Don't know the accuracy, but listed the source)

James48843
01-19-2011, 07:54 PM
Yep. Thanks Lostdawg.

Again, the fact that corn is used for ethanol doesn't mean that it is removed from the food chain.

The production of ethanol from corn uses only the starch of the corn kernel.

All of the valuable protein, minerals and nutrients remain. They get turned into animal feed.

One bushel of corn produces about 2.7 gallons of ethanol AND 11.4 pounds of gluten feed (20% protein) AND 3 pounds of gluten meal (60% protein) AND 1.6 pounds of corn oil.

Heck, you could even make biodiesel from the corn oil if you tried.

James48843
01-19-2011, 08:10 PM
Color me skeptical.

Calling something a viable energy alternative yet it has to be heavily subsidized by the government to actually be viable?

Isn't that like someone claiming to have a perpetual motion machine and when I ask how it works, they say, "First you plug it in?"

You know how much petroleum is subsidized in this country? If we had to pay the true price for oil, it would be MUCH more expensive than ethanol is.

Here's a report that says, back in 2007, (when gasoline was selling for about $1.50 a gallon) that the true price then was around $5.28 a gallon.
http://www.iags.org/n1030034.htm

You can imagine what the true price would be today.

Minnow
01-20-2011, 07:03 AM
You should know me by now. I didn't cite any story or statistic.

A person can argue, and I would not question, that oil is subsidized by our defense presence in the middle east, etc. But I could also argue that all taxes are, at their root, subsidies.

None of the alternative energies that are subsidized today (bio, solar, wind) come close to oil as an energy storage medium -- and that's a really important part of the energy production game. I've yet to see one study show me how the difference between corn and oil in this regard is even close.

I still think the majority of our alt energy plans should be focused on nuclear. Your mileage may vary.

nnuut
01-20-2011, 08:31 AM
11 Mar 2010: Opinion

The Case Against Biofuels:
Probing Ethanol’s Hidden Costs

Despite strong evidence that growing food crops to produce ethanol is harmful to the environment and the world’s poor, the Obama administration is backing subsidies and programs that will ensure that half of the U.S.’s corn crop will soon go to biofuel production. It’s time to recognize that biofuels are anything but green.

by c. ford runge

In light of the strong evidence that growing corn, soybeans, and other food crops to produce ethanol takes a heavy toll on the environment and is hurting the world’s poor through higher food prices, consider this astonishing fact: This year, more than a third of the U.S.’s record corn harvest of 335 million metric tons will be used to produce corn ethanol. What’s more, within five years fully 50 percent of the U.S. corn crop is expected to wind up as biofuels.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_case_against_biofuels_probing_ethanols_hidden_ costs_/2251/

nnuut
01-20-2011, 08:38 AM
Ethanol: How Many Senators Does It Take to Screw a Taxpayer?

Posted on January 16, 2011 (http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/ethanol-how-many-senators-does-it-take-to-screw-a-taxpayer/) by geobear7 (http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/author/geobear7/)| 7 Comments (http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/ethanol-how-many-senators-does-it-take-to-screw-a-taxpayer/#comments)
By The Burning Platform (http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=9361)



The grand lame duck Congress tax compromise extended a 45-cent incentive to ethanol refiners for each gallon of the fuel blended with gasoline and renewed a 54-cent tariff on Brazilian imports. The extension of these subsidies, besides costing American taxpayers $6 billion per year, has the added benefit of driving up food costs across the globe, causing food riots in Tunisia, and resulting in the starving of poor peasants throughout the world. This taxpayer boondoggle is a real feather in the cap of that fiscally conservative curmudgeon Senator Charley Grassley. He was joined in this noble effort by another fiscal conservative, presidential hopeful John Thune. It seems these guys hate wasteful spending, except when it benefits their states. The bipartisanship in this effort was truly touching, as Democrats Kent Conrad and Tom Harkin also brought home the pork for their states.

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/ethanol-how-many-senators-does-it-take-to-screw-a-taxpayer/

Silverbird
01-20-2011, 08:43 AM
Stop the Subsidies in non-competitive industries! Other countries subsidize industries they think they should be competitive in. We subsidize our old, Big Corporate (including big Agra) and non-competitive industries, encourageing them to get bigger and bigger and not changing their ways. What's with that??:rolleyes:

James48843
01-20-2011, 08:19 PM
There is plenty of land to produce food AND biofuel. A new study says we could easily produce over half the liquid fuel neededhe entire world, and still produce the same or more food crops we do today.




One of the great arguments against biofuels is the wisdom, if not the morality, of using land to produce fuel instead of food. But research out of Illinois suggests it doesn’t have to be an either-or proposition.


Researchers at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign have found that biofuel crops cultivated on land unsuitable for food crops could produce as much as half the world’s current fuel consumption without adverse impact on food crops or pastureland.

More: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/01/study-weve-got-plenty-of-land-for-biofuels/ (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/01/study-weve-got-plenty-of-land-for-biofuels/)

The only issue now is the economics vs. oil. With oil prices going up, ethanol looks better and better all the time.

Minnow
01-21-2011, 07:41 AM
1 gallon of gas = 114,000 BTU (roughly)
1.5 gallons of ethanol = 76,100 BTU (roughly)

let me know when the laws of thermodynamics have been changed and I might consider listening to ethanol proponents about their product.

I'm not saying alternative energy sources shouldn't be explored, I'm saying there are better ones to spend money on than this.

James48843
01-21-2011, 07:52 AM
1 gallon of gas = 114,000 BTU (roughly)
1.5 gallons of ethanol = 76,100 BTU (roughly)

let me know when the laws of thermodynamics have been changed and I might consider listening to ethanol proponents about their product.


Your data is incorrect.

Ethanol is around76,000 BTU for 1 gallon, not 1.5 gallons.

So what? What is your point?
1 gallon Ethanol = 76,000 BTU.
1gallon of E85 = 82,000 BTU
1 gallon of gasoline = 114,00 BTU.
1 gallon of diesel fuel = 135,000 BTU (http://www.generatorjoe.net/html/energy.html).
1 gallon of heavy #6 bunker fuel oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil)= 153,000 BTU's.



So are you saying that gasoline is unworkable, and we all should be using diesel fuel engines, or engines that run exclusively on #6 heavy bunker fuel oil instead? That's the result if you claim that ONLY BTU content should be considered.

What difference does it make what the BTU content is? Try comparing by using other measures than straight BTU content.

Besides, Gasoline, diesel fuel, and bunker oil, all burn incredibly more dirty than ethanol does. You prefer to pollute with bunker oil rather than use cean burning ethanol? There are kinds of reasons why one would choose alternate fuels.

The Buick Turbo Regal gets 5% less MPG on E85 than on gasoline. Yet the price of ethanol is 15% or more cheaper than gasoline. In that case, it makes economic sense to use E85 instead of gasoline.

Ethanol is, today, cheaper than gasoline.

Take a look at futures prices to see what is going to happen a year from now.

December 2011: Ethanol futures price: $2.17
December 2011: RBOB gsoline futures price: $2.40

So ethanol is 23 cents cheaper to begin with. Add in the 45 cent blenders credit and E85 would be priced about 50 cents cheaper per gallon than gasoline will be.

Gas will be $3.00

E85 will be $2.50

At those prices, it makes economic sense to buy E85. And the money then STAYS IN THE USA, instead of leaving the country.

What is so hard about that?

Valkyrie
01-21-2011, 08:12 AM
What is your point?
1 gallon of gasoline = 114,00 BTU.
1 gallon of diesel fuel = 135,000 BTU (http://www.generatorjoe.net/html/energy.html).


The Buick Turbo Regal gets 5% less MPG on E85 than on gasoline. Yet the price of ethanol is 15% or more cheaper than gasoline. In that case, it makes economic sense to use E85 instead of gasoline.

Ethanol is, today, cheaper than gasoline.



its cheaper because it is subsidized with OUR TAX DOLLARS to make a few very very rich. worst gas mpg means u have to fill up more, which makes u poorer.
no pipelines for ethanol, can't transport it long distances in a pipeline, which means more tank trucks, for ethanol refinneries being built, although we were told that one reason for the higher price of oil was no new oil refineries are allowed to be built due to EPA regs, yet they are building ethanol refineries. WAKE UP to what it going on!!
ethanol increases air pollution and ozone levels, I have posted the scientific studies before and one by the EPA.
WAKE UP!! to the scam put upon YOU and the AMERCIAN PEOPLE so a few can get rich.
The EPA makes all vehicles run rich wasting 5-10 mpg on the hwy just so the catalytic convertor will work. Do u see what is going on?
all vehicles today are actually air filters. the air going into the engine is dirtier than what is coming out of the exhaust. this has been the EPA design of engines since the 1990s, again making everybody poorer by having to buy a more expensive vehicle while a few get very, very rich.
WAKE UP!

u really need to read this
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/greening.shtml

I'm done with this thread :cool:

James48843
01-21-2011, 08:30 AM
its cheaper because it is subsidized with OUR TAX DOLLARS to make a few very very rich. :cool:


No. It's cheaper because of free market conditions.
You are smply WRONG.

Check the CME futures contracts.

Here is price of ethanol- NOT including any subsidies:

10490

Here is the price of gasoline:
10491

Let's go back to school- if one commoditiy is $2.32, and the other one is $2.42, the one labled $2.32 COSTS LESS.



Add in the .45 cent blender's credit, and it is a LOT less.


It burns cleaner.

It cost is competitive.

It keeps the money IN THE U.S INSTEAD OF SENDING IT OVERSEAS.

It doesn't cost American soldier's lives to keep the lanes open.


Now, you say there are no pipelines. Correct. But nothing stops someone from BUILDING PIPELINES IF THEY WANTED TO. In fact, there are a number of pipeline projects being considered now.


Ethanol is a better deal for society than gasoline is.

Gasoline will neverbe cheaper than it is today. It's price is NEVER going to go back to 50 cents gallon. And if you think that today's prices of $3 a gallon will last forever, you are sadly mistaken.

Lean the truth, and the truth will set you free.

James48843
01-21-2011, 08:34 AM
its cheaper because it is subsidized with OUR TAX DOLLARS to make a few very very rich. worst gas mpg means u have to fill up more, which makes u poorer.
no pipelines for ethanol, can't transport it long distances in a pipeline, which means more tank trucks, for ethanol refinneries being built, although we were told that one reason for the higher price of oil was no new oil refineries are allowed to be built due to EPA regs, yet they are building ethanol refineries. WAKE UP to what it going on!!
ethanol increases air pollution and ozone levels, I have posted the scientific studies before and one by the EPA.
WAKE UP!! to the scam put upon YOU and the AMERCIAN PEOPLE so a few can get rich.
The EPA makes all vehicles run rich wasting 5-10 mpg on the hwy just so the catalytic convertor will work. Do u see what is going on?
all vehicles today are actually air filters. the air going into the engine is dirtier than what is coming out of the exhaust. this has been the EPA design of engines since the 1990s, again making everybody poorer by having to buy a more expensive vehicle while a few get very, very rich.
WAKE UP!

u really need to read this
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/greening.shtml

I'm done with this thread :cool:

Yeh, and the floridation that the communists are tampering with is affecting our precious bodily fluids too, aren't they?

Valkyrie
01-21-2011, 08:36 AM
The Great Ethanol Scam


http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/may2009/bw20090514_058678.htm

WorkFE
01-21-2011, 08:39 AM
Gasoline will never be cheaper than it is today.

E85 in reality would swell oil supply and lesson demand. Yes there is a monopoly on oil but the competition between oil producers would be fierce.

Valkyrie
01-21-2011, 08:46 AM
more expense for the consumer, manufacturer and hidden extra energy/pollution usage to remove the water

E10’s ability to absorb water has yet another drawback; it can absorb water directly from the atmosphere through the vent while simply sitting in the tank. In just 100 days at 70% humidity, E10 can absorb enough water to phase-separate. The shelf life of E10 is only 60-90 days if left without treatment.

Ethanol is not typically transported by pipeline for three reasons. Current production levels will not support a dedicated pipeline. The costs of building and maintaining a pipeline from Midwestern United States to either coast are prohibitive. Any water which penetrates the pipeline will be absorbed by the ethanol, diluting the mixture.

For the ethanol to be usable as a fuel, water must be removed. Most of the water is removed by distillation, but the purity is limited to 95-96% due to the formation of a low-boiling water-ethanol azeotrope. The 96% m/m (93% v/v) ethanol, 4% m/m (7% v/v) water mixture may be used as a fuel, and it's called hydrated ethyl alcohol fuel (álcool etílico hidratado combustível, or AEHC in Portuguese). In 2006/2007, an estimated 17 billion liters (4,5 billion gallons) of hydrated ethyl alcohol fuel will be produced, to be used in ethanol powered vehicles.

For blending with gasoline, purity of 99.5 to 99.9% is required, depending on temperature, to avoid separation. Currently, the most widely used purification method is a physical absorption process using molecular sieves. Another method, azeotropic distillation, is achieved by adding the hydrocarbon benzene which also denatures the ethanol (so no extra methanol/petrol/etc. is needed to render it undrinkable for duty purposes). However, benzene is a powerful carcinogen and so will probably be illegal for this purpose soon.

James48843
01-21-2011, 08:50 AM
The Great Ethanol Scam


http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/may2009/bw20090514_058678.htm

A lot of Ed Wallace's complaints are about ethanol being used in non-flexfuel cars. He's right on this- the import manufacturers (from Toyota to Mini) don't engineer their cars today for an ethanol environment, even though we've been adding ethanol to gas in the USA since the early 1980's. All the domestic manufacturers know this, and build their cars for this. If a Lexus fails in the fuel rail because of 10% ethanol-that's not a problem with fuel, that's an engineering failure by Lexus.

If all car makers made their cars flex-fuel, you wouldn't have ANY of those issues. And it only costs about $100 a car to make it flexfuel, so there is really no excuse. We OUGHT to mandate 100% flex-fuel capbility in new car production, and we'd all be better off.

Valkyrie
01-21-2011, 08:52 AM
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/12/ethanol-ozone-and-the-epa/

The EPA is ignoring the growing evidence that ethanol increases ozone pollution. Every increase in ethanol use as fuel will increases the amount of ozone pollution in the United States. This is one of the times where regardless of a persons views on global warming, the pollution effects of ethanol are real and need to be taken into account.

Valkyrie
01-21-2011, 08:52 AM
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=reduce-air-pollution-do-not-rely-on-ethanol

Because burning ethanol can potentially add more smog-forming pollution to the atmosphere, however, it can also exacerbate the ill effects of such air pollution. According to Jacobson, burning ethanol adds 22 percent more hydrocarbons to the atmosphere than does burning gasoline and this would lead to a nearly two parts per billion increase in tropospheric ozone. This surface ozone, which has been linked to inflamed lungs, impaired immune systems and heart disease (http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=heart-disease) by prior research, would in turn lead to a 4 percent increase in the number of ground level ozone-related deaths, or roughly 200 extra deaths a year.

James48843
01-21-2011, 08:59 AM
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=reduce-air-pollution-do-not-rely-on-ethanol

Because burning ethanol can potentially add more smog-forming pollution to the atmosphere, however, it can also exacerbate the ill effects of such air pollution. According to Jacobson, burning ethanol adds 22 percent more hydrocarbons to the atmosphere than does burning gasoline and this would lead to a nearly two parts per billion increase in tropospheric ozone. This surface ozone, which has been linked to inflamed lungs, impaired immune systems and heart disease (http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=heart-disease) by prior research, would in turn lead to a 4 percent increase in the number of ground level ozone-related deaths, or roughly 200 extra deaths a year.

Jacobson's study is flawed, in that it counted the pollution in the frst two to three minutes, while the engine is cold. GM and Delphi have developed a heated fuel injector that warms the E85 upon the key turning. That completely eliminates the extra pollution on startup and fixes it. The heated injectors will be standard on flex-fuel cars in the 2012 model year.

See: http://delphi.com/manufacturers/auto/powertrain/gas/injsys/multec-ht-fuel-inj/

Valkyrie
01-21-2011, 09:06 AM
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-30/business/fi-1539_1_nitrogen-oxide

The same basic engine--without the lean-burn feature--will be offered in the 1992 Civic this fall in California. It will be about 8% less fuel efficient than the version sold in the other 49 states, Honda said.

http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h55.pdf

go to page 9. if the air/fuel ratio is leaned out to 17.5:1 to 19:1 at hwy speeds which is very easy to do with the engine computer, at least 10 mpg would be saved and hc co and nox would still be low.
why does the EPA insist on 14.7:1 and cause millions of gallons of fuel to be wasted everyday? The Latimes link is a prime example.

James48843
01-21-2011, 09:06 AM
...
For the ethanol to be usable as a fuel, water must be removed.....

Besides the fact that you are cutting and pasting from Wilkipedia, you really ought to check your facts.


HYDROUS ethanol (ethanol with some water content still in it) is THE FUEL used in Brazil's E100 cars. HYDROUS ethanol makes up alomst half of Brasil's fuel production.

10492

Note: Brazil REQUIRES ALL new cars to be either E100 or flex-fuel.

James48843
01-21-2011, 09:14 AM
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-30/business/fi-1539_1_nitrogen-oxide

The same basic engine--without the lean-burn feature--will be offered in the 1992 Civic this fall in California. It will be about 8% less fuel efficient than the version sold in the other 49 states, Honda said.

http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h55.pdf

go to page 9. if the air/fuel ratio is leaned out to 17.5:1 to 19:1 at hwy speeds which is very easy to do with the engine computer, at least 10 mpg would be saved and hc co and nox would still be low.
why does the EPA insist on 14.7:1 and cause millions of gallons of fuel to be wasted everyday? The Latimes link is a prime example.

Good question. Why does EPA use 14.7: 1 and not use 18:1, when it COULD rewrite the reg for that.

Why don't you call the EPA and ask?

The engineer responsible is Link Wehrly. His phone number is (734) 214-4286, and his desk is about two miles from where I am sitting at this moment. Call him up and ask him.

By the way- he's a federal employee too, and probably has a nice TSP account. Perhaps we should get him to join us here.

Valkyrie
01-21-2011, 09:19 AM
u need to expand your knowledge of the world instead of just towing the line

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd102.htm

Matrix III - Volume Two - Use of Sodium Fluoride for Population Behavior Control
"It is a matter of record that sodium fluoride has been used for behavior control of populations. In an "Address in reply to the Governor's Speech to Parliament," [Victorian Hanstard, August 12, 1987, Nexus, Aug/Sept 1995], Mr. Harley Rivers Dickinson, Liberal Party Member of the Victorian Parliament for South Barwon, Australia, made a statement on the historical use of fluorides for behavior control. "Mr. Dickinson reveals that, "At the end of the Second World War, the United States Government sent Charles Elliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology, to take charge of the vast Farven chemical plants in Germany. While there, he was told by German chemists of a scheme which had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General Staff. This scheme was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme, sodium fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotising a certain area of the brain, and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. Both the Germans and the Russians added fluoride to the drinking water of prisoners of war to make them stupid and docile."

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=14949

Valkyrie
01-21-2011, 09:27 AM
http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=30694

The most disgusting aspect of the blowout in the Gulf of Mexico isn't the video images of oil-soaked birds or the incessant blather from pundits about what BP or the Obama administration should be doing to stem the flow of oil. Instead, it's the ugly spectacle of the corn-ethanol scammers doing all they can to capitalize on the disaster so that they can justify an expansion of the longest-running robbery of taxpayers in U.S. history.

http://www.slate.com/id/2122961/
Corn DogThe ethanol subsidy is worse than you can imagine.
Ethanol poses other serious difficulties for our energy economy. First, 8 billion gallons of ethanol will do almost nothing to reduce our oil imports. Eight billion gallons may sound like a lot, until you realize that America burned more than 134 billion gallons of gasoline last year. By 2012, those 8 billion gallons might reduce America's overall oil consumption by 0.5 percent. Way back in 1997, the General Accounting Office concluded that "ethanol's potential for substituting for petroleum is so small that it is unlikely to significantly affect overall energy security." That's still true today.

Valkyrie
01-21-2011, 09:31 AM
http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=22732
The Great Corn Con
The final issue is quantity. Thirty-six billion gallons of ethanol a year sounds like a lot, but it's only 2.34 million barrels per day. And given ethanol's lower heat content—about two-thirds that of gasoline—the effective production would be equivalent to 1.54 million barrels of oil per day. The United States uses nearly 21 million barrels of oil per day, of which 12.54 million barrels are imported (http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html). Thus, even if American ethanol producers can miraculously achieve the Senate's goal of 36 billion gallons per year by 2022, they will be producing the equivalent of just 7.4 percent of America's total current oil needs and just 12.2 percent of its imports. That quantity of ethanol will not take America very far toward the oft-repeated goal of energy independence.

James48843
01-21-2011, 09:33 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcHNYenN7OY

Valkyrie
01-21-2011, 09:39 AM
can't make plastic and clothing fibers from ethanol. how much plastic/oil is in your e85 car and laptop?

http://www.grist.org/article/plastics/
So how much oil is consumed by this process? This is the tricky part. From what I can tell, plastic production is a bit like leather production: it's one part of a complicated harvest. When crude oil is refined, its various chemical bits are separated. Some become gasoline, some diesel fuel, some motor oil, and others the raw material for plastics. The best estimate I could find says that about 4 percent of the world's annual oil production of some 84.5 million barrels per day is used as feedstock for plastic, and another 4 percent or so provides the energy to transform the feedstock into handy plastic.

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/water_and_sustainability/bottled_water/bottled_water_and_energy.html
According to the plastics manufacturing industry, it takes around 3.4 megajoules of energy to make a typical one-liter plastic bottle, cap, and packaging. Making enough plastic to bottle 31.2 billion liters of water required more than 106 billion megajoules of energy. Because a barrel of oil contains around 6 thousand megajoules, the Pacific Institute estimates that the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil were needed to produce these plastic bottles.

James48843
01-21-2011, 09:55 AM
can't make plastic and clothing fibers from ethanol. how much plastic/oil is in your e85 car and laptop?

.

Jesus oh petes - will you EVER realize the truth?

YES- we CAN.
http://rlv.zcache.com/yes_we_can_poster-p228529418522020944trma_400.jpg






We CAN and DO make plastics from CORN.




Behold NatureWorks: the largest lactic-acid plant in the world. Into one end of the complex goes corn; out the other come white pellets, an industrial resin poised to become—if you can believe all the hype—the future of plastic in a post-petroleum world.

The resin, known as polylactic acid (PLA), will be formed into containers and packaging for food and consumer goods. The trendy plastic has several things going for it. It’s made from a renewable resource, which means it has a big leg up—both politically and environmentally—on conventional plastic packaging, which uses an estimated 200,000 barrels of oil a day in the United States. Also, PLA is in principle compostable, meaning that it will break down under certain conditions into harmless natural compounds. That could take pressure off the nation’s mounting landfills, since plastics already take up 25 percent of dumps by volume. And corn-based plastics are starting to look cheap, now that oil prices are so high.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/plastic.html#ixzz1BgZ8yEzw

James48843
01-21-2011, 10:01 AM
Now, I'm NOT saying we have to replace ALL uses of finite, limited oil with infinite, renewable corn.

There are some things that Oil will continue to be used for over the next 500 or 1,000 years, I'm sure.

BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS WE DON'T NEED TO USE OIL FOR, BECAUSE WE HAVE ALTERNATIVES.

And powering cars is one of those things that it is easy to substitute RENEWABLE ETHANOL for NON-RENEWABLE, imported foreign oil.

We don't NEED to use oil for powering autos, when for another $100 bucks, we COULD be making every car a flex-fuel car, and we COULD be using lot more ethanol dometically made fuel.

Today, most of that ethanol is from corn.

Some of it is from municipal waste (http://www.ecoseed.org/en/biofuel/ethanol/article/59-ethanol/8047-tmo-renewables-strives-to-produce-ethanol-from-municipal-waste). No shotage of that, is there ?

Tomorrow- it will be from far more things. Like this wood to ethanol plant now operating (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/10/new-ethanol-facility-turns-wood-chips-into-fuel/) in Pennsylvania.


But if YOUR car ONLY burns gasoline, you'll never benefit from all the various ways that ethanol will be made in the future.

alevin
01-21-2011, 10:09 AM
If we're going to live in a plastic world, then oil will always be needed as base commodity. Lighter fractions (gas) will always be produced along with heavier fractions needed for other industries.

Cost of the unfractionated crude will continue to go up because cost of extraction will continue to rise due to remaining geological sources less and less easy to extract-tar sands, oil shale, deepwater off Brazil, west Africa.

Algae oil would help to replace need for geological crude imports, but unless society completely collapses or we have a total technological change where we no longer need oil of any fraction-for plastics or anything else......we still need oil. just a question of how much and how much it will cost as base commodity and whether we can afford to maintain an oil-based society at all, even if someday transportation system no longer requires it for fuel.

We still need a road system for internal distribution of production-think asphalt. How much road system do we need to keep in asphalt? We still need oil that much, if for no other reason. My agency's landbase already has more roads than we can afford to maintain-and they are mostly not paved. We've been downsizing the agency's road system nationally for at least 10 years now. can't afford the maintenance costs.

Valkyrie
01-21-2011, 10:40 AM
NON-RENEWABLE, imported foreign oil.



another one of your politically controlled lies.
oil fields have been re-filling for decades. documented research proves it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=oil+fields+refilling&aq=8&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=oil+fields+

oil is used to make asphalt roads. concrete roads are best for mpg, asphalt actually lowers mpg 10%. So lets see are there any concrete roads out there that can be made to waste fuel? why yes there are, enter the EPA and their noise regulations, lets cut grooves into the concrete hwy, using diesel engines, and tell the public its for rain safety. A lie, its for noise reduction and creates squirm in the tire tread to road surface contact point. What does this do, lowers mpg, increases tire wear. So now we have to buy more tires, which by the way, oil is used to make tires. and it makes u poorer.

u must own a lot of stock in ethanol companies with all of the lies and mistruths u push. u own stock in the company that makes plastic from corn? already been proven to be inefficient process and creates massive amounts of chemical residues which need to be disposed of. this includes all of the fertilizers to grow your corn. how much of this gets into the water supply?
what harmful chemicals will leach out into food and liquids from this type of plastic?

According to one environmental journalist, Robert Bryce, (http://www.robertbryce.com/) the production of ethanol, not bioplastics, causes, “higher global food prices, increased air pollution from burning ethanol-spiked fuels, spreading dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico from a surge of fertilizer use, and strong evidence that growing a gallon of corn ethanol produces just as many greenhouse gases as burning a gallon of gas.” (http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2063)

This ethanol scam is all about providing cheap fuel to developing countries so the ones in power can make billions while they make the american people poorer. All of this gives them power and control.

Valkyrie
01-21-2011, 10:44 AM
http://environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesign/a/pla.htm

According to Elizabeth Royte, writing in Smithsonian (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/plastic.html), PLA may well break down into its constituent parts (carbon dioxide and water) within three months in a “controlled composting environment,” that is, an industrial composting facility heated to 140 degrees Fahrenheit and fed a steady diet of digestive microbes. But it will take far longer in a compost bin, or in a landfill (http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/biodegradable.htm) packed so tightly that no light and little oxygen are available to assist in the process. Indeed, analysts estimate that a PLA bottle could take anywhere from 100 to 1,000 years to decompose in a landfill.


Recyclers Can’t Mix PLA and Other Plastics
Another issue with PLA is that, because it is of different origin than regular plastic, it must be kept separate when recycled, lest it contaminate the recycling stream. Being plant-based, PLA needs to head to a composting facility, not a recycling facility, per se, when it has out served its usefulness. And that points to another problem: There are currently only 113 industrial-grade composting facilities across the United States.
Most PLA Uses Genetically Modified Corn
Another downside of PLA is that it is typically made from genetically modified corn (http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/modified_foods.htm), at least in the United States. The largest producer of PLA in the world is NatureWorks (http://www.natureworksllc.com/), a subsidiary of Cargill, which is the world’s largest provider of genetically modified corn seed. With increasing demand for corn to make ethanol fuel (http://environment.about.com/od/ethanolfaq/f/ethanol_problem.htm), let alone PLA, it’s no wonder that Cargill and others have been tampering with genes to produce higher yields. But the future costs of genetic modification to the environment and human health are still largely unknown and could be very high.

TSPNerd
01-21-2011, 10:50 AM
Tomorrow- it will be from far more things. Like this wood to ethanol plant now operating (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/10/new-ethanol-facility-turns-wood-chips-into-fuel/) in Pennsylvania.

I'd sure hope that tomorrow, the ethanol production will be from algae since the yields are much, much greater than anything else we've used so far.

James48843
01-21-2011, 11:03 AM
http://environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesign/a/pla.htm

According to Elizabeth Royte, writing in Smithsonian (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/plastic.html), PLA may well break down into its constituent parts (carbon dioxide and water) within three months in a “controlled composting environment,” that is, an industrial composting facility heated to 140 degrees Fahrenheit and fed a steady diet of digestive microbes. But it will take far longer in a compost bin, or in a landfill (http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/biodegradable.htm) packed so tightly that no light and little oxygen are available to assist in the process. Indeed, analysts estimate that a PLA bottle could take anywhere from 100 to 1,000 years to decompose in a landfill.


Recyclers Can’t Mix PLA and Other Plastics
Another issue with PLA is that, because it is of different origin than regular plastic, it must be kept separate when recycled, lest it contaminate the recycling stream. Being plant-based, PLA needs to head to a composting facility, not a recycling facility, per se, when it has out served its usefulness. And that points to another problem: There are currently only 113 industrial-grade composting facilities across the United States.
Most PLA Uses Genetically Modified Corn
Another downside of PLA is that it is typically made from genetically modified corn (http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/modified_foods.htm), at least in the United States. The largest producer of PLA in the world is NatureWorks (http://www.natureworksllc.com/), a subsidiary of Cargill, which is the world’s largest provider of genetically modified corn seed. With increasing demand for corn to make ethanol fuel (http://environment.about.com/od/ethanolfaq/f/ethanol_problem.htm), let alone PLA, it’s no wonder that Cargill and others have been tampering with genes to produce higher yields. But the future costs of genetic modification to the environment and human health are still largely unknown and could be very high.



So...a PLA plastic bottle is going to last 100 years or 1,000 years in a landfill.


How many years will an oil-based plastic bottle last in a landfill?

Valkyrie
01-21-2011, 11:26 AM
more inefficienies in growing corn for ethanol. u can live for a month with no food/corn but u can only live for 3-5 days with no water.
and how much energy is used to transport that water to the corn fields?

http://southeastfarmpress.com/it-takes-lot-water-grow-corn-crop

A 200-bushel corn crop uses about 600,000 gallons of water — nearly 3,000 gallons per bushel.”

“Not many Illinois farmers irrigate corn. This year, producers in some places grew corn on maybe 8 inches of rainfall between planting and harvesting. That means about 14 to 15 inches of water had to come from the soil.”

well there is a drought and then your E85 is $10/gallon and fuel station lines and rationing like in the 1970s. Thanks for pushing us back to the 70s.

http://gas2.org/2008/10/16/1000-gallons-water-per-1-gallon-ethanol-how-green-is-that/
If we look at the raw data, it becomes apparent that it takes 1 bushel of corn to make 2.5 gallons of ethanol. Now that doesn’t seem so bad, until you ask yourself, “How much water does it take to grow that bushel of corn?”

Let’s look at some more raw data. Did you know that it takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce that one bushel of corn? That’s a lot of water for 2 and half gallons of Ethanol. Let’s take this thinking a step further. If it takes 2,500 gallons of water to create 2.5 gallons of ethanol, then it takes 20,000 gallons of water, to make 20 gallons of Ethanol.
Think of it like this, the average firetruck holds up to 1,000 gallons of water. Now imagine 20 firetrucks lined up side by side, that’s how much water it takes to make 20 gallons of Ethanol.

James48843
01-21-2011, 12:09 PM
more inefficienies in growing corn for ethanol. u can live for a month with no food/corn but u can only live for 3-5 days with no water.
and how much energy is used to transport that water to the corn fields?

http://southeastfarmpress.com/it-takes-lot-water-grow-corn-crop

A 200-bushel corn crop uses about 600,000 gallons of water — nearly 3,000 gallons per bushel.”

“Not many Illinois farmers irrigate corn. This year, producers in some places grew corn on maybe 8 inches of rainfall between planting and harvesting. That means about 14 to 15 inches of water had to come from the soil.”

well there is a drought and then your E85 is $10/gallon and fuel station lines and rationing like in the 1970s. Thanks for pushing us back to the 70s.

http://gas2.org/2008/10/16/1000-gallons-water-per-1-gallon-ethanol-how-green-is-that/
If we look at the raw data, it becomes apparent that it takes 1 bushel of corn to make 2.5 gallons of ethanol. Now that doesn’t seem so bad, until you ask yourself, “How much water does it take to grow that bushel of corn?”

Let’s look at some more raw data. Did you know that it takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce that one bushel of corn? That’s a lot of water for 2 and half gallons of Ethanol. Let’s take this thinking a step further. If it takes 2,500 gallons of water to create 2.5 gallons of ethanol, then it takes 20,000 gallons of water, to make 20 gallons of Ethanol.
Think of it like this, the average firetruck holds up to 1,000 gallons of water. Now imagine 20 firetrucks lined up side by side, that’s how much water it takes to make 20 gallons of Ethanol.


You have any idea how much water it takes to turn Canadian tar-sands oil into gasoline (http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/world/tar-sands-oil-production-is-an-industrial-bonanza-poses-major-water-use-challenges/)?




Nebraska Corn Board chair says gasoline requires 30 times as much water to produce as ethanol (http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2007/12/20/nebraska-corn-board-chair-says-gasoline-requires-30-times-as-much-water-to-produce-as-ethanol/)

Don't EVEN talk to me about how much water it takes. It takes MORE water to make a gallon of gas, (http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/world/tar-sands-oil-production-is-an-industrial-bonanza-poses-major-water-use-challenges/) than to make a gallon of ethanol.
A LOT more.

Here's some facts-



http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2007/12/20/nebraska-corn-board-chair-says-gasoline-requires-30-times-as-much-water-to-produce-as-ethanol/

Takes a heck of a lot more water to produce a gallon of gasoline, than it does a gallon of ethanol.

nnuut
01-21-2011, 01:11 PM
Water! HA, Global Freezing, Snowing and Raining have supplied us with plenty of H2O,
TOO MUCH! 10495

Minnow
01-21-2011, 10:51 PM
Well, much to my surprise, the laws of thermodynamics have not been refuted.

They've been argued with, and fists have been shook in their direction, and the government credit card has been used against them, but a gallon of gasoline is still a far more efficient energy medium than ethanol.

I lost count of how many different tricks or fallacious notions were used to refute and discount those laws but none of them stuck.

If anyone would care to take the discussion over to the politics thread (Valkyrie, feel free to sign up over there if you haven't already)... I'd like to explain a commonly held theory about why ethanol is such a political hot topic. Or we can stay here, and leave politics out of it. But all that can wait til after the weekend 'cuz baseball and softball practices are starting up on the panhandle for the wee ones.

Have a great weekend everybody (that means you too, Jim). :)

nnuut
01-24-2011, 02:17 PM
Here comes the inflation, brace yourselves!:suspicious:

Jan. 24, 2011, 1:28 p.m. EST
Smithfield, Tyson downgraded over corn costs
Tobacco (http://www.marketwatch.com/search?q=&m=Industry&rpp=15&mp=i41&bd=false&rs=true)Banks (http://www.marketwatch.com/search?q=&m=Industry&rpp=15&mp=ibnk&bd=false&rs=true)Smithfield Foods Inc (http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SFD)Tyson Foods Inc (http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/TSN)

By Matt Andrejczak (mandrejczak@marketwatch.com), MarketWatch
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Shares of Smithfield Foods and Tyson Foods lost ground Monday, failing to take part in U.S. stocks’ broad move higher, after an analyst cut her rating on the meat producers because of rising costs for corn and soybeans used to feed pigs and chickens.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/smithfield-tyson-downgraded-over-corn-costs-2011-01-24

James48843
01-24-2011, 03:07 PM
Well, there you go Nnuut-



Jones also cut Tyson as the stock is close to her $18 stock-price target. She cited grain costs and weak prices for chicken breast meat and wings, which are being affected by bloated inventories.

In a separate report Friday afternoon, the U.S. government said December inventories of frozen chicken shot up 25% from the same month in 2009 — a bearish signal for future prices, according to Jefferies & Co. analyst Jeff Farmer.


“The bottom line is that a 25% increase in chicken cold-storage levels suggests that chicken prices are unlikely to rally in coming months,” Farmer said in a note to clients. Chicken prices typically go up around Memorial Day weekend, as consumers kick off for the summer grilling season.


You don't suppose the higher price of chickenfeed is due to the increase in chicken production, those chickens who are eating it, thereby causing an increase in chicken BLOATED INVENTORY, do you?


Nah. That's just chickenfeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcQfy1SavdQ

nnuut
01-24-2011, 04:18 PM
Retail meat prices climb in December

By Bruce Blythe, Business Editor

01/20/2011 03:48PM



Retail meat prices in December posted the biggest increase in seven years, with pork jumping the most in 14 years, contributing to accelerating food inflation that’s expected to take a larger chunk out of consumers’ pocketbooks this year.
A meat price index tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics rose 7.2 percent last month compared to December 2009, the largest year-over-year gain for that month since 2003, according to a report released today. Pork prices last month were up 11.2 percent from year-earlier levels, the largest increase for December since 1996, while beef rose 6.1 percent.
Rising meat prices reflect smaller cattle and hog herds, which forced meat processors to bid more aggressively for slaughter-ready animals. Livestock feeders cut herds starting in 2008 after the recession and a spike in corn prices above $7 a bushel led to deep losses. In mid-2010, the nation’s cattle herd shrank to a record low.
Prices for some cuts, such as bacon, reached record highs last year, and many analysts expect beef and pork to become even more expensive this year as high grain prices discourage adding animals to herds.


http://www.foodsystemsinsider.com/Retail-meat-prices-climb-in-December/2011-01-20/Article_FSI.aspx?oid=1301203&fid=JANUARY_2011_3RD_FRIDAY&aid=2182

nnuut
01-24-2011, 04:42 PM
You have a bad case of selective reading and comprehension.


Well, there you go Nnuut-




You don't suppose the higher price of chickenfeed is due to the increase in chicken production, those chickens who are eating it, thereby causing an increase in chicken BLOATED INVENTORY, do you?


Nah. That's just chickenfeed.




Jones also cut Tyson as the stock is close to her $18 stock-price target. She cited grain costs and weak prices for chicken breast meat and wings, which are being affected by bloated inventories.

In a separate report Friday afternoon, the U.S. government said December inventories of frozen chicken shot up 25% from the same month in 2009 — a bearish signal for future prices, according to Jefferies & Co. analyst Jeff Farmer.
“The bottom line is that a 25% increase in chicken cold-storage levels suggests that chicken prices are unlikely to rally in coming months,” Farmer said in a note to clients. Chicken prices typically go up around Memorial Day weekend, as consumers kick off for the summer grilling season.

James48843
01-24-2011, 06:47 PM
You have a bad case of selective reading.

Let me highlight this for you:

...chicken prices are unlikely to rally in coming months,”the price YOU pay for chicken isn't going up.

Let's look at historic data:

Production of beef for the last ten years is flat:
U.S. beef production (commercial carcass weight):
2002: 27.09 billion pounds
2003: 26.24 billion pounds
2004: 24.55 billion pounds
2005: 24.68 billion pounds
2006: 26.15 billion pounds
2007: 26.42 billion pounds
2008: 26.56 billion pounds
2009: 26.07 billion pounds


Production of chicken is flat:
Chicken Production by year:
U.S. broiler meat production:
2005: 35.4 billion pounds
2006: 35.5 billion pounds
2007: 36.2 billion pounds
2008: 36.9 billion pounds
2009: 35.5 billion pounds


Amount of CORN Grown IS up over 30%
10501

For each bushel of corn grown: that equals 2.7 gallons of ethanol, PLUS 11.4 pounds of gluten feed (20% protein) AND 3 pounds of gluten meal (60% protein) AND 1.6 pounds of corn oil.

The production of ethanol from corn uses only the starch of the corn kernel, all of the valuable protein, minerals and nutrients remain.

There is an abundance, not a shortage, of corn and corn animal feed products, as a result of ethanol production.

nnuut
01-24-2011, 07:06 PM
OK OK OK Have you see the price of stupid Chicken Wings lately?:laugh:
10502 10503 10504 10505

nnuut
01-29-2011, 08:58 AM
Seven Things That Will Cost More in 2011 and What You Can Do About Them

Ann Brenoffhttp://o.aolcdn.com/art/info_feed/feed_icon
Jan 7th 2011 at 6:00PM

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.walletpop.com/media/2011/01/e000212.jpg.jpg
Get ready to stretch your wallet. We're already seeing the signs of prices creeping up in just the infancy days of 2011. So be prepared to open wide for:

1. A Trip to the Grocery Store (http://www.iptv.org/mtom/story.cfm/lead/1378)
The USDA forecasts a 2% to 3% hike in the cost of all foods in 2011. Higher corn and soybean prices are the main force behind the increase. Remember, farm animals have to be fed and when those costs go up, so does what you pay. Expect a big spike in the dairy case and meat counter, where pork alone is forecast to rise between 3% and 4%.

If it's any comfort, in 2008 food costs overall rose more than 5.5%. And you still didn't lose weight. (MORE) FUEL!!
http://www.walletpop.com/2011/01/07/seven-things-that-will-cost-more-in-2011-and-what-you-can-do-abo/

Show-me
03-02-2011, 05:54 AM
Its about time!



The ethanol industry doesn't need a subsidy now that refiners are required to use the biofuel, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

The GAO lists the 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit among wasteful programs that could be slashed or eliminated to help address the nation's fiscal problems.
The tax credit, due to expire at the end of the year, will cost the government $5.4 billion this year, and the lost revenue will grow to $6.75 billion by 2015 if the credit is extended, the GAO said.

The tax credit goes to refiners and other gasoline blenders who are already required under federal law to use growing volumes of ethanol each year.

"The ethanol tax credit was important in helping to create a profitable corn starch ethanol industry when the industry had to fund investment in new facilities, but it is less important now for sustaining the industry because most of the capital investment in corn starch ethanol refineries has already been made," the GAO said.


http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110302/BUSINESS01/103020348/0/VIDEO06/?odyssey=nav%7Chead

crws
03-02-2011, 07:38 AM
You have a bad case of selective reading.

Let me highlight this for you:
the price YOU pay for chicken isn't going up.

Let's look at historic data:

Production of beef for the last ten years is flat:
U.S. beef production (commercial carcass weight):
2002: 27.09 billion pounds
2003: 26.24 billion pounds
2004: 24.55 billion pounds
2005: 24.68 billion pounds
2006: 26.15 billion pounds
2007: 26.42 billion pounds
2008: 26.56 billion pounds
2009: 26.07 billion pounds


Production of chicken is flat:
Chicken Production by year:
U.S. broiler meat production:
2005: 35.4 billion pounds
2006: 35.5 billion pounds
2007: 36.2 billion pounds
2008: 36.9 billion pounds
2009: 35.5 billion pounds


Amount of CORN Grown IS up over 30%
10501

For each bushel of corn grown: that equals 2.7 gallons of ethanol, PLUS 11.4 pounds of gluten feed (20% protein) AND 3 pounds of gluten meal (60% protein) AND 1.6 pounds of corn oil.

The production of ethanol from corn uses only the starch of the corn kernel, all of the valuable protein, minerals and nutrients remain.

There is an abundance, not a shortage, of corn and corn animal feed products, as a result of ethanol production.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYWqkun6JJg

crws
03-02-2011, 07:41 AM
Can you spell p h o t o s y n t h e s i s ?

A Massachusetts biotechnology company says it can produce the fuel that runs Jaguars and jet engines using the same ingredients that make grass grow. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2011/02/27/state/n070419S13.DTL)

Buster
03-02-2011, 07:44 AM
Can you spell p h o t o s y n t h e s i s ?

A Massachusetts biotechnology company says it can produce the fuel that runs Jaguars and jet engines using the same ingredients that make grass grow. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2011/02/27/state/n070419S13.DTL)


I like the way you think..check out this discussion:

http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=303463&postcount=9101

crws
03-02-2011, 11:44 AM
I like the way you think..check out this discussion:

http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=303463&postcount=9101

If you read any of Matt Taibbi's Griftopia America for Sale: An Exclusive Excerpt from Matt Taibbi’s New Book on the Economic Meltdown (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/exclusive-excerpt-america-on-sale-from-matt-taibbis-griftopia-20101018), it is plain to see the Middle East has amassed their wealth to buy in to any industry or American asset (can you say Wisconsin public power plants) using US contacts as brokers, hiding their identities, way into the future, to offset any potential loss of oil revenue.

The fact that we will transition away from ME oil will mean that no other country has the resources to pay the high price that we as an "affluent" country OPEC has paid for our lifestyle of convenience, and thusly, while oil may not 'run-out' the resale price will still be restricted to what the market will bear, so the Saudi's must hedge.

James48843
03-04-2011, 01:40 PM
For Minnow:

Minnow, here is a John Deere Model "B", driving on E85 ethanol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFJFIlK7pwg

Minnow
03-04-2011, 02:15 PM
Taking that video as god's honest truth for a minute, look at the modifications the guy did. Which is fine, they're not that expensive, but I noticed he wasn't actually farming. He was driving. Put a plow on that thing, then rev it up to a "working" rpm and go plow some ground and watch your precious ethanol theories go up in smoke.


Love those old tractors, though.

FAB1
03-04-2011, 02:19 PM
Taking that video as god's honest truth for a minute, look at the modifications the guy did. Which is fine, they're not that expensive, but I noticed he wasn't actually farming. He was driving. Put a plow on that thing, then rev it up to a "working" rpm and go plow some ground and watch your precious ethanol theories go up in smoke.


Love those old tractors, though.

You Go Minnow :toung:

Buster
03-04-2011, 02:55 PM
Taking that video as god's honest truth for a minute, look at the modifications the guy did. Which is fine, they're not that expensive, but I noticed he wasn't actually farming. He was driving. Put a plow on that thing, then rev it up to a "working" rpm and go plow some ground and watch your precious ethanol theories go up in smoke.


Love those old tractors, though.
I maybe wrong..But I believe these tractors where as Jim said, made to run on Ethanoil or Gasoline..but the way it was explained to me by an old John Deere collector, was that they were made to burn this kind of fuel ONLY for starting purposes..once the motor was up and running they flipped a valve over to Farm fuel or Diesel for the actual work run.

Minnow
03-04-2011, 03:37 PM
I maybe wrong..But I believe these tractors where as Jim said, made to run on Ethanoil or Gasoline..but the way it was explained to me by an old John Deere collector, was that they were made to burn this kind of fuel ONLY for starting purposes..once the motor was up and running they flipped a valve over to Farm fuel or Diesel for the actual work run.

I'll save Jim the trouble and you the aggravation -- the first diesels for deeres didn't show up until the '40s. No biggie the deere collector is right about the valves on most of those tractors and some of the earlier ones.

But if you look at the video, the fuel tank and some hoses have been modified to prevent vapor lock. The more modern fuel pump is in a different location than the original. But, the fuel filter is the video tractor's problem. Looks to me like it has no heat shield, and that will get you about 75 yards (doing real farm work -- higher revs) before the sputtering begins and then POW. And if that didn't get the tractor, not all the fuel lines look aluminized and that'll get him too maybe before the lack of a heat shields does.

He could probably pull 4 or 5 kids on a small cart for a hay ride, and claim success though. :laugh:

nnuut
03-04-2011, 03:45 PM
Boy that guy needs a roll cage bad!

Buster
03-04-2011, 06:04 PM
I guess this was what I was thinking...


Engine and fuels:


The predecessors of modern tractors, traction engines, used steam engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine) for power. Since the turn of the 20th century, internal combustion engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine) have been the power source of choice. Between 1900 and 1960, gasoline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline) was the predominant fuel, with kerosene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene) and ethanol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol) being common alternatives. Generally one engine could burn any of those, although cold starting was easiest on gasoline. Often a small auxiliary fuel tank was available to hold gasoline for cold starting and warm-up, while the main fuel tank held whatever fuel was most convenient or least expensive for the particular farmer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractor

Minnow
03-04-2011, 06:31 PM
No worries Buster, I knew what you meant. Just wanted to keep you from getting Snopes'd. :D

Buster
03-04-2011, 07:40 PM
No worries Buster, I knew what you meant. Just wanted to keep you from getting Snopes'd. :D
Thanks for looking out for my 6 ;)

FAB1
03-04-2011, 07:47 PM
Granny's Corn squeezings may be fine for Jethro's truck but I aint putting that slop in my fuel injection engines.

92 Octane until I cant afford it no more. :D

Buster
03-04-2011, 09:09 PM
Granny's Corn squeezings may be fine for Jethro's truck but I aint putting that slop in my fuel injection engines.

92 Octane until I cant afford it no more. :D

My Jag uses 93 octane and I can only find it at a Shell station @ $4.05/gal:embarrest:

Show-me
03-04-2011, 09:23 PM
Feb 2006 - Jan 2011: 15.820 (22.87 %)

Description: Poultry (chicken), Whole bird spot price, Georgia docks, US cents per pound

http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=chicken&months=60

http://mongabay.com/images/commodities/imf/PPOULT.jpg

Chicken, Ready-to-cook, whole, iced, FOB Georgia Docks

Chicken Price, (1980-2010)

US cents per Pound </B>

http://www.mongabay.com/commodities/price-charts/price-of-chicken.html

Show-me
03-04-2011, 09:31 PM
That's because much of the corn grown in the U.S. is used as animal feed. And "we're using $6 corn to feed hogs right now," up from about $4 last year, says Michael Swanson, an agricultural economist at Wells Fargo in Minneapolis. "Either the hog guy is going to go out of business or you're going to pay more for pork." So if you want barbecue ribs," he adds, "you're going to have an extra $10 attached to it."






Pork is up about


12% from a year

ago, beef 6% and

poultry 2%, Mr.
Swanson says.
And poultry is
expected to
increase further,







he says.





The surge in corn prices doesn't necessarily mean
you'll see a price jump on Corn Flakes or even corn
on the cob. Since corn is used mostly as feed, you'll
likely be paying more for pork, beef and poultry.





http://www.econ.iastate.edu/~kimle/Econ235S11/Commodities%20Prices%20Are%20Hitting%20Your%20Wall et%20-%20WSJ.pdf

nnuut
03-04-2011, 09:45 PM
Feb 2006 - Jan 2011: 15.820 (22.87 %)

Description: Poultry (chicken), Whole bird spot price, Georgia docks, US cents per pound

http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=chicken&months=60

http://mongabay.com/images/commodities/imf/PPOULT.jpg

Chicken, Ready-to-cook, whole, iced, FOB Georgia Docks

Chicken Price, (1980-2010)

US cents per Pound </B>

http://www.mongabay.com/commodities/price-charts/price-of-chicken.html






http://www.econ.iastate.edu/~kimle/Econ235S11/Commodities%20Prices%20Are%20Hitting%20Your%20Wall et%20-%20WSJ.pdf


Exactly!!!! And you know how much I love to BBQ! 10712Prepare yourself for multiple Snopes hits in a few minutes.
I wonder how much Skunk thighs are running? 10713

Show-me
03-04-2011, 09:50 PM
Snopes don't mean crap to me, I help do the shopping in my family and I remember what it all cost a few years ago. Also, CPI does not allow volatile food and energy. ROFLMAO BRILLIANT!

Show-me
03-04-2011, 09:53 PM
If the world climate changes as they predict or we have more major crop failure like in the former USSR, watch how much ethanol will become.

And, why are we still subsidizing ethanol producers, farmers, and gasoline blenders with $6 corn and $100 oil.?

James48843
03-04-2011, 10:15 PM
The True Drivers Behind Commodity Price Increases



Oil.

http://www.growthenergy.org/news-media-center/blog/oil-the-true-driver-behind-commodity-price-increases/

James48843
03-04-2011, 10:17 PM
http://www.growthenergy.org/images/sized/images/uploads/commodities_chart-634x534.png

While Glenn Beck was telling you to buy gold, it turns out Cotton or sugar would have been a far better gamble.

Show-me
03-05-2011, 05:15 AM
Not a fan of Beck but Gold IS real money to the majority of the world and that is the reasoning to own it in the physical form. Now it is out of reach for the common person so silver is the next best thing and it has the greatest gain potential in that class.

nnuut
03-05-2011, 08:40 AM
The True Drivers Behind Commodity Price Increases



Oil.

http://www.growthenergy.org/news-media-center/blog/oil-the-true-driver-behind-commodity-price-increases/
I think everyone knows why Commodity prices have risen so much over the past years, it's the DOLLAR for us in the USA at least. By the way OIL is a commodity! If they don't quit printing money and stop the spending the dollar will be worth ZERO and that's the truth.
Don't believe the LIES!!:nuts:

James Turk: The Real Reason for Rising Commodity Prices! (http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/james-turk-the-real-reason-for-rising-commodity-prices/)



The reality is that wheat is being driven higher by more than bad weather. The price of wheat has been climbing since June, a fact conveniently ignored in the WSJ article, perhaps because it doesn’t square with its premise that bad weather is causing higher wheat prices. Are we to believe that the market knew seven months ago that weather around the world today would be so bad that it would impact global wheat output? Or has wheat – which has risen $3.50 per bushel, or 70%, since its June low – been climbing steadily higher over these several months for another reason? And more to the point, why are all commodity prices rising? For example, since June copper has risen $1.70 per pound, or 59%. Is bad weather to blame?

No, of course it isn’t. Something else is at work here. Maybe wheat has risen more than copper over this period because bad weather really has had some impact on wheat production. But obviously, given that commodity prices are rising across the board, we have to look for other factors that are causing this surge in prices. And we do not need to look too hard. Just consider the money printing – a/k/a “quantitative easing” – by central banks going on all around the world. QE is building up tremendous inflationary pressures in the pipeline of goods and services, which for months now has been showing up in the area most sensitive to monetary debasement, namely, commodity prices.

http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/james-turk-the-real-reason-for-rising-commodity-prices/

James48843
03-05-2011, 08:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzgk9DqnIrA

Buster
03-05-2011, 08:55 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzgk9DqnIrA
Fantastical?..LOL..otherwise a good vid..:)

James48843
03-05-2011, 11:09 PM
Here's a video about the new Buick Turbo Regal and running flex-fuel in New Jersey:

He got 30 MPG on gasoline, and 26.4 MPG on E85. That's about a 12% difference in MPG, on a car that has a 2.0 liter Turbocharged 220 HP engine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6tok5np8G4

E85 is a lot cheaper where I am (15% or more spread) than in New Jersey.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Turbo+power+gives+Buick+Regal+game/3253549/story.html

In 2012, Buick will introduce "eAssist", which is a braking/electric generation system, which gains power from braking, then uses that power to accelerate. It will bump the MPG's up from 30 to estimated 38 MPG around town.

And they'll also have a 255 HP turbo engine model on the 'Grand Sport' Turbo Regal. It's not yet been announced if the GS will be flex-fuel or not. I think it will be.

hessian
03-09-2011, 05:01 PM
E85 eats most car's gaslines and carbs, attacking the rubber/silicone & metal parts that it touches. Its not a myth, its a fact that I found out the hard way. Google on the following...
I have a 2003 Jeep Wrangler, and about 5 years ago, I got engine check lights that just wouldn't stay off even when I'd add fuel additives. Finally in desperation, I went to the dealer and paid $650 - to have my carb "cleaned" and fuelines replaced. When I asked why they told me it was the ethanol in the gas - and they said to expect having to do this periodically, as the problem will recur and grow further over time, likely "eating" at engine parts.
I don't want to give up my '03 Wrangler that I paid to modify highly! But, I suppose its almost about that time again. Also...

E85/ethanol not only will literally "eat" your pre~2009 car's engine - but using corn to make the ethanol, from a main food staple, is simply an awful idea as it will drive up costs, for all our food, beginning with grain products, but also and especially those other products that depend on grains (e.g. beef, chicken, milk, etc.). Think about it! :mad:

Show-me
03-09-2011, 06:52 PM
Why do you guys thing they do not transfer ethanol in the underground pipelines? Very corrosive.

Birchtree
03-09-2011, 07:06 PM
Boat owners found that out in a hurry. Good way to ruin a dual Yamaha.

WorkFE
03-09-2011, 07:10 PM
Simply lacks enough lubricant to satisfy the demand of a mechanical internal combustion engine.
Over time the fuel properties will improve as well as the design characteristics of the engine.
The actual use of corn is irrelavent. Ethanol based fuels all have this problem in varying degrees.
NASCAR will help over time as they are switching to an Ethanol type fuel. Not sure when but the information gathered over time will be extremely valueable to the manufacturers. The more the testing the better.

I am not pro or anti corn. No stone should be left unturned. And anyone found not excepting of another idea because it competes with theirs should be shot immediately.

BTW Buster, you have to have an abundance of something to warrant a pipeline. I have a bottle of Corn wiskey that is higher in Alcohol content than ethanol fuel. Been in the same plastic bottle for 20 years. No Leaks, except when I'm sippin.:D

nnuut
03-09-2011, 08:57 PM
Moonshine should not go through tubes or pipes only through shot glasses!10729

James48843
03-09-2011, 10:51 PM
E85 eats most car's gaslines and carbs, attacking the rubber/silicone & metal parts that it touches. Its not a myth, its a fact that I found out the hard way. Google on the following...
I have a 2003 Jeep Wrangler, and about 5 years ago, I got engine check lights that just wouldn't stay off even when I'd add fuel additives. Finally in desperation, I went to the dealer and paid $650 - to have my carb "cleaned" and fuelines replaced. When I asked why they told me it was the ethanol in the gas - and they said to expect having to do this periodically, as the problem will recur and grow further over time, likely "eating" at engine parts.
I don't want to give up my '03 Wrangler that I paid to modify highly! But, I suppose its almost about that time again. Also...

E85/ethanol not only will literally "eat" your pre~2009 car's engine - but using corn to make the ethanol, from a main food staple, is simply an awful idea as it will drive up costs, for all our food, beginning with grain products, but also and especially those other products that depend on grains (e.g. beef, chicken, milk, etc.). Think about it! :mad:

#1. E85 is not meant to be used in a non-flex-fuel car. It's meant to be used in a flexfuel car.

#2. All cars build since 1982 are specifically designed to be compatible with E10. It's a federal requirement, and a design specification in the ASTM specs.

#3. Of course the car dealer is going to charge you $650 to turn off your check engine light, and then tell you you are going to have to come back and pay him another $650 every once in a while. That's dealership security for him, and also totally false. Congratulations, you're paying for his next vacation to Aruba.

By the way- the data I can find only says that the 2003 Jeep 4.0 liter engine was multi-port fuel injected, not carborated. Are you sure the dealer was "cleaning your carb"? If it doesn't have a carb?

(Sigh....) More untruths.

James48843
03-09-2011, 11:01 PM
Hessian:

Jeep "highly recommends reformulated oxygenated E10 fuel "for the 2003 Jeep.

Page 198 of the Jeep Wrangler owners manual.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2626975/Jeep-TJ-2004-Wrangler-Owners-Manual

James48843
03-09-2011, 11:03 PM
Why do you guys thing they do not transfer ethanol in the underground pipelines? Very corrosive.


Um, ethanol IS being shipped by pipeline:

Here:
Ethanol pipeline test a success, says Kinder Morgan

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2008/10/13/daily42.html


they don't switch back and forth between ethanol and oil or gasoline, but they CAN build ethanol pipelines if they wish to. In fact, there are pipelines being proposed for ethanol right now.

And Brazil just recently completed a 700 mile ethanol pipeline:

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/05/30/petrobras-to-complete-700-mile-brazilian-ethanol-pipeline-by-end-of-2009/

James48843
03-09-2011, 11:11 PM
E85 eats most car's gaslines and carbs, attacking the rubber/silicone & metal parts that it touches. Its not a myth, its a fact that I found out the hard way. Google on the following...
I have a 2003 Jeep Wrangler, and about 5 years ago, I got engine check lights that just wouldn't stay off even when I'd add fuel additives. Finally in desperation, I went to the dealer and paid $650 - to have my carb "cleaned" and fuelines replaced. When I asked why they told me it was the ethanol in the gas - and they said to expect having to do this periodically, as the problem will recur and grow further over time, likely "eating" at engine parts.
I don't want to give up my '03 Wrangler that I paid to modify highly! But, I suppose its almost about that time again. Also...

E85/ethanol not only will literally "eat" your pre~2009 car's engine - but using corn to make the ethanol, from a main food staple, is simply an awful idea as it will drive up costs, for all our food, beginning with grain products, but also and especially those other products that depend on grains (e.g. beef, chicken, milk, etc.). Think about it! :mad:


Always with the negative waves...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuStsFW4EmQ

anthony
03-10-2011, 07:50 AM
Part of the problem is that through government funding and focus over the last 10-20 years, we became overly fixated on corn as the best source for ethanol. There's a lot of competing opinions on this, but by government overfixating on corn, scientists didn't go far enough in exploring other crops. The best corn competitor is sugar, currently being used in Brazil and elsewhere, but there are others as well.

Why is this important? It takes tons of fuel and strips ground much more rapidly to produce the amounts of corn necessary for fuel, plus it competes with livestock food sources. There are other crops that will make better ethanol without competing for livestock food and without stripping land, forcing the need for dangerous chemical fertilizers that later enter our water sources.

My two cents ...

James48843
03-10-2011, 08:36 AM
No, we (the government) didn't become overly fixated with corn.


Corn was used because that happened to be the crop that works well in all climates.

Yes, sugarcane, and sugar beets, produce more ethanol per acre.

Cattails (the swamp time) do even better than sugar cane.

And hemp does even better than that.

Some say Algae is going to be the best - at 6,000 gallons ethanol produced per acre, compared to 250-300 per acre for corn.


The only problem is- Algae doesn't mass-produce into factory ready stuff just yet, they are still working on technique. Same for cellulostic ethanol from other sources. the factory techniques to scale up to multi-million gallon production means are still being developed. Corn is well developed and easy to do, and price wise is now cheaper than oil. (a change from ten years ago). Sugar is now slightly more expensive to make ethanol from than corn today, but it is very competitive. Three years ago sugar cost twice as much as corn to make ethanol from. Now it's more like 0 to 10% higher than corn.


All are things to look at, to develop, as we move forward.

All depend on corn to help build out the number of pumps, the number of flex-fuel vehciles. etc. it's all part of it, and yes, corn plays a role.

(Corn used for ethanol os NOT sweet corn you eat. It's field corn, and the byproduct of ethanol production is Dried Distiiler's grain DDG), which IS USED FOR ANIMAL FEED. That's right folks- the production of ethanol CONTRIBUTES TO LOWER PRICES FOR ANIMAL FEED DUE TO LARGE VOLUMES OF DDG BEING AVAILABLE THAT WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE IN THE MARKET. )



But hey- it takes a while to educate people.

RealMoneyIssues
03-10-2011, 08:51 AM
Just out of curiousity James, what would happen to the ethanol market if the USG removed all subsities?

nnuut
03-10-2011, 09:04 AM
It would shut down because the ptice of E85 would go up at least $1.80 a gallon.

James48843
03-10-2011, 10:29 AM
It would shut down because the ptice of E85 would go up at least $1.80 a gallon.


Nope. E85 is only a small, small fraction of all ethanol production. More than 95% of ethanol goes into E10.

To answer the question of what would happen if the VEETC was removed, the answer is- the price of gasoline would jump by at least 15 cents.


Currently the ethanol subsidy of 45 cents per gallon is paid to whoever blends ethanol into gasoline. That is the OIL COMPANIES. So the credit is a tax break for big oil. They are getting 45 cents for every gallon they blend as E10. (Yes, they get it for E85 as well, but only a tiny fraction of ethanol is being used for E85. )


Personally, I would love nothing more than to see the VEETC tax credit elimnianted for the E10 mixtures, and, instead, give a 45 cent VEETC to the GAS STATION that carries and sells E85.

That would eliminate about 90% of the cost of the VEETC, yet would support those who sell higher blend, and give incentive to lowering the price at the pump closer to the consumer. IF they did that, the price of E85 at the pump would come down some more, and consumers would have a better choice. Oil Companies would lose the tax breaks they don't need, ethanol would become MORE cost competitive, and we'd be better off as a nation.

However, the lack of a VEETC subsidy into the gasoline would pop the price of gasoline higher. Today, 10 % of your gasoline is the ethanol, which only costs about $2.04 a gallon, rather than the $3.03 that RBOB costs on the NYMEX. Without that VEETC, the cost of the ethanol rises to market price, which is $2.54 or so today, a 50 cent jump. That would have to be passed on to the gasoline consumer in the form of a higher price gasoline.

James48843
03-10-2011, 10:32 AM
in short- for the E10 portion, we don't NEED the VEETC credit. America wpould be dfine without it.

For the E85, or the higher blends, we still NEED the VEETC in some form, so that we continue to build out the demand and infrastructure to encourage more stations to get built. But if we only did the higher blends (E20, E30, E50 or E85 type blends) the VEETC could be done at a small fraction of the cost it is today. (Perahps one tenth what we spend today) and it would still to the critical job we need done.

Show-me
03-10-2011, 05:01 PM
What a crock of BS.

The corn lobby, farm lobby, grain lobby, Round up Ready corn/chemical lobby, pushed ethanol and lobbied for subsidies for ethanol producers and lobbied for tax credits to big oil in order to break into their market. It was a pay off. That way corn producers could increase DEMAND FOR THEIR PRODUCE AND DEMAND HIGHER PRICES. SUPPLY AND DEMAND, farmers know about that too.

Now the corn and ethanol lobby has used high oil prices to lobby legislation to force big oil to use their ethanol. How would you like it if you produced a produce and was forced to include someone else's product in that finish product. Kind of like forcing you to buy a insurance products.

Livestock feed is not a byproduct of ethonal. Corn has always been livestock feed. PLEASE STOP THE SPIN!!!

Disadvantages: Distillers Grain (DG) is void of starch and that has to be made up for and transportation cost increase as do storage cost. Corn is a nitrogen and water dependent crop and 70% of the fresh water use in the USA is for agriculture. When the tap runs dry, and it will, corn ethanol will not be the darling you are profiting from right now. Ride the wave until the water runs out Jim.

And now nitrogen.

Approximately 83% (as of 2004) of ammonia is used as fertilizers either as its salts or as solutions. Consuming more than 1% of all man-made power, the production of ammonia is a significant component of the world energy budget. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14356007.a02_143.pub2/abstract;jsessionid=8586AF02C24392EC9C466EB2E317DA 3C.d01t03

You liberals keep stroking each other and collecting the profits from the taxpayers.

burrocrat
03-10-2011, 05:04 PM
What a crock of BS.

The corn lobby, farm lobby, grain lobby, Round up Ready corn/chemical lobby, pushed ethanol and lobbied for subsidies for ethanol producers and lobbied for tax credits to big oil in order to break into their market. It was a pay off. That way corn producers could increase DEMAND FOR THEIR PRODUCE AND DEMAND HIGHER PRICES. SUPPLY AND DEMAND, farmers know about that too.

Now the corn and ethanol lobby has used high oil prices to lobby legislation to force big oil to use their ethanol. How would you like it if you produced a produce and was forced to include someone else's product in that finish product. Kind of like forcing you to buy a insurance products.

Livestock feed is not a byproduct of ethonal. Corn has always been livestock feed. PLEASE STOP THE SPIN!!!

Disadvantages: Distillers Grain (DG) is void of starch and that has to be made up for and transportation cost increase as do storage cost. Corn is a nitrogen and water dependent crop and 70% of the fresh water use in the USA is for agriculture. When the tap runs dry, and it will, corn ethanol will not be the darling you are profiting from right now. Ride the wave until the water runs out Jim.

And now nitrogen.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14356007.a02_143.pub2/abstract;jsessionid=8586AF02C24392EC9C466EB2E317DA 3C.d01t03

You liberals keep stroking each other and collecting the profits from the taxpayers.

i think he knows what he's talking about.

hey, anybody hungry? yet?

hessian
03-10-2011, 06:27 PM
Part of the problem is that through government funding and focus over the last 10-20 years, we became overly fixated on corn...
Why is this important? It takes tons of fuel and strips ground much more rapidly to produce the amounts of corn necessary for fuel, plus it competes with livestock food sources. There are other crops that will make better ethanol without competing for livestock food and without stripping land...

My two cents ...
I second the above, and agree with ALL Showme said.

You're right about my car not having a carb, Jim - rather m-p injectors. I wasn't trying to be technical, but the additives cleaned those - and much more. The point, and the problem, was real though - I checked various sources prior to desperation of going to the dealer.
Personally, I don't believe a word that vehicles were being made Ethanol/Flexfuel-ready back to '82 (or what the gov says about much, especially about ethanol for vehicles way back then, except for the military - maybe). - You fought the good fight with the gov-garbage that TSP tried to feed us.
Anyway, my point was made, and so far this thread is 8 to 1 - just since my post.
I don't think that ethanol-fuels wwere even a twinkle in any carmaker's eye back then, and don't recall the initiative mentioned, or the word Flexfuel mentioned until maybe '08.

BTW, I endorse alternate-energy: Nuclear and electric vehicles. Norway and Denmark have been recycling their Nuclear waste to 98% for roughly 6-8 years now. Why aren't we NOT doing the same? Volvo had a concept "plug-in", with a gas engine that only functioned as a generator for the car's fuelcell. [Imagine using this in reverse to power the basics in your home during a power outage.] Well, I guess that vehicle made too much sense, as "they" killed that idea quickly here in the US. :rolleyes:
Truely, VR.

nnuut
03-10-2011, 06:57 PM
The fact is that ethanol is costing us much more than regular gas and hurting the economy in many ways. No I don't believe the SPIN and never will.:cool:

anthony
03-10-2011, 09:57 PM
No, we (the government) didn't become overly fixated with corn.


Corn was used because that happened to be the crop that works well in all climates.

Yes, sugarcane, and sugar beets, produce more ethanol per acre.

Cattails (the swamp time) do even better than sugar cane.

And hemp does even better than that.

Some say Algae is going to be the best - at 6,000 gallons ethanol produced per acre, compared to 250-300 per acre for corn.


The only problem is- Algae doesn't mass-produce into factory ready stuff just yet, they are still working on technique. Same for cellulostic ethanol from other sources. the factory techniques to scale up to multi-million gallon production means are still being developed. Corn is well developed and easy to do, and price wise is now cheaper than oil. (a change from ten years ago). Sugar is now slightly more expensive to make ethanol from than corn today, but it is very competitive. Three years ago sugar cost twice as much as corn to make ethanol from. Now it's more like 0 to 10% higher than corn.


All are things to look at, to develop, as we move forward.

All depend on corn to help build out the number of pumps, the number of flex-fuel vehciles. etc. it's all part of it, and yes, corn plays a role.

(Corn used for ethanol os NOT sweet corn you eat. It's field corn, and the byproduct of ethanol production is Dried Distiiler's grain DDG), which IS USED FOR ANIMAL FEED. That's right folks- the production of ethanol CONTRIBUTES TO LOWER PRICES FOR ANIMAL FEED DUE TO LARGE VOLUMES OF DDG BEING AVAILABLE THAT WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE IN THE MARKET. )



But hey- it takes a while to educate people.

James thanks for clarifying some of the out of line assumptions I made. It was a quick post without much research on my part. I appreciate the depth you added.

Show-me
03-11-2011, 05:21 AM
There are no tariffs on imported oil, that's why we buy and use so much of it. But there is a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol, which is made from sugarcane and is much cheaper than American ethanol. Why the tariff? Again, political pressure from US corn and soybean producers to protect their profits. When you consider that China and India will make as many cars as the U.S. in another decade or two, you can just imagine what the competition for energy and food is going to be like. You don't need to be an expert on agribusiness. If there's a cheaper way of producing alternate energy without gobbling up one of the world's major food sources, shouldn't we be taking a closer, more determined look?


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89817188

Show-me
03-11-2011, 05:28 AM
From 2006.



Over the next five years, $5.7 billion in federal tax credits will support the ethanol market - a boon to Midwest corn growers who are certainly no hayseeds when it comes to lobbying members of Congress




Other downsides: Corn ethanol does reduce atmosphere-warming carbon emissions, but environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club say it actually is worse than gasoline in making smog. Meanwhile, builders of the nearly 200 ethanol manufacturing facilities under construction or planned are being tempted to power their facilities with coal. That's because it's less expensive than their current choice, natural gas. Coal power would wipe out or reduce the greenhouse gains of ethanol.

However, there is a better way. Fly on down to Rio for a look at the world's leader in sugar-cane ethanol. Brazil's widely consumed ethanol is almost eight times more fossil energy efficient to produce than the US corn-based stuff. Its ethanol manufacturing is powered not by fossil fuels, but by cane-stalk residue. The downside is huge acreage demand (no small consideration if the US greatly ramps up production).


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0512/p08s01-comv.html

Show-me
03-11-2011, 05:31 AM
The lie that it make livestock feed cheaper. Step away for the Koolaid Jim.



Corn farmers are pushing for more ethanol production as the industry creates an enormous new market for their crop, giving corn prices the kind of lift they haven’t seen in years. But the corn farmer’s win is the hog farmer’s loss. Meat, dairy, and other food producers are pushing back against the ethanol boom as higher grain prices cut into their already slim profit margins.




But the pain is more acute for corporations like Tyson Foods Inc (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20760839/ns/business-oil_and_energy/#)., the nation’s largest meat company. The Springdale, Ark.-based company’s stock fell 13 percent earlier this month when it lowered its profit projections for the year.

Part of Tyson’s problem is higher grain prices — the company said grain costs for its chicken feed shot up $113 million in the third quarter of this year alone when compared to the year before.

The American Meat Institute has taken heed. AMI spokeswoman Janet Riley said the group is “absolutely” opposed to more ethanol mandates and will continue to lobby against them. The AMI has joined dairy, egg and turkey lobbyists to fight any increase in ethanol mandates that could divert yet more feed into fuel refineries.

The coalition launched a Web site recently called “Balanced Food and Fuel.” The home page is filled with stories and editorials culled from media outlets around the county, spelling out the seemingly dire consequences of growing demand for biofuel.

Headlines on the site warn of a “spiral of rising prices” as “corn prices skyrocket.” One story outlines an ominous increase in pizza prices.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20760839/ns/business-oil_and_energy/

James48843
03-11-2011, 06:48 AM
I second the above, and agree with ALL Showme said.

You're right about my car not having a carb, Jim - rather m-p injectors. I wasn't trying to be technical, but the additives cleaned those - and much more. The point, and the problem, was real though - I checked various sources prior to desperation of going to the dealer.

Additives cleaned your fuel injectors. Great. Most people don't worry about fuel injectors, some pay to have them cleaned.



Personally, I don't believe a word that vehicles were being made Ethanol/Flexfuel-ready back to '82 (or what the gov says about much, especially about ethanol for vehicles way back then, except for the military - maybe). -

Let me refresh you, then.

Jimmy Carter. Iran. Arab Oil Price Spike. GASOHOL.

GASOHOL was widespread in 1979-1980-1981. It was the reason the federal goernment adopted standards, and the auto industy adopted standards, that all cars be tolerant of E10 fuel- be made compatible with low levels of ethanol. that's when all the gaskets changed from real rubber to viton rubber, or silocone, so they could be compatible with ethanol. NO, they weren't called flex-fuel then. They were only doing low levels of ethanol then, but yes, the standards were changed.





You fought the good fight with the gov-garbage that TSP tried to feed us. Anyway, my point was made, and so far this thread is 8 to 1 - just since my post.
Your point is well taken. There are 8 people in this message board that are knuckle dragging low IQ right-wing gasoline users for every reasonably intellegent left winger on this board. I certainly don't dispute that, nor would the NPR guy.



I don't think that ethanol-fuels wwere even a twinkle in any carmaker's eye back then, and don't recall the initiative mentioned, or the word Flexfuel mentioned until maybe '08.

Riiigghhtt.


Please go exercise google and learn when flex-fuel cars became high-production items. You 'll find they go back into the 1990s. The government was purchasing them starting in 1994. The EPA's website has fuel economy data on them dating back to around 2001.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm




BTW, I endorse alternate-energy: Nuclear and electric vehicles. Norway and Denmark have been recycling their Nuclear waste to 98% for roughly 6-8 years now. Why aren't we NOT doing the same?

Denmark sends it's spent nuclear fuel to....THE UNITED STATES.

Norway has stored it's spent fuel, and doesn't yet know what it is going to do with it.
http://www.nordregio.se/filer/Files/r003broden.PDF



Volvo had a concept "plug-in", with a gas engine that only functioned as a generator for the car's fuelcell. [Imagine using this in reverse to power the basics in your home during a power outage.] Well, I guess that vehicle made too much sense, as "they" killed that idea quickly here in the US. :rolleyes:
Truely, VR.

That car only cost $182,000 to build. that's why fuel cell cars haven't taken off. the technology is WAY too expensive for now.

Flex-fuel cars cost an exta $100. Fuel cell cars cost an exra $160,000. That's the difference.

RealMoneyIssues
03-11-2011, 07:02 AM
Your point is well taken. There are 8 people in this message board that are knuckle dragging low IQ right-wing gasoline users for every reasonably intellegent left winger on this board. I certainly don't dispute that, nor would the NPR guy.

Would you mind not being SO rude? Or are you incapable? :mad:

Show-me
03-11-2011, 07:03 AM
Your point is well taken. There are 8 people in this message board that are knuckle dragging low IQ right-wing gasoline users for every reasonably intellegent left winger on this board. I certainly don't dispute that, nor would the NPR guy.



Jim quit self pleasuring yourself. Your not as smart as you think you're just delusional and blinded by your false prophet. Data can be skewed to make any argument. You find data to help your argument so that you can sleep at night making money on the taxpayers while destroying the environment in a different way. You are no better than the evil oil industry, just as delusional.

Show-me
03-11-2011, 07:05 AM
You might want to brush your teeth and gargle again before you leave for work.;)

poolman
03-11-2011, 07:21 AM
This type of Fuel (I think it is called E85) taught me a lesson last year that I would have never believed but it happened to me.

June of 2009 I bought me a Brand New Stihl Blower. Before that blower I also had a Stihl blower that lasted me 12 years. I use my blower allot. I live on 2.5 acres and my driveway is 275 feet long. On average I blow the driveway of all the debris once a week. The new Stihl blower worked great. Easy to start, idle and throttle response great just like the first one I had. During the winter of 2009 I didn't use the blower that much maybe once a month. Now Spring of 2010 rolls around I go to use the blower not thinking twice that it will run fine just like it (they) always do. The blower had not been used for maybe 6 weeks. Well it was a pain in the butt to get started and after I finally got it started it would not run at full throttle at all. The machine is still under warranty (and even if it wasn't) and I take it to the Stihl dealer where I bought it and explained the problem. They told me that they have a tremendous backlog in there service department and it would take awhile before they call me to tell me what the problem is and whether it will be covered under warranty. Twelve day's later they called me and told me the unit needs a new carburetor. I'm like what ?, Why ? They asked me if I had been using E85 fuel in it. I'm like I don't know. I go to the gas station with a 5 gallon can get gas come home and mix the appropriate amount of oil so I have all 5 gallons mixed. Well that was the wrong answer. They tried to tell me that the unit would not be covered under warranty because I had probably used E85 fuel in it and the shelf life is only 30 day's as in you can not have that kind of fuel in the unit for more than 30 days. It deteriorates the gaskets inside the carburetor.

To make a long story shorter I did get them to cover fixing the blower under warranty only because I buy most of my equipment from them and after they checked my history of purchases through them they didn't want to lose me as a customer.

But who would have known that the shelf life is so short for this type of fuel. This year during the winter I drained as much gas out of it as possible and than ran the machine until it was completely out of gas. So in another month or so when I put fuel in it I better not have a problem with it. That machine is not cheap. $285.00

That was not a good experience for me with this fuel. :mad:

FUTURESTRADER
03-11-2011, 07:48 AM
This type of Fuel (I think it is called E85) taught me a lesson last year that I would have never believed but it happened to me.

June of 2009 I bought me a Brand New Stihl Blower. Before that blower I also had a Stihl blower that lasted me 12 years. I use my blower allot. I live on 2.5 acres and my driveway is 275 feet long. On average I blow the driveway of all the debris once a week. The new Stihl blower worked great. Easy to start, idle and throttle response great just like the first one I had. During the winter of 2009 I didn't use the blower that much maybe once a month. Now Spring of 2010 rolls around I go to use the blower not thinking twice that it will run fine just like it (they) always do. The blower had not been used for maybe 6 weeks. Well it was a pain in the butt to get started and after I finally got it started it would not run at full throttle at all. The machine is still under warranty (and even if it wasn't) and I take it to the Stihl dealer where I bought it and explained the problem. They told me that they have a tremendous backlog in there service department and it would take awhile before they call me to tell me what the problem is and whether it will be covered under warranty. Twelve day's later they called me and told me the unit needs a new carburetor. I'm like what ?, Why ? They asked me if I had been using E85 fuel in it. I'm like I don't know. I go to the gas station with a 5 gallon can get gas come home and mix the appropriate amount of oil so I have all 5 gallons mixed. Well that was the wrong answer. They tried to tell me that the unit would not be covered under warranty because I had probably used E85 fuel in it and the shelf life is only 30 day's as in you can not have that kind of fuel in the unit for more than 30 days. It deteriorates the gaskets inside the carburetor.

To make a long story shorter I did get them to cover fixing the blower under warranty only because I buy most of my equipment from them and after they checked my history of purchases through them they didn't want to lose me as a customer.

But who would have known that the shelf life is so short for this type of fuel. This year during the winter I drained as much gas out of it as possible and than ran the machine until it was completely out of gas. So in another month or so when I put fuel in it I better not have a problem with it. That machine is not cheap. $285.00

That was not a good experience for me with this fuel. :mad:

Poolman - E85 is pretty clearly marked at all stations. A lot of gasoline is 10% ethanol however, which is supposed to not be a problem.