Corn and Ethanol.

[Show-me]

A couple quick thoughts. I read a couple articles today.

Headlines today are that 5 ethanol plant are in the planning stages for my area. Ag experts say that "There ain't enuff corn to supply them all." Blue collar guys at work that are part time farms say "Bring on the $8 corn." Point is the corn supply will be very badly depleted and the amount of fertilizer and water required to make a good crop will skyrocket. Demand for seed corn, fert., water, fuel, and crop chemicals will all be stretched. Prices for all will go up as demand goes up and they will still not have enough corn to supply that many plant. Water table will drop because farmers will buy irrigation pivots to increase production.

Now the big one some do not see coming.........................How many food and drink products are sweetened with "high fructose corn syrup"? Plan on paying a bit more for those items. How about cereals? Corn syrup equals corn ethanol. The byproduct of ethanol can be feed back to livestock, but you can bet meat and dairy prices will go up because of the marketing hype.

How much of the price the ethanol producer get for their product is tax subsidies? Brazil makes ethanol work because they are in the perfect spot for..........sugar cane, the most perfect plant for ethanol.

On the surface ethanol looked good to me, but now I am beginning to see a different path. Ethanol in the US is a Pandora's box. Soil erosion, depleted water table, anhydrous ammonia, farm chemicals, green field margins, chemical run off, increase fuel usage, higher food prices, and more tax money to subsidize with.

Here is another kicker. To produce ethanol it requires more fossil fuel btu's that is returned from the ethanol. In Brazil it is the opposite because they use the sugar cane. Transportation cost go up because ethanol can not be piped. To corrosive.

We will be paying more for ethanol and doing more damage to the environment than if we would just burn the fossil fuels. :o I am getting the feeling we just bought a big white elephant.

Feel free to poke holes in my rant.

[Show-me]

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.

http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

[Show-me]

Ethanol from corn: burning money and oil
US politicians have been subsidising corn (maize) production, and its conversion to ethanol, for years. The idea is that it can be added to petrol where it both acts as fuel itself, and makes the petrol burn more efficiently and cleanly. Since it is not derived from fossil fuel it should reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help reduce American dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

http://www.igreens.org.uk/ethanol_from_corn_.htm

[Show-me]

http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/How_Much_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.htm l

[ATCJeff]

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P148879.asp

[nnuut]

Alll I can say is-----don't use FOOD to power machines!!!!!! dumb ****!:cool:
You like corn? I like corn! Let's make GAS from corn!!! Dumb ****!!!

[Griffin]

I don't see ethanol as the anwer in this picture.

US Oil Demand (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/demand_text.htm#U.S.%20Consumption%20by%20sector)

1305

[MADDOG]

Personally I Belive They Should Use Beans
The Ones I Ate Last Night In My Chilie
Should Fuel A Couple Cars

Whoaaaaaaaaaaaa
Gota Go Again

Md

[moodysj]

Corn is not the only crop suitable for ethanol conversion. There are others.

Also ethanol was only one of the alternative fuels mentioned, There are others like biodeisel.

[James48843]

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.

http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

That's an old study from 2001. More recent advances have it now pegged the other way. This one, from Berkeley (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/01/26_ethanol.shtml) shows that corn can be a significant net gain. But other sources may do even better.

There is another flaw- both these studies assume that the tractor plowing the fields, and the trucks carrying to market, are both going to be using oil. I would venture to guess that when we really begin to develop bio fuels, that the tractors and the trucks may run on either E85, or on a bio diesel product. Both of which would lower the oil footprint, and make it more in renewable alcohol's favor.

Not sure if corn is the long-term solution though, sugar beets here in the north also hold promise.As does other materials. Corrn sounds good now, but we can grow other things that might be better. Brazil does it with sugar cane. Sugar has promise.

[moodysj]

From a show on the History channel last night:

Sugar cane yields 2 times the amount of ethanol per acre compared to corn.
Switchgrass yields 4 times the amount of ethanol per acre compared to corn.

[ayla]

Forget the cost in acreage for ethanol. Whatever the cost, at least we will not be sending our dollars to the Middle East (including Iran) which is what our oil addiction is basically doing now. It has nothing to do with the environment. It is hard for me to be convinced that there is any other reason Bush is pushing so hard for alternative fuel (and going against the oil lobby) if he didn't see the real problem being that our oil addiction is funding terrorism.

Give capitalism a chance. Now that the oil companies have to deal with real competition from ethannol, they are forced to look for and find the cheapest best way which will be accomplished using smarter and smarter technology.

Corporations don't do well at finding new paths that are optimal for the country (which is why they MUST be monitored) but they do very well at finding the cheapest way of following paths that are set for them IMO.

[Birchtree]

This country boy has been buying farm machinery stocks for the last several years trying to build a substantial position to participate no matter what commodity they use the most of - it requires machinery to gather. Corn is an important factor in the food and beverage industry, and it also influences prices for other foodstuffs such as meat and poultry. That's important because food has a weighting of about 14% in the CPI. That is considerably more than energy's weighting of 8.5% and second only to shelter's weighting of 32%. Shelter is heavily influenced by rents, which face downward pressure as owners of unsold homes put them up for rent. So inflation is ebbing. It was up just 0.5% at an annual rate in the past six months.

[Show-me]

Farmers start getting profitable they can rotate out the old machinery. Don't forget seed corn, fertilizer, and chemicals.

[Show-me]

Well there you go, the President went to Brazil this week to work out a pact with them for Ethanol. It must be finally soaking in that the U.S. does not have the ability to produce enough Ethanol to do the job and the higher corn prices will start being felt in "food inflation". Not good for the little guy. Now we are dependent on yet another foreign country for our fuel or fuel additive. :nuts:

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for efficient energy, clean energy, and creating jobs for the rural communities. At what price though?

Now if I am correct this pact hurts the U.S. farmer, by lowering demand and price, but the oil companies still get the tax credit for blending the Ethanol into the fuel. Brilliant!!! :nuts:

Ethanol blended fuel is less fuel efficient (mpg) than straight gasoline and more harmful to the environment because we use fossil fuel to make the ethanol. The conversion, in btu, should remain the same unless they improve the process. IMHO the process has already been tweaked to the max by the industry. Now the only way to make it efficient is to have cheaper energy to convert the corn to ethanol or develop a better crop that has more sugar in it. That's all ya got.

"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." (http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm)

These findings were published in 2001 when fuel and corn were both much cheaper.

By the evidence I have been reading we are better off burning straight gasoline instead of Ethanol blended gasoline because it is more fuel efficient (mpg) and cost less to make (both in dollars and in harming the environment). Companies are looking for the cheapest fuel they can burn to make their Ethanol...................COAL. http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/business/16834568.htm

In my area there are 4 or 5 ethanol plants operating or laying ground work and they all use NATURAL GAS to cook the mash. We're doomed!

[nnuut]

I think we should try Milk Weed and Crab Grass, they grow everywhere, you don't have to fertilize(if you did oh my gosh), You can't kill them and they come back every year. How about kudzu?:nuts:

[The_Technician]

From a show on the History channel last night:

Sugar cane yields 2 times the amount of ethanol per acre compared to corn.
Switchgrass yields 4 times the amount of ethanol per acre compared to corn.
Thank God for switchgrass, or everything you eat will double in price....there have been reports that there isn't enough vegetation to produce enough ethanol....hydrogen is the way to go.....or direct solar.....in one form or the other (wind, hydrothermal, hydro)

[Show-me]

As this applies to my ethanol rant I will post it here also.


"Costs have surged for fuel and petroleum-based products and for the corn used to feed dairy cows, a side effect of increases in the production of ethanol. Bower said he now pays about $180 a ton to feed his 500 dairy cows, up from $115 a ton a year ago, an increase of more than 50 percent."

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070330/farm_scene.html?.v=2&printer=1

[nnuut]

That is really stupid!! Make it out of Milkweed or something, what are they CRAZY!!:nuts:

[FUTURESTRADER]

but they're still pushing the corn...planting most corn this year since 1944

[Show-me]

AP
Ethanol Demand Boosts Corn Planting
Friday March 30, 10:46 pm ET
By Nafeesa Syeed and David Pitt, Associated Press Writers

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070330/planting_report.html?.v=8

Ethanol Demand Boosts Corn Planting 15 Percent in 2007, Biggest Since 1944

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- An ethanol-fueled boom in prices will prompt American farmers to plant the most corn since the year the Allies invaded Normandy, but surging demand could mean consumers still may pay more for everything from chicken to cough syrup.
Farmers are expected to plant 90.5 million acres of corn, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's annual prospective plantings report released Friday. That would be a 15 percent increase over 2006 and the most corn planted since 1944.
Mother Nature will play a large part in the actual acreage planted. Muddy fields are already slowing plantings in some states.
"We're awfully wet out here," said John Scott, a grain farmer in west central Iowa. "Normally by this time of year we're doing quite a bit of field work. There just isn't a wheel turning out here. Illinois is in the same boat."
Corn should be planted by mid-May for good yields and soybeans can be planted as late as June, which could be a fallback plan for farmers if corn doesn't get planted in time.
The move to plant corn is in large part due to a rush to produce corn-based ethanol, which is blended with gasoline. There are now 114 ethanol refineries nationwide and another 80 under construction.
The corn rush was sparked by President Bush's initiative to support flexible-fuel vehicles, which are capable of using gasoline and ethanol blends, and his administration's plan to cut gas consumption by 20 percent in 10 years. Corn prices were already rising when Bush announced the initiative in Washington on Jan. 23 and there has been growing concern that the corn rush could hurt the poor in less-developed nations such as Mexico, where the crop is a staple used in tortillas.

[Show-me]

http://technocrat.net/d/2007/4/18/18275

A Stanford researcher claims that ethanol is more or less as bad as gasoline (http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/april18/ethanol-041807.html) when it comes to air pollution, and actually worse as regards ozone. He based his study on a computer model comparing normal gasoline and E85 blend, then ran it to year 2020. <LI class=body_text>...""There are alternatives, such as battery-electric, plug-in-hybrid and hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles, whose energy can be derived from wind or solar power," he added. "These vehicles produce virtually no toxic emissions or greenhouse gases and cause very little disruption to the land—unlike ethanol made from corn or switchgrass, which will require millions of acres of farmland to mass-produce. It would seem prudent, therefore, to address climate, health and energy with technologies that have known benefits.""...more there ed; and back in the real world, we have a huge already established liquid fuels transportation sector, both the vehicles and delivery system, where a transition switch to ethanol and biodiesel is *cheap* and *easy* compared to anything else. At a minimum, the plant based fuels are carbon neutral. I also would like to see a variety of pure electric (and affordable, not just exotic sportscars for rich folks toys) vehicles on the market,(with the solar PV carport part of the package) but for extended range, there is no getting it around it right now or for the next X-years, there will still need to be liquid fuel engines (I prefer the tow-behind generator-trailer idea to make "hybrids" from pure electrics). Any pure electrics based on lithium-dang-anything batteries are going to cost a *mint* if you want any normal "tank 0 gas" range. That's just reality now. I wish it was different, but it isn't. For short range commuting and urban delivery-ya, pure electrics are good enough now if some of the majors would just get the dang things on the market and be done with it. the Model A electric, just do it. Average US commute=33 miles. Get them to do 50 and fall into the econobox price range to start with, you'll sell them. For anything else, nope, not good enough, not without them being hybrids of some sort, integral or tow behind for the ICE, which brings you back to liquid fuels necessity, which you can A) import at great expense by exporting cash and with huge political baggage from a variety of dodgy and troublesome areas of the world or B)have your local farmers make it and keep a lot of that loot circulating internally.. And no, hydrogen (which would be option C) is still a long ways away near as I can tell. Option B therefore still looks better to me until Mr. Backyard Fusion powerpacks are at home depot for $299..

http://www.sitnews.us/0407news/041907/041907_shns_ethanolrisk.html

April 19, 2007
Thursday

If ethanol ever gains widespread use as a clean alternative fuel to gasoline, people with respiratory illnesses may be in trouble.
A new study out of Stanford says pollution from ethanol could end up creating a worse health hazard than gasoline, especially for people with asthma and other respiratory diseases.

[Show-me]

Was talking to some farmer friend yesterday and the prices are going up. Hay ground rent is at a top. Large round bales of hay are fetching a premium price.

Under normal conditions a large round bale of hay would bring $20-$35 depending on size and quality. Now I am hearing of hay bringing $25-$75 in depleted areas.

I am also seeing more hay on the road than ever before. Trucker hauling hay to areas hit by drought that are running out now. Those are the $75 bales. My friend is debating feeding livestock or just selling the hay. Just selling the hay would be easier on him because he would not have livestock to care for every day and he lowers his risk of one getting sick or death. Big profit killer.

I have experience a 25&#37; increase in horse hay from last month. Supply is getting tight. Feeding grain is becoming less of an option.

Small cattle producers in my area are feeding more hay and less grain or cutting the herd size.

Just sharing.

[robo]

Jun 08 2007 Unintended Consequences of the Ethanol Boom


While the US government foolishly turns to ethanol as part of the solution to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the rapidly rising cost of corn is having devastating unintended consequences. A shortage of tequila and pricey tortillas. You may want to stock up on supplies now for next year’s Cinco de Mayo party.

According to MSNBC “The switch to corn will contribute to an expected scarcity of agave in coming years, with officials predicting that farmers will plant between 25 percent and 35 percent less agave this year to turn the land over to corn. “

Seriously though, this is just one ripple affect on food prices. The demand for ethanol will undoubtedly lead to inflation across the entire food supply as acreage for other food supplies shrink and feed for animals skyrockets. How bad is it? It has become so expensive to feed their livestock corn based feed that one farmer is feeding his livestock cookies, licorice, cheese curls, candy bars, french fries, frosted wheat cereal and peanut-butter cups! Another farmer in Idaho is feeding them tater tots! See the entire article over at the Wall Street Journal (paid) According to the National Chicken Council (via HPJ.com) “The price of corn has driven the cost of feeding chickens up 40 percent. Chicken is the most popular meat with consumers.”

Ethanol induced food inflation could potentially have a significant impact on the economy and at worst be the catalyst for a global recession. If that weren’t enough, how about the destruction of our environment which lasts a lifetime? In Southeast Asia, vast areas of tropical forest are being cleared and burned to plant oil palms destined for conversion to biodiesel. Soybeans and especially corn are row crops that contribute to soil erosion and water pollution and require large amounts of fertilizer, pesticides, and fuel to grow, harvest, and dry. They are the major cause of nitrogen runoff — the harmful leakage of nitrogen from fields when it rains — of the type that has created the so-called dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, an ocean area the size of New Jersey that has so little oxygen it can barely support life (via ForeignAffairs.org) Well at least someone is profiting from the destruction - just take a look at the charts of leading fertilizer producers Terra Nitrogen [TNH] and Potash [POT]. It's a lose and lose situation for the environment.

Granted, to ease the pressure to produce corn, the administration is promoting such biofuels as cellulosic ethanol, which can be made from wood chips, switchgrass and corn-plant parts such as stalks and leaves. But the process of making ethanol from those sources still is still very much in its infancy and not very practical. Biofuels could be made efficiently from a variety of other sources, such as grasses and wood chips, if the government funded the necessary research and development. But in the United States, at least, corn and soybeans have been used as primary inputs for many years thanks in large part to the lobbying efforts of corn and soybean growers and Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM), the biggest ethanol producer in the U.S. market. ADM owes much of its growth to political connections, especially to key legislators who can earmark special subsidies for its products. Vice President Hubert Humphrey advanced many such measures when he served as a senator from Minnesota. Senator Bob Dole (R-Kans.) advocated tirelessly for the company during his long career. As the conservative critic James Bovard noted over a decade ago, nearly half of ADM's profits have come from products that the U.S. government has either subsidized or protected. - ForeignAffairs.org

I highly recommend reading the entire article How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor. It really lays out the case against using ethanol (particularly corn based) and how government is protecting inefficient ways of producing ethanol to preserve corporate profits at the risk of the environment and the economy. But what the heck right? After all it would be political suicide to denounce the use of ethanol. Anything for a few votes.

On a final note, here’s a good piece 20/20 did on the myth of ethanol



http://selfinvestors.com/tradingstocks/

[Show-me]

Were is the most fresh water use sector wise?


Agriculture...............70&#37;


I'm seeing more irrigation pivots going up than ever before.

[charmed855]

Jun 08 2007 Unintended Consequences of the Ethanol Boom

I highly recommend reading the entire article How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor. It really lays out the case against using ethanol (particularly corn based) and how government is protecting inefficient ways of producing ethanol to preserve corporate profits at the risk of the environment and the economy. But what the heck right? After all it would be political suicide to denounce the use of ethanol. Anything for a few votes.


Good read. I think the hope for energy independence is clouding a lot of folks judgements right now. Once cellulous technology is advanced, say in another five years, there will be a clear and rational choice for switching to ethanal. It's not an environmental panacea, so I would not expect the tree huggers to get on board even though the use of switchgrass would be effective at reducing run-off and sulfer issues can be addressed. IMO, this is going to be huge for poor African countries without natural oil reserves.

[Army Invester]

Ethanol is the biggest bologna foisted on the American public ever. The energy content of ethanol is lower than fossil fuel, and only produces about 10&#37; new energy. It's hard on engines too and reduces gas mileage. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by putting drills in the ground and accepting the fact that we need to produce our own crude, ugly or not. We need to face the truth of the matter and grow up! Secondly we need to build at least 5-10 new refineries. The ones we have are so inefficient and modern equipment would help lower costs, waste and pollution.

We need to build a 100 new nuclear plants, while we develop the hydrogen infrastructure. This will be a very long process, along with the decision about where the hydrogen will extracted (at the gas station or in the car). Hydrogen pipelines are not an option.

[nnuut]

Ethanol is the biggest bologna foisted on the American public ever. The energy content of ethanol is lower than fossil fuel, and only produces about 10% new energy. It's hard on engines too and reduces gas mileage. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by putting drills in the ground and accepting the fact that we need to produce our own crude, ugly or not. We need to face the truth of the matter and grow up! Secondly we need to build at least 5-10 new refineries. The ones we have are so inefficient and modern equipment would help lower costs, waste and pollution.

We need to build a 100 new nuclear plants, while we develop the hydrogen infrastructure. This will be a very long process, along with the decision about where the hydrogen will extracted (at the gas station or in the car). Hydrogen pipelines are not an option.
Finally someone that really knows the truth, AMEN BROTHER!!!:D Use milkweed or something not CORN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Army Invester]

Well I think we need to stuff pussy-footing around and start acting like a superpower.

[ou81200]

Ethanol will not solve our energy problem nor will it decrease our oil dependence appreciatively. But it is a step in the right direction. IMO, the problem is oil companies and goverment beurocracy. Even if oil companies did want to build more refineries (I don't think they really want to), who wants a refinery in their back yard.

Nuclear power is a step in the right direction, but I don't think the goverment is looking into it seriously enough. Five years ago, natural gas was suppose to be the answer. All these new electric producing plants run off the stuff. Who would have known that NG would be so expensive now.

Right now gas minus the taxes is running about $2.25/gal. So why doesnt the goverment give us a break on gas tax? Everybody is in bed with everybody else and we the consumer have to suffer.

The news tries to tell us that it's OPEC's fault. Even though my opinion of OPEC can't be printed here without colorful metafours I put the blame on China and India. It's because of them that oil prices are up because of their increased dependency on the stuff. But who are we to tell them they have no right to be industrialized nations like we are.

Since we are going to be dependent on oil for some time to come, we need more refining capacity and we need to become more dependent on domestic oil. While we use our own oil, we need to continue research on energy alternatives.

We as American consumers can step up to the plate to reduce oil
consumption. Car pooling, public transportation, no unnecessary driving would accomplish this. These habits would also send a message to oil companies that they need to revamp their strategy on buttering their wallets at our expence.

Whew!!! I hav'nt done so much writing since being on this site. I guess I had to get it off my chest.

[Eldritch Flatus]

Unless this country goes nuclear (solar and wind and wave will help too) within the the next 10 years, and helps the rest of the world do it also, were screwed. Much of our transportation needs could be met by electricty, without a tremendous infrastructure. There are new battery technologies developing that are truly astounding when compared to those of just 10 years ago. Hydrogen will have it's uses in the future, and could come on line sooner than later. For now though my money is on electrochemical storage of nuclear energy(solar, wind, wave, too). The writing is not just on the wall but in the books. No one believes the science guys but me it seems. Just my learned[im(not quite)ho, but I may well be a prophet:nuts:

If something isn't done to either supply the worlds' energy demands or else curtail them we are in for sweeping changes in lifestyles and standards of living. And fossil fuels aren't the answer because their never going to foot the cost of 0 emissions. Foot's in mouth here because I too am very fond of my present lifestyle.:o

Realistically, I really don't expect much change, though. None of that will be implemented because the big boys with the money (who control everything) won't allow it. It would interfere with them making money in the ways they are so used to. (Screwing us.) Eventually they'll have to, because the supply of fossil fuels are limited, but by then it'll be way too late. We're screwed.:worried:

[Show-me]

Looks like the ethanol graft is sinking in here. It was reported on the local new that most of the new ethanol plants in this area have been put on hold. LOL

One of my coworkers has a nephew that has something to do with ethanol planning for ADM. He asked him how many plant this area would support. He said...................one. We have four in the planning stages. We dumb old county boyz knew that.

Iowa is having a record breaking crop of corn as are some other states keeping the prices low.

Here is a fairly current map of ethanol plant.

http://www.card.iastate.edu/research/bio/tools/ethanol.aspx

[SkyPilot]

Realistically, I really don't expect much change, though. None of that will be implemented because the big boys with the money (who control everything) won't allow it. It would interfere with them making money in the ways they are so used to. (Screwing us.) Eventually they'll have to, because the supply of fossil fuels are limited, but by then it'll be way too late. We're screwed.:worried:

Or, the "Big Boys" are already laying the foundations to monopolize the next generation of energy sources, and we won't know it till it's too late to get invested. Trust their greed and influence to pave the way for their own affluence, then follow them if you can. We may not be as screwed as one might think...

[Show-me]

They already made it law to blend ethanol with gasoline to replace MTBE. That's the first step.

What is MTBE? http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/gas.htm

Argument against replacing MTBE. http://www.calgasoline.com/factetha.htm

Ethanol Is Not a Suitable Replacement for MTBE
In 1990, Congress passed a law requiring fuel oxygenates – such as Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) and ethanol – to be added to Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) to reduce automotive emissions and improve the air we breathe. However, for a variety of economic, logistic and environmental reasons, refiners overwhelmingly favored MTBE over ethanol:

Gasoline Production Economics: Ethanol blends evaporate more readily than MTBE blends. Therefore, using ethanol increases refiner production costs and reduces operating flexibility. For example, the Chicago/Milwaukee ethanol market saw gasoline prices increase 25 cents/gallon over the national average during the summer of 2000. In addition, ethanol contributes about one half the blending volume provided by MTBE, and the maximum amount of ethanol that can be blended into gasoline is capped at 10% (versus 15% for MTBE). As a result, ethanol is unable to dilute many, less desirable, gasoline components.

Ethanol’s Tax Subsidy: Ethanol is not economically viable without its substantial federal tax subsidy – currently 53 cents per gallon – and supplemental state tax incentives.

Supply Uncertainties & Distribution Concerns: Ethanol use is generally limited to the Midwest, with little capacity for expansion. Ethanol supplies can be uncertain due to feedstock (i.e., corn) shortages caused by summer droughts. Ethanol’s high affinity for water does not allow blending at the refinery, nor transportation through the existing nation-wide gasoline pipeline infrastructure. Ethanol must be stored in segregated tanks, can only be transported by rail or truck and must be blended into gasoline at the terminal or retail station.

Environmental Concerns: Ethanol emits more harmful smog-forming emissions in the summertime than MTBE due to its high tendency to evaporate. Because ethanol is used in lower volumes, it provides less reduction in toxic air emissions than MTBE. Ethanol also can contribute to increased NOx emissions.

Consumer Acceptance: Automaker owner manuals warn buyers of performance problems with ethanol. Some consumers perceive ethanol-blended gasoline or “gasohol” as an “inferior product.”

In addition, energy security implications and consumer costs remain a concern as ethanol’s role in future national energy policy is debated:

Ethanol’s federal tax subsidy currently reduces money for state road maintenance and transportation infrastructure by over $1.1 billion/year. If ethanol were used to replace MTBE, this figure would grow to over $3.5 billion/year.
MTBE supplies 2.5 times more non-petroleum energy into the nation’s gasoline pool than ethanol (at the same oxygen content), thus increasing overall gasoline supplies.
Despite its “renewable fuel” billing, producing ethanol consumes as much energy as it yields as a finished fuel. Lower fuel economy (by as much as 2-5 %) should be expected for ethanol blended gasoline versus conventional, or MTBE-blended, gasoline.
Increasing the use of ethanol would increase the fragility of our nation’s gasoline supply outlook and potentially result in a net increase of crude and product imports.
Calls to triple the required use of ethanol would cost U.S. consumers $17 billion over the next nine years.
The large ethanol subsidy generally benefits the large agri-business interests rather than average farmers.Ethanol’s use is uneconomic without a large government subsidy and, outside of the Midwest, it can not be integrated into the nation’s gasoline supply and transportation system. Increased reliance on ethanol would result in air quality backsliding. And, most importantly, it can destabilize the nation’s gasoline supply without offering significant energy security benefits and without even benefiting America’s farmers.

[Eldritch Flatus]

Amen, Show-me! I agree 100&#37;. Ethanol sucks as a motor fuel. Benefits only the crooked agribusness fatsos who claim to feed us but are really starving us while turning us into a nation of obese idiots. Themselves included.

[James48843]

Sorry Show-me, but I tend to disagree with your cited website.

Turns out the case of MTBE VS. Ethanol is written by a lobbyiest who is retired from the petrolium industry, and gets paid hamsomely to bash ethanol.

See his resume at:


http://calgasoline.com/about.htm

While ethanol is NOT the perfect solution, it is a heck of alot environmentally better than MTBE. And your guy?

Here is what HE has done before starting a website to bash ethanol:

*23 years at a major oil company with early retirement as Director, Environmental Issues Management in 1995. Experience includes operation and financial responsibilities in the retail and distribution sectors of the business. Also managed the introduction of various innovative fuel programs. Involved with environmental, health and safety compliance and advocacy matters since 1976.

* Former Technical ARCO Lobbyist on downstream oil industry issues. Past Vice-Chair American Petroleum Institute (API) Storage Tank Task Force and former Chair of Marketing Environmental Subcommittee. Also past Chair of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) Environmental Marketing Subcommittee. Participated in writing and revising Industry Standards and Recommended Practices.


While it is true that Ethanol can only replace a portion of the anti-knock additives in straight gasoline mixtures, I personally plan to buy and use E-85 whenever possible. Now that the price of unleaded regular is above 3 bucks a gallon, ethanol is a cost- competitive alternative, and besides, it lessons our dependance on Middle Eastern oil.

true, ADM has a part in it. But where I am, there are four Ethanol plats either in the planning stages or under construction, and our local farmers, who export 3/4 of their corn crop out of state, will now have a new domestic state market for their product.

I'm looking forward to boozing up my car on ethanol.

[Show-me]

Defiantly no need to be sorry James. Every one is on one side or the other. Granted lobbyist is a foul name and add that to the oil industry and that don't clean it up much. Even if the guy is a lobbyist for the petrol industry doesn't make him automatically wrong.

I disagree that it is environmentally better or cheaper. I've seen all of the marginal acres that have been planted in corn and beans that use to be pasture or hay acres. The additional tons of nitrogen, fuel, and herbicides that has to be used to make a corn crop that is so unbelievable inferior for producing alcohol that it has to be subsidized heavily in order to make it feasible. That's why the current Administration went to Brazil to make nice.

Now those marginal hay and pasture acres can't be replace to feed the beef that most Americans like to eat and are now paying $3 plus a pound for 75% hamburger.

"Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way", Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU". " http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

Now, lets take about how good the additional irrigation is. Irrigation is flat out freak'n hard on the environment. I worked in that industry for about six years. Flat out raping a natural resource. According to the "experts" 70% of our fresh water is used for agriculture and it is getting worse. I personally have seen 3 irrigation pivots go up on my way to work (22 miles). Mississippi river bottom ground makes good crops, even better if ya water. Now some say we are running out of fresh water and this ain't going to help. If we could get a pipeline from the Great Lakes down to here we could pump them down and plant the shore line with ............. corn! That was a weak attempt at sarcasm. lol Sorry.

Ethanol is not the answer or even a good band aid for this problem. It's just another government subsidy program and we won't really know the effects on the environment for a few years. What we do know is that the ethanol industry is cashing in on a subsidy payday and the petroleum industry is getting a tax break for every gallon of ethanol they blend. And, the tax payer gets to pay the subsidy and make up for the tax break, pay higher food and water costs while getting less efficient fuel (mpg) to drive with. The farmer, they will raise the price for their seed, chemicals, equipment, and energy.

Different topic, slightly.

Even if we stopped using oil today, the entire nation. Do ya think maybe the Chinese, Indians, and other nations would eventually pick up the slack. I mean the oil would really be cheap to burn then. We would just have to pay higher prices for our food, water, and alternative energy while they continued to pollute. And the Chinese don't care about MTBE's or ethanol just ask all the dead coal miners in that country.

No matter how you slice it someone will burn that oil, just don't make our food and water higher.

[James48843]

Pimetel's estimates are widely known to be innaccurate and not based on modern values for nitrogen production, for ammunia use, and it's dependance on estimates of fossile fuel use in production. There is a wide variety of other scientific opinion that disputes the claim by Pimentel that ethanol takes more engery to make than it offers. Ome times and places that may be true. For other locations, and at other times, it may make sends to do some ethanol.

One such alternative paper comes from a gentleman at Berkley, and is linked here:

http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf

And a whole series of papers can be found here:
http://www.newrules.org/agri/netenergy.html

While there are areas in the country where it doesn't make sense to try to do corn into ethanol, there are other areas where is DOES make sense. I'm in Michigan, where we have sufficient rain -- and don't need to irrigate. We use a lot of "no-till" corn production, and minimize the nitrogen added. In addition, we are big sugar beet producers, and they are now doing small scale testing with sugar beets as one alternative to corn.

As time and research goes on, we find more efficient ways to produce ethanol. If they can get sugar beet production to be cost competitive with corn, then I think that will be a valid alternative also. We're not there yet, but both have become much more effiencient over the last 20 years both to produce and to distill into usuable fuels.

I think solar and wind BOTH will play major roles in the future, and we've got some solar panel production going now here in this state. But neither is readily adaptable to autos- as ethanol is now. So that's one reason why I think ethanol IS a valid alternative here, now, as we move forward.

And water use is not an issue here, as it is elsewhere in the nation. At least not anywhere near as much of an issue. We have lots of clean water. a good climate for agriculture, lots of airable land, and a bright future for corn, sugar beets, and cars.

It is true that ethanol is not for everyone, and not for the long range future. It may be best described as another alternative to get us through for a while so that scientists can continue to work on other alternatives.

The good thing is that ethanol is economically competitive NOW, while work on alternatives continues. \

Some day, perhaps every home will have it's own solar/wind electric power station, so that you can plug in the car to recharge, and commute to work ( or work at home) on the energy of the sun.

But until then, we have to find and use alternatives to move us in the general direction of breaking our reliance on foreign oil.

[Show-me]

I doubt that I will read the entire 105 pages, but I will give it a good glance. I did find this about him in a Google search.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002722.html


To that list, on the con side, I would add a paper by Tad W Patzek. Patzek, a professor at UC Berkeley’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, who had earlier authored a paper with Pimentel, one of the energy critics of ethanol, has recently updated (24 March 2005) a paper, Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle (http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf).
It’s an interesting and detailed paper, and in it he reviews and corrects the assumptions and calculations of both primary pro- and con- ethanol factions (including some of his earlier work), while making new calculations of his own. His conclusion is that corn ethanol is a net loss to the environment and in energy, and a net contributor of CO2. Nor is he particularly keen on biomass-based ethanol, as a paper published earlier this year (with Pimentel) details (http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS-BiomassPaper.pdf). Patzek would prefer the research money (and crop subsidies) flowing to ethanol and corn production go instead to solar and hybrid research. Corn ethanol research is funded because the farmers are a powerful lobby, not because it makes sense to grow corn for energy. Though maybe some day a way will be found to take the left-over cornstalks and convert them into ethanol for less energy than it takes to do the conversion.


Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Chu argues for biomass using cellulose.
The US already subsidizes farmers to grow corn to turn into ethanol, but $7bn in the past decade has been wasted because the process isn’t carbon-neutral. “From the point of view of the environment,” explains Chu, “it would be better if we just burnt oil.”


“But carbon-neutral energy sources are achievable. A world population of 9 billion, the predicted peak in population, could be fed with less than one third of the planet”s cultivable land area. Some of the rest could be dedicated to growing crops for energy. But the majority of all plant matter is cellulose—a solid, low-grade fuel about as futuristic as burning wood. If scientists can convert cellulose into liquid fuels like ethanol, the world’s energy supply and storage problems could both be solved at a stroke.“

We use "no-till" here also, but corn requires much more nitrogen than the crop residue will provide.

Ethanol is a National policy so it will have to include more than just Michigan. It is law that ethanol be used to replace MTBE's even in areas "it does not make sense".

Farmers are businessman and if more nitrogen and water will increase their bottom line they will do it.

Ethanol is NOT efficient and IS heavily subsidized. I have neighbors that bought into the local plant and they told me that they break even with the tax subsidy. The DDG and other by products are pure profit. That is why the is such a boom to build plants. They want the subsidy so they can loose.

Water may not be a issue in Michigan, it is here and in many of the other corn producing states. Wet years are not guaranteed every year and the most critical time is during pollination.

You said that ethanol is not for everyone, but it has been force down everyones throat in subsidies and the law replacing MTBE's. Also, it is NOT economically competitive NOW. If it was not for the subsidy and tax break the oil companies get you would not be seeing ethanol plant like you do now.

You want to break the reliance on foreign oil, I don't think it will happen. We are already looking to Brazil for our "new" alternative energy source while putting us into deeper debt paying out yet another subsidy.

[Show-me]

Here is a good pro and con article. Just because it is the most "viable choice" doesn't make it economical viable.

http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2007/02/ethanol_too_muc.html

Ethanol: Too Much Hype—and Corn

Ethanol enjoys subsidies from Congress and has upped corn prices. The rush to alternative fuels has been unwisely skewed to this one industry. Pro or con?

http://images.businessweek.com/blogs/debate_room/pro_bug_100x100.jpg Pro: Bush’s Cornfield of Dreams

by Moira Herbst (http://www.businessweek.com/bios/Moira_Herbst.htm)
Amid the explosion of consumer interest in all things ecological, elected officials are rushing to promote environmentally friendly policies. In his State of the Union speech, President George W. Bush announced his proposal to cut U.S. gasoline consumption by a fifth over the next 10 years, with a major boost in ethanol and other alternative fuels.
But before the proposal gets cheered into law, it requires further scrutiny. The reality remains that ethanol is no magic potion for meaningfully reducing oil dependence and lowering greenhouse gases. The prospect of boosting ethanol production to 35 billion barrels by 2017 will require massive tax subsidies and produce such environmental damage that the plan can be considered little more than a dream.
One problem with ethanol is its cost. It’s subsidized by the U.S. government at a rate of 51 cents per gallon, and federal and state subsidies for the fuel added up to $6 billion last year. As the number of gallons produced multiplies, so will the cost to the taxpayer.
Taxes aren’t the only burden that will fall on consumers. As ethanol usurps more of the corn crop, the price of corn rises, boosting food prices. Already, about 20% of the corn crop goes toward ethanol production, up from just 3% five years ago. That drove up corn prices 80% in 2006 alone. This week, Richard Bond, the chief executive of meat producer Tyson Foods TSN (http://stockmarket.businessweek.com/www/search.html?q=TSN), warned that if corn continues to be diverted from animal feed, consumers will likely pay “significantly” more for food.
But even if ethanol costs a lot, doesn’t it at least benefit the environment? Not necessarily. Because it’s an oxygenate, ethanol increases levels of nitrous oxides in the atmosphere and causes smog. Researchers are debating the extent to which it reduces greenhouse gases, with some estimates as low as 5%. Also, ethanol lags gasoline in fuel efficiency, and it requires fossil fuels like coal or gas to refine and transport it.
Ethanol’s supporters say that not all ethanol will come from corn crops, and point to the great promise of “cellulosic” ethanol—made from nonfood crops like corn chips and wheatgrass. But the great hope of cellulosic is dampened by a gaping hole in the technology: The enzyme that will convert these plants to starch, and thus ethanol, has yet to be discovered.
So what’s the alternative to Big Corn? If the government is serious about finding cost-effective and environmentally sound alternatives to oil, it will need to invest more in research for cellulosic ethanol, as well as for wind and solar energies. Of course, the other alternative—less costly but surely not as popular—is conservation. That word was noticeably absent from the State of the Union speech.

http://images.businessweek.com/blogs/debate_room/con_bug_100x100.jpg Con: Ethanol Is Our Most Viable Choice

by Justin Bachman (http://www.businessweek.com/bios/Justin_Bachman.htm)
Ethanol enjoys its favored status because it constitutes the only real option the U.S. has to disrupt what President Bush terms our addiction to foreign oil. A congress of science and economics hasn’t yet managed to generate other viable technologies to power our vehicles—and a shift toward greater use of alternative fuels is clearly necessary. As a nation, we use three times more of the worldwide oil output each year than the next-largest consumer does, and we contribute far more than our share of global carbon emissions. That makes Bush’s call for 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels over the next decade practically a mandate for our role as responsible global citizens.
Additionally, the ethanol industry plays a crucial role for the U.S. Farm Belt. Higher corn prices are helping to recharge economically depressed rural economies, and new ethanol plants bring decent-paying jobs to areas that have suffered chronic underemployment (see BusinessWeek.com, 01/10/07, “Who Profits from Corn’s Pop?” (http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2007/pi20070110_921098.htm)). The 5.3 billion gallons of ethanol used last year consumed only 20% of the nation’s corn crop. Meeting Bush’s goal would still require less than half of the entire corn crop—and that’s only if no new corn production is added.
Moreover, the U.S.’s vital agriculture economy depends heavily on healthy corn prices for farmers, and the current cost of around $4 per bushel is manageable for the economy. The genius of free-market capitalism will sort out what needs to happen as corn prices mature and other corn-dependent industries compete for the feedstock. Ethanol also could become much cheaper than it is now, roughly in line with unleaded gasoline, if Washington ends tariffs on imported ethanol. That tariff, 54 cents a gallon, distorts ethanol’s real cost and slows its U.S. expansion.
Archer Daniels Midland ADM (http://stockmarket.businessweek.com/www/search.html?q=ADM), VeraSun Energy VSE (http://stockmarket.businessweek.com/www/search.html?q=VSE), and other ethanol producers are spending heavily to research feed materials beyond corn, “cellulosic ethanol” (produced from cornstalks, sorghum, wood chips, and switchgrass), and the like. These efforts would render moot worries that greater corn use will adversely affect the overall economy. Regardless of feed source, ethanol has proved a viable industry, as seen by Brazil’s dramatic success in converting its fuel systems to the fuel.

[Show-me]

And James, don't take this the wrong way. I just like to argue. lol ;):D

[James48843]

SHow-me:

I just like to argue too.

Kind of like wallowing around pig wrestling. It's a lot of fun, but the pig usually wins.

Speaking of pigs- THAT may be the solution to our energy problems.

Convert pig manure into fuel for autos.

That's IT!

THE solution to the energy problem!

Pig Manure all around!

[Show-me]

That's it!!! We go plenty of piggy poopy here in Missouri and boy do it stink good! lol Old timer use to say it smells like money.

Have a good day James.

[Show-me]

Check out todays WSJ.

We need more water.

[Show-me]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn

Grass Makes Better Ethanol than Corn Does

Midwestern farms prove switchgrass could be the right crop for producing ethanol to replace gasoline

By David Biello

GRASS GAS: Turning fields of switchgrass like this one in northeastern Nebraska into ethanol produces 540 percent more energy than the amount consumed growing the native perennial.
COURTESY OF USDA-ARS

Farmers in Nebraska and the Dakotas brought the U.S. closer to becoming a biofuel economy, planting huge tracts of land for the first time with switchgrass—a native North American perennial grass (Panicum virgatum) that often grows on the borders of cropland naturally—and proving that it can deliver more than five times more energy than it takes to grow it.

Working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the farmers tracked the seed used to establish the plant, fertilizer used to boost its growth, fuel used to farm it, overall rainfall and the amount of grass ultimately harvested for five years on fields ranging from seven to 23 acres in size (three to nine hectares).

Once established, the fields yielded from 5.2 to 11.1 metric tons of grass bales per hectare, depending on rainfall, says USDA plant scientist Ken Vogel. "It fluctuates with the timing of the precipitation,'' he says. "Switchgrass needs most of its moisture in spring and midsummer. If you get fall rains, it's not going to do that year's crops much good."

But yields from a grass that only needs to be planted once would deliver an average of 13.1 megajoules of energy as ethanol for every megajoule of petroleum consumed—in the form of nitrogen fertilizers or diesel for tractors—growing them. "It's a prediction because right now there are no biorefineries built that handle cellulosic material" like that which switchgrass provides, Vogel notes. "We're pretty confident the ethanol yield is pretty close." This means that switchgrass ethanol delivers 540 percent of the energy used to produce it, compared with just roughly 25 percent more energy returned by corn-based ethanol according to the most optimistic studies.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is partially funding the construction of six such cellulosic biorefineries, estimated to cost a total of $1.2 billion. The first to be built will be the Range Fuels Biorefinery in Soperton, Ga., which will process wood waste from the timber industry into biofuels and chemicals. The DOE is providing an initial $50 million to start construction.

"Cost competitive, energy responsible cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass or from forestry waste like sawdust and wood chips requires a more complex refining process but it's worth the investment," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said at the Range Fuels facility groundbreaking in November. "Cellulosic ethanol contains more net energy and emits significantly fewer greenhouse gases than ethanol made from corn."

In fact, Vogel and his team report this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA that switchgrass will store enough carbon in its relatively permanent root system to offset 94 percent of the greenhouse gases emitted both to cultivate it and from the derived ethanol burned by vehicles. Of course, this estimate also relies on using the leftover parts of the grass itself as fuel for the biorefinery. "The lignin in the plant cell walls can be burned," Vogel says.

The use of native prairie grasses is meant to avoid some of the other risks associated with biofuels such as reduced diversity of local animal life and displacing food crops with fuel crops. "This is an energy crop that can be grown on marginal land," Vogel argues, such as the more than 35 million acres (14.2 million hectares) of marginal land that farmers are currently paid not to plant under the terms of USDA's Conservation Reserve Program.

But even a native prairie grass needs a helping hand from scientists and farmers to deliver the yields necessary to help ethanol become a viable alternative to petroleum-derived gasoline, Vogel argues. "To really maximize their yield potential, you need to provide nitrogen fertilization," he says, as well as improved breeding techniques and genetic strains. "Low input systems are just not going to be able to get the energy per acre needed to provide feed, fuel and fiber."

[James48843]

E-85 is now $2.48 a gallon locally, while regular gasoline is $3.19 this week.

Makes it very economically feasable to run nothing but E-85 in my "former G Car" Dodge Stratus.


I wish more people would drive renewable fuel- whether it's powered by corn, or switch grass. We could really make a dent in our foreign oil imports if 85% of all our auto fuel were coming from ethanol.

[camper65]

What? But then we would all have to become VEGETARIANS!
(Not into rabbit food!!!)

[Show-me]

The ethanol bust

The ethanol boom is running out of gas as corn prices spike.

By Jon Birger (jbirger@fortunemail.com), senior writer

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Cargill announces it's scrapping plans for a $200 million ethanol plant near Topeka, Kan. A judge approves the bankruptcy sale of an unfinished ethanol plant in Canton, Ill.. And that was just Tuesday.

Indeed, plans for as many as 50 new ethanol plants have been shelved in recent months, as Wall Street pulls back from the sector, says Paul Ho, a Credit Suisse investment banker specializing in alternative energy.

Financing for new ethanol plants, Ho says, "has been shut down."

How can the ethanol industry be slumping only two months after Congress passed an energy bill most experts consider a biofuels boon? The answer is runaway corn prices.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/27/magazines/fortune/ethanol.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008022811

[ripper]

To me, ethanol is a huge farce.
I live in an agricultural area. Actually, a recent newspaper headline stated that the city I live in may soon become the nation's "ethanol capital", with a major player in the ethanol industry planning on moving their corporate offices here.
The 10% ethanol blend is available at every pump here. Nearly everyone uses it, primarily because it costs about .10/gal less than regular fuel.
But hardly anyone realizes that it actually costs more.
I've done a number fuel mileage tests with my car. Overall, my car got about 10% fewer mpg's on the ethanol blend (which only costs about 3% less) than with regular fuel.
We all know what ethanol has done to the price of corn and everything associated with it. It's also responsible for rising costs in other grains (fewer farmers plant them) and meat (feed, and changing pasture land to crop land), as well. In my area, it's also spiked the value of agricultural land to triple digits since its inception.
My uncle sold his farmland just before the ethanol boom. He paid $200/acre for it in the 1980s and sold it for $400/acre about 10 years ago. The purchaser recently sold it for $2200/acre.
Can you say inflation?
To those of you who feel giddy when you fill up your flex-fuel vehicle at 50 cents less/gallon, have you checked your mpg? Those who I have talked to who have calculated their mileage went back to regular fuel.
And regarding conservation, more land falls to the plow now than ever before. Land that was previously reserved for wildlife habitat has now become much more valuable for planting. Farmers are tilling every available acre they can - and rightfully so.
Don't get me wrong, ethanol is a step in the right direction. But using "food for fuel" is not the answer.

[Show-me]

Amen, brother.

All of the big plans for new plants have been stopped here and I knew of 4 plants that they were going to build in this area. High energy prices plus food inflation made it a losing enterprise. Imagine that making food into fuel made the food price go higher. BRILLIANT! Priced themselves right out of business.

I have done a rough mileage test on my car and you lose MPG on 10% ethanol blend and now I can't get regular fuel cuz Missouri made it mandatory to blend all gasoline with 10% ethanol. Farm state ya know.:rolleyes:

[Silverbird]

Sigh, big Ag, who brought us partially hydroginated whatsit, corn syrup, and corn eating cows, all of which are not that healthy, still want to make big profits on huge tracts of corn.

[nnuut]

Corn, I love corn, great stuff!!:D I bought a four ear pack in Kroger the other day = $3.99 plus tax $4.27 = $1.07 an ear. Seems to cost more than a gallon of gas! That my friends is CORNFLATION!:suspicious:
I wonder what could be causing that? Oh, it's winter!:cool:

[Show-me]

UPDATE: Pilgrim's Pride Cutting 1,100 Jobs, Blames Ethanol

March 12, 2008: 09:42 AM EST

DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
Pilgrim's Pride Corp. (PPC) said it will cut 1,100 jobs from closing a complex and six of its 13 distribution centers as the world's largest chicken processor struggles with the continued surge in feed costs.
The company, which blamed corn-based ethanol production for the feed-cost increase, said the retrenchment is "part of a plan to curtail losses amid record-high costs for corn, soybean meal and other feed ingredients and an oversupply of chicken" in the U.S.
The moves are slated to be completed by June. It added that other production facilities are being reviewed for possible product changes, closure and/or consolidation.
Closing is the processing complex in Siler City, N.C., which employs about 830 people, as well as distribution centers in five other states. The closures are projected to result in charges of about 33 cents a share.
"Our company and industry are struggling to cope with unprecedented increases in feed-ingredient costs this year due largely to the U.S. government's ill- advised policy of providing generous federal subsidies to corn-based ethanol blenders," said new Pilgrim's Pride President and Chief Executive Clint Rivers.
"The cost burden is already enormous, and it's growing even larger," he added. "Based on current commodity futures markets, our company's total costs for corn and soybean meal to feed our flocks in fiscal 2008 would be more than $1.3 billion higher than what they were two years ago. We simply must find ways to pass along these higher costs."
Rivers went on to say that food inflation and the need for companies to boost prices "will further stimulate inflation, weaken consumer confidence and negatively affect demand for products in certain market channels." As a result, he said chicken producers will have to cut output and charge higher prices " sufficient to sustain the industry as a whole."
Surging prices for corn have resulted in food makers raising prices and worries about future supplies if crop output is stunted by weather or some other factor.
Pilgrim's Pride in late January posted a wider fiscal first-quarter loss amid surging grain costs and said at the time that costs would continue to skyrocket. Feed costs on a pro-forma basis, rose 24%.
Shares, which closed at $22.82 on Tuesday, were flat recently in premarket trading.
-By Kevin Kingsbury; Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-2136; kevin.kingsbury@ dowjones.com

[Silverbird]

Uh...corn is not part of a chicken's natural diet. They eat low growing grasses and grains. I think Pilgrims is just used to cheap subsidized corn. Ditto for soybeans. Chickens are, admittedly, quite tolerent of corn (unlike cows but that's another issue).

[James48843]

Pilgram's Pride cost problems aren't about Corn.

They got caught using Illegal Aliens in their work plants:

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=212222

Score one for the good guys- our Federal Workers- ICE Agents, who began large scale raids on Pilgrim's Pride illegal workers in January.

More:
http://www.dailysentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/07/18/pilgrim_illegals.html

and
http://thevoice.name/?p=5558

[James48843]

From today's Ethanol Report:

Last week we reported the financial results for VeraSun Energy Corp. for the three months and year ending December 31, 2007. Total revenues, which include revenue from the sale of ethanol, distillers grains and VE85(TM), increased by $165.9 million, or 113%, to $312.4 million for the three months ended December 31, 2007 from $146.5 million for the three months ended December 31, 2006.

The increase in total revenues was primarily the result of a 131% increase in ethanol volume sold, partially offset by a decrease in average ethanol prices of $0.30 per gallon, or 14%, compared to the three months ended December 31, 2006.

Ethanol production increased by 82.5 million gallons, or 138%, as a result of the added capacity from bringing the Charles City, Iowa, facility on-line in April, the Linden, Indiana facility on-line
in August and the Albion, Nebraska facility on-line in October.

Net sales from ethanol increased $125.6 million, or 99%, to $251.5 million for the three months ended December 31, 2007 from $125.9 million for the three months ended December 31, 2006.

The impact of increased volume, primarily from the additional Charles City and Linden capacity, was $165.4 million, partially offset by a $39.8 million reduction due to lower prices. The average price of ethanol sold was $1.87 per gallon for the three months ended December 31, 2007 compared to $2.17 per gallon for the three months ended December 31, 2006.

Gross profit decreased $10.0 million to $30.8 million for the three months ended December 31, 2007 from $40.8 million for the three months ended December 31, 2006. The decrease in gross profit was primarily due to higher corn costs and lower ethanol prices.

Also, at press time last week, US Bioenergy reported a net loss of $7.2 million, or $0.09 per share, for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, due primarily to a $14.0 million charge for market losses related to the Company's commodity hedging activities.

In addition, the company incurred a one-time expense of $2.8 million, related to the company's pending merger with VeraSun Energy Corporation. Revenues for the quarter were $151.9 million and EBITDA was ($2.8) million

US BioEnergy Corporation reported net income of $17.4 million, or $0.23 per diluted share, for the full year ended December 31, 2007. Total revenues for the year were $588.6 million, while the Company generated $61.4 million of EBITDA.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, the company sold 73.8 million gallons of ethanol at an average selling price of $1.77 per gallon, compared with 73.2 million gallons of ethanol at an average selling price of $1.76 per gallon for the third quarter of 2007.

After taking hedging related gains and losses into account, the company's corn costs averaged $3.47 per bushel, or $1.23 per gallon of ethanol sold, for the fourth quarter of 2007, compared to $3.15 per bushel, or $1.10 per gallon of ethanol sold, for the third quarter of 2007. Before taking hedging gains into account, corn costs averaged $3.59 per bushel, or $1.27 per gallon of ethanol sold, compared with $3.58 per bushel, or $1.25 per gallon of ethanol sold in the third quarter of 2007.
**********************************************


Note to self:
As oil prices peak and production begins to run dry, the value of Ethanol will do nothing except increase.

period.

[Show-me]

As many farmers have made that switch, soybean planting is expected to be up 18 percent this year, at almost 75 million acres. The largest increases in soybean planting are expected in Iowa and Nebraska.

Though the ethanol industry is heavily subsidized and has contributed to the rise in prices, a decrease in corn production could hurt that business, too. Higher prices for the crop could be passed on to those filling their cars up with the renewable fuel.

The number of ethanol plants has increased from 50 in 1999 to 134 now with more being built, according to the Renewable Fuels Association. An average, 100 million gallon-per-year ethanol plant consumes about 33 million bushels of corn.

The Department of Agriculture report is based on sample surveys of 86,000 farm operators in the first two weeks of March.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080331/planting_report.html

[nnuut]

Boy! That's a lot of MoonShine there Jim!!3637

[Show-me]

This seems to be on the front page more. GO ETHANOL! Turning food into more expensive and less efficient fuel. BRILLIANT! Got rain forest? Not for long.:nuts:

ECONOMY

World Bank Chief Calls for Immediate Action on Deepening Global Food Crisis

By Harry Dunphy
Associated Press
Monday, April 14, 2008; Page A08

The president of the World Bank (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+World+Bank+Group?tid=informline) yesterday urged immediate action to deal with sharply rising food prices, which have caused hunger and violence in several countries.
Robert B. Zoellick (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Robert+Zoellick?tid=informline) said the international community has to "put our money where our mouth is" now to help hungry people. Zoellick spoke as the bank and its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/International+Monetary+Fund?tid=informline), ended two days of meetings in Washington.
He called on governments to rapidly carry out commitments to provide the U.N. World Food Program (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/United+Nations+World+Food+Programme?tid=informline ) with $500 million in emergency aid by May 1. Prices have only risen further since the program issued that appeal, so it is urgent that governments step up, he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041301972.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/13/AR2008041301972.html)

[camper65]

MMMmmmm, Food riots eh! Sounds like something out of a Si-Fi novel.

But then again, so does turning food stocks into ethanol when people are starving.

[Silverbird]

MMMmmmm, Food riots eh! Sounds like something out of a Si-Fi novel.

But then again, so does turning food stocks into ethanol when people are starving.
So does cutting down rain forests to plant palms for palm oil, and huge mudslides...or maybe that's more like a disaster movie?

[Silverbird]

Hrrm.. There is more to this Rice shortage than just Corn/ethanol. Sorry that this article is New York Times - which I think means you have to pay for it. But here are a couple things going on affecting rice production that isn't getting into a lot of the press.

A Drought in Australia, a Global Shortage of Rice
By KEITH BRADSHER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/keith_bradsher/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: April 17, 2008

"...The Deniliquin mill [in Australia], the largest rice mill in the Southern Hemisphere, once processed enough grain to meet the needs of 20 million people around the world. But six long years of drought have taken a toll, reducing Australia’s rice crop by 98 percent and leading to the mothballing of the mill last December....

....With rice, which is not used to make biofuel, the problem is availability. Even in normal times, little of the world’s rice is actually exported — more than 90 percent is consumed in the countries where it is grown. In the last quarter-century, rice consumption has outpaced production, with global reserves plunging by half just since 2000. A plant disease is hurting harvests in Vietnam, reducing supply. And economic uncertainty has led producers to hoard rice and speculators and investors to see it as a lucrative or at least safe bet.

All these factors have made countries that buy rice on the global market vulnerable to extreme price swings.

Senegal and Haiti each import four-fifths of their rice, and both have faced mounting unrest as prices have increased....

....Australia’s total rice capacity has declined by about a third because many farmers have permanently sold water rights, mostly for grape production.....

“Rice is a staple food,” said Graeme J. Haley, the general manager of the town of Deniliquin. “Chardonnay is not.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/business/worldbusiness/17warm.html?th&emc=th

[James48843]

Ethanol this week in NYMEX exchange trading at $2.61 a gallon, the highest point in a year, and last closed at $2.59.

Brazillian ethanol, on the docks in Brazil, is still just $1.56 a gallon.

U.S. Production in December 2007 hit 17 million gallons a month- up from just 13 million in December 2006, an just 10 million in 2005. Ethanol production is hitting new highs each month- helping slow the jump in the price of oil.

[CountryBoy]

While looking to invest last summer in alternative energy stocks, I researched ethanol production, manufacturing energy requirements, emissions from burning ethanol, infrastructure required, plus land and fertilizer requirements. I came to the conclusion, that ethanol produced from corn/wheat, is not the answer for several reasons. The big one is you don’t burn your food or feedstock. We can already see the increase in food prices across the board. Other drawbacks, include polluting our waters by the drastic increase in fertilizer required, emissions from engine exhaust (NO I believe), depending on what study you look at, it requires as much energy to produce as it would deliver and the massive investment in infrastructure.

I’m keeping my eye on cellulose ethanol. Right now that can’t be produce economically, but it would greatly reduce the burden on burning our food, since any green matter can be used, except ALgore. :D

I could be wrong, but I believe if we’re going to be energy dependent, we need to drill what sources we have and simultaneously put a Manhattan Project type effort in to developing a feasible alternative energy source, whether it is fuel cell, batteries or coal to fuel. Wind and solar are decades away from supply energy in the amount we need, if ever, if we are going to keep our economy going. There is no quick fix.

Our politicians dropped the ball in the late 70’s during the oil embargo, but what can we expect from those short sighted dimwits. :laugh:

I've wallerd this subject to death and even the far left greenie weenie in our office concurs, except for the drilling part, but he won't do his part, he still uses AC in the summer time, so it's kinda hard to figger how dedicated he is, since that would also reduce global warming :rolleyes: if you believe that sort of thing.

Just my $.02.

CB

[presskh]

Country boy, I agree that ethanol is not the solution. T. Boone Pickens was on C-SPAN the other day and had some interesting points to say about the energy situation. His idea was that, in addition to increasing exploration for new oil sources, we should increase our reliance on nuclear, coal, wind, and solar to generate electricity, thus freeing up much more of our natural gas supplies to be converted to "oil" for transportation. By his estimation, we could meet approximately 30% of our transportation needs by converting natural gas to oil, rather than consuming so much of it to heat our homes and produce electricity.

I have always thought that we needed to rely more on nuclear plants to produce our electricity. Nothing is without some negatives, but this seems to have the least negatives compared with the alternatives.

[Wrngway]

I just finished attending an energy conference that was very interesting. Speakers were talking about next generation renewable fuels. The one I thought was most promising was synthetic fuels manufacutured from engineered bacteria or through catalysis. The base material can be a variety of plant material as well as waste garbage. There have been recent advances in technology that make these methods viable. Better yet, these methods can produce carbon chains of specific links leading to crude that can be refined in current facilities. This also means fuel that essentially matches or exceeds the performance of current gasoline with no modification to vehicles and can be delivered using current infrastructure.

Other alternatives discussed were hydrogen fuel cells and even space based solar plants.

[CountryBoy]

.... thus freeing up much more of our natural gas supplies to be converted to "oil" for transportation. By his estimation, we could meet approximately 30% of our transportation needs by converting natural gas to oil, rather than consuming so much of it to heat our homes and produce electricity.


Press,

It's not exactly changing nat gas to oil, but it looks like the folks in Utah have the right idea. Maybe if we'd get those knuckle heads in DC outta the way, private enterprise and just plain old capitalism will come up with the answer, w/o millions of our tax dollars going towards subsidies to burn our food.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/24325475/for/cnbc

There's gotta be a market play in there somewhere. :D If there is a buck to be made our Capitalistic economy will find it, w/o help from the pols. The pols didn't subsidize viagra. lol

CB

[alevin]

And then again, why stick with gas/petroleum-based for transportation at all? Just be patient for a couple more years and save your rebate checks and other savings towards a non-petroleum based vehicle-there'll be a variety of options by 2010-2011.
If you're an optimist, that is.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1557/69/

[FUTURESTRADER]

Country boy, I agree that ethanol is not the solution. T. Boone Pickens was on C-SPAN the other day and had some interesting points to say about the energy situation. His idea was that, in addition to increasing exploration for new oil sources, we should increase our reliance on nuclear, coal, wind, and solar to generate electricity, thus freeing up much more of our natural gas supplies to be converted to "oil" for transportation. By his estimation, we could meet approximately 30% of our transportation needs by converting natural gas to oil, rather than consuming so much of it to heat our homes and produce electricity.

I have always thought that we needed to rely more on nuclear plants to produce our electricity. Nothing is without some negatives, but this seems to have the least negatives compared with the alternatives.

T. Boone is looking into creating a huge wind farm from Saskatchewan to Texas. Enough to power a million homes or equal to two nuclear power plants. He also said "Save the NG for vehicles"

[Buster]

I know making Ethanol out of food products is costing us more for Milk and Bread..but putting my selfish needs aside..I'm glad the farmers who have been sucking wind for years with third and forth mortgages on farms that has been in their families for generations, are finally seeing a break in their struggle to survive...I support the Bio-fuel alternative right now for the sake of Farmers of this country.

[Guest2]

Last Year, I seem to recall a push for coal to fuel. It appears that
(just like in the 70's) interest dies quicky in this country. Especially
when gas prices at the pump go down. After this summer is over,
we'll be happy campers paying way to much for gas because it'll
be no so much less then the 4.169 per gallon we are likely to be
paying. Thats how they do it ! Thats how they've always done it!
:notrust::worried::suspicious:

[Silverbird]

From what I know, if we could put up with having new coal refineries built (a very NIMBY issue) under the regulations in place for new facilities, we would have plants that are much better at scrubbing out acid rain. Not sure whether the carbon effects long term would be sustainable. But coal is a major source of energy in the U.S. even now. Anyone have more on this issue?

[FUTURESTRADER]

From what I know, if we could put up with having new coal refineries built (a very NIMBY issue) under the regulations in place for new facilities, we would have plants that are much better at scrubbing out acid rain. Not sure whether the carbon effects long term would be sustainable. But coal is a major source of energy in the U.S. even now. Anyone have more on this issue?

Carbon Sequestration after gasification of coal looks to have some potential. Pumping the CO2 back underground.

[Show-me]

Ethanol Vehicles for Post Office Burn More Gas, Get Fewer Miles

By Peter Robison, Alan Ohnsman and Alan Bjerga
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avimage&iid=iAaJgTfNyITs
http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/news/morephotos.gif (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=photos&sid=aj.h0coJSkpw)

May 21 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Postal Service (http://www.usps.gov/) purchased more than 30,000 ethanol-capable trucks and minivans from 1999 to 2005, making it the biggest American buyer of alternative-fuel vehicles. Gasoline consumption jumped by more than 1.5 million gallons as a result.
The trucks, derived from Ford Motor Co. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=F%3AUS)'s Explorer sport- utility vehicle, had bigger engines than Jeeps from the former Chrysler Corp. they replaced. A Postal Service study (http://www.govenergy.com/2007/pdfs/strategy/Rios_Strategy_track_S8.pdf) found the new vehicles got as much as 29 percent fewer miles to the gallon. Mail carriers used the corn-based fuel in just 1,000 of them because there weren't enough places to buy it.
``You're getting fewer miles per gallon, and it's costing us more,'' Walt O'Tormey (http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/leadership/bios/otormey_walter.htm), the Postal Service's Washington-based vice president of engineering, said in an interview. The agency may buy electric vehicles instead, he said.
The experience shows how the U.S. push for crop-based fuels, already contributing to the highest rate of food inflation in 17 years, may not be achieving its goal of reducing gasoline consumption. Lawmakers are seeking caps on the use of biofuels after last year's 40 percent jump in world food prices, calling the U.S. policy flawed.
``Using food for fuel has created some unintended consequences: food shortages, the high price of livestock feed,'' said Senator John Cornyn (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=John+Cornyn&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), a Texas Republican. ``I think it's leading a lot of people to wonder whether our corn-based ethanol goals need to be adjusted.''
Stimulating Demand
Lost in the debate over the fuel's contribution to food scarcity is the possibility that the ethanol policy itself isn't working, said David Just (http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/drj3/), an associate professor of economics at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. It may stimulate demand by making gas cheaper, he said, an argument supported by at least two U.S. government studies.
The Postal Service bought the ethanol vehicles to meet alternative-fuel requirements. The vehicles' size and ethanol's lower energy content lowered mileage, the agency said. It takes 1.33 gallons of E85 (85 percent ethanol) and 1.03 gallons of E10 (10 percent ethanol) to travel the same distance as with one gallon of pure gasoline, the Department of Energy says.
The Energy Independence and Security Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00006), passed in December, called for ethanol production to more than double to 15 billion gallons in 2015 from 6.5 billion last year. The U.S. pays oil refiners like Exxon Mobil Corp. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=XON%3AUS) 51 cents in tax refunds for each gallon of ethanol they blend into regular gasoline. Automakers get extra credit toward federal fuel-efficiency standards for models that can run on ethanol.
No Federal Requirement
No federal law requires that oil companies make the fuel widely available or that vehicles actually burn it.
About 1,560 of 180,000 U.S. gas stations, or fewer than one in 100, sell E85, according to Ford (http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=23359) and the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition (http://www.e85fuel.com/) in Jefferson City, Missouri. E85 accounted for 1 percent of ethanol sold in 2006. The rest was blended into regular gasoline at lower concentrations, the Energy Information Administration (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ethanol3.html)says (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass.html).
``Whether it was intended this way or not, the U.S. policy helps gasoline companies,'' said Cornell's Just. He and colleague Harry de Gorter (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Harry+de+Gorter&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) estimated in a February paper (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1024525) that the credit may increase gasoline consumption by 628 million gallons to 156.6 billion gallons by 2015, compared with 155.9 billion without it.
Findings `Questionable'
``The findings of these professors are questionable,'' said Matt Hartwig (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Matt+Hartwig&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association (http://www.ethanolrfa.org/), a nonprofit group in Washington representing ethanol producers including Archer Daniels Midland Co. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=ADM%3AUS) of Decatur, Illinois. The Energy Department's estimates show that ethanol will contribute to a reduction in U.S. petroleum demand in 2008, he said.
A limited number of stations selling ethanol and the scarcity of vehicles burning it diminish the fuel's appeal, according to a June 2007 report (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07713.pdf) by the Government Accountability Office, the research arm of Congress. Three of the 26 ethanol- capable vehicles offered in 2007 were compact or mid-size cars, and the rest were large autos, pickups, SUVs or vans.
The big vehicles help automakers meet fuel-economy standards. General Motors Corp.'s ``dual-fuel'' 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe SUV was rated at 33.8 miles per gallon for city-highway driving, while a gasoline-burning model was at 20.5 mpg. A study (http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/CAFE/alternativefuels/index.htm) by three government agencies in March 2002 found that the U.S. would consume 17 million gallons of additional gasoline through 2008 if the flex-fuel vehicles ran on E85 1 percent of the time.
``Not only does this credit do nothing to improve fuel efficiency,'' said Daniel Becker (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Daniel+Becker&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), an environmental lawyer and former head of Sierra Club's global-warming program. ``It's also ensuring that we're going to use more gasoline.''
Spurring Sales
Federal credits over time will spur more stations to sell ethanol, said Greg Martin (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Greg+Martin&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), a spokesman for Detroit-based GM. The three largest U.S. carmakers pledged to make half their vehicles capable of using alternative fuels by 2012.
``There is a caveat: providing that the infrastructure and the proper incentives are in place,'' said Jennifer Moore (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Jennifer+Moore&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), a spokeswoman for Dearborn, Michigan-based Ford.
As for the Postal Service, the agency delayed a $4 billion investment in as many as 150,000 delivery vehicles until around 2015, O'Tormey said. Until then, it will experiment with Ford Escape hybrid-electric SUVs, an Azure Dynamics Corp. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=AZD%3AUS) electric vehicle and a GM hydrogen fuel-cell model, to be introduced in Los Angeles in July, he said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Peter Robison (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Peter+Robison&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) in Seattle at robison@bloomberg.net; Alan Ohnsman (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Alan+Ohnsman&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) in Los Angeles at aohnsman@bloomberg.net; Alan Bjerga (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Alan+Bjerga&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) in Washington at abjerga@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: May 21, 2008 00:01 EDT

[Show-me]

:rolleyes:I told ya so! Making food into fuel is stupid cuz now we are paying higher fuel and food prices while giving a tax break to the oil companies that blend ethanol and subsidies to ethanol producers and to corn growers as long as they don't gross more than $1.5 million filing jointly.;)

We are freak'n doomed!:blink:

[James48843]

Where on earth did you find that article?

There are errors in fact in that article. The headline, to start with. If you are burning E85, you are not using more "gas".

True, miles per gallon are lower, but that is a gallon of ethanol, NOT a gallon of gas.

By the way- it has been four weeks since I bought any "gas". I've been runnning exclusively on E-85 this month, and driven over 3,000 miles.

For a listing of current prices of a gallon of E85 and locataions of stations, see http://e85prices.com

I'm in Iowa today, driving to Illinois and Indiana this afternoon. Will fill up twice today- and it will all be on E85.

[James48843]

An Oracle of Oil Predicts $200-a-Barrel Crude
Wednesday, May 21, 2008The New York Times -- Arjun N. Murti remembers the pain of the oil shocks of the 1970s. But he is bracing for something far worse now: He foresees a “super spike” — a price surge that will soon drive crude oil to $200 a barrel.

Mr. Murti, who has a bit of a green streak, is not bothered much by the prospect of even higher oil prices, figuring it might finally prompt America to become more energy efficient.

An analyst at Goldman Sachs, Mr. Murti has become the talk of the oil market by issuing one sensational forecast after another. A few years ago, rivals scoffed when he predicted oil would breach $100 a barrel. Few are laughing now. Oil shattered yet another record on Tuesday, touching $129.60 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Gas at $4 a gallon is arriving just in time for those long summer drives.

Visit The New York Times for full article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/business/21oil.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)

[James48843]

Paid $2.59 a gallon for E85 this after noon in Princeton, Illinois.

Unleaded gas in Chicago suburbs today is $4.14.

Long Live Corn!

[James48843]

If anyone is interested in an interesting E85 long term investment opportunity, shoot me a PM. A large plant under construction is having problems raising enought capital to finish construction due to the credit crunch, and they are looking for investors.

I am thinking about it. This might be the right kind of thing to form an investment club around, if there are others who might be interested in making a smaller investment as a club, rather than me sticking my neck out and putting all of my eggs into one basket, to try to meet their share requirements.

http://www.mlive.com/saginawnews/business/index.ssf/2008/04/ethanol_plant_will_be_built_in.html

It may be higher risk than many would be comfortable with (inlcuding me), but the numbers actually look pretty good, especially with higher gas prices ahead. This is not for anything other than venture capital risk.

[James48843]

Ethanol number of statons jumps to 1521 nationwide this month.

http://e85prices.com

That's 1/3rd more than a year ago.

[Show-me]

You can not plant enough acres of corn to fill the demand for fuel and you are using food for fuel. That effects rich and poor. And now the oil companies are getting more of a tax break due to the increase gallons of ethanol. Now that's brilliant with record profits. The tax payers are subsidizing ethanol producers for every gallon produced and the "farm bill" is subsidizing the farmer to produce corn. Another brilliant move with record profits.

We are not saving one dime because it comes out of your pocket in taxes and you are getting less mileage.

Lets push all the forest all over the world into a pile and burn them so that we can plant corn and be able to say that we did not get the oil from the Saudi's while making the taxpayer subsidize all the player except the end user.:confused: I say pump them dry.

Subsidizing the end user will come next. Amazing how our government is so loose with our money.

In the area yields will be down because of the last season and wet acres.

[airlift]

Show,
I previously posted this in another thread. Perhaps we can lead the world to do the right thing again. At least we can increase Research and Development (R&D) with a National Security oriented government policy that at least guarantees the maxinum liberties and freedom v. the need for centralized government action.

What we can do later is to create another wave of anti-trust legislation to deal with the excesses of the U.S. monopolies, if this new space-age effort becomes monopolistic. This would be a good use of government powers to a good end. A good example of this in U.S. history is what President Teddy Roosevelt did against U.S. monopolies in the early 1900s. Nothing new has really been created under the Sun! And there is nothing wrong with shaving the excesses of abuses of power and authority. This is known as getting the act together by striking a balance in human conduct.

http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Oil Slick Stuff
Developing alternative fuels and technologies? We still are debating this issue, and debating is fine. However, we must find a solution quickly. Since the OPEC embargo in the early 1970s we should have paid more attention to the slippery slope encompassed by oil dependency. Now, if money and profits is the main obstacle to developing more efficient, cleaner, and less controversial alternatives there are solutions. Consider a full-blown effort led by the Federal government similar to the Space program in partnership with private investors, and/or existing corporations already involved in searching and developing fuels. The project is so big that the involvement of the Federal government is the only way that profiteers do not delay this thing any further. I don't care if the existing U.S. oil companies make up part of this partnership as long as nobody is allowed to derail the national effort. The sooner we get over the debate, the better. But let's stop running away from facing the truth about depleting all the natural resources!

[James48843]

Show-me:

The "Food vs. fuel" argument is put out by the oil companies. It's simply not true.

Read this, and then tell me what is incorrect about it:

http://www.bio.org/ind/biofuel/20070620facts.asp

and

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_food.html

and

http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2007/07/big-oils-war-on-ethanol.html

and

http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/Ethanol.pdf

and

http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2007/07/big-oils-war-on-ethanol.html


We are growing more food (corn) faster than what we need for increasing ethanol production.

There is no food shortage. There is plenty of corn, there is more corn now than ever before.

Now, just go back to the table over there, and eat all your soylent green like a good boy, won't you? :-)

[James48843]

from: http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/

Beer Fuels Democrats (http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2008/05/beer-fuels-democrats.html)



http://bp0.blogger.com/_WHRbl_yf1VM/SDgWIAQy88I/AAAAAAAABbk/WQ0G9p8mXSU/s200/Denver+2008+DNC.jpg (http://bp0.blogger.com/_WHRbl_yf1VM/SDgWIAQy88I/AAAAAAAABbk/WQ0G9p8mXSU/s1600-h/Denver+2008+DNC.jpg)Democrats will drive with ethanol fuel made from beer at their national convention in Denver this summer.

The Denver 2008 Convention Host Committee announced last week that Molson Coors Brewing Company will be the Official E85 Ethanol Producer for the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Molson Coors is donating all the clean-burning ethanol fuel for the fleet of General Motors flex-fuel vehicles to be used for Convention transportation needs.

"From fueling a national conversation about sustainability to fueling convention vehicles, we're working toward a green convention on every front," said Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper. "We are grateful for Molson Coors' donation of cleaner-burning fuel to ensure we host the greenest national political convention to date."
Coors is the nation's first major brewer to convert its waste beer into ethanol. The company began recycling waste beer - beer lost during packaging or deemed below quality standards - and converting it to ethanol in 1996. Today the Golden ethanol facility produces about three million gallons of ethanol per year.

Source: Denver 2008 Convention Host Committee (http://www.denverconvention2008.com/tools/displayNews.cfm?app=dnc&nid=3984)



READ MORE
Ethanol from Beer (http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2007/11/ethanol-from-beer.html)
There's Barley Truth to the Story (http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2008/01/theres-barley-truth-to-story.html)
Why Beer Prices are Higher (http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2007/07/why-beer-prices-are-higher-tale-of-two.html)
Gasoline Prices Rise and So Does Everything Else (http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2007/11/gasoline-prices-rise-and-so-does.html)

[luv2read]

It's all moonshine to me. Double-entendre.;)

[Show-me]

We are growing more food (corn) faster than what we need for increasing ethanol production.

There is no food shortage. There is plenty of corn, there is more corn now than ever before.

Now, just go back to the table over there, and eat all your soylent green like a good boy, won't you? :-)

I don't think I said there was a food shortage. Demand for corn for ethanol has caused a ripple effect on all grain, oil, sweetener, and meat market. Costing the consumer more while subsidizing the farmer, ethanol producer, and tax breaks for OIL COMPANIES.

You can plant the entire freak'n country in corn and you won't have enough ethanol to run the country and the Chinese and Indians will buy all that you don't use. If we stop using Arab oil someone will buy it.

Tyson is cutting production and laying off workers because of high feed costs. Bye, bye cheap chicken for poor families.

Corn acres are down this year and corn yield will be down also due to wet spring and late planting unless we have a very late frost and a perfect growing season. Watch the farm report in the mornings.

Cattle producers are culling herds (breeding stock) because of the high cost of feed and the lack of hay and grasslands. Cattle producers are fighting against corn producers in Missouri trying to get the State Gov. to repeal the 10% ethanol in all gasoline law.

Corn is the least efficient produce to convert to alcohol and the corn lobby just like the oil lobby got the laws in their favor. Not for the good of the environment, the Country, or the consumer but for the almighty dollar. We got sold a marketing campaign with higher prices and back door added cost thru subsidies and tax breaks for the folks that don't need them.

[luv2read]

Ethanol can be made from cellulose.

KUDZU! GRASS CLIPPINGS! WEEDS! PAPER AND LUMBER BY-PRODUCTS!

And I absolutely love the fact that Coors is making it from....WASTE BEER!

Now why doesn't the government pass a law that all distilleries do THAT? It would at least make enough fuel to run their delivery trucks and maybe even their bottling plants.

The growing worldwide food shortage may not be evident yet, but hunger is. When the price of a commodity is inflated beyond the ability of those to purchase it for its intended use, then it becomes a shortage for that use. Staple foods should not be burned in vehicles.

[CountryBoy]

Ethanol can be made from cellulose.

KUDZU! GRASS CLIPPINGS! WEEDS! PAPER AND LUMBER BY-PRODUCTS!



Iogen Corporation. I've been keeping an eye on this company for way over a year now, when I knew that we can't burn our food, but had to cellulose. This is the company I'm waiting to go public, before I even consider adding any ethanol stocks to my ROTH.

http://www.iogen.ca/index.html

When it annouces it's IPO, if it ever does, then I'm going to re-research the heck out of it. My first go around lead me to believe that Cellulose is the way to go and this is the leading company.

Thanks to all the Veterans and I hope everyone is enjoying the holiday. :D

CB

[nnuut]

Ethanol can be made from cellulose.

KUDZU! GRASS CLIPPINGS! WEEDS! PAPER AND LUMBER BY-PRODUCTS!

And I absolutely love the fact that Coors is making it from....WASTE BEER!

Now why doesn't the government pass a law that all distilleries do THAT? It would at least make enough fuel to run their delivery trucks and maybe even their bottling plants.

The growing worldwide food shortage may not be evident yet, but hunger is. When the price of a commodity is inflated beyond the ability of those to purchase it for its intended use, then it becomes a shortage for that use. Staple foods should not be burned in vehicles.

How about CORN stalks and shucks? They don't tast good anyway!:sick:

[luv2read]

switchgrass and sugarcane!


the other thing to be concerned about is the FRESH WATER used to irrigate. THAT is NOT a renewable resource. Once it's gone, it's gone. Keep pumping those aquifers.....

[James48843]

And I absolutely love the fact that Coors is making it from....WASTE BEER!



I didn't know there was such a thing as "WASTE BEER".

Is that an oxymoron?


3940

[Guest2]

Is there a method of seperating alcohol from blood, if so, I have
some friends that could make Corn & Soy Beans look like old school.
:nuts:

[FUTURESTRADER]

Subsidizing the end user will come next. Amazing how our government is so loose with our money.



I just got my $1800 fuel subsidy check yesterday. $300 for each of 2 children, $600 for me, $600 for the mrs.

[Show-me]

switchgrass and sugarcane!


the other thing to be concerned about is the FRESH WATER used to irrigate. THAT is NOT a renewable resource. Once it's gone, it's gone. Keep pumping those aquifers.....

I forgot that one, 70% of fresh water is used in agriculture. Bet that will go up with higher prices. We will be able to walk across the Mississippi like the Rio Grand.:worried::laugh::D

[nnuut]

switchgrass and sugarcane!


the other thing to be concerned about is the FRESH WATER used to irrigate. THAT is NOT a renewable resource. Once it's gone, it's gone. Keep pumping those aquifers.....
Their not? I thought they refill every year? Here in Georgia we had a pretty bad drought this last year, but the water table has recovered well due to the Tornadiac Storms. I guess you have to accept the good with the bad, the bitter with the sweet and the drought with the floods? :worried:

[malyla]

Did anyone see the King Corn movie (1.5 hour long film from independent lens) on their pbs station? Very informative about why corn is king.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/kingcorn/

After watching this film, I switch my dog's food to a non-corn based food and cut my consumption of corn syrup. I actually feel better(could be all in my head, but that effect usually wears off after a few weeks;-)

It's sad to know that creap food (corn based) may actually be lowering this generation's life expectancy. Although, I believe that ultimately, the wars over energy/resources will have much more of an impact on the current generation's life expectancy.

[nnuut]

Hold it right there, do you know that GRITS is made from CORN? Grits is good and good for you, like spinach!!3943

[Guest2]

Hold it right there, do you know that GRITS is made from CORN? Grits is good and good for you, like spinach!!

True, but Olive Oyl cost $130 a barrel !!!!! 3944

[luv2read]

switchgrass and sugarcane!

the other thing to be concerned about is the FRESH WATER used to irrigate. THAT is NOT a renewable resource. Once it's gone, it's gone. Keep pumping those aquifers.....


I forgot that one, 70% of fresh water is used in agriculture. Bet that will go up with higher prices. We will be able to walk across the Mississippi like the Rio Grand.:worried::laugh::D
If you think there's not going to be a war over fresh water....


"Piece by piece, a 5,500-mile wall around the Great Lakes is going up. You can't see it, but construction is progressing nicely," the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-water-warsmay27,0,4894872.story) reports. "The legal pilings for a 1,000-mile segment of the wall are scheduled to be sunk" today "when Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle [D] finalizes his state's approval of the so-called Great Lakes Compact, a multistate agreement designed to protect and restrict access to nearly 20 percent of the world's supply of fresh water, contained in the five Great Lakes."

[nnuut]

Yep I'm sure that corn is making me fat and I know for sure we are going to be paying $3 a gallon for fresh water. I know people that pay more than that right now. They drink that crystal clear bottled water, $1 for an 8oz bottle, but it's worth it because it is better than tap water. That is unless you read the fine print on the bottle, now that makes me sick.
I think I will still eat my Grits and corn on the cob though , and corn bread, fritters, muffins, tamales, tortillas, corn meal turkey stuffing, fried fish with flower and corn meal breading, corn flakes, and of course use high fruitrose syrup on my pancakes. You know I kinda like those corn fed cattle, especially the Black Angus, those steaks marbled with streaks of FAT --- tender and GREAT. The burgers ground from them may kill me but heck I can always eat chickens they love that scratch feed, makes them plump and juicy. Nope can't give up chicken, we love each other. You know My grand Mother lived to be 97 and ate all this stuff, I just don't understand I guess, I'll find out when my heart explodes, I suppose?:D:laugh:3945

[luv2read]

LOL! I'm with you, Norm!

The only furnaces that should be burning food for fuel are living ones!;)

[malyla]

Yep I'm sure that corn is making me fat and I know for sure we are going to be paying $3 a gallon for fresh water.
You know My grand Mother lived to be 97 and ate all this stuff, I just don't understand I guess, I'll find out when my heart explodes, I suppose?:D:laugh:3945
Yes, corn is making america fat and it's wonderful that your grandmother lived to 97 (mine was 97 also), but after watching King Corn, you will realize that your grandma was not eating corn fed beef, and drinking high fruitose corn syrup in her sweet teas/soda. It's only been since the 1980's until today that our food in saturated with corn. And it's genectically modified corn that does not taste good until refined. The farmers who grow it do not eat it. Thats chilling.

[Silverbird]

Sugar Ethanol Production in Brazil
warning, some descriptions of working conditions are late night TruTV
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/marketsmag/mm_1107_story3.html

[nnuut]

I'll research that, it's news to me. We didn't eat Horse Corn either, tough. They better not mess with the Bourbon!!:nuts:

[Silverbird]

I'll research that, it's news to me. They better not mess with the Bourbon!!:nuts:It's not the Bourbon you have to look out for, but the Cola, Sweet BBQ sauce and everlasting baked goods. And yes, it's made from feed corn, bleah.

[James48843]

If you think there's not going to be a war over fresh water....

Regarding the Great Lakes compact- that has been in the works for 20 years. Finally coming to fruition.

We've got the water- and it's here for anyone who wants to set up shop and bring jobs. But don't think you're going to ship our water to the great southwest, or even to Atlanta. If you want our water, come bring your jobs here, and we'll share it with you here.

To paraphrase another famous (and rather dry) location to the west of us...

What happens in the great lakes basin, stays in the great lakes basin.

I'll drink to that.

[tom1tom1]

Grew up in Iowa. The corn thing is not the farmer's fault. Corn for fuel does not make sense when several other options would be the best. Corperate america dictates what a small farmer can offer.

[alevin]

To continue the cane-ethanol discussion, including labor conditions in Brazil.....http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_marinis&sid=a3Q.NUCiqEPg
Longterm I do believe cellulose-based ethanol (switchgrass, wood) will have to take ethanol market dominance. too much investment in water, fertilizer required for corn-except in water-rich regions like Great Lakes perhaps, certainly water supply and use-efficiency is an issue in the interior west where snowpacks are already declining on longterm basis. Indian rice farmers are leaving the land due to fertilizer costs skyrocketing-leading to continued shortage of food grains. FWIW.

[Show-me]

Breaking news: One ethanol plant in Missouri scrapped due to land option expiring. One on indefinite hold and two in IL on indefinite hold.

[Show-me]

The White Elephant stumbles.;)

[Show-me]

This weeks WSJ had a breakdown of AG price and the high cost of fertilizer.

[luv2read]

This weeks WSJ had a breakdown of AG price and the high cost of fertilizer.
it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is saved by using it. Those fertilizer plants run on....fossil fuel! ERGO...they can't afford the fuel to produce the fertilizer to grow the corn to make the alternative fuel (to power the car that Jack built:laugh:). ERGO...if they continue to produce it, the price of ethanol will be passed along...so where's the savings to the consumer? ZILCH.

Question...if ethanol is so much more economical...why don't they just power themselves with what they produce and quit using fossil fuels to power the fertilizer and ethanol plants?

[James48843]

it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is saved by using it.

Old wives tale-- produced by a report done by an oil industry lobbiest. At current production rate, it only takes about 50% of the energy to make ethanol (including everything) as it produces. Don't believe everything you read. Study hard and you'll see there are other studies out there, including government studies that say ethanol is a net benefit for fuel.




Question...if ethanol is so much more economical...why don't they just power themselves with what they produce and quit using fossil fuels to power the fertilizer and ethanol plants?

Exactly. When you do the study using ethanol powered farm equipment, the numbers are even better.

By the way- I am proud to say that I have now gone three weeks and 1200 miles purchasing only E85. I doubt I will ever purchase a full tank of straight gasoline again.

[luv2read]

Quote:

Originally Posted by luv2read http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?p=166180#post166180)
it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is saved by using it.
Old wives tale-- produced by a report done by an oil industry lobbiest. At current production rate, it only takes about 50% of the energy to make ethanol (including everything) as it produces. Don't believe everything you read. Study hard and you'll see there are other studies out there, including government studies that say ethanol is a net benefit for fuel.

Originally Posted by luv2read
Question...if ethanol is so much more economical...why don't they just power themselves with what they produce and quit using fossil fuels to power the fertilizer and ethanol plants?
Exactly. When you do the study using ethanol powered farm equipment, the numbers are even better.

By the way- I am proud to say that I have now gone three weeks and 1200 miles purchasing only E85. I doubt I will ever purchase a full tank of straight gasoline again.

LOL! James, see! I present both sides of the argument!;)

[James48843]

Breaking news: One ethanol plant in Missouri scrapped due to land option expiring. One on indefinite hold and two in IL on indefinite hold.

Capacity to produce is still outpacing outlets. As of this week, we're at 1567 stations nationwide, compared to over 150,000 that sell straight gasoline. The majority of ethanol now being produced (99%) is being consumed as E10, not E85. Yet. http://e85prices.com/e10-ethanol.htm




Give it time. More stations converting (and there were a rash of them this month) will mean more places to buy it, and more competition. When the competition kicks in, and prices fall, there will be a lot more sold. There are a lot of cars out there now that can burn E85, and more being produced, so it's just a matter of the distribtion network catching up to production. Oil companies are fighting it, but more independant stations are carrying it every day.

Here is a graph of production through 2007; We're currently at 8.2 billion gallons of ethanol, and growing rapidly:

3950

Today we're using just 100 million gallons of that 8.2 billion gallons as E85, but only because oil companies, who are fighting ethanol, are refusing to put in E85 pumps. When they do, we'll absorb a lot of that.

Last year, the average E85 station sold just 4,700 gallons a month. Its already double that this year.

[ou81200]

We currently have an ethanol plant being built in Hopewell Va. I'm not sure but it may be the first one on the east coast.

James I have to agree with you. Ethanol may not be a cure - all, but it is a start. I saw on the news today that we are finally using less gas.

[Show-me]

Or, ethanol producers will hook people like James and the run up the price the same as gasoline once they have a big enough customer base. They are in business too and once they get a big enough foot hold they will run the price up to maximize their profits. They will take a page out of big oils play book, their board members are no different than big oils. Meanwhile the price of everything that uses corn or corn sweetener will go up due to the increased demand on corn ethanol.

The oil companies that own the gas station will keep jacking with the price at the pump so that you don't save that much. Bragging rights about using ethanol won't mean jack.

Give me the black stuff!

[ou81200]

Or, ethanol producers will hook people like James and the run up the price the same as gasoline once they have a big enough customer base. They are in business too and once they get a big enough foot hold they will run the price up to maximize their profits. They will take a page out of big oils play book, their board members are no different than big oils. Meanwhile the price of everything that uses corn or corn sweetener will go up due to the increased demand on corn ethanol.

The oil companies that own the gas station will keep jacking with the price at the pump so that you don't save that much. Bragging rights about using ethanol won't mean jack.

Give me the black stuff!


It's true that prices may increase as you say, but E-85 vehicles still run with gas with the present 5% ethanol as an additive. Point is---alternative forms of energy are being explored and ethanol is a renewable energy unlike oil unless you want to wait a couple of million years for more to be produced.

IMO---Times are changing. We will have to get used to higher prices and curtail useless or excessive activities that involve using natural resources unless you can afford it. We used 3.3% less gas in March than a year ago. Certainly this must have an impact somewhere down the line. In the past it had been rumored that car manufacturing companies were in with the oil companies to not aggresive in doing research on vehicles with alternative form of energy. Now big SUV producing companies like Ford can't give their vehicles away.

Oil companies will be around for awhile and yes they will charge whatever price they want for gas, but it will be good to know that there may be an alternative way to get around town.

[luv2read]

In the past it had been rumored that car manufacturing companies were in with the oil companies to not aggresive in doing research on vehicles with alternative form of energy. Now big SUV producing companies like Ford can't give their vehicles away.
Not rumors, but facts - and they're available through FOIA. The oil lobby and auto lobby are hand-in-fist with Congress on this one...anything to delay alternative energy and maximize profits from current fossil fuel technologies. It takes time and money to retool, after all....and if you can get the government to go along with you, why bother? If Congress had only stuck to their guns 30 years ago - but no. As soon as the embargo was lifted, it was business as usual. Sigh.:(:nuts:

[James48843]

Spot price of automotive grade bulk ethanol futures contracts drops 4 to 9 cents this morning on the Chicago Board of Trade. Now hovering around $2.41 a gallon, fob Chicago in 29,000 gallon rail tank cars. You then have to pay to get it to your location.


3964


Here is the nationwide state-by-state prices of bulk ethanol, in "rack price", which is at the distributor (rail unloading location).


Fuel Ethanol Rack Prices
Daily State Averages,
provided by DTN (http://www.dtn.com/promo/ethanolmarket)
May 28 Today Yesterday Change

Alabama $3.3625 3.4055 -0.0430
Arkansas $2.7813 2.78130 .0000
Colorado $2.8419 2.84190 .0000
Florida $3.3475 3.3905 -0.0430
Georgia $3.1400 3.3267 -0.1867
Iowa $2.6575 2.65750 .0000
Illinois $2.6770 2.67420 .0028
Indiana $2.7580 2.7651 -0.0071
Kansas $2.7216 2.71820 .0034
Louisiana $3.3400 3.3830 -0.0430
Michigan $2.6500 2.6500 0.0000
Minnesota $2.6515 2.6512 0.0003
Missouri $2.8343 2.8311 0.0032
Montana $2.6235 2.6235 0.0000
North Dakota $2.5665 2.5661 0.0004
Nebraska $2.6937 2.6931 0.0006
North Carolina $3.2825 3.3125 -0.0300
Ohio $2.8400 2.8500 -0.0100
Oklahoma $2.7259 2.7259 0.0000
Oregon $2.6614 2.6914 -0.0300
South Carolina $3.2825 3.3125 -0.0300
South Dakota $2.5994 2.5994 0.0000
Washington $2.7720 2.7720 0.0000
Wisconsin $2.7075 2.7222 -0.0147
Wyoming $2.6301 2.6301 0.0000


USA Average 2.8459 2.8630 -0.0171

[James48843]

June Ethanol down .09 cents to $2.40

[James48843]

dTaZrcceJ_U

[Show-me]

Great now we are relying on a "renewable" fuel that is highly dependent on 1. water, 2. growing season, 3. insects, 4. disease, 5. fertilizer availability, 6. chemicals, etc. Now once it gets a foothold in the market you will see some nice swings.

Not the right path to be going. You better start thinking solar.

[Silverbird]

Great now we are relying on a "renewable" fuel that is highly dependent on 1. water, 2. growing season, 3. insects, 4. disease, 5. fertilizer availability, 6. chemicals, etc. Now once it gets a foothold in the market you will see some nice swings.

Not the right path to be going. You better start thinking solar.Solar for cars? For structures, yes, it's getting better and better but haven't seen it as an alternate for gasoline yet?

[luv2read]

Solar for cars? For structures, yes, it's getting better and better but haven't seen it as an alternate for gasoline yet?
why not solar panels on cars? Cars sure absorb heat fast enough as it is, why not stick panels on the roofs and take advantage of that. I don't know why that's not part of the solution with the whole hybrid/battery/electric car conundrum.

[Silverbird]

why not solar panels on cars? Cars sure absorb heat fast enough as it is, why not stick panels on the roofs and take advantage of that. I don't know why that's not part of the solution with the whole hybrid/battery/electric car conundrum.Problems are weight (too heavy vehicle to be efficient), and also the fragility of solar panels (survive weather well, but can't take a dent). Making them dent resistant current technology uses materials that do not let sunlight in at the amount needed to generate power. I'm not a pointy head on the subject but have to keep up with the market, so there may theoritically be something that works, but I haven't seen it yet even out of the lab projects. Solar *can* be used to recharge batteries, but mostly the recharge system is industrial size.

[ou81200]

The cost for producing electricity from solar energy is still not cost effective. To produce enough electricity to supply one home would run between $25,000-$35,000 and you would still be dependent on the grid. To be grid independent , you would need a vast array of batteries that would take up all basement space.

Wind might be cheaper.

[XL-entLady]

Problems are weight (too heavy vehicle to be efficient), and also the fragility of solar panels (survive weather well, but can't take a dent). Making them dent resistant current technology uses materials that do not let sunlight in at the amount needed to generate power. I'm not a pointy head on the subject but have to keep up with the market, so there may theoritically be something that works, but I haven't seen it yet even out of the lab projects. Solar *can* be used to recharge batteries, but mostly the recharge system is industrial size.

There is a company called - I think - Solar Sailor that makes a solar powered ferry boat. I ran into the specs during a project I was working on. I can't remember the specifics regarding how efficient it was or how much ancilliary fuel it took though. I just remember the boat looked very cool!

And you're right, Silverbird, we are talking seriously industrial size here.:)

Lady

[Silverbird]

There is a company called - I think - Solar Sailor that makes a solar powered ferry boat. I ran into the specs during a project I was working on. I can't remember the specifics regarding how efficient it was or how much ancilliary fuel it took though. I just remember the boat looked very cool!

And you're right, Silverbird, we are talking seriously industrial size here.:)

LadyFerry boat is perfect for solar panels, big and flat. Here you go. http://www.solarsailor.com/

[Show-me]

My thinking was electric cars, the grid would be over every road and parking lot in the US. You would reduce road heating and damage while providing a grid system for everyone to tap into for a recharge.

Start in the Southwest or Texas. Lots of roads and sun.

As far as it not being effective, I agree but neither was ethanol until Congress subsidized the production and gave tax credits to the oil companies for every gallon blended.

Just spit balling.

[ou81200]

My thinking was electric cars, the grid would be over every road and parking lot in the US. You would reduce road heating and damage while providing a grid system for everyone to tap into for a recharge.

Start in the Southwest or Texas. Lots of roads and sun.

As far as it not being effective, I agree but neither was ethanol until Congress subsidized the production and gave tax credits to the oil companies for every gallon blended.

Just spit balling.


At least we are thinking more about alternative forms of energy. That's a start.

But with the mentality that the powers to be have, as soon as oil prices go down to acceptable levels (If it happens) everyone one will forget about ethanol, solar, or wind.

I saw a commercial the other day where Chrysler was promising $2.99/gal for gas or diesel for 12,000 miles per year for three years if you buy a new vehicle from them.

Perhaps they know something we don't.

[James48843]

At least we are thinking more about alternative forms of energy. That's a start.

...
I saw a commercial the other day where Chrysler was promising $2.99/gal for gas or diesel for 12,000 miles per year for three years if you buy a new vehicle from them.

Perhaps they know something we don't.

They can do math.

At $4 gas, then it only costs them a buck a gallon. Times that by the number of gallons they need to buy to power their cars for 36,000 miles total (at 20 MPG, and $4 gas that works out to 1800 gallons, at a buck subsidy a gallon). Or a flat $1800 bucks At five bucks a gallon, it would work out to $3600 bucks.

GM is offering $3500 rebates right now, only it's cash now, not a promise of cheaper gas later. GM will pay it out whether the price of gas rises or falls. Chrysler only has to pay out if the price is higher.

And if gas falls to $3 a gallon, then they are off the hook entirely. (ok- a penny a gallon).


If you ask me- Chrysler is betting that gas won't exceed $5 over the next three years. If it does, then they will be hurting. But to tell you the truth, they won't be hurting as much as GM will be hurting if gas goes to five bucks.

[James48843]

why not solar panels on cars? Cars sure absorb heat fast enough as it is, why not stick panels on the roofs and take advantage of that. I don't know why that's not part of the solution with the whole hybrid/battery/electric car conundrum.

Technology isn't anywhere near advanced enough to generate the wattage of power in the small size surface area for a car. Yes, you could probably generate perhaps 1200 watts per hour on solar panels covering an automobile. But that wouldn't be enough to move the car very far at all.

About the best we can do right now is here: 3969

http://www.engr.arizona.edu/newsletters/carspecs/specsasc.html

Teams compete, but this is a typical car.

120 square feet of surface are covered by solar cells.

And on a custom designed "super racer", that weighs only 450 pounds, and powered by an 8hp motor, that one goes while the sun is shining, but eventually runs out of power. Cruises at about 45MPH, top speed for sprinting is 70.

But that's $6,000 worth of solar panels, plus an equal amount invested in batteries, and more in the frame and motor.


And if it shared the road with a Lincoln Navigator, I am afraid the Navigator would win.

I can't wait until they invent the "Jetson's car".


3968

[James48843]

Number of E85 fueling stations jump in May, begining to reach critical mass:

E85 Station Count - Jan 1256 , Feb 1380 , March 1451 , April 1510 , May 1608

E85 now selling in 1183 cities in the U.S.

See the message boards in http://e85vehicles.com/e85/index.php


and report or find local prices in 1183 cities at: http://e85prices.com


While it may not be the entire solution to the foreign oil import problem, the very fact that there is now an alternative fuel available is keeping the price of gasoline in check. Without E85, gasoline would be priced a LOT higher by now.

[FUTURESTRADER]

Sunoco station just started selling E85 on Rockville Pike (for you MD/DC folk) for $3.35 vs. $4.00 gasoline. Thats not taking into account the $10 oil pop on Friday yet. The flex-fuel vehicles now have my serious attention.

[Show-me]

Can anyone tell me why there is only a dime difference between E85 and low grade gasoline in west central Illinois?

[Silverbird]

Can anyone tell me why there is only a dime difference between E85 and low grade gasoline in west central Illinois?It could be because it's trucked in and the price is suffering from delivery fees. Also, depending on how many suppliers of E85 there are in your area, they have a hold on the market.:cool:

[James48843]

Can anyone tell me why there is only a dime difference between E85 and low grade gasoline in west central Illinois?

Not sure exactly what town you are talking about. There are some of the lowest prices in the Nation in Illinois:


Here are some of the locations of E85 stations, from
the maps available at http://e85prices.com

4027


If it's only a dime difference at the station you are looking at, it's probably because the owner of the station thinks he can get away with it. There are a couple "Sullivans Foods" stations in west central illinois that are 35% plus below the price of gasoline. Search for stations near you, and then report the price you find. And then let the station owner know what other places have E85 for in that area.

When there is competition, prices will fall.

[Silverbird]

Sigh, the site says the only E85 in Virginia is sold by Citgo. :notrust:

[luv2read]

Citgo is owned by Venezuela. However, ALL of the majors are in partnerships with Venezuela. Can't get away from it folks. Buy the cheapest gas you can find and forget about the politics of it, we're getting raped by everyone. Don't forget the bulk of our imports is from the mideast, and they are NOT our friends.

[Frixxxx]

Citgo is owned by Venezuela. However, ALL of the majors are in partnerships with Venezuela. Can't get away from it folks. Buy the cheapest gas you can find and forget about the politics of it, we're getting raped by everyone. Don't forget the bulk of our imports is from the mideast, and they are NOT our friends.

Really? We should take over Canada!!!!!!

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html:cool:

[luv2read]

Really? We should take over Canada!!!!!!

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html:cool:
Total from the mideast (Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait) = 2507. More than Canada.

[Frixxxx]

Total from the mideast (Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait) = 2507. More than Canada.


Everyone NOT in Mideast = 6725 :toung:

But seriously, we are at alot of other countries' mercy!!!!:cool:

[luv2read]

Everyone NOT in Mideast = 6725 :toung:

But seriously, we are at alot of other countries' mercy!!!!:cool:
LOL the only one of those I will say for sure is our friend is Canada...and sometimes I'm NOT so sure!;)

It's been a long time since those "Devil's Brigade" days...and memories are short.

[Show-me]

Not sure exactly what town you are talking about. There are some of the lowest prices in the Nation in Illinois:


If it's only a dime difference at the station you are looking at, it's probably because the owner of the station thinks he can get away with it. There are a couple "Sullivans Foods" stations in west central illinois that are 35% plus below the price of gasoline. Search for stations near you, and then report the price you find. And then let the station owner know what other places have E85 for in that area.



When there is competition, prices will fall.


I'll just say it is not on your map.

[James48843]

Ethanol can be made from cellulose.

KUDZU! GRASS CLIPPINGS! WEEDS! PAPER AND LUMBER BY-PRODUCTS!

And I absolutely love the fact that Coors is making it from....WASTE BEER!

Now why doesn't the government pass a law that all distilleries do THAT?


There is no such thing as "Waste Beer".


4030

[James48843]

Show me-

Here is a good article for you to read:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0506fuelmay06,0,481881.story

Food vs. fuel a global myth

By Robert Zubrin and Gal Luft May 6, 2008 Ar





By Robert Zubrin and Gal Luft


In recent weeks, a flood of reports and statements has claimed that the world's biofuel programs—in particular the U.S. corn ethanol effort—is starving poor people around the globe. Even the UN's special rapporteur for the Right to Food decried biofuel production as "a crime against humanity."

It seems so obvious: With so much corn being turned into fuel, food shortages must inevitably result, and biofuel programs must be the cause. However, that's completely untrue.

Here are the facts. In the last five years, despite the nearly threefold growth of the corn ethanol industry (or actually because of it), the U.S. corn crop grew by 35 percent, the production of distillers grain (a high-value animal feed made from the protein saved from the corn used for ethanol) quadrupled and the net corn food and feed product of the U.S. increased 26 percent.

(Much more at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0506fuelmay06,0,481881.story )

[Fivetears]

U.S. May Free Up More Land for Corn Crops
Signs are growing that the government may allow farmers to plant crops on millions of acres of conservation land, while a chorus of voices is also pleading with Washington to cut requirements for ethanol production. The Midwest floods have washed out an estimated four million acres of prime farmland, crimping this year’s harvest as the world desperately needs more grain. With corn prices setting records and soybean prices not far behind, the Bush administration is under intense pressure to do what it can to bolster the food supply.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/business/21ethanol.html?em&ex=1214280000&en=437ec917cd910877&ei=5087%0A

[James48843]

According to the Department of Agricultuer, even WITH the flooded land, this year's corn crop is going to only be slightly less than last years- and still will rank as the second largest in history, above every other year except 2007. While they don't have final numbers yet, it still looks like close to 12 billion bushels this year.

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

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

[James48843]

Ethanol futures on the Chicago Board of Trade settle today at $2.91 gallon, down three cents for the week.

Meanwhile, gasoline is spiking up again. Saw it jump locally today from $4.08 on my way in to work this morning, to $4.29 on my way home.

Now THAT is a jump in one day.

[FUTURESTRADER]

E85 $3.35 here in Rockville, MD, $4.05 for reg unleaded. Line was 15 cars deep. Just back from FedFleet in Dallas last week. Ford, Chevy, and Chrysler all there, at least doubling their E85 vehicle models. GM partnering to buildcellulosic ethanol refinery.
http://earth2tech.com/2008/06/03/12-companies-racing-to-build-cellulosic-ethanol-plants-in-the-us/

[James48843]

Texas Governor RFS waiver request follows large donation from Poultry Producer (http://e85vehicles.com/e85/index.php/topic,1842.msg10604.html#msg10604)


DTN news blogger Todd Neeley:

The Houston Chronicle reports that Texas Gov. Rick Perry's request for a waiver on the Renewable Fuel Standard was made following a six-figure donation to the Republican Governors Association from poultry giant Pilgrim's Pride.

Perry is the chairman of the RGA. "Gov. Rick Perry's request for a waiver of federal corn-based ethanol production mandates was prompted by a March meeting he had with East Texas poultry producer Lonnie 'Bo' Pilgrim, who six days later gave $100,000 to the Republican Governors Association chaired by Perry.

In the three weeks following that donation, Perry's staff began preparing to submit the renewable fuel standards waiver request to the federal Environmental Protection Agency, according to 596 pages of records obtained from the governor's office by the Houston Chronicle under the Texas Public Information Act," the Chronicle said. "The donation, given March 31, also made it possible for Pilgrim to address nine Republican governors during a closed-door energy conference in Grapevine to explain his belief that ethanol production is driving up feed costs for poultry and livestock producers.

Complete story at Houston Chronical:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5867104.html

[James48843]

Setting Aside the Renewable Fuel Standard Will Not Reduce Corn Prices

BIO Opposes Texas Petition to EPA for Waiver of RFS

WASHINGTON — Biofuels are needed to help reduce fuel prices, which are the root cause of higher food prices, according to the available evidence. The Biotechnology Industry Organization today submitted comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opposing Texas Gov. Rick Perry's (R) request for a waiver of 50 percent of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandate for production of ethanol from grain.

BIO President and CEO Jim Greenwood said, "Texas has not demonstrated in its petition to the EPA that the higher costs for corn currently impacting its livestock and agriculture industries are the result of biofuel production. In fact, Texas' own study of the problem shows that the soaring cost of oil is the primary cause of higher agricultural costs and food prices and that relaxing the RFS will not lower corn prices.

"The RFS is designed to move the United States as rapidly as possible toward sustainable production of advanced biofuels. Abandoning the RFS today would send a signal to the market that could undercut ongoing research and development in biotechnology that is vital to achieving that goal."

An April study by the Agricultural & Food Policy Center at Texas A&M University, cited by Texas in its petition to the EPA for a waiver, demonstrates that higher energy costs have had the most significant impact on food and grain prices by increasing the cost of production. Further, the study clearly shows that demand for biofuels is outpacing the Renewable Fuel Standard's mandate, due to increased fuel prices and state and federal requirements for clean fuels. The analysis concludes that relaxing the new RFS and reducing production of biofuels would not lower grain prices. The study is available at http://www.afpc.tamu.edu/pubs/2/515/RR-08-01.pdf.

Complete story:
http://www.centredaily.com/business/technology/story/675428.html

[James48843]

GOP lawmakers want ethanol requirements reduced

By DINA CAPPIELLO
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON --

More than four dozen House Republicans asked the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday to reduce required ethanol production this year, saying renewable fuel standards enacted by Congress will boost already high corn prices in the wake of Midwest floods.


"The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a significant factor in the increased cost of commodities, which is causing severe economic harm for low-income Americans and livestock producers," the 51 lawmakers, led by Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, senior Republican on the House Agriculture Committee, said in a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.

Complete story:


From: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/politics/story/401264.html (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/politics/story/401264.html)

[James48843]

GM is working on 18 models in 2009 for flexfuel.

But the big news will be for the 2010 model year. Five NEW models will be introduced in the 2010 model year, that use a new 1.4 liter 4 cylinder turbocharged engine. The engine will be optimized for E85, instead of being optimized for gasoline. 12 to 1 compression ratio, and a turbo boost above that, for 200 hp on E85.

Which means they will be getting somewhere around 38 MPG on E85.

Now THAT will be a nice choice.

[FUTURESTRADER]

plug-in hybrids!!!...$0.35 for 20 miles in plug in Prius hybrid, same cost as 2 100 watt lightbulbs for a day..Chevy Volt looks pretty sweet too, does 40 miles/charge

[James48843]

plug-in hybrids!!!...$0.35 for 20 miles in plug in Prius hybrid, same cost as 2 100 watt lightbulbs for a day..Chevy Volt looks pretty sweet too, does 40 miles/charge


40 miles for a charge doesn't help me yet.

I commute 50 miles each way to work.

And while electricity is cheap in many areas, it still is largely dependent on natural gas, nuclear, or coal in many areas. Each have their own issues to contend with.

Yes, we'll have coal for many years to come, but it's still not the clean renewal that we need to get to eventually. Nuclear- where do we put the waste? Natural Gas is here now, but again, it's a fossil fuel, and eventually will run out.

A little ethanol-

A little plug-in hybrid-

A little of CNG-

a little of this, and a little of that, and yes, we'll wean ourselves off foreign oil if we ALL pick up a piece of the problem and work to solve the long term solutions....

[alevin]

I just don't buy corn ethanol as more than a short-term transition to other alternative energy sources, due to destructive energy (fertilizer) inputs required. Anyone paying attention to the expanding dead zone in the Gulf? :(

Here's what I hope will be taking its place as fast as it can. I haven't become a single stock investor yet, but here are some of the reasons I'm starting to focus in that direction..... and some of the companies I'll be watching. :cool:

http://http://mariaenergia.blogspot.com/2008/07/terminology-tuesday-cellulosic-ethanol.html


There are many cellulosic ethanol testing plants in the works, although we've yet to see anything brought to scale. One of the most recent projects is at Oklahoma State University's Bioenergy Center, which has planted switchgrass and sorghum (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52318) for a facility in Kansas, expected to be operational in 2010.

and from various commenters on the above article....


...Cellulosic ethanol can also be made from solid waste and agricultural waste.

New technology has allowed solid waste from landfills to be digested in such a way as to produce gas, methane, which ultimately is burned more cleanly than it would be if the process were left to natural decomposition. Even manure from cows and chickens can be turned into ethanol.

Waste energy and cellulosic ethanol go hand-in-hand. They, most probably, will be installed at each landfill site and hooked into the grid and added to the pipeline. Closed-loop system is the name for using waste material as a feedstock.


Cellulosic ethanol is not the end, it is only the second generation of ethanol. In three or five years or so along comes (third generation) algae oil. Algae hypergrows with CO2, so it can be used to clean emissions. Bend the smokestack back down around to feed large scale algae pond blooms that are harvested regularly.

The better news is that some strands of algae are up to 60% oil by mass. The algae is pressed into pure biodiesel and the leaves are dried and fermented into ethanol. Cellulosic technology has advanced into the 1 gallon of water and $1 for each gallon of ethanol produced range. Here are some names of companies pursuing second and third generation ethanol: Coskata, Iogen, OriginOil.


Algae doesn't need land to grow. And, importantly, sequesters more CO2 than any other plant in the process. Producing a lot of oxygen as a by product.

There's at least 60,000 different species -- and probably a lot more -- with some microalgae containing up to 50% lipids or vegetable oil.

Importantly, algae also promises no change in infrastructure required.
After all...oil itself is essentially fossilized algae.


Valcent produces algae in their closed loop "bioreactors" -- initial test runs were at 33,000 gallons an acre -- on semi-arid land in Texas that can't be used for food cultivation. To put that in perspective, palm, which I believe is the next highest source, can get some 6,700 gallons an acre.

Valcent thinks it can find the right algae species to get them up to the 100,000 gallon level. Indeed, they claim that if 1/10 of the state of New Mexico were used for algae production, they could meet the energy demands for the entire United States.


SF-based Solyzyme...(is) private....claims not to even need sunlight to make algae. If that's true, they just solved one of the major obstacles to industrial production of biodiesel from algae.

Chevron seems to be impressed. America's number 2 oil producer just signed an agreement with the company. ...

NRG Energy is using algae to capture and reduce flue gas carbon dioxide emissions from one of its coal fired utilities.

[CountryBoy]

I just don't buy corn ethanol as more than a short-term transition to other alternative energy sources, due to destructive energy (fertilizer) inputs required. Anyone paying attention to the expanding dead zone in the Gulf? :(

Here's what I hope will be taking its place as fast as it can. I haven't become a single stock investor yet, but here are some of the reasons I'm starting to focus in that direction..... and some of the companies I'll be watching. :cool:

http://http://mariaenergia.blogspot.com/2008/07/terminology-tuesday-cellulosic-ethanol.html



and from various commenters on the above article....

Speaking of cellulose ethanol, this is a company I've been keeping an eye on for over a year now. It hasn't gone publice yet.

http://www.iogen.ca/

CB

[James48843]

Thanks CountryBoy- nice link.

That is the next generation- mastering ethanol from cellulose. They've been working on the technology for years to get try and get it commercially viable. Still not quite there yet, but $4 gas helps push research in that direction.

By the way- Corn and especially Ethanol prices have tumbled over the last week. Today ethanol closed at 2.25 a gallon, down from 2.91 just two weeks ago. Watch for E85 prices to drop over the next few weeks as well.

[luv2read]

kudzu, switchgrass and sugarcane! Yeah! Lets get a market for that USA grown cane!

[alevin]

You betcha L2R. That'd be a cost-effective way to get rid of kudzu, it's going to be with us forever otherwise. Maybe it can finance us well enough to buy us time to move into renewables we really want to keep around.

[James48843]

Public shows support for ethanol

By AMY ROCHKES, For the JG/T-C

The on-going campaign to force the nation to revisit and reduce its commitment to ethanol has failed to move most American voters. A recent bi-partisan survey of 1,200 registered voters shows that by a 2:1 margin, the public supports increased use of ethanol in our nation’s fuel supply. This majority crosses party lines, capturing conservatives and environmentalists alike. Voters largely blame the rising cost of food on fuel prices; less than one in ten blame the expanded use of ethanol.

The survey commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Association was conducted between June 23 and July 1. The overall margin of error for the survey is +/- 2.83.

Survey results showed the pro ethanol majority is big and broad. Asked if they favor or oppose continuing to increase use of ethanol, an impressive 59 percent came out in favor, while just 30 percent oppose. Support is even higher (63 percent) among environmentalists. Men and women, older and younger voters, high school educated and college graduates from all regions of the country support this alternative fuel. Most impressive, survey results show voters agree on the increased use of ethanol.

By a 71 to 17 percent margin, voters believe the rising cost of oil and gas is the primary reason food prices have been going up rather than blaming the rising use of corn-based ethanol. Those surveyed were asked from a list what is most to blame for the rising cost of food, less than in ten picked ethanol, compared to 49 percent who blame rising oil prices.


Complete article: http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2008/07/29/features/farm/doc48869e9c98b6a030260912.txt

[EEK! 5 YEARS TO GO!]

Last night @ 7:00 The History Channel show "Modern Marvels - Environmental Tech II" featured the compressed air car. Look for the program to be shown again. They always repeat.

http://www.history.com/schedule.do?action=daily&NetworkId=&linkDate=200807291800&timeZone=EST# (http://www.history.com/schedule.do?action=daily&NetworkId=&linkDate=200807291800&timeZone=EST#)

Here's a couple more episodes this week you might find interesting, they are shown at least twice each day but I've posted the primetime (EST), check the schedule for other times:

Wednesday July 30 07:00 PM Modern Marvels: Corn (http://www.tsptalk.com/minisites/modernmarvels)
Why is corn the largest agricultural crop in the world? Corn has fed the masses from ancient times to this day. Corn is not only a vegetable and a cereal grain; it is a commodity as well. Visit Lakeside Foods in Reedsburg, Wisconsin and see how tons of corn are harvested and canned within hours. Then it's off to VeraSun Energy in Charles City, Iowa, to discover how corn is converted into fuel. Take a look to our past and you will understand that without corn we probably wouldn't be here.
TVPG (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/l)| Visit the website (http://www.tsptalk.com/minisite.do?mini_id=1335)

Thursday July 31 09:00 PM Modern Marvels: Secrets of Oil (http://www.tsptalk.com/minisites/modernmarvels)
Rubber, Plastic, Nylon, Aerosols, Resins, Solvents, and Lubricants--none can exist without oil. If we stopped driving our cars tomorrow, America would still need five million barrels of oil a day. Visit Vulcan Materials, where oil tanks are emptied into massive double-barrel mixers to make asphalt and then continue to the Rolls Royce Aerospace Facility where complex jet fuels are blended. Travel back to the 1870's to see how an unemployed whale oil salesman turned a greasy oil-drilling by-product into a household staple: Vaseline. Finally discover how cutting-edge recycling techniques can breathe new life into used motor oil, and where a number of renewable fuels and technologies take aim at oil sovereignty. ,,,

[catinhat95]

can anyone provide me with a link to where i can track short term us consumption of oil? thanks!

[Guest2]

Have you asked Norn on either NNuts Account Thread or Oil Slick Stuff !
By far the most knowledgable of members concerning Oil, Trends & News

[SkyPilot]

40 miles for a charge doesn't help me yet.

I commute 50 miles each way to work.

And while electricity is cheap in many areas, it still is largely dependent on natural gas, nuclear, or coal in many areas. Each have their own issues to contend with.

Yes, we'll have coal for many years to come, but it's still not the clean renewal that we need to get to eventually. Nuclear- where do we put the waste? Natural Gas is here now, but again, it's a fossil fuel, and eventually will run out.

A little ethanol-

A little plug-in hybrid-

A little of CNG-

a little of this, and a little of that, and yes, we'll wean ourselves off foreign oil if we ALL pick up a piece of the problem and work to solve the long term solutions....

Maybe another piece of the puzzle...

http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=6085&highlight=skypilot

[nnuut]

can anyone provide me with a link to where i can track short term us consumption of oil? thanks!
Try the EIA::D
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp

[James48843]

Note:

I haven't been writing as much as I would like lately, because I have been busy working on another project. I'm working at starting a new Ethanol related small business.

It entails sales, distribution and delivery.

My base data for my business plan shows it should be successful. There are a whole lot of hoops I am working through to get up and going.

I am looking for other Feds who might be interested in lending some brain power to the business plan and ideas. I have found in the past that putting together a team of people, putting out ideas, and then brain-storming better ways to do business has a strategic value far above anything I could possibly do on my own.

Is anyone interested in taking part in some "think-tank" activities?

I am looking particularly for experience / expertise in the following areas:

1. The fuel industry- gasoline stations. Buying and selling fuel.

2. How the IRS works for motor fuel tax information.

3. Logistics/trucking industry

4. HAZMAT regulations/ trucking regualtions


What I am thinking about here is for you to take a look at a business plan that I am developing, and offering suggestions/ideas/best practices, so that I can be prepared to implement soon.

You would only be able to see it/contribute AFTER HOURS AND FROM HOME, and I can't pay you anything.

Anyone feeling "Entrepreneurial"?

If so, send me a private message.

[James48843]

VeraSun Energy Corporation (NYSE: VSE), one of the nation's largest ethanol producers, today announced its financial results for the three months ended June 30, 2008

BROOKINGS, S.D., August 11, 2008 -- VeraSun Energy Corporation (NYSE: VSE), one of the nation's largest ethanol producers, today announced its financial results for the three months ended June 30, 2008. The Company increased revenues by 499% over the second quarter of 2007, to $1.015 billion, and generated earnings of $.15 per diluted share. EBITDA for Q2 2008 increased to $73 million as compared to $33 million for Q2 2007.
"VeraSun exceeded one billion dollars in revenues this quarter," said VeraSun CEO Donald L. Endres. "More importantly, our large scale allowed us to capture $73 million in EBITDA, more than double last year, in a challenging operating environment."
During the quarter, VeraSun completed the merger with US BioEnergy effective April 1, adding five facilities and 420 million gallons to operations. The company also completed construction at its Hankinson, North Dakota, Welcome, Minnesota and Hartley, Iowa biorefineries, with a combined capacity of 330 million gallons per year. Upon completion of two additional ethanol production facilities in Dyersville, Iowa and Janesville, Minnesota, the company expects to have a capacity of 1.64 billion gallons of ethanol through 16 production facilities by the end of 2008.

More at: http://www.ethanolmarket.com/PressReleaseVerasun081108

[CountryBoy]

Interesting article on ethanol.

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/101908/bus_346104092.shtml

CB

[James48843]

Thanks CB.

Cellulosic is a tough nut to crack. They've been working on it for a number of years- and still have a ways to go - but you gotta start someplace. They've done ok on small scale plants in labratories - but so far only one "commerical size" plant has been done- up in Canada. Some are saying we're five to ten years away from working out all the bugs to go big scale on Cellulosic ethanol production.

It really doesn't matter if it's five years, or ten years, or fifteen years. The infrastructer to carry Cellulosic is the same infrastructure as is needed for ethanol from either corn or sugarcane/sugarbeets.

Whoever is positioned in the marketplace five or ten years from now, is going to be the big player when Cellulosic ethanol becomes moe widely available.

Keep your eyes open - and again, thanks for the link.

[CountryBoy]

Thanks CB.

Cellulosic is a tough nut to crack. They've been working on it for a number of years- and still have a ways to go - but you gotta start someplace. They've done ok on small scale plants in labratories - but so far only one "commerical size" plant has been done- up in Canada. Some are saying we're five to ten years away from working out all the bugs to go big scale on Cellulosic ethanol production.

It really doesn't matter if it's five years, or ten years, or fifteen years. The infrastructer to carry Cellulosic is the same infrastructure as is needed for ethanol from either corn or sugarcane/sugarbeets.

Whoever is positioned in the marketplace five or ten years from now, is going to be the big player when Cellulosic ethanol becomes moe widely available.

Keep your eyes open - and again, thanks for the link.


Yeah James,

Cellulose is a tough one and they've been at it for a good decade, but as you said, when they do crack it, the same infrastructure can be used, so hopefully we'll be ahead of the game on that, instead of playing catch-up like we always seem to do.

You're more than welcome,

CB

[Show-me]

Ira Epstein & Company about ethanol.

iIz1wWmrlGs

[James48843]

Problems Plague U.S. Flex-Fuel Fleet
-Source: Washington Post, November 23, 2008

The federal government has invested billions of dollars over the past 16 years, building a fleet of 112,000 alternative-fuel vehicles to serve as a model for a national movement away from fossil fuels.

But the costly effort to put more workers into vehicles powered by ethanol and other fuel alternatives has been fraught with problems, many of them caused by buying vehicles before fuel stations were in place to support them, a Washington Post analysis of federal records shows.

"I call it the 'Field of Dreams' plan. If you buy them, they will come," said Wayne Corey, vehicle operations manager with the U.S. Postal Service. "It hasn't happened."

Under a mandate from Congress, federal agencies have gradually increased their fleets of alternative-fuel vehicles, a majority of them "flex-fuel," capable of running on either gasoline or ethanol-based E85 fuel. But many of the vehicles were sent to locations hundreds of miles from any alternative fueling sites, the analysis shows.

As a result, more than 92 percent of the fuel used in the government's alternative-fuel fleet continues to be standard gasoline. A 2005 law -- meant to align the vehicles with alternative-fuel stations -- now requires agencies to seek waivers when a vehicle is more than five miles or 15 minutes from an ethanol pump.

The latest generations of alternative vehicles have compounded the problem. Often, the vehicles come only with larger engines than the ones they replaced in the fleet. Consequently, the federal program -- known as EPAct -- has sometimes increased gasoline consumption and emission rates, the opposite of what was intended.

The EPAct program offers a cautionary tale as President-elect Barack Obama promises to kill dependence on foreign oil and revive the economy by retooling for the green revolution, experts say.

"This is an example of a law that has had a perversely different effect than what was originally intended,'' said Jim Kliesch, a senior engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, an nonprofit environmental organization based in Washington.

The Postal Service illustrates the problem. It estimates that its 37,000 newer alternative-fuel delivery vans, which can run on high-grade ethanol, consumed 1.5 million additional gallons of gasoline last fiscal year because of the larger engines.

The vehicles that would allow the agency to meet federal mandates were available in six- and eight-cylinder models -- not the four-cylinder variety it traditionally purchased. Alternative fuel was used less than 1 percent of the time in 2007-2008.

The Department of Energy defended its efforts with the program in a written statement. "The U.S. Government continues to promote diversification of alternative fuels and vehicles in order to reduce our dependence on oil and cut greenhouse gas emissions," spokeswoman Jennifer Scoggins wrote. "We work with private industry partners to develop and grow infrastructure of alternative fuels."

Scoggins pointed to a two-year growth spurt of E85 stations, which dispense fuel that is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Since 2006, ethanol stations have increased from 481 to 1,689 nationally, but most are in the Midwest. Station owners face a vexing challenge: how to compete with more than 160,000 gasoline stations located on nearly every street corner, especially as gas prices drop.


A New Challenge
In 1992, just after the Persian Gulf War, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, hoping to harness the government's buying power to spark a green vehicle revolution. Agencies were required to buy alternative-fuel vehicles for 75 percent of their light-duty fleet: cars, trucks and vans that weigh less than 8,500 pounds. The ultimate goal was to give automakers incentives to produce more fuel-efficient cars.

But EPAct had a huge loophole: Agencies were required to buy alternative-fuel vehicles but did not have to run them on alternative fuel.
"We started out with a plan to mandate use, but then we pulled back. There wasn't the political support or will to do it," said former representative Philip P. Sharp (D-Ind.), who sponsored EPAct and authored a separate bill that contributed to the expansion of flex-fuel fleets.

Because alternative-fuel use was not mandated, large numbers of vehicles that could run on various fuels -- propane, compressed natural gas and E85 -- have popped up in places where none of those fuels are available. The Post analysis shows that at least 2,341 flex-fuel vehicles were placed in seven states with no E85 stations, and in Puerto Rico, where the situation is the same.

Hawaii has the greatest share, with more than 1,000 flex-fuel vehicles purchased or leased by various agencies, mostly military. The U.S. Navy tops the list.

The Navy has more than 670 flex-fuel vehicles on three islands. Not one of the sedans, sport-utility vehicles or trucks has ever operated on E85.
"If an alternative-fuel vehicle is available, we are mandated to buy it. We have no choice," said Steve Mortimer, a manager in Hawaii who helps set Navy policy on vehicles and equipment. "The [auto] manufacturers don't have to supply the fuel. In Hawaii, we just have unleaded and diesel and a little bit of propane."

Mortimer and other Navy officials have invited potential fueling suppliers for site visits to encourage interest in building E85 stations. But there are many obstacles.

No ethanol-production facility exists in Hawaii, so the fuel would have to be shipped by tanker, increasing the carbon footprint of E85, a fuel that is already being criticized by some environmentalists because of pollution caused by many ethanol-production plants.
(MORE)

[James48843]

Big Cars

For years, federal agencies ignored EPAct. They fulfilled the 75 percent purchasing requirement only after 1999, when several environmental groups filed a lawsuit to force the buys.

When fleet managers searched for vehicles that would meet EPAct requirements, they found that the most affordable models were big flex-fuel sedans and SUVs. Automakers had bucked efforts to mass-produce alternative-fuel vehicles, believing that the fueling stations, including E85, should be in place before they made assembly-line changes.

To persuade automakers to ramp up production, Congress in 1988 struck a deal. For each flex-fuel vehicle produced, automakers would win lucrative credits to help them achieve fuel-efficiency mandates.

Under the system, a flex-fuel vehicle might achieve 16 miles per gallon, for example, but with the credits an average of 24 mpg could be claimed. The formula assumed the vehicles would run on alternative fuel half the time.

Manufacturers liked flex-fuel models, because they cost only about $50 more per vehicle to produce. To prevent corrosion from the alcohol-based fuel, they used a specially lined tank and stainless-steel fuel lines instead of aluminum.

Manufacturers started producing them in their best-selling models: large sedans and SUVs. For agencies, purchasing the large fuel-guzzling vehicles proved problematic.

"They were bigger, they ran on gas, and they weren't fuel-efficient,'' said Mark Gaffigan, director of natural resources and environment with the Government Accountability Office, which completed a program audit last month. "If they had just bought regular vehicles that were more fuel-efficient, they would be better off."

(Last year, Congress moved to phase out the flex-fuel credits by 2020, because several studies verified that the larger vehicles had led to increased gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.)

Four years after granting the flex-fuel credits, Congress passed EPAct, giving automakers a guaranteed market. In 1992, Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) said EPAct would "solve the chicken-and-the-egg proposition with respect to alternative fuels," and President George H.W. Bush said it would "steadily increase U.S. energy security."

Seven years later, a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Bluewater Network and the Sierra Club tried to force more progress by making agencies comply with the law.

"We did not know there was no intent to run them on the alternative fuels or that the vehicles sometimes got lower gas mileage,'' said Jay Tutchton, a lawyer who worked for Earthjustice, a law firm that represented the groups. "They could have done better, in many cases, if they'd stuck with smaller vehicles that ran on regular gasoline."

Waivers Abound
Another shortcoming of EPAct was that it did not require fleet managers to track vehicle locations. The fleet grew, but no one knew how it was taking shape.

This discouraged private investment in fueling stations because industry needed better data.

"I have to be able to justify it economically. I need a business plan that shows it's worth the investment for my costs of getting the fuel there and putting in a station. The best data every time is where the federal fleet is located," said Curtis Donaldson, president of Texas-based CleanFuel USA, which builds propane and E85 stations.

To remedy this, legislation passed in 2005 requires agencies to seek an exemption or waiver from the Energy Department for each flex-fuel vehicle it owns or leases that is more than five miles or 15 minutes from the closest ethanol station. (Agencies also can seek exemptions if E85 costs at least 15 percent more than standard gasoline. No such waivers have been requested this fiscal year.)

Sixty-one percent of the fleet -- more than 67,000 vehicles -- received waivers for 2008-2009, the second year data were reported.

Five percent of the exemptions are in the Washington region. In Maryland and Virginia, nearly 1,000 exemptions were granted, with vehicles from the Postal Service, Army, Navy and Department of Agriculture leading the way. As in many other East Coast areas where E85 stations are rare, most vehicles qualified on the basis of being too far from a pump.

The waivers did offer a valuable tool: Zip code locations for each exempted vehicle that could be fed into an Energy Department database and shared with companies that build fuel stations.

The data, however, do not identify the location of the other 39 percent of the flex-fuel fleet for which it is a struggle to find E85, an important problem to solve because these vehicles use the fuel 8 percent of the time.

It is also unclear whether vehicles granted waivers are truly too far from the E85 stations to use them. The Post analysis, comparing locations of exempted vehicles with E85 fueling stations, shows that 13 percent of the vehicles are within five miles of publicly available ethanol pumps.

In the District, 50 of the 54 exemptions are for vehicles that are less than five miles from an E85 supplier, The Post found.

Some exempted vehicles are in the Midwest, where E85 stations are abundant, ethanol prices are lower than national averages for ethanol, and traffic is comparatively light.

In Omaha, 43 exempted vehicles owned by the Army, Postal Service and Department of Veterans Affairs are within five miles of a Cubby's food store, Fantasy's Food-N-Fuel or Bucky's Express -- all with E85 pumps.

In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 20 flex-fuel vehicles owned by the Postal Service, the General Services Administration and the Department of Homeland Security won exemptions, although they are within five miles of an ethanol pump.

And in Manhattan, Kan., the Army and the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior have 18 vehicles within five miles of one E85 station at the Farmers Cooperative Association.

"We put the station in thinking that if government employees had the vehicles, they were supposed to use ethanol,'' said Darin Marti, general manager of the Farmers Cooperative. "It's not hard to find us. You can use a GPS unit, and it will take you right to us. And we have big signs along the highway."

Energy Department officials said some agencies may have secured waivers because of other factors, including stations that do not accept a government credit card or that have unreliable E85 supplies. In urban areas such as Washington, exemptions were typically granted because traffic congestion made even a two- or three-mile drive costly and time-consuming.

The GAO said its analysis showed that future improvements will rely on better data. And it is time for government to reassess the original vision for the fleet, the agency said.

"It can be a role model, a leader," said Gaffigan, of the GAO. "And it should."

Editors Note: While the preceding article is factually correct, the NEVC has successfully worked with a number of regional offices of the USPS, Dept. of Defense, and General Services Administration to locate FFVs in areas where fueling infrastructure exists. Certainaly much can be done to increase the use of E85 in FFVs, but it should be noted that some federal agencies, (particularly regional offices) have been successful in placement of FFVs in areas with fuel.



Source: National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition

To find E85 stations near you- see http://e85prices.com

Are you using E85 in a government GSA vehicle? Did you know you were supposed to if it is available and within five miles?

[James48843]

Note: GM annouced a 1.4 liter turbo engine for the 2010 model year, capable of running on E85.

That should be the combination that becomes very successful in the years ahead.

In December 2008, GM added the Chevy Malibu and the Pontiac G6 as vehicles with flex-fuel engines available.

Station count as of December 31, 2008:

There are 1920 stations nationwide now carrying E85, up from just 1256 a year ago. Slowly but surely, we're making progress.

http://e85prices.com

[Silverbird]

Ha, only one E85 station in Virginia, the one run by Citgo in Navy Annex. The closest one in Maryland to the center of Government is in Rockville. This is not a serious Government mandate, this is a joke. Driving out to Rockville or Navy Annex from the government buildings in the District just to get gas is not a serious proposition. It'll take you more than 20 minutes even if you discount the bloody traffic and we are talking about 5 miles only if you are a crow.

[CountryBoy]

First start up cellulose ethanol demonstration plant starts up in Louisiana.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2009-01-08-cellulosic-waste-ethanol_N.htm

CB

[HappyGoLucky]

I have a "flex fuel" SUV and that is a JOKE! There's no where near me to purchase it!!

[CountryBoy]

I have a "flex fuel" SUV and that is a JOKE! There's no where near me to purchase it!!

Sure Happy, just about every Alt. fuel has some major drawback, infrastructure being one of the major ones. It'll take years for us to change over from gasoline to an Alt fuel for vehicles and transporting and disitribution, nationally, are the 2 biggies. But ya gotta start somewhere and the automotive industry would be remiss if they didn't start planning and developing these vehicles.

When I purchase my next PU, hopefully in about 10 years, :D I'll look a the flex fuel just for the flexibility of running on 2 different fuels. But a lot can change in 10 years.

CB

[James48843]

I have a "flex fuel" SUV and that is a JOKE! There's no where near me to purchase it!!


Nine stations so far in Alabama.
http://e85prices.com/alabama.html

Part of the problem in the southern states is, unlike most of the northern/midwest states, the southern states generally have not followed environmental law trends, requiring old single-wall tanks to be replaced with newer double-wall underground tanks. Those newer double wall tanks cost less to convert over to E85.

Anyway, E85 infrastructer has to be built out- more terminals for distribution purposes, and more stations encouraged to convert. Georgia, for example, has grown from 1 station , to 22 stations in the last six months.

Of course, $1.50 gasoline doesn't help demand for E85. Perhaps now that gas is climbing again, demand will pick up for E85 again.

[James48843]

Ha, only one E85 station in Virginia, the one run by Citgo in Navy Annex. The closest one in Maryland to the center of Government is in Rockville. This is not a serious Government mandate, this is a joke. Driving out to Rockville or Navy Annex from the government buildings in the District just to get gas is not a serious proposition. It'll take you more than 20 minutes even if you discount the bloody traffic and we are talking about 5 miles only if you are a crow.



E85 IS available within DC:


IN D.C.:

(for GSA Cars:)
DC Fleet Management Admin. Fueling Location
1835 W Virginia Ave., NE
Washington, DC 20002

Bolling Air Force Base
Bolling Air Force Base
Washington, DC 20032


(For Public )
Georgetown Chevron
2450 Wisconsin Ave
Washington, DC 20007
202-337-6277


Also here are all E85 Pumps in Virginia

NEX Quarters K
801 South Joyce Street
Arlington, VA 22204
703-979-3891
ONLY E85 available to the public, not gasoline. Private station



Stop In Food Stores (Shell)
1220 Seminole Trail (US-29)
Charlottesville, VA 22901
434-973-1005





OTHER VA Stations:


Langley Research Center
Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23681
757-864-3676
Private facility. No public access.

Naval Shipyard

Portsmouth, VA 23701

Military use only, no public access.

Office of Fleet Management Services
2400 W Leigh St.
Richmond, VA 23220
804-225-4490
Private facility. No public access.

AAFES Post Exchange Defense Supply Ctr
8000 Jefferson Davis Hwy
Richmond, VA 22134

Access restricted to those who have DSCR security clearance.


Maryland is a bit better- now with 15 locations, if you include GSA vehicle only locations.


Andrews Air Force Base

Andrews, AFB, MD 20762

Government Fleet Vehicle use only.

Quik-Mart Citgo Parole
2042 West St.
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-571-9676


Quik-Mart Citgo Parole
2042 West Street
Annapolis, MD 21041
410-571-9676
Open M-F 5:30 am -9 pm. Sat 7 am
- 9 pm.

Baltimore State Office Center
300 W Preston St.
Baltimore, MD 21201

Private facility. No public access.

City of Baltimore
420 North Front St.
Baltimore, MD 21202

City government facility, not open to the public.

National Institute of Health
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20892

Government Fleet Vehicle use only!

Fredericktown Chevron
1395 W Patrick Street
Frederick, MD 21702
301-694-6277


Montgomery County Agencies-Fleet Mgmt Services
16640 Crabbs Branch Way
Gaithersburg, MD 20855
240-777-5730
Public credit card access at all times!

Germantown W Express
20510 Frederick Road
Germantown, MD 20876
301-353-8288


Town Center Chevron
12301 Middlebrook Road
Germantown, MD 20874
301-972-5122


Goddard Space Flight Center
Bld 27 Soil Conservation Rd
Greenbelt, MD 20771
301-286-6225
Private facility. No public access.

County Facilities
16640 Crabbs Branch Way
Rockville, MD 20855
240-777-5730
Open to the public. *Call to request public use waiver

Congressional Plaza Sunoco
1469 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
301-770-7240


Tacoma Park Texaco
6400 New Hampshire Avenue
Tacoma Park, MD 20912
301-270-7119


Social Security Administration
6401 Security Boulevard
Woodlawn, MD 21235

Government Fleet Vehicle use only.

More on the way in Virginia- expect another 10 stations within the next four to six months, currently in the permittting process.

[James48843]

And as of this morning, there are 1926 stations nationwide already selling E85. A year ago there were barely over a thousand.


5394


If you want E85, go ask your local gas station when they expect to start carrying it. It will be the public asking that will convince them to make an investment to start carrying it.

[HappyGoLucky]

Hopefully, E85 will continue to pick up steam. It would be great to have the choice. The rate of additions is impressive!

[James48843]

Hopefully, E85 will continue to pick up steam. It would be great to have the choice. The rate of additions is impressive!

Unfortunately, at $1.50/gal, gasoline is making it harder to convince people we need the change and the option. When E85 is consistently 20% cheaper than gasoline, people will buy it. My Dodge Stratus gets about 12% fewer MPG on E85 than gasoline, so anything close to that price difference, and I am happy.

But the rate of addition would be a lot more if gas climbs back upward again, and ethanol becomes much more price competitive.

When you have a flex-fuel vehicle, you have a choice on which fuel to buy. That's the great advantage.

Note- 1900+ is good, but it's not great. There are about 170,000 gasoline stations across the U.S. So we're just a tad over 1% of them carrying E85.

if 10% of them would carry it, our country would be in a much better place, from a National Security standpoint.

We'll get there. It just takes time, and consumer demand.

And lots of flex-fuel cars out there ready to use it, a distribution system built to better distribute it, and more knowledge by the public of the benefits of running E85.

GM, Ford, both say 50% of new fleet E85 capable by 2012.

[rawiron1]

Why is it that our jungle friends in Brazil can function just fine on the "alcohol standard" but all these rich, over educated, know-it-all White boys up here in Amerika can't figure out how to do it? Maybe we are not smarter than everyone else like we think we are.

Jason

[James48843]

Why is it that our jungle friends in Brazil can function just fine on the "alcohol standard" but all these rich, over educated, know-it-all White boys up here in Amerika can't figure out how to do it? Maybe we are not smarter than everyone else like we think we are.

Jason

Brazil got caught flat-footed in the oil embargo of 1973.

The government there decided they would never let foreign oil control their country's economic future again. So they made it a law that they would research, and develop ethanol as a prime fuel.

The Brazilian National Alcohol Program, or Proalcool, was created on November 14th, 1975, by Decree No. 76.953, with the goal of fostering alcohol production, in order to meet the needs of both the Brazilian domestic market and foreign markets, as well as to comply with government policy for automobile fuels.

In 1975 Brazil implemented four policies as part of that decree to stimulate ethanol production.


1) It required Petrobras, its major oil company, to purchase a required amount of ethanol.
2) It provided $4.9 billion of low-interest loans to stimulate ethanol production.
3) It provided subsides so that ethanol’s pump price was 41 percent lower than the price of gasoline.
4) It required that all fuels be blended with a minimum of 22 percent ethanol (E22).




In 2000, Brazil deregulated the ethanol market and removed is subsidies. However, depending on market conditions, all fuels are required to be blended with from 20 to 25 percent ethanol.


Flex-fuel vehicles were introduced in 2003. These vehicles can run on straight ethanol, straight gasoline or a blend of the two. Today more than 70 percent of the new cars sold in Brazil are flex-fuel.

To receive an operating license, all fueling stations must provide an ethanol or ethanol-blend pump.


History: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/hof/HofJune07.html

Today, in the U.S., there is no government decree that all stations must have an ethanol pump. IN fact, about 1900 of the 170,000 stations in the U.S. sell E85. Today, just about 10% of vehicles sold in the U.S. are flex-fuel. GM has stated it will reach 50% flex-fuel cars by 2012.

So how do you convince Congress to require local gas stations to carry it? (First, there is the jurisdiction problem. Does Congress has jurisdiction to mandate a local gas station to carry ethanol? Then, there is the subsidy problem. Even with the current 45 cent ethanol subsidy blender's credit, it still is only about a 20% subsidy. Ethanol is now price competitive with gasoline, or at least it was when gasoline is $2 a gallon. When it is $1.49 a gallon, it's too hard to compete without help).

Yes, we need a $1 a gallon gasoline tax on top of current taxes, with the proceeds going to alternate-fuel conversion for gas stations, and to help educate consumers on the real cost of imported foreign terrorist gasoline, so they can purchase flex-fuel cars, and we can break our addiction to foreign oil.

BY the way- while this year there are 25 models of GM vehicles that are available as flex-fuel, there is only one model of Toyota- that's the big 5.7 liter Toyota pickup truck. http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/flexfuelvehicles.php

And there are NO Hondas certified for flex-fuel.

If it were me, I would mandate ALL new cars and trucks sold MUST be flex-fuel, or other alternative fuel.

[Show-me]

Simple answer, Brazil has tons of perfect climate and soil for sugar cane farms and a much lower use of fuel than us. Sugar can is much, much, more efficient for the production of alcohol which is made from sugar.

[budnipper1]

The United States produces and consumes more ethanol fuel than any
other country in the world.

The production of fuel ethanol from corn in the United States is
controversial for a few reasons. Production of ethanol from corn is 5 to 6
times less efficient than producing it from sugarcane. Ethanol production
from corn is highly dependent upon subsidies and it consumes a food crop to
produce fuel. The subsidies paid to fuel blenders and ethanol refineries
have often been cited as the reason for driving up the price of corn, and in
farmers planting more corn and the conversion of considerable land to corn
(maize) production which generally consumes more fertilizers and pesticides
than many other land uses. This is at odds with the subsidies actually paid
directly to farmers that are designed to take corn land out of production
and pay farmers to plant grass and idle the land, often in conjunction with
soil conservation programs, in an attempt to boost corn prices. Recent
developments with cellulosic ethanol production and commercialization may
allay some of these concerns. A theoretically much more efficient way of
ethanol production has been suggested to use sugar beets which make about
the same amount of ethanol as corn without using the corn food crop
especially since sugar beets can grow in less tropical conditions than sugar cane.

On October 7th, 2008 the first "biofuels corridor" was officially opened
along I-65, a major interstate highway in the central United States.
Stretching from northern Indiana to southern Alabama, this corridor
consisting of more than 200 individual fueling stations makes it possible to
drive a flex-fueled vehicle from Lake Michigan to the Gulf of Mexico without
being further than a quarter tank worth of fuel from an E85 pump.

Brasil began exporting ethanol to the U.S. in 2004 and exported 188.8
million gallons representing 44.3% of U.S. ethanol imports in 2007. The
remaining imports that year came from Canada and China.

Brazilian flex fuel vehicles can operate with ethanol mixtures up to E100,
which is hydrous ethanol (alcohol with up to 4% water), which causes vapor
pressure to drop faster as compared to E85 vehicles, and as a result,
Brazilian flex vehicles are built with a small secondary gasoline reservoir
located near the engine to avoid starting problems in cold weather. The cold
start with pure gasoline is particularly necessary for users of Brazil's
southern and central regions, where temperatures normally drop below 15 °
Celsius (59 °F) during the winter. An improved flex motor generation that
will be launched in 2009 will eliminate the need for this secondary gas
storage tank.

Engine cold start during the winter
High ethanol blends present a problem to achieve enough vapor pressure for
the fuel to evaporate and spark the ignition during cold weather. When vapor
pressure is below 45 kPa starting a cold engine becomes difficult. In order
to avoid this problem at temperatures below 11 ° Celsius (59 °F), and to
reduce ethanol higher emissions during cold weather, both the US and the
European markets adopted E85 as the maximum blend to be used in their
flexible fuel vehicles, and they are optimized to run at such blend. At
places with harsh cold weather, the ethanol blend in the US has a seasonal
reduction to E70 for these very cold regions, though it is still sold as E85.

5402

[James48843]

... A theoretically much more efficient way of
ethanol production has been suggested to use sugar beets which make about
the same amount of ethanol as corn without using the corn food crop
especially since sugar beets can grow in less tropical conditions than sugar cane.

From the USDA:

"Factors impacting sugar to ethanol viability

Corn is currently the least-cost feedstock available for ethanol production. Ethanol from sugarcane or sugar beet feedstocks costs twice as much. USDA’s recent sugar/ethanol report provides these comparative production costs.

High oil prices have spurred interest in ethanol, to put it mildly. But for how long? (Prices were dropping at press deadline in September.)

With ethanol prices hovering near $4 a gallon this summer, the USDA report concludes that it would be profitable to produce ethanol from sugar and sugar byproducts. However, if ethanol prices were to drop below $2.35 a gallon, it would not be profitable to use raw or refined sugar as a feedstock. Based on current futures prices, the price of ethanol is expected to drop.

Alternative market prices for sugar

As can be seen above, it is far more costly to convert U.S. refined sugar to ethanol than to convert corn. One reason is that recent domestic sugar prices make it more profitable to convert sugarcane and sugar beets to sugar than to convert it to ethanol. As Jose Alvarez, vice president of operations for the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, said: “It’s simple economics. Refined sugar sells at about 18 cents a pound, and the experts tell us ethanol from sugar would be close to 10 cents.” (Florida Sun-Sentinel, May 31, 2006.)

U.S. policy has long been to protect domestic producers from unstable world prices, where sugar is sold below the cost of production for most countries (often called the “dump” price). Imports are limited to keep domestic prices stable, with the current price support level at 18 cents per pound. Refined sugar is currently a few cents above that, and unlikely to ever fall much below the support price to avoid forfeitures to the government under the sugar loan program.

When domestic sugar prices were very low a few years ago and some sugar was forfeited to the government, alternate uses for surplus sugar were explored. The Minnesota Energy Cooperative experimented with incorporating beet sugar with corn in a drymilling ethanol plant. They found some synergy in combining the two into their fermentation tanks — increasing ethanol production and decreasing the fermentation time, and allowing them to produce an additional 442,800 gallons of ethanol."


More: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/sep06/ethanol.htm

and
http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/EthanolSugarFeasibilityReport3.pdf

[James48843]

The Grocery Manufacturer's Association, and the Poultry Grower's Association, are the one who started the "food vs. fuel" myth, in order to jack up prices and profits of large food corporations.

http://www.growthenergy.org/foodvsfuel/Growth_Energy.pdf

and video:

http://www.growthenergy.org/about/video.asp


Our U.S. Department of Energy confirms there are more myths than facts being pushed by the Grocery Manufacturer's Associaton:

http://www.energy.gov/media/BiofuelsMythVFact.pdf

[James48843]

A good series of videos, from Public Television, about the production of ethanol, GM's flex-fuel vehicles, and the growth of E85 across the nation. Included is a section on how ethanol by-products, called "Dried Distillers Grain", is used as a feed source for cattle. Hence, food AND fuel are produced in the process. It's not an "OR" proposition, it's an "AND" benefit.

"The Yellow Brick Road"

http://www.autolinedetroit.tv/show/1131?play

[budnipper1]

The Grocery Manufacturer's Association, and the Poultry Grower's Association, are the one who started the "food vs. fuel" myth, in order to jack up prices and profits of large food corporations.

http://www.growthenergy.org/foodvsfuel/Growth_Energy.pdf

and video:

http://www.growthenergy.org/about/video.asp
Our U.S. Department of Energy confirms there are more myths than facts being pushed by the Grocery Manufacturer's Associaton:
http://www.energy.gov/media/BiofuelsMythVFact.pdf

Criticism and controversy

According to an April 2008 World Bank report, biofuels have caused world food prices to increase by 75-percent. In 2007, biofuels consumed one third of America's corn (maize) harvest. Filling up one large vehicle fuel tank one time with 100% ethanol uses enough corn to feed one person for a year. Thirty million tons of U.S. corn going to ethanol in 2007 greatly reduces the world's overall supply of grain. However, 31% of the corn put into the process comes out as distiller's grain, or DDGS, which is very high in protein, and is used to feed livestock.

Jean Ziegler, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, called for a five-year moratorium on biofuel production to halt the increasing catastrophe for the poor. He proclaimed that the rising practice of converting food crops into biofuel is "A Crime Against Humanity," saying it is creating food shortages and price jumps that cause millions of poor people to go hungry.

The European Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development warns that “the current push to expand the use of biofuels is creating unsustainable tensions that will disrupt markets without generating significant environmental benefits.

When all 200 American ethanol subsidies are considered, they cost about $7 billion USD per year (equal to roughly $1.90 USD total for each a gallon of ethanol). When the price of one agricultural commodity increases, farmers are motivated to quickly shift finite land and water resources to it, away from traditional food crops.

The 2007-12-19 U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires American “fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. This is nearly a fivefold increase over current levels.”

When cellulosic ethanol is produced from feedstock like switchgrass and sawgrass, the nutrients required to grow the cellulose are removed and cannot decay and replenish the soil. The soil is of poorer quality, and unsustainable soil erosion occurs.

Ethanol production from corn consumes large quantities of unsustainable petroleum and natural gas. Even with the most-optimistic energy return on investment claims, in order to use 100% solar energy to grow corn and produce ethanol (fueling farm-and-transportation machinery with ethanol, distilling with heat from burning crop residues, using no fossil fuels), the consumption of ethanol to replace current U.S. petroleum use alone would require about 75% of all cultivated land on the face of the Earth, with no ethanol for other countries, or sufficient food for humans and animals.

If anaerobic digestion technology is used coupled with the new high efficiency vehicles being built by VW (eg Passat Ecofuel), one can travel around 50% more distance for the same waste (or energy crop) compared to converting that waste into a synthetic diesel. This arises because AD is essentially a low energy natural process whereas Biomass to Liquids technologies require huge energy input to convert molecules. Stockholm for example is aiming to go to 100% biomethane for buses within 5 years, replacing all the bioethanol buses that are now running.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel#Efficiency_of_common_crops

5408

[James48843]

Criticism and controversy

According to an April 2008 World Bank report, biofuels have caused world food prices to increase by 75-percent.

Wrong. The USDA testified in May of this year, (when corn prices were at $8 a bushel) that biofuels accounted from less than a 3% rise in the cost of food in the period 2004 to 2007.

Source: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retrievecontent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2008%2F05%2F0130.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=TRANSCRIPTS_SPEECHES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=TRANSCRIPT (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/%21ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retrievecontent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2008%2F05%2F0130.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=TRANSCRIPTS_SPEECHES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=TRANSCRIPT)

An extract:

" On the international level, the President's Council of Economic Advisors estimates that only 3 percent of the more than 40 percent increase we have seen in world food prices this year is due to the increased demand on corn for ethanol. Here in the U.S., we're fortunate to be dealing with a much smaller scale of food price increases. As Joe's slides will show you, last year our overall food prices were up 4 percent. That's about 1 1/2 percent higher than the average annual increase of 2 1/2 percent that we've been seeing since 1990.
This year we're expecting consumer prices to increase about 5 percent over last year's levels.
United States and other nations around the world are developing biofuels to cut their reliance on oil as a transportation fuel, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to create new opportunities in agriculture. The policy choices we've made on biofuels will deliver long-term benefits. But we also have to recognize that there may be some short-term costs or dislocations involved, and we have to consider those costs in the light of the ultimate benefits that we hope to secure for the American people.
Those benefits are substantial, and some have already been secured. According to the International Energy Agency, the biofuels production that has been available to the United States and European markets over the last three years has cut the consumption of crude oil by one million barrels a day. At today's prices, that's a savings of more than $120 million per day.
Ethanol also brings environmental benefits. It gives us cleaner air by cutting tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons that can cause ozone and smog. It also displaces benzene and other toxic ingredients of gasoline that would otherwise be burned at a greater rate. And by replacing MTBE as the blending agent of choice in gasoline, it has relieved us of water quality problems associated with MTBE while still boosting oxygen and octane contents of gasoline."



When all 200 American ethanol subsidies are considered, they cost about $7 billion USD per year (equal to roughly $1.90 USD total for each a gallon of ethanol).Considerably less than the subsidies given to domestic oil corporations.

Consider this:

American oil and gas industry receives anywhere between $15 billion and $35 billion a year in subsidies from taxpayers.

Why such a large margin of error? The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with:


Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead
Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Construction and protection of the nation's highway system
Allowing the industry to pollute - what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people's lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)

While it's easy to get bent out of shape that the petroleum industry "probably has larger tax incentives relative to its size than any other industry in the country", according to Donald Lubick, the U.S. Department of Treasury's former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, remember that subsidies are important across all sectors of the energy industry.

For instance, nuclear power wouldn't be viable without subsidies - most governments pay between 60 and 90 percent of the cost of construction of new plants.

Solar wouldn't be what it's become without significant German, Californian, U.S. federal and other incentives. Ethanol and biodiesel in the U.S. enjoy large subsidies (details, if interested, here (http://www.earthtrack.net/earthtrack/library/biofuels_subsidies_us.pdf)), but let's resist getting into the rat-hole of agricultural industry subsidies.


Source: http://cleantech.com/news/node/554

And, ethanol added to gasoline reduces the price for a gallon of gasoline, from 20 to 35 cents per gallon for the average consumer in 2008, according to the U.S. Department of Energy: http://www.energy.gov/news/6335.htm


Source: http://www.flexiblefuelvehicleclub.org/whyidrive.asp

[Show-me]

Isn't the USDA promoting agriculture like OPEC promoting oil. Not exactly impartial.

[Show-me]

If corn ethanol is so great, why is it subsidized so much and oil companies allowed use huge tax credits? Because it is not efficient.

[James48843]

If corn ethanol is so great, why is it subsidized so much and oil companies allowed use huge tax credits? Because it is not efficient.

Because the oil industry lobby has carved out huge tax breaks for itself over the years, and because in the US we subsidize ALL forms of energy.

Oil is subsidized.

the Coal industry is subsidized.

the natural gas industry is subsidized.

the Nuclear industry is subsidized.

Solar is subsidized.

Wind power is subsidized.

And yes, ethanol receives some subsidies- but when you think about it, ethanol's subsidies to grow and utilize the land, cost the taxpayer LESS than subsidizing farmers NOT to grow anything on it.

Welcome to America, land where everyone wants cheap energy, and will spend other people's money in order to get it.

[Show-me]

Take one subsidized form of energy and replace it for another. Not making me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Here is a good one, now I have to waste county tax money every time it rains because the farmer on my gravel road farms right up to the ditch and when it rains his top soil fills the ditch and makes it run across the road washing it out.

Farmers around here are not putting fert. on the fields because the K and N prices are still too high because they bought it at the high. Look for lower yield next year.

How do we explain the chicken producers closing up shop because of high feed prices?

[James48843]

...How do we explain the chicken producers closing up shop because of high feed prices?

They aren't closing because of the price of chicken feed. Chicken feed costs now are ....chicken feed. With corn at $4 a bushel, chicken feed is cheap.

Here is the real reason the massive chicken producer corporations are closing plants- they are trying to break Union organizing-

From: http://www.wjbf.com/jbf/news/state_regional/south_carolina/article/300_suspected_illegal_immigrants_caught_in_sc_chic ken_plant_raid/7396/

300 Suspected Illegal Immigrants Caught In SC Chicken Plant Raid

GREENVILLE, S.C. (AP) - Federal authorities say more than 58 people suspected of being illegal immigrants were busted in a massive raid on a Greenville chicken processing plant that has been under investigation for months.
In all, some 300 people are being detained following the Tuesday raid at the House of Raeford plant. Authorities are checking fingerprints and releasing people in the country legally. They said those checks will take place all day.
Officials said 58 suspected illegal immigrants will not be held because of health or child care reasons. They still must face charges in court.
House of Raeford has eight plants in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana and Michigan. A woman who answered the phone at the company’s North Carolina headquarters said there was no immediate comment.


and this one:

from: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2825845020070828

Immigration raids Koch Foods Ohio chicken plant

Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:56pm EDT



http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20070828&t=2&i=1366881&w=192&r=2007-08-28T171443Z_01_N28258450_RTRUKOP_0_PICTURE0 (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:launchArticleSlideshow%28%29;)
(http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:launchArticleSlideshow%28%29;)
By Andrea Hopkins

CINCINNATI (Reuters) - Hundreds of U.S. immigration agents raided the Koch Foods Inc. chicken plant in Fairfield, Ohio, and arrested more than 160 employees as part of a criminal operation against illegal immigrants, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said on Tuesday.

"As of 2:45 p.m. (EDT) more than 180 Koch employees have been identified for further questioning and more than 160 have been administratively arrested for immigration violations," ICE special agent in charge Brian Moskowitz told a news conference in Cincinnati.

-----------------------


If you don't know who "Koch Foods" is, it is a subsidiary of Koch Industries- one of the largest private corporations in the United States, and the founder and chief sponsor of a group called "Americans for Prosperity", one of the largest anti-Union groups in the country.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/882/

"David Koch, the founder of Americans for Prosperity, is a part owner of Koch industries a privately-owned compnay that seems to dabble in just about anything from mining and energy to ranching and oil. It doesn't publicize its financial information, but it is believed to be among the largest privatey-owned companies in the country with annual revenues of $25 billion.

But there are some numbers that the Koch family can't hide. According to OpenSecrets.org, a website that publishes publicly available data on campaign contributions – large donors included – the Koch family, through its company and various members of its households gave well over one-half million dollars to the Republican Party and various GOP candidates, including tens of thousands of dollars to the Bush campaign between 2000 and 2004.

Koch Industries also gave Bush over $35,000 bewteen 1993-1999 for his gubenatorial campaigns and his candidacy for the GOP nomination while benefiting from loopholes in Texas environmental laws. These loopholes allowed the company to avoid having to reduce pollution emissions in some of its Texas facilites or to pay fines aimed at polluters by Texas law, as information from the Public Research Works and Center for Responsive Politics shows (http://www.txpeer.org/Bush/Polluters_Bet_On_Bush.html).


The company's support for Bush and the GOP also garnered it a lucrative federal oil contract in 2002, which was widely understood as having derived directly from its patronage of the Republicans.

Koch Industries also provided millions in startup funding for right-wing think tanks and lobbying groups like the Cato Institute, which has described Social Security as a "cancer," and Citizens for a Sound Economy, which funnels millions into right-wing campaign coffers every year. David Koch and other directors of Americans for Prosperity have worked at or sat on the boards of both of those far-right organizations.


++++++++++++++++++
Koch, along with other big players in the United Poultry Grower's Association (Pilgram's Pride), are suspected of trying to subvert U.S. labor laws by hiring illegals to do chicken processing, and avoid and break Unions at all costs. Illegals won't vote for a Union, and Koch keeps it's factory lines filled with people who will vote against Unions just to keep their $8 an hour, 12 hour day jobs.

This is the action that started Koch to try and break it up-
http://www.hispanictips.com/2005/07/30/latino-workers-seek-a-union-in-poultry-plant-tennessee/

Latino Workers Seek a Union in Poultry Plant. Tennessee


Seven Hundred and Fifty Poultry workers at two Koch Foods Plants have filed a petition for a Union Election in Morristown, Tennessee. Workers have been organizing for over a month despite intimidation and racism within the community. Most of the poultry workers in this area are Latino. On Sunday, local residents rallied in support of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. Over 200 workers and community members stood in solidarity.
******

Other members of the Poultry Producer's Association typically close a plant as soon as they hear of any Union organizing going on there.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/689/

Poultry Giants Fight Organizers

By David Moberg (http://www.inthesetimes.com/community/profile/11)

http://www.inthesetimes.com/global/phpthumb/phpThumb.php?src=/images/28/06/poultry.jpg&w=310
After their 30-minute lunch break,
workers Gladys Curbis (left), 57, and
Olga Estaras, 27, prepare to work in
the deboning line.

Perry, Georgia—For 10 years Dorothy McKenzie has worked in poultry processing factories in the South. She knows why unions are crucial in the industry. Two years ago she was working as many as 12 hours a day hanging 40 chickens a minute on the dissasembly line at a plant owned by Cagle’s Inc. Workers could go to the bathroom just once outside their two scheduled breaks, and the repetitive work caused constant pain in their hands and arms. When they complained to management, supervisors told them to drink less water and offered to rotate jobs, as long as they still hung chickens. McKenzie protested that such limited rotation provided no relief, and she and seven coworkers were fired for insubordination.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


And here is a listing of the corporate "Who's Who" who are lobbying against ethanol.
Big business, who all want cheap labor.


http://www.foodbeforefuel.org/pressroom/releases/food-fuel-campaign-launches-goal-encouraging-congress-revisit-food-fuel-policies

American Bakers Association
American Beverage Association
American Conservative Union
American Frozen Food Institute
American Meat Institute
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Earth Policy Institute
Environmental Working Group
Food For All
Grocery Manufacturers Association
International Foodservice Distributors Association
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
National Chicken Council
National Council of Chain Restaurants
National Restaurant Association
National Retail Federation
National Turkey Federation
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
Popeye’s Chicken & Biscuits
Snack Food Association
The Hispanic Institute
Tortilla Industry Association
Women Impacting Public Policy

[alevin]

As much as I believe alternative energy development is a longrange MUST, starting yesterday, I also believe ethanol has a looong ways to go before it really cuts the mustard. I had my fuel pump go out on me without warning last summer mid-town after work, barely got home that afternoon and barely got it to the mechanic next day. Blocking an intersection because your vehicle just died on you as you're turning a corner, anyone? Fun. And no, I don't blame it on ethanol because there are no E85 sources around here, BUT... for those of you who do.....here's something to make you think about where you buy and where its going. Risk factors-its a long ways between towns around here if your fuel pump goes out. I'm grateful mine went out in town while it was still daylight. I'm still zeroed in on improving home energy efficiency before worrying about alternative vehicle fuels: insulation, light tubes, power manager, heatpumps, solar for reducing home electricity, AC/heating demands.


By Ed Wallace Ed Wallace – 1 hr 44 mins ago
the ethanol lobby and refiners have a solution to ethanol's failure in America: lobby the government to increase the amount of ethanol in our fuel to 15%.

those promoting more ethanol in our gas say there's no scientific proof that adding more ethanol will damage vehicles or small gas-powered engines. With that statement they've gone from shilling the public to outright falsehoods, because ethanol-laced gasoline is already destroying engines across the country in ever larger numbers.

Got a Spare $1,000?

At City Garage in Euless, Tex., for example, the first of numerous future customers brought in an automobile whose fuel pump was shot. A quick diagnosis determined that that particular car had close to 18% ethanol in the fuel. For that unlucky owner, the repairs came to nearly $900. The ethanol fun was just beginning.

City Garage manager Eric Greathouse has found that adding ethanol to the nation's gasoline supply has an upside he'd rather not deal with. It's supplying his shop with a slow but steady stream of customers whose plastic fuel intakes have been dissolved by the blending of ethanol into our gasoline, or their fuel pumps destroyed. The average cost of repairs is just shy of $1,000.

It gets better. Scott Morrison is the owner of the City Garage chain in North Texas and he related the story of his technical director's run-in with ethanol; in December he filled up his E85 Flex Fuel Chevy Suburban at the Exxon station in Ovilla, just south of Dallas. His Suburban died on the spot, because even an E85-equipped vehicle will not run on the 100% pure ethanol that Exxon station was pumping that day. In that case it was not Exxon's fault but a mistake at the distribution center, and Exxon (xom.) quickly made good for the cost of repairs.

On Jan. 16 of this year, Lexus ordered a massive recall of certain 2006 to 2008 models, including the GS Series, IS and LS sedans. According to the recall notice, ethanol causes pinpoint leaks in the fuel system; when leaking fuel catches your engine on fire, that's an exciting way to have your insurance company buy your Lexus. Using ethanol will cost Toyota (tm.) untold millions.

An Unpublicized Trend
Though the media is ignoring it, one can easily find many stories on BMW (BMWG.DE (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/bw/bs_bw/storytext/may2009bw20090514058678/32023208/SIG=10gii1ekc/*http://BMWG.DE)) blogs relating similar problems with fuel systems damaged by the use of ethanol. Certainly that was the case with Christi Jordan and her 2007 Mini. For weeks it was difficult to start; Moritz BMW in Arlington, Tex., inspected it and found severe carbon buildup inside the engine. On her second trip to the mechanics they decided to test the ethanol content of Christi's fuel and found it was much higher than the federally mandated limit of 10%.

This time the fuel pump had been destroyed by the ethanol. The repair bill came to $1,200: As in all cases where vehicles are damaged by ethanol, legally the factory warranty no longer applied.

Jim Keppler, Moritz's fixed operations director, said he's had at least 10 other cases of ethanol poisoning in Minis over the past six months. there's no telling how many motorists across the nation have had to pay for fuel pumps, or fuel systems, that ethanol damaged. virtually no repair shop tests the level of ethanol in the gasoline when these fuel system problems occur.

In the case of the Lexus recall, using just a 10% ethanol blend was found to be destroying many of these engines also.

today the EPA is starting to go through the public comment phase on increasing the level of ethanol in our gasoline from 10% to 15%. Time and time again we have heard from these groups, who now claim that there is zero scientific evidence that a 15% blend of ethanol would do any damage whatsoever if the mandate for ethanol were raised. As with all statements made by vested interests, few outsiders have actually taken the time to look and find out whether this statement was true.
In fact, it's false.

Not one mechanic I've spoken with said they would be comfortable with a 15% blend of ethanol in their personal car. However, most suggest that if the government moves the ethanol mandate to 15%, it will be the dawn of a new golden age for auto mechanics' income.

One last thought: Most individuals who have had to repair their fuel systems in recent years never had the gasoline tested to see if the ethanol percentage might be the problem.

Today most repair shops and new-car dealers are still not testing for ethanol blends. They're simply repairing the vehicles and sending their unhappy and less wealthy customers on their way. But, where dealer and repair shops are testing the gasoline, ethanol is becoming one of the leading culprits for the damage. this time around motorists will be able to gauge the real cost of ethanol when it comes time to fix their personal cars.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20090515/bs_bw/may2009bw20090514058678

[XL-entLady]

Yup, Alevin, this isn't the first time I've heard this warning. We have a Volvo and my brother The Mechanic says if we use an ethanol mix it will be a very expensive decision on our part.:(

Lady

[CountryBoy]

Yup, Alevin, this isn't the first time I've heard this warning. We have a Volvo and my brother The Mechanic says if we use an ethanol mix it will be a very expensive decision on our part.:(

Lady

And this doesn't count that all the 2 cycle engines (weedeaters, chainsaws etc) along with lawnmowers, generartors that aren't designed to handle that blend yet.

You can google many stories on these engines burning up due to ethanol. I'm not for or against ethanol, (wait and see mode) but there are drawbacks (extra fertilizer for example), which has increased the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico in the past couple of years. I'm still hoping cellulose ethanol gets a tech breakthrough that will make it more economical.

I wish we'd put more into nat gas vehicles. Honda is making them for who bit the chunk in Dayton, OH, because they can't keep Utah supplied with them and if I lived in Utah, I would retrofit my PU to run on Nat Gas. I believe it costs about $3.5K, but have read they were paying about $1.64 a gallon and getting good efficiency.

But I think we need to Drill for our own oil, until we can come up with a viable alternative.

CB

[Buster]

Ditto everyone here in the last few posts...Ethanol built engines are cool and I support them..BUT, who here can buy a new flex fuel car right now?...so until such time, we are forced to buy NON-ethanoil fuel until we get one or two of those new Flex fuel autos..In the meantime, heed Alevin's situation to heart..Normal non flex fuel cars and engines will die a slow painful death with Ethanoil.

[alevin]

Buster, CB the article noted that even flexfuel vehicles that ARE designed for the mix are subject to corrosion if the mix is too high. We had discussions about the 2-strokes last year, this was the first I'd read about actual auto fuel system impacts.

Until they replace plastic intake valves with something less vulnerable, we still got a problem, regardless of whether the ethanol comes from corn or cellulosic. AND until there is better control over the ethanol % in the mixture at the station. AND until the general public with regular auto engines is more aware that even 10% mix may destroy their fuel systems (10% supposedly harmless to non-flex systems), much less the 15% being advocated now. I'm pretty sure I have fueled up a few times with an ethanol regular gas mix when I've been out of town on the road the past few years-that was the only "regular" gas at the stations I pulled into due to price advertised. Maybe that really was what caused my fuel pump to keel over last year, even if I can't remember timelines that precisely.

[James48843]

Ethanol folks call out Ed:
---------------
From: http://growthenergy.org:


Today, Ed Wallace posted a column to BusinessWeek.com (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102582513220&s=727&e=001nLODGQ8QHT9J3LE6Tjwa0mfn61xix1E-6YVAS-igHoJLdt5cWYmYnqZL3MYqdZo5Y1K7MIZiwvLsv89GTRwOyMdO YDzNuXQHdO21IriYK0qivKty563WBtwvApWHYpMnFKpPW2AzOz qlAZvRH0YZsnvQMiwKX-jVxj1D1o8CcAwwsLl2dXLGlLJbBSt3HR5XlBqEKASc5rMFpi00 g-3sS5mTakL6JPsQD-LJ1xLZn0chlXt-ZFHa2GxOZ5ZjikEOs6OwhXIMNbY8lowlTQIk9yBTC7Qx2SfS) about Growth Energy's Green Jobs Waiver. In his column, Mr. Wallace fails in his journalistic duty to provide readers with the facts. He relies on anecdotal evidence in support of his erroneous claims while completely ignoring the large body of scientific literature that supports the use of higher blends of ethanol in vehicles.

There are many myths being propagated in the online comments about these issues. See below the claims that Ed Wallace makes and the truth of the matter. Here are the facts. We encourage all eTeam members to set the record straight in instances such as these.
Click here to post your response to the original article on BusinessWeek.com (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102582513220&s=727&e=001nLODGQ8QHT-Ud8LI8EC8RAtNSjgI7z11_bj6mSHe4olQw037dY54RBiTsDrVc oiLmOQFIHg8ky7PGyndlzI_YtEh1NgLprnt1N39PZZft_ULEPB PfOdeDonlXRAWhVU6j7cAC7_SDw6Mg8x-XXugFGqxHSMVRn8EJ7kBffFyDWot8A00jbnFkC5jQ3go1lIZ_H RQafGg7p7tAoKhrlOkARZG6q6XCsHkV_uRU2r5xQBb-QV_4nSa4VOA9p1dwil6VaIovm1UmEPtN3Asf94rNAj9CO4W15f XZf1n6ddkXceqSdkxKglswA==).

Ed Wallace says:
“[T]he primary job of the Environmental Protection Agency is, dare it be said, to protect our environment. Yet using ethanol actually creates more smog than using regular gas, and the EPA's own attorneys had to admit that fact in front of the justices presiding over the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995 (API v. EPA).”

Truth:
There is strong evidence that increased use of ethanol has led to a decrease in ozone emissions. Since the wider use of ethanol in the fuel supply, ground-level ozone pollution has decreased throughout the United States. According to the U.S. EPA, ozone levels have decreased by 5 percent from 2001 to 2007.
In the latest “State of the Air” report issued by the American Lung Association, it notes that most cities made progress in decreasing ozone levels from 2004-2006, compared to its last report examining ozone levels from 2001-2003. According to California's Air Resources Board, since ethanol replaced MTBE in its fuel supply, the air quality has improved in the most South Coast Air Basin with the days of ozone exceedances dropping from 152 days in 2004 to 134 days in 2008 (based on 8-hour observation). Both New York and Connecticut had fewer smog days after they replaced MTBE with a 10 percent blend of ethanol in 2004.


Ed Wallace says:
“[T]ruly independent studies on ethanol, such as those written by Tad Patzek of Berkeley and David Pimentel of Cornell, show that ethanol is a net energy loser. Other studies suggest there is a small net energy gain from it.”

Truth:
Today, each gallon of ethanol produced delivers one third or more energy than is used to produce and this positive energy balance is constantly increasing with new technologies. According to the Congressional Research Service, ethanol produced from corn provides 67 percent more energy than is used during production compared to a net energy loss of 19 percent in the production of gasoline. Over the last 20 years, the amount of energy needed to produce ethanol from corn has significantly decreased because of improved farming techniques, more efficient use of fertilizers and pesticides, higher-yielding crops, and more energy-efficient conversion technology.
The studies Wallace refers to are not “truly independent.” The 2005 study by David Pimentel, an insect ecologist at Cornell, and Tad Patzek, a former oil company employee who is now director of the University of California Oil Consortium, has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community and a growing body of government and academic research. Peer-reviewed studiesover the past 12 years find exactly the opposite of Patzek and Pimentel's findings. More than 40 percent of the references listed in the 2005 report were from the 1980s and 1990s, and it failed to meet internationally accepted standards for conducting life cycle studies.



Ed Wallace says:
“[F]orget what biofuels have done to the price of foodstuffs worldwide over the past three years...”

Truth:
Study after study has shown that ethanol has minimal impact on food prices, including a recent report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which showed the key driver in higher food prices was energy prices. The price increase attributed to ethanol was one-half of one percentage point. Other factors contributing to rising global food prices include increased demand as emerging economies grow and their populations consume better diets and more meat, increased fertilizer, harvesting, and transportation costs, excessive unregulated commodities speculation, and bad weather and drought leading to poor harvests in some parts of the world.


Ed Wallace says:
“...the science seems to suggest that using ethanol increases global warming emissions over the use of straight gasoline.”

Truth:
The most recent literature in Yale's Journal of Industrial Ecology states that the ethanol industry currently is producing a fuel that is as much as 59 percent lower in direct-effect lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline. That's two to three times the reduction reported in earlier studies that did not take into account recent advances in corn-ethanol production. Newer corn ethanol plants are applying the latest technology to produce ethanol that is cleaner, greener, more energy efficient and reduces GHG emissions through the use of improved technologies, smarter planning, and increased corn yields. According to DOE's Argonne National Laboratory, ethanol plants since 2001 have seen a 21.8% reduction in energy use, and 26.6% reduction in water used, despite a 6.4% yield increase.


Ed Wallace says:
“The new push to get a 15% ethanol mandate out of Washington is simply to restore profitability to a failed industry. Only this time around those promoting more ethanol in our gas say there's no scientific proof that adding more ethanol will damage vehicles or small gas-powered engines.”

Truth:
Right now there's an artificial government-imposed regulatory cap that suppresses the use of ethanol based on decades-old science. Current government regulations, which date back to the 1970s, restrict the ethanol blend to 10 percent. Ethanol producers have hit that cap, producing more ethanol than can be used under current restrictions. This threatens to block research and development into cellulosic and future generations of biofuels. American farmers and ethanol producers are asking the EPA to lift the arbitrary limit on ethanol because the science overwhelmingly supports the use of a 15 percent blend. In addition, we support green-collar job creation, increased energy independence, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions immediately.



Ed Wallace says:
“A quick diagnosis determined that that particular car had close to 18% ethanol in the fuel. For that unlucky owner, the repairs came to nearly $900. The ethanol fun was just beginning.”

Truth:
Again, this is anecdotal evidence that runs contrary to a large body of established science. The studies that that show no impact to engines from E15 show similar results for E20 and in many cases higher percentages of ethanol. Furthermore, it is impossible for one tank of gas to have that kind of an impact on vehicle parts.



Ed Wallace says:
“On Jan. 16 of this year, Lexus ordered a massive recall of certain 2006 to 2008 models, including the GS Series, IS and LS sedans. According to the recall notice, the problem is that "Ethanol fuels with low moisture content will corrode the internal surface of the fuel rails." In layman's terms, ethanol causes pinpoint leaks in the fuel system; when leaking fuel catches your engine on fire, that's an exciting way to have your insurance company buy your Lexus. Using ethanol will cost Toyota (TM) untold millions.”

Truth:
These auto makers' warranties certify blends of ethanol up to 10 percent. Ethanol producers and American farmers shouldn't take the blame for an auto maker's faulty product. There is a large body of science that Ed Wallace conveniently ignores. Americans can be confident their vehicles will run on increased blends of ethanol. In the past two years, multiple comprehensive studies involving over 100 vehicles, 85 vehicle and engine types, and 33 fuel dispensing units have been completed to evaluate the affects of ethanol-gasoline blends above 10 percent ethanol, from E15 to E85. These studies include a year-long drivability test and over 5,500 hours of materials compatibility testing. The research includes studies done by Rochester Institue of Technology, the state of Minnesota, and the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

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

By the way- Ed Wallace makes his living on a radio talk shows based in Fort Worth Texas, where his show's major sponsors include petroleum based industry advertisers.

In the search for truth, always question EVERYTHING.

P.S.- I am not aware of any vehicle since 1982 that can't handle E10 just fine. It was, after all, a U.S. mandated design requirement for all vehicles since then.

[Buster]

P.S.- I am not aware of any vehicle since 1982 that can't handle E10 just fine. It was, after all, a U.S. mandated design requirement for all vehicles since then.I beg to differ..many people I know with cars built in the 2000's have, or had fuel system problems, lack of power, poor mileage, etc...too many to be a coincidence from using E10.

[CountryBoy]

There's just way to much anecdotal info out there, supporting both views and you can easily find one that you like, small engines, big engines poor mileage, you name it.

So I'll wait until there is firm evidence that ethanol is safe, before I jump in with both feet, though I have no problem buying a flex fuel vehicle. I always, if possible, keep your options open. But to place all your eggs in the EPA saying "it's safe basket... ' I think not. We're the government and we're here to help. :laugh:

I need more independent data and not big government or big oil saying it's good or bad.

Not my hill to die on.

Have a good weekend all.

CB

[XL-entLady]

....I need more independent data and not big government or big oil saying it's good or bad.

Not my hill to die on....
CB, I'm with you on this one. My sporty little Volvo is comfortable to ride in but a huge bite in the wallet if something needs fixed. I'm not going to risk it until there is definitive evidence one way or the other.

And I just cracked up when I read your "hill to die on" line. I use the phrase "that's the hill they're going to die on" all the time and my friends think I made it up because they've never heard it before. I keep telling them that they just didn't grow up country-girl like I did. :D Or apparently Country-Boy too! :laugh:

Lady

[CountryBoy]

CB, I'm with you on this one. My sporty little Volvo is comfortable to ride in but a huge bite in the wallet if something needs fixed. I'm not going to risk it until there is definitive evidence one way or the other.

And I just cracked up when I read your "hill to die on" line. I use the phrase "that's the hill they're going to die on" all the time and my friends think I made it up because they've never heard it before. I keep telling them that they just didn't grow up country-girl like I did. :D Or apparently Country-Boy too! :laugh:

Lady

Yeah Lady,

Us country folk have all kinds of saying, actually I use "I'm not going to die on that hill" more often, but I hadn't had my morning cup of joe, so I just cutter short, plus less chance of a spelling error.

I've go a Chevy PU (8 banger, 4X), all that's missing is the gun rack, :laugh: I'm hoping it'll hold up until we can decide upon which direction we're going in the use of alt fuels. I sure don't want to buy the next generation K Car. :laugh:

I just saw where your Gov is the next Ambassor to China.

Have a good weekend,
CB

[Buster]

I say.."I don't have a dog in that Hunt"..;)

[XL-entLady]

I say.."I don't have a dog in that Hunt"..;)
Yep. And do you call a heavy rainstorm a "toad floater" like I do?
:)
Lady

[CountryBoy]

Yep. And do you call a heavy rainstorm a "toad floater" like I do?
:)
Lady

We call them "Toad Stranglers". :) And we've had a couple of them today, which makes my Satellite internet surface pretty hit and miss.

CB

[James48843]

$2.5 million winner because of Ethanol.....

INDIANAPOLIS — Pamela Smith of Summitville is the third Hoosier in less than a month* to win a Hoosier Lotto jackpot prize. Smith won a $2.5 million jackpot after she matched all six numbers in the May 9, 2009 Hoosier Lotto drawing.

Smith and her husband Jay opted to take the payment in a lump sum and received a check for $980,296 before taxes today.

"I hope it doesn't change a thing," said Smith. "I have a very nice life. I have everything I need."

The Madison County resident's lucky quick pick numbers were: 9-13-14-32-36-44.

Smith purchased her winning ticket at McClure Oil No. 44 at 3700 N. Broadway in Muncie. The retailer will receive a $25,000 bonus for selling the winning ticket.

Retailers that sell Hoosier Lotto and Powerball® jackpot-winning tickets receive a 1 percent bonus capped at $100,000.

"She told me that she won because of E85," said Jay Smith.

"I was looking for Ethanol gas," said Smith. " I actually went inside the gas station to thank the manager for carrying Ethanol because it's so hard to find. It was an impulse buy for me to purchase one dollar of Lotto and one dollar of Powerball."

http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20090519/NEWS06/90519031

[Buster]

:D:D

[alevin]

I
I've go a Chevy PU (8 banger, 4X), all that's missing is the gun rack, :laugh: I'm hoping it'll hold up until we can decide upon which direction we're going in the use of alt fuels. I sure don't want to buy the next generation K Car. :laugh:

Thats basically where I'm at, only mine is a little Japanese 4x 4banger, no gun rack either:toung:. And the 4x gets used every winter, critical just to get around town.

And I say, "I won't fall on my sword over it." :D

Oh and congrats to the Lotto winner!

[CountryBoy]

Thats basically where I'm at, only mine is a little Japanese 4x 4banger, no gun rack either:toung:. And the 4x gets used every winter, critical just to get around town.

And I say, "I won't fall on my sword over it." :D

Oh and congrats to the Lotto winner!

My 4X gets used every winter also, plus the bed gets used for hauling firewood to those to old to cut their own and who can't afford to buy it. About 4 or 5 of us from church have farms/property and we cut/split an extra cord or 2 every year for these folks. Not to mention the folks I pull outta the ditch line in the winter time, cause in the country, we'uns have to look out for ourselves a lot of times. Already have 4 trees down, with 2 cut, split and stacked.

In the winter time, there would be about 3 weeks when a car couldn't get out of our driveway, so 4X's are a must for us.

CB

CB

[James48843]

In New York, a bright future for renewable fuels

Editorial- Buffalo News
http://www.buffalonews.com/149/story/661326.html

In his recent speech about the economy, President Obama called for “new investments in renewable energy and technology that will create new jobs and new industries.”

Here in Western New York, one example of this environmentally and economically sustainable energy future is in the Town of Shelby.

Opened in 2007, the Western New York Energy plant produces more than 50 million gallons of fuel-grade ethanol a year. In addition, the plant produces three valuable co-products: 160,000 tons of high-quality distillers grains; 1.5 million gallons of crude corn oil, which is used for biodiesel; and 100,000 tons of food-grade carbon dioxide, which is used for beverage carbonation, food processing and other industrial applications. The plant provides more than 40 well-paying jobs, from chemists and engineers to operators and managers, and creates new markets for local grain farmers and a valuable feed product for dairy and cattle farmers.

Throughout the nation, the ethanol industry is making progress economically and environmentally. In 2008, American ethanol producers supplied more than 9.2 billion gallons of clean-burning ethanol, equivalent to 7 percent of the domestic gasoline supply. This record production supported nearly 500,000 jobs. It added $21 billion in tax payments to federal, state and local coffers. It displaced 321 million barrels of imported oil — equal to 10 months of imports from Venezuela.

Between 2001 and 2006, water consumption at U. S. ethanol plants decreased by 27 percent, electricity use dropped by 16 percent and total energy utilization declined by 22 percent. For instance, the Shelby plant uses only about 2.5 gallons of water for each gallon of ethanol that is produced — an even lower rate than the average of three gallons of water for one gallon of ethanol in the entire industry.

Improvements in current ethanol technologies can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 60 percent compared to gasoline. New technologies hold the potential for even greater climate benefits, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. With an abundance of “biomass” — wood wastes, fast-growing trees, corn stalks and other materials that are usually discarded — New York is poised to be a leader in renewable fuel production.

For example, researchers at the State University of New York School of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse are developing technologies to grow, harvest and convert fast-growing poplar trees into renewable fuels. Others are looking at garbage, grasses and other waste materials.

Increasing domestic production of clean-burning and low-cost renewable fuels from a wide array of technologies and feedstocks will reduce our reliance on imported oil and expand economic opportunities, just as is happening in Orleans County today.

[OBGibby]

Ethanol's Grocery Bill

Two federal studies add up the corn fuel's exorbitant cost.

The Wall Street Journal/Opinion
June 2, 2009


The Obama Administration is pushing a big expansion in ethanol, including a mandate to increase the share of the corn-based fuel required in gasoline to 15% from 10%. Apparently no one in the Administration has read a pair of new studies, one from its own EPA, that expose ethanol as a bad deal for consumers with little environmental benefit.

The biofuels industry already receives a 45 cent tax credit for every gallon of ethanol produced, or about $3 billion a year. Meanwhile, import tariffs of 54 cents a gallon and an ad valorem tariff of four to seven cents a gallon keep out sugar-based ethanol from Brazil and the Caribbean. The federal 10% blending requirement insures a market for ethanol whether consumers want it or not -- a market Congress has mandated will double to 20.5 billion gallons in 2015.

The Congressional Budget Office reported last month that Americans pay another surcharge for ethanol in higher food prices. CBO estimates that from April 2007 to April 2008 "the increased use of ethanol accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices." Ethanol raises food prices because millions of acres of farmland and three billion bushels of corn were diverted to ethanol from food production. Americans spend about $1.1 trillion a year on food, so in 2007 the ethanol subsidy cost families between $5.5 billion and $8.8 billion in higher grocery bills.

A second study -- by the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality -- explains that the reduction in CO2 emissions from burning ethanol are minimal and maybe negative. Making ethanol requires new land from clearing forest and grasslands that would otherwise sequester carbon emissions. "As with petroleum based fuels," the report concludes: "GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions are associated with the conversion and combustion of bio-fuels and every year they are produced GHG emissions could be released through time if new acres are needed to produce corn or other crops for biofuels."

The EPA study also explores a series of alternative scenarios over 30 to 100 years. In some cases ethanol leads to a net reduction in carbon relative to using gasoline. But many other long-term scenarios observe a net increase in CO2 relative to burning fossil fuels. Ethanol produced in a "basic natural gas fired dry mill" will over a 30-year horizon produce "a 5% increase in GHG emissions compared to petroleum gasoline." When ethanol is produced with coal burning mills, the process "significantly worsens the lifecycle GHG impact of ethanol" creating 34% more greenhouse gases than gasoline does over 30 years.

Both CBO and EPA find that in theory cellulosic ethanol -- from wood chips, grasses and biowaste -- would reduce carbon emissions. However, as CBO emphasizes, "current technologies for producing cellulosic ethanol are not commercially viable." The ethanol lobby is attempting a giant bait-and-switch: Keep claiming that cellulosic ethanol is just around the corner, even as it knows the only current technology to meet federal mandates is corn ethanol (or sugar, if it didn't face an import tariff).

As public policy, ethanol is like the joke about the baseball prospect who is a poor hitter but a bad fielder. It doesn't reduce CO2 but it does cost more. Imagine how many subsidies the Beltway would throw at ethanol if the fuel actually had any benefits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124389966385274413.html

[James48843]

Iowa responds to Wall Street Journal errors in editorial page:
----------------------------------------


Iowa’s Ethanol/E85 Talking Points
May 27, 2009
Iowa leads in corn production

●

Iowa produced 2.4 bbu of corn in 2007, average yield 175 bu/acre



In 07/08, 565 mbu of corn were fed in-state.



In 07/08, Iowans used an estimated 1,066 thousand metric tons of DDG to feed livestock. DDG use expected to increase to 1,696 KMT in 08/09. (Assumes 30% ration for ruminants @1.2 feed value of corn; 15% ration for hogs @ at 1.0; and 5% ration for poultry @.5)







The US produced 13.1 billion bushels of corn and has a current ethanol capacity of 10.6 billion gallons of ethanol.



Ethanol—Iowa’s the leader!





Iowa’s ethanol industry can produce more than 3.27 billion gallons annually, using over 1 billion bushels of corn.





Iowa has:


4 wet mills = 445 million gallons

35 dry mills = 2.5 billion gallons
TOTAL: 39 Iowa Ethanol Plants
1 under construction/expansions = 275 million gallons





Combined production & construction/planning capacity = 3. 8 billion gallons, using


1.4 bbu (over 50% of the 2007 crop).


Ethanol: using home-grown fuel in Iowa:




Iowans bought over 1.2 billion gallons of ethanol blends last year (1,216,034,082 gal.


in 2007 (1,212,613,525-E10 and 3,420,557 – E85).






Ethanol’s market share now = 78% of Iowa fuel





Iowa E85 sales set monthly sales records last year.

58% growth in sales from 2006 to 2007 (3,420,557 in 2007 vs. 1,975,359 in 2006)





132 E85 pumps in Iowa now (55 in 2006). http://e85prices.com/iowa.html



1 out of every 10 vehicles purchased in 2007 was a FFV



As of September of 2007 Iowa had approximately 95,000 FFV’s on the roads


Food & Fuel – Corn Growers Can Do BOTH






A study released by Merrill Lynch states that blending ethanol with gasoline gives


you a 45 cent savings at the pump






Kernels of Truth


11 cents of corn can be found in your cereal


28 cents of worth of corn can be found a dozen eggs


There’s only 13 cents of corn in a gallon of milk


There are 18 cents of corn in a ¼ pound hamburger


31 cents of corn can be found in an Iowa pork chop





Soda contains just 3.5 cents of corn in a liter



Contributors to food costs





Labor = 38¢ of each dollar consumers spend on food





Packaging, transportation, energy, advertising, profits = 24¢





All food inputs, including corn = just 19¢

[James48843]

http://www.iowacorn.org/User/Docs/Iowa%20Ethanol%20talking%20points.FINAL.pdf


Ethanol: Good for the environment
By using E85, an FFV driver reduced CO2 emissions to the atmosphere by 4 tons.
E85 use reduces ozone-forming pollution by 20%.

E85 reduced fuel life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions nearly 30%

E85’s lower pressure can help reduce evaporative emissions.


Gasoline contains toxic compounds like benzene, toluene, and xylene. E85 use reduces the release of these chemicals into the environment.


Water use comparisons:


It takes less water to produce a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of oil (3 gallons water to 1 gallon ethanol vs. 9 gallons water to 1 gallon of gasoline).

A typical 40 million gallon ethanol plant uses about the same water per day as a standard 18 hole golf course.


The U.S. ethanol industry needs 49 million gallons of water per day (based on 6 billion gallons of production) – less than 3/10 of 1% of U.S. daily industrial water use.

It takes 300 million gallons of water to produce a single day’s supply of U.S. newsprint.


Ethanol: Good for energy independence


Using home-grown ethanol reduces U.S. oil imports by 128,000 barrels each day.


Each barrel of ethanol we produce displaces 1.2 barrels of petroleum.


Ethanol: Good for Iowa’s economy


Iowa’s ethanol industry has resulted in more than 80,000 new jobs in Iowa, benefiting
all employment sectors and especially benefiting rural communities.


Ethanol production puts $2.8 billion into Iowa consumers’ pockets each year.

Ethanol: Good for your engine, good for your pocket book!


A vehicle using regular unleaded gets about 20 miles per gallon of gas; extending the same amount of gas by blending it with E85, a flexible fuel vehicle can travel more than 100 miles.

IndyCar drivers burn 100% ethanol in their engines traveling 220 miles per hour and can’t say enough good about ethanol as a performance fuel.


60 cents of every dollar spent purchasing E85 stays in Iowa


Ethanol blended gas saves the average family $1,000/year




If you’ve heard it once you’ve heard it 10 times:


Ethanol is energy-efficient – when corn is processed into ethanol, there is a net energy gain

of 67%. In other words, ethanol contains 67% more energy than it takes to produce!



Iowa Corn Markets = 2.4 billion bushels


35% - 863 mbu = Ethanol

24% - 565 mbu = Livestock sector

23% - 555 mbu = exported to other states or countries
16% - 367 mbu = corn oil, sweeteners and starches





U.S. Corn Markets = 13.1 billion bushels


55% - 6.2 bbu – livestock

17% - 3 bbu – ethanol

19% - 2.4 bbu – exports
5% - 1 bbu – starch, corn oil, sweeteners


3%-328 mbu – flour, grits, meal, beverage alcohol

[James48843]

From:
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/258154/Why-Ethanol--Not-Electric-Cars-and-Hybrids--Is-the-Answer

Why Ethanol--Not Electric Cars and Hybrids--Is the Answer

Posted Jun 03, 2009 11:57am EDT by Sarah Lacy (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/author/Sarah-Lacy) in Venture Capital, M and A, IPOs (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/Venture-Capital,-M-and-A,-IPOs), Clean Tech (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/Clean-Tech)


Times are tough for the biofuel movement. Concerns have been rampant about how much gas it takes to produce a gallon of ethanol and about how much farmland and corn would be needed to produce enough fuel to make a dent in our gasoline addiction. Combine that with the popularity of the Prius and the sex appeal of Tesla’s sporty all-electric cars (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/yftt_229945/Behind-the-Design-of-Tesla%27s-Sexy-New-Sedan?tickers=F,GM,%5EIXIC), and biofuels like ethanol are looking like something only Willie Nelson could love.

Not so fast, says famed Silicon Valley venture capitalist Vinod Khosla of Khosla Ventures. In a rare sit down interview with the cleantech bull, Khosla explained why most of the concerns about ethanol are either based on myths or don’t take into account the rapidly changing science in the field. It’s not that electric cars and hybrids won’t help, but when you consider the billions of cars coming on the market from fast-growing economies like India and China, electric cars on a mass scale just aren’t realistic, he says.

But, increasingly, ethanol is. Khosla argues it’s cheap and plentiful enough to make 80% of new cars coming onto the roads in the next 10 years low-carbon emitters. He doesn’t just mean ethanol made from corn. Already scientists are making ethanol from bark, switch grass and other non-food bio-materials that can be planted easily and widely.

More: http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/258154/Why-Ethanol--Not-Electric-Cars-and-Hybrids--Is-the-Answer

[James48843]

Ethanol has little impact on food prices, saves money for taxpayers
By JIM NUSSLE
Thursday, May 7, 2009 9:50 AM CDT

A new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirms what hundreds of economists and industry experts have stated for months: using corn for ethanol has little impact on the price of food. Rather, the main culprits driving the higher cost of food are energy costs, excessive unregulated speculation in the commodities future market, and a weak dollar.

The CBO analysis said that ethanol was only responsible for 0.5 to 0.8 percent of the rise in food prices.

For far too long, the ethanol industry has been the scapegoat for last year’s dramatic increase in food prices. As former director of the Office of Management and Budget and former chairman of the House Budget Com-mittee, I recognize the unbiased credibility of the recent CBO report and hope that it will serve as the final nail in the coffin of the half-baked theory that ethanol was somehow to blame for high food prices. The evidence is in n ethanol is not to blame.

The average cost of food increased 5.1 percent last year and again, less than 1 percent was attributed to ethanol, according to the CBO. Big food corporations posted big gains in profits during this time, yet tried to blame ethanol for higher food prices while the price of corn was at record highs. Now that prices for both corn and energy have fallen, excessive speculation has been curbed, the dollar strengthened and exports plummeted, why haven’t food prices come down?

It’s been more than 150 days since Growth Energy has called on Big Food to stop the finger-pointing and lower their prices so that millions of struggling Americans can put food on the table. They have yet to do it and have yet to be held responsible to ask the tough question why they haven’t come down. Maybe it’s time Congress got involved.

Despite the overall good news that ethanol was not the significant cause of higher food prices, CBO’s analysis used outdated information regarding the benefits to the environment of today’s modern ethanol. The latest ethanol study published in Yale’s Journal of Industrial Ecology demonstrates that U.S.-produced ethanol reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by up to 59 percent compared to gasoline.
If Congress is serious about reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, creating jobs that can’t be outsourced and trimming our environmental impact, it should stand with ethanol. As the only existing alternative to foreign oil that is ready today, ethanol has already saved Americans billions at the gas pump.

Now that we can stop pointing the finger of blame at ethanol, it’s time to figure out how we can let it meet its true potential. A 30-year-old government mandate requires 90 percent of fuel be gasoline as opposed to an arbitrary cap that 10 percent be ethanol. By increasing blend levels from 10 to 15 percent, we can create more than 136,000 new green-collar jobs, inject $24.4 billion into the U.S. economy and displace seven billion gallons of imported gasoline each year. We’ll also reduce GHG emissions by another 20 million tons per year n about the same as removing 3.5 million cars from the roads.


More: http://www.agweekly.com/articles/2009/06/07/news/opinion/opin98.txt

[James48843]

Density of E85 capable flex-fuel vehicles:
You have to have enough of them in order to make it profitable to make a fuel station sell E85:


6445

[nnuut]

Do you have one of these for E85 availability? In some places stations are few and far between.:confused:

[James48843]

Do you have one of these for E85 availability? In some places stations are few and far between.:confused:

Got me a former used G-Car. 2005 Flexfuel Dodge Stratus. Bought it in 2007, and haven't purchased gasoline since. By the way - you can buy them used at a great price in person, or on-line at: http://www.autoauctions.gsa.gov/


https://www.govtvehiclesdirect.com/images/uploadedimages/644073/sdc10001.jpg




Traveled 9 states so far, and not once have I needed to buy gasoline- I plan trips using http://e85prices.com maps, and stop along the way for E85 fillups. Got a station on the way to work, and another one just four miles from work, so I can top off on the way to or from.

Best trip was Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and back again with a side trip through Wisconsin, E85 all the way.

Go Ethanol!

American made fuel.

More on-line auctions:
http://www.autoauctions.gsa.gov/OnlineSales.cfm

[James48843]

ME: -> I found this this morning. Posted by a friend of mine on an E85 website.

Worth watching.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sacremento85 wrote-> From: Sacramento85:

This one's hard to watch, though all should watch it:

This weekend we celebrate the 4th of July. This video reminds us of what it means. The video is 3 songs long.

This is long and the hand-held camera is shaky but it was an honor and a privilege--even a duty of citizenship--to watch every second of it. I kept thinking that these strangers taking time from their day to stand on a hot, dusty Georgia roadside in June spoke more than words of their own commitment to citizenship. You may get a little choked up but that's a good thing.

Killed in action the week before, the body of Staff Sergeant First Class John C. Beale was returned to Falcon Field in Peachtree City , Georgia , just south of Atlanta , on June 11, 2009 . The Henry County Police Department escorted the procession to the funeral home in McDonough , Georgia . A simple notice in local papers indicated the road route to be taken and the approximate time.

Nowadays one can be led to believe that America no longer respects honor and no longer honors sacrifice outside the military. Be it known that there are many places in this land where people still recognize the courage and impact of total self-sacrifice. Georgia remains one of those graceful places.

The link below is a short travelogue of that day's remarkable and painful journey. But only watch this if you wish to have some of your faith in people restored.

Video link: http://blip.tv/play/AYGJ5h6YgmE

After I watch this, I get so outraged by the losers that slander alternative fuels because they have a vested interest in petroleum, or only see dollar signs for fuel. Who cares if it costs 2 cents more per mile to drive on E85? It shouldn't be about that. It should be all about Energy Independence. Period. Holding back a lot of my rage, I just have to say that Those Spineless Greedy Bastards Chap My Hide and Dishonor the Sacrifices Their Fore-Fathers Made in the 1770's, Their Grandfathers Made in the 1940's, Their Own Sons Make Today, and Their Great-Grandsons Will Make in the 2050's. Very Dishonorable--Any of You Who Bash Biofuels Who Are Reading This-Shame On You!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Me: ->See the video. It's worth watching.

[James48843]

Do you have one of these for E85 availability? In some places stations are few and far between.:confused:

Here is a map for you:
6526

The place to find the best listing of current E85 stations nationwide is here:

http://e85prices.com

There is a map function at the top of the page.

Or you can find them on the individual state tabs. More than 2170 stations listed so far, almost double the number of January 2008. We're getting there, slowly but surely.

[Buster]

ME: -> I found this this morning. Posted by a friend of mine on an E85 website.

Worth watching.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sacremento85 wrote-> From: Sacramento85:

This one's hard to watch, though all should watch it:

This weekend we celebrate the 4th of July. This video reminds us of what it means. The video is 3 songs long.

This is long and the hand-held camera is shaky but it was an honor and a privilege--even a duty of citizenship--to watch every second of it. I kept thinking that these strangers taking time from their day to stand on a hot, dusty Georgia roadside in June spoke more than words of their own commitment to citizenship. You may get a little choked up but that's a good thing.

Killed in action the week before, the body of Staff Sergeant First Class John C. Beale was returned to Falcon Field in Peachtree City , Georgia , just south of Atlanta , on June 11, 2009 . The Henry County Police Department escorted the procession to the funeral home in McDonough , Georgia . A simple notice in local papers indicated the road route to be taken and the approximate time.

Nowadays one can be led to believe that America no longer respects honor and no longer honors sacrifice outside the military. Be it known that there are many places in this land where people still recognize the courage and impact of total self-sacrifice. Georgia remains one of those graceful places.

The link below is a short travelogue of that day's remarkable and painful journey. But only watch this if you wish to have some of your faith in people restored.

Video link: http://blip.tv/play/AYGJ5h6YgmE

After I watch this, I get so outraged by the losers that slander alternative fuels because they have a vested interest in petroleum, or only see dollar signs for fuel. Who cares if it costs 2 cents more per mile to drive on E85? It shouldn't be about that. It should be all about Energy Independence. Period. Holding back a lot of my rage, I just have to say that Those Spineless Greedy Bastards Chap My Hide and Dishonor the Sacrifices Their Fore-Fathers Made in the 1770's, Their Grandfathers Made in the 1940's, Their Own Sons Make Today, and Their Great-Grandsons Will Make in the 2050's. Very Dishonorable--Any of You Who Bash Biofuels Who Are Reading This-Shame On You!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Me: ->See the video. It's worth watching.
Jim..no sense spoiling this beautiful tribute to a great American with ranting about fuel and prices..I enjoyed it and very much choked me up watching it...Let's keep it for the memory of this Man and his family and leave politics out of it on this one..

God Bless all our Service men and women..


PS:..Next time put a warning up that Kleenex will be needed.

[Buster]

Jim, this is for you...What goes around may make full circle..



A Short History of Gasoline vs. Alcohol Fuel (Ethanol)

by David Blume

The first cars, back in the late 1800s, ran primarily on alcohol. It was the only
reliable, combustible fuel that was available. Oil had already been discovered,
but it had a completely different use at that time; it was used for heating and
lighting homes. So the part that they couldn’t use for heating and lighting—the
stuff that wanted to explode and nobody wanted to put in an oil lamp—they threw
away. John D. Rockefeller did some experimentation and found out that,
although it didn’t do such a good job of it, it would run a car, too. And he started
selling it at dirt-cheap prices in the cities, where he had his oil distribution
business.
So gasoline was an industrial waste byproduct that was marketed as an
alternative to the standard fuel, which was alcohol.
The big proponent of alcohol in cars was Henry Ford. He thought that alcohol
was the very best fuel for cars—it was clean, it was efficient, and there were a lot
more stills in this country than gas stations. So Ford and Rockefeller fought tooth
and nail over what was going to be the nation’s fuel supply, until Rockefeller
decided not to play fair anymore.
Rockefeller gave the Women’s Christian Temperance Union four million dollars
to lobby Congress with. That would be like four hundred million dollars today,
and, yes, you can buy Congress for that. And so they passed Prohibition. You
probably thought it had something to do with drinking and moral decay. But can
you imagine an all-male Congress voting to keep working men from drinking? So
for 13 years alcohol went off the market as a fuel, as an industrial product that
used to compete with many oil products, and for drinking also.
After they make everything they call valuable out of oil—plastics, drugs,
pesticides, industrial chemicals—everything’s that left over is dumped into the
gasoline. So on any given day there are 400 toxic chemicals dumped into
gasoline, and those might not necessarily be the same chemicals the next day.
It’s whatever’s left over.
So gasoline is the biggest toxic waste disposal system in the world, and it’s in the
open, and it’s legal! They’re able to use our cars to spew their toxic waste back
into the air. And they make something like $2500 from a barrel of oil, for the
industrial chemicals, and something like $100 a barrel from the gasoline, and
they don’t care if they made zero, because they get rid of all their toxic waste.


http://www.greenertennessee.org/glj/SP2008_a_short_h.pdf

[James48843]

Distillers grains exports to China ‘exploded’ last year

The distiller’s grain byproduct of ethanol production accounting for up to 25 percent of a typical ethanol plant’s revenues has always been the safety valve for the volatile biofuels industry, never more so than in 2009 when ethanol producers spent the first half of the year bathing in red ink. But the dried grain kernels left over after the starch has been sucked out to make ethanol are now a staple in the diets of cattle and some pigs in the U.S. and, according to the U.S. Grains Council, saw a big rise in exports last year.

China in particular was a big buyer of DDGs from the U.S., increasing their tonnage from 8,000 in 2008 to more than 400,000 tons of DDGs in 2009 to feed China’s growing cattle population.

Eric Brandt, a commodity trader for Global Ethanol, told the U.S. Grains Council’s newsletter that Chinese sales “exploded” last year, but said DDGs face a potential hurdle this year with a new Chinese law requiring imported processed grains be registered by China’s Minister of Agriculture by May.

Such potential government roadblocks always make export traders nervous, but absent a thumbs down the ethanol industry could be looking at sales of 1 million tons of DDGs in China this year, Brandt said.

More: http://tinyurl.com/yfksgpo

[James48843]

Monthly production of fuel ethanol in the United States:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M_EPOOXE_YOP_NUS_1&f=M

Production continues to climb:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist_chart/M_EPOOXE_YOP_NUS_1m.jpg

[James48843]

"EPA chief Lisa Jackson said today that after considering the latest science on crop yields, land use and ethanol production efficiency, corn ethanol can be quite a good thing, after all. Those findings were incorporated into a rule implementing a congressional mandate for biofuel use nationwide that will allow at least an extra 2 billion gallons of corn ethanol to be produced and perhaps much, much more.

Administration officials said the rule will increase farm income by $13 billion by 2022, reduce oil consumption by 328 million barrels a year and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of removing 27 million cars from the road. The rule will also help big, established ethanol makers like Archer Daniels Midland and POET. "This is a good ruling. It's what we have been arguing all along," said POET chief Jeff Broin. "It allows grain-based ethanol to compete."

More: http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/02/03/obama-corn-ethanol-isnt-so-bad-after-all/

[Bullitt]

Production continues to climb

And where has it gotten us besides one step closer to stagflation as hedge funds bid up the prices of commodities?

[James48843]

And where has it gotten us besides one step closer to stagflation as hedge funds bid up the prices of commodities?

Commodities?

Prices are stable now.

Corn is at $3.45

Ethanol is at $1.78.

Ethanol is replacing millions of gallons of imported gasoline.

[James48843]

NThzeYgFypU

[James48843]

2009 Distillers Grains Exports Shatter Previous Record

Ethanol Feed Replaces Need for Millions of Corn, Soybean Acres

(February 15, 2010) Washington – The U.S. ethanol industry exported 5.64 million metric tons (mmt) of distillers grains worth nearly $1 billion in 2009, shattering the previous record set in 2008, according to data released last week by the Foreign Agriculture Service. Exports in 2009 were 24 percent above 2008 levels and more than five times higher than the amount of distillers grains exported just five years ago.

Distillers grains are the livestock feed coproduct of ethanol production from grain. In a typical dry mill ethanol biorefinery, one-third of every bushel of corn entering the facility is returned to the market in the form of high protein, nutrient rich livestock feed. Only the starch portion of the corn kernel is converted to fuel, while the remaining protein, fat and other nutrients remain intact in the coproduct.

“Distillers grains are a vitally important coproduct of U.S ethanol production from grain,” said Renewable Fuels Association Vice President of Research and Analysis Geoff Cooper. “The increasing availability of distillers grains is providing livestock and poultry feeders around the world with a feed source that can partially displace the need for corn, soybean meal, and other ingredients in feed rations.”

Cooper said distillers grains also play an important role in dispelling both the food vs. fuel myth and the questionable notion that increased U.S. ethanol production is causing international land use change.

The amount of distillers grains exported in 2009 is equivalent to the feed value of 5.4 mmt (212 million bushels) of whole corn and 1.6 mmt of soybean meal, according to displacement ratios developed by Argonne National Laboratory. Assuming world average yield rates, 2009 distillers grains exports eliminated the need for nearly 5 million acres of corn and soybeans internationally.

Total U.S. distillers grains production in 2009 was approximately 30.5 mmt, meaning exports accounted for more than 18 percent of total use. Notably, 2009 distillers grains export levels are equivalent to the total amount of distillers grains produced and used in 2003.

Top export markets for distillers grains in 2009:
•For the fourth straight year, Mexico registered as the top market for U.S. distillers grains exports. Nearly 1.5 mmt, or 27 percent of total exports, were shipped to Mexico in 2009. Mexico imported 23 percent more distillers grains in 2009 than in 2008.
•Canada again ranked as the second largest export market for U.S. distillers grains, receiving nearly 804,000 metric tons of U.S. product.
• After importing virtually no distillers grains in 2008, China emerged as the third largest market for U.S. distillers grains exports in 2009 with 542,000 metric tons. China is seen as the largest potential growth market for distiller grains exports.
• Turkey and Thailand ranked fourth and fifth, respectively, as top destinations for U.S. distillers grains exports in 2009.

[James48843]

General Motors Executive Tom Stephens
@ the 2010 National Ethanol Conference




efVWYxBQFyc

[Buster]

General Motors Executive Tom Stephens
@ the 2010 National Ethanol Conference





efVWYxBQFyc

That's all well and good and I'm sold on the concept as stated..But I'm afraid like so many other bait and switch programs..that Once we are all mostly driving flex fuel cars, then the prices of ethanoil will double and triple...Then they got us by the short-hairs.:suspicious:

[James48843]

That's all well and good and I'm sold on the concept as stated..But I'm afraid like so many other bait and switch programs..that Once we are all mostly driving flex fuel cars, then the prices of ethanoil will double and triple...Then they got us by the short-hairs.:suspicious:

But if you're driving a flex-fuel car, and the price of ethanol goes up, you can switch to cheaper gasoline.

And if your driving on gasoline, and the price goes up, you can switch to cheaper ethanol.

Choice.

Tell me that's not a better plan.

P.S.- When gas hits $4 a gallon next time, will you be prepared?

[James48843]

Buster- I want to show you something:

First, here is the bulk price of gasoline, on the Chicago Board of Trade today, trading April RBOB gasoline futures: $2.11 a gallon

8424


Next, Here is today's price for April delivery- Chicago Board of Trade, for ethanol futures, same date: Ethanol futures are at $1.70 a gallon.

8425


Now, ethanol also gets a .49 cent a gallon blender's tax credit. That means for each gallon that someone mixes ethanol and gasoline to make E85, they get .49 cents from Uncle Sam.

Which means, the REAL price, at the point where it's made into E85, is $1.70 a gallon, MINUS .49 cents, or $1.21 a gallon.

There is .185 cents a gallon federal tax, and, in my state, .20 cents a gallon state tax. Which brings the price of E85 ethanol back up to $1.595 a gallon.

Gasoline, at $2.11 a gallon, also has the same .185 federal road tax, and .20 cents a gallon state road tax, for a total of $2.495, without ANY costs for delivery taken into account.
(Note- if things were fair- since E85 gives you about 15% fewer miles per gallon, the road taxes SHOULD be 15% LESS than gasoline- but almost all states don't recognize that fact. Two cars of equal weight really should be paying the same road tax for each mile traveled, not the same per gallon of fuel,, but that's another gripe for another post...).

So, in short, it costs .90 cents a gallon CHEAPER to buy a gallon of ethanol at the Chicago Board of Trade in bulk (33,000 gallons at a time) than gasoline is.

That's 36% CHEAPER for ethanol, than gasoline.

Now, who again makes that .49 tax credit we always hear about as an "ethanol subsidy"?

It isn't the ethanol companies.

It's the OIL COMPANIES, who own the distribution system now, and blend at the rack.

Ethanol companies, by the way, are currently making a profit on $1.70 ethanol. No subsidy for them.

If free market competition really kicked in here, we would have E85 selling for about 20-25% cheaper than gasoline right now. It's not, because the OIL COMPANIES are soaking up all that profit, and keeping the ethanol companies in check, because OIL owns the distribution system for now.

This is one of the main reasons we NEED to get better distribution in place. We need more E85 pumps. And we need people to demand of their local stations to start carrying E85, so that we can bring up competition, and bring down the price.

And THAT is when you are going to WANT to own a flex-fuel capable car.

Any questions?

[burrocrat]

Then they got us by the short-hairs.:suspicious:

there's an easy fix for that, starts with R, end with azor.

less to grab that way, and if they do get ahold of something...

who knows, maybe both will like it?

[James48843]

Invest $20G in this truck:

8426

and start driving ethanol from your local ethanol plant, to the gas station to deliver it.

Collect and clear $1,250 in gross margin on each trip.

Get 10 gas stations in a 50 mile stretch from the plant to your home, and you can do 3 loads a day comfortably. ($3,750 a day). Less about $250 a day in operating expenses.

Make .50 cents a gallon profit on delivering ethanol, and still undercut the costs of the oil companies by .40 cents a gallon delivered to the gas station.

The truck can be paid for outright a week.

One guy, driving this truck, and delivering to just 10 stations, can clear almost a million bucks a year.

Now multiply that times the number of gas stations out there. If only one out of every ten gas stations in America becomes your customer, you can have 20,000 stations. That's 2,000 of these trucks on the road delivering. That's $2 billion bucks, less wages for the drivers, clerical office staff, etc. Still works out to a billion dollar business within perhaps 3 to 5 years. I've got the business plan to back it up.

Anybody ready to chip in?

[Silverbird]

When will I be able to use it to fuel a bass boat?

[nnuut]

Invest $20G in this truck:



8426




and start driving ethanol from your local ethanol plant, to the gas station to deliver it.





Collect and clear $1,250 in gross margin on each trip.




Get 10 gas stations in a 50 mile stretch from the plant to your home, and you can do 3 loads a day comfortably. ($3,750 a day). Less about $250 a day in operating expenses.




Make .50 cents a gallon profit on delivering ethanol, and still undercut the costs of the oil companies by .40 cents a gallon delivered to the gas station.




The truck can be paid for outright a week.




One guy, driving this truck, and delivering to just 10 stations, can clear almost a million bucks a year.




Now multiply that times the number of gas stations out there. If only one out of every ten gas stations in America becomes your customer, you can have 20,000 stations. That's 2,000 of these trucks on the road delivering. That's $2 billion bucks, less wages for the drivers, clerical office staff, etc. Still works out to a billion dollar business within perhaps 3 to 5 years. I've got the business plan to back it up.




Anybody ready to chip in?










Have you considered that if this business is so lucrative that the big trucking companies that deliver GAS might jump on it and put the small truckers out of business, or is there some reason I don't know about as to why they won't?:cool:

[WorkFE]

Where can I buy shares of Corny James Fuel Delivery

[James48843]

Where can I buy shares of Corny James Fuel Delivery

http://greatspiritfuel.com

[James48843]

http://detnews.com/article/20100225/AUTO01/2250447/Toyota-concerned-flex-fuel-mandates-could-cost-it-$600M-yearly

Toyota concerned flex-fuel mandates could cost it $600M yearly
David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau

Washington -- Toyota Motor Corp. executives worried last summer about what it perceived as an emerging uneven playing field in the United States, and said new fuel requirements could cost it up to $600 million annually.

The concerns were included in the release by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee of what appears to be the complete, 28-page version of a now infamous memo prepared for the company's new North American president Yoshi Inaba in July 2009 -- on his second day on the job.

Other parts of that presentation became public earlier this week, and revealed the automaker as bragging about its success in avoiding or delaying costly regulatory actions, including widespread safety recalls.

The newly released pages reveal the depth of Toyota's concern over flexible-fuel vehicle mandates. Flexible-fuel vehicles can run on traditional fuel blends or E85, which is made of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.

Toyota said flex-fuel mandates could cost the company $200 to $300 per vehicle -- or $400 million to $600 million annually.

The presentation featured a photograph of President Barack Obama and included a quote from his campaign literature:

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work with Congress and auto companies to ensure that all new vehicles have FFV capability."

The presentation noted that Toyota had avoided the requirements so far.

It noted that Toyota had beaten back attempts to make last summer's "cash for clunkers" program apply to only North American-built vehicles. Toyota was the biggest beneficiary of the program that grew to $3 billion.

The presentation called the program a "conquest" for Toyota.

It also worried about the impact of a measure dubbed "card check," which would make it easier for workers to unionize. Toyota has managed to avoid unionization of its U.S. plants.

Delaying the legislation was chalked up in the memo as another "win" for Toyota.

Separately, Toyota's president Akio Toyoda and Inaba met with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood for 30 minutes this morning at the department's headquarters.

The meeting, which included National Highway Traffic Safety Administration chief David Strickland, was "productive and focused on the importance of safety and working cooperatively to protect consumers in the U.S.," the department said in a statement.

One recommendation made by Toyota's Washington office, to accelerate decision-making in the United States, appeared to go unheeded. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was critical of the inability of Toyota officials in the United States to make decisions, saying it often took too long to get decisions from Japan on recalls and other issues.

The Toyota internal presentation urged establishment of a "small senior exec. group in U.S. to make timely decisions," and initiate action on legislative and regulatory issues. It also noted the benefit of having engineers in Washington.

"Many issues require immediate (or near immediate) response," the presentation said. "Provide quick response based on daily communication with (Toyota in Japan) and ... to educate lawmakers to have reasonable legislation and regulation."

Toyota said this week it is adding more engineers in the United States and at least three new engineering centers.

Other newly revealed parts of the internal presentation explain the company's concerns about the $85 billion auto industry bailout.

"Government $ for GM/Chrysler," the presentation read. "Not a level playing field."

The presentation said there were "adverse implications" for Toyota of government support for bankrupt GM and Chrysler.

Ironically, Japan is considered one of the world's most closed markets for non-Japanese automakers.

The presentation noted that Ford Motor Co, Tesla Motors Inc. and Nissan Motor Co had received $7 billion in Energy Department retooling loans.

Toyota executives also were worried about "Buy American" attitudes being "on the rise," as well as import taxes, border tariffs and support for auto suppliers.

The company fretted over the impact of new consumer financial regulation on its lending arm, Toyota Motor Credit.

dshepardson@detnews.com (202) 662-8735



From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20100225/AUTO01/2250447/Toyota-concerned-flex-fuel-mandates-could-cost-it-$600M-yearly#ixzz0gfQdCJnb

[James48843]

You would think they should be more worried about safety than about whether or not flex-fuel cars are made mandatory.

P.S. Toyota- get with the program- Flex-Fuel cars are needed.

[WorkFE]

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.

"Not a level playing field." Pot calling the kettle black. Been that way for US companies in Japan for years.

I do not believe in protectionism but Japan "Lets level playing field."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/177709-japan-says-no-to-american-cars-in-its-subsidy-program?title=japan-says-no-to-american-cars-in-its-subsidy-program