Great Editorial a Friend Just Wrote

Captain · June 25, 2007, 10:02:13 PM

I always like to read articles from both points of view...and make a more informed opinion on the matter myself. Thanks for the post, Scott. Working in the transportation industry is pretty tough these days. I just hope we will be into hydrogen pretty soon, as ethanol and electricity (ie battery production and replacement over a vehilce's lifetime) both have significant environmental impacts.

Captain

Larry · June 26, 2007, 07:15:36 AM

Turning corn into fuel ain't never gonna fly now that Tyson has figured out how to turn chicken parts into fuel.

I worry about planet earth being covered with chicken houses...and what are we going to do with all that chicken s...stuff?

Gary_C · June 26, 2007, 10:06:45 AM

This ethanol boom was started by farmers who were disgusted by continuing depression era prices for their corn. I have one of the earlier built ethanol plants within 15 miles from where I live. The small bank I use is in the same town and they helped arrange financing for the plant. I have heard all the arguments for and against ethanol. And I can tell you those farmers reasons for investing their money and committing some of their corn production to ethanol were to 1) stop sending their fuel dollars to countries that hate us, 2) get better prices than $1.00 per bushel for their corn, and 3) make some, but not much money on their risky investment. I for one, applaud their courage in starting this ethanol production with very worthy goals. ADM was then noticeably absent from the ethanol production and even now most of the ethanol plants around me are farmer owned coops.

I have never heard from any one involved in ethanol production that their goal was to totally replace fossil fuels with ethanol, as it has never been feasible to even attempt that worthy goal. Plus all of these ethanol operations are themselves working to reduce their feedstock costs now that corn prices have gone up so much and that includes cellulosic ethanol production. It just plain makes good business sense to find a lower cost input, no matter what you start with. Corn just happened to be the best, first feed stock.

Since I do actually live in Minnesota, I can tell you that we are not now, nor any time in the future going to be running out of water. Especially when I am presently sitting about 50 miles due south of Lake Superior which I am told contains 17 % of the worlds fresh water supply and I know it also is the source of most of the deep water aquifers that supply the upper Midwest with water.

There is much more that could be said about that editorial, but I have many better things to do right now. So I will just say, "based on the things I know not to be true, that editorial is just a bunch of what my heifers leave behind when they eat corn"!

OneWithWood · June 26, 2007, 01:55:21 PM

The writer of that editorial may have some good points but the overt attitude expressed in his writing style makes it very hard to ferret those points out. When people start out with such an attitude I tend to tune them out and stop reading.

The push behind corn based ethanol has very little to due with conservation, lessening oil dependence, or cleaner burning fuels. Gary came very close to the reality. It has everything to do with boosting the price farmers receive for corn. This point was explained very clearly to a group of interested citizens at a state SWCD meeting by an Asst. Secretary of Ag. Basically his message was this: Corn prices go up past the subsidy trigger point, government expenditures for those subsidies go down, a miriad of budget problems and international trade issues go by the wayside. Pretty simple short term fix. Just what you expect to come out of Washington, D.C.. I was amazed with his candor. The farm coops are banking heavily on the government subsidy for ethanol for a return on their investment. So to some extent we are trading one subsidy for another but the volume is much different.

As long as the American public insists on driving wherever they want, whenever they want, one person to a car, we will have a dependency on foreign oil sources. When the supplies get tight enough and the costs great enough we may change our ways. It remains to be seen.

Scott, I would welcome Denny's input here. Just warn him to check the attitude at the door. A discussion of ideas is a good thing and we would all welcome it. Championing a cause usually results in name calling aggressive behavior and does not add to the discussion. I have the scars to prove it.

Patty · June 26, 2007, 04:26:24 PM

I read an article today that refuted the often said "fact" that corn prices are raising the price of foods at the grocery store. The article claims that the high cost of energy has done far more to raise the price of foods far more than higher corn prices have. His (the author) point was rising energy prices have twice the impact on the Consumer Price Index for food than does the price of corn. Energy is required to produce, process, package, and ship each food item, whereas corn prices impact only a small segment of the food market, since not all products rely on corn for production. Corn production will continue to increase to accommodate the increased demand. This increased supply will eventually reduce gasoline prices at the pump and thus eventually will reduce the cost of foods.

Interesting reading.

DanG · June 26, 2007, 11:33:16 PM

The cost to the consumer has nothing to do with my thoughts on alternative fuels. Prices are going to go higher. I'm just trying to find a way for us to continue to live comfortably when the oil goes away. The bulk of the World's petroleum belongs to people who hate us, speaking strictly from the American point of view. The political situation is just too doggone volatile for me to be comfortable relying on petroleum.

That being said, however, we are presented with the opportunity to correct some other travesties in our "system." Do any of you remember when a farmer would pile his goods onto his truck and take it directly to the processor or consumer? Well, the way I see it, we have a chance to go back to that. With a new player in the game, the deck has to be re-shuffled. If we can keep the current middlemen from grabbing up all the spoils, the farmer just might be able to get the price that his product is worth. If they can get a fair price for their products, there will be no need for Government subsidies for fuel, feed, or food grade grains. With this new market for korn(I'm using korn for and example because I know how to spell it) there is an opportunity for small grain elevators to spring up around the thousands of railroad sidings that are rusting away right now. There could be an independent buyer at each of these locations, who could pay the farmer six or eight bucks a bushel for his korn, then load it straight onto a freight car for the trip to the refinery. They would pay him about a quarter per bushel in profit, which would provide him with a fine living, then turn that bushel into a half-gallon of korn oil and 3 or 4 gallons of ethanol, which they would sell for 3 bucks a gallon. Then they would ship the 32 pounds of residue off to the feedlots and chicken ranches, and make a tidy profit from it. We would no longer have a need for Mr. Kennedy's Merchandise Mart, so we could render him into bio-diesel. He would have more power than he could have hoped for. :

;D

Fla._Deadheader · June 27, 2007, 08:22:25 AM

I realise DanG is using "for examples" in his postings, but, Corn is about the lowest producer of oil, of all the potential crops. Even Cotton is double the oil content of corn.

IF I remember correctly, there is approx. 2.6 gallons of 98% alcohol recoverable from a bushel of corn. That's NOT proof, that's percent.

I have to search for oil per bushel. Source I DO have says 18 gallons per acre :

:

Soybeans are much higher and Canola and sunflower is even higher.

I believe all the hype over corn to fuel, is not correct. Too many variables.

Captain · June 27, 2007, 08:37:53 AM

What we really need is sugar cane and lots of it....

DanG · June 27, 2007, 09:29:04 AM

You're right, Harold. (HEY! I just agreed with you!

) There isn't much oil in a bushel of corn, something like a pint or so, I believe. Funny thing, though, corn oil is one of the cheapest oils on the grocery store shelf. It probably has to do with demand. That's some nasty stuff to cook with. I read that they only get oil from the germ, that tiny little bud at the tip of the kernel. I don't know how they seperate it. Seems tedious.

Fla._Deadheader · June 27, 2007, 12:29:45 PM

8) 8) 8) 8) You agreed with me :

8) 8) 8) 8) :D :D :D

Takes a LOT of water to seperate the germ from the kernel. Coarse grind the kernel, dissolve ?? the starch, and centrifuge the germ from the mush ??

I HAD a URL to link to, but, the FF was down for over 2 hours or so ???

I will find the link, later. It concerns OPEC. >:( >:( The REST of the story. :

:

>:(