The Forestry Forum

Boone Pickens has been the brunt of alot of jeering and sneering, not to mention cursing and worse.

I don't know the man at all, but after watching this video, if it was anyone but Boone and his reputation, you might say he has some great ideas.

• He says ethanol is a joke.


• He says there is no single remedy to the oil crisis


• He says solar, wind (investing in it heavily), and natural gas (by coincidence he is long on it) are critical short term solutions.


• He says we should focus on developing resources within our borders. our own oil, natural gas, wind etc.


• He says this country has no leadership to effect the necessary changes "They're not gonna open up ANWR that isn't gonna happen"


• He says there is no plan: "You're talking about reducing taxes on gasoline for the summer? Is that an energy plan? H*ll no it's no energy plan. It's no plan at all!"
• He says "politicians aren't thinking about solving energy problems they are thinking about how to get re-elected"

Wind power a joke? I don't know about that, but ethanol don't seem any better. He made some sense to my simple mind. listen for yourself if you want.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jngHfYFs9L8&feature=related)

Tex
I remember the first oil scare when I was in college.
(Go Georgia Bulldogs, class of '76 with honors, thank you.)
We were oil dependent then, but far more so how. Now I realize
that we had our "preview," if you will, of what could happen to us. We had
that preview and have proceeded to do absolutely nothing to fix the problem.

As Pickens points out, we will now be sending between $600,000,000,000.00
and $9,000,000,000.00 dollars to other countries for oil.   That many billions
of dollars is hard to even type, much less comprehend.  That money is GONE!
It is being spent each YEAR!  I had to go back and count my zeroes to be sure
I had the right numbers.

Is Pickens going to laugh at the lack of leadership all the way to the bank? You
betcha.  Is he still right? Probably so.   Is he "spinning" a little to make even more
bucks? Definitely.  Is he still right?  Probably so.   Could we go on?   

Nah, better give it a rest for a few.

I remember the fist scare too. The wife's uncle was married to the daughter of the owner of the local oil franchise and a trucking company, also a gas station.

No gas at the station, however at the bulk plant, same property and the trucking  company, same propety everything was full and the company would not let them sell anything.

Quote from: TexasTimbers on June 19, 2008, 08:55:41 PM

listen for yourself if you want.

I want, but I won't due to dial-up. :-\

First off, a man doesn't become a multi-billionaire without having some great ideas.  He also doesn't get there by having a conscience.  I heard a news blurb recently, where Pickens was saying that he had quite enough money to see him through ::), and he is doing this to "save" America.  Well now, this could very well be true...or false.  What I didn't know before reading the other "joke" thread, was that he is heavily invested in an alternative energy program of his own.  I have been knowing and saying for some time now that the only way we're going to develop alternatives is for the price of petroleum to move beyond the cost of developing those alternative fuels.  Could it be that Pickens, who obviously know's that too, is just forcing the issue intentionally, in a last-gasp effort to get into Heaven, or is he just trying to bilk the public out of a few more billion bucks?  I don't know the answer to that, so I'll have to leave it up to each of you to make up your own minds.

This does however, bring a little story to mind.  There was this little baby bird, you see, that had somehow fallen out of his nest in a barnyard.  The pore little guy had no feathers to keep him warm, and he was in serious jeopardy of succumbing to hypothermia.  As luck would have it, one of the cows who inhabited that yard came along, and dropped a big ol' pile of dookey on the little bird.  Now, this seems like it just add's insult to injury, but the warmth of the poop was just what the little fellow needed to hang on a little bit longer.  Of course, where there is a barnyard, there is a barn, and there are usually a few barn cats around.  Sure enough, one of them found the little birdie and snatched him up for breakfast.  As you might have guessed, this story has a moral:  The one that s**ts on you ain't necessarily your enemy, and the one that pull's you out of the s**t, ain't necessarily your friend.  I don't know if Pickens is the cow or the cat, but I do know that we are in trouble, and the only way out is straight through the middle of it.  The other thing I know is, it is not a joke!

Ethanol is not a joke....Just ask the Captain!

Phill your assessment of it sounds pretty common sense and rationale to me.

DanG I don't know if he's the cat or the cow either. Maybe he's the baby bird, but we place the wrong emphasis on things with our worldly view and can't consider things that way.  

zopi I don't know much about the feasability of ethanol over a 30 year period, but when the topic started coming up here I read sevral google articles (which means i still don't know a thing) and I was left with the impression from reading alleged "unbiased experts" that it's a pipe dream at best until many more factors come into play.

I shouldn't have used Picken's words for the title perhaps, but I thought it was funny that we had this wind power joke thread and here is Pickens, a wind power propenent, saying that "ethanol is a joke". It was too much for me to resist.  ::)

I don't understand why, with oil drilling technology, we can't drill through the mantle, or at least to a crack in it, and use the heat to make steam to make electricity.

Quote from: Tom on June 19, 2008, 11:16:40 PM
I don't understand why, with oil drilling technology, we can't drill through the mantle, or at least to a crack in it, and use the heat to make steam to make electricity.

Got any idea how much a 10 mile long string of drill stem weighs? A drilling rig big enough to handle that kind of weight would be quite a feat. Actually somethin similar has been done most noteably in iceland. Problem is, the steam produced is highly corrosive, it destroys the plumbing and turbines rather quickly.

Kevjay, I didn't realize that the "joke" part was a Pickens quote.  I guess that will tip the scales in folks' judgement of him, eh? :D :D :D

You said it best yourself, over on the "wind joke" thread when you said that the solution will be 50 2% answers rather than 1 100% answer.  If Pickens says that ethanol is a joke, then he is either a fool, or he is playing us for fools.  Everywhere I buy gas, it is labeled as 10% ethanol, so how can it be a joke?  

Quote from: pineywoods on June 19, 2008, 11:37:43 PM

Got any idea how much a 10 mile long string of drill stem weighs? A drilling rig big enough to handle that kind of weight would be quite a feat. Actually somethin similar has been done most noteably in iceland. Problem is, the steam produced is highly corrosive, it destroys the plumbing and turbines rather quickly.

Drill stem wieghs anywhere from 13.3 to 30 pounds per foot depending on the size of the pipe. A typical string of 5", nominal 19.5#, drill string including the necessary jewelry on the bottom for drilling with ways about 500,000lbs to drill a well about 3 1/2 miles deep. A csg string for a hole that deep can weigh well over a million pounds.
If I remember correctly, the deepest well on record was drilled in Germany a few years ago to near 50,000 ft. The well was proposed for over 60,000 but they ran out of technology. It wasn't an oil or geothermal well. Strictly for science. The well bore was quite small by the time they reached that depth, I think I remeber it being only 2-3 inches or there about.

Ethanol gives me gas.

Gives me a headache and makes me walk like a crab. :D

Ethanol made from corn or biodiesel made from soybeans or other food crop as even a partial solution to our energy problem is worse than a joke.  It is a cruel hoax on the American public that helps no one except for a few farmers, and in the long run even they get less benefit than companies like ADM.

TexasTimbers

Now see what you have done. You have invited the "empty retoric" guys to spout off.  ::)

BaldBob, do you have any facts to back up your claims or are you just running for some political office? I can say that one part of your retoric is not true because I am one of many, not just a few farmers that are benefiting from ethanol. And ADM is not a big player or benefiter from ethanol, it is farmer owned coops and other companies rather than ADM that benefit economically from ethanol production. And do you consider it wrong for some one other than people that hate the US and all the people in this country or a large oil company to profit from supplying our energy needs?   ???

Tex

I think I suspected the multiple meanings/motivations of your title before I opened the thread to read.
Good thread!

When Pickens says "ethanol is a joke," I believe he means two things, at least:
                  First,  he is saying that ethanol is not the bulk of our answer.
                              That surely is true, even though it is obviously and certainly
                              an incremental part of our answer.  In fact, there have been
                              some negative market side effects in relation to ethanol. Ask
                              any farmer and you will hear of good ones too!
                  More in keeping with his investment strategy, he is saying something
                              different.  I goes like this:  "If I can't use this interview to
                              make some money today, Girlie [in that interview], now why am I taking my
                              time to talk to you?  With my new investment portfolio in the
                              pink now - ready to make bundles on natural gas and on wind,
                              why do I want to seem at all to be supporting DanG ETHANOL !! ??"

By the way,  I would not normally be up at 3:00 in the morning to write on FF, but the last
two ten hour days at full steam on the swinger made my whole body revolt.  I had been on the
piano tuning mode too long this time, and I just wasn't up to jumping on this particular job of 20-footers!

Down in the woods.  No space.   Tough logs.  Tornado damage area.  I can feel it today (tonight?).

OUCH!
                I need a back transplant. ::)

ADM isnt a major player in ethanol? In 2006, they controlled 26 percent of the ethanol market, or about 1.1 billion gallons. With a 51 cent subsidized rate per gallon  on ethanol, thats 500 million dollars going to ADM. ADM also spent 440,000 dollars lobbying to help pass the 2007 energy bill. That cost consumers to the tune of 54 cents per gallon of ethanol tarriffs from ethanol imported from brazil. It also mandated a huge increase in ethanol from corn from here. You have to admit, thats a pretty good rate of return on 440,000 dollars.
It seems to me if ethanol is such a good idea, it ought to be able to stand on its own. No tarriffs on imported ethanol, and no subsidies on ethanol produced here. Maybe my problem is i dont own any ADM stock.

You are right, Kansas.  There is money to be made in energy.
The time for the huge subsidies has been terminated by the
huge oil problem.  Cash is ready to flow toward a solution
and to the profits which those solutions will bring.  Big money
is already doing it. (Of course, the subsidies help make the risk
even more worth their while.)

One sure "solution" to anybody griping about any particular energy company's
profits is simple, at least if it is a publicly traded company:
  "Hey, buy the stock.  Make some of that money for yourself. Of course,
    you won't make the money the execs make. (You won't make
    the money Tiger Woods does either.)"

Lots of folks when talking about ethanol and other alternative energy sources remind me of how some people reacted at the dawn of the automobile age. "Get a horse!"  The Rush Limbaughs are not allowing for the fact that these technologies will be tweaked and improved as knowledge increases and money allows.  As far as the tariff on Brazilian ethanol goes, do we really want to swap being dependent on foreign oil to being dependent on foreign bio fuels?  Ethanol isn't the answer to our energy problems, but it is part of the answer.

Did you notice that the folks that actually have a clue what ethanol's about are positive on it while the ones clueless cannot do anything but spout bs. Big oil, Pickens included, would like nothing better than to keep you firmly attached to their teat. Any product that competes against it is derided like what plenty here say. As for the subsidy I would like to see it go away just as soon as the ones for Brazils ethanol go away and the ones for big oil go away.

Think I'm positive because I'm benefiting from high corn prices. Fuel costs have tripled, seed costs doubled and fertilizer costs have tripled in the last three years. I lost half my crop to floods, the other half is stunted so I'll be lucky to make as much as I did when corn was $2.

Tell you what I'll keep growing corn and making ethanol and you can keep supporting Boone and the Sauds.

I did some sawing for a customer a month ago who farms
about 900 acres of his own family's land.  He pointed out that
the price hike in grain and soybeans (which has been a side effect of
the ethanol situation) had been their salvation.   As Norm points out,
all that has been happening over recent years is a BIG SQUEEZE.   All
the costs for famers have increased, while the prices for their products
as a whole have been hammered.

This has been a good side effect of ethanol:  Decent prices for farmers.
You can't take hits like 70% rise in fertilizer in one year and stay in business,
without better prices for your end product.  Farmers have little say on what
they can get.

BACK TO PICKENS...
You may have noticed in the clip that he clearly thought that natural gas
followed by wind were just the beginning steps in the area of electricity production.
That doesn't immediately get to the issue of personal transportation and trucking, etc.
Neither does it address our other areas of dependency on oil.

Tom
I will bet that geo-thermal power is now also becoming more feasible.  It is always
a matter of cost, after all, not usually a matter of ingenuity. 

As someone said on another thread (maybe the wind-joke thread?), ...

                 "The solution to the oil crisis
                          is the oil crisis."

This is true, due to the trauma the crisis is causing/will cause;         ( hardship, pain, business failures)
                          the shifts it will cause;                                    ( return to old tech: trains, "mill town design", etc.)
                           the increased investment it will cause;              ( personal into solar,wind; big money too)
                            the creative solutions it will cause;                  ( You name it and it will be tried.)
                             the profit it will cause;                                 ( Hey, it's the capitalist way.)
                              the conservation it will cause;                      ( When you can't afford to do anything else....)

I think what he means, since he was speaking in the context of the short term relief needed to fill the 2 to 3 million barrel a day (and growing) shortfall, was that ethanol is not going to be able to help out there because it won't be any cheaper than oil for quite some time. That's my take on it anyway.

I still believe my 50 x 2% strategy, and maybe ethanol could be a viable  long term option. Maybe quite possible. But it's not a short term solution is it? Maybe *part* of the short term soultion? Like 2%? I hope so. But at current prices and short term expectations it isn't is it?

But before the thread inaccurately becomes "Kevin is pro Boone Pickens" let me emphasize what I said. I don't know anything about the guy - I just said he seemed to make sense to me with what he said in the video. Doersn't mean I can't change my mind if I find out ethanol is truly a viable option and he is calling it a joke and *knows* it is part of a solution for our immediate crisis.

I think alot of folks just dislike the guy because he seems to be a rich arrogant jerk (and maybe he is). I don't necessarily hold that against him if he has something of value to offer, whether he makes money with his solutions or not doesn't ruffle a single feather on my tail as long as what he is saying has merit.

It's possible to be both rich and right. To at least some degree.

DanG I am not "pro Boone" so I don't care what peeps think of him. I am also not staunchly "anti" ethanol and I do not know it to be a joke. As I said my impression from my exhaustive study on the topic (see that's also a joke) is that it isn't going to be any more affordable than fossil fuels in our lifetimes. But I am certainly able to be learnt on stuff. My title is in quotes. Phil caught the play but as Gary inferred maybe it was not obvious enough for me to have used. I know you like a good joke from time to time, and that's all I was trying to do. I probably confuse things though when I mix one in so closely with something I am also being serious with. Makes it hard for folks to know what is what I suppose.

Norm I am not supporting Boone or the sauds any more than you. I posted a video where he laid out a more reasonable sounding plan for the short term solutions than anyone else I have yet heard. That doesn't make me a Boone supporter. I am an America First supporter. Boone is a Boone supporter. If his interests are served the same time ours are, even for a little while, I guess that makes him richer and us a little less foreign oil dependent. But I don't know for sure that that's the case. But with my limited information, his wind/solar/natural gas/domestic drilling seems to make the most sense to me thus far.

I do apologize for making light of ethanol. I was not being thoughful of those of you who are giving a large portion of your time money and efforts in trying to develop a viable long term energy solution. I'll be back later today Norm if you need to rag on me a bit, I have to go to the emergency room and have a size 10 1/2 extracated from my pie hole. ::)

And if you think the energy problem is scary, T Boone Pickens has an interview in a financial mag this month about water.  He says this is the next "energy" crisis.  Oil and gas was historically underpriced for the past 15-20 years and caused todays problem.  U.S. water has been extremely cheap for over 50.  All that infrastructure is now over 50 years old in the cities and he is betting big the companies that fix and replace water utilities are going to start raking in the dough.  I have a couple of ex-ranchers in my neighborhood that were forced to move to the city and get jobs when their wells dried up because the aquifers are being drained.  We are already on watering restrictions even though the local lakes are still over pool, yet the luxury neighborhood down the street has wells in every backyard so that they can ignore the restrictions and water all they like, and one of DFW's top earners was qouted as saying he could care less about restrictions and his water bill is $100K a year for his house.  You may not like him, but Mr. Pickens is usually right.

Kev, I thought all along that was your tongue in your cheek.  I didn't know it was your foot! ;) :D   I knew that the "joke" in your title was a spoof, but I thought you were quoting Ibseeker instead of Pickens.  At any rate, you opened a new chapter in an already good discussion.  It doesn't really matter what any of us think of Pickens.  He's gonna do what he's gonna do, regardless of our opinions of his motives.  As for him being an oil man, that's just how he made his money.  He doesn't care where the money comes from, as long as it keeps coming.  Of course, since he is into oil and wind, he is going to criticize ethanol, just as he would be calling wind power a joke if he was growing corn.

Norm, I guess it is lucky for you that the prices went up like they did.  If corn was still $2, it wouldn't even be worthwhile trying to harvest.  Farming has always been a gamble.  Sometimes ya win, sometimes ya lose.  I sure would have liked to see you make a great yield this year, though.  The floods in the Midwest couldn't have come in a worse year, as far as our economy is concerned.  We are all gonna see hard times because of it.  The cock-eyed optimist in me is telling me that these hard times are gonna bring us better times in the future, though.  

Jeffreythree, you are correct in that Pickens is usually right.  That's what made him rich.  It also makes him worth listening to, as long as you filter out the BS that is just designed to make him richer.  Water is definitely a major issue, and I'm sure we'll have plenty of discussions here about it.  It will soon become critical enough for us to do something about it, just as fuel has done.  At least all this trouble we're having will help the unemployment problem.  There's gonna be oil rigs, refineries, distillaries, pipelines, and desalination plants to be built and operated.  Opportunity will abound for those who want to work! :) 8) :)

Yes TT, I saw the title for what you intended it to be. But I also recognized what the unintended consequences would be.  ;D

Quote from: Kansas on June 20, 2008, 04:19:30 AM
It seems to me if ethanol is such a good idea, it ought to be able to stand on its own.

You could also say the oil companies should be able to protect their own assets worldwide, the railroads should not receive any help from the government, the trucking industry should not be able to use the roads and bridges that are paid for with public money, and Bear Stearns should be bankrupt.

If you only consider the part about "ought to be able to stand on its own" then we as a country and people would not be what we are. For we could say the victims of Katrina, the floods in Iowa, and especially the victims of disasters around the world ought to be able to stand on their own.

Many years ago there was an editorial in a Canadian newspaper about the difficulties as a country to share a border with the US. As the writer pointed out, it was somewhat like a mouse sleeping in a bed with an elephant. Even the slightest hiccup or sneeze could have serious consequences. But yet as troublesome as it may seem, no other country or people in this world would be a better neighbor to have. For the US stands ready and able to help anyone around the world at any time and asks nothing in return. We are very generous with what we have and more than willing to share our assistance with both friend and foe.

And yet at the same time, some people are more than eager to villify our own farmer or business that is providing food or energy for our enormous appetites if they are profiting from their efforts. I know that ADM is not a model company, but they do provide many food ingredients that we could not do without. But just because they take advantage of government assistance to promote energy independence for this country is certainly not a good reason to dislike them or anyone else that is "profiting" from this worthy energy goal.

So I just do not understand this anti business, anti ethanol, anti farmer, and anti profit sentiment that some people seem to have. I guess they would prefer to sent their money to people that hate us and are our sworn enemies.  :( :(

Quote from: Gary_C on June 20, 2008, 11:19:30 AM

Quote from: Kansas on June 20, 2008, 04:19:30 AM
It seems to me if ethanol is such a good idea, it ought to be able to stand on its own.

You could also say the oil companies should be able to protect their own assets worldwide, the railroads should not receive any help from the government, the trucking industry should not be able to use the roads and bridges that are paid for with public money, and Bear Stearns should be bankrupt.


So I just do not understand this anti business, anti ethanol, anti farmer, and anti profit sentiment that some people seem to have. I guess they would prefer to sent their money to people that hate us and are our sworn enemies.  :( :(

I agree with all of that except the part about the truckers.  They pay for their share of the roadway, and also enable the rest of us to pay for our share.  The rest of it could easily stand on its own if the Government would just leave it alone, in my opinion.  We are all part of a team here, and each of us doing our part makes us a winning team.  What I don't understand is, if the Gov't is the quarterback, why does he keep tripping up the running back after he hands him the ball? ???

Quote from: DanG on June 20, 2008, 11:56:30 AM
  We are all part of a team here, and each of us doing our part makes us a winning team.  What I don't understand is, if the Gov't is the quarterback, why does he keep tripping up the running back after he hands him the ball? ???

That's a good question. Sometimes I think our US Dept. of Agriculture has a "poison of the month club." The food safety people would announce just before the start of summer grilling season that you should not eat chicken because it might contain salmonella or don't grill that beef as it could cause cancer or just before the super bowl weekend they would caution you about eating cheese.  ::)

And at the same time, many commodities have manditory contributions for product promotions. Maybe the promotion money would not be necessary if they would just stop bad mouthing the "safest food supply in the world."     :)

Not trying to beat a dead horse, but just to finally clairfy, I *was* conscience of the other "joke" thread of course, and that's part of what was going on. I saw some irony at play from more than one angle. Coincidence is often given credit as irony and here I saw genuine actual irony playing out from 3 (4 sort of) angles. Not claiming innocence there. Nuff said on that.

It's no secret I too am in the limited government camp, especially limited federal, even when it seems like the "moral" thing to have Uncle Sam step out of the confines of Constitution for "humanitarian" purposes. I know that pesky old Constitution is a PIT behind sometimes, but I still think without it we are in a worse mess. I also think the mess is directly proportional to distance we stray from it. Examples abound. No point in reitterating them.

Not wanting to get into a Constitutional debate, but it's impossible to discuss the role of the central government without it. And it's hard to agree that the plethora of dabbling being done by the federal government is within its legal mandate. Sure the Congress can do whatever it wants as long as 5 of the 9 black robes say it's okay, because they have the tanks, but we should still not rubber stamp every little thing they consistently, and predictably, mess up. it's the same old tired "thge market corrects itself" argument I know, but I am a diehard adherent to it.

When congress is investigating steroids in sports, gambling, in sports, cheating i.e illegal video taping of a teams practices in sports, and saying it is vital to the interest of the country and within their power and even responsibility to do, then can anyone besides me agree the federal monster is off its rocker? Even though they may technicaly have authority by a supporting law in the CFR, does it make it okay to spend our time and resources on that?

Where were we. Oh yeah ethanol. Good stuff I'm told. Maybe congress should investigate it further when they are through with Barry Bonds and Roger Clements and Bill Belichek. Public enemies with the power to destroy America, to be sure. ::)

I think you have to look somewhat at the energy balance of the different fuels.  A lot of hubbub about ethanol is that it supposedly takes in more energy than you get out of it.  I've seen arguements on both sides.  

The energy balance for corn is 1.3.  That means you get out 30% more energy than you put into it.  That's supposed to include all the cost of farming and refining.  Sugarcane has an energy balance of 8.0.  That's really hard to compete with.  Biodiesel has an energy balance of 2.5.  Cellulosic ethanol has an energy balance of between 2-36 with switchgrass in the 5.4 range.  This all comes from Wikipedia.

Given the better energy balance for biodiesel, you would think there would be a bigger push for that.  I also wonder why its always the big push for corn.  Would it be any better to raise sugar beets than corn?  That's a farming question that maybe a few of you farmers could better answer.  I know it boils down to economics, but considering the higher amounts of sugar, and therefore, ethanol that could be produced, is it feasible?  Are the yields to low for sugar beets to be considered or are we back to subsidies?  

Ethanol is subsidized to the tune of 51¢/gal.  Imported ethanol is taxed 54¢/gal.  Biodiesel is subsidized at $1/gal.  Big oil gets about $18 billion in tax relief and subsidies, which amounts to about 6¢/gal of crude.  Coal doesn't receive too much as of yet, but will be looking for a subsidy to build coal to liquid plants.  Not saying that subsidies are good or bad, just pointing out what they are.  

To me, ethanol is a feel good type of fuel.  I know, it feels even better if you drink it.  But, its easy to make, and it makes everyone feel like they're doing something on the energy front.  You can take that to be anti farmer or anti business if you like.  Ethanol is a bandaid for a much larger problem.  It won't fix it, but it'll help.

Ain't that the DanG truth? >:(  This latest thing about the tomatoes is totally absurd!  Less than 300 people got mildly ill from Salmonella, so the FDA shut down an entire industry.  It ain't like they can just hang on to the product until the situation is resolved.  Besides, that was only 1 person for each million in our population.  I cannot imagine that there has ever been a time when at least one out of every million people did NOT have Salmonella poisoning.  How do they know it came from a tomato, anyway?  Did those people not eat anything but tomatoes?  Did they not touch anything since washing their hands?  One guy from Florida ate a tomato in New York, but was back in Fla by the time he got sick, so they shut down the tomato business in Fla! ::)  This is exactly what I was referring to with the quarterback analogy.

(I see there have been more posts.  This was in response to what Gary_C said.)

Quote from: jeffreythree on June 20, 2008, 10:51:57 AM
And if you think the energy problem is scary, T Boone Pickens has an interview in a financial mag this month about water.  He says this is the next "energy" crisis.

I agree.  Which is why I believe this is a good idea (https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php/topic,26621.msg387211.html#msg387211).  Water will definitely become more of a shortage if that new car that consumes h2o becomes a big hit.  Unless it can consume salt water but I highly doubt it.  It likely needs to burn distilled water.  :-\

I'm not an expert but i did stay at a super 8 motel last night. Here in Iowa we've been producing 10% ethanol gas for (help me out here Norm!!!) 35 or 40 years. I have even seriously considered investing in one of the many ethanol plants. Yes its true people like you and me own those plants not just ADM. I hear constantly the facts and figures about how switch grass and sugar cane and the likes are more efficiently converted to fuel but the folks that grow those types of crops havent put down the cash and built the plants to make the fuel. The argument is the money paid for ethanol goes to a few farmers. Well i would gladly give my money to a bunch of US farmers rather than 3 arab sheiks. I will subsidize the ethanol rather than subsidize the welfare recipients who are able but dont want to work. Atleast the farmers here are making an effort to reduce the problem not just sitting around complaining about it. The ethanol technology is constantly improving, Iowa state university recently discovered that by using a 25% to 30% blend they can improve gas mileage by as much 30%, they are doing tests now.

Ethanol a joke?  We have been working on solar, wind and ethanol technologies for about the same number of years. Can you run your car on a windmill? Nope. Can you run your truck on solar panels? Nope. Can you run your vehicles on ethanol? Yep !! If you think ethanol is a joke then get off your lazy behind and come up with something better. You will be rich and we will all be better off for it. But be warned if you do invent something better and you become wealthy be prepared because you will be labeled as the "evil money grubbing something better guy".

Ron I wasn't aware of the "energy balance" standard. Lots of basic stuff I don't know obviously. Man if sugarcane has an 8.0 there has to be more than one underlying reason why that industry isn't seeing throngs of entreprenuers.

Maybe it is because there are no congressman behind it? Lots of representitives from corn states. Texas is even a pretty big corn state I thnk. I see it all over the place here and have for years. All the old cotton fields are planted in some type of cattle grass or corn. My USDA agent told me once we have only a few hundred measly acres of cotton here in Fannin County just for an FYI.

You can't say it is not possible to both uphold your oath to the constitution and get re-elected. Ron Paul, who's constiuency lives in areas that flood pretty regular, consistenly vote him back into office even though he has never, and will never vote for federal flood aid for them. He says it is not the role of the federal government to spend money on that. His flood victim voters bite their lip, put on their waders, and vote him back into office.

Maybe that could only happen here in Texas I don't know. I seriosuly doubt Ted Kennedy, who doesn't just bring home the bacon or the pig, but the whole dern pig farm year in and year out, could pull that off.

I know I am talking politics here, but you can't seperate the two. Pick any industry and it's controlled to some degree by congress. If washington kept out of the markets don't you think the overall, the ones most feasable for industry, and beneficial for the user would win out in the order they were found to be that way?

If corn is being subsidised to the point that that's the only reason it is still floating along, then maybe sugar cane (or something else I never even heard of) is being silently developed and even more plausible, but doesn't yet have the dollars to compete with big federal money and the publicity that only washington can give it.

Always comes down to grits and politics in the end. I wonder what the energy rating of grits is . . .

Ron, I have many of the same questions as you, as well as a couple of speculative answers. ;)  Why corn rather than beets?  Maybe it is because Monsanto doesn't have a monopoly on beet seeds? ::)   On the other hand, I believe there is lots of room for improvement in the "energy balance" of corn ethanol.  As the economy changes, it may well become more practical for farms to diversify, rather than specialize as has been the trend.  A diverse farm can produce its own energy and fertilizer, and that might prove worthwhile again as transportation costs go up.

I wonder why there is only one "energy balance" figure listed for biodiesel?  Wouldn't that fluctuate with the use of different materials, just like ethanol does?

Kev, Congress dabbling in sports is nothing new.  It is pretty widely known that Babe Ruth was a heavy ethanol user, and most of Congress is still doing personal research in that field. ;) ;D

Quote from: DanG on June 20, 2008, 01:44:53 PM
Kev, Congress dabbling in sports is nothing new.  It is pretty widely known that Babe Ruth was a heavy ethanol user, and most of Congress is still doing personal research in that field. ;) ;D

:D :D :D

QuoteHere in Iowa we've been producing 10% ethanol gas for (help me out here Norm!!!) 35 or 40 years.

We've been producing ethanol for over 200 years around here, but, if you don't hide it good, the Feds will tear down your ethynol plant and send you to the big house for "boiling water too hard".  You got to grease the right palms if you want to do business in alkyhol.

QuoteThat's a joke, son.....  a joke

Foghorn

Quote from: RichlandSawyer on June 20, 2008, 01:38:48 PM
I hear constantly the facts and figures about how switch grass and sugar cane and the likes are more efficiently converted to fuel but the folks that grow those types of crops havent put down the cash and built the plants to make the fuel.

Excellent point, Rich!  That is one of the best explanations I've heard.  There are some other factors as well.  Sugar Cane is very volatile stuff, but is difficult to store.  We can grow it here, but it all comes in at once, then there is no more until next year.  Corn, on the other hand, can be stored quite easily and used as needed.  I don't even know what switchgrass is, or what is left after the ethanol is made. ???  I do know that the corn used in ethanol production is only borrowed, in a sense, and the residue is just about as valuable as the original product.

There is some progress in other areas, but they are small compared to the corn ethanol industry.  Down here in Florida, they are making ethanol from orange peel without compromising the other products made from it.  There is a small power plant down south that is using sugar cane bagasse(pulp) by burning it.  Now they are building a plant to extract ethanol from it before burning it.  These programs are designed to utilize waste products, so there is no additional expense in growing them.

Well, I must say I'm amazed.  This is basically a forestry forum, yet in this whole discussion there is virtually no specific discussion of cellulosic ethanol from waste wood.
 
If you read my previous comment carefully you should note that I stated that using corn, or soybeans or other food crops to try to replace our fuel needs was a cruel hoax on the American people; not that ethanol or any other home grown alternative is a hoax.  While it is nice that American farmers benefit from higher corn prices and even that American companies are the primary recipients of the huge subsidies for corn ethanol, instead of that money going to Middle Eastern sheiks, remember that farmers and ADM etc. shareholders combined are only a tiny fraction of the US populace, but the entire populace bears the much higher food costs that are in large part caused by the huge subsidies to grow food crops for fuel.

If one studies the latest research into the relative energy return ratios for corn ethanol, he will see that the 1.3 ratio quoted in a post above is among the most optimistic.  Many recent studies indicate a 1:1 or even a negative ratio when all the life cycle inputs are considered.  Additionally, if you use reduction of greenhouse gases as a reason for using corn ethanol as fuel, you should note that although the actual burning of ethanol produces up to about 30% less greenhouse gas than burning petroleum, the increase in the release of methane and nitrous oxide - gases which are 10-30 times more effective at causing a greenhouse effect than CO2 is- as a result of substituting corn for other crops which require far less fertilization than corn, far offsets any gain from using corn based ethanol.

While corn based ethanol production and development have received huge subsidies, little has gone to cellulosic ethanol development, and other promising potential fuel sources such as methanol, butanol, and wood gas ( all more easily recoverable from wood waste than is ethanol and all with significantly better energy return ratios than corn based ethanol) have gone almost totally ignored when it comes to subsidies. Yes there are problems to be solved before these other potential fuel sources could go into commercial production, but if they received as much government incentive money as corn based ethanol has, maybe they would be on the market now.

Thanks for clearing up your position, BaldBob, and welcome to the Forum.  Are you familiar with the "Alternatives" board on this forum?  There is a bit of discussion on celllulosic ethanol production there.  Maybe if we put something in the title about it being a joke, it would get more attention, eh? ;) :D :D

I know they are working on cellulosic, but I'm not sure how much money is being thrown at it.  I figure they're just keeping a low profile because of the tree huggers.  There is a plant under construction in Georgia but it isn't up and running yet.

Corn is all the rage right now in the midst of skyrocketing oil prices, because it is available here and now.  These other things will come along as their technology catches up with corn.

Hi,  BaldBob,

Well,  first of all,  I would like to say I'm pretty much in agreement with you (largely because I like your name) after you explained yourself a little further.  I have mixed emotions about using feed/food for fuel.  I really have trouble with the use of corn as a heating fuel when wood could be used instead.

As a dairy farmer who no longer raises any grain,  the increase in feed and fuel prices have really put a hurt on us.  We were told the same thing that DanG mentioned about the by-product feeds.  There was supposed to be an abundance of cheap distillers grains that would make up for the high priced grains.  When our dairy feed went from around $9/cwt. to over $13,  I made some calls to get a ration made by using mainly distillers grains.  It was going to cost over $13 and I would have to buy it by the semi load and build storage for it.

I'm glad to see the grain farmers making a profit and don't have any solutions or blame.  We used to raise feeder pigs and so did everyone else in this area.  About 25 years ago this came to an end as did poultry (for the smaller commercial producers) about 10 years before that.  Dairies in this area ane disappearing fast.

Things are changing and it's scary to me.  Petrolium fuel is a problem and will get worse before it gets better.  I'm wondering about our future food supply and hate to see it burned in stoves or cars.

I too scratched my head and wondered about the wisdom of using corn and soybeans to make fuel when there are already many uses for what is being produced.   It's not like you're using something that didn't have a valuable use otherwise.

I kind of felt too that if they calculated on paper that corn to ethanol was a 1=1.3 gain in energy,  that maybe it just a bit risky.  I wonder how the economics stack up now that fuel and fertilizer, etc. that it takes to raise the corn has went up so much and the expected shortage this year of corn that is expected to raise the price over $7.00 per bushel. 

Any corn farmers out there that can tell us how much more it cost to plant, fertilize and apply pesticides and herbicides this spring compared to last year and years before?    How much more is it going to cost to harvest and haul the grain to market or storage?

Does it really have to do with cost of production?   The price of Gasoline doesn't.   The price of steel doesn't.  The price of coffee doesn't.  As a matter of fact, the price of coffee has a history of going up because someone suspected that there would be worse weather one year than the other.   Insurance goes up because of predictions of hurricanes as well as destruction by one.  So, I guess the farmer has just as much a right to claim more profits if he thinks the market will bear it.  It's too bad that there are so many middle men and he doesn't see as much as he could if he were actually doing the marketing.

Ethanol must be more complicated to make than bio diesel. I guess it's pretty volatile like gas. If so, that's enough right there to keep it from being garage-tinkerer friendly. plus bio diesel starts off pretty much processed already. Ethanol is starting from scratch.

Never mind. I think I worked it out myself.  :P

I noticed the other day the new ag bill cut subsidies to to corn ethanol and hiked the cellulosic ethanol subsidy, don't remember how much.  And the latest news has talked about all of the petroleum based fertilizer used to grow that corn for ethanol is going to create the largest dead zone in the gulf so far.  I hope you don't like eating gulf shrimp or fish, that dead zone was bigger than the state of Louisiana last year and centers on the mouth of the Mississippi.  Farmers corn because the ethanol production does not impact corn oil extraction, 2 products with one crop with a nice big subsidy to boot.

News out this way is there is a big E plant going in at Hugoton, Ks. that will be converting switch grass to ethanol. Hitch Ranch (Ok. panhandle) is to supply from 1000 acres and several other smaller parcels.

The sugar industry in the USA is protected so it is hard for them to use food grade sugar plants here for ethanol.  When they tell you the ratio they use the best cane for the figure but the cane they would have to use has alot lower ratio.

I can tell you that if corn drops below 6 dollars a bushel the farmers will be hurting.  I ordered my fertilizer and triple 19 is $1040/ton and urea is $866/ton. :o  Two years ago it was 325/ton. ::)

If we need to fertilize a crop for ethanol then we will be using petro products and it will still be a slower bleed.

Let's take those numbers just a little farther for those of us that don't produce farm products.  We don't have any idea how far a ton of triple 19 (whatever that is) goes.

Some things that most of us don't know is how much yield you get per acre in corn.  What are the inputs per acre. 

If you were talking trees and lumber, we might be up to speed.   ;)

Quote from: Ron Wenrich on June 20, 2008, 09:48:54 PM
Let's take those numbers just a little farther for those of us that don't produce farm products.  We don't have any idea how far a ton of triple 19 (whatever that is) goes.

Some things that most of us don't know is how much yield you get per acre in corn.  What are the inputs per acre. 

If you were talking trees and lumber, we might be up to speed.   ;)

The numbers represent the percent in pound per hundred weight of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium in that order.  I don't know how far a ton will go.

  Whatever the reason, we needed a price increase for grain.  Wheat has been around the same price for 40 years.  When I was a kid, wheat was around 3$ per bushel, and diesel fuel was .25, and you could buy a new 4020 JD for about 7200$.   My dad had this farm, and now I have it, farm it myself, and in the last 5 years, I made a profit and had to pay income tax on it once. Sure, I have other income, and never missed a meal.  But I appreciate these grain prices.  Planting every acre to beans as soon as I get the wheat off the ground. 

Tom is right. Cost of production is meaningless for corn and most commodities where the markets set the price. I think even the government has abandoned the old concept of parity because the cost of production in old days was calculated at close to $4.00 per bushel while the market price was not much over $2.00.

It's not that I want to avoid your interest or duck the questions, but in the last five years, raising corn and soybeans has become so complicated that costs from one piece of land to another adjacent parcel vary so widely that there are no normal or average costs of production. If you borrow money for input costs, the interest cost are important. If you own the land and only pay taxes or rent the land and pay anywhere from $50 to $300 per acre for land rent it makes a big difference. We now have combines that have GPS systems that track yields by position in each field and these numbers can be downloaded into variable rate fertilizer applicators so you do not over or under apply nutrients. We have corn hybrids that have triple stack protection and are roundup ready. And the various corn hybreds can vary from $40 per bag to over $300. And planting rates can vary from 20,000 seeds per acre to over 35,000 per acre. And if you select the right seed, feed it the right nutrients, plant it timely, protect it from pests and weeds, avoid weather problems, and get it harvested and dryed before winter, you may get over 200 bushels per acre. Or in years like this, you can drown your seed, watch your nutrients and good soil get washed down the river, and fail to get your seed back.

And to add to the complexity, there are local basis levels for crop pricing to consider. Plus many farmers may have locked in corn prices for this years crop at around $5.00 per bushel to protect their input costs and now may only get half a crop and could have to pay the difference for corn they will not get. 

Like the old saying goes, if you stand with one foot in a bucket of ice water and the other foot in a bucket of boiling water, on the average you would be pretty comfortable.

Quote from: Ron Wenrich on June 20, 2008, 09:48:54 PM

If you were talking trees and lumber, we might be up to speed.   ;)

Yes I know you do a good job of watching those cost of production numbers and I agree they are important. But knowing and controlling your cost of production is not going to guarantee your profitability in todays markets. In the commodity markets, you have to know and use risk management tools like federally subsidized crop insurance plus the futures and options markets to get the most for what you produce. It has been said that farmers would be far better off if they sold some of their crop every month so they could make the average price for their grain rather than trying to get the highest price. This year some farmers are going to learn it is risky to sell a crop you do not have in the bin yet.

In the lumber business you can have the lowest cost of production around, but if you do not sort your logs and get the most return from each sort, you may not survive. This is especially true for the pulp wood loggers that refuse to sort and send good saw logs to the pulp mill.   :)

Marketing is now and may always been the name of the game. ::) ::)

Quote from: Ron Wenrich on June 20, 2008, 12:56:58 PM
Would it be any better to raise sugar beets than corn?  That's a farming question that maybe a few of you farmers could better answer.  I know it boils down to economics, but considering the higher amounts of sugar, and therefore, ethanol that could be produced, is it feasible?  Are the yields to low for sugar beets to be considered or are we back to subsidies?

They were actively pursuing that direction on PEI and due to concerns over available cropland acres, they scrapped the project. Sugar beets it seems do not work well as crop rotation with potatoes. PEI is a large producer of spuds so it indicates to me the price for the beets can't compete with the price of spuds. Plus, you have a large potato processor operating over there that is likely kicking and screaming although no mention of it was reported. They were looking for 40,000 acres of cropland for the beats out of 450,000 acres of arable cropland. 300,000 acres are in potato production. Apparently, they need that 40,000 acres as part of rotation.

Gary does a great job of explaining what it takes to grow grain crops and make a profit. I'm guessing the reason he posted it so early this morning was he was up trying to figure out how many side jobs he'd need this year to make a profit farming. :D

It is not easy to tell you what our costs are for corn or soybeans. One example is the cost of diesel. We ran a spread sheet this late winter to estimate our input costs, used $2.75 for diesel, we all know that it's nowhere near that now. Another is fertilizer costs. They are going up so fast it's hard to keep up with them. Now we are faced with adding it after the crops are growing because of losses from the heavy rains. Want a ball park idea of how much they've gone up in one year...my uneducated guess is 35-50%. Will we make or lose money this year? Only fall will tell. I will tell you unless grain prices stay high there's going to be plenty of broke farmers next year.

How would all of you like it if I told you that what you do for a living is too high paid and you don't have a clue what you're doing. Not only that but I think your wages should go down because I don't like how much I'm paying for what you do. Oh yeah and your polluting the gulf killing everything that lives there. Add in the livestock producers like Tyson bitching about high grain prices that cared less how much money the grain farmers lost while they were low and you'll see why I get tired of these threads.

Gary I warned you! smiley_smash

Quote from: Norm on June 21, 2008, 08:17:57 AM

How would all of you like it if I told you that what you do for a living is too high paid and you don't have a clue what you're doing. Not only that but I think your wages should go down because I don't like how much I'm paying for what you do.

Gee Norm, sounds like talk from Fraser Papers and Irving Woodlands. The truckers and wood cutters are all getting filthy rich so we have to drop the rates again for the 3rd time this year. We don't want to upset our mill workers by reducing their pay cheque. Gotta protect those jobs and take it out of the primary producers while we can since it's so unprofitable in the forest sector and we are running out of wood supply.

Government says the woodlot owners are going to make windfall profits because we subsidize their tree thinning and planting. So we'll cut the rates and increase owner contribution because no other business is subsidized at 80 %, don't know how good those woodlot owners have been getting it. Oh, we better cut a little off the Crown Land silviculture just so the woodlot owners don't feel as slighted with all the free seedlings, free planting and thinning money we have been dishing to the forestry corporations for doing such a good job of clear cutting our public forest lands.

:D :D :D

I spent some time last evening searching for fertilizer price articles on the internet.  I couldn't find one that explained it well or was up to date.   But the price of fertilizer and other major products used to grow grain crops has risen right along with the price of oil – maybe even more so in some cases. 

One aspect I didn't think of came up in my search.  That is that fertilizer is in short supply worldwide.  Some articles I scanned made mention of the number of fertilizer manufacturing facilities that had closed in the USA in the past decade and how much we now have to import.  Sound familiar? 

Many groups are concerned that underdeveloped countries that already have a poor economy will not be able to use fertilizer and their crops will decrease year by year as their soil is depleted.  So the high oil prices is affecting price and availability of fertilizer and will likely cause famines in the upcoming years.

China has bought up a gazillion tons of fertilizer. 

Quote from: Norm on June 21, 2008, 08:17:57 AM

Gary I warned you! smiley_smash

Ya, but I blamed it all on Kev for the subject line that just invited this all over again.  :D

The reason I was up so late last night is I sat down to watch the Market to Market TV program on Iowa Public Television and even made it through the special on what farmers options are for replanting, etc. Then I fell asleep and woke up after midnight and was going to bed when I saw these questions on the forum. I decided that after all that education I just got from the TV, I must the closest thing to an expert to answer those questions.  ::)

Up here in Minnesota, I did not get the floods, but our fields were too wet to plant untill recently. I just finished planting this week and after a lot of agonizing I still planted corn. Already had the nitrogen and fertilizer on for corn and I figure the corn will not be much behind the earlier planted corn. I hired a guy to no till drill my beans the week before in the mud and only had to pull him out of the mud once. As you said, we will not know till fall if I made the right decisions.  :)

It's a tough business farming. And add to it, the little twist now of using corn for fuel, and the market is more volatile than ever. I can't speak for anyone but me, but I can't see where anyone ever said you didn't know what you were doing Norm.

I read alot of articles last night and this a.m. A bunch. Probably 20 if not more. Some took 20 minutes or more. I just starting picking them from the top of googled phrases like "ethanol". "facts about ethanol". "ethanol pros and cons" While I may not be any more educated on the issue from a processing standpoint, I certailny have a much more informed opinion than I did yesterday. And it is my opinion, that my opinion is now based much more on facts than opinion.

The best articles I found, with the widest variety of views on it came when i typed "ethanol's impact on . . ." because when you place dots like that in a phrase, as you know, it gives you lots of goodies. I knew I would get the gamut of impact on the environment; markets;food prices; feedstcok..." and I did.

Not only do I now believe ethanol as a short term solution holds little if any promise, it seems to me that the notion that it is detrimental to markets and the environment are not just hyperbole or misinformation at all. Ethanol as an end product seems to be the least of the negative effects of it. It's the multi-faceted harm that it is doing along the way that makes me cringe.

I know that most of the parties touting it as the, or at least as "a" answer have vested interests in it. Surely some or many who bring to light the downside of ethanol production have an interest for it not to be succesful as well. But from my very limited exposure to it thus far it seems to me the articles I read which stay away from the emotional arguments of it, and simply concentrate on numbers, facts, and projections (and its attrocious track record) based on them, tend to cast long shadow on the feasibility of corn-based ethanol for numerous reasons.

One thing I know for certain is that the heaviest hitters in industry are on the mat with each other grappling over its future. I detest government subsidies in general, but especially of propping up an industry which can't make it on its own; but even I could tolerate a temporary helping hand from the government to an industry that held promise as a real solution. of course, that's always the crack in the door; once government gets its foot in, it always just kicks the door plumb down. Do you know how the Income Tax got started? As a temporary 1% tax. The rest is history. And misery.

But my point about ethanol subsidies goes way beyond the ubiquitous Income Tax example, did you know that etahnol production has been subsidized by Wash DC off and on since the freaking 1800s!!! And this stuff is being totuted as something that's being deveoped and will one day become a viable domestic source for fuel!? Man I have not even touched the surface on the abyssmal track record of ethanol as a proven failure when trying to compete in the market. It has never been able to! Not even with continued government gazillions pumped into it for longer than any other such program, and by a longshot as far as I can tell.

When you dig under the surface of ethanol, even just a little, you qucikly discover what is driving this sham. Big money for big business. And the business is? Collecting taxpayer money in the form of handouts from Washington. How obvious this becomes once you push aside all the glossy makeup the corn insudtery applies to it. If ethanol had any realistic promise don't you think it would have, at some point since the first time it was used as a fuel in an internal combustion engine in 1876, stood up on its own and become the fuel of choice? But no, it has never been untethered from Uncle Sam's apron pockets because it has never overcome the myriad problems asscoiated with its efficient production, and the potentially catastrophic unintended consequences it would pose were it to ever go into large scale production. Consequences already being seen I suspect.

I haven't even touched on the detrimental effects on the environement and I am far from a envrionemtalist, but I also don't believe the corn-industry propoganda. I know peopel turn their noses up at studies and and think tanks etc. unless they support their view, but I was not looing for support for my view. In fact, until I did my little reasearch venture last night and this morning I was turning positive toward ethanol. it ceratinly isn't my main source of my view on ethanol, but this Cato Institute article (linked below) was written in 1995. That may seem outdated, but really it's not. Not much has changed in the ethanol game since the 19th century. Sure corn production per acre is much higher than when the government first started doling out cash back then, and processing is  more efficient, but it hasn't changed much since 1995.

The report, in 1995 said that for every $1 in profit ADM made on ethanol, it cost the American taxpayer $30. What if that figure is grossly wrong by ten times? Then it costs us $3 for ADM to make $1. I don't want it costing us even one thin dime for ADM to make $1! They should make their own dang money like I have to! I don't get any subsidies when my wood business doesn't pay the bills. I get behind!

I have nothing against farmers. Heck I kind of like farmers since they have fed me and my family all our lives. And I don't have a thing against farmers who grow corn, even though I don't particularly care for it. Don't have a thing against farmers who take money from the government to grow corn, or not to grow corn one or ten years, because that's their own decision they have to live with it.

What I don't like is huge companies, or even small ones, who pay professional lobbyists to rent offices in Washington and basically bribe politicians to package these "subsidies" as "Good for America and Americans and for America's future" when in actuality it is bad for Americans, all the while using the hardworking farmer as a puppet to support a "market" that holds no promise as a viable alternative fuel source and may have catastrophic ancillary consequences on other important markets as well. it already is affecting other markets negatively regardless of the propganda spewed by iowacorn.org

And just in case anyone may be under the illusion that an article written 13 years ago may be outdated, read this snippet and tell me anything has changed in the world of propoganda for tax dollars going into greedy hands, in the guise of helping the poor farmer . . . .

Andreas recently told a reporter for Mother Jones, "There isn't one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country."(2) Andreas's comment about "no free markets" is like the old joke about the son who murdered his parents and then asked for the court's mercy because he was an orphan. ADM champions political control over markets and then invokes that control as an excuse for its continued political manipulation. Andreas has exerted his influence in Washington to ensure that the U.S. form of "socialism" resembles 1930s' Italian corporate statism: the government plunders the citizenry for the benefit of politically connected corporations. And, though Andreas does not like to admit it, there are many markets in the world for agricultural products that are not controlled by politicians.

This past May ADM ran in major newspapers a full-page, full-color ad showing a corn cob decorated with the American flag with a picture of President John F. Kennedy along with Kennedy's most famous slogan, "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country." The advertisement is the ultimate Orwellian agit-prop exercise, the true message being, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for ADM." Such misleading "public service" ad campaigns are the staple of ADM's public relations operation, providing the thin cover necessary to plunder the public till.

I know Brazil gets high praises for it's succes with sugar etahnol, but I have no idea about how they have done it or how it has or is impacting the rest of their nation and farming and economy and environmet. Maybe the tarriffs imposed by Washington against ethanol imports, secured by those at the subsidy trough, are all that is keeping brazilian sugar ethanol from being a viable 2% solution here. Our corn ethanol sure as heck ain't never gonna be if you count all the hidden costs and negative effects it has.

Etahnol is not a joke, it's a cruel expensive hoax foisted on the American people and we are paying for it. Have been since the first internal combustion engine burned it. Well that's my opinion anyway. I reserve the right to change it if etahnol ever stands up on its own two legs and becomes a benefactor instead of a beneficiary  like it has for about 12 decades.

And then there is the question of if it even has the modest 1.3 energy gain . . . . . . . . Maybe we should take a lesson from The Little Island That Did (did almost step into it)" (http://barbadosfreepress.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/barbados-government-kills-sugar-for-ethanol-scam-thank-you-barbados-free-press-without-your-revelations/)


Cato Article (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html)


I hope you come out smelling like a rose Norm and all you other other corn farmers as well. But if history is any teacher,  I'm afraid the only way you will is if you start planting roses.

Things are booming for Potash Corp ($230 US a share vs $87 a year ago). I think they already had a mine in Sussex and are now opening a new 2 million ton mine. Do we still need oil to make potassium fertilizer when you dig it out of the rock salt KCl - NaCl? Heck the spoils are used for road salt. Must use oil for the separation/evaporation of it.

200 bushels corn    require 220 lbs/acre

Canada now supplies about three-fourths of the potash used in US crop production since the 1960's when vast reserves were found in Canada.

[source: Potash Corp website]

QuoteLike the old saying goes, if you stand with one foot in a bucket of ice water and the other foot in a bucket of boiling water, on the average you would be pretty comfortable.

Gary_C....after farming for years, I can relate to average. :D :D :D

Kevin....you still competing with Tom for longest post. ;D 

Quote from: Warbird on June 20, 2008, 12:40:53 AM
Ethanol gives me gas.

After reading this entire thread, I can now also state that ethanol gives me heartburn.  ::)

I think a better use for ethanol is to put it in white oak kegs and age it.

smiley_beertoast

19-19-19

NPK

nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium

19%19%19%

Urea is 46-0-0

46% nitrogen

I am not sure on the oil use of the others but most of your nitrogen is produced by burning natural gas is a nitrogen atomoshere.  They produce it by the ship load in the middle east as it is easier to store and ship than natural gas.

I don't usually join in these semi-political threads ....

What is the point of adding ethanol to gas ??? If you put in 15% ethanol, your gas mileage per gallon is about 15% worse ( less ) than pure gasoline.

Many vehicles aren't designed to run on it.

Why bother ???

Here are the mileage statistics :  a list of "flex-fuel" vehicles

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm

-------
Edit

I realized I made a mistake... it's 85% ethanol . That's different !!!

Heard on TV that all of our gas has "some" ethanol in it. I guess that's why the EPA had to change the fuel economy ratings across the board ???

There don't seem to be many stations offering E85 around here ( none ! ) and there doesn't seem to be much choice in vehicles that burn it.

MAN!  I innocently go out to saw a little wood and ...

                WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED TO THIS THREAD while I was gone?

Ya'll been busy beavers!  It's going to take a while just to digest what was written today!

 

Quotenot sure on the oil use of the others but most of your nitrogen is produced by burning natural gas is a nitrogen atomoshere.  They produce it by the ship load in the middle east as it is easier to store and ship than natural gas.

I think a a similar process with natural gas and O(?) in a chamber produces methanol, wood alcohol, another possible liquid fuel and easy way to transport the gas  ???.

Kev, I would re-read those articles, remembering as I read one simple truth. "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure."
Much of the "research" I have read on the subject, coming from places like Berkeley,CA seem to me to fall in the second part of that phrase.  The anti farming, anti business rhetoric I find in those articles don't match what I experience here in the real world.

We can all see that the compression ratios, timing, and ignition techniques
are dramatically different when one compares gasoline engines and diesel
engines.   There are more subtle differences when a gasoline engine is expected
to burn various concentrations or types of alcohol or gasoline substitutes.  We
also know that different liquid fuels have different energy potential.  They do not
produce the same bang per unit volume.

That being said, yes an engine does have to run differently to maximize the
lesser energy in ethanol.  Some of the factors can be handled through using
different spark and valve timing and by using the best fuel injection methods
and injection timing.  Our modern computer controlled engines can handle most
of that very nicely.  It is just a matter of creative programming.  The sensors for
oxygen, throttle, torque, and rpm work in conjunction with that programming
to do the best job that hardware (basic engine design) can do.  The computer
can do very little about compression ratio, except through valve timing.  Fool
with that very much and you mechanically lose engine efficiency, so that ratio
can vary very little.

The big point of ethanol, when these things are considered, might be this "If
we can use ethanol as just one way to begin a lesser dependence on foreign
oil, is that  a good thing?"  My answer is that it is, IF it can financially make it
in a free market.

This thread has almost convinced me that this "free market" no longer exists
and BOTH parties, for differing reasons, don't want a free market.

I agree with you Faron, that "fact-based" figures, are only factual to the extent that the figure-writers are accurate, whether by deceit or error somewhere in the figuring. I'm quite sure that the figures in many of the articles I read were inaccurate for reasons both intentional and accidental. On both sides of the issue.

My sudden disdain with ethanol came when I looked at it through the wide angle lens. Its inability to ever crawl out of the crib, after untold amounts of national treasure has been thrown at it, and after some of the greatest scientific minds ever have wrestled with it to try and get it to even pay its own way but have failed, is what makes me say it's more than just a failure, it's now a national liability. At some point you have to just say okay, this has been a waste of money with no prospect of it getting in the black, much less of even a partial payback. Let's quit trying to be right about it by throwing good money on top of bad.

I don't know what real world you are referring to, but the one I see shows it to have no short term benefit at all and only a very dim promise of very long term prospects at best. I am aware that the proponents of it like to say " at least I am not supporting terroristsl" and I sure wouldn't want to do that either. But some might argue that by continuing to spend (waste?) money and rescources on any solution that is not going to pan out, then we are simply prolonging the day when we can become less dependent on foreign oil. Every reasonable solution deserves its day in the sun, but ethanol has been running on fumes its entire history. If we put our resources toward ebergy solutions that hold more promise doesn't that make the ost sense?

My opinion again, but I don't see how anyone can assert that WSN (wind solar nuclear) are not proven technologies that have made monumental strides in effeciency and in the case of solar and wind we have only scratched the surface of even the short term promises. In 1991 the gov studies showed that Texas, Kansas, and I think Idaho (?) had enough wind to power the whole country, and the effeciency of the wind generators back then compared to know makes them archaic. In the case of nuclear safety I am in the camp of a proponent of what I see as a very small risk factor and it should be a no brainer to build more reactors. Don't want to elaborate on that one though. Ethanol has not made such strides. By comparison negligble at best and ethanol has been pushed for, well we all know how long. But WSN will not run cars some say. They would all contribute to a humungous decrease in the need for fossil/foregin fuels if adopted widespread and that alone would bring the ethanol debate to sudden and permanent halt.

Then, there is a school of thought that says it isn't possible to become energy independent in a global economy. I can't bring myself to believe that. My simpleton view says we have vast resources and technology. I think we could even make ethanol feasable one day. I just think the day is WAYYYYYYY off in the future and that the enourmous national resources being used on it would be better put into WSN and dometsic drilling to name a few.

I don't know what the "direct" foreign oil replacement is, but I know ethanol is not the most logical candidate. IMO.

I effectively killed the "Wind Power" thread, so, I might as well kill this one too.  ::) ::)

  Reason Ethanol is not economical is, why sell cheap ???  If you have Black Walnut and only want 50 cents a board foot, and your neighbor can get $5.00 bd/ft, Are you going to denounce HIS product as being too expensive, IF he's selling it ???

  Most of the arguments on Ethanol are ridiculous. It's a FACT that Corn is NOT an efficient foodstock for Ethanol. It's great for Whiskey, at $5-$6.00 a FIFTH of a Gallon. I don't hear y'all screaming about THAT price ???  ::) ::) ::)

  Govt and BIG OIL don't WANT alternatives that COULD be homebrewed, because they would have a tough time collecting taxes. It's really that simple.  ::) ::)

  No matter what you pay for gasoline-diesel, the Govt's get the same tax $$$.  ??? ::)

  Most of the old info, was from when the price of corn was $2.00 a bushel, and gasoline was 50 cents to $1.25 a Gallon. Of COURSE it's not viable.

  We raised Sorghum hybrids in Arkansas, for silage for our Dairy. We harvested 12-15 TONS per acre. Look up the amount of ethanol that can be made from that OR Jerusalem Artichokes, and NOW how efficient is Ethanol. It's the same price at the pump, because, the PRICE is not changed AT THE PUMP.  It's pretty simple  ::) ::)

I just watched the entire one hour and 15 minute video Pappy posted in the wind thread. If what Lindsey Williams claims is true, everything I have said, and everything everyone else has said is trumphed, because we are spitting in the wind, if he is right. Fighting the wrong battles, exactly like a determined foe always gets you to do. Point your howitzers in the wrong direction.

Harold what you just said is exactly in line with what he is saying too. He said much more of course. He also says that Iran has vowed to flood the world with cheap oil, since they are sitting on the third largest oil reserve on the planet, and they are going to denominate it in Euros. Claims congress is shaking in their boots and that we will attack Iran before we allow that to happen, since it would transform us into a third world country in short order.

He explains why we haven't built refineries, why we don't drill domestically, why we allow the transfer of wealth to happen how and where it does, and why Dubya, or his successors will never let Gull Island oil to come to our fuel tanks, ad infinitum. Explains why if they did, it would actually collapse our economy faster than high fuel prices. We are paying the national debt and the loans of all the third world countires through the gas pump.

Conspiracy theory stuff that most of us sneer at. Wonder how long we will sneer. All the way to the poor house. ;D Exciting times we live in for sure. 

We might take a beating in the market, and there is a possibility that we might fall behind if oil is used to bolster other countries wealth.  But, I don't fear becoming a third world country because technology is too dependent on the people.  The bulk of the people in the U.S.A. (being one, I feel I can support the opinion) have too much gumption to fall behind personally.  It will take more than money to move many of those oil bearing nations in front of the free nations of the world.   We are big, have a history of surviving (even advancing) and not as dumb as some would have you believe. :)

I'm with you Tom. I am overall positive about Americans and our ability to persevere too. But usually we have to get kicked around quite a while before we finally get up do something about it.

This internet thing has given us a handy tool to speed that usually slow process up, and I for one would like to thank Mr. Gore for his unselfish contribution toward the cause of liberty. ;D

Now, that's funny!  A new twist on an old line.  :D

Remember that little $10 spike in oil the other week?  The cause was from the main Euro banker saying they were going to raise their interest rates.  Mexico just raised theirs last week, which makes their currency stronger, and all that oil we get from Mexico just a little more expensive.  We have parity with Canada, and all their oil became more expensive.  I've been dismissed before about talking about dollar value and the cost of energy.  

Iran and Russia have been selling oil in Euros for one primary reason....that's who they sell to, so they can get away with it.  We do get oil from Russia, but its sold in dollars, like the rest of the world does.  The Euro has some problems, one being its only been in existence for 16 years and doesn't have that much of a track record.  The British pound and the Swiss franc are not part of the Euro, which makes it somewhat weaker.  The Euro may surpass the US dollar as the world currency, but it won't be any time soon, and Iran really can't control that.  Flooding the world with cheap oil would drop the price immediately, and help out our balance of trade, which would make the dollar stronger against the Euro.

A little history about oil prices.  Back in 1973, they tripled the price of oil.  They doubled it in 1979.  The cure for the problem at that time was through conservation.  It worked so well that we had cheap oil for nearly 2 decades after their last attack on world oil prices.  Conservation is cheap and effective. 

We have just had the largest drop in driven miles in one month since records have been kept in the '40's

By the time I could download an hour and a half of video on this connection, we may already be a third world country.  Would somebody be kind enough to tell me just who this Lindsey Williams is and what he said?  It would be nice if you were to synopsize it just a bit, say down to a sentence or two. ;)

One thing that always frustrates me about these energy threads, is that they always turn to talk of how much money we are spending, both as a nation and as individuals.  In my opinion, it doesn't really matter how much money is spent.  Money itself is just a Gov't backed IOU, anyway.  The more we spend, the more there is.  Besides, since our alleged debt to China is in Dollars, before long we can just send them a barrel of oil and we'll be even. ;D 8) 8)

The real issue to me is in becoming less dependent on foriegn oil, in the first place, and secondly, to become less dependent on oil overall.  The thought that we're gonna get gas prices back below a buck in time for the Piggy Roast is pretty much out the window, so we need to concentrate on what we CAN do and stop griping about what we can't do.  Now, anybody who says we can't run cars on ethanol has lost all credibility with me, because it is being done every day.  The problem lies in making enough of it.  Advances are being made all the time in developing other resources, but corn is still the leading source for the moment.  One reason it is leading is that the R&D was done by Snuffy Smif many years ago, so there is no reason whatsoever for the Gov't to be subsidising it.  If Snuffy can get his corn from Norm for $6 and make $9 worth of alcohol from it, he should be happy to sell the residue to Noble for $2, and go home with a reasonable profit.  All three of them would make enough money to pay a bit of taxes and keep my Social Security check coming.

Oh yeah, Harold.  Where you gettin' that $5 whiskey?  I could use a shot of it right about now. ;D

Ron, I was typing at the same time as you.  That was a good post, even if it was about money. ;) :D  Conservation is cheap and effective, for sure, but this time they more than quadrupled the price.  I ain't sure cutting back our usage is gonna be enough.  We gotta up our own production.

I try to stay out of these emotionally charged issues anymore but a couple of days ago I had an epiphany which explains, for me, the whole ethanol situation.

Here is a different slant which hasn't been put forth.

A snip of Glenn Beck and T. Boone Pickens' conversation:

"Now, they're friends, Bush is an oilman, Cheney is an oilman and Boone sat down with them and said, Mr. President, you do not want ethanol to be your legacy.  It doesn't work.  Bush said, I know I don't want the legacy of ethanol.  He said, here's the plan.  Here's the plan.  Boone laid everything out.  For some reason they agreed in the meeting that it was a good idea that, you know, these are the different things that have to be done.  He said he gets out of the meeting and we go with ethanol.  He said, now, I don't know what happened, I don't know why that decision was made, I don't -- you know, he doesn't -- no idea.  But it doesn't work."

I think I know why Mr. Bush made the decision he made.

Ethanol is not about energy independence. It is about saving the American farmer.

Consider this. If corn was around $3.00 and soybeans around $6.00, and fertilizer and fuel were at their present levels, would the small or medium-size farm be able to produce at those prices. Not a chance. Most farms would be out of business because there is no way the income would exceed the costs of production.

So ethanol has become the way to create a shortage of corn (and acreages for other crops) which raises the price so that farmers do not have to shut down due to the energy crisis.

   ;) :D :D :D :D

Quote from: DanG on June 22, 2008, 03:25:13 PMIt would be nice if you were to synopsize it just a bit, say down to a sentence or two. ;)

Sheesh! Okay, my feeble attempt.

He said we cannot ever be energy independent because oil is used not only as energy but as a means of control and that he controls the gold (oil) controls everything and that it is common knowledge to our politicians that we have more oil than anyone else on the planet and that if the powers-that-be really wanted to get it out and sell it they could but that they do not want to because Kissinger and Co. made an agreement with the sheiks of the world back in the 60s that we will let them produce and sell most of the worlds oil if they will buy our debt and keep the oil demoninated in dollars.

That was one sentence. In the next sentence I will finish your requested synopsis. Ah heck never mind you are already fuming away at what i already typed anyway. :D

DanG I know you weren't referring to me when you said peeps that claim ethanol can't run cars cause I never have said that. I won't repeat what I've said though because I've said it enough I am sure you will agree. ;D

Quote from: DanG on June 22, 2008, 03:25:13 PMIn my opinion, it doesn't really matter how much money is spent.  Money itself is just a Gov't backed IOU, anyway.  The more we spend, the more there is.  ...

He addresses this in the video as well, and if he is correct it matters allight. I think the bottom line of his message, someone correct me if I am wrong, is that oil is more than just a means of energy it is a means of control.

I'm just the messenger DanG. Go easy on me.

Quote from: DouginUtah on June 22, 2008, 03:34:34 PMI think I know why Mr. Bush made the decision he made.

Ethanol is not about energy independence. It is about saving the American farmer.

I had never thought of that either. I have no idea if corn, via ethonol, is really necessary to save the farmer or not, but I know one thing for certain is we can't do without farmers. No way that can be argued. Without the farmer you just got big corporations doing the farming and man let's not even think about that.

Is the average farmer in such dire straits we have to keep them afloat with ethanol? I don't know. But if that's what it takes I would start buying ethanol before I would want ADM to be the only farmer left standing.

This is all getting to be too much for my little brain I need to go saw some more. It's hot and no wind except a slight one, just out of the north - just enough to blow the honey locust dust right into my face.

Dan,
have a read on Lindsey Williams. (http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html)

Well now y'all got my head spinning like a top!  It has started just slinging out random thoughts in no particular order and on numerous subjects at once.  I think I'm bordering on incoherence, but I can't be sure. ::) :D :D

Doug, that's a whole nuther concept, for sure.  Just think, if Bush were to get credit for saving the American farmer, they'd have to make some room on Mt. Rushmore for him! :o :D :D :D

No worries, TT, I ain't coming down on anybody...not even you. ;)

Maybe we ain't such a bunch of dummies after all, considering what you and Doug just said, and maybe Williams ought to shut up and not let the cat out of the bag.  If we got all that much oil in the ground, maybe we should just keep on buying Arabian oil with our funny money until we dry them up, then we would have all of the oil.  He who laughs last laughs longest. ;D

Interesting sidenote...Henry Ford's original tin lizzie was designed to run on alcohol. Gasoline was optional. His idea was for farmers to be able to produce their own fuel. Didn't work then because gas was cheaper and the feds made it rather inconvenient to make your own.. ::).

 Just for the record, My numbers were examples. I have NO idea what liquor sells for.  ::)

 I just know how to make the stuff.  :o ::) :D :D  :-* :-*

Please don't light a match in here.  candle_smiley

Hey Harold!  You're in the tropics ain't you?  Are they growing any sugar cane down there?  I'll bet you could grow it year-round and cook it off with a solar still.  You may finally be in the catbird seat! ;D 8) 8) 8)

What did you just do, Swampdonkey? >:( ::)

DanG, it's by no means pretty and it just plain stinks.  ;)

I watched the Lindsay Williams clip a few nights ago.  As most complex conspiracy theories
do, it requires much faith in that speaker/lecturer or it requires many hours of research and
verification.  There always exist several theories on those hidden, shadowed figures who are
the true world rulers and the controllers of world finance.  Some even claim that the "Skull
and Bones" fraternity is such a group.  Frankly, I have not had the time to verify Williams, but
to an extent, the accuracy of his claims is not relevant, because even the combined influence of
our might as the FF could not change the intentions or outcomes of such a conspiracy.

(WARNING: Big, well-chewed tongue in cheek remark in last sentence above.)

I will offer some trends and the personal, individual antidotes/countermeasures, however:


U.S. sovereignty will be weakened and undermined:                  Plan to earn less in dollars, more
                                                                                               barter, in goods, or in land/property swaps.

Taxation will deepen.                                                                Same as above.

Food will cost more.                                                                 Grow your own or be prepared to do so.

Fuel will cost more.                                                                   Go electric and make your own.

Energy in general will cost more.                                                Make your own; Harvest what God provided.

The U.S. will move ever more rapidly toward world market         Enrich your style living with God, family and simple
involvement and toward a socialistic mentality.                       pleasures.  You may enjoy life more as you watch the
                                                                                             standard of living for the average American continue to
                                                                                        go down (in the materialistic sense).  It need not go down in
                                                                                      an absolute sense.  In fact, it may be good for us.                   

Your comment on the bottom right there Phil is good medicine. A couple generations of national fasting might be good for the collective soul indeed. We think in terms of 10 -15 years as being long term. Heck 40 years 'of "cleansing" would be an eternity to most peeps. ::)

I don't know the truth about Williams either, and dont have time to go searching.

Question for you "Old Timers". I don't remember much about the gas shortages of the early 70s. Wasn't driving til 76 and it was gone by then I think. I wasn't paying for my own gas until 77 so I just can't remember, but was there a signifcant change in driving/lifestyle patterns? Did you who were affected by it feel it hard or barley or to what degree?

I wonder in terms of todays prices, what would gas have to go to per gallon before we experienced a similar "shock" in todays dollars?

I'm guessing, this is a guess haven't googled nuttn on it, but I'm guessing if we see another $3, to say $7.00 to $8.00/gal then your morning rush hour to work is gonna be significantly less stressful if you're one who can afford to keep going to work. 8 bucks a gallon in a vehicle that gets 15MPG becomes a constant cab fare with you as the driver but you ain't getting paid.

I remember the days when it was hard to travel in the US northeast as least. We used to travel each summer down to dad's uncle's cottage in NH and go over to Mass. some where he had permanent residence. I remember the line ups at the pumps and some pumps where closed. Here in NB I don't remember a single filling station that wasn't well stocked with gas, diesel or propane. In fact we had a larger distribution network than we do now. Every small town here had depots until it got to a point that the tanks were aging and needed replaced. You could call the local town and your delivery would arrive the same day, sometimes within the hour. Once taken down it was all trucked in from further or brought by rail to fewer depots. I don't ever remember a slow down here. The old farts still took their 30 mile per hour drives each day, the rich kids that never worked still drove all day and half the night and everyone who worked in the woods or farmed kept humming along. I still don't see any slow down. The ones that took 15 trips in all three trucks and vans owned by the family still do and never have caught on to car pooling with their son or sibling.

Lots of sugar cane in CR. I don't use it though.  ;D ;D ;D

In the first few years that I could drive, gasoline went from 29 cents a gallon (maybe even 26 cents) to about 75 cents a gallon.  That is over 250% increase.  Just think about such a percentage change today! That change hurt, but it must not have hurt enough.  The gas guzzlers came back.  Alternative energies sputtered. 

Will we do better this time?   Who knows?  Will the major oil producers and powers that be
decide to turn back the high prices, just before we finally arrive at the point where we have the resolve
to overcome oil dependency?  That is what has happened every time before.  It has also worked every
time before:  Resolve became resignation, and resignation became acceptance, and acceptance became inaction.

Quotewas there a significant change in driving/lifestyle patterns?

Yes there was.  It was a lot different than the scenario that is displayed today.  The cost of the gasoline wasn't the only thing that was causing the problems.  There was a lack of gasoline.

Stations were open only during certain hours or pumped gasoline only during certain hours.  Stations displayed signs "out of gas" and shut their doors.  Lines were blocks long to get into an open station that had gasoline.

The cost of the gasoline was a deterrant to driving, but just like today, people needed it to get to work.  It's not like many people can walk to the grocery store, Doctor's office or hospital.  Without work there was no money and the population was over a barrel.

In '69 The Japanese imports hit the market with $1300 vehicles.  Even though VW was known, it couldn't get enough vehicles into the country to compete and they were being undersold on top of it.  They had been lambasted by Ralph Nader and their mainstay, the bug, had suffered a death blow. To provide what the public determined was a safer car required that they produce a larger, heavier and less economical auto.  Toyota blew them out of the water.

By the gas crunch of  1973, Toyota had no competition and the U.S. made autos were being parked because the gasoline wasn't available to drive them.  Motor scooters and motorcycles were becoming popular just because of the availability of gasoline.

Gasoline stations were going out of business right and left.  Gasoline companies were being bought and sold and merging as if the U.S.A. was a big Monopoly board.   Many of those stations that had lived into the '70's were flying foreign banners, BP, or were merged with foreign companies.  Familiar company names were gone and the Brand following of gasolines dissappeared.

It was not unusual to see people riding bicycles to work or walking the shoulder of the road for distances amounting to two to five miles, just to get to work.

There was a lot of anger then too.  The bulk of it was pointed toward the producers, who the public felt was holding back on production to force the price to rise.

Most people replaced their big cars, but those with little money were forced to buy the big cars, after the fiasco, because the little cars were rising in cost so fast and the big cars were in surplus.  They were driven because they were affordable and it probably gave the U.S. auto makers a false sense that the public wanted the big car.  Actually it wasn't always true.  You could get a used big car and maintain it a lot more economically than squeezing a family into a too-small foreign car even with fuel being considered.

Right before the gas crunch in '73, I traded a 390 4 speed Javelin down to a 350 SS Nova.  Gas got more expensive, but I don't recall much of a problem getting gas.  It was hard to trade down with a new car.  So, we drove less.

The time in the late '70s was the shocker.  I had been in business for just a few years.  We had rationing, even number plates on even numbered days got to buy gas.  Being a business, I had the luxury of buying gas on any day.  We didn't have lines or stations that ran out of gas up in this area that I recall.

The feds jumped into action and forced the states to restrict all driving to a 55 mph speed limit.  That had an immediate effect on the gas demand. 

People started to buy smaller cars.  My company went from Blazers to VWs for non-woods related work.  We went to a Citation and have stayed with compact cars ever since. 

People also started to install wood stoves.  They bought small woodlots and started to harvest junk trees.  I haven't heard much of that happening this time around.  We'll just buy it from someone else.   ;)

People made fun of the president because he stressed energy savings and appeared on TV wearing a sweater.  We didn't have to worry about gardening, since the previous president had us plant WIN (whip inflation now) gardens.  We were already for higher food prices.

I think we were a lot better prepared the last time around.  We were more self sufficient, and we didn't really think that government was the salvation.  We also had a more of a can-do type of thinking.  Today it seems that we think the other guy should make the sacrifice to make our lives easier. 

Tom's mention of the prices for the smaller fuel efficient cars back then reminded me:

There was a blurb about someone selling a Prius with a good bit of mileage for $26K
via Ebay.    The problem right now is not getting gas.  Instead the problem is paying
a premium for the already overpriced hybrids.  I suppose demand for the very fuel
efficient cars is way up.

There are a lot of guys' pick-em-up trucks for sale in our town - the ones where the
guy didn't really need a truck, but just drove one.   Too bad they all seem to be short beds.
I could use a newer long bed to replace my trusty and rusty old 1987 Dodge Dakota.  It has seen
better days.  The gas prices must be putting those pickups on the sale block.

Before the first gas crunch hit, I was driving a 1955 Mercury with a 292 and overdrive.
It had been my grandfather's.  Had it repainted and drove it quite a while.  Next was a Rambler.
Next was an inherited plain-as-dirt 1969 Ford Fairlane with no air conditioning and just AM radio.
That Great Uncle was really cheap, but I got good use out of that car. Added an air conditioner
kit installed by Sears Roebuck 1976.

History repeats itself?

When you pull up to the pumps you are buying more than just gas/diesel you are buying the freedom to go where you want whenever you want. For that convenience and sense of independence no price is too high to pay.

I believe we are so accustomed to these freedoms that we think they are a necessity. Most folks will cut back on clothing, luxury items etc. before they will consider serious changes in their driving.

When I was a teenager I could buy a dozen beer and fill up the tank all for $20.00  8)
Problem was trying to find $20.00 on a weekend between paydays  :-[   :'(

i am telling my age. when i was a teenager  i seldom put in more than $2.00 worth of gas at a time. you could ride around all night with that $2.00  also beer was $1.50 per six pack. you had to work a lot longer to make that $2.00 tho.

Quote from: fencerowphil  (Phil L.) on June 22, 2008, 10:09:25 PM

There are a lot of guys' pick-em-up trucks for sale in our town - the ones where the
guy didn't really need a truck, but just drove one.   Too bad they all seem to be short beds.
I could use a newer long bed to replace my trusty and rusty old 1987 Dodge Dakota.  It has seen
better days.  The gas prices must be putting those pickups on the sale block.

We are seeing that even at the automakers who are laying off and closing doors at pickup truck plants. Then along came Toyota with their new gas guzzling model Tundra pickup.  And I wonder why they dropped the 4 cylinder model of the Tacoma. You can only get it with a V6 4litre now and that truck is hard on fuel. Most I know are getting between 18-22 MPG compared to 28-32 in the previous 4 cylinder model. My RAV 4 get's 32 MPG. Used to see a lot of the Tacomas, now I see RAV 4's replacing them on the road. There are a few new Tacomas, but a lot driven by retirees and those working out of them have the older 4 cylinder ones. I know a lot who sold their new models because of mileage within a year. A lot went to the Ranger because of price (It's $14,000 less  :o), but it's mileage is just as bad as the new Tacoma.

I have a 2005 4 cyl Tacoma and it doesn't get the 28-32 mpg that you're talking about.  Imperial gallon?

I'm getting 24-25 mpg and and sometimes better for local driving.  I ran into a friend this weekend with the same identical truck, except a 2007 .  His mileage is about 22-23.  Just checked the Toyota website and they're still offering the 4 cyl Tacoma in a 4x4 and rated at 20/25 mpg, which is higher than what mine was rated at.

I'm convinced that the politicians in Washington are not concerned with what's in the best interest of this country but who gets the money.  It's as if we're nothing but road kill that two scavengers are fighting over.

Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol - New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1214215411-sgLxqRGp3N8OQkNDV9/Bcg)

In part...

"Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates."

Ron, at 25MPG and $6 gas, it costs $48 to go on a 100 mile roundtrip, or 0.24 per mile. That ain't cheap, and 25MPG is a dern site better than most of the vehicles that your average American is driving I think. Certainly more than the average FFer since most of us, or at least a large percentage of us drive trucks full or part time. I parked my 1 ton diesel except for logging, and drive a F150 but it doesn't get much better mileage. Ends up saving me a little though because of the disparate diesel/gas difference.  When gas goes to $8 a gallon you'll have to shell out $64 to make that 100 mile RT. In my 1 ton I will have to about $110 for the same distance. But that's not considering pulling a trailer full of logs. I get only about 10MPG when I am pulling 12.5 tons so the math says it will cost me $133 RT. $53 going and $80 coming home.

I hired a consultant to help us establish the market value price of our woodwroking jig. The price increases we have absorbed because of the petroleum-based products have been significant. Fortunately the "expert" says our price was way too low even not considering our increased costs, so the significant price increase we are about to adopt will supposedly not slow sales very much. It all remains to be seen, but everything is going to go up, and even though woodworkers are ging to buy their tools, at some point, they are going to have to put those non-essential purchases way behing their fuel and food costs.

Yes, imperial gallon Ron. There is 8 oz difference I think. We always convert to imperial here, even the sticker on the car is imperial in the lot. We couldn't get the 4 cyl up here in 4x4 for awhile and I had looked on the lots and asked. At the marketing board we had Tacomas for the last 20 years, the last they purchased was in 2002.  I believe in 2004 it was 6 cycl only available here. I see they have a 4 cycl 4x4 again in Canada. But I know for sure it wasn't on the market here for at least 4 years because everyone complained about it, including me. I would have bought one instead of the RAV4 because of the 4 cyl.  They had a 4 for a 2 wheel drive Tacoma, because my uncle bought a 2005. ;D :D

I drive a 1995 Honda Civic.  Since they started adding Eth. to the gas I get about 50 less miles per tank of gas.  Now that summer is here and are not adding the Eth. I am back up to the 400 miles per tank of gas. 

For me that 50 miles is two 1/2  commutes to work and home.

My family car a Toyota 04 Sienta does not have the same change in MPG.

What are your experiences?  I wish you had the choice to buy gas w/out the eth. in it.

I'm on my 3rd tank of 10% (or so they say) ethanol blend.  My first tank showed no difference.  My second tank showed a loss of about 5% in mileage.  This tank seems to be doing better, but I have a lot of highway miles on this tank as compared to the other two. 

Ron, what are you burning that mix in?

"Stay Alive at 55"   

Must have been some concern about the fuel to have had a national 55 MPH implemented. 

Never really bothered me much, though.  I was pretty much in the city in the earlier 70's and rode a motorcycle if I went far from the city.  Or walked.

Fuel never really seemed to be the factor for me that it has become recently.

Of course, a personal dollar isn't worth nearly as much, either. 

One thing for certain, a dollar's worth of regular sure won't get me through the week any more.   :D

That slogan does show two things:  The PR campaign which was launched back then,
                                                       AND how soon we forgot and went right back
                                                       to our old ways.

I'm using it in my Toyota pickup and my wife's Saturn.  The 10%  addition of ethanol makes it pretty good for the blender.  He gets back about 5¢ on the gallon from subsidies, which is probably one of the reasons they do it.  I wonder how much of that nickel comes back to the consumer through lower prices?

The ethanol is also added as an oxygenator for the gas.  They say it makes it burn cleaner.

"They" also said it would actually be better for feedstock. They also said it wasn't going to impact food prices much. They said alot of things.

My governor Rick Perry, has renewed his attacks on repealing the federal subsidies and mandates of use, and has The Texas Cattlemans Asscoiation, Bo Pilgrim ("There ain't nothing in my chicken but chicken") and othe big feedlot and special interest groups "backing" him. Givivng him money or post-government "IOUs" maybe. .

I know they are all politically motivated with only thier own shoirt term interests as their only concern. Pro  ethanol-ers are too for the most part.

Then their is a group on both sides that really do look to the actual merit of the fuel. The "pro" camp believes it it in the best interest of our long term future, and the "no" camp believes it is actually a detriment and liability to the pursuit of sustainable, affordable domestic energy.

If the politically-motivated special interests groups could be removed from the equation then the fuel would be able to make it on its own or not. But of course it is the special interests and ploiticians that are fueling its existence with federal money.

I hope me and many others are wrong about it. It would be a near perfect resource for our short term domestic fuel needs if it could fit the bill without driving up prices in so many other markets, and without causing any unforseen consequences.

It's terribly difficult for an average joe like myself sitting behind a computer to attempt to devine the truth about ethanol. Worse fuel economy by adding only 5 to 10% to gasoline does not bode well in my mind though. That alone kills it as a short term stopgap. How can we procedd with it if it decreases fuel economy and is expensive to develop and drives markets up.

I wish someone in the pro camp could spell it out for me with simple, but specific points. That's not a haughty or defiant challenge. I just cant see how anyone can be positive about ethanol.

Someone earlier in the thread, I think it was Phil forgive me if wwrong, suggested ethanol was being used by washingtom to save the American farmer. Not much has been said about that since. If I am naive enough (and it is possible I assure you as I do have that affliction) to not see that, and it is actually true, then I wish someone would just come right out and say it so I could start buying ethanol too.

Otherwise I need to send flowers to OWW asking for forgiveness for all those sharp jibes I've made at his his expense, so maybe he will help me out with questions as I build my bio processor. :)

The only relevant thing I can convey as acting 'knowledge' of "ethanol", is that around here it is a bane.  It is not cheaper at the pump, and those who have used it, experience poorer mileage with it.
Ultimately, it would take a lot of additional +'s to make it a feasible alternative. 

Again, however, the current 'oil crisis' is not that at all.  It is market speculation on a global level.   

There are no lines, rationing, empty storage, etc. which would convey a "crisis". 

The very fact that government would implement the ethanol intrusion, would suggest an attempt to placate the People, while upholding the market speculation.

I can't go with market speculation as the reason oil is high. A minor contributing factor at best.

If long positions ever caused this much of an increase in any single commodity for this legnth of time, you'd probably find the bulk of those contracts were owned by sheiks themselves.

Oil is high because the shieks own opec and can get it without fear of retribution IMO. I certainly don't understand global politivs enough to wander into this topic though. Just got good 'ol boy opinions about it. We don't much matter in the big scheme of things though.

There may be a sheik or two in the top of the speculative/investment involvement, but I would consider their application at a minimum.

Again, there are no shortages of oil, presently.  And, though we (globally collective) may be reaching the peak of oil supply (though this is not proven at any level), there is no speculative shortage for the next decades.

There are other significant players in the global oil market other than the USA. 

All one really has to do, is follow the money.  The vast majority returns to the major investment groups.   The oil companies are manipulated as are the People. 

One of the inherent problems in that, is that there is no real 'solution' available, and that makes it difficult to perceive.

Too much economic/political power is wielded by the major global investments for any singular government to withstand.

Look around over the past few decades.  Applications which have been implemented by government have been paving the path for global market solidity.

Investment banksters have experienced notable falls in the mortgage/etc. profits.  Lack of profits is not acceptable.  Since the Commodities Futures Trading Commission exempted the first limits on trading back in the early 90's, it has significantly been clearing the path.  Oil is the perfect trading profit maker. 

But then, what do I know?    :D

The naysayers are finding ethanol to be an all too handy scapegoat to explain the rise in food prices.  In my estimation, it is a very minor factor.  90% of the price increase is price gouging, pure and simple! >:(  It has nothing to do with fuel prices.  Let's do a bit of fifth grade math here.  A semi typically hauls 60,000 lbs, and gets about 5 mpg.  At 5mpg, and $5/gal, that's about a buck a mile for the TOTAL fuel bill, not just the increase, but I'll use $1/mile because it is easy.  Also for simplicity's sake, say the cargo will retail for $1/lb, and they're gonna haul it 600 miles.  If I'm at least as smart as a fifth grader, it only cost one lousy percent of the value, yet the price in the store has gone up 30% because of fuel costs! ???  There are many other factors that are causing this wave of inflation, particularly in food prices, but they are being totally ignored, while ethanol and fuel prices are getting all the blame.  What about the whopping 13% pay raise all those minimum wage workers just got?  OOPS, they forgot all about that! ::)  What about last year's skimpy wheat crop, and the major drought we had in the Southeast?  What about the current flooding in the corn belt that is driving the speculative price up?  All of these are factors, but nobody is talking about them, for some reason.  I'm sure there are other axes being ground, but the chief reason I can think of for the fight against ethanol is that it isn't in the interest of ADM, et al, for the small farmer to prosper.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the viability of ethanol as a fuel, or with our ability to produce and utilize it.

While I'm zeroed in on this subject, I have a couple of questions and answers.  Too bad the answers don't match the questions ::) :D

Answers: I heard some agricultural science "expert" on the radio the other day, talking about ethanol.  She said that on average, 1 acre of corn will produce about 320 gallons of ethanol, and one acre of sugar cane will make over 700 gallons.  The cane only needs half the fertilizer as corn, and you only have to replant the cane every 10-15 years.  I had been wondering about those figures, so I was happy to finally hear them.  This info makes cane sound better and better, especially since I have about 10 acres available, and my old cane press was rated to produce about 2000 gallons of juice per day. ;D

Questions:  Who owns the oil that is produced from offshore rigs?  The oil companies pay the Gov't for a lease on an area, but do they own the oil when they pump it, or do they still have to pay the Gov't for it?  If the oil company owns the oil when they pump it out of the ground, how does the commodity market affect the value of it?  I can see no need for a middle-man here.  I mean, Boone Pickens can't buy it if it ain't for sale, can he?  My thought is, since the Gov't, who is us, lays claim to the bottom of the Gulf, don't they, who is we, also own the oil beneath it?  If we own the oil down there, are the oil companies paying us $138 per barrel for it?  This stuff really has me confused.  Do any of you know how it really works?

Answer:

"Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o'clock in the morning.

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow....."

-T.S Elliott Extract from "The Hollow Men."

:D

Quote from: TexasTimbers on June 25, 2008, 08:33:43 AM
Otherwise I need to send flowers to OWW asking for forgiveness for all those sharp jibes I've made at his his expense, so maybe he will help me out with questions as I build my bio processor. :)

Please don't send flowers :o
I am up to my armpits in flowers and all things green  :D

Be happy to answer any Qs you might have building a processor.

 "They" also said it would actually be better for feedstock. 


So, where do you get the idea distillers grains or gluten meal  is not a superior cattle feed, Kev?

Well, he did admit to being naive a few posts back, Faron.  It looks like the naysayers got to him. ;D :D :D

Sorry, Kev!  I couldn't resist. :-[

Well, I have more than a little real world experience with gluten meal.  17% protein versus 8% for corn.  Excellent palatability. Some studies indicate it improves digestion of the fiber in hay.  Of course the price has increased with the increased price of corn.  Biggest problem I have is the dang cattle are quite willing to run over me to get to it.  :D

What exactly is gluten meal, anyway?

Good one DanG. ;D

Faron, what I meant was, if I understand things right ( a big if) the cattlemen and other feedstock industries like chicken etc. are not thinking the extra protien is worth the extra costs.

They are against it for some reason I can only guess that's it. ???

Gluten Meal does have its place in cattle rations. However, you can only replace around 20% of the ration in finishing cattle with it. At least thats what the feedlot guy who is finishing out a pen of cattle for me tells me.  I dont know if you can use it in poultry or swine rations or not.
Talk about a lousy crystal ball. When I put this pen on feed in mid May, the first load of corn cost around 4.55 a bushel laid in. He wanted to know if I wanted to put in the other load that would be needed. I told him no, I thought maybe the price might ease up. Today it would cost 7.10.

Quote from: TexasTimbers on June 25, 2008, 02:52:23 PM


Faron, what I meant was, if I understand things right ( a big if) the cattlemen and other feedstock industries like chicken etc. are not thinking the extra protien is worth the extra costs.

Why would there be extra costs?  The ethanol people have already extracted a good part of the money out of it.  It should be cheaper to feed the distiller's residue than to feed whole corn.  It looks to me like the people making ethanol are unwilling to settle for a reasonable profit.  If the profit ain't obscene, they don't want to mess with it.

DanG, Gluten meal is a product of a wet milling process.  As I understand it, corn gluten is extracted in the process, and used in other products. The remainder is used to make alcohol, then either dried and pelleted, or sold wet.  You have to make an appointment to get a load, so I don't think I am the only cattleman using it. ;)  This differs from straight distiller's grains, but I do not know anything about them.  Last load I bought, cost per pound was slightly less than corn, at twice the protein.  We mix equal amounts corn and gluten.  The cow rumen is better suited to processing the product than other livestock, but there is research into poultry and hogs to use a certain amount in those feeds. 
The Texas Governor, and the Texas cattlemen I am sure, blame ethanol for the increase in feed costs. I know it is to some extent.  However, I have heard a wide range of estimates of the real affect of ethanol on prices. The low estimate the other day was that if we stopped making ethanol tomorrow, we would cut $.30 from the corn price.  Another was that ethanol is responsible for 30 to 50% of the price increase.   I do not recall the Governor, the cattlemen, or anyone else complain just three years ago when corn was $1.98 per bushel, and well below the cost of production.  Maybe Texas is better known for growing cattle than corn???
I have a little more info on ethanol I will try to get to, if I can find it.  Pretty busy just now growing corn and beans for food and fuel. ;) 8)

You can feed a higher percentage of distiller grians than corn to cattle in their ration since the sugar has been removed(it bloats them). 

I can tell you that if corn was 4.50 a bushel with the fertilizer prices the way they are, you would not have much corn to buy shortly.  It just costs to much to grow it now with fuel, fertilizer and chemical increases this year.  That does not even cover seed, equipment, and labor too.  I am told that corn fertilizer costs are around $130/acre alone this spring.

I have yet to figure out the speculation aspect of commodities like corn or oil.  Commodities differ from stocks.  In stocks, a company issues portions of their business for sale.  They put them on the open market and they are sold between buyers.  If the stock goes up, you make money; if it goes down, you lose.

But, commodities are contracts, not shares.  You need to have a buyer and seller to make a contract.  You can't just have a bunch of buyers and no sellers.  There are also time limits on the contract called the delivery date.  When I was in college, the futures market only had a 10% delivery rate, which is less than what it is today.

Unlike the stock market, you can make money in both a rising or falling market.  You just have to be on the right side of the market.  Markets are driven by the underlying spot market.  Equilibrium price is the highest price needed to supply the last customer, which drives up all the prices. 

If speculators are driving up the market, who holds the short side of those contracts?  If markets are so easily controlled by a group, why doesn't someone like GM or Ford drive the market down so they can sell more gas guzzlers?  Afterall, they have lost a ton of money by losing parts of their markets.  Why are speculators mentioned only in the oil markets?  Aren't they also responsible for corn price escalation? 

Texas,

I didn't think I made the first statement about saving the American farmer, but
maybe I did .  I could have sworn that someone else suggested that this had been
a pre-planned intention of the ethanol effort. Can not find who that was. 

The farmer I referred to in reply #19 had certainly seen price benefits.  As farmerdoug
points out, it would be all over right now for some farmers without, for example, the
higher price for corn.

It was in reply #74 by DouginUtah.

Quote from: Ron Wenrich on June 26, 2008, 05:59:30 AM

If speculators are driving up the market, who holds the short side of those contracts?  If markets are so easily controlled by a group, why doesn't someone like GM or Ford drive the market down so they can sell more gas guzzlers?  Afterall, they have lost a ton of money by losing parts of their markets.  Why are speculators mentioned only in the oil markets?  Aren't they also responsible for corn price escalation? 

I would venture a sincere speculation that oil is likely the market big and powerful enough to readily accomodate such manipulation.

Alas!  We are reduced to speculating about speculation. :-\ :D :D :D

What else could one posssibly do with it?   :D

Thank you for that bit of research, DanG.
I had been scanning Tom's and your posts, thinking it was one of you two.

Some info, which came up on another thread from Patty, Norm, DouginUtah, and from
some articles I found, makes me start to hear a strangling sound coming from ethanol producers:

Futures on corn heading close to $8! :o  This is due to the lowering of corn
production estimates from a potential match with 2007's production of 13 billion
bushels down to more like 11 billiion for this season.  That's not good.  Soybeans
were also headed up with corn.  That give more price pressure on food, feeds,
ethanol, and biodiesel.

Their third plant to not go into production...

VeraSun Delaying Start of Another Ethanol Plant (http://www.cnbc.com/id/25366299#)  

An ethanol company from Vancouver announced today that they will defer the $259,000.00 licence fee on their patented chemo-thermal process (  ??? still?  ??? ) used to make ethanol from biomass, corn, wheat straw, cane, etc. so the farmers can be assured a reliable feedstock.

Don't they sound like a nice bunch o' guys  ::)  ::)

The article on Verasun mentioned that "ethanol sells at a discount" compared to
gasoline.  With gasoline continuing to climb and crude breaking records again today,
it seems as if that price difference would remain but still be able to reach a profitable
level.

An ethanol plant going up near me is based on cellulosic technology using pine tree
waste and thinnings as the medium.  I need to check out what is happening with that
project.  (Range Fuels is the owner.)

Ethanol is pushing the cost of your food steadily higher, right?  Let us assume $5.00 per bushel corn.  (It is higher than that now, but may drop some once this weather sorts itself out.)  What is the cost of the corn in a $3.69 box of corn flakes?

I would guess about 12 cents. Joe

I would guess about 12 cents. Joe


You are real close, Logwalker.  According to the Wisconsin Corn Grower's Association as quoted b the Indiana Prairie Farmer magazine, that box has about $.10 worth of corn in it. They also claim the sport celebrity on the box of Wheaties earns more per box than the amount of grain in the box.   

Yeah but my box of shredded wheat is 100 % wheat, I gotta add the honey and the milk. ;D

Again, I have read a few articles online this a.m.
I am sure that everyone feels more confortable now, knowing I am studying the problem. ::)

This article (http://www.ncga.com/news/notd/pdfs/061407_EthanolAndFoodPrices.pdf) is the one that struck me as the most legitimate. It supports the notion that higher corn prices effect the price of food in the grocery isle only minimally, especially compared to how a dollar increase in a barrel of oil effects  food prcies.

I suspect feedstock folks are just getting squeezed harder and harder by higher corn prices because it effects them at the trough more than it does us at the isle.

It doesn't turn me positive toward corn-based ethanol as a legitimate economical fuel source that can be sustained as a fossil fuel replacement or even ween us off forewign oli to any appreciable degree, but I don't like seeing bad information disseminated. I think the Texas bovine boys  are as guilty of short term greed as some of the corn huskers.

The USDA Grain stocks and acreage report is due Monday.  I suggest we all hang on to our hats when it comes out.  I don't think $10 corn or $21 beans (which is a real possibility given current conditions) are good for grain farmers, ethanol producers,  livestock producers or the consumer.  The last thing grain farmers need is to see our customers going out of business or finding substitutes for our products.   No doubt the cattlemen feel the same way we do about profit- We better get what we can while we can to make up for all the lean years.  Is that greed, or just good business?   I may not necessarily think $7.00 corn is good, but I'll be DanGed if I am going to sell mine for $6.00 when the market says it is worth more. ;) 

Best I can tell, ethanol plays a role, but is not driving the rise in grain prices.  Cheap food has been taken for granted here in this country for a long time.  It looks like folks are going to have to start thinking more about necessities and less about toys and luxuries.

I hope my negative opinion about ethanol doesn't make me come across as negative toward my fellow Americans who are growing the corn.

My opinion about it is looking at it as a source of energy, not a source of income. farming, in this case growing and harvesting and selling corn is as honest a living as their is.

"Growing and harvesting and selling" . . . sounds so simple doesn't it. Not hardly. Even I know that. My dad was the last generation to farm in our family. Did his last afrming when he left the family farm and joined the USN at 18 or 19 y.o.,  but I come  from a farmer background of many generations. I have furniture makers and farmers by the boatload on both sides of my parentage.

A man, and a woman, have to put beans and taters on the table any 'ol honest way they can. Liek I say, I'm not so shallow to not be able to seperate my opinion of ethanol, from my opinion of farmers no matter what they might grow. Farming is an hohest way to shoot craps you might say, and those that stake their lives around it have my respect.

Ethanol is not "evil" as you say in the Safe Room thread Norm, and I sure as heck hope it can turn out to be part of the answer to our energy solution. Maybe one day it will prove all of us naysayers to be fools. I for one would be very happy to be found in the camp of fools in that narrow instant.

Quote from: Faron on June 29, 2008, 12:06:27 PM
. . It looks like folks are going to have to start thinking more about necessities and less about toys and luxuries.

Whether ethanol ever proves itself or not, these are always wise words to keep in mind, feast or famine.

Here are some figures with prices for the last year or so and the relative BTUs of ethanol.


National Unleaded Average

                         Regular   Mid     Premium   Diesel   E85   **E85 MPG/BTU adjusted price
Current Avg.   $4.087   $4.339   $4.496   $4.762   $3.807   $5.010
Yesterday Avg.   $4.086   $4.340   $4.495   $4.762   $3.285   $4.323
Month Ago Avg.   $3.975   $4.221   $4.372   $4.791   $3.316   $4.364
Year Ago Avg.   $2.957   $3.140   $3.254   $2.912   NA   NA
*Prices are in US dollars per gallon

**The BTU-adjusted price of E-85 is the nationwide average price of E-85 adjusted to reflect the lower energy content as expressed in British Thermal Units - and hence miles per gallon - available in a gallon of E-85 as compared to the same volume of conventional gasoline. The BTU-adjusted price calculated by OPIS and AAA is not an actual retail average price paid by consumers. It is calculated and displayed as part of AAA's Fuel Gauge Report because according to the Energy Information Administration E-85 delivers approximately 25 percent fewer BTUs by volume than conventional gasoline. Because "flexible fuel" vehicles can operate on conventional fuel and E-85,the BTU-adjusted price of E-85 is essential to understanding the cost implications of each fuel choice for consumers.

From this website: http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/

I've read most of this thread but some of it is way over my non-politically-oriented-head and some is just plain off topic. I have no opinion on ethanol because it is not available in the Northeast.
It would be 'nice' for Americans to grow thier own fuel but I can't see it selling in large quantities when the vehicles seem hard to find and the fuel seems hard to find and the consumption numbers/BTUs aren't easily compared to gas or ultimately cheaper.
Americans have already proved that they will buy the cheapest possible scalpel to cut off thier own nose by buying all the cheap 'made in china' junk when Made in America only cost a few pennies more.

Spruce

That is very useful info AND on topic.

If we could add some realistic production cost figures to that chart you showed,
it would be a great help.  Filtering out the subsidies and getting a straight answer
would be the problem there. 

Chances are, you're burning ethanol in your car or truck.  About a month ago, they put a sticker on the pumps that says we now have 10% ethanol in our gas mix.  My mileage has slipped a little.

I'm just wondering if your figures show the added ethanol, or are there still some places you can get gas that doesn't have ethanol.  There aren't any stations in my area that I know of. 

I see the "May contain up to 10% Ethanol" stickers here and there, also.
My thought or question is,
                      "Why would they be adding it, if it isn't cheaper and
                        giving them a better profit?"

I know farmerdoug mentioned the "oxygenating" effect, BUT....

Phil, my thoughts.... if they add 10% to gas, a hundred gallons of gas only uses 90 gallons of gas and 10 gallons of ethanol. I doesn't take long for that 10 gallons of gas they saved to add up to profits.

Ethanol replaced MBTE as the oxygenator in gasoline.

I am sure that making more profit on gas at the pump never came to their minds. ::) :D :D :D

It may have been cheaper before the price of corn doubled...probably not now.  Our signs say it DOES contain 10% ethanol.

I've been noticing the 10% stickers too. They are on most all the pumps down here.

And at 51¢ per gallon subsidy for blenders, each gallon of 10% has a nickel coming back from the government. 

I thought that ethanol was used as an octane booster at one time.  Could be wrong about that.

Here we go, straight from the horse's rearend mouth:
SOURCE: EPA     http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/faq.htm

"What is MTBE?"

"MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) is a chemical compound that is manufactured by the chemical reaction of methanol and isobutylene. MTBE is produced in very large quantities (over 200,000 barrels per day in the U.S. in 1999) and is almost exclusively used as a fuel additive in motor gasoline. It is one of a group of chemicals commonly known as "oxygenates" because they raise the oxygen content of gasoline. At room temperature, MTBE is a volatile, flammable and colorless liquid that dissolves rather easily in water."

"Why is it used?"

"MTBE has been used in U.S. gasoline at low levels since 1979 to replace lead as an octane enhancer (helps prevent the engine from "knocking"). Since 1992, MTBE has been used at higher concentrations in some gasoline to fulfill the oxygenate requirements set by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. (A few cities, such as Denver, used oxygenates (MTBE) at higher concentrations during the wintertime in the late 1980's.)"

"Oxygen helps gasoline burn more completely, reducing harmful tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles. In one respect, the oxygen dilutes or displaces gasoline components such as aromatics (e.g., benzene) and sulfur. In another, oxygen optimizes the oxidation during combustion. Most refiners have chosen to use MTBE over other oxygenates primarily for its blending characteristics and for economic reasons."


So, it turns out that ethanol is both an oxygenator and an octane booster, as is MTBE.
One of the wonderful features of MTBE is its ability to dissolve in ground water
such as your drinking water.  Gives it a nice turpentine flavor.  It has turned out to be a wonderful substitute for
that evil lead, huh?  Ethanol is another oxygenator.  It can also mix with your drinking water.
From what I hear, this is a desireable feature of ethanol for some Forumites.

SOURCE:   http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Pimentel_98-2.pdf

Please note that this report information is from 1998 and that it is from what
you might call a "hostile witness."  Thanks to David Pimentel, Cornell University, Professor Emeritus

                               Energy and dollar inputs per gallon of ethanol (April, 1998)
                                                               BTUs                     Dollars
                   *Corn Production                   55,300                     $1.60 (remember it was 1998)
                    Fermentation/Distillation         74,300                     $ .92

                    Total                                *129,600                    $2.52         

[Note: Corn is now 350% higher in price. 
Simply multiply to get todays cost of the corn component.
Ethanol's energy value is only 76,000 BTUs per gallon.]   

If we adjust for corn cost, today's ethanol cost per gallon is entering ...
                                   The Twilight Zone.

If, as DouginUtah said, the plan was to use this to save the American farmer,
perhaps that national security interest's salvation was the best side effect.
My summary is that I learned a lot, and T. Boone Pickens is right about corn-based ethanol for the long haul.  The verdict is out on cellulosic.  We shall soon see.

I heard or read somewhere that here in the northeast that they are only adding the ethanol in the winter months.  My last tank of gas my mpg has increased and it looks like this tank I'm currently on is going to finish on the up side.

I am far from an expert.  But the my bottom line on ethanol is that it is costing me more!

Less MPG
Higher Food Cost

I know that ethanol is not the only factor in the rise of food but is still a factor in the grand scheme.

I agree that ethanol, as we currently make it and use it, is a poor substitute for gasoline, but I haven't given up on it.  It seems to me that all, or at least most of the people who are in position to manage things, go into that proverbial little box to do all their thinking.  They can't seem to get away from trying to do things the way the oil companies manage their business, with their few huge refineries and widely diverse marketing of byproducts.  I don't seem to have a key to the thinking box, so I do my cogitating on the outside.  Looking at the figures in Phil's post, it occurs to me that most of the cost of producing that corn is in petroleum fuel, and in commercial fertilizers that are partly made of petroleum byproducts.  Likewise the energy required to turn the corn(or whatever) into ethanol is probably figured as petroleum energy, too.  Production is mostly centralized, so that transportation over long distances is necessary, again relying on petroleum.

My vision for the future of ethanol involves a great number of small distilleries scattered all over the country, using whatever raw material is available in the local area.  I'm going to use korne as my example because I can spell it. ;D  The farm would become like a perpetual motion machine, the way it used to be, except the farmer would have one additional product to take to market, and one less major expense to bear.  It would entail a large cornfield, a distillery, a methane digester, a feedlot, and a meat packing facility.  I'm actually thinking of this from a co-op point of view, but the result is the same.  The corn would go to the local distillery, and the leftovers fed to the animals.  The output of the animals would go into the methane digester, to make fuel for tractors, generators and the distillery, which would also rely heavily on passive solar energy.  The high-quality fertilizer from the digester would be spread on the fields by the methane powered tractors to grow more corn, and the animals would be processed into meat on the premises and delivered to local stores.  Not a drop of oil, save a little for lubricants, would be consumed.  There would be plenty of jobs available for the displaced truckers, and LeeB could spend all his time at home with his family.  Our highways wouldn't take the beating they currently endure, and that's good because they are made out of petroleum byproducts too.  If there was one of these facilities every 100 miles all over the Country, none of this stuff would have to be transported over 50 miles, including the excess electricity produced by those methane powered generators I mentioned above. ;)

I like your vision DanG. 8) Now, if we could just get a bunch of folks in the right places to think like that...

As an already established producer of natural gas, should I be receiving subsidies?    ???   :D

Quote from: tcsmpsi on July 02, 2008, 01:39:48 PM
As an already established producer of natural gas, should I be receiving subsidies?    ???   :D

Only if you're wearing an EPA approved recovery device. ;D

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention one of the products our imaginary model farm could sell.  Since they would be skinning a bunch of cows, they could have a little tannery over in the corner somewhere.  Leather should be one of the cheapest materials in the world, yet it is expensive.  All it takes is some wood ashes and oak bark and an animal hide. ::)

Somebody stop me!!  I'm beginning to sound like FDH! :o :o

The largest problem we are seeing in Oklahoma with E10 is small engines having problems.   Until July 1st we did not know if our fuel has 10% or not, now they have to label their pumps.  Numerous people are complaining about the E10 in small engines causing them to backfire and run rough, the lawnmower shops even selling new equipment are seeing a large amount of them coming back in that say they are not running correctly and backfiring, only to find out they have 10% ethanol in the fuel.  I think in numeorus cases they are putting more than the 10% in. 

DanG for president!!  ;)

GF, we've been running 10% ethanol around here for years and the engines seem to run just fine.  Well, at least the signs on the pumps SAY that it has ethanol in it.  I'm getting more and more skeptical about that sort of thing, though.  At any rate, the stuff is supposedly in the gas and all my stuff is burning it rather well.

I don't think we have ever used ethanol here in our gas. I might be wrong, but never seen a sticker on the pumps. They are producing a diesel additive from canola and claim fuel consumption and emissions are down where they tested it in city buses in the capital. I think if you study the report closer though, there were some older buses that fuel consumption increased and no noticeable change in emissions. You can't just read the media reports, I find they leave out a few details in their reporting. Makes for good hype.

DanG
Your imagined community sounds a little like the one I imagined on the
Huckabee thread[pg 75; reply #1491.  Where I mention "Greg" I am
referring to his reply #1483 on the same page.  My questions, DanG, if
we are going to get this joint project off the ground and get Bill Gates
to give us a grant of, say two hundred million for seed money, are these:
"Are you going to control those unsavory odors?"
and "Is tscmpsi the only individual who is going to be hooked up 'direct' so to speak?"
:D

"A few days ago Greg mentioned the idea of rejuvenating 'local rural economies.'

I have been sawing near a small community which was a bustling place 40-50 yrs.
ago.  Now, what used to be the "town" is comprised of a cafe which has only been
in business six weeks and about a dozen unused buildings.  You know the style:
Finely-built brick store fronts of yesteryear.  Most of them are in varying states of
disrepair right now, of course.

Imagine it restored with a perimeter of homes developed in a retro style.  Outside
that area would be apartment style housing.  Last, ringing the little 'Mayberry,' would
be the industries to employ the new residents. 

Hey, if it works in Florida, where entire mini-cities have been built for retirees, why
couldn't a retro-town work in rural Georgia?"

I thought about starting a thread in the Alternative Method section called,
"DanG&Phil's Mayberry II," but I figured the first contributors would say, "I want
to be at least a 1/2 mile from everybody else."

Good plan, DanG  :)

Here is a web site showing the steps and products involved with ethanol production. Wet mill process makes it look as if ethanol has been a "by product" of high fructose corn syrup production and they must make alot of that to sweeten all the soft drinks. ???

With the price of corn up, will the price of soft drinks rise dramatically ???  :D

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol/production_starch_sugar.html

Also follow the link to the "Renewable Fuels Association" to see the process for cellulosic ethanol.

DanG, your plan just might work when the cityfied folks move back to the city. Being a livestock farmer, I know that most cityfied folks don't want any pigs or cows within 1000 miles of their country home. I think they don't mind a riding horse or two. ;)  Maybe if gasoline goes to $8 then they will  move back to the city and we can farm as you suggest.

Quote from: DanG on July 02, 2008, 01:08:27 PM
It would entail a large cornfield, a distillery, a methane digester, a feedlot, and a meat packing facility. 

Good idea DanG. Want to see one:

http://www.e3biofuels.com/ (http://www.e3biofuels.com/)

The only thing missing is the packing plant, which really is not economically feasable.

Quote from: Gary_C on July 03, 2008, 12:21:54 AM



The only thing missing is the packing plant, which really is not economically feasable.

Why not?  I remember the day when the South was covered with a network of packing houses.  Farmers didn't take their cattle to auctions, where buyers from Armour and Hormel were the only bidders.  They took them directly to local packers like Sunnyland in Thomasville, Ga. and a myriad of other regional packers.  In the last 25 or 30 years, the big boys have been buying up the local plants and closing them down to create a quasi-monopoly, so that cattle are shipped to the midwest to be fattened and butchered.  Sure, with cheap fuel and an ignorant public, it was more profitable to do that, but fuel isn't cheap anymore, and the public is getting interested enough to inform itself.  It makes no sense whatsoever to ship animals across the country, then ship their meat back to where it came from.  Down here in the Southeast, we can grow enough grain to fatten our own cattle, but in the regions where that isn't possible it makes more sense to ship the grain via rail and barge.  What we need to get rid of is the almighty dollar, and start being concerned about our survival instead of our wealth!

Well, I guess what started out as a question, ended up being a rant. :-\ ::)  Gary, you're a lot more qualified than I am.  Is there really a reason that local packing houses aren't practical?

Those local packing plants have about all gone bankrupt here in the Maritimes. Competition from larger outfits is one reason and provincial subsidies in another. Hard to compete with someone with their hand in the government dole. I don't understand them enough to know where the inefficiencies exist. About the only one I have seen the inside of was in the movie Rocky.  That 'south paw' liked to pound raw meat. ;D

We still have several local butcher shops.  The one has gone the route of buying in sides of beef, hogs, etc. and cutting them up.  They used to do the killing and butchering there, but I think state regulations have gotten in the way.  They still smoke their own meat.

I was in another shop that grew their own, butchered and smoked the meat.  Prices are very reasonable, considering they sell better quality than other shops.  They also sold specialty meats like bison, quail, and the like, which they get from other places.  They have their own bakery and sell baked goods you normally can't find.  They do quite well, and pull people in from long distances.  They have a large parking lot and even have a spot for bus parking.

We're also starting to see a resurgence in local shops that sell grass fed beef.  People are finding out the benefits of that over the grain fed, and are supporting those local shops.  I think local shops can be very competitive if it is marketed right.  We also have several farmer's markets, but I suspect that is all brought in meat, and not handled by local butchers.

But, a vast majority of people either want the convenience of going to the local grocery store for their meat, or they just don't know any different. 

Yes, we still have local butcher shops here. And the prices are reasonable as well. But the big hub type processors are fading into oblivion here. There was one on PEI for hogs and it never did turn a profit. As soon as the government life support was pulled, they went packing elsewhere. In this case the price of pork was blamed for it's demise. The farmers wanted to support it, but the funds were not there.

Quote from: Ron Wenrich on July 03, 2008, 06:37:41 AM

But, a vast majority of people either want the convenience of going to the local grocery store for their meat, or they just don't know any different. 

Very true Ron and with the price of fuel going through the roof it's hard to justify all the extra mileage for some. Most folks around here earn less than $25,000 a year unless they work for government, unions, corporations. There needs to be more support for farmers markets. We have a couple or three in my vicinity, but few support them. Too much infighting let alone public support. It is a lot of hard work to setup and the tending is hard to unless your used to it all week. Most farmers just want to sell in large volumes and be done with it. We have one market that does better than the others because they work harder at it. The other markets just barely exist because there is limited support from potential vendors and the locals like to go to the mega super markets before supporting local farmers. In our largest town everyone practically vacates the town on weekends to go to the city or to their Lake cottages, so they have to have the market on Friday. Even then they just trickle in because people are working. Some vendors are not even tending their booths. My neighbors take all their produce over 100 miles and out of the area to a more successful market in the city. The gas prices must be killing them though.

Quote from: DanG on July 03, 2008, 01:12:17 AM


  Is there really a reason that local packing houses aren't practical?

Yep,  it's called EPA

Quote from: DanG on July 03, 2008, 01:12:17 AM

Is there really a reason that local packing houses aren't practical?

That question is even more complex than the one about Ethanol. Not economically feasable is a simplified answer. And yes we still have the local butcher shops in all the small towns here, but they are small players in the food supply chain and most of them have to buy beef sides to keep the operation running smoothly.

Number one reason is it would be a huge diversion that would take enormous resources and money to operate. You would need another source of supply of animals to make for an efficient operation and that would make the packing plant just another enterprise to run with a separate set of environmental, labor, and operating problems. In short it just becomes a distraction from the basic operation and does little to make your core business more efficient.

The number two reason which may be more important than number one is marketing. As I have said before, you can have the highest quality product in the world and the lowest cost of production but if you do not have access to markets, you've got nothing. And the beef and pork markets are for the most part are pretty well consolidated from the existing large packing plants to the major grocery chains and convenience store chains.

And to add to the problems, the farmers have been fighting for years over packer ownership of animals. That just causes lower market prices for the animals on the hoof and transfers that profit to the large packers. There is a similiar controversy going on now over farmers that are building large hog confinement operations that are under contract with a packer. The farmers don't care if they make any money on the hogs, breakeven is OK for them as long as they get the now very valuable manure for their crops. This saves them from buying very expensive petrolum based fertilizers, but depresses the farm value of hogs.

This farming is now a very complicated business.

Quote from: Ron Wenrich on July 03, 2008, 06:37:41 AM
We're also starting to see a resurgence in local shops that sell grass fed beef.  People are finding out the benefits of that over the grain fed, and are supporting those local shops.  I think local shops can be very competitive if it is marketed right.  We also have several farmer's markets, but I suspect that is all brought in meat, and not handled by local butchers.

The owner of the co. that I work for raises steers that are all grass feed.  He has been doing this for years.  I got my name on his list for the next one ready to be butchard. He has a waiting list. It takes longer to fatten a grass feed steer, actualy they never really get that fat.  We have been buying quaters for other local farmers for years now and making the switch.  I am looking foward to tring the grass feed. 

You'll not be disappointed by grass fed beef, little bark. At least you know what it ate. I have ate mostly grass fed for my early life because we had cattle then and we had our own. But, that has been a long while ago, about 30 years. It may not be long for some, but it is for me.  ;D There are always some small time operators around that just raise beef to sell by the side and they are all grass fed. They are not even a butcher shop per se, it's done in a shed or barn.  These folks I'm thinking of only raise 6 steers or maybe a dozen and have the sides sold ahead of time.

I'm not even sure if it's regulated. If you were to buy 5 milk cows and sell the milk without a quota or butter from churnings someone would be coming by in an inspection uniform to shut you down. There is always a do gooder snitch in the neighborhood that feels good about themselves to report such things, who would never otherwise support a local farmer. It happened right here locally a few years back and the milk came out of the same tank sold on quota. The guy figured, why throw it out in the grass. This time it was a farmer snitching on the other.

We buy our milk from a local amish farmer.  Has his own little bottling operation.  Has a fda sticker on his front door.  All he sells is whole milk that is not pastorized.  Not to mention his milk is .40 cents cheaper a gallon then in the store. 

From what I understand he started this milk business because the area co op didn't want to buy his milk because he wasn't feeding his cows any corn products just grass. 

There is nothing better then giving that bottle a little shake before you pour youself a tall one 8)

Not being Homogenized would be a treat, but I think I would want my milk pasteurized.

Quote from: little Bark on July 03, 2008, 02:36:54 PM

From what I understand he started this milk business because the area co op didn't want to buy his milk because he wasn't feeding his cows any corn products just grass. 

That can't be true as I personally know there are many dairy cow grazers in Pennsylvannia that sell all the milk they have to coops. There has to be another reason and it most likely has to do with sanitation or storage and transport. If you don't cool your milk quickly and few amish dairys can, then bacteria counts will be high and that will get you kicked off of selling milk to any processor.

Quote from: Tom on July 03, 2008, 02:52:31 PM
Not being Homogenized would be a treat, but I think I would want my milk pasteurized.

Yes and without many bugs (bacteria).

Gary,  you are probly right.  I should have gotten more facts before I spoke. 

The sight of seeing cows out grazing in a meadow is not what it used to be.   

little Bark, what really aroused my suspicions is the fact that your Amish Farmer has a FDA sticker on his door. The FDA does regulate milk thru the US Pasturized Milk Ordinance (PMO) but the feds prohibit the sale of raw milk. However Pennsylvannia has not adopted the PMO and has their own rules and licensing just so they can continue to allow some limited raw milk sales from their old Amish and other milk producers.

So that FDA sticker must be bogus and what he should have, if he is at all legal, is a prominately displayed license from the Pennsylvannia Dept of Agriculture to prove he is authorized and inspected for raw milk sales. I can't imagine he can be without a license as the PA milk inspectors would pull the plug on him quickly if he was not licensed.

Plus he must be an ex amish farmer that has learned to like money over the old amish rules if he has electricity to operate all that equipment.

Y'all might have missed my point just a little.  I wasn't talking about the little custom butchering/retail outfits.  Until recently, the big packers had plants all over the place.   Swift had one in Moultrie until about 15 years ago, but they closed it down and ship the animals from here to the Midwest somewhere.  I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time, but now they are shipping the animals from here to there, and shipping the meat back.  They can pass those extra costs on to the consumer, but if someone built a big packing house locally, they could now be competitive IF the Gov't will leave them alone.   Farmers have already seen what Mr. Big will do "for" him, and it is time the rest of the public knew about it too.  After he closed down his plants in the South, he refused to buy hogs from here, so the farmers lost their entire investment as well as their income.  The farmers up there probably don't care about the pigs because they don't own them.  They are just caretakers, like the chicken farmers have been for a long time.  Ask Pigman if he ever raised hogs just for the manure. ??? :D :D :D

Big Business plays hardball.  They stay within their "rights" from a strictly legal standpoint, but neither fairness nor the public good enter into their decisions.  I hope the public will wake up and smell the coffee before those greedy dogs ruin the country!

Quote from: DanG on July 03, 2008, 04:28:10 PM
 Ask Pigman if he ever raised hogs just for the manure. ??? :D :D :D

No, never for just the manure, but in a few bad years I raised them just for the fun. :(

Look at all of the bad meat those big plants keep having to dump too.  I hear there is another 325,000 lbs being pulled this week. ::)  A smaller plant ould probably be cleaner but if they were to dump the lots would be alot smaller.

I agree with DanG.  The DanGed centralization of our food and energy production is coming back to haunt us in a big way.  We need to get back to more localized production of foodstuffs and energy.  As a country we would be less vulnerable all the way around.

Concerning the smaller meat packers...

I remember a conversation with the former owner of such a facility.
His story was that it was the dealings of the big chains with the grocery
stores which really finally killed their business.

Let's just say there were anti-competition factors in play on the retail end,
just as there were on the other end by the big companies.  They laid
a "Bill Gates move" or two on the small companies from both ends.
I couldn't help but think, "Where are the anti-trust laws in a case like this?"
The little guys could not get shelf space with the major chains.

I think that the smaller companies could have a shot today, due to
the advantage of short hauling distances, and due to the advantage
of the internet in helping them direct-market.   The public could be shown
the quality and financial advantage of the nearby meat cutter. 

Well, it finally happened.  This energy thread has turned to food, and it's all my fault. :D :D  I'm gonna start a new thread and let this one get back to ethanol. ;D

Dried distillers grain must be cheap.  There is a company around here that is talking of using it as a filler in plastic parts.  I guess recycling plastic will get a little again.  But on the other hand, the goats will have a better food source. ::) :D :D :D

Toyota is using some type of organic based bio-plastic now in cars. I think my car has some, it's not as tough as petrol plastic.

Bio plastics are not new.  I remember about 30 years ago when somebody was trying to sucker me into the Amway scheme, one of their selling points was that their containers were made of soy, so they could be safely incinerated.

Who said they were new?  ;)

Here is the latest news on ethanol from a Canadian persepctive (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=b0859493-28c0-4b54-8b43-c83097333799). I pasted a short quote from the linked article that appeared in the Vancouver Sun, to ask our Canadians (anyone else too of course) what the writer means by the part I highlighted. I don't get why Canadians don't face security issues and self-sufficiency concerns.

The most shocking thing in Auld's report is that the federal government went ahead with its massive subsidy program without first stopping to assess the costs and potential benefits.

Much the same kind of criticism is being levelled at the much larger ethanol subsidies in the United States. But at least there, one of the goals used to justify the expenditures is energy security and self-sufficiency -- a legitimate concern for Americans that we in Canada don't face.

With all due respect to our Canadian neighbors, if that gentleman doesn't believe that Canada has security issues, then he needs to let me take him to some neighborhoods in the Brampton area of Toronto.  He'll be hard pressed to see a sign in English, or a person without a headdress of some kind. 

I love most of Canada, and Canadians are mostly very friendly folks.  However, I believe they need to look at who's coming into their country enmasse. 

Quote from: TexasTimbers on July 04, 2008, 11:39:18 AM
I don't get why Canadians don't face security issues and self-sufficiency concerns.

In a nutshell, vast land area rich in natural resources, and a very small population.  Canada isn't a world power, so it isn't a target.  It doesn't have a huge expensive military, or many of the other expenses we bear in the US.  They don't have a huge population of ethnic minorities to boost the crime rate.  It is my understanding that most everyone works for a living up there.  I have no doubt that what JackLeg says is true, but they don't have the massive influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, that we contend with.

Like the solution to our energy "crisis" there is no one answer, but a whole bunch of little ones.

And we have a big buddy next door who will take care of us  :-*   :-*

To be quite honest we don't worry about security issues unless it's at a nuclear power station or a bank. It's never in the news until some high profile case about an alleged terrorist that sneaked into the US gets reported, then often turns out not to be one at all and things carry on as usual in our passive society. We complain more about the cost of fuel then the source, since we are producing and exporting well beyond our capacity to consume it. We are more worried about our drinking water to be quite honest. The last five years , water has been reported about almost weekly. At least once a month some town has a boil order.

What's the issue with your water, SwampD?

In Georgia, the approval process for rural sewage and water wells has
become appropriately stringent.  Picky, picky, ... but for a reason.
Contaminate the water table or,worse, the aquifers, and you are in big trouble.

If I were a terrorist I'd much rather base my operations on Canadian soil than Mexican for obvious strategic reasons. So if we really are that big buddy (and we are), I'd be watching my big buddy's backside so he could kick the bad guys tail when they finally turned their sights on me (and they will).

I've never crossed the Canadian border in a vehicle so I don't know how lax it is. Flown into vancouver many times. Airport security there looks tough on the outside but it's a joke just like here.

I don't think the writer speaks for the Canadian gov when he says the reason they are turning sour on ethanol is due in part because they do not have the same security issues. As the US goes, so goes Canada for the most part, and the Canadian gov knows it. They are cutting funding on ethanol because it don't make economic sense, and Canada can't waste the massive amounts of resources on anything and everything like we do.  That's my take on it. Ain't got nutt'n to do with security.

Phil, this past week alone it was uranium, and arsenic in wells tested in Harvey, a small rural community near Fredericton out in the boonies. Last week it was boil order in Saint John for those critters you can't see. A handful of towns have had boil orders off and on over the last several months. April it was about water at a Native Reserve School, not the drinking water, but leaky roof and mold build up. The place was pretty much condemned. Flooding along the river during spring run-off this past April.  I remember last year a northern native community was evacuated because everyone was getting sick from the bad water.

I test my water every few years, never been bad except when I get heavy rain over 5 inches in 24 hours with surface water. That could be remedied, but just never did it. Dad never did, so why bother now? :D

 TexasTimbers ....  What issues are we talking about there  ???  All international flights arriving into Canada are segregated from national arivals . All incoming must go through costums . We dont have the influx of illegals you have for obvious reasons ... boat ride would be kinda long , walking across the Arctic  ::) only other way in is from the South ...
 As for self sufientcy , as SwampDonkey said , we produce more fuel then we use . Here in Québec , we also produce much more electricity then consume , selfsuffiency is not really an issue .

Quote from: isawlogs on July 04, 2008, 01:39:03 PM

 As for self sufientcy , as SwampDonkey said , we produce more fuel then we use . Here in Québec , we also produce much more electricity then consume , selfsuffiency is not really an issue .

That selfsufficiency IS security, as far as I'm concerned.

I guess it means different things to different folks. But, yes I do agree each and every country needs it's security. It's real easy over time to forget what others have provided through self sacrifice and for the general population to become complacent. At the same time you have to filter out self fulfilling propagandizing to. If you have something someone needs or wants, be prepared to secure it in some way.

Yeoowzebub - I spend some time posting on another site ( about diesel )  and come back to a roaring thread bout ethanol ( and biofuels ? ).

I'm hoping to keep this short - its late and I just thought I'd stop in for " a minute " to see what's new - and I don't want to get the prize for the longest post  :o
Ooops . . .  I just looked at the length of this - my apologies now for the agony to come

So here goes in no particular order 'ceptin maybe some lines ( "quotes ") I pulled as I was reading.


"
The ethanol is also added as an oxygenator for the gas.  They say it makes it burn cleaner.
. . .
Ethanol replaced MBTE as the oxygenator in gasoline.
I am sure that making more profit on gas at the pump never came to their minds.
. . .
I thought that ethanol was used as an octane booster at one time.  Could be wrong about that.
"
My best recollection ( as that's all I can afford nowadays ) is that the fed's replaced mbte ( because of the groundwater thing) a year ( or likely a little more ) back with ethanol - should be in all gas now I believe ( but these days I can't afford a belief ) and I too heard it boosts octane ;D



"
Oil is high because the shieks own opec and can get it without fear of retribution IMO. I certainly don't understand global politivs enough to wander into this topic though. Just got good 'ol boy opinions about it. We don't much matter in the big scheme of things though.
"
Best answer I heard is that China, India and the rest of the third world want our standard of living - complete with three cars and a home in the suburbs - think all those "made in china" stickers. So naturally they need fossil fuels ( oil )  to fuel their growth. And the whole wide world seems "addicted" to oil - even opec says our dollar is becoming worthless the price of crude must go up - leastways what I've been told.



"
Answers: I heard some agricultural science "expert" on the radio the other day, talking about ethanol.  She said that on average, 1 acre of corn will produce about 320 gallons of ethanol, and one acre of sugar cane will make over 700 gallons.  The cane only needs half the fertilizer as corn, and you only have to replant the cane every 10-15 years.  I had been wondering about those figures, so I was happy to finally hear them.  This info makes cane sound better and better, especially since I have about 10 acres available, and my old cane press was rated to produce about 2000 gallons of juice per day.
"
Although only a few "commercial" plants are just starting to come online ( el paso,tx; southern la; isreal; and a couple others ) my favorite just now is algae based biodiesel. Some MIT professor started it all with promising experiments maybe 20 years ago, moved to using exhaust from power plants ( rich source of co2 ) to up the production and now the el paso, tx corp is claiming it can produce 100,000 gallons off an acre with their vertical growing greenhouse and water ( vertigro process or corp I think ).



"
Questions:  Who owns the oil that is produced from offshore rigs?  The oil companies pay the Gov't for a lease on an area, but do they own the oil when they pump it, or do they still have to pay the Gov't for it?  If the oil company owns the oil when they pump it out of the ground, how does the commodity market affect the value of it?  I can see no need for a middle-man here.  I mean, Boone Pickens can't buy it if it ain't for sale, can he?  My thought is, since the Gov't, who is us, lays claim to the bottom of the Gulf, don't they, who is we, also own the oil beneath it?  If we own the oil down there, are the oil companies paying us $138 per barrel for it?  This stuff really has me confused.  Do any of you know how it really works?
"
Well - no - but I'll give it a try. The corp ( or a group of corp's ) leases the land from the govt paying a flat rate ( ? ) but more probably by the barrel what they take out ( they measure it ? ) . First problem is that its been reported in some places that some leases in the 90's were written so loose that the corp's paid little to nothing ( no penalties for not paying in the deals ) = big profits . So the "fossil fuel" ( natl gas or oil or ? ) gets to land. Its shipped to a refinery which maybe be owned by a different corp  ( or group of corp's ). Once processed it shipped to a distribution terminal - owned by different corp ? and to a wholesaler . . . and to the dealer . . . And maybe there's corp's of even more corp's. Now they all want to lock in their quantity for the next season and its price. So they buy off negotiated contracts, maybe shell drilling, to shell refining, to shell distribution, to shell wholesale to shell dealer. Or maybe they sell some to Marathon or Union 76, or whomever. So these corp's buy and sell on the "spot" market or the commodities market for tomorrow's extra demand or this winter's demand, or next years or . . . The commodities market could be likened to say four people ( just for the sake of this example ) One guy ( call him A ) grows/produces it. Another guy ( call him D ) uses it ( whether in his farm/plant/supermarket/what have you ). But the other two guys ( B & C )  - they're risk takers. The goods come in big quantities - think railroad size lots and let's call  it pork bellies. So A wants to lock in his sales price when he thinks its best for him ( maybe he figures he won't have to go for a bank loan who knows ) and he sells the pork bellies on the futures market ( long ) to B for 1000 delivery six months from now. B doesn't own a railway siding now doesn't even have a warehouse but thinks the price will go up. C thinks the market will go down and he sells pork bellies ( short )  to D for 950.  B sits on the order but the weather is good and the market goes down. Delivery now one week away and B cannot take delivery ( no warehouse ) and C needs to come up with the goods on a railroad car for D. B sells the pork bellies to C for 900.  A got 1000, B lost 100, C made 50 and D got the pork bellies for 950.  1000-100+50 = 950 paid by D
Now I did say I'm no stock broker and I don't even know if half of what I just typed is right though it sounds good I wouldn't go quoting it to family friends nor strangers.



"
Govt and BIG OIL don't WANT alternatives that COULD be homebrewed, because they would have a tough time collecting taxes. It's really that simple.
. . .
Interesting sidenote...Henry Ford's original tin lizzie was designed to run on alcohol. Gasoline was optional. His idea was for farmers to be able to produce their own fuel. Didn't work then because gas was cheaper and the feds made it rather inconvenient to make your own.
. . .
The farm would become like a perpetual motion machine, the way it used to be, except the farmer would have one additional product to take to market, and one less major expense to bear.  It would entail a large cornfield, a distillery, a methane digester, a feedlot, and a meat packing facility.  I'm actually thinking of this from a co-op point of view, but the result is the same.  The corn would go to the local distillery, and the leftovers fed to the animals.  The output of the animals would go into the methane digester, to make fuel for tractors, generators and the distillery, which would also rely heavily on passive solar energy.  The high-quality fertilizer from the digester would be spread on the fields by the methane powered tractors to grow more corn, and the animals would be processed into meat on the premises and delivered to local stores.  Not a drop of oil, save a little for lubricants, would be consumed.
"
I was thinking smaller but I vote for DanG's model. I was just gonna have the farmer's, maybe families, neighbors be able to form coops to produce their own biofuel. Ethanol - should be plenty of people that know something ( or can figure it out ) about alcohol. And biodiesel - just last week I saw a family making it in their basement - Mom Pop and son for their diesel power cars/trucks - very cool. I think we let the little guy produce his own ( I'm thinking truckers would jump on this ) without paying road tax on the fuel they make - only for themselves. They gotta meet local zoning, state and fedl law otherwise for safety, waste disposal and they take the risk for themselves only. I think enough people would "roll their own" homebrew fuel that there would be a be drop in the demand for fossil fuels in the usa - too bad for the oil companies. Oh - and ATF has to issue permits to folks that want to do ethanol.



"The use of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem insignificant today. But such oils may become in the course of time as important as the petroleum and coal tar products of the present time." - Rudolph Diesel, 1912
 

Edited July 6 to separate "quotes" from comments - easier to read ?

WELL...
:P
:P
:P
That's one way to get a thread back on the ole trrrack!
8)
Way to go Bill.

Some of you fellows/codgers need to go to bed at night.   ;D :D

This thread started with Boone Pickens.  Just to let you know who we are talking about.
Pickens was one of the people who financed the swiftboat campaign against Kerry, thus establishing a new low in U.S. politics, and adding a new word to the English language.

I decided to go back and read the article cited yesterday by TexasT. from the Vancouver Sun.

Douglas Auld makes a point that Canada should be putting their subsidies into ways to make
ethanol that are not based on food (corn, other grains, etc.).  His stance is that demand for
corn helps fewer big farms in Canada and penalizes the more numerous farmers who deal in
animals which feed off the grains. 

His preference is that the Canadian government spend its money supporting research into
"water-based biofuels."  These include the algae concept.

Also, when I read carefully, I realized that the article says that Canada ...
            "doesn't face energy security issues" and, if you amplify the wording...
            "doesn't face energy self-sufficiency issues."
It does not say that Canada doesn't face GENERAL security issues.

Decided to spin off another thread along this line of "water-based biofuels"

https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php/topic,32169.0.html

Quote from: isawlogs on July 04, 2008, 01:39:03 PM
TexasTimbers ....  What issues are we talking about there  ???  

My comment was based on the article's theory that Canada was abandoning ethanol because security and self-sufficiency were not a concern to Canada. And that somehow ethanol would have helped y'all solve those issues if they were a concern. I was just saying that is horse feathers. Canada is not a jot more secure than us if and when anyone wants to get in illegally, they just don't yet to the degree they do here. As to self-sufficiency the peeps in the big Canadian cities are no more self-sufficient than those in LA or Dallas ot New York.

The writer of the article was crediting those two reasons why the Canadian gov was not interested in continuing to spend millions and millions of your taxes (taxes are money you earned) on a source of energy, but those reasons were totally irrelevant. The real reason, as I said, was because Canada cannot afford to waste national resources on stuff that won't bring back a return on those Loons, to the extent we waste our dollars on stuff for political reasons. I wasn't trying to argue whether or not Canada's borders are secure really. We won't be able to agree on that. Just pointing out that border security is not the reason the Can gov is starting to say no to ethanol as the writer wanted his readers to believe.

Bill, I missed something. It looks like you just copied and pasted alot of our past comments. Did you have any of your own. ???

The self-sufficiency referred to is in oil production. They are an exporter with huge proven reserves.
Joe

How come none of Y'all are making Ethanol and running the older lawnmowers and motor cycles and older cars and pick'em up trucks, what has got carbyouraters on 'em ???

  DON'T tell me it don't work. I KNOW better.  ::) ::) ::)

  I've got enough fruit, on the ground, right now, to make 10 gallons of hootch. Problem is, I got no use for it.  :o ::) ::)

  WHAT are y'all WAITING ON  ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

The goobers to leave us in peace to do it without leaving our spouses to starve  ::).

If you're makin peach I'll take a jar though  ;D

If ya zip yer lip, who's gonna know ???

Ever been within a mile of a still that's cooking. A meth lab is more inconspicuous.
It is tempting to tell a judge where to get off though.

Doing the numbers in my head I don't think I could grow enough to make a big dent in our fuel use. Now if I knew how to turn wood into methanol I'm swimming in waste wood.

Harold, you keep sayin' that you know how to make "hooch" but I ain't seen no evidence of it.  Not all of us are blessed with that knowledge.  Care to share?

I'll have about half a ton of hard pears on the ground shortly with no better use for them.  How much lawnmower brandy could I make with them?

Cogitating a little more  ::).
Making shine is pretty time consuming. I've never made more than a few ounces for fun, done it a couple of different ways, its simple fractional distillation. Never went into an engine so not sure how it would burn there. Some guys did set up a full sized operation in a house they rented from my uncle at one time. By the time they were caught they had totally gutted the house for fuel.

In my personal economy the time will always be better spent going to work to earn money to buy fuel than to try to make my own if there is intensive labor involved in the production of the fuel. I think that is a pain point that is realistically the same for everyone.

So that got me to thinking, Mother Earth had a solar still back in the '70's that they were using for small quantities. That would take some of the labor out. The fuel of whatever form has to about make itself to be feasable for me and most.

In the eyes of the law you might as well still be running that lab and making some serious change to buy fuel with, we need to change that  :-\. Whiskey rebellion?

Yep, sell it as moonshine.  Use dollars to buy fuel.

On a small scale, you would make $2.10 per hour then, instead of $1.50.

  Y'all have seen this before.

  (https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10330/FDHstill.jpg)

  Dan, there HAS to be someone you know that has done the makins. Ga boys know ALL that good stuff.

  You hafta mash them pears. They should be at the near spoilt stage. Then you add water and a little sugar to get things going. Some ground Corn or other starchy-sugary stuff can be added. Oranges, sweet grapefruit, LOTS of sweet smelling stuff. Cane juice might have to be worked up somehow. Maybe not. Just crushed and fermented. Wheat, Milo, Sorghum, all ground up will convert.

  Plant Jerusalem Artichokes. They yield BIG TIME. Taters will work. TRy a couple Sugar beets.

  The "MOB" used to buy SACKS of Sugar to make. The Corn was for color and flavor.
I was told, If they could run for 3 days without being caught, they would tear down and move, at night, and be runnin again in 2 days.

  Put all that in a suitable container. The old timers would float a Rye patch on the mash barrels, and have cheesecloth covers to keep out flies and critters, to allow the gas to escape, but, catch the Alky. ANY research would tell you, step by step. It's been over 30 years since I messed with that stuff.

  See there ???  That GAS that escapes would be CO2. Catch that for growing Phil's Algae, at DanGville. There, ya gots yer first money payin venture handed to ya's.  ::)

I like the recipe FDH. :)
Call it DanG's Pear Wine. ;)
Ain't no law against makin' Wine is there? ;D  Plead ignorant. :D

We'd pump that CO² to the Seement Pond.

Quote from: logwalker on July 05, 2008, 01:03:13 PM
The self-sufficiency referred to is in oil production. They are an exporter with huge proven reserves.
Joe

Yeah I started out knowing what was meant and somehow got off track with that point. That's something that has never happened to me before. :D

  Here y'all are  8) 8)

  link (http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2006/april/lawnmower.htm)

I really like all the helpful info I get here -

it helps to keep a check on some of the not so helpful stuff from other places . . .


( wonder what the supermarket does with all their "spoiled" fruit ?  ;D  )

Quote from: Bill on July 06, 2008, 01:50:30 PM

( wonder what the supermarket does with all their "spoiled" fruit ?  ;D  )

From what I remember, a lot was sent to Queen Charlotte City along with expired milk.  :D

There's another feedstock. Whey, from cheese making from milk. Back in the day, it was dumped. Might still be ???

There are thousands of potential feedstocks.  The problem with most of them is that it takes a certain enzyme to turn each individual one into a viable commercial alternative.  Many of the necessary enzymes are known, but are too expensive to be economically feasible.  In fairness to those in Government employ who are actually doing their jobs, and there are many, there is a great deal of research going on and some success is being noted.  Scientists at the Land Grant Universities(Govt employees) are working feverishly to develop new ways to make the enzymes industry needs to go forward.  A while back, I started a little thread about a tv program I saw.  It was a locally produced documentary on our PBS station, that featured Florida's Commissioner of Agriculture walking us through a tour of the State's alternative energy programs.  In it there was a segment on ethanol from orange peels, with an extensive interview of a U. of Fla scientist who is working in that field.  That program has brought the enzyme cost for a gallon of ethanol down from $12+, to a mere eighty cents, which has enabled that product to now be in commercial production.  It is my understanding that Fla is now producing about 20 million gallons of ethanol per year from orange peels alone.

I was researching another alternative fuel i heard about when I stumbled across this.   

For the dialup folks a summation of what was the general tone of the mini-report was summed up by jerry Taylor of the CATO Institute in his closing remark while being interviewed by John Stossel:

"It's not gonna produce energy independence. It's not gonna clean the air. It's gonna do none of those things. All it will do is make corn farmers richer, and comapnies  like ADM who process ethanol ALOT richer. It'll make everyone of us who aren't in that business POORER. This is a naked transfer (of wealth) program . . . that's all it is."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II&feature=related)






Here is another link with some good discussion on it. (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/30/112231/501) It starts out about how ethanol will actually be detrimental to greenhouse gasses etc. but it gets interesting with other talking points besides the environemental issues. Especially when one poster brings to light the Germanys angst over how it has effected their beer prices. Not a joke in Germany. They take Beer very seriously. In fact they refer to it as their "liquid bread". 

                         "It's absolutely outrageous that beer is getting even more expensive," Mr. Glutsch said, gulping down the last swig of his half-litre
                             dark  beer at lunch. "But there's nothing we can do about it -- except drinking less and that's not going to happen."

smiley_beertoast

I know nothing of any Jerry Taylor or CATO Institute, but if it came up in a Stossel interview, it is nothing but scare-mongering bullsnot. ::)

Here in Canada, they tax alcohol heavier than gasoline. So, if you can scoot under the radar and do your own thing and keep quiet so as to use your own in your lawn mower or moped then great. 

They don't collect any tax from me on consumptive use of alcohol I'm afraid, so there should be less hospital beds to keep open. ;)

I don't know much about Stossel, but I know the CATO Institute has credibility with me. 

What part of the interview did you disagree with DanG ???

Stossel must have outdone himself, then in this interview.  He seemed to be getting
right to the meat of the issue - with the Iowa politician, especially.

Due to the corn price, corn ethanol is effectively dead in the water.
Only by means of a crash in corn heard 'round the world would that fact change.
Keep in mind that I am speaking specifically here :  Corn-fed ethanol production.

Ethanol will have to come from other sources to be financially feasible.
Even then, it is best left to the "additive" useage, rather than being a primary fuel.

The Stossel part. ::) :D :D :D

Unfortunately, I'm one of those dial-up users that you so kindly synopsized the interview for.  I haven't had a chance yet, but I'll research CATO a little bit and see what I can learn.  It has been my experience, for the most part, that anything that has the word "institute" in its name is usually nestled comfortably in a deep pocket somewhere.

I don't know of anything that will poke my BS button faster than the name, "John Stossel."  He was Geraldo Rivera's replacement on 20/20.

Cato Institute = ?Conservative thinktank

Stossel
Only maybe the third interview I ever watched of his

There is some confusion going on here.  :D

Dan, John Stossel and Geraldo Rivera are opposites. John Stossel is a conservative, Republican right winger. Rivera is not. I was surprised when I read your dislike of Stossel since, although you are somewhat independent, I have always felt that you swing to the conservative side.

TexasTimbers, the CATO Institute is a conservative thinktank (as Phil said) which exists to put out disinformation, and they are in bed with Big Oil. Their biggest claim to fame is their association with the tobacco industry--as in smoking does not cause cancer.

I don't like scare-mongering carpetbaggers who purport themselves to be journalists, no matter what their politics are.  Being a true conservative-leaning centrist, I view conservative bullsnot as an embarrassment, but liberal bullsnot is just laughable.  I do not enjoy being embarrassed.  BS is just BS, and it serves no useful purpose for anybody, except the BSer. ::)

I did not know the CATO was biased like that. I thought they were non-profit at least. That don't mean much anymore I know, but if CATO is in bed with big oil they are in for the profit. They ought to be whupped with a knotted plowline if they are doing that.

Maybe they should put out some feelers to the corn folks and let them know for the right amount of shekels they can discover the merits of corn-based ethanol after all. :D

Actually, the Cato Institute is more of a libertarian thinktank, not a conservative one.  They oppose the conservatives on several fronts, including foreign policy, drugs and immigration.  They support some conservative programs and have been largely responsible for the Social Security privatization policy that went down in flames.

As for funding, they get a good deal of their funding from individual contributions.  I remember getting something in the mail from them.  Who those individuals are, and how much they contribute, I don't know.  But, they only get 2% of their funding from corporations.  Their 2008 budget is $24 million.

You can read more at:

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