World Starves as Americans burn food to drive cars

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a huge difference between the amounts of oil in place & oil that it is feasible to recover. If it takes burning a barrel of oil to recover a barrel of oil then you actually produce nothing but pollution. At that point there is no oil left to run an automobile because it was all used up in production. The Mid East has the highest (EROEI) oil in the world & the cheapest & cleanest to produce.

Yet you keep quoting estimates of recoverable oil based on old technology, and acting like your old estimates trump the USGS estimate that is anywhere from 1.67 to 2.5 times the old estimates.

Believe it or not, I am more than aware we will eventually run out of oil. I am also aware that, despite 40 odd years of government programs to eliminate our oil/natural gas.coal dependency, we have not yet found an economically viable alternative. I am also aware that corn ethanol is not going to fill that need, it actually makes us more dependent on oil.

Feel free to keep beating your 20 billion bbs number all you want, the world will march on, develop new technology to get at more and more oil that is presently considered unrecoverable. You have not yet provided a single argument about why we should spend tax money on a technology that is proven to deliver less bang for the buck than any of the alternatives. Why are you not answering that simple question?

You propagate ethanol lies what do you expect. BTW - I know what is recoverable. I own part of Schlumberger, Baker-Hughes & Halliburton & know their products very well. I know what is now recoverable with horizontal drill fracking. ACS Equipment invented Horizontal Directional Drilling. Halliburton adapted it to oil drilling & improved on it.

Oil reserves are big-time international politics. The books are cooked here & abroad. Congress & the president are not going to let us drill no matter what they promise until we pass peak oil.

Ethanol works in the current vehicles. No need for expensive modifications or waiting for expensive crappy battery cars. We raise 12 Billion bushels of corn in the USA. That will make 35 Billion Gallons of Ethanol & all the DDG animal feed they can eat. That will replace 15% of Gasoline & still feed the world better tomorrow than today.

What lies have I propagated about ethanol? Am I wrong in saying the government subsidizes it? Is the data that there are other ways to make biofuels that have a higher EROI than corn ethanol? Do you have data that proves it results in higher gas mileage and a lower carbon footprint than regular gasoline?

Ethanol eats at the seals and emissions controls in current vehicles, resulting in higher maintenance costs. Is that another of my lies about ethanol?

Can you answer my question that I have posed more than once? Given all the negative impacts involved in using corn ethanol, why should we use tax dollars to subsidize it? Or, you can continue to talk about oil, which has nothing to do with the question I am asking.

 

[Jroc]

There is a huge difference between the amounts of oil in place & oil that it is feasible to recover. If it takes burning a barrel of oil to recover a barrel of oil then you actually produce nothing but pollution. At that point there is no oil left to run an automobile because it was all used up in production. The Mid East has the highest (EROEI) oil in the world & the cheapest & cleanest to produce.

Yet you keep quoting estimates of recoverable oil based on old technology, and acting like your old estimates trump the USGS estimate that is anywhere from 1.67 to 2.5 times the old estimates.

Believe it or not, I am more than aware we will eventually run out of oil. I am also aware that, despite 40 odd years of government programs to eliminate our oil/natural gas.coal dependency, we have not yet found an economically viable alternative. I am also aware that corn ethanol is not going to fill that need, it actually makes us more dependent on oil.

Feel free to keep beating your 20 billion bbs number all you want, the world will march on, develop new technology to get at more and more oil that is presently considered unrecoverable. You have not yet provided a single argument about why we should spend tax money on a technology that is proven to deliver less bang for the buck than any of the alternatives. Why are you not answering that simple question?

You propagate ethanol lies what do you expect. BTW - I know what is recoverable. I own part of Schlumberger, Baker-Hughes & Halliburton & know their products very well. I know what is now recoverable with horizontal drill fracking. ACS Equipment invented Horizontal Directional Drilling. Halliburton adapted it to oil drilling & improved on it.

Oil reserves are big-time international politics. The books are cooked here & abroad. Congress & the president are not going to let us drill no matter what they promise until we pass peak oil.

Ethanol works in the current vehicles. No need for expensive modifications or waiting for expensive crappy battery cars. We raise 12 Billion bushels of corn in the USA. That will make 35 Billion Gallons of Ethanol & all the DDG animal feed they can eat. That will replace 15% of Gasoline & still feed the world better tomorrow than today.

This guy is defiantly invested in Ethanol. If it's so great why do we need to subsidize it?

Why corn ethanol is a loser.

The EWG’s report shows that besides the environmental and human problems that come with using corn as a fuel source,3 the dollar figures and fuel efficiency payoffs are infinitesimal. Even the amount of oil supposedly saved is tiny, especially considering the huge sums of money being thrown into corn ethanol production.

Taxpayer subsidies mean that every gallon of corn ethanol adds an additional 0.45 cents (as of 2009-10) to the cost of a gallon of gasoline. That’s additional cost over and above the price of a gallon of gas, not instead of it. For this, we get a fuel that is much less efficient than gasoline and thus only minimally adds to the benefits of its addition. E10 (10% ethanol, 90% gasoline) is the most common blend in the U.S. The 10.6 billion gallons produced in 2009, however, replaced only 7.2 billion gallons of gasoline thanks to this mixture.

That’s not all, though. Because ethanol is less efficient than gasoline it cuts mileage by about 4%. Yet the proponents of ethanol love to point out that it displaces gasoline. But when you do the math, it’s not displacing that much. Increasing fuel mileage nationally by 0.4 miles per gallon would do the same. That could be achieved by just using the recommended grade of motor oil or keeping the vehicle’s tires properly inflated. Tuning the engine has double the payoff and driving sensibly would increase it by as much as 6.6%! Heck, just replacing clogged air filters increases economy by up to 1.2% and even if the government bought one for every vehicle in America, it would not likely cost as much as the $5.4 billion they’re projected to spend subsidizing ethanol (not to mention corn) this year alone.

With all of the great technologies for improving fuel efficiency, getting us away from foreign oil imports, and replacing our petroleum-based fuels and infrastructure with more natural and sustainable alternatives, why is it that our congress-critters insist on throwing our tax dollars into corn-based ethanol?

New Research Blasts Supposed Efficiency of Corn Ethanol – EVMeme.com

 

[KissMy]

Yet you keep quoting estimates of recoverable oil based on old technology, and acting like your old estimates trump the USGS estimate that is anywhere from 1.67 to 2.5 times the old estimates.

Believe it or not, I am more than aware we will eventually run out of oil. I am also aware that, despite 40 odd years of government programs to eliminate our oil/natural gas.coal dependency, we have not yet found an economically viable alternative. I am also aware that corn ethanol is not going to fill that need, it actually makes us more dependent on oil.

Feel free to keep beating your 20 billion bbs number all you want, the world will march on, develop new technology to get at more and more oil that is presently considered unrecoverable. You have not yet provided a single argument about why we should spend tax money on a technology that is proven to deliver less bang for the buck than any of the alternatives. Why are you not answering that simple question?

You propagate ethanol lies what do you expect. BTW - I know what is recoverable. I own part of Schlumberger, Baker-Hughes & Halliburton & know their products very well. I know what is now recoverable with horizontal drill fracking. ACS Equipment invented Horizontal Directional Drilling. Halliburton adapted it to oil drilling & improved on it.

Oil reserves are big-time international politics. The books are cooked here & abroad. Congress & the president are not going to let us drill no matter what they promise until we pass peak oil.

Ethanol works in the current vehicles. No need for expensive modifications or waiting for expensive crappy battery cars. We raise 12 Billion bushels of corn in the USA. That will make 35 Billion Gallons of Ethanol & all the DDG animal feed they can eat. That will replace 15% of Gasoline & still feed the world better tomorrow than today.

What lies have I propagated about ethanol? Am I wrong in saying the government subsidizes it? Is the data that there are other ways to make biofuels that have a higher EROI than corn ethanol? Do you have data that proves it results in higher gas mileage and a lower carbon footprint than regular gasoline?

Ethanol eats at the seals and emissions controls in current vehicles, resulting in higher maintenance costs. Is that another of my lies about ethanol?

Can you answer my question that I have posed more than once? Given all the negative impacts involved in using corn ethanol, why should we use tax dollars to subsidize it? Or, you can continue to talk about oil, which has nothing to do with the question I am asking.

Your lies have been answered many times over in this thread but you seem to have a comprehension problem. We have a fleet of 20 different gas vehicles that are not "Flex Fuel" ready & we have been running them all on E85 for over 10 years now with no problems other than the lean O2 service light comes on which means nothing. Every vehicle has gone nearly 200,000 miles before we sold them & they still ran fine. Never ate seals on any of them.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEZuVfAAK_I"]Non Flex Tahoe Runs 100,000 miles on E85[/ame]

The Yale Ethanol study based (EROEI) on conventional till growing corn just to make ethanol in conventional plants which gave it a 1.2 to 1 (EROEI). The problem is they left out the fact that the DDGs still feed the same amount of animals as before. So that adds another 1 to the 1.2 to 1 ratio making it 2.2 to one. Poet Ethanol uses patented enzymes in the mash, vacuum process, molecular sieve & waste heat to extract ethanol from corn without having to heat the mash to boil the ethanol out. That saves most of the energy used by conventional ethanol plants. No-Till farming reduces the usual 8 gallons of hydrocarbons used per corn acre down to 3 gallons per acre with same corn yield. Add it up. The EROEI is over 3 to 1 beating Canada's Oil-Sands at 2.9 to 1 EROEI.

Ethanol producers do not get subsidy. Farmers do not own gas stations. The subsidy gets paid to the oil companies who blend the ethanol with their gas to sell in their pumps at their stations. They have to be bribed to sell Ethanol & blame it on Big Ag Ethanol.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your lies have been answered many times over in this thread but you seem to have a comprehension problem. We have a fleet of 20 different gas vehicles that are not "Flex Fuel" ready & we have been running them all on E85 for over 10 years now with no problems other than the lean O2 service light comes on which means nothing. Every vehicle has gone nearly 200,000 miles before we sold them & they still ran fine. Never ate seals on any of them.

The Yale Ethanol study based (EROEI) on conventional till growing corn just to make ethanol in conventional plants which gave it a 1.2 to 1 (EROEI). The problem is they left out the fact that the DDGs still feed the same amount of animals as before. So that adds another 1 to the 1.2 to 1 ratio making it 2.2 to one. Poet Ethanol uses patented enzymes in the mash, vacuum process, molecular sieve & waste heat to extract ethanol from corn without having to heat the mash to boil the ethanol out. That saves most of the energy used by conventional ethanol plants. No-Till farming reduces the usual 8 gallons of hydrocarbons used per corn acre down to 3 gallons per acre with same corn yield. Add it up. The EROEI is over 3 to 1 beating Canada's Oil-Sands at 2.9 to 1 EROEI.

Ethanol producers do not get subsidy. Farmers do not own gas stations. The subsidy gets paid to the oil companies who blend the ethanol with their gas to sell in their pumps at their stations. They have to be bribed to sell Ethanol & blame it on Big Ag Ethanol.

The only thing you have addressed in this thread are the competing studies touting the EROI of corn ethanol. I never even got into that, but ig I did you would quickly find that your claims are based on fantasy, not fact.

The debate over the EROI of corn ethanol has been concerned mostly with whether it is a net energy yielder. As such, the dialogue has veered away from many of the larger implications of EROI analyses. Our results indicate that the EROI of corn ethanol is statistically inseparable from one energy unit returned per energy unit invested, and it is likely that much of our ethanol production is acting as an energy sink, requiring more energy for production than that contained in the ethanol product. This conclusion was confirmed in our spatial analysis, where the average EROIRG was 0.06 lower than the average calculated from the literature.
Increasing yields is oft-touted as a way to increase the EROI of corn ethanol, but our analysis indicates that the gains in EROI are small even when the average yield from 2005 was tripled. Co-product credits, on the other hand, have a large influence on the EROI from corn ethanol. There is no consensus within the literature regarding an appropriate co-product value, and until one emerges (one way or another), we should err on the side of caution when applying credits to co-products. Finally, the analysis of ethanol production from biorefineries supports our conclusion from the spatial analysis: the EROI is too low in too many locations to make an impact on our gasoline consumption. Our best estimate is that the net energy provided from ethanol accounts for only 0.8% of the net energy provided by gasoline.
The evidence provided in this research is clear: we do not know the exact EROI of ethanol, but even if we are remotely close (± 0.2), we are still, in the best case scenario, gaining an insignificant amount of net energy. Furthermore, Hall et al. (2009) estimated that only fuels with an EROI greater than 3:1 provide the requisite net energy to provide a fuel source and to maintain the infrastructure associated with the current U.S. transportation system. Fuels that have an EROI below 3:1 require subsidies from other energy sources to pay for all of the infrastructure associated with the transportation system of the US. The EROI of corn ethanol that we calculated is lower than the 3:1 threshold, indicating that corn ethanol requires large subsidies from the general fossil fuel economy, and as a result, drains energy from the US transportation system.

New perspectives on the energy return on (energy) investment (EROI) of corn ethanol: part 2 of 2 | Energy Bulletin

I was willing to give your figures the benefit of the doubt so I simply asked you why, given the fact that there are other crops which have a higher EROI, why we should subsidize corn ethanol? You replied by talking about recoverable oil, and insisting that I lied about the EROI of ethanol. Since this is actually my first direct discussion of this data in this thread, and I just blew away the very study you are so fond of, I fail to see how you addressed any of my alleged lies, or my actual question.

There is a $0.45 per gallon subsidy on corn ethanol, and a $0.53 per gallon tariff on sugar cane ethanol, which has a higher EROI than corn. This amounts to a $0.98 per gallon subsidy for corn ethanol cane ethanol. You can sit there and pontificate that this does not go to the production all you want, and you will look sillier every time you do it. (By the way, I did not factor in the cost of the federally mandate that 40% of the corn crop go to ethanol production.)

Your claim that you have been running an entire fleet of vehicles for 10 years and have had no problems is not worth the paper it is not printed on. Did you run a comparison fleet on with just regular gasoline and compare the maintenance costs? If you did you would have noticed that the fuel systems portions of your cost rose significantly.

Table 18. Top Five Maintenance Cost Contributors for the Peoria Ethanol Test Fleets

But, please, keep insisting that you have addressed my points, even though you haven't. You are doing more to make the case from dropping ethanol subsidies than I ever could.

 

[KissMy]

Your lies have been answered many times over in this thread but you seem to have a comprehension problem. We have a fleet of 20 different gas vehicles that are not "Flex Fuel" ready & we have been running them all on E85 for over 10 years now with no problems other than the lean O2 service light comes on which means nothing. Every vehicle has gone nearly 200,000 miles before we sold them & they still ran fine. Never ate seals on any of them.

The Yale Ethanol study based (EROEI) on conventional till growing corn just to make ethanol in conventional plants which gave it a 1.2 to 1 (EROEI). The problem is they left out the fact that the DDGs still feed the same amount of animals as before. So that adds another 1 to the 1.2 to 1 ratio making it 2.2 to one. Poet Ethanol uses patented enzymes in the mash, vacuum process, molecular sieve & waste heat to extract ethanol from corn without having to heat the mash to boil the ethanol out. That saves most of the energy used by conventional ethanol plants. No-Till farming reduces the usual 8 gallons of hydrocarbons used per corn acre down to 3 gallons per acre with same corn yield. Add it up. The EROEI is over 3 to 1 beating Canada's Oil-Sands at 2.9 to 1 EROEI.

Ethanol producers do not get subsidy. Farmers do not own gas stations. The subsidy gets paid to the oil companies who blend the ethanol with their gas to sell in their pumps at their stations. They have to be bribed to sell Ethanol & blame it on Big Ag Ethanol.

The only thing you have addressed in this thread are the competing studies touting the EROI of corn ethanol. I never even got into that, but ig I did you would quickly find that your claims are based on fantasy, not fact.

The debate over the EROI of corn ethanol has been concerned mostly with whether it is a net energy yielder. As such, the dialogue has veered away from many of the larger implications of EROI analyses. Our results indicate that the EROI of corn ethanol is statistically inseparable from one energy unit returned per energy unit invested, and it is likely that much of our ethanol production is acting as an energy sink, requiring more energy for production than that contained in the ethanol product. This conclusion was confirmed in our spatial analysis, where the average EROIRG was 0.06 lower than the average calculated from the literature.
Increasing yields is oft-touted as a way to increase the EROI of corn ethanol, but our analysis indicates that the gains in EROI are small even when the average yield from 2005 was tripled. Co-product credits, on the other hand, have a large influence on the EROI from corn ethanol. There is no consensus within the literature regarding an appropriate co-product value, and until one emerges (one way or another), we should err on the side of caution when applying credits to co-products. Finally, the analysis of ethanol production from biorefineries supports our conclusion from the spatial analysis: the EROI is too low in too many locations to make an impact on our gasoline consumption. Our best estimate is that the net energy provided from ethanol accounts for only 0.8% of the net energy provided by gasoline.
The evidence provided in this research is clear: we do not know the exact EROI of ethanol, but even if we are remotely close (± 0.2), we are still, in the best case scenario, gaining an insignificant amount of net energy. Furthermore, Hall et al. (2009) estimated that only fuels with an EROI greater than 3:1 provide the requisite net energy to provide a fuel source and to maintain the infrastructure associated with the current U.S. transportation system. Fuels that have an EROI below 3:1 require subsidies from other energy sources to pay for all of the infrastructure associated with the transportation system of the US. The EROI of corn ethanol that we calculated is lower than the 3:1 threshold, indicating that corn ethanol requires large subsidies from the general fossil fuel economy, and as a result, drains energy from the US transportation system.

New perspectives on the energy return on (energy) investment (EROI) of corn ethanol: part 2 of 2 | Energy Bulletin

I was willing to give your figures the benefit of the doubt so I simply asked you why, given the fact that there are other crops which have a higher EROI, why we should subsidize corn ethanol? You replied by talking about recoverable oil, and insisting that I lied about the EROI of ethanol. Since this is actually my first direct discussion of this data in this thread, and I just blew away the very study you are so fond of, I fail to see how you addressed any of my alleged lies, or my actual question.

There is a $0.45 per gallon subsidy on corn ethanol, and a $0.53 per gallon tariff on sugar cane ethanol, which has a higher EROI than corn. This amounts to a $0.98 per gallon subsidy for corn ethanol cane ethanol. You can sit there and pontificate that this does not go to the production all you want, and you will look sillier every time you do it. (By the way, I did not factor in the cost of the federally mandate that 40% of the corn crop go to ethanol production.)

Your claim that you have been running an entire fleet of vehicles for 10 years and have had no problems is not worth the paper it is not printed on. Did you run a comparison fleet on with just regular gasoline and compare the maintenance costs? If you did you would have noticed that the fuel systems portions of your cost rose significantly.

Table 18. Top Five Maintenance Cost Contributors for the Peoria Ethanol Test Fleets

But, please, keep insisting that you have addressed my points, even though you haven't. You are doing more to make the case from dropping ethanol subsidies than I ever could.

Another disingenuous study that flat refused to add in an appropriate co-product value of the DDG feed. The study says corn production production is acting as an energy sink requiring energy for production. DUH! It takes energy to make food. Ethanol is not taking away that food or the energy it took to make the food. The corn feed is simply converted to DDG feed. Feed plants take energy to grind corn into animal feed just as ethanol plants take energy to grind corn into DDG feed, make corn syrup & food grade CO2. Ethanol plants are located in the center of crop producing areas reducing fuel need to transport crop to far away cities for processing into co-products that are shipped back to animal farms & food plants. Other ethanol plant co products include food grade CO2 provided to Beer & Soda plants. Corn Sweeteners provided to Soda & other food plants. The appropriate EROEI value to calculate ethanol co-products is 1 to 1.

The study makes no mention of No-Till farming cutting fuel, fertilizer, herbicide & pesticide usage by more than half, saving these chemicals & the fuel to create them by preventing them from erosion run off into streams & rivers. No mention of POET Ethanol's low energy ethanol extraction methods.

The $0.53 per gallon tariff on Brazil's sugar cane ethanol is no subsidy because it does not create any revenue. It only exist because Brazil also has a hefty ethanol tariff on any ethanol we sell them. There is no ethanol imported into the USA from Brazil to collect the tax on so again you are a fool to believe a subsidy actually exist. On the other hand we export corn ethanol to Brazil. Brazil has tariff on imports. That is actually anti-subsidy. You are clearly a bias hack who's positions are shredded with reality. Besides us exporting corn ethanol to Brazil we also export corn ethanol to Canada, the Netherlands, Nigeria, India, Holland & the United Arab Emirates. The exports show U.S. producers can compete without subsidies and import tariffs.

Blender credit gets paid to the oil companies who blend the ethanol with their gas to sell in their pumps at their stations. They have to be bribed to sell Ethanol & blame the subsidies they pocket on their favorite scapegoat Big Ag Ethanol.

Who cares what the EROEI of other crops are if they can't be grown here like sugar cane. Or if we have no use for the co-product like sugar cane, switch-grass or algae that will be industrial waste. As I posted before. It takes acreage to grow these crops & that will truly take away from the land that is being used to grow food. You only think ethanol takes away from the food chain when it really does not. Just wait until one of these other crops really does eat into the food chain by using the land & produce no food but only ethanol. In reality 1 EROEI must be subtracted from the other crops if they do not produce food. If you subtract that then they don't look so hot. It takes a lot of energy to make new farm equipment to convert farms from food production to these other crops while the remaining equipment sits & rust away.

- Where do we get 100 million acres worth of plastic bags to grow algae in?
- Do we take 100 million acres away from food production?
- It takes crude oil to make those bags.
- How do you get the slimy clingy algae out of the bag & can the bag be re-used after that?
- How long until you have to replace those bags?
- What do we do with the discarded bags?
- How much fresh water will this take?
- What do you do with the algae waste after you squeeze the oil out?
- How, where & from what do you get the algae feed processed to put into those bags?
- How much energy does all of this consume per amount of energy returned?

Please lets continue to bash ethanol with the bogus lies about how bad ethanol is.

 

[Jroc]

The current ethanol subsidy is a flat 45 cents per gallon of ethanol usually paid to the an oil company, that blends ethanol with gasoline. Some States add other incentives, all paid by the taxpayer. On top of this waste of taxpayer funds, the free trade capitalists in Congress slap a 54 cent tariff on all imported ethanol. Ronald R. Cooke, author of Oil, Jihad & Destiny, created the chart below to estimate the true cost for a gallon of corn ethanol. Cooke describes a true taxpayer boondoggle:

It costs money to store, transport and blend ethanol with gasoline. Since ethanol absorbs water, and water is corrosive to pipeline components, it must be transported by tanker to the distribution point where it is blended with gasoline for delivery to your gas station. That’s expensive transportation. It costs more to make a gasoline that can be blended with ethanol. Ethanol is lost through vaporization and contamination during this process. Gasoline/ethanol fuel blends that have been contaminated with water degrade the efficiency of combustion. E-85 ethanol is corrosive to the seals and fuel systems of most of our existing engines (including boats, generators, lawn mowers, hand power tools, etc.), and can not be dispensed through existing gas station pumps. And finally, ethanol has about 30 percent less energy per gallon than gasoline. That means the fuel economy of a vehicle running on E-85 will be about 25% less than a comparable vehicle running on gasoline.



Real Cost For A Gallon Of Corn Ethanol

Corn Ethanol Futures Market quote for January 2011 Delivery $2.46
Add cost of transporting, storing and blending corn ethanol $0.28
Added cost of making gasoline that can be blended with corn ethanol $0.09
Add cost of subsidies paid to blender $0.45
Total Direct Costs per Gallon $3.28

Added cost from waste $0.40
Added cost from damage to infrastructure and user’s engine $0.06
Total Indirect Costs per Gallon $0.46

Added cost of lost energy $1.27
Added cost of food (American family of four) $1.79
Total Social Costs $3.06

Total Cost of Corn Ethanol @ 85% Blend $6.80

Multiple studies by independent non-partisan organizations have concluded that mandating and subsidizing ethanol fuel production is a terrible policy for Americans:

•In May 2007, the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University released a report saying the ethanol mandates have increased the food bill for every American by about $47 per year due to grain price increases for corn, soybeans, wheat, and others. The Iowa State researchers concluded that American consumers face a “total cost of ethanol of about $14 billion.” And that figure does not include the cost of federal subsidies to corn growers or the $0.51 per gallon tax credit to ethanol producers.
•In May 2008, the Congressional Research Service blamed recent increases in global food prices on two factors: increased grain demand for meat production, and the bio-fuels mandates. The agency said that the recent “rapid, ‘permanent’ increase in corn demand has directly sparked substantially higher corn prices to bid available supplies away from other uses – primarily livestock feed. Higher corn prices, in turn, have forced soybean, wheat, and other grain prices higher in a bidding war for available crop land.”
•Mark W. Rosegrant of the International Food Policy Research Institute, testified before the U.S. Senate on bio-fuels and grain prices. Rosegrant said that the ethanol scam has caused the price of corn to increase by 29 percent, rice to increase by 21 percent and wheat by 22 percent. Rosegrant estimated that if the global bio-fuels mandates were eliminated altogether, corn prices would drop by 20 percent, while sugar and wheat prices would drop by 11 percent and 8 percent, respectively, by 2010. Rosegrant said that “If the current bio-fuel expansion continues, calorie availability in developing countries is expected to grow more slowly; and the number of malnourished children is projected to increase.” He continued, saying “It is therefore important to find ways to keep bio-fuels from worsening the food-price crisis. In the short run, removal of ethanol blending mandates and subsidies and ethanol import tariffs, in the United States—together with removal of policies in Europe promoting bio-fuels—would contribute to lower food prices.”
The true cost of the ethanol boondoggle is hidden from the public. The mandates, subsidies and tariffs take place out of plain view. The reason blenders (and gas stations) will pay the same for ethanol is because they can sell it at the same price as gasoline to consumers. A consumer will pay the same for ten gallons of E10 as for ten gallons of gasoline even though the E10 contains a gallon of ethanol. Consumers pay the same for the gallon of ethanol for three reasons. (1) They don’t know there’s ethanol in their gasoline. (2) There is often ethanol in all the gasoline because of state requirements, so they have no choice. (3) They never know the ethanol has only 67% the energy of gasoline and gets them only 67% as far. The result is that drivers always pay much more for ethanol energy than for gasoline energy, simply because they pay the same amount per gallon. When gasoline prices are $3.00 per gallon, Joe Six-pack pays $4.50 for the same amount of ethanol energy.

ZeroHedge: Total Cost of Corn Ethanol @ 85% Blend $6.80*|*Peak Oil News and Message Boards

 

[KissMy]

The current ethanol subsidy is a flat 45 cents per gallon of ethanol usually paid to the an oil company, that blends ethanol with gasoline. Some States add other incentives, all paid by the taxpayer. On top of this waste of taxpayer funds, the free trade capitalists in Congress slap a 54 cent tariff on all imported ethanol. Ronald R. Cooke, author of Oil, Jihad & Destiny, created the chart below to estimate the true cost for a gallon of corn ethanol. Cooke describes a true taxpayer boondoggle:

It costs money to store, transport and blend ethanol with gasoline. Since ethanol absorbs water, and water is corrosive to pipeline components, it must be transported by tanker to the distribution point where it is blended with gasoline for delivery to your gas station. That’s expensive transportation. It costs more to make a gasoline that can be blended with ethanol. Ethanol is lost through vaporization and contamination during this process. Gasoline/ethanol fuel blends that have been contaminated with water degrade the efficiency of combustion. E-85 ethanol is corrosive to the seals and fuel systems of most of our existing engines (including boats, generators, lawn mowers, hand power tools, etc.), and can not be dispensed through existing gas station pumps. And finally, ethanol has about 30 percent less energy per gallon than gasoline. That means the fuel economy of a vehicle running on E-85 will be about 25% less than a comparable vehicle running on gasoline.



Real Cost For A Gallon Of Corn Ethanol

Corn Ethanol Futures Market quote for January 2011 Delivery $2.46
Add cost of transporting, storing and blending corn ethanol $0.28
Added cost of making gasoline that can be blended with corn ethanol $0.09
Add cost of subsidies paid to blender $0.45
Total Direct Costs per Gallon $3.28

Added cost from waste $0.40
Added cost from damage to infrastructure and user’s engine $0.06
Total Indirect Costs per Gallon $0.46

Added cost of lost energy $1.27
Added cost of food (American family of four) $1.79
Total Social Costs $3.06

Total Cost of Corn Ethanol @ 85% Blend $6.80

Multiple studies by independent non-partisan organizations have concluded that mandating and subsidizing ethanol fuel production is a terrible policy for Americans:

•In May 2007, the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University released a report saying the ethanol mandates have increased the food bill for every American by about $47 per year due to grain price increases for corn, soybeans, wheat, and others. The Iowa State researchers concluded that American consumers face a “total cost of ethanol of about $14 billion.” And that figure does not include the cost of federal subsidies to corn growers or the $0.51 per gallon tax credit to ethanol producers.
•In May 2008, the Congressional Research Service blamed recent increases in global food prices on two factors: increased grain demand for meat production, and the bio-fuels mandates. The agency said that the recent “rapid, ‘permanent’ increase in corn demand has directly sparked substantially higher corn prices to bid available supplies away from other uses – primarily livestock feed. Higher corn prices, in turn, have forced soybean, wheat, and other grain prices higher in a bidding war for available crop land.”
•Mark W. Rosegrant of the International Food Policy Research Institute, testified before the U.S. Senate on bio-fuels and grain prices. Rosegrant said that the ethanol scam has caused the price of corn to increase by 29 percent, rice to increase by 21 percent and wheat by 22 percent. Rosegrant estimated that if the global bio-fuels mandates were eliminated altogether, corn prices would drop by 20 percent, while sugar and wheat prices would drop by 11 percent and 8 percent, respectively, by 2010. Rosegrant said that “If the current bio-fuel expansion continues, calorie availability in developing countries is expected to grow more slowly; and the number of malnourished children is projected to increase.” He continued, saying “It is therefore important to find ways to keep bio-fuels from worsening the food-price crisis. In the short run, removal of ethanol blending mandates and subsidies and ethanol import tariffs, in the United States—together with removal of policies in Europe promoting bio-fuels—would contribute to lower food prices.”
The true cost of the ethanol boondoggle is hidden from the public. The mandates, subsidies and tariffs take place out of plain view. The reason blenders (and gas stations) will pay the same for ethanol is because they can sell it at the same price as gasoline to consumers. A consumer will pay the same for ten gallons of E10 as for ten gallons of gasoline even though the E10 contains a gallon of ethanol. Consumers pay the same for the gallon of ethanol for three reasons. (1) They don’t know there’s ethanol in their gasoline. (2) There is often ethanol in all the gasoline because of state requirements, so they have no choice. (3) They never know the ethanol has only 67% the energy of gasoline and gets them only 67% as far. The result is that drivers always pay much more for ethanol energy than for gasoline energy, simply because they pay the same amount per gallon. When gasoline prices are $3.00 per gallon, Joe Six-pack pays $4.50 for the same amount of ethanol energy.
ZeroHedge: Total Cost of Corn Ethanol @ 85% Blend $6.80*|*Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Everything in your post I colored Blue is True & Red is a Lie.

Simple number tricks.

The cost of transporting, storing and blending corn ethanol $0.28 & $0.09 is paid back to the oil company through the $0.45 blender credit. You can't add them all together because one cancels the other. Also E-85 is cheaper to make than E10 because there is less blending. You cant just take those bogus added cost of E10 times 8.5 & say it cost $6.80 The true social cost of ethanol is only the $0.45 blender credit. That makes $2.46 ethanol cost $2.91

There is no $0.51 per gallon tax credit to ethanol producers. Only the before mentioned $0.45 blender credit paid to oil companies to cover any cost of blending & selling ethanol. That blender credit use to be $0.51 but was reduced years ago to $0.45 The frauds just keep adding on subsidies that don't exist & taxes that have never been paid or collected.

Those gas mileage numbers are the work of pure fiction. If E10 dropped mileage by 25% then E85 would go nowhere at all. There is no measurable difference. The only engines that have issues are on boats because ethanol attracts water. They should not sell it to boaters, but these issues go away if boaters keep their tank 85+% full or limit ventilation or add fuel stabilizer.

The ethanol industry directly employs over 112,000 us citizens. We export tones of corn ethanol offsetting our US trade imbalance.

You sheep keep believing the ethanol bashing lies with no critical thought.

 

[Salishan]

Burning food for fuel is like burning clothing for heat.

 

[Lasher]

Should have went with Sugar Cane like the Brazilians..but what can ya do?

Yes, we should have gone with sugarcane.

 

[Lasher]

"We owe to the Jews, a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all wisdom and learning put together."

- Winston Churchill 1920


]

BULL-SHIT, Israel is taking us for a ride we will never come back from.

A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People

By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill. 1925
.International Jews

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

 

[KissMy]

Burning food for fuel is like burning clothing for heat.

Nice try sock puppet

 

[The T]

World starves as Americans burn food to stay on the road | The Australian

I hate to say I told you so, but burning corn for Ethenol was a really stupid idea.

It's just so idiotic, and a lack of priorities...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Another disingenuous study that flat refused to add in an appropriate co-product value of the DDG feed. The study says corn production production is acting as an energy sink requiring energy for production. DUH! It takes energy to make food. Ethanol is not taking away that food or the energy it took to make the food. The corn feed is simply converted to DDG feed. Feed plants take energy to grind corn into animal feed just as ethanol plants take energy to grind corn into DDG feed, make corn syrup & food grade CO2. Ethanol plants are located in the center of crop producing areas reducing fuel need to transport crop to far away cities for processing into co-products that are shipped back to animal farms & food plants. Other ethanol plant co products include food grade CO2 provided to Beer & Soda plants. Corn Sweeteners provided to Soda & other food plants. The appropriate EROEI value to calculate ethanol co-products is 1 to 1.

The study makes no mention of No-Till farming cutting fuel, fertilizer, herbicide & pesticide usage by more than half, saving these chemicals & the fuel to create them by preventing them from erosion run off into streams & rivers. No mention of POET Ethanol's low energy ethanol extraction methods.

The $0.53 per gallon tariff on Brazil's sugar cane ethanol is no subsidy because it does not create any revenue. It only exist because Brazil also has a hefty ethanol tariff on any ethanol we sell them. There is no ethanol imported into the USA from Brazil to collect the tax on so again you are a fool to believe a subsidy actually exist. On the other hand we export corn ethanol to Brazil. Brazil has tariff on imports. That is actually anti-subsidy. You are clearly a bias hack who's positions are shredded with reality. Besides us exporting corn ethanol to Brazil we also export corn ethanol to Canada, the Netherlands, Nigeria, India, Holland & the United Arab Emirates. The exports show U.S. producers can compete without subsidies and import tariffs.

Blender credit gets paid to the oil companies who blend the ethanol with their gas to sell in their pumps at their stations. They have to be bribed to sell Ethanol & blame the subsidies they pocket on their favorite scapegoat Big Ag Ethanol.

Who cares what the EROEI of other crops are if they can't be grown here like sugar cane. Or if we have no use for the co-product like sugar cane, switch-grass or algae that will be industrial waste. As I posted before. It takes acreage to grow these crops & that will truly take away from the land that is being used to grow food. You only think ethanol takes away from the food chain when it really does not. Just wait until one of these other crops really does eat into the food chain by using the land & produce no food but only ethanol. In reality 1 EROEI must be subtracted from the other crops if they do not produce food. If you subtract that then they don't look so hot. It takes a lot of energy to make new farm equipment to convert farms from food production to these other crops while the remaining equipment sits & rust away.


- Where do we get 100 million acres worth of plastic bags to grow algae in?
- Do we take 100 million acres away from food production?
- It takes crude oil to make those bags.
- How do you get the slimy clingy algae out of the bag & can the bag be re-used after that?
- How long until you have to replace those bags?
- What do we do with the discarded bags?
- How much fresh water will this take?
- What do you do with the algae waste after you squeeze the oil out?
- How, where & from what do you get the algae feed processed to put into those bags?
- How much energy does all of this consume per amount of energy returned?

Please lets continue to bash ethanol with the bogus lies about how bad ethanol is.

Did you even read the study, or did you just assume that you know what it is about?

Why should they add additional arbitrary numbers to arbitrary numbers to make it more palatable to your position?

WILL YOU PLEASE ANSWER THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU.

WHY THE FUCK SHOULD WE SUBSIDIZE CORPORATIONS TO DO THINGS THEY WILL DO ANYWAY?

 

[Salishan]

Burning food for fuel is like burning clothing for heat.

Nice try sock puppet

What does that even mean?

 

[KissMy]

If one wonders why food prices are rising, they need look no further than the 44 million people on food stamps. Subsidizing food purchases drives up prices. Every time someone eats meat instead of a grain they have increased their food usage 1,000% because it takes 10 times the grains feed to animals to produce the equivalent amount of meat. Congress acknowledges this in jroc's posted report.

 

[KissMy]

Another disingenuous study that flat refused to add in an appropriate co-product value of the DDG feed. The study says corn production production is acting as an energy sink requiring energy for production. DUH! It takes energy to make food. Ethanol is not taking away that food or the energy it took to make the food. The corn feed is simply converted to DDG feed. Feed plants take energy to grind corn into animal feed just as ethanol plants take energy to grind corn into DDG feed, make corn syrup & food grade CO2. Ethanol plants are located in the center of crop producing areas reducing fuel need to transport crop to far away cities for processing into co-products that are shipped back to animal farms & food plants. Other ethanol plant co products include food grade CO2 provided to Beer & Soda plants. Corn Sweeteners provided to Soda & other food plants. The appropriate EROEI value to calculate ethanol co-products is 1 to 1.

The study makes no mention of No-Till farming cutting fuel, fertilizer, herbicide & pesticide usage by more than half, saving these chemicals & the fuel to create them by preventing them from erosion run off into streams & rivers. No mention of POET Ethanol's low energy ethanol extraction methods.

The $0.53 per gallon tariff on Brazil's sugar cane ethanol is no subsidy because it does not create any revenue. It only exist because Brazil also has a hefty ethanol tariff on any ethanol we sell them. There is no ethanol imported into the USA from Brazil to collect the tax on so again you are a fool to believe a subsidy actually exist. On the other hand we export corn ethanol to Brazil. Brazil has tariff on imports. That is actually anti-subsidy. You are clearly a bias hack who's positions are shredded with reality. Besides us exporting corn ethanol to Brazil we also export corn ethanol to Canada, the Netherlands, Nigeria, India, Holland & the United Arab Emirates. The exports show U.S. producers can compete without subsidies and import tariffs.

Blender credit gets paid to the oil companies who blend the ethanol with their gas to sell in their pumps at their stations. They have to be bribed to sell Ethanol & blame the subsidies they pocket on their favorite scapegoat Big Ag Ethanol.

Who cares what the EROEI of other crops are if they can't be grown here like sugar cane. Or if we have no use for the co-product like sugar cane, switch-grass or algae that will be industrial waste. As I posted before. It takes acreage to grow these crops & that will truly take away from the land that is being used to grow food. You only think ethanol takes away from the food chain when it really does not. Just wait until one of these other crops really does eat into the food chain by using the land & produce no food but only ethanol. In reality 1 EROEI must be subtracted from the other crops if they do not produce food. If you subtract that then they don't look so hot. It takes a lot of energy to make new farm equipment to convert farms from food production to these other crops while the remaining equipment sits & rust away.


- Where do we get 100 million acres worth of plastic bags to grow algae in?
- Do we take 100 million acres away from food production?
- It takes crude oil to make those bags.
- How do you get the slimy clingy algae out of the bag & can the bag be re-used after that?
- How long until you have to replace those bags?
- What do we do with the discarded bags?
- How much fresh water will this take?
- What do you do with the algae waste after you squeeze the oil out?
- How, where & from what do you get the algae feed processed to put into those bags?
- How much energy does all of this consume per amount of energy returned?

Please lets continue to bash ethanol with the bogus lies about how bad ethanol is.

Did you even read the study, or did you just assume that you know what it is about?

Why should they add additional arbitrary numbers to arbitrary numbers to make it more palatable to your position?

WILL YOU PLEASE ANSWER THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU.

WHY THE FUCK SHOULD WE SUBSIDIZE CORPORATIONS TO DO THINGS THEY WILL DO ANYWAY?

Can you read? Can you comprehend? Did you even read my post? Or the link in my post? Here is the answer & link again.

The $0.53 per gallon tariff on Brazil's sugar cane ethanol is no subsidy because it does not create any revenue. It only exist because Brazil also has a hefty ethanol tariff on any ethanol we sell them. There is no ethanol imported into the USA from Brazil to collect the tax on so again you are a fool to believe a subsidy actually exist. On the other hand we export corn ethanol to Brazil. Brazil has tariff on imports. That is actually anti-subsidy. You are clearly a bias hack who's positions are shredded with reality. Besides us exporting corn ethanol to Brazil we also export corn ethanol to Canada, the Netherlands, Nigeria, India, Holland & the United Arab Emirates. The exports show U.S. producers can compete without subsidies and import tariffs.

As you can clearly see ethanol needs no subsidy. We export to tariff & free trade countries with no subsidies. Only the US oil companies scream for subsidies or they wont sell it at their stations or from their pumps. Subsidies are a Big Oil Bribe.

 

[KissMy]

I find it interesting that people in the energy business don't know the oil companies get the "Ethanol Subsidy" money & not the ethanol plants or farmers.

Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) - The "Blenders' Credit" Commonly referred to as the "blender's credit," the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) was created in 2004 as part of H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (JOBS Bill, P.L. 108-357). VEETC provides oil companies with an economic incentive to blend ethanol with gasoline. As of January 1, 2009, the original tax credit totaling 51 cents per gallon on pure ethanol (5.1 cents per gallon for E10, and 42 cents per gallon on E85) was reduced to 45 cents per gallon. The tax credit is passed on to motorists in the form of more cost-effective fuel at the pump. VEETC is currently authorized through December 31, 2010.

 

[Intense]

I find it interesting that people in the energy business don't know the oil companies get the "Ethanol Subsidy" money & not the ethanol plants or farmers.

Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) - The "Blenders' Credit" Commonly referred to as the "blender's credit," the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) was created in 2004 as part of H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (JOBS Bill, P.L. 108-357). VEETC provides oil companies with an economic incentive to blend ethanol with gasoline. As of January 1, 2009, the original tax credit totaling 51 cents per gallon on pure ethanol (5.1 cents per gallon for E10, and 42 cents per gallon on E85) was reduced to 45 cents per gallon. The tax credit is passed on to motorists in the form of more cost-effective fuel at the pump. VEETC is currently authorized through December 31, 2010.

Growing Corn for fuel has driven up the Market Cost of Corn. The Farmers make more for what they grow, it is a scheme, and it is hurtful to every enterprise it touches.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can you read? Can you comprehend? Did you even read my post? Or the link in my post? Here is the answer & link again.

This is going to be painful for you.

The $0.53 per gallon tariff on Brazil's sugar cane ethanol is no subsidy because it does not create any revenue.

Taxes do not create revenue? When did that miracle of modern math happen?

It only exist because Brazil also has a hefty ethanol tariff on any ethanol we sell them. There is no ethanol imported into the USA from Brazil to collect the tax on so again you are a fool to believe a subsidy actually exist.

The only reason it exists is because Brazil has a tariff? Would you care to bet on that?

Brazil Eliminates Tariff on Ethanol Imports - Domestic Fuel

On the other hand we export corn ethanol to Brazil. Brazil has tariff on imports. That is actually anti-subsidy. You are clearly a bias hack who's positions are shredded with reality. Besides us exporting corn ethanol to Brazil we also export corn ethanol to Canada, the Netherlands, Nigeria, India, Holland & the United Arab Emirates. The exports show U.S. producers can compete without subsidies and import tariffs.

The fact that we export subsidized ethanol does not prove that it can be made without subsidies.

As you can clearly see ethanol needs no subsidy. We export to tariff & free trade countries with no subsidies. Only the US oil companies scream for subsidies or they wont sell it at their stations or from their pumps. Subsidies are a Big Oil Bribe.

If it needs no subsidy, why do we continue to subsidize it?

The 45-cent-a-gallon excise tax credit for ethanol is scheduled to expire on Dec 31. So would a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol and a 10-cent-a-gallon credit for small producers of ethanol.
In a statement, the Renewable Fuels Association said an extension of the credit "is part of the deal at the moment," according to congressional and Obama administration sources.
"The final details -- the length of the extension and the value of the credit -- are still being discussed," said RFA. It cautioned that the contents of the tax bill still could change.

U.S. ethanol subsidy part of tax deal: trade group | Reuters

So much for no subsidies going to production. If you read the article you will see that all ethanol subsidies go to producers of ethanol.

You are the only person I have ever seen that has even attempted to twist the facts around and deny ethanol subsidies, the reason they exist, and the fact that the ethanol industry actual needs them to survive.

Here is a rebuttal to a newspaper essay calling for the end of the subsidies that, according to you, the undustry does not need.

First, our nation's addiction to foreign oil has cost taxpayers approximately $225 billion annually over the last 30 years, for a total of more than $7.3 trillion in taxpayer funds dedicated to protecting oil shipping routes, according to an analysis by Princeton University.
Second, grain ethanol is 59 percent cleaner than conventional gasoline derived from ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol is at least 86 percent cleaner, but both are continually getting cleaner through low-carbon innovations both at the ethanol plant and in farming.



Third, our nation's farmers are generating a surplus of corn. The Sun is wrong in suggesting that American farmers cannot meet demand for export, demand for U.S. livestock feed and demand for biofuels.

Ethanol Subsidies - Ethanol subsidies help secure America's energy future - Baltimore Sun


Notice how they talk about our dependance on oil, the fact that ethanol burns cleaner (if you ignore the carbon footprint), and that we are not running short of food.


Never once do they say anything about them not really being needed.


I also notice that you never did answer my question.


Why do we subsidize corn ethanol?


I will give you a hint.


Think Iowa, farmers, and politics.


Ethanol Subsidies, Newt Gingrich, and the 2012 Election

 

[Jroc]

"We owe to the Jews, a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all wisdom and learning put together."

- Winston Churchill 1920


]

BULL-SHIT, Israel is taking us for a ride we will never come back from.

A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People

By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill. 1925
.International Jews

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

Take your Jew hating somewhere else loon, we're talking about energy here