Congratulations, Mr & Mrs. Taxpayer, you are subsidizing The Archer Daniels Midland Company - NYSE symbol "ADM" (plus a whole lot of Agri-business Farmers) to the tune of $500 million PLUS annually.
Ethanol has been a boon to A.D.M.’s fortunes, helping it to achieve record earnings last year of $1.3 billion on sales of $36.6 billion. While the company does not break down the sources of its profit, analysts say ETHANOL COULD MAKE UP 40 PERCENT OF ADM'S NET INCOME IN 2024, about DOUBLE what it meant to the company last year. NYTimes 10/8/06 (emphasis added).
Hows that?
1) We subsidize each and every gallon of Ethanol produced in the USofA 51 cents.
2) We TAX imported Ethanol at 53 cents a gallon.
So, ADM is already $1.04/gallon ahead of the competition right out of the gate!
In the meantime:
With Big Boost From Sugar Cane, Brazil Is Satisfying Its Fuel Needs (April 10, 2024).
Brazil will become energy dependent this year - supplying 40% of its transportation needs through Sugar-Cane ethanol (and the rest thru domestic oil production).
Scientists in Brazil have estimated a "return on energy" from Sugar Cane to be 8 to 1. That is, for every unit of energy you put in, (tractors, processing, etc.) you get 8 out - a net gain of 7. Meanwhile, they have estimated a 1.3 to 1 return for Corn. Gain: 0.3. Some U.S. scientists have suggested a negative return for corn ethanol.
Do the Brazillians have a product to sell? You bet. So maybe their research is is a bit biased. My minimal secondary research suggests that just about anything you grow in the lower 48, (except sugar cane in Florida and Texas) just doesn't cut it as a viable source of ethanol. Sugar beets, switch grass, soybeans, wheat - you name it - nada.
Sugar-ethanol won't solve the whole problem, but I'm for anything that reduces our dependence of foreign oil. If this is real, then it is a huge opportunity for Unity'08 since it cuts across at least 3 of the top 10 issues of our time:
1. National Security (Terrorism)
2. Energy
3. Environment
My question is three-fold:
1) Can anybody cite some hard numbers and/or sources on either side of the "return on energy" question?
2) How can we stop being tax-paying chumps and letting big corporations - and their stock holders from feeding at our trough? This is the TIP of the iceberg, but it's a poster-child issue for what is wrong with our political system.
3) Can/should Unity '08 put this near the top of it's agenda as an example of how looney our system has become?
Jump-start Unity’08!
Vote to put 3 Cyber Members on the Steering Committee
I like your comment about ethanol. Being from corn country I need to state that producing ethanol is not so good for the environment. Corn takes way too much water to grow; and the chemicals (nitrate/pesticides/herbicides) are way too harmful. Utilizing ethanol for energy would only exacerbate this already precarious situation.
Just food for thought. Oh...by the way...out here they are now going to be installing huge CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) to eat the waste from the corn harvest. The corn goes to ethanol and the stalks go to cows and hogs. Not just a few....we are talking thousands in one location. This is terrible for our environment. Runoff from CAFOs is full of contaminants; animals are severely abused...this list could go on and on.
For many of us in the Heartland...corn is not the answer.
I am certainly not arguing with your educated stance...I thought you might like a bit more information as you seem to be an analytical person that likes the facts.
Take care
I have 5 acers of wonderful south Texas mesquite scrub and I am looking forward to having someone buy from me something I can't chop down and burn faster than it can grow. That 10 year re-growth number assumes drought conditions. I went through a 3 year drought bad enough it killed half of a 20 foot diameter cane break and the mesquite still grew a foot a year. I had 2 years of "normal" rain and it grew 2 foot a year. Global warming is projected to cause Texas to get wetter.
Almost a year ago I posted an analysis of the corn to alcohol energy imbalance on the Talkmaster discussion list on YAHOO. It must be understood that the corn to alcohol cycle is very energy intensive. It starts at the farm with petroleum based fertilizers and pestacides and very inefficient power equipment for land preparation, cultivation and harvesting. Next is transportation of the grain to the plants. None of these can easily be converted to some alternative energy source. The only way you can get this cycle to produce more energy than it consumes is if all of the energy for processing can be gotten from something other than petroleum. Methane from manure, wind/solar possibly, but since it requires a lot of water and many of the plants are being built next to rivers, hydro power is more likely the best way to go.
Now add in the energy cost of distribution, all by trucks since it is too caustic to put through any current pipelines and again,, this isn't amenable to using an alternative energy source.
The other major problem is that alcohol only has about 80% of the energy per gallon so vehicals only get 80% of the milage causing the need for 20% more alcohol to go the same distance.
Corn to Alcohol simply isn't the answer to energy independence but it is the answer to most polititians dreams of getting elected in the corn belt and the rest of us will pay for the votes they will buy with the subsidies they will promise.
====================================
The most heinous of tyrants is the will of the majority.
Any law that causes an injustice to just one person is an unjust law.
Democracy will fail when the masses learn they can vote themselves largess from the public purse.
Author(s) Unknown but written at the dawn of democracy.
These unknown authors had already seen the flaws in "true democracy" and the founders of the U.S.A. wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights in an attempt to prevent these misuses of democracy. Unfortunately the US education system has failed miserably in the task of teaching about the reasons our founders specifically wanted to avoid a "true democracy" and guarantee absolute freedom of and from religion.
http://www.blankballot.us/
Like the price of beer going up because the hops and malt growers are switching to corn.
Browncoats Unite!
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury—with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by dictatorship.”
–Alexander Tyler (in England 400 years ago)
Here is one of your authors.
There needs to be funding to explore alternate fuel sources. We need to have multiple sources, not just switch to another soul fuel source. Bio-fuels are a good starting point but they are not the answer. We are currently dependent exclusively on fossil fuels which come out of the earth and are not renewable. If we switch to bio-fuels, we are still stripping the land of valuable resources. New agricultural practices, such as no-till agriculture, suggest harvesting what is needed and leaving the crop debris on the farmland. This keeps a constant cycle of nutrients in the soil and helps significantly with erosion control. In a nutshell, it means that plants (crops) pull nutrients from the soil; only a said amount goes to the part of the plant (crop) we harvest. If we over harvest, there will be no crop residue to put the unused nutrients back into the soil, this would lead to an exhaustion of soil nutrients. Not to mention with no crop residue to help control erosion, we will lose our rich layer of topsoil. It takes many years to create the topsoil layer, which is the fertile life giving layer to the plants in our environment. This means that after years of using our soil for fuel we might deplete the life giving nutrients that keep our county thriving and food on our tables. If we aren’t careful in developing more than one fuel source, we could just be creating another problem.
This is just a concern that needs to be addressed and looked at.
Hydroponics is an alternative ways of producing mass crops and is still being developed and explored. Maybe this is the route we should take in the development of bio-fuels.
Read carefully, I think you'll find we agree! Corn is NOT the answer.
Welcome to Unity '08. Don't remember your name from the "old days" (way back in June!!! :-)
Cheers,
Erik
Hemp is
Thanks for wading in on the corn issue. You are right of course. Corn is far too hard on the soil.
We actually have some cool research going on here in Texas - seems even the Aggies, who tend to be disproportionately GOP, Are seeing the promise of cellulose generated ethanol. A consortium is researching using mesquite fiber (I pity the por machines that have to process that ironwood)in ethanol plants powered by - get this - manure generated methane. Texas has more manure than anywhere else in the country, and not all of it is in Washington LOL!!! And we have almost 1 million acres of mesquite which is the scourge of ranchers across the state. Super fast going - responds aggressively to non root extraction harvesting. 10 year regrowth - almost inexhaustible. between our wind power and hot air Texas may yet be able to do adequate penannance for the scourge that migrated from Austin to Washington...
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
So good to hear both of your comments! Erik....I apologize. I must not have read your comment carefully. Interesting news from Texas and their research. Thanks to both of you for leading the way for Unity08.
I am new to this and am thoroughly enjoying it! I heard Angus talking about it during an interview...so here I am.
Again, thanks for your courageous spirits and great humor!
I read with interest the figures on sugar cane and would like to see it developed for several reasons. sugar cane can be grown in many states and would be a big boon to our farmers and if we taxed tobacco heavily at the same time I am sure that a lot of farmers would switch to growing sugar cane and help reduce two problems at the same time. the other main reason wold be to reduce and maybe even eliminate the import of crude oil from the American hating places. Let them drink their oil and eat sand for all I care. Of course our big oil companies would try and find ways to keep their power and income but they can either be part of the problem or part of the solution. Does anyone know how much cane does it take to equal a barrel of crude? Other types of energy would help also such as nuclear, wind solar etc. Each might not be the answer but combined would be a huge step in the right direction. In our state used oil is collected from garages, gas stations and collection centers and burnt to supplement coal thereby again helping solve two problems at the same time. We do not have to put up with this economic blackmail form other countries if we just have the will power to do something about it.
Yeah corn is not going to be the answer for ethanol unless they find a way to make it without putting more energy in than we get out of it. The only technologies I have read of that are positive reactions are cellulose biomass and SUNY-ESF in NY made it from hard woods. Now making it from trees kind of takes the whole sustainable element out of it, but the cellulose has promise. I just worry that it would also produce an even large subsidy for the so called "Big Sugar" industry in Florida. It is already a heavily subsidized business as American growers cannot compete international market as prices are about 5 cents per pound and they produce it here for $0.20 per pound. The goverment inflates the price on the US market to allow the domestic growers to compete costing consumers over 1 billion a year. The federal gov't also allows growers to forfeit harvests which cost almost 100 million in 2024. 60% of that money went to 1% of sugar growers, the biggest being Flo-Sun. Big Sugar in Florida is also partly responsible for the need to spend billions to rehabilitate the Everglades as the Everglades Agricultural Area was established for sugar growers and was the reason behind the billions of gallons of water that was rerouted away from the 'Glades contributing to a higher salinity and the phosphorus runoff that ruined the water quality. Of course the rehab has fallen on the state and federal tax payer and not the companies like Flo-Sun who receive 10's of millions of dollars from the government.
But back on topic, sugar ethanol could be great. Domestic sugar production could go to creating ethanol and would allow the inflated market price to come down. I would just hope we wouldn't further subsidize sugar growers as we already do plenty, although I am sure not as much as we do companies like Cargill who would probably supply the corn.
i'm glad some of the valid points on ethanol production have come up here such as the waste problem. If the US were to try to use corn to produce ethanol there would be disasterous mainly because a lot of water is required (1700 gallons of water is required for one gallon of ethanol) and this is mainly to grow the corn just as someone mentioned before. There is also the problem that to be honest~ we don't Have that much fresh water these days anyway, if you don't believe me, see the data from the Millenium Assessment which just came out recently on the fresh water levels, and dropping aquifer levels. For ethanol from corn, It also would probably give off 6-12 gallons of "noxious organic effluant" (pollution). My source for these particular facts is the Editoral in November's magazine Bioscience, the article is written by David Pimentel @ Cornell University, look up this article if you are interested, the Millenium Assessment is also free on the internet to read, though it probably came out at about the same time as Pimentel's article.
So, some of the other interesting facts that I can glean from this article are;
The US uses about 25% of fossil fuels, yet has 4.5% of the world's population ( I can guaruntee that we use a shitload more energy every day than Brazil)- Which is probably why we'd never survive off of ethanol production.
Pimentel also mentions; that plants in the US collect about 53 exajoules of energy (that's 53*10^15 joules) , a lot of energy!, however, we USE more than 100exajoules every year. This means that even if we could squeeze every ounce of energy possible from a plant we still couldn't meet our energy demands with ethanol alone.
Pimentel/Patzek also estimate that our corn crop could probably replace 6% of our energy needs at our current standards. (meaning if we used all the corn we grow yearly already)
so~ by and by, we need to find something else besides ethanol that's for sure;
also, a texas person mentioned aggies making ethanol from cellulose, a great idea to be sure, and plenty of people are doing research on it, but the fact of the matter is that cellulose is very difficult to break down with enzymes and such to get the sugar needed for ethanol, and that is not likely to change anytime soon. There are already organisms that break down cellulose for energy of course, but they aren't very good at it, and they've had a long time to evolve too!~ i'd be surprised if man could do better. Typically cellulose molecules have a halflife on the order of thousands of years before they are fully returned to CO2 to be recycled by plants. ~ so I'm thinking, .... why bother with plants, why not just go solar/nuclear for the time being
I would rather subsidize Big Sugar and wean ourselves off of oil. We are indirectly funding the terrorists trying to kill us by buying the oil from the mid east. It would also be much better for the environment. A win win in my book.
An Independent from Oklahoma
In the short term ethanol is a great answer. We can play the corn game for a bit but it is true that the net energy input into corn-based ethanol is far greater than the output. Sugar cane and cellulose (grain stalks, wood chips, etc.) are far more sustainable, and still only transitional. The key to any sort of sustainabilty of ethanol is the curtailment of subsidies, something that our money-fueled political system won't allow.
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
I agree that corn is not the answer for ethanol; there should be specific tax incentives targeting firms that want to do cane and/or cellulosic ethanol production, in states like Louisiana and Florida that have the climate and moisture to grow what Brazilians call "Energy Cane".
Biodiesel is even better.
In response to TromboneErik's query, this topic deserves to be high, if not first, on the priority list of critical issues facing our country.
This issue...alternative fuels... will find support from the environmentalists and those who believe oil finances terrorism. What better way to fight terrorism than to reduce its funding?
Another group to join this coalition are those who believe that U.S. reliance on foreign oil renders the country economically vulnerable, ie, a drastic oil price increase to $140...our economy goes into free fall. We would likely be forced to declare the price increase an act of war. A horrific thought.
Time is of the essence.
Has TromboneErik and link he posted been vetted by Unity08 leadership?
Or did he just make it up unilatterally?
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I have to say that your Reverend Melissa is quite the babe! You from California too?...
Erik too is an honored contributor, and his observations regarding corn/ethanol are right on. I know, as this is one of the sectors in which I make my living. Everyone in the business knows, which is why it will be interesting to watch both Ds and Rs pander to the corn lobby when it is clear that cane and cellulose from switchgrass are the proper raw ethanol ingredients to solve much of our energy woes. What is switchgrass, you ask? The same vegetation waving across the plains before the white man cam along, decimated the natives and the buffalo, and plowed it up to make way for corn. Requires no additional irrigation, fertilization, etc. Easy on the land and the wallet...
Now who said life isn't interesting? And cyclical?...
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
Funny how I don't see your or Erik's name listed on ANY of the "official" Unity08 links on this site.
Am I supposed to believe you (Mark Greene) and Erik already hold some official Unity08 position.
That seems to be what you post implies (besides the fact you are a dirty old man)
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't, but in this instance we do agree that corn doesnt seem to be the way to go. Corn doesn't give much return for the investment and it takes too much out of the land.
saying that, let me add ..... Where have you been? Some of the members have been getting a little out of hand and I have miss some of your commentary and we need some thoughtful input to help dampen the malicious posts. I have been trying to stay out of the line of fire and was waiting for some meaningful dialogue.
I really should be banned from the puter on Friday evenings - my beast night...oh, well.
I've been working my tail off and getting ready to move, again. Not having as much time as I did. Additionally, I have gotten more and more enthralled with Obama, and involved locally with a group of supporters. Now that he's official I suspect that the bulk of my time politically will be channeled in that direction.
It seems a bit dishonest for me to pretend to want someone else at the top of the ticket, which I think is the thrust of '08. I did note one of the new posters suggesting that it might be acceptable for '08 to endorse the right major party candidate, and I guess my hope is that this becomes a real possibility.
The downside is that if '08 comes up with a truly credible independent/fusion ticket, we might find ourselves in a situation nationally comparable to that here in Texas, where our incumbent GOP gov was re-elected with only 39% of the vote. The upside of that, however, is that the little idiot seems to have gotten the message and is showing some signs of moving away from partisanship and toward the middle. Time will tell.
I will hang around as I can and wade in on occasion if some incivility warrants it. I do want to apologize to anyone I may have offended last night. It is unseemly to comment on the babeness of any stranger, even if I am a dirty old man...
Keep up the good fight Smhiott - will be in touch.
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
I see a lot of common thought in this thread - ethanol from corn isn't the solution. We need more focus on production from other cellulose sources.
We also need to produce our electricity from fusion, solar, wind, and tidal sources, then divert the coal to produce petroleum products (the Germans did it in WWII).
We need way more funding into fusion research and cleaning up the coal-to-oil process as well.
I don't feel there's on "silver-bullet" solution - there are many pieces to the problem and the solution.
LED lighting, for example, is just coming into being - it is far more efficient than even fluorescent bulbs.
You are all funny! We keep the car but like the President says - require everyone put the battery in the trunk so we can drive the first two hours on electric as the air is for breathing and corn is for feeding starving people. It's not such a crisis as the cars we now have can run on electric for the first two hours? How many of you commute further? Jeeze the President puts the first step in our laps and we discard it... I hear you sir! But I'll add one thing... require it in all cars yesterday - NO MORE OF THIS PLEASE STUFF! - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
IM: earnsnyder@yahoo.com
For more policies visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
When did Bush ever say that?
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Another problem with ethonal is that everyone would have to buy news cars to run on anything more than a 10/90 Ethanol/Gas mix.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I found this article to be very informative on the pro's and con's of ethanol. Check it out.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.10/ethanol.html
MEMBER OF THE FAR MIDDLE !
We are making a difference alright using the ethanol fuel made out of corn.
The price of corn has already doubled and we haven't even touched 2 % of gas sold with the 10 % stuff.
I guess we can burn up all our food stuffs and starve to death.
High oil prices tend to do two things.
Promotes less consumption and wise use of resources.
Cause a jump in production of oil from higher cost American sources.
Now if higher costs cause citizens to throw out the bums that want to restrict new drilling and the building of new lesser polluting refineries then capitalism could do its thing and a medium would be reached.
Capitalism is a remarkable tool when left alone it usually achieves the desired effect.
I parked my vette for four months and when I drove it again my 4 month old gas was soured and the thing ran rich and smoked black smoke and I had to burn the old stuff out.
A guy pulled up next to me at a light and said hey, I didn't know they put diesels in those things.
Gas is supposed to last a year but ethanol attracts water big time so be careful storing any thing that burns gas. I probably saved a big repair bill by putting fuel stabilizer in before storing the car.
A mechanic friend said bad gas turns to varnish and gums pistons valves, injectors , spark plugs and intake,fuel tank and pump.
Sugar cane is better but only grows well in the south and needs a lot of water [ I mean a lot }.
Clean water is fast becoming a player for life in many parts of the world.
Pollution in the Yangzee river from heavy metals threatens to make 25% of China's richest farmland untenable and useless.
That same area now grows 49% of the eatables for the country.
I'm a conservative but conservation is common sense not politically correctness.
Yes the US is a big polluter but our economy affords us the R & D to come up with the cottage industry that cleans and rectifies the water and air and shows the way for our fellow emerging polluters.
And BTW makes a buck too.
Crude oil prices will be manipulated as needed to preserve it's position. (It is just a cartel's choice in case anyone forgot). Now clean energy alternative....that is worth the long range investment.
Bill"for what we are together"