Very few scams in America reach the level of what get passed in the form of a farm bill. Just one example, areas of the nation that suffer some sort of natural disaster qualify for “special consideration” in regards to how money is handed out to farmers, well remember when the Space Shuttle came down across certain sections of Texas in 2003? those areas qualified due to the impact of the shuttle crashing in that area.It is suppose to be for areas affected by drought or some other type of hinderance to production. Writers of of the “farm bill”, now they can show you how too scam the public. Check out “King Corn” Netflicks has it.
Whitey–Isn’t that essentially what I said, about 3 1/2 hours prior to your post?
I guess it is, and I suppose we agree. Why do you feel a need to point that out?
“This corn was always the type that is not meant for human consumption, so I don’t think it competes with food supplies.”
I agree with texases. It competes with food supply in that the land is no longer used for food.
Maybe not ‘scam’ perse’
but certainly a white elephant.
sounded like a good idea at the time.
yes.
It transfers a little wealth from Exxon to ADM… Capitalism at work…
Agreed.
There is a company in Northwest Indiana who is wanting to build an ethanol plant which will use garbage as the source. So far it is running into roadblocks of NIMBY but it looks like it will end up going in.
Ethanol is not a scam, plant-based ethanol is not the best idea though.
Pimental is a “fringe” opinion here, to say the least.
If you ever read an op/ed piece about “energy-negative” ethanol, Pimental will ALWAYS be cited as the source. Why? Because NOBODY else who’s “crunched the numbers” came out with a similar result! Some researchers at Berkley were co-authors, but pulled back support after a while because they felt the results weren’t factually-supported. When Berkley cries out on factual issues, you know there are BIG problems with the methodology.
If you read Pimental’s opinion on a variety of other issues, you’ll soon realize he’s a “man with an agenda.”
Is corn ethanol a politically-motivated waste of perfectly good moonshine? Yes. Is it energy-negative? Sorry, no.
Also, when I was a young buck, we put “price floors” on grains, resulting in grain surpluses (ECON 101). Then, the US would load the grain onto derelict ships (among other places) and just let it rot.
Ethanol may not be perfect, but it’s better than we were doing!
Nope, we burn somewhere between 0.8 and 1.2 btus worth of oil for every btu of ethanol, in fuel to run the farm, make fertilizer, ship the grain, etc. Very little, if any reduction in oil use.
You sure about that?
I thought one benefit of ethanol is that, while only modestly energy-positive, it sourced DOMESTIC energy as inputs. 0.8-1.2 BTU of oil and 0.8-1.2 BTU of coal/NG are two entirely different things!
Another benefit to ethanol:
Millions of gallons of crude washing up on Louisiana…ecological disaster.
Millions of gallons of ethanol in Louisiana…Mardi Gras!
“Millions of gallons of ethanol in Louisiana…Mardi Gras!”
But it’s not used for consumption. Ethanol is used to fuel your car. You can’t have it both ways.
Ethanol transfers wealth from taxpayers to farmers, politicians, & ADM.
I feel a need to point it out simply because I take a different approach if I feel compelled to restate what someone has already said.
When I am in concurrence with another forum member (or members), I say something like, “as has already been said”, or “I agree completely with what was said by X”, or some other statement to acknowledge that I am not attempting to claim something as an original thought.
In this case, perhaps you did not read my earlier post and perhaps you did not realize that what you said was essentially an unattributed restatement of my post.
Do you know how much unused farming capacity we have in this country? Do you know how many people would love to be farming right now instead of sitting at a desk? I don’t think farming in this country is a zero sum game in terms of crop choice. My hope is that if government can ever learn to leave the farm market alone, eventually increased demand for Ethanol will help us return to an agricultural economy, at least to a small degree. We have seen what happens to market-based economies when people come to their senses and start saving again; people lose their jobs. At least the concept of producing our own fuel agriculturally is sustainable, if it can ever be done right.
I read your post before I opined, but I still felt a need to weigh in, in my own words, using my own thought process. I didn’t think I was just regurgitating what you wrote.
I don’t know, I guess I am verbose.
What I was getting at was ethanol, being fully miscible with water, is less of a toxic threat in case of a spill.
Domestic-sourcing, spill toxicity, and “least-harmful” means of supporting a (politically inevitable) farm subsidy all enter into the equation, even if ethanol is energy-negative.
“This corn was always the type that is not meant for human consumption, so I don’t think it competes with food supplies.”
But if it was being fed to animals, now you still need to replace that corn with something. No on grows corn for the fun of it.
Brasil has done a great job with ethanol, Rio smells like a popcorn factory, but at this point in time, ethanol is just a temporary band-aid until hydrogen and electric cars are mainstream.A Frenchman invented an air propelled car around 1910, using compressed air. I’m convinced new and unheard of technological advances are around the corner.
Total scam in the way it’s being done!
First, piston engines are roughly 20-22% efficient as it is and ethanol reduces the already poor efficiency by another 3-7%. Thanks to the greenies who have prevented the “efficient” production of alcohol fuel from non-food sources, the cost in both dollars and petrol-base energy used for producing the less efficient fuel exceeds any savings by a long shot! For every gallon of ethanol currently being produced, we’re using up 2-3 gallons of other fuels, primarily the very same petroluem the greenies want us to stop using.
Looking at it purely from a mechanical standpoint, fuel efficiency could nearly be doubled by simply changing from the excessively inefficient reciprocating engines to rotary engines running good quality petrol-fuel. Rotary engine also greatly reduce the mass of a vehicle as well as the amount of energy needed to produce a vehicle because there’s far less production time required and far less raw materials.
Biofuel generation has been blocked at every step of the way … not by big oil but by big government catering to the greenies who oppose everything especially things they don’t understand. I invested seven years and tens of thousands of my own dollars developing a waste processing facility the would handle all types of waste not only safely but doing so while generating electric power far in excess of its own needs. 1999 estimates showed landfill space use reduction by 99%; 99% reclamation & recycling of metals and non-biodegradables (glass/ceramic/concrete/ect); 98% processing of biodegradables into methane, liquid & solid bio-fuels with anything left being fully reacted compost. Total waste of my time and money because it wasn’t “big oil” who stopped it, big oil was actually very interested in purchasing the fuel products because they’re cheaper than petrol. It was the greenies who put a stop to it because they didn’t understand it nor were they willing to!
Yes, but electric, H2, and compressed air are all stores of energy, not sources: the energy still has to come from elsewhere, be it wind, coal, nukes, or whatever. People seem to think that e- cars will solve all our problems, but I don’t see the evidence of that.
For example, I have a impact wrench that runs off of compressed air. I plug it into the wall: coal is turned into electricity to power the compressor that compresses the air. You could fairly say my wrench is coal-powered.