AaronSEIA

The ethanol plant only takes about a third of the food value out of corn for the beef animal. With all the land that is only good for pasture, the ethanol industry and the beef industry is a good fit. It sure makes some good tasting prime rib. Sure better than eating a pan of boiled corn.

 

I farmed in the early 80's and there was no market for corn at all. We would come up to a harvest and the bins were still full of last year's crop. Now, when there is a use for the stuff, people say "you can't do that".

 

 

 

Corn is corn, it doesn't make any difference if it's for ethanol or livestock feed. Food grade corn is a different market and the majority is produce by contract with the end user. The same with seed.

 

As far as ethanol, yes it supports the price of corn but not as much as demand from China and the rest of the world at this time. Not that I'm ethanols biggest fan of, but about 80% of a bushel of corn is available for livestock feed AFTER it has been use to make ethanol as dried distillers grains (DDGs).

 

Still it's tough on the livestock industry with these prices.

 

I reject the standard talk about how we got to find all sorts of alternative energy to get away from forien oil. The real answer is to develope our own oil and natural gas but the sheep have been taught to believe otherwise.

 

Ethanol and Bio Diesel - B100 looser as also subsidized.

Switch Grass and other such , still in research stage.

Coal  Years and years of energy

Nuclear, OOPS cant talk about that

Yes the US is one of the largest users of energy in the world overall and per capita, but the US has one of the highest living standards, best highway and transportation systems and the easiest movement of it's citizens anywhere within the continent than any nation.

 we are asked to pay for what we use and the price may be high but the poverty level is low also in the US.  Not many people are trying t get into Bangladesh or Somalia because of their good living standards.

 Food or fuel ? seems the Brazilian alcohol business is from cane sugar because of it's climate but now that they have a expanding petroleum industry it is loosing a importance there . Yet the US will not allow import of cheaper Alcohol from foreign producers in order to shore up and subsidies US production.

Yes, we need to look for other energy sources, but they don't need to be derived from our food supply.

 

I agree this topic is better suited for the political page. The political forum is better suited to topics that cause thermal expansion and global warming from the expulsion of unsavory gasses. LOL...

 

I don't know about the 90% of the original food value being retained. I cannot find that number looking around. There is some food value, but it appears to be mostly used in feeds. Depending on the amount and usage possibly the impact can be reduced, but I don't see any data supporting that.

 

In any event Corn is a staple food crop although people have gotten more health conscious and reduced the food dependence value of corn. As the world population continues to grow over time more people will need food. The fact is that corn is one of the most economical food sources there is right now.

 

Corn also requires a lot of water. Most farms around here that produce any real amounts of corn are irrigated. With the water supply coming under tighter and tighter regulation the ability to produce an increasing amount of corn will be in question. What will that mean if animals and people rely on corn for food and we also rely on corn as a fuel supplement. I feel very strongly that ethanol production using corn can not be a long term solution.

I call bull ont he 34%.  Those numbers have been thrown out for years as well as the "takes more input than you get out" bull!!!!  That was skewed data when it came out years ago and is no better now.  I at one point had a 99 Ford Ranger flex fuel that I drove daily.  We took good mileage measurements with both gasoline and ethanol and with gasoline I could easily get 15-16 mpg with ethanol I could easily get 14-15 mpg so don't give me that crap.  We made absolutely no changes to the truck it was factory.  I also had an 84 Dodge Ram D150 that I built an engine for.  It had a 360 that was designed to be used with either ethanol or gas.  It would run fine on either and got about the same mileage either way.  I quit driving it due to transmission problems (later sold it, really wish I still had it).  I did have problems occasionally with the idle on ethanol because I never got it tuned correctly (when I switched back and forth I had carb adjustments I made - idle, jets, squirters, etc).  I got tired of switching and just drove the Ranger on E85 and the Ram on gas.  If I were to do it again I would have adapted a fuel injection system off of a 93 and up Ram. 

 

We have a local ethanol plant and most of the farmers that raise livestock around here buy the DDG's from the plant for feed.  They say it really makes good feed as it has a lot of protein.

 

 

Adam

Adam

 

The 34% less efficient value attributed to ethanol is well documented, so there is nothing to dispute or call bull about. The flex fuel engines are designed for ultimate efficiency with ethanol gas. The extra gas mileage for ethanol vs gas is comparing apples to oranges. It is a designed feature to deal with what is forced upon the industry.

 

I had a 1989 Chevrolet truck that got better than 21 miles to the gallon on gasoline and a 2003 that gets less than the stated 18. Why? Well it just does. I never have liked that about the 2003. What relevance does that have? Nothing aside from what is is.

 

When it comes to the efficiency of the internal combustion engine. It is only about 35% efficient in converting the energy in fuel to mechanical work at the output shaft. The vast majority of energy is dissipated in heat. Then the mechanical output of the engine is put through a torque converter, drive shaft, gears and tires. In the end mechanical efficiency of an automobile is even less than the 35% because of other losses. The overall efficiency is maybe 25%. I don't have documentation right off the bat, but it should be very easy to verify on-line with a little searching. I won't be far off. If anything the actual efficiency may be slightly worse.

 

When it come to an electric engine the efficiency is around 95% at the shaft with regards to energy put in. That is a fact. I am an electrical engineer, and I can assure you with absolute certainty that is correct. You will have the same losses in the drive shaft, gears and tires. The overall efficiency of an electric car would be somewhere around 80 to 85%.

 

You mentioned that the electricity has to be generated by saying "you have to look beyond that". I have hope for you can see the truth if you continue by looking at the whole picture. The efficiency in generation of energy is a factor in its use.

 

We are feed a bunch of energy efficient talk, but when you look at the whole picture not just the parts you are fed you see the entire picture. When it comes to alternative energy we need to be looking at sources that swing the overall pendulum from generation to use. Ethanol can't do that.

 

 

 

 

I have been told that oil companies get some tax breaks but fuel is taxed in a big way as well.  I guess if a tax break is a subsidy then we are all subsidized to the point that the government does not take all of our income.

Please point me in the direction to go to get these subsidies or would I have to go back to farming to access them again?

http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?10652-DTN-Finds-Oil-Industry-Subsidized-Much-Higher-Than-Ethanol - http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?10652-DTN-Finds-Oil-Industry-Subsidized-Much-Higher-Than-Ethanol

 

 

 

Ethanol gas is less efficient that is a fact that is not spew from an anti ethanol source it is fact. If someone tells you different they are the ones telling something which is not based in fact. Company's like GM make flex fuel motors which are designed to be more efficient with ethanol blends. That is the result of design not the fuel itself. That said, I remember seeing an article in an engineering magazine over 20 years ago that spoke of a 50 MPG V8 powered by gas built by GM. The engine had fuel efficiency and turned more HP than anything GM had. It was not in production because it would add several thousand dollars to the cost of a vehicle.

 

I would like to see a link that tells about the food value still being there after ethanol production. Like I said earlier if that is true it sure isn't an easy item to find. That makes it suspect to me. I would also be suspect if all things that speak of retained fuel value go back to the same article.

 

This post should have really been on the political forum because it is mostly an issue driven by political forces. Anyway I've been told its lunch time. LOL..

 

As far as the susidies. I myself think they should be lowered. But the fact is the gov is spending that money in our own country for something that benefits the whole country.

 

Do I think ethanol is the answer to all our problems? No. But it is a step in the right direction that hopefully can lead to bigger steps.

 

Personally I spend way more money on gas every month than I do food, so I am more interested in the energy value of corn.

 

Note: these are my opinions, your opinion may vary

Comparing 100% makes no sense,no one is using it so there is no debate.

 Oil is subsidized by the government just like ethanol.

 Ethanol uses alot of water to produce. Oil uses just about the same amount of water per gallon.

 You are not taking away from food when you use oil,your making towel heads in the middle east rich.

 You are not taking very little from the food chain when using ethonal. DDG has more protien then corn ,after the process. Therefore you have less product with a higher feed value. You dont really loose much getting ethanol.

 I think it is real easy. YOu can support the american farmer,or the middle eastern towel head.

 I am a little biased.

                                                  IG

Finding a market means offering something of value and letting people buy it based on it's merits perceived or otherwise.

How about something unbiased.

I still did not see any subsidies in there.  Just tax breaks.  I have never heard of the government forcing people to buy oil, unlike ethanol.

Let's all be honest here.  Ethanol is a sham to buy farm votes.  You can try to defend it all you want but we all know the truth.

Yep, hotdogs and now after a year or so without them I tried one and I could hardly eat it. 

 

I think it is safe to say that practically no one who visits this site wants to see middle eastern oil cartels get rich. I personally don't, and I doubt that very many from the US, Canada, or Australia do either. Such talk is absolutely not necessary. I'll end this post here because is really isn't on topic. It is just a statement of something virtually everyone here can agree on.

 

I will simply say it is not really the most important issue to begin with whether ethanol has the energy of gas. Right now 10 to 15% ethanol is blended into gasoline. That means that we are still purchasing 85 to 90 percent of the oil used for gasoline production. I will grant that is a reduction, but it is not ending our dependence on foreign oil. If ethanol is taken up as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil it will ultimately lengthen the time we are dependent on foreign oil. That is my real problem with ethanol.

 

Sound stupid? Well think about it. If we begin to produce ethanol it will create another industry which will fight for its existence. We will grow our energy consumption, and even with ethanol we will grow our dependence on foreign oil.

 

On top of that money will rule. It is human nature right or wrong to go after the money. Right now there is x amount of corn grown for food, and y amount grown for other purposes. If there is more money to be made in the y than the x farmers will grow the y corn. That will force up the price of the x when the supply decrease. Some farmers will then grow x corn, but the prices will have gone up to make the decision take place. It is simple economics, and it will happen no matter what paper expert says otherwise.

 

I don't know to what extent it will happen, but I have 0% doubt that regardless of the food value for feed in ethanol corn a reliance on ethanol will drive up the cost of food corn. On a side note which is just more economics as farmers produce more y corn for fuel there will become more and more feed grade corn which will drop the price received once the ethanol is produced. Anyway, I do see the whole picture. I simply do not believe that ethanol will prove to be a solution. It will make some wealthy though, and I don't see any reason why a farmer shouldn't go after that which makes him more money.

Denis

I'm taking the liberty of jumping this over to political page. You can follow me over there....or continue here. I'm sure the origional post was not ment to be political, but it has become so, so in respect to Darin's wishes I think we need to move

Thanks,