Ethanol is a scam.

Ethanol from corn is a scam. But there are plenty other sources of ethanol that are much better. The special interests have run wild in America. Any politician that comes out against corn ethanol would be out of office in any national election or in many corn producing local elections. Being anti corn ethanol would loose you Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, and would hurt in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Wisconsin.

Devil's Son

Your correct in that ethanol from corn is a scam. Brazil is using sugar cane as the basis for the ethanol it produces. The big difference is that they get the SUGAR and use the "waste" to produce the ethanol.

Unlike here where we destroy a food crop.

Of course, the only reason ethanol can survive here is as you noted, it's highly subsidized by government. And the "producers" are more often than not the very same people or groups that grow the corn in the first place. Convenient how that works isn't it?

Why should the government help beef farmers over any other special interest group? Its not like they are producing something that is necessary.

I am sure the ADMs of the world would not want this to happen. We would also trade fuel cost for food cost and no politician is going to touch that with a ten foot pole.

xd, is exactly right. We Americans run around claiming to do everything better than everyone else, yet in this important issue, which has very significant economic effects on everyone but the wealthy, we did it wrong, Brazil did it right. We were outsmarted by Brazil.

Ethanol is the biggest scam going by the feds...if you figure in the cost of planting, seed, water, fuel etc it ends up costing MORE per gallon than to refine gasoline. Total BS !!

We were outsmarted by Brazil.

JimD,

Brazil is located near the equator. It has year-round growing seasons. Sugar cane requires that kind of clmate. Where in the US do we have 12-month growing seasons? The only place that is even close to that is Louisiana where most of the farms are used for rice. Rice thrive in flooded land. That is exactly the opposite from sugar cane which will die if the roots are waterlogged. Check the size of Brazil compared to Louisiana.

The country needs to stop corn ethanol and make the move to shavegrass, switchgrass, genetically altered bacteria/algae or other sources.

LS9 Shows Recipe For $50 Oil: Genes That Convert Sugar to Diesel in One Step
http://www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2010/07/29/ls9-shows-recipe-for-50-oil-genes-that-convert-sugar-to-diesel-in-one-step/

When the Big Ag lobbyists got the subsidies for corn ethanol after MTBE was prohibited, they converted land the equivalent size of California to ethanol corn. This used prime cropland for fuel production and drove up the price of food.

The very best plant for making ethanol, as I understand it, is the sugar beet. Hawaii used to have enormous sugar cane plantations, but the sugar cane grown more cheaply in places like Brazil wiped them out. They still grow some, but only for local sale. That's right, C&H sugar is not really grown in California and Hawaii anymore.

Switchgrass is also far better than corn, plus it only has to be planted one time. It also needs rain in the spring and summer, in addition to a good nitrogen fertilizer. I hear that ethanol produced from switchgrass is being studied, but I don't expect to see it offered at the gas pump in my lifetime.

Using corn to make fuel instead of feeding humans and cattle has been driving up food costs for years. If you add in this year's drought conditions, the cost of everything is going up, up, up!

Not only is using ethanol that comes from corn or cane a scam but it is destroying rain forest in Brazil producers of ethanol are clear cutting rain forests at an alarming rate. People think this is a good idea because ethanol burns cleaner than gas does but rain forest clean our air. So if you are cutting down rain forests to produce ethanol would then lead to less air being cleaned by rain forest so it in fact would have the same if not a worse effect on our planet then just using gas. These special interest groups like those that Obama supports have to go. Plus it has a devastating affect on our food price as everyone that grows corn or cane would want to sell the products for that purpose at a higher price.

I use a corn based cat litter for my cat =]

Also, 9mm, I don't think your experiment has any bearing on what ethanol does, which is reduce pollution. Who cares if you get poorer gas mileage out of it? The main objective of ethanol is to reduce pollution. Engines as they are now are pretty efficient with the technology for electric motors on the rise. Killing cattle for food and polluting the earth to drive giant trucks is hardly anything to be proud of, yet you complain that ethanol is a "scam" so that you can keep your destructive lifestyle. Go figure.... Petroleum is going to run out then we'll see what happens when s*$# hits the fan.

say hello to higher fuel prices again. pray to god it rains. i can't believe the the pic of that river.

Roadwarrior

You forgot about Hawaii. They produce more sugar than Brazil

When the Livestock Industry stops looking out of their plexiglass belly button and stops feeding 25% of their cow herds without getting a calf, each year, and starts using the immune system, of the animal, instead of using antibiotics and hormones, which is not as efficient, then I will have some sympathy. Otherwise, save your money from the record prices from last year and continue following the Farmers Motto: Daddy did it that way, Grand Daddy did it that way, Great Grand Daddy did it that way, and I will do it that way to!

Corn based ethanol is a scam. Biodiesel is a much better choice. Neither actually produce the level of efficiency of good old fashioned petroleum based diesel or gasoline. and both end up producing MORE pollution and ethanol actually damages engines. Ethanol can't be used in boat motors, it attracts entirely too much condensation.

As for the driving of big trucks, I'd love to see the ones complaining about that survive more than a couple of weeks without the goods transported to stores by them. Check the BBC special on what would happen in London if the trucks delivering food to the cities stopped running. Chaos in the streets within a few days.

Hemp, switchgrass, sugar cane...

All these are so much better than corn for ethanol

...and you're a biofeul engineer?

You forgot about Hawaii. They produce more sugar than Brazil

Fester,

Hawaii? That is the funniest thing I have heard all day. The US total sugar cane production don't even put it in the top ten cane-production nations. Hawaii produces 2 million tons per year compared to Brazil who produces 670 million tons per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane#Production

Sugar beets used to be a major crop in Colorado. I wonder if that would be a better source?

Distillers Dried Grain is produced when ethanol is made, it is a MUCH better feed for cattle without all the starch, so this claim is false. We do not need to make ethanol out of corn grain, we can make it out of corn stalks. We can even make synthetic gasoline out of biomass like corn stalks and cobs.

Maui is the only island in the state still growing sugar cane. We have about 37,000 acres under cultivation. There is only one sugar mill left here (Puunene mill) and it is in bad shape. A lot of people here don`t like it when the sugar is burned before harvest because of the pollution and the ash.

Corn shouldn't be fed to cows, anyway. It stimulates the over production of e. coli in their intestines, which is why there are so many contamination issues. They are supposed to eat primarily grasses, not corn.

MrKnowItAll doesn't know as much as he thinks he does about feeding and caring for livestock. I believe he listens too much to the likes of PETA and HSUS who haven't fed a single person (except their lawyers).

We have some sugar beet production here in Minnesota. They are really hard on land and the farmers around here give the land 4-5 years to recuperate before growing it again. Also, no matter what crop your producing, it's still taking from the land, shipping it to another location and from there it goes all over, very little of it coming back to the land other than the fuel it takes to get the next crop. The whole crop thing needs to be run in a cycle; you have to give back in order for it to work. Also, when you're using the whole stalk of grass as in switch grass, that's pulling 100% of those nutrients out of the ground to grow it vs corn which leaves the stalk and root system.

Bottom line, we're barking up the wrong tree entirely with the ethanol. We're trying to "fix" our old technology rather than moving to better more sustainable ways.

Beef and ethanol are both wasteful uses for grain. Beef is a lot better when it's grass-fed, healthier to eat, and it takes something not useful as food, turning it into protein. It's more expensive, but worth it. We eat too much meat anyway. By limiting meat to every other day, I've lowered my cholesterol and been able to afford these higher quality, wonderful grass-fed meats. Feedlots are wasteful, bad for water-quality, and produce an inferior product.

industrial hemp is the best answer for this dilemma. takes three months to grow full term, produces 4 times the amount of ethanol that corn produces, needs less water and nutrients, can grow in nearly any climate nationwide, and can also be used as a food crop, as well as feed for livestock. already many of our states have legalized industrial hemp, but they will not grant licenses to grow hemp until the federal government approves industrial hemp, which isn't happening anytime soon. also with a regular cycle, we would be drawing in more pollution from our air with our crops even as we produce pollution with our use of ethanol, so there would be a balance between pollution and clean air that can be maintained. the only clear answer is industrial hemp, although i grant that it's not the best use of hemp since it has so many other better uses than just production of ethanol, however it's a much better and viable alternative than corn at this point of time. hemp can grow in nearly any soil, and we already have millions of acres of marginal cropland laying fallow that can be used in conjunction with other countries already producing industrial hemp, i.e. canada...we can produce enough of our own fuel without relying on oil or corn.

Distillers Dried Grain is produced when ethanol is made, it is a MUCH better feed for cattle without all the starch, so this claim is false

Thank you, SJC_3. People don't know that. They only know "food or fuel" but if you do it in the right order, you get both.

I'm in favor of trash-to-ethanol, but too many idiots in this country just want to bury it, claiming it's unproven technology. And yet Canada is putting more plants in.

I quit buying ethanol-additive fuel once I learned about gross inefficiencies in production. Such as it costs way more energy than it provides. In addition, I've got problems burning food when 7/8 of the world's people go to bed without sufficient food EVERY DAY. I don't eat commercial meat products either for the same reason - a VERY inefficient way to get calories.

Buy local, grow a garden, reduce meat or eliminate it from your diet. We as individuals can do a LOT for ourselves and help the world at the same time. Doesn't take an act of congress just a little decision to help yourself. Cheers!

I quit buying ethanol-additive fuel

So you'd rather have Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether contaminating your water supply?

once I learned about gross inefficiencies in production

What inefficiencies? Do you drink beer? Whiskey? Bourbon? They're all made the same. You make a mash, ferment it, and then in the case of whiskey, bourbon, and fuel ethanol you distill it. The only differences between fuel ethanol and whiskey and bourbon, is the grains used in the mash, and the resulting proof of the distillate - 200 (or as close as possible) in the case of fuel ethanol. So for all you people worried about the food supply, stop drinking beer, whiskey, bourbon, etc.

Ethanol isn't even close to being as big of a scam as the Republican's Grand Ole Party or Citizens United!

itgranny, Sorry, but I have been performing research for over forty years! I battle with PETA, and other animal welfare groups, regularly over the brucellosis in bison at Yellowstone and the skeletal problems of Thoroughbred racehorses! I also know that when over 60% of the research budgets, at our nation veterinary schools, comes from drug manufacturers, the chance of getting accurate information on antibiotics, vaccines, and growth stimulants is low. I have performed research on several hundred thousand cattle, several thousand dairy cows, some exotics, and equine. I gave up on swine production after the psuedorabies coverup in 1996. There are billions of dollars that are lost every year by the Livestock Industry because of arrogance and ignorance! Any questions?

Boy there is a lot of uninformed opinion in here today.

First, (and I think only one person mentioned this), Distillers Grain, which is by product of the Ethanol Production is used as cattle feed, so yes, we can have our ethanol and feed cattle too.

Ethanol, at least from what I have heard and read, is a very good fuel ADDITIVE, (as it does more than the sum of its parts so to speak), but it is not a good fuel in and of itself. (if anyone need to no why, ask)

Is it a scam? Depends on your perspective and your knowledge of how things really work and not what you have heard from someone that read something somewhere. Go read the Inquirer or Newsweek if you are into gossip.

Second, cellulosic ethanol is still in laboratory stages of development, and is years, if not decades away. (At least according to the folks at ICM I know. ICM is only one the largest ethanol plant builders in the country and it would be a boon to their industry to make it happen, so they are working on it)

Third, Much ado about Nothing, we have had droughts before, we will have them again. It is the natural cycle of weather patterns. We suffer through them the best we can, but we could learn from the Bible, and store grain from the years of surplus for the years of famine.(not sure how to do that one yet though, too many variables at this time)

Fourth, And I thought the hippy libber environmentalist would be all over this one. The amount of irrigation required during these droughts, especially pertaining to the Ogallala Aquifer. My plan would be to build a pipeline from the Missouri River and siphon off water when the river is running above normal stages, filter it and pump it back into the aquifer. (We do that here in Wichita to replenish the Equus Beds)

Fifth, To the idiot, and I do mean IDIOT, that said, "That's the way my Grand Dad did it". 75 years ago everything in this country was grown organically and irrigation was in its infancy, we produced enough food to feed 140 million Americans plus a few more world wide. Today, we need to feed 300+ million Americans plus a few more world wide. Minus the farm land that has been consumed by urban sprawl. Whom do you suggest we allow to starve to death?

DumbFarmBoy, You might want to read the post at 1.32. Osmosis does not work real well for intelligence. If I did not have the research to back up what I say, I would shut up! Farmers have been listening to the drug companies, herbicide, pesticide, and seed folks for years. They have been letting them spend the money at the colleges and universities to promote this propaganda for the last thirty years. I make fun of them, write blogs, post on threads, and do whatever I can to cause irritation. It will not change ANYTHING, so I am comfortable in using my time, talent, and money for charitable work.......homeless veterans!

Mr. Know It Most- Fair enough, I'll go along with at least some of your argument about relying on pharmaceuticals and who is funding what, and the conclusions that can be drawn from that. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sure there are some abuses in the animal production arena and others. And it is easy to get into a battle with PETA, those people are well and truly stupid, what is news about that.

AS far as fair and balanced research from a university, good luck with that, regardless of who is paying, the question should be "What is the agenda of the researcher?" liberal or other? But I do know this, being an Alumni of KSU and knowing some of the Veterinary Professors and graduating vets there, that still eat meat products from the grocery store, so if it weren't safe, regardless of what they published, I doubt they would subject their families to it.

Same thing can be said for the health care of humans. I am a strong supporter of the wholistic (no I didn't misspell it, that is I believe in the WHOLE, all inclusive) approach. Let nature work where nature works, and let the man made fill in the gaps.

My point was when someone says "let's do it the way we used to do it", i.e. organically, they generally don't understand the consequences of that statement. Perhaps I over reacted, but I have seen it too many times and from too many city people who have no idea from where their food comes from, and what is entailed in its production and distribution.

When the Livestock Industry stops looking out of their plexiglass belly button and stops feeding 25% of their cow herds without getting a calf, each year, and starts using the immune system, of the animal, instead of using antibiotics and hormones, which is not as efficient, then I will have some sympathy.

And I have yet to meet a rancher that retains 25% of his open cows, the guys I know cull them off as soon as they come off pasture, I don't know where you are doing your research, California? And if the natural hormones were as good as you say, why are the ranchers I know getting 10-20% increases in mass over non-implanted calves? That's an average 15% gain on the same amount of feed. Sound a little more efficient to me. And again, I reiterate, "HOW DO WE FEED MORE PEOPLE WITH THE SAME RESOURCES?"

Believe me, I wish we could go back to the old way of farming, less concentrated livestock production, more reliance on natural remedies, double or triple the number of farmers, revitalize(repopulate) the rural communities, maybe even restore a little common sense to the country, and all the starving children in China, but we can not. Not unless the American people are willing to spend about 25-35% (or more) of their income on food.

justin.case: I hope you aren't actually eating the fat from your beef anyway. I have had grass-fed beef and didn't think it tasted bad. Yes, the fat looks different, but I trimmed that away. I would MUCH rather eat grass-fed beef because it is healthier.

Now, if they would just stop with the hormones and let the cattle grow naturally, I could feel even better about eating beef.

Yes. Yes, they do.

Yes they do apparently. Most corn grown however, isn't what we would call sweet corn. It's specifically animal feed or we might grind it for corn meal for tortillas or corn bread or use it for ethanol. If you bit into a young ear you would not like the taste of it at all. Virtually all corn where I live in rural mid-west is animal fattener/ethanol grain. Big waste of energy. The whole picture stinks. The only vote I have is where I put my food dollars and it's NOT for commercial meat products. Nor is it going for ethanol.

don't forget Otto....4x the H20! So...we're using MORE to make LESS...

There are some plants that run pretty efficiently. I know of one in particlular that fuels itself with methane, from the cattle near by. My understanding is that the corn used for fuel is feed grade (not for human consumption)- cows however aren't supposed to eat corn- just grasses.

I've mostly got to agree with you, but the studies show that you get a little net energy back from the ethanol, certainly not enough to make it worth it though. Considering the water, fertilizer and labor invested, along with the petroleum, it's mostly just welfare.

Ethanol seemed like a good idea at first, but has proven to be a mistake. We should be thinking about other bio-fuels that don't compete with the food supply. Food security is going to become a bigger problem than energy-independence.

You get less energy from a gallon of ethanol then (sic) you do from a gallon of gasoline

That's only true for engines that are designed to run on gasoline. On engines designed for ethanol (E-85 has an octane rating of 116), in other words, high compression, most likely super- or turbo- charged, E-85 will make more power than conventional gasoline.

We should be thinking about other bio-fuels that don't compete with the food supply. Food security is going to become a bigger problem than energy-independence.

Corn used to make ethanol leaves behind "distillers grains" after ethanol production. These remnants make a better, higher protein, cattle feed than the corn does on its own. It's food AND fuel.

Pretty good response Paine. I had a job at a distillery when I was a lad and do remember now, that we fed the used mash to cattle.

If you talk to the guys who do engine repair on small engines, such as lawn mowers, they will tell you that the gasoline with higher amounts of ethanol dry out the gaskets and generally ruin lawnmowers and other small engines. I can't help but think it is not good to use in cars designed to use purer gas. My owners manual specifically mentions that E-85 or gas containing methanol should not be used under any circumstances.

Eek,

You'll notice I said, "engines designed for ethanol". Which means ones that have the proper gaskets and fuel lines that are unaffected by high ethanol content. On most engines in cars, the hoses and such can tolerate small quantities of ethanol in the fuel. On small equipment, those parts affected are often the cheapest type that can be put on to the engines and as such are not designed for any ethanol. That's why I often, very early in their life, change the fuel lines on my mowers to better ones. That's why the engines get ruined, because the builders put the cheapest parts they can on them. You'll find that on flex-fuel capable vehicles that have been run on bio-fuel have less carbon build-up on them and because of that, they can out-last their conventional fuel counterparts.

FN55... ADM is not the monster here. They want EVERYBODY to buy the corn, not just one special interest group, but I do see your point; Subsidies and bonuses for diverting crops from one processed item to another is a shell game (no pun intended). Farmers can only grow so much produce. Diverting it from one consumer item to another is just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. The loser in all of this? The farmer. He/She get's 1 or 2 shots at a harvest a year. If I don't sell my goods to one customer I can sell to the next. Open up your eyes EPA... These farmers and ranchers are working their rear-ends off so we can fuel our cars, eat a tortilla chip or have a hamburger. Throw them a bone. We can go back to ethanol when the drought is subsided. Before anyone says it... Tofu is just nasty.

Turning food into fuel is stupid.

Ethanol is corrosive to steel, as in fuel lines and fuel pumps. They have to be tin plated to resist the corrosioin. Then it also leaches oils out of rubber or elastomeric gasketing, causing them to either crack or swell, possibly leaking. The fuel system has to be modified to avoid this, which gives you the "ethanol ready" rating on new cars. Finally, it attracts water and causes fuel to go bad in storage. Not to mention that it has lower energy content, so you get less gas mileage.

But then, it also has negative qualities, too!

absolutely right. Also why do we need the government help farmers raise cattle to feed people again? And why shouldn't the price on beef go up with 'production' costs? There are other, healthier and ecologically sound options. The amount of water and grain required to create a single lb of beef is absurd.

corn fattens them up quicker....

Corn is used to fatten them up quicker- but it causes intestinal infections so the cattle must be given antibiotics.

Corn should only be used for fuel and tortillas.

Because people demand tender flavorful meat.

Because this year there is no grass. Think about what you just wrote....if there is no rain for the corn, there is no rain for the grass either.

I was going to make that point too. The drought is the stress that is going to prove that the system is broken. food prices are going to go up. Everything! Everyone will feel it. It won't matter if you eat only organic, or you are a vegan. Americans are struggling as it is. I don't know what is going to happen. People learn to live without cable, internet, I-phones ect., but take the food out of their mouths and that's when things get ugly.

you eat it

Seems reasonable. If you really want beef, they you really have to pay for it.

don't forget your b complex supplements. you can only get b12 from meat and that's the best source for it. eating vegan is very hard nutritionally.

You are right. It takes education and money. How do the masses get their protein-hamburger. We can't switch that overnight.

You are right Kimposibl. It also takes time, money and education to convert to veganism or any healthier eating lifestyle. Where do the masses get their protein-hamburger. Changing that will not happen over night.

Oh and Daryl, I don't think many of us would agree with the notion that those alternate protein sources are just as tasty.

Steven100,

it is not clean, it is not carbon neutral, it is a waste of energy. It it takes a gallon of gasoline to make a ethanol you have not gained anything. You are actually wasting energy. Yes the cows can eat it, but again it is just a filler, all of the nutrients have been extracted.

It has been proven that it is not cleaner than burning straight gasoline. It actually produces other emission gases that could be worse than just burning gasoline. Also ethanol can only be transported by truck, it can not be pumped via piping. So you have diesel trucks that have to transport it as well which also adds to the carbon created for using ethanol.

Steven,

most of the farmers have contracts that are signed even before the crop is put in. There is only a small percentage of corn that is available for open trade.

Corn is a food staple of our country. It should not be used for gas for our cars.

Chuck W

While there is the supposed pollution benefit of burning ethanol as a fuel in a vehicle, isn't that negated by the additional fuel you use to go the same distance vis-a-vie traditional fossil based gasoline?

See my post above #1. I did an experiment, admittedly unscientific, but I used almost 30% more "ethanol" for the same miles of traditional gas.

But, I still feel using a food source as a vehicle fuel source is ludicrous.

You are probably right. I have not been able to find any reliable stats on that. I'm no fan of corn being used for ethanol. over the years I've written posts about this very thing happening. Other plants will give a much better ethanol yield and can be grown on land not being used for corn and soybeans, switchgrass and native prairie plants are much better, but corn is readily available, and an infrastructure is already in place.

Brazil has been very successful in producing and using ethanol made from sugar cane waste for 30 years and it powers most of their vehicles. Rio de Janeiro has pretty good air quality given the size of the city.

Chuck - What surplus of corn? 7/8 of the world's people go to bed hungry every night. We need to educate on family planning then keep sending the 'surplus' grains overseas to the food buyers there.

Admittedly, there is a disparity, but people would not be "pleased" with the taste difference of free range beef compared to grain fed beef.

But, I would still prefer a food source be used as a food source and not a fuel source.

Realism2012

Part of the reason that they use corn is that we can see higher bushels per acre than we can get with grain. Also if all of them were free range it would actually take more land to feed the cattle than we are using now. Cows and pigs are a lot more efficient at turning vegetables to meat then we are. If we were all vegetarians we would need even more land for food production. I personally like meat once in awhile.

What is your option? zero population growth?

The reason the feed lots use grain is because it takes about 6 months longer to make slaughter weight by grass feeding. Grass fed beef is probably way better for you, especially if there are no growth hormones or antibiotics used. Organic beef would be best, but there is not much available unless you know someone raising it.

Chickens are another matter. The breeds used today must eat a diet that is about 40% corn and there is not much room for using other grains or you start getting big production losses. Chickens eat the majority of corn grown in the US.

It's kinda funny... in 2007 alone 700,000 hectors of Amazonian rain forest were denuded to replace food crops displaced by ethanol production in the United States. This was primarily achieved by burning and it is estimated that the "Carbon Footprint" release to do that off sets the "Green" regime's idiot-ollogy back 163 years.... in other words the so called green advantage to burning ethanol can't be realized until we have burned it for that length of time. So my great-great-great-grandchildren should be having this conversation.... we already polluted the earth yet again.

My only concern is the trillions of gallons of water that the canopy of the Amazon push back into the atmosphere through transporation cool that area of the world by about ten degrees. And weather models predict if you cut it back too far; it will cause the "bread belt" of the USA to turn into another dust bowl.

Very sound logic i think.

Good line!

You'll enjoy learning that the Koch Bros' top researcher on Global Warming just came out yesterday with the news that it is, in fact, humans' carbon emissions that are causing such drastic climate change. How's that for a switch from what we've all been told previously?