My wifes family lives in Mexico and they are having a serious tortilla price spike and shortfall. Corn is very important to making tortillas. For the first time in a very long time, Mexico will be importing corn duty free from anyone who has it. I on the other hand burn corn to heat our house. Most people are shocked to hear of burning corn. It works great. This last year, I burned about 3 tons of corn, half of what I burned the year before. In the past, I would let the corn burn 24x7. This year I let the corn burn only from the time we would get home from work until we left to go to work. I am happy to see the prices of corn on the rise. The farmer has had the subsidies to keep from growing corn for quite some time and corn has hovered in the 2 dollar a bushel range for far too long. I have never seen any meat or pultry company pass along savings based on corn prices that have held steady for the past 30 years. Next year, I may pay $5.00 per bushel, if natural gas costs mor per BTU than corn. Whatever is the cheapest is the route I'll follow.

 

The emissions impacts of ethanol have been thoroughly tested by the EPA, DOE, and public and private researchers. The results of these tests have clearly indicated ethanol has superior emissions qualities, and fewer heath concerns, compared to gasoline. The entire basis of the OP is from a COMPUTER MODEL... not real life, not real science folks. Junk. That article was dis-credited by nearly the entire science community within hours of being made public. I shall do my best as a "MythBuster" below.

EPA and DOE tests, numbering in the hundreds, that used real vehicles quantify the actual physical emissions of these fuels, and provide proof, something far beyond a computer "model".

According to the DOE Argonne National Labs, E85 reduced greenhouse gases by 29% when compared to conventional gasoline.

Out of the most recent 17 studies, 14 found that ethanol SIGNIFICANTLY reduced greenhouse gas emissions when compared to gasoline. 3 showed modest reductions.

Who do you trust more? One guy's computer model, or the American Lung Association? The American Lung Association is a major proponent of cleaner burning fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. The American Lung Association credits gasoline blended with ethanol for reducing smog formation by at least 25%, and ozone ( bad on the ground ) by 20%.

Ethanol is non-toxic. You can drink it. It is in wine, whisky, and beer.
Gasoline contains toxins like benzene, toluene, and xylene.

The computer model conclusion that E85 forms formaldehyde in any meaningful quantity is FALSE, as proven by studies done by a California Environmental Policy Council. CEPC concluded that ethanol reduced formaldehyde formation compared to gasoline.

A 1997 study done in Denver, CO compared formaldehyde formation from winter blend gasoline with E10 in the winter of 95/96, to the MTBE winter blended gas of 88/89 and found NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE in the two.

The Stanford computer model predicted "E85 generally increased benzene". This seems totally illogical, since benzene is a component of gasoline, but is not found at all in ethanol. None. Zip. Nada. As Spock would say: "Illogical". I'll go one step further and say, "impossible". Ethanol blended gasolines, E10, E20, E30, or E85 must always, by nature, contain less benzene. Did someone program the computer wrong? Or was this an elaborate April Fool's joke? ( What date was the original made public??? )

The study's author is a long time advocate of wind energy charging batteries to be used in EV's. It appears he may be trashing ethanol to make wind power look more promising.

One of the "contributors" to the author's study was professor Tad Patzek.
Patzek's research on ethanol has been universally rejected and disproved by numerous government and private scientists. As has Mark Jacobson's.

Sounds like these guys just wanted 15 minutes of fame. To heck with real data.

On the food vs. fuel issue, let me just add, that for every 100 pounds of corn that goes into an ethanol plant, 70 pounds comes back out, and IS used, primarily, AS FOOD! Ethanol plants only take the sugar out of the corn. All the proteins, fats, oils, and fiber remains, and is used.

So when you see numbers like "20 billion bushels of corn went to ethanol plants last year" ( I made up that number ) you now know that 14 billion bushels of that made it into the food supply.
And that little fact, is NEVER reported by the anti-ethanol media.

Also corn is a commodity just like gas, and the price changes all the time, just like gas... and will be down, maybe to record LOW prices very soon. It just turned out in THIS year, contractors can build ethanol plants faster than farmers can plant corn ( plus contractors can build in winter, and farmers can't harvest in winter ). Once the number of corn ethanol plants levels out, the supply of corn will level out, along with the price.

Plus, ethanol can be made from any starch or sugar. Not just corn. Corn is just in the lime-light right now... which in time, will also pass.

I really hope, and suspect, ethanol will be here to stay.

 

Wow, this post has interesting information. Patzek is a guy who used to work for Shell, and co-authored studies with David Pimentel, a Cornell professor who wrote all those studies one always hears about showing that it takes more energy to make ethanol than you derive from it.

Thing about Pimentel? He's a flippin' entomologist. He knows jack about what he purports to be an expert in. The USDA, DOE, and basically everyone else who's ever looked at his studies except Patzek have all concluded creating ethanol creates energy.

This is a fascinating piece of information.

 

I feel sure that stevejust is attempting to be insulting (I'm less sure as to why) but I do not work for BP or Kirkland. I probably know people who work at Kirkland, as it's certainly a law firm that recruited from my class at law school, but certainly no one with whom I've discussed this topic. My opinions are my own, and it's impolite to make snide remarks that insinuate the contrary, particularly as I have been a poster here for so long, and have been open about my background and affiliations.

One interesting aspect of the ethanol debate is that people who are on the 'same side' of most Green issues, like hybrids, global warming, SUVs, conservation, renewable energy, and so forth, still seem to split over ethanol. Perhaps it's a topic where reasonable, educated people can honestly come to different conclusions. So let's not sling mud- the oil companies, sleazy as they are, do not buy everyone off! ... and big agro-business companies can be pretty sleazy, too. When two big industries sit on opposite side of an issue, neither side is going to be as pure as the driven snow, and it's usually nice to know who paid for any research study you see.

So this is what I think. I think that using corn to make ethanol is not a terribly smart way to deal with energy problems. Though the problems with using oil as our main energy source are legion, our dependence on corn (in food as well as in energy) is also terribly problematic, and increasing that dependence would be a mistake.

This opinion is terribly unpopular in a corn state like Illinois, but as I have not come by it recently, I think it is relatively unshaped by the ethanol debate. I think I would have described myself as more 'pro-corn' before 2002, when I read a NY Times op-ed by Michael Pollan, author and Berkeley professor (bio on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pollan) which struck me so forcibly that ever since, I have often read stories on the subject of corn and agricultural subsidies, and I have tried to follow the legislation for and against them over the last several years.

The title of the article was "When a Crop Becomes King" and it is worth reading in its entirety, though I will not copy it all here. A link is at:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...54C0A9649C8B63. One critical portion, relevant to this discussion, is as follows.
If this is anywhere near true, and I tend to suspect it is, then the effect of this information on the ethanol debate could not be bigger. The other assertions in Pollan's work are even more alarming, in some ways. If anyone who thinks that corn-based ethanol is the only possible energy solution has a way to counter his points, I would be interested in hearing about it.

 

Not trying to be insulting at all, counselor. On the contrary, I was trying to uncover any biases or prejudices you may have with respect to forming your opinions about ethanol which seemed to me too overtly vitriolic for an impartial observer.

Kirkland represents BPAmoco in the MTBE MDL litigation. Your ethanol posts some of your posts about EMFs in the past led me to assume that you work at a corporate defense firm. But I never meant and even now do not mean to be insulting with respect to these-- you might call them "accusations," I'd call them "assumptions." I was wondering only because Upton Sinclair said it best (if a little sexist): "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

 

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...049976,00.html

And lets not get hung up on corn.
Ethanol can come from hundereds of sources.
If corn gets people interested in ethanol, it's a win-win.
Corn is not the only way.

Also, the amount of fertilizer and pesticides used per acre in farming has been going down year after year. In fact, part of the 70% of corn that comes OUT of an ethanol plant ( Distiller's Grain ) can be used as fertilizer for next year's crop, and it turns out, is also an effective weed preventer.

The amount of energy required to drive a car is huge.
Where do YOU want to buy YOUR energy from?

Middle East?
Or Middle America?

-John

 

gpsman1 has a point- corn is not the only way. But if you try to discuss ethanol in this country without discussing corn, you would simply be ignoring reality. A great deal of the political capital behind this comes from politicians in corn states and agrobusiness giants who are spending heavily lobbying for legislation to promote and subsidize corn-based ethanol. So if I seem a little 'hung up on corn,' there's a reason for it.

We stand at a watershed moment in the ethanol production industry, and if it moves in the direction of corn, then a few agricultural interests win and they will profit handsomely, but the rest of us lose. This isn't a reason to abandon the idea of using ethanol altogether, but it is a reason to be very careful what you say about it and what you push for when you talk about the legislation that Congress will be debating and passing soon (I believe it is inevitable that they will).

Most of the time I find that corn pops up ominously in discussions of ethanol, because it's a baseline assumption for most people that ethanol comes from corn, and that's that. For instance, the story gpsman1 linked us to defines ethanol as "the so-called green fuel derived from mashing and fermenting corn." Politically speaking, ethanol and corn are starting to become mesh in people's minds, and when it comes time to make the policy decisions that will shape our energy future, the people with the power may end up using it foolishly. Yes, money for the Midwest is preferable to money for the Middle East, but that's a false dichotomy (those pop up a lot when people start getting rhetorical, don't they?). The choice isn't just oil or ethanol. It's oil, or corn-based ethanol, or cellulosic ethanol, or nuclear, or whatever. They aren't the same- there is no black and white, either-or, one-or-the-other decision.

 

The U.S.D.A. estimates the 2007 corn crop to be 12.5 billion bushels if the weather turns out to be "average".

The U.S.D.A. estimates "total useage" of corn, including Food, Animal Feed, Ethanol, and Export in 2007 to be 11.6 billion bushels of corn.

If everyone gets what they need, in 2007 there is an expected 900 million bushel surplus of corn.

This "cushion" of excess, if realized, could produce 2.4 billion gallons of ethanol... above and beyond what is actually expected to be made this year.

Just this "cushion", just the surplus, could fuel 50 additional ethanol plants for a year.

U.S.D.A estimates corn prices of about $2.50 per bushel if weather is better than expected, $3.40 if "average", and $4.00 if weather is "disasterous". U.S.D.A expects lower corn prices with the 2008 crop, as the 2008 crop is expected to be larger than the 2007 crop.

 

See, here's one of my main points. When you describe the corn surplus the way gpsman1 has, it sounds like we have all this free energy sitting around for the taking, and the solution to the energy problem could be easy if we just turn that surplus into ethanol and burn it. And wouldn't we be helping those poor family farms, too?

But the surplus isn't around because a few family farms have a bumper crop. The surplus is around because of a carefully calculated structure of economic incentives that have been put together by lobbyists and legislators, which have carried over for decades, and which mainly benefit a VERY few, huge companies with massive amounts of farmland that they could use for a lot of things besides corn if they wanted to. They don't, of course- they plant and grow all this extra corn, which we don't need, because they get subsidies to do it.

Planting and growing that corn is not costless and it isn't particularly 'green.' If Michael Pollan's figures are right, (that's a half gallon of gas used to produce each bushel), those 900 million extra bushels cost us 450 million gallons of gas. Can you think of a way in which turning 900 million bushels of corn into ethanol can save us more gas than we would save by simply NOT growing that extra corn? Though I haven't run the numbers, it sounds darn unlikely to me. If this explanation is too vitriolic for you, stevejust, then sorry, but the only agenda I have over here is trying to argue for policies and priorities that make the most sense.

 

I think it's important to keep things in perspective, though don't you think? I hate mono-crop industrial agriculture, but compared to drilling in ANWR or in the Gulf of Mexico? OR shipping crude from the middle east?


This isn't vitriolic, but it does beg the question how corn can cost $2.35 a bushel when one of the primary input Pollan's claiming amounts to half the sale price. I don't know, I'm just asking.

I find that whenever these anlyses are done, if you want to make them come out terribly, all you have to do is start factoring in the cost of building tractors, grain silos, fertilizer, shipping fertizlier, corn, the end product, etc.,. into the equation. It's never an apples to apples comparison, it all depends on where you start in the product cycle.