Corn Ethanol = 400 percent increase in price for Tortilla’s

[amicus]

Every time you fill your tank with ethanol/gasoline, you are starving some Mexican kid. Happy now?

This gleaned from PBS, Nova Science Now, original air date, 8/19/09. (Only nine pm on the 18th when I watched it, must be time zoned elsewhere)

Worse than that, Rain Forests throughout Central and South America are being burned so the land can be used for food crops, including Corn.

But wait! PBS has a solution! Farming Algae! Well, not quite, for a dozen reasons, too expensive to replace Oil.

But wait! Algae is the basis for Oil! It lives and dies and sinks and over a length of time, with heat and pressure…becomes Oil! Imagine that!

What happens to oil in the ground if we don’t drill it or use it? It percolates to the surface and is consumed by Algae! Or, evaporates into the atmosphere or is absorbed by oceans or returned to the hot zones of the earth by subduction.

Wunnerful.

Then ethanol thing really bugs me…higher food prices all over the world because a handful of environmental activists sold the government a bill of goods and got subsidized. Great. Just like Solar Energy and those hazardous, twisty little light bulbs. (no dump site will take them...and they do burn out)

Not that I don’t appreciate science and technology, I do, even like new innovations, like replacing my typewriter with this keyboard that has its’ own peculiar sound when I poke it.

People as far back as the Romans decided they needed a sewer system and I doubt they needed a bureaucrat to tell them something smelled bad.

So it is with new ideas; “necessity is the mother on invention”, the saying goes, but when social dreamers interfere with necessity as the driving force…bad things happen.

Save the planet; run over an environmentalist today!

Am icus

(Hi, Slyc, the new 'Colony' comes on in about ten minutes...heh)

 

[slyc_willie]

Corn tortillas. Feh. I've always preferred flower tortillas myself.

Any time a finite resource comes close to being expired, alternatives need to be sought. Estimates from various research foundations, government-sponsored groups, and universities have all given varying estimates for how long the current supply of oil in the Earth will last. They range from 50 to 250 years, last I heard. If a replacement fuel source is going to be perfected, we have to go with the worse case scenario. That means assuming we need something to replace oil within the next fifty years.

This is just the experimental phase, Ami. One groups works on ethanol, another on using hydrogen as a fuel source. Some want to find a way to turn organic garbage or excrement into a fuel source. It's all just a bunch of monkeying around with alternatives, and yes, it's all more expensive than producing gasoline.

But once governments decide that a certain system is 'the way to go,' then it will suddenly be cheaper to use it. Because it will then be standardized and subsidized. A generation after petroleum is no longer used to fuel the machines of the world, it will hardly be missed.

(I'm watching The Colony now. )

 

[amicus]

Took a shot that you might cruise on by......Colony, albeit contrived, was interesting tonight...I, of course am skeptical of the random ability of two men to do the electrical engineering required to accomplish what they did with solar panels and sun tracking. I consider myself rather skilled at such things and I would have pressed pressed to duplicate their performance.

The 'outsiders' came with a twist, several in fact, that caught me a little unsuspecting...and 'blondie' surprised me....little hell-cat she turned out to be.

Have watched each episode thus far, will look for the next one...thanks for the heads up on the first one....

sighs...

Now to the bad news...

I remind you of Edison and Westinghouse and the 'industrial' battle over AC versus DC, and the first electrification of a city. I also remind you of the beginning of the oil industry, in Pennsylvania, again, all private enterprise. Not to speak of the computer revolution, a market driven, major change in society.

There was the down side of both electricity, the combustion engine and the computer, whale oil went out of style and put many out of work, the horse trade died a slow death and nobody makes typewriters anymore.

My point is that all of these things were market driven, came into existence by individual and corporate interest to supply the demand by an eager public.

The oil shortage and the consequent energy crisis are manufactured events as political and sociological considerations have driven the search for alternative energy.

Billions of untold dollars, aside from the grants and subsidies, have been spent by average people to drive their cars and heat their homes as a real result of the 'political' and envirnomental forces behind the search for something to replace fossil fuels. All of which has lowered the general standard of living and as I mentioned in the Ethanol scam, caused food shortages and higher prices.

I am happy that research is being done in all areas, that is as it should, be but not when prompted and funded by monies confiscated from a public unable to resist.

It took the marshalling of billions of 1940's dollars, manpower and brainpower to create the atomic bomb. In defense of a nation is the proper use of the power to tax, but not the chimerical idealism of environmental activists with their roots in the 60's to change the world.

To me, it is a frightening turn of events over the past half century as 'government' has now assumed the role of benefactor to both education and invention and the market place has been discarded.

It is happening again in the health care hysteria, as government threatens to force the medical profession to obey the dictates of a petty demagogue.

I do not offer this as an argument to thwart your idealistic vision of government, energy or the future, each has his own point of view and you presented yours with logic and reason.

I trust you will grant the same to me and accept that I place the primacy of the private individual, thus the private market, above the oft times misguided efforts of the commune.

The market place and the market alone will determine, by profit and loss, what system of providing energy will replace fossil fuels, if and when they become too expensive to exploit.

Amicus

 

[slyc_willie]

Like you, I merely present my personal take on things.

The history of the rise and prominence of our current petroleum-based industry is just one example of the direction we could have taken. Oil was easily obtained, when first discovered as a resource, in relation to fielding and fomenting crops of biofuel resources. It therefore became the dominate fuel source.

It will be supplanted in time. I don't have the answer as to what will supplant it, neither do you. No one does, at this point, save for the few scattered scientists who, like Einstein, have cried "eureka!" And they will only be proven right after the fact.

History has taught us that the use of resources is an evolving thing. As a species, we adapt to what is available, not to what is spent.

 

[Weird Harold]

... But once governments decide that a certain system is 'the way to go,' then it will suddenly be cheaper to use it. Because it will then be standardized and subsidized. ...

Slyc, "government deciding a certain system is the way to go" is the problem with Ethanol and the rise of food prices around the world as cropland is diverted to field corn production for Ethanol. "Government" decided that Corn and only corn would be subsidized for ethanol production and that ethanol produced outside of the US would be taxed to protect American ethanol producers from market realities -- like the minor detail that sugar cane or sugar beets, and probably a dozen other crops produce more ethanol per ton than corn does while using less fuel to grow and harvest.

Government is in quotes there because it wasn't "government" that made the decision, it was the lobbiests for giant agro-businesses like ADM that decided corn was the source of choice for ethanol.

Government doesn't have a very good record for choosing good alternative energy sources to subsidize; they should get out of the energy business completely and quit subsidizing Big Oil, Agro-business, and luddite envirovangelists at the expense of the ordinary consumers.

 

[penandpaper]

Wierd Harold is correct. The lobbyist chose corn. It was merely one direction out of many we could have traveled.

OP, you say run over an environmentalist, but we've been arguing against corn subsidies and ethanol for a long time. Anyone who reads Mother Earth or Scientific American or Discover or Skeptic knew for 5-10 years that allocating just corn and not focusing on other energies was not the right way to go. But, as Harold pointed out, you have lobbyists that teamed up with (go figure) Ford to make corn the go to product.

Scientists and environmentalists are just like you; they find alternate paths and explore them. You shouldn't blame them simply because congress chose one of their paths when there was hundreds to choose from.

 

[Pure]

yes, bad idea

weird harold, pen and paper-- and yes, even amicus, though not on principle--
are right about the problems of corn ethanol. the general ethanol problem might well be better solved with switchgrass or even algae. in other words, no encroachment on food crops and their designated areas.

my remark on amicus is because he generally has NO problem with a given, private industry buying congressional votes for legislation that increases its profits. (e.g securing a tax loophole).

 

[Weird Harold]

the general ethanol problem might well be better solved with switchgrass or even algae. in other words, no encroachment on food crops and their designated areas.

The "general ethanol problem" is not just the crop(s) used to make ethanol, but that Ethanol is seen as THE only possible bio-fuel.

Swithchgrass, Algae, and other biomass energy options are generally easier to convert to methane or biodeisel than they are to convert to ethanol with current technologies, but methane can't be mixxed with gasoline, so Big oil loses it's monopoly on 'mobile-energy' supply and distribution.

Algae has a lot more potential 'alternative energy' promise than as a source of Ethanol. Some micro-algae strains can almost be used directly as biodiesel, or refined into gasoline with minimal additional processing. Other (rare) strains of micro-algae respire Hydrogen or methane instead of Oxygen and some under-funded research is being done to increase Hydrogen production to commercially viable levels.

The Colony's wood-gas generator is one example of an old technology that could be reducing our reliance on imported energy and reducing wood and paper waste levels in the landfills.

<shrugs> Government "assistance" hampers far more alternaive energy options than it encourages.

 

[R. Richard]

Another 'corn ethanol' problem is that the runoff from the fertilizers used to grow the corn are beginning to create 'dead spots' in the ocean, due to chemical poisoning. [Chemical poisoning is not all bad, if it were applied to politicians, it might actually do some good. JMNTHO.]

 

[Weird Harold]

Another 'corn ethanol' problem is that the runoff from the fertilizers used to grow the corn are beginning to create 'dead spots' in the ocean, due to chemical poisoning. [Chemical poisoning is not all bad, if it were applied to politicians, it might actually do some good. JMNTHO.]

Of course a good Corn crop ha always meant fish were going to die. Originally fished died to fertilize corn crops now they die because they wer not used for fertilizer.

 

[slyc_willie]

Slyc, "government deciding a certain system is the way to go" is the problem with Ethanol and the rise of food prices around the world as cropland is diverted to field corn production for Ethanol. "Government" decided that Corn and only corn would be subsidized for ethanol production and that ethanol produced outside of the US would be taxed to protect American ethanol producers from market realities -- like the minor detail that sugar cane or sugar beets, and probably a dozen other crops produce more ethanol per ton than corn does while using less fuel to grow and harvest.

Government is in quotes there because it wasn't "government" that made the decision, it was the lobbiests for giant agro-businesses like ADM that decided corn was the source of choice for ethanol.

Government doesn't have a very good record for choosing good alternative energy sources to subsidize; they should get out of the energy business completely and quit subsidizing Big Oil, Agro-business, and luddite envirovangelists at the expense of the ordinary consumers.

I am by no means arguing with you. I just stated that once production toward a certain end is begun on a large scale, the price of doing so will become cheaper. At least, relatively cheaper.

 

[Weird Harold]

I am by no means arguing with you. I just stated that once production toward a certain end is begun on a large scale, the price of doing so will become cheaper. At least, relatively cheaper.

That doesn't take into consideration the government adding price fixing and protective tariffs -- aka price guarantees -- to ill advised mandates for conversion to ethanol. The price of Ethanol has gone up as the government "incentives" for corn based ethanol have gone into effect; not to mention the price of food crops not planted in favor of guaranteed prices for corn-for-ethanol.

Ethanol isn't getting noticeable cheaper because the government also mandates an increase in demand for ethanol that internal resources can't meet and protective tariffs artificially inflate the market further.

The big problem is the increase in the cost of other products that rely on the corn or cropland being diverted to ethanol production. The result is that not only is fuel more expensive and rising, everything else in the houshold budget is more expensive and rising.

 

[slyc_willie]

That doesn't take into consideration the government adding price fixing and protective tariffs -- aka price guarantees -- to ill advised mandates for conversion to ethanol. The price of Ethanol has gone up as the government "incentives" for corn based ethanol have gone into effect; not to mention the price of food crops not planted in favor of guaranteed prices for corn-for-ethanol.

Ethanol isn't getting noticeable cheaper because the government also mandates an increase in demand for ethanol that internal resources can't meet and protective tariffs artificially inflate the market further.

The big problem is the increase in the cost of other products that rely on the corn or cropland being diverted to ethanol production. The result is that not only is fuel more expensive and rising, everything else in the houshold budget is more expensive and rising.

I really don't see much of a future in ethanol. It may happen, but for corn crop growers to meet the demands of the developed countries . . .

I'd rather see more investigation into the use of Brown's Gas as propulsion fuel. Current applications of this technology are woefully inadequate when compared to the efficiency of petroleum-dependent engines. But the fuel is cheap, even if the process for utilizing it is not. Given enough time and research, Brown's Gas might be the replacement for oil.

Or . . . we could just hold out and wait for Doc Brown's fusion engine to become a reality. It'd be nice to see that Great Pacific Garbage Dump go bye-bye.

 

[Weird Harold]

I really don't see much of a future in ethanol. It may happen, but for corn crop growers to meet the demands of the developed countries . . .

Ethanol from Corn has no future, but that doesn't mean Ethanol from other sources doen't have a future.

Brazil is often touted as the model for what the US should work towards -- 80% of their transportaion fuel is ethanol. What congress has ignored in tryingto duplicate Brazil's success is that Brazilian Ethanol is primarily derived from Sugar Cane and they have a surplus of ethanol because they have a far smaller total fuel requirement than the US. Brizil also has billions of acres of undeveloped land to slash and burn for more sugar cane plantations.

I'd rather see more investigation into the use of Brown's Gas as propulsion fuel. Current applications of this technology are woefully inadequate when compared to the efficiency of petroleum-dependent engines. But the fuel is cheap, even if the process for utilizing it is not. Given enough time and research, Brown's Gas might be the replacement for oil.

If you're a fan of Brown's gas, can I interst you in some okeefenokee real estate or a pair of suspension bridges?

1) on-board electrolysis of water for hydrogen to burn as fuel requires something on the order of twice as much energy/electricity as just replacing the motor with an electric motor and powering the vehicle with electricity.

2) since on-board generation of 'Brown's Gas' is never going to be more efficeint than using the electricity directly, then storage of 'Brown's Gas' is necessary to fuel a moving vehicle. I can't think of one single thing more dangerous than a perfect ratio of Hydrogen and Oxygen confined under pressure -- if it's even possible to compress it sufficiently to carry useful quantities without blowing the whole refueling station into teeny, tiny, pieces.

 

[trysail]

Corn (maize)-based ethanol is one the biggest political boodoggles imagineable.

It— along with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act and the minority cellular telephone licensing fiasco— is a near perfect example of the godawful mess that interference by political meddlers can create.

Not only have the politicos subsidised domestic ethanol production to the tune of a $0.45 tax credit for each and every gallon, they have erected a $0.54/gallon excise tax on imported ethanol— effectively prohibiting importation and ( of course ) imposing a tax on consumers. Beyond those insults, the law of unintended consequences obtained: the unnatural and artificial demand created by the politicos led to price rises in a whole host of agricultural products for which corn/maize is an input or substitute. The final appalling irony is that it is a demonstrable fact that production of corn/maize-based ethanol actually increases the consumption of the very fossil fuels the hand-wringing wizards claimed would be reduced by its mandated usage.

The entire episode is a colossal farce on a scale that has both Voltaire and Milton Friedman rolling over in their graves.

 

[amicus]

Corn/ethanol was just the vehicle to point out the futility of asking or depending on hired clerks to make what is always, by definition, a political choice and not one based on supply and demand and profitablity.

It is such an alien concept, non profit group, that I really cannot understand, and I mean this, how people will offer the services, expertise and time for nothing, it smells to high heaven to me.

Like the Soviet shoe factory that made 13 million shoes for the left foot and none for the right foot...the workers, managers and political bosses were just happy having the people employed and getting paid, with no heed paid to what they were actually producing. That is just the way a communal venture always works....

And you folks want your medical care overseen by them?

Go figure.

Amicus

 

[Weird Harold]

Corn/ethanol was just the vehicle to point out the futility of asking or depending on hired clerks to make what is always, by definition, a political choice and not one based on supply and demand and profitablity.

On the other hand, the Clean Air Act and associated state and federal laws that require cars be well-maintianed so they don't pollute and have anti-smog equipment like catalytic converters is an example of government "interference in free trade' that has acomplished exactly what it was intended to accomplish -- you can go into a big city with a reasonable expectation of being able to see and breathe when you get there.

There is no profit in clean air and other pollution control measures but contrary to popular belief, they won't drive companies out of business, either. They will raise operating costs but businesses don't pay operating costs any more than they pay taxes, they just collect them from their customers.

 

[slyc_willie]

If you're a fan of Brown's gas, can I interst you in some okeefenokee real estate or a pair of suspension bridges?

1) on-board electrolysis of water for hydrogen to burn as fuel requires something on the order of twice as much energy/electricity as just replacing the motor with an electric motor and powering the vehicle with electricity.

2) since on-board generation of 'Brown's Gas' is never going to be more efficeint than using the electricity directly, then storage of 'Brown's Gas' is necessary to fuel a moving vehicle. I can't think of one single thing more dangerous than a perfect ratio of Hydrogen and Oxygen confined under pressure -- if it's even possible to compress it sufficiently to carry useful quantities without blowing the whole refueling station into teeny, tiny, pieces.

So quick to condescend. We've had this discussion before.

At present, the efficiency of any Brown's Gas engine doesn't compare well. But that's mainly because not much research has been put into it. A hundred and more years ago, the petrol-powered "parambulator" wasn't well received, either. Its fuel efficiency was atrocious. But with research, application, and refinement, gas engines became more efficient.

Driving a car on Brown's Gas now would not be very cost-effective. But give it several years of testing and experimentation, and it could well prove to be at least as efficient as a gas-powered automobile. Emphasis on "could."

I never put any stock into a claim that "X" won't work simply because it isn't working now. Technology requires a continual effort of trial and error before anything can be deemed efficient.

 

[xssve]

It ain't Greenies amicus, it's ADM.

It's a funny article, being from CATO it tries to blame it all on dems, but the Bush administration wasted almost no time passing the largest agricultural subsidy bill in history - guess who the primary recipient was?

 

[Weird Harold]

Driving a car on Brown's Gas now would not be very cost-effective. But give it several years of testing and experimentation, and it could well prove to be at least as efficient as a gas-powered automobile. Emphasis on "could."

Nope, Brown's Gas is unsuitable for any mobile application because it requires electrolysing water into Brown's Gas with the resulting loss of energy in the conversion and then burning the Brown's gas in an internal combustion engine with yet another loss of energy. The internal combustion engine or batteries must provide the electricity to electrolyse the water into Brown's gas with another unavoidable loss of energy converting mechanical energy to electrical energy.

Any system that requires onboard electrolysis of water into Hydrogen (with or without separating it from the Oxygen released) requires a minimum of 101% efficiency in every step of the cycle, and that isn't going to happen until somebody patents Mr Fusion -- in which case, burning Brown's gas would be redundant.

The alternative to onboard generation of Brown's Gas is to store it in compressed or liquified form, and pure Hydrogen is both lighter, safer, and cheaper to store in any useful quantity.

Brown's Gas sounds good, but there is some inherent realities about the amount electricity required to crack water into its component parts and the maximum theoretical efficiency of internal combustion engines that make it the modern day equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.

Except for cutting and welding torch applications Brown's Gas is a very inefficient way to utilize electricity.

For internal comustion engines, the theoretically perfect mix of hydrogen and oxygen in Brown's Gas presents the same problems trying to run an engine on an oxy-acetlylene mix does -- it burns too hot and too fast for economically feasible engine components.

Until somebody repeals the law of thermodynamics, Brown's Gas for transportation is a perpetual motion scam and just a waste of electricity for fueling static engines.

 

[amicus]

On the other hand, the Clean Air Act and associated state and federal laws that require cars be well-maintianed so they don't pollute and have anti-smog equipment like catalytic converters is an example of government "interference in free trade' that has acomplished exactly what it was intended to accomplish -- you can go into a big city with a reasonable expectation of being able to see and breathe when you get there.

There is no profit in clean air and other pollution control measures but contrary to popular belief, they won't drive companies out of business, either. They will raise operating costs but businesses don't pay operating costs any more than they pay taxes, they just collect them from their customers.

~~~

That is a reasonable argument WH, even if not Ethanol related, you make a good point...but you politicize the actuality for your own purposes.

We humans, our inventions and innovations in the quest to improve our lives and standard of living, are not omniscient; we are not always cognizant of the total consequences of our actions.

The Brits used Coal and dumped their sewage into the Thames a long time ago. The 'soot' that permeated the atmosphere and coated the buildings and the lungs of Londoner's, and the diseases from contaminated water took a while to figure out and correct.

Horsies make a lot of pockey hucks, odiferous, yet before the automobile, horse power was the thing that took the burden off the back of man and put it on the horses...a distinct improvement in many ways from previous times.

Not understanding flood plains, annual floods or 'hundred year' floods, many structures were built and lost to nature's wrath.

I view that nature of man as part of our heritage, not something to be controlled and regulated or banned, restricted and controlled as a proper means of making sure the future is pristine for our offspring.

What you, and most of your ilk, do not understand, is that to confine the activities of man to what you consider, 'safe' activities, is to destroy the human spirit to progress beyond the present into the future.

All communal rhetoric issues forth from 'good' intentions and ends up in a science fiction nightmare of dystopic proportions where individual humans are considered the problem and not the solution.

I know that is probably a little too abstract and metaphysical for you...but some will get my drift.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

It ain't Greenies amicus, it's ADM.

It's a funny article, being from CATO it tries to blame it all on dems, but the Bush administration wasted almost no time passing the largest agricultural subsidy bill in history - guess who the primary recipient was?[/QUOTE]

~~~

xssve...there was a time I could quote chapter and verse as to when the very first 'subsidy' for agriculture was instituted, but those memories have faded.

What has not faded is the economic philosophy behind such 'tinkering' with agriculture fostered by the Federal and State Governments, all and always, with the 'best intentions' for the greater good.

'Trial and error', is inherent in the activities of man, as we not not omniscient and are not always certain of all the consequences of our actions.

There have been government programs that paid farmers NOT to plant crops and the government would pay. There are programs that had farmers dump milk and kill milk cows, in government attempts to control and regulate price and supply of various commodities.

The 'dust bowl' taught us about crop rotation and other technigues to hold the soil in place and how to use fertilizers and even hybrid plants to increase production.

You and all your 'fellow travelers', have an ingrown toenail that pains you night and day and the malady forces you to impose what you 'think' is the best way for each individual and each group of individuals to manage their lives and affairs.

It is a curious intellectual conflict in many ways...mandated immunization kills ten thousand babies almost every year, yet the scourges of Measles, Mumps, and the other two, have been virtually wiped out of threats to health and life.

I mentioned this before, but repetition is sometimes useful...I watched a children's film, Wall E, the other day, and the results of your communal existence came to fruition in that fictional piece. All the people were fat and happy and I mean really fat...to a point of losing bone content because of inactivity, but they were well fed and healthy, if chubby lil animals...Then EVA, that perky lil white female robot, shot first and asked questions later when poor Wall E tried to impress her.

I guess that represents the 'end game' of your Statist intentions, a herd of sheep, tended by robots and anyone who disagrees, snap, ur dead!

Izzat how it is in your imaginary socialist woild, m'dear?

And...for general principles and purposes, protected individual property rights would insure there be no pollution of any kind, but then what would your poor little EPA automatons have left to do?

Amicus

 

[slyc_willie]

Any system that requires onboard electrolysis of water into Hydrogen (with or without separating it from the Oxygen released) requires a minimum of 101% efficiency in every step of the cycle, and that isn't going to happen until somebody patents Mr Fusion -- in which case, burning Brown's gas would be redundant.

Alright, good point. I'll concede to that.

I guess I was on something of a romantic notion about Brown's Gas, considering it uses the world's cheapest resource.

 

[xssve]

How does it feel to watch the abject failure of all ones cherished policies ami? All this time people have been screaming: "put the fucking dog down"!

But you and your cohorts just kept screwing and screwing the poor little pooch.

Credibility is a debt too, and the bill is come due.

 

[Weird Harold]

What you, and most of your ilk, do not understand, is that to confine the activities of man to what you consider, 'safe' activities, is to destroy the human spirit to progress beyond the present into the future.

You quoted my post, but did you actually read it?

I'm not concerned about making the world 'safe.' I'm just in favor of holding people who shit in the village well responsible for the damages they cause.