Don't blame ethanol demand for high food prices

[real information]

Scribe wrote:

<quoted text>
The cost of what it takes to convert granular corn into ethanol can best be answered in the lab. The cost of producing the corn depends on data from farmers; however, if they don't call themselves socialists, then their honesty is rightly questioned. In the words of Ronald Reagan "Trust but Verify."
It is counterintuitive to think that producing ethanol from corn, which must be planted every year, is cheaper than producing ethanol from crops that need be planted only once.

If you read the link being referred to, you will see that only production costs have been corrected. The conversion data is from a lab, no one is challenging that.
While it is true that some alternative ethanol crops are perennial cultivars, if the stalks/stems of these plants are harvested the stand will deteriorate significantly. Switchgrass or sugarcane, if utilized for this purpose, will likely have to be re-established every 2-3 years, and the yield from a new stand will likely not be enough to justify harvest until the second year.
Incedentally, the multi-peril crop insurance you are railing against operates on the same principle as the flood insurance you have on your home (through Prudential, etc.) as well as the flood insurance that covers property owned by the company you work for. Premiums on both are subsidized.... so you are a socialist.

[TidewaterLiberta rian]

real information wrote:

<quoted text>
If you read the link being referred to, you will see that only production costs have been corrected. The conversion data is from a lab, no one is challenging that.
While it is true that some alternative ethanol crops are perennial cultivars, if the stalks/stems of these plants are harvested the stand will deteriorate significantly. Switchgrass or sugarcane, if utilized for this purpose, will likely have to be re-established every 2-3 years, and the yield from a new stand will likely not be enough to justify harvest until the second year.
Incedentally, the multi-peril crop insurance you are railing against operates on the same principle as the flood insurance you have on your home (through Prudential, etc.) as well as the flood insurance that covers property owned by the company you work for. Premiums on both are subsidized.... so you are a socialist.

The government has no place whatsoever in the insurance business.

Politicians and bureaucrats always understate costs as a strategy for wooing votes from the proposed "insured."

The voluntarily uninsured in Gloucester packed a school auditorium demanding that they be treated as if they had been insured -- more entitlement mentality.

Trent Lott suggested that people buy flood insurance after they experience the loss (e.g., Katrina). Presumably, they would be, in effect, backdating their checks.

I think we need more "railing."

The country is going to hell in a handbasket.

[ParkerT]

Scribe wrote:

I want to see farmers make decisions about what, when, and how much to plant without taxpayer involvement.
Buy your crop, flood, drought insurance from State Farm or Nationwide, whose actuaries will calculate a fair premium.
If you can't farm profitably, don't farm!!
What a bunch of socialistic babies.
If corn-based ethanol causes the cost of beef and poultry to go up, why don't we make SUGAR-based ethanol, which, presumably, would make the cost of M&M's to go up? Answer: the corn lobby.
The fat-cat farm lobby and ADM benefit from socialistic legislation at the expense of the rest of us.
Do us all a favor, and call yourselves socialists and be done with it.

I'd rather see sugar/ethanol shenanigans cause the cost of M&M's to go up rather than corn/ethanol shenanigans cause the cost of chicken, beef, and corn flakes to up.

[reason]

whether or not we make ethanol, the prices of chicken, beef, and all grocery items will continue to go up as long as the price of oil continues to go up.

[Scribe]

reason wrote:

whether or not we make ethanol, the prices of chicken, beef, and all grocery items will continue to go up as long as the price of oil continues to go up.

Of course!

The issue is whether the prices of chicken, beef go up much FASTER if the price of corn goes up in a dramatic fashion because of collusion between the corn lobby and vote-mongering politicians.

The Farm Bill is so full of pork, you can't read it without lard dripping from your elbows.

[reason]

Scribe wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course!
The issue is whether the prices of chicken, beef go up much FASTER if the price of corn goes up in a dramatic fashion because of collusion between the corn lobby and vote-mongering politicians.
The Farm Bill is so full of pork, you can't read it without lard dripping from your elbows.

what kind of a ratio were you expecting?
what kind of a ratio would be reasonable given what you know about prices of corn, wheat, beans, live chickens, hogs, cattle, groceries?
what kind of a ratio were you expecting given the price of oil?
Describe the 'corn lobby' to me please.
When you (and others) refer to 'pork', what kind of payments are you crying about? If you reply "payments to rich farmers", we have a serious debate ahead of us. Are you instead speaking of subsidizing landowners who's real job is Congressmen, Lawyers, Doctors, CEOs of large corporations, and others earning huge amounts of pay in other carreers (if so, we agree these payments have to stop.)
Do you understand the Pork included in this "food, conservation, and evergy" bill or have you just learned a new buzzword?

[Constitutionalis t]

The reason the Government has the grocers unions railing against the use of corn for ethanol is basically for one reason.
The Government gets BIG TAX BUCKS when that same corn is used to distill tons of whiskey products each year. With subsidies in place for alternative fuels, the Government sees a negative trend coming against their liquor taxes.
Do you think Congress wouldn't be mad if the save the food people went after their liquor.
www.arbiofuel.com Free Whiskey recipee at this site. How to make your own ethanol and have the governments blessing.

[Shen an Calhar]

Samuel Paul wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you refute the points made rather than impugning the charater of Dr. Pimentel?
By the way, you can go to www.cato.org and keywork search on "ethanol" and finds lots of articles on the ethanol boondoggle -- the cost of which is underwritten by the taxpayers.

Not so sure that I would believe the Cato Orginization since their studies were probably backed by 'big oil' who would like not to have an alternative to oil.
according to a review [of] Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen has also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review of Exxon financial documents."

[TidewaterLiberta rian]

CNN had a great program on this morning (06/14/08) on the issue of oil dependence, ethanol, alternative fuels, etc.

The evidence seems overwhelming that ethanol from cellulose is very promising (look at Brazil), and ethanol from corn is hopelessly intertwined with big business, lobbyists, and shenanigans in Washington DC, the Farm Bill, fat-cat subsidies, etc., at the expense of the rest of us.

Anyone who argues otherwise is suspect, and, I would ask that posters identify any self-interest they have in the ethanol business.

If you get an ethanol-related check; acknowledge that fact.

P.S. I have no interest in the ethanol business other than a fervent desire for increased energy independence, reduced fuel costs, and smaller - less-expensive government.

[Herman King]

Brazil became oil independent by substituting ethanol from sugar cane. Are we that more stupid than Brazil? Evidently.

[reason]

Herman King wrote:

Brazil became oil independent by substituting ethanol from sugar cane. Are we that more stupid than Brazil? Evidently.

Stupid? how do you figure?
I'm sure we would be doing the same if sugar can would grow here.
Are you aware that they cleared tens of thousands of acres of rainforest in order to do this? Our solution is better (might cost more, but it is better for the environment.)

[TidewaterLiberta rian]

Ben Stein was on Glenn Beck's show last night, and he discussed the power of the cynical farm lobby and the misguided corn-based ethanol policies, which have contributed to much higher food prices.

[ParkerT]

Could it be that our congressman will show some courage in the face of the powerful ethanol lobby?

Naaaah.

[Scribe]

TidewaterLibertarian wrote:

Ben Stein was on Glenn Beck's show last night, and he discussed the power of the cynical farm lobby and the misguided corn-based ethanol policies, which have contributed to much higher food prices.

I saw it. Ben Stein was brilliant, as usual, but Glenn got all giddy.

[Shen an Calhar]

reason wrote:

<quoted text>
Stupid? how do you figure?
I'm sure we would be doing the same if sugar can would grow here.
Are you aware that they cleared tens of thousands of acres of rainforest in order to do this? Our solution is better (might cost more, but it is better for the environment.)

~~~~~~~~~~
Actually we get surgar from a few sources that do grow here - two of them being sugar beets and surgar sorgum. Sorgum for ethanol would be 7 times for efficient than corn (and we could get 2 crops a year from it). They got a start from corn ethanol - time to move on to better options, cellous materila and other types of crops. We should also be doing more for biodeisel from algea, from the waste products of ethanol plants...we transport a great deal of our produce in this country by trucks running on deisel, not gas. This is driving up our food costs, also affecting the seafood industry.

[reason]

Shen an Calhar wrote:

<quoted text>
~~~~~~~~~~
Actually we get surgar from a few sources that do grow here - two of them being sugar beets and surgar sorgum. Sorgum for ethanol would be 7 times for efficient than corn (and we could get 2 crops a year from it). They got a start from corn ethanol - time to move on to better options, cellous materila and other types of crops. We should also be doing more for biodeisel from algea, from the waste products of ethanol plants...we transport a great deal of our produce in this country by trucks running on deisel, not gas. This is driving up our food costs, also affecting the seafood industry.

you are correct ... have you grown either of these crops?

Sorghum is essentially the same as corn, with the kernels growing at the top of the plant as opposed to on the ear in the mid-section. Until they have set the ear/seed pod, it is difficult to tell them apart.

Sugar beets are bigger than your head, and have a tap root that goes into the ground over ten feet. This crop takes as much fertilizer as corn and about five times the pesticide. A sugar beet field is much more succeptable to erosion both during the early growing season and after harvest.

I do agree that cellulosic feedstock ethanol is in our future, being developed on the learnings from corn ethanol over the last few decades. I also know that corn ethanol will continue to be utilized in this country, and will be even to a greater extent going forward.

[elaine]

There have been a number of articles in the media recently about the amount of energy required to produce fuel ethanol.

The articles result from a re-released study conducted by Dr. David Pimentel, a professor of Insect Ecology at Cornell University.

Dr. Pimentel has been a long time critic of ethanol and first looked at the energy required to produce fuel ethanol 25 years ago. He claims that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is gained by burning it. Since then, nine other studies have been conducted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Argonne National Research Laboratory, Michigan State University and the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy among others.

These studies have shown a net energy gain of 67% to 100% with fuel ethanol. In other words, more energy being released from burning ethanol than it takes to grow and harvest the corn and turn it into ethanol. The reason that ethanol is able to enjoy such a positive energy balance is because of the solar energy captured by the corn plant during its life cylce.

Why the difference between these studies and Dr. Pimentel?

The more recent studies on the energy balance of ethanol have used more up to date values for the inputs required to grow grain corn and the technology used to manufacture ethanol.

The one point that all of the studies, including Pimentel's, agree on is that over the past 25 years, with some 90 plants in North America in operation, the energy balance continues to improve due to increased efficiency in the ethanol manufacturing process and increased efficiency and yields in corn production.

[Shen an Calhar]

reason wrote:

<quoted text>
you are correct ... have you grown either of these crops?
Sorghum is essentially the same as corn, with the kernels growing at the top of the plant as opposed to on the ear in the mid-section. Until they have set the ear/seed pod, it is difficult to tell them apart.
Sugar beets are bigger than your head, and have a tap root that goes into the ground over ten feet. This crop takes as much fertilizer as corn and about five times the pesticide. A sugar beet field is much more succeptable to erosion both during the early growing season and after harvest.
I do agree that cellulosic feedstock ethanol is in our future, being developed on the learnings from corn ethanol over the last few decades. I also know that corn ethanol will continue to be utilized in this country, and will be even to a greater extent going forward.

~~~~~~~~~~
Grown myself? No, but worked on farms that did grow sorgum (besides the regular corn, soybeans, wheat and alfalfa - Dairy cattle, stock cows and hogs - it was all a lot of work but I think I enjoyed it more than what I do now...just didn't pay as much...)I'll head back your way (if you are in MN and not just your ISP) when I retire and plan to get into some things I've been looking at. You're right about sugar beets - and they are some ugly looking things too.