Global Food Prices Jump To Record Level Because of Higher Corn Prices – or the alternate title: Cornholing the future
There’s lot of gloom and doom being pushed, trying to link food prices to climate change by the usual howlers. As shown above, food prices surged to record levels in February despite February wheat and rice prices being essentially flat. Yet, February corn prices are up significantly even with 2010 being the 3rd largest U.S. corn crop ever. Why? Well part of the reason is that our cars now have a mandated, growing and voracious appetite for corn based ethanol.
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. writes:
When certain information proves challenging to entrenched political or ideological commitments it can be easy for policy makers to ignore, downplay or even dismiss that information. It is a common dynamic and knows no political boundaries. Global Dashboard catches the Obama Administration selectively explaining the causes for increasing world food prices:
“The increase in February mostly reflected further gains in international maize prices, driven by strong demand amid tightening supplies, while prices rose marginally in the case of wheat and fell slightly in the case of rice.”
“In other words, this is mainly about corn. And who’s the biggest corn exporter in the world? The United States…And where is 40% of US corn production going this year? Ethanol, for use in US car engines.”
So here we having wailing and gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects over global food prices, and they are using this as an example of the supposed “climate change drive food prices” link. Of course there isn’t any link in this case. It’s the corn stupid.
The simple solution: stop burning food for fuel, drill for more oil, work on alternate energy system that actually might work, like thorium based nuclear power.
h/t to C3 headlines
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow, all the knownothing ethanol-bashers lighting up the internet.
Agronomically illiterate commenters who push this garbage apparently don’t read the peer-reviewed literature.
Poptech says:
March 5, 2011 at 4:00 pm
“Economically illiterate politicians who push this garbage apparently don’t read the peer-reviewed literature,… David Pimentel.”
Haha. Pimentel. Anybody that wants to be taken seriously ought to review Pimentel’s garbage science. Ofcourse you’ll need to be qualified to do so which obviously does not include any of the ethanol-bashing trolls in this thread.
Btw, Timothy Searchinger has only a law degree. Funny how skeptics quote warmongers when it supports ethanol-bashing.
220mph, “US produced ethanol lowers our dependence on foreign energy – whether it be oil or ethanol – and I strongly believe that is a good thing – even if it costs us slightly more.”
This is your perpetual strawman argument that has no relation to reality. We will always be dependent on foreign oil unless you want to pay $10 a gallon for gasoline because we do not have the oil reserves to fully replace cheap foreign oil or an economically viable alternative to oil for a transportation fuel. Mandating something that is not economically viable like ethanol only hurts our economy.
“I also take strong exception to the position we should buy ethanol from Brazil for example because its cheaper, while IGNORING that doing so may well eventually involve serious negative environmental impacts – which would not be allowed to occur in our country”
We have no control over the environmental policies of Brazil, that is up for their government to deal with. There is growing evidence that the Rainforests are actually expanding,
Index of Leading Environmental Indicators: 2009 Report (Pacific Research Institute)
“Growing evidence that the tropical rainforests may now be expanding faster than they are being cut down.”
In the end consumers should be free to choose where they would want to buy ethanol from and can come to their own moral decisions on their own.
“We have already risked our long term financial well being to China in exchange for the cheap Chinese products that last a fraction of the time of US goods.”
Buying products that are made more efficiently in China benefits the U.S. economy by reducing the cost to do business. There is no evidence that Chinese made products last a fraction of the time of US Goods. I have dealt extensively with very high quality computer components made or assembled in China. The reliability of the product has to do manufacturer not the manufacturing location.
What I want is the freedom to use the most economically viable sources of energy available.
220mph, “Sorry poptech … this just shows how little you understand ….”
No I have studied economics extensively.
“This was not “welfare” for farmers … it was to protect an industry VITAL to our existence – one where good people toil for long hours – to make virtually nothing.”
Yes it is. It only protects inefficient farmers. We will always need food and the market will determine how much based on prices. As food supplies become scarce the price rises which sends a signal to farmers to produce more. If not enough is being produced then someone will if it is profitable and at a certain price just about anything is. If the price goes down that generally means supply is more plentiful and they should either become more efficient or produce something else if they cannot afford to at those prices. The problem comes in with farmers who do not adapt to market signals or are too inefficient to compete with other farmers, foreign and domestic. These farmers should go out of business but instead their trade groups lobby government for subsidies or protectionist measures that keeps them operating like zombies producing what the market is not demanding or at prices higher than the market would allow.
“It was and is to insure that in catastrophic times (you’ll note it has rarely been used – never in recent times) – when many or even all farmers are experiencing catastrophic hardship – that the farmers who feed our country manage to survive”
Real insurance is what deals with catastrophes. We will always need food and farming will always survive in some form. What will not survive if you remove all the subsidies, mandates and tariffs is the inefficient farmers. The end result will be lower prices for the consumer and a more robust agricultural industry that can better deal with “catastrophes” and changes in the market place.
220mph says, “If you have factual support for your claim please provide it and we can discuss … others here have done that – your turn …”
Go read the US farm report for 2010 for yourself.
I have better things to do than waste time on shills for ethanol.
John Q. Galt, a little late to the thread, were you at an ethanol drinking party? I can tell by the glazed talking points. Please provide a bit of substance if possible.
220, how about loading up the trailer and testing uphill acceleration for both fuels. Presumably the engine auto-adjusts for the fuel, so you should see little difference in the fully loaded performance. The MPG test is a lot tougher since it can’t be done in a strictly controlled manner. But pick a stretch of really open highway (same stretch for both tests), no wind, and run it with cruise control with both fuels. Then get back to us with a fact-based emotion-free argument.
220mph, “I suggest people review the history of the Brazilian ethanol program as well. It provides a good roadmap of issues and successes.”
No it doesn’t. Anyone that cites wikipedia should immediately disqualify themselves as having any remote ability to research a subject. There has been no ethanol success in Brazil, they are using more oil than ever.
– Brazil is the 7th largest oil consumer in the world (EIA)
– Brazil has only 81 motor vehicles per 1000 people vs. 765 per 1000 people in the U.S. (Source)
The Myth of Brazil’s Ethanol Success (Energy Tribune)
Brazil’s Ethanol Program – An Insider’s View (Energy Tribune)
Poptech,
I understand that you want to be a purist in economic principle–and that’s fine.
So explain to me–in real terms–how you would introduce a new transportation fuel into our present system. I’m making you a magic wand (somewhat limited) that enables you to produce a liquid transportation fuel that replaces, but is compatible with and can blend, with currently used petroleum based products.
(gasoline only) Your fuel is slightly better than straight gasoline by say 0.5%. Your estimated cost of production at startup (50 million gal plant) is 10% higher than regular gas–but your models show that once you hit 10billion gals of production your wholesale cost is 10% less than straight gas.
You have angel funding of $250 million
Your development costs have been $50 million
Your startup plant will cost $250 million
The petroleum refiners are hostile and won’t talk to you and have already funded two studies @ur momisugly $10 million a pop that refutes your claim of compatability.
What do you do now?
John Q. Galt, “Btw, Timothy Searchinger has only a law degree. Funny how skeptics quote warmongers when it supports ethanol-bashing.”
His credentials are more than that,
Timothy D. Searchinger, B.A. Summa Cum Laude, Amherst College; J.D. Law, Yale Law School; Former Senior Editor, Yale Law Journal; Former Law Clerk, Judge Edward R. Becker, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; Former Deputy General Counsel, Pennsylvanian Governor Robert P. Casey; Former Senior Attorney on Agricultural Policy and Wetlands, Environmental Defense Fund; Co-founder, Center for Conservation Incentives; Former Special Adviser, Maryland Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources; National Wetlands Protection Award, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Environmental Law Institute (1992), Transatlantic Fellow, The German Marshall Fund of the United States; Senior Fellow, Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, Georgetown University Law Center; Visiting Research Scholar, Princeton Environmental Institute and the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy (STEP) at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public & International Affairs, Princeton University (2007-2008), Associate Research Scholar and Lecturer, Princeton Environmental Institute and the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy (STEP) at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public & International Affairs, Princeton University (2010-Present)
Not to mention his paper had eight co-authors, such as:
Richard A. Houghton, B.A. Biology, Hamilton College (1965), Ph.D. Ecology, State University of New York at Stony Brook (1979), Research Associate, Biology Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory (1967-1974), Research Associate, The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory (1975-1984), Assistant Scientist, The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory (1984-1987), Associate Scientist, The Woods Hole Research Center (1987-1989), Senior Scientist, The Woods Hole Research Center (1989-Present), Visiting Senior Scientist, Office of Mission to Planet Earth, NASA (1993-1994), Deputy Director, The Woods Hole Research Center (2005-2008, 2010), Acting Director, The Woods Hole Research Center (2009, 2011)
Try again.
jimlion, “Poptech, I understand that you want to be a purist in economic principle–and that’s fine. So explain to me–in real terms–how you would introduce a new transportation fuel into our present system. I’m making you a magic wand (somewhat limited) that enables you to produce a liquid transportation fuel that replaces, but is compatible with and can blend, with currently used petroleum based products. (gasoline only) ….”
If such a fuel existed that is cheaper to produce than gasoline, gets the same or more mileage and works in existing vehicles then it would get private investors on it’s own that would fund whatever is needed to bring it to market. That is how markets work. The problem is no such fuel exists. Ethanol (especially corn based) is not cheaper to produce than gasoline (without subsidies, mandates and tariffs), does not get the same or more mileage and does not work trouble free in all existing vehicles without being blended in low ratios.
jimlion said “The petroleum refiners are hostile and won’t talk to you and have already funded two studies @ur momisugly
$10 million a pop that refutes your claim of compatability”
The only reason such a study was done or would be done is that the venture was political and there are competing rent-seeking interests. A venture capitalist would neither need nor read such a study pro or con, so the study would not exist.
Imagine for a moment that Bill Gates wrote an operating system for IBM, but IBM requested an internal study for $10m and decided to go with CP/M instead. Or Gates read the study and figured he better not copy CP/M and become a billionaire because the study says he shouldn’t do that.
Poptech,
Sorry, but you avoided answering the question. I was hoping that you would recognize the monopolistic nature of our present system which naturally serves to destroy innovation.(which I view with as much dismay as government intervention)
Private investors do not like to lose money and going up against the power of the petroleum industry does not excite investors.
You also had a chance to address the issue of the strangelhold that refiners have over retailers.
Your adherence to market principles is admirable, but you paint yourself (and the rest of us)into a corner that we must wait until the perfect fuel is developed to replace what we have. I shudder at the potential economic disuption that could ensue if we do not pursue alternatives while petroleum is affordable to our economy.
Hot Rod,
Thanks for taking the time to write that lengthy reply.
I’ll pass on a copy of your reply to the local small engine repair man. Get his opinion, (though you were a bit less than diplomatic towards such fellows, I’ll confess.)
I just wish I could get some gasoline without ethanol in it. Let me conduct my own tests.
Eric
Are you living on the moon?
Energy = Politics
I’m amazed this comment thread is still relatively active. Obviously we have a number of ethanol fans here. I don’t believe converting corn to ethanol for use as a motor fuel is starving anyone here or abroad…yet. The mandated demand for ethanol has increased the demand (and market price) of corn. This is beneficial for grain farmers but results in higher expenses for the meat industry. Everyone ends up paying slightly more for food because government mandates ethanol use. Still, even this market distortion would be acceptable if ethanol production significantly offset the oil we import.
No matter how you slice it, ethanol contains less energy than gasoline. This nonsense about “octane” is irrelevant. One may be able to build a high-compression engine to burn alcohol (been done for many, many years) but the alcohols remain a less energetic fuel. When you dilute gasoline with 10-15% ethanol you produce a less energetic motor fuel. Every vehicle burning these blends will get fewer miles to the gallon of fuel. The difference may be slight in some vehicles, more pronounced in others but it is still very real. The total economic impact over, say 15,000 miles of driving in a year is likely not that drastic relative to your total fuel costs. Still, it is a very real added cost just like food.
The more significant expense to the taxpayer and the consumer is the subsidy paid to the ethanol producer and the fuel blender. This is what annoys me.
Ethanol was born of good intentions: stop global warming, make lass polluting fuels, support the American farming industry, invent an entirely new industry (ethanol production), lessen our dependence of foreign. It was a politician’s wet dream. Trouble is…it wasn’t a very good idea. There are several dead giveaways. The most damning is that government had to mandate the use of ethanol. Also telling is that had to bribe the fuel producers with taxpayer money to get them to add to gasoline.
Ethanol hasn’t delivered much on the promises. It has had almost no affect on oil imports. It has made our motor fuel less efficient but not less expensive. It has had no effect of real pollution and may in fact have made it worse. We’re forced to use it by legislative fiat then taxed to support it. It delivered on ONE promise. It resulted in the development of the ethanol industry.
If ethanol had ever made any good economic sense the subsidies, mandated use and tariffs would be utterly unnecessary. If it made good sense to use as a motor fuel the private sector would have developed it. But now that the ethanol industry is well developed the subsidies should no longer be necessary. Further, if ethanol has indeed proven to be a viable technology the mandates should no longer be required.
In truth the ethanol industry is the pernicious spawn of politicians. No matter what the advocates here say, without government dictated demand and taxpayer subsidy the industry would dramatically shrink (perhaps not collapse) overnight.
Jimlion,
” jimlion says:
March 8, 2011 at 11:02 am
Poptech,
Sorry, but you avoided answering the question. I was hoping that you would recognize the monopolistic nature of our present system which naturally serves to destroy innovation.”
Your argument sounds reasonable on the face of it. A monopoly exists and private money cannot break into the market with this new fangled product – so the Government steps in and says ‘We’ll fund it guys.’
Leaving aside whether or not the monopolist would benefit economically by developing the product itself, the problem with your ‘solution’ to the monopoly problem is that the Government has to make a business decision on what taxpayers should be investing their money on.
But what if the Government were wrong? What if they chose a particular course of action, not because they have assembled a team of business experts and concluded that this is a superior product that will reduce the costs to society, but because it is seen to be ‘on message,’ or seen to be ‘doing something to save the planet,’ or for any other political reason? What if the whole strategy is fatally flawed; if the new product does not deliver on its promises, but actually ends up burdening society with hidden costs of enormous magnitude?
Does that seem like a rational decision to you?
One additional comment. I think Poptech alluded to this earlier. That is the myth of “energy independence”. No country that uses more oil than it produces will ever be energy independent – at least not in the next few decades. We can make all the electricity we will need with existing resources. We can heat our homes and businesses with natural gas. But like the rest of the world we need high energy density liquid fuel for transportation. The entire western world is in the same boat in this regard. We can’t possibly make ENOUGH ethanol to change this.
A smarter application of the billions we have squandered on corn ethanol would have been the development of a viable coal-to-liquids industry. It’s tragic that the wealth wasted chasing the AGW fraud and cooking up moonshine could have been applied to the development of thorium reactors and more meaningful forms of “alternative energy” like CTL. Ethanol is a technological dead end.
jimlion, “Sorry, but you avoided answering the question. I was hoping that you would recognize the monopolistic nature of our present system which naturally serves to destroy innovation.(which I view with as much dismay as government intervention)
Private investors do not like to lose money and going up against the power of the petroleum industry does not excite investors. You also had a chance to address the issue of the strangelhold that refiners have over retailers. Your adherence to market principles is admirable, but you paint yourself (and the rest of us)into a corner that we must wait until the perfect fuel is developed to replace what we have. I shudder at the potential economic disuption that could ensue if we do not pursue alternatives while petroleum is affordable to our economy.”
I directly answered your question which has nothing to do with some imaginary scenario you laid out. There is no monopoly for vehicle fuels, there is simply ones that are more economically viable than others. Oil (gasoline and diesel) is primarily used because it is the most economically viable. The only thing that can stop the introduction of a competing fuel is the government. Successful private investors are not stupid and will not invest in something that is not a better alternative than oil (gasoline and diesel). The refineries are privately owned by oil companies and do not have to work with any company they don’t want to, especially a competing fuel. The Ethanol industry should build it’s own refineries if it wants and if the government is preventing that, well that is a problem with the government not the oil industry. If the Ethanol industries “success” is based on gasoline blends and it is not economical for them to do this in their own refineries, too bad – that is a bad business plan. The Ethanol industry sounds like a bunch of cry babies because their major competitor does not want to be used, “we can’t use their refineries, we can’t use their gas stations.” This is like Burger King complaining that McDonald’s will not sell their hamburgers and let them use their distribution facilities and that is why they cannot compete.
Markets are very efficient and highly competitive if there is no government intervention. When the market price of oil reaches a point where another fuel is economically viable, it will be adopted on it’s own. Governments have no ability to pick winners in an economy and every time they attempt to it is an absolute failure and a waste of tax payer money.
Caleb, “Thanks for taking the time to write that lengthy reply.
I’ll pass on a copy of your reply to the local small engine repair man. Get his opinion, (though you were a bit less than diplomatic towards such fellows, I’ll confess.)”
I would not take anything he says as valid no matter how long winded it is without supporting documentation. He has stated repeatedly false claims here repeatedly.
220mph, “First, there are legitimate reasons to subsidize – we subsidize many things we “want” – without subsidies in early stages desirable “stuff” often doesn’t have a chance”
No there isn’t. Anything economically viable always has a chance, new products are introduced all the time that become successful.
the goals of ethanol; renewable alternative fuel, domestically produced, and lowering carbon footprint vs fossil fuels are all worthwhile goals.”
This is all emotional rhetoric that does not have any basis in economic reality.
“Without availability of ethanol there will be few vehicles produced that use it. Subsidies and mandates created a finite base level initial demand. That gave the car companies a reason to build flex fuel vehicles. As the number of flex fuel vehicles has increases so to has availability of e85.”
Yes malinvestments relating to the Ethanol industry would not be possible without subsides, mandates and tariffs, that is correct. Instead the capital would have been properly allocated to what was most economically viable. The consumer and the economy would be better off.
“As of today the technology is such that ethanol is not the same price as gas. And for some reason Americans are loath to pay a penny more, even if there are significant benefits.”
Americans want to spend their money how they please not how you want them to spend it. They do not hold your emotional views when they do spend it.
“But the big gains come with cellulosic, and a little down the road other bio-fuels – cellulosic net energy balance will be at least double current corn values”
The magical gains from cellolosic ethanol do not exist.
“The oil companies receive big subsidies – massively higher dollar amounts than the comparatively small $6 billion ethanol receives annually. Other energy source receive similar subsidies. If you eliminate one you must eliminate them all.”
Not when the divide by total domestic oil production. That is fine remove them it still will not make Ethanol competitive.
“Most nations have an import tariff on fuel ethanol, and comparatively the U.S. tariff is nearly non-existent.”
It is irrelevant what other countries have. Another countries import tariff is never a reason to have one here. The tariff here is $0.54 per gallon and is very significant as it prevents competition from more energy efficient sources of ethanol such as ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil.
“Many claim we should buy Brazilian ethanol because it is cheaper. But is it?”
Obviously it is otherwise the tariff would not be necessary.
“Imported (including Brazilian) ethanol pays a 45 cent per gallon (for e85) secondary import tax. The reason for that tax however is NOT to make them less competitive with US ethanol. It is to OFFSET the fact that the US Courts ruled that the BLENDERS subsidy, intended for domestic producers, was required to also be paid for imported ethanol.”
No they pay $0.54 per gallon. Of course the reason is to make them less competitive! Are you delusional? There should be no subsidy for ethanol and the inefficient American industry should be forced to compete internationally, instead of punishing the American consumer so they can maintain their Ethanol monopoly here.
Dr. Dave says:
March 8, 2011 at 1:56 pm
One additional comment. I think Poptech alluded to this earlier. That is the myth of “energy independence”. No country that uses more oil than it produces will ever be energy independent – at least not in the next few decades. We can make all the electricity we will need with existing resources. We can heat our homes and businesses with natural gas. But like the rest of the world we need high energy density liquid fuel for transportation. The entire western world is in the same boat in this regard. We can’t possibly make ENOUGH ethanol to change this.
You mis-state my comments and those of many others, including the industry …
There is no claim, never has been one, that ethanol will ever result in energy “independence” …. the claim is ethanol and other alternative energy fuels REDUCE our DEPENDENCE on foreign oils. They also reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
Those goals – along with the other positive benefits of ethanol – are real attainable results.
Every gal of ethanol DOES reduce our use of foreign oil
Every gal of ethanol used DOES reduce our use of finite fossil fuels.
Further every gal of ethanol is renewable – we can simply grow more – the re-supply for that one gallon is infinite (note I did not say ethanol supply is infinite – its not – its limited by availability of feedstock to produce it – current meaning land to grow feedstock on)
Notwithstanding the soundly and thoroughly “dis-proven” (since I don’t want to continue the hair-splitting with poptech over “rebutted/refuted”) claims of Pimetel, Patzek and Searchinger – who are each outliers when compared to the multitude of other studies and reports – every gallon of ethanol used creates more energy than is consumed in making it.
And every gallon of ethanol produced and used decreases emmisions and carbon footprint.
We CAN and ARE making enough ethanol to make a small, but significant impact on use of foreign oil and finite fossil fuels.
The complaints over the subsidies are in the big picture really quite ridiculous. The people who complain about them have not bothered in my opinion to understand them – or place them in context.
We produced appx 13.2 billion gallons of ethanol in 2010 … we exported appx 400 mllion gals and imported just appx 100 million gallons … net US ethanol in 2010 was appx 12.9 billion gallons …
The total VEETC subsidy was appx $5.8 billion.
The 54 cent TARIFF is a TAX – which generates revenue for the US – regardless it has all but been eliminated …. Brazil exported almost no ethanol to the US in 2010, and is now importing ethanol themselves. The majority of the small amount of ethanol we import pays NO tariff thru exemptions in the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the CAFTA agreements.
We consumers paid virtually nothing in import tariffs this year or last.
And as I showed above ….. using national average gas and e85 prices and the new car MPG difference between e85 and gas (e10) and driving a standard apx 12000 miless annually… today the ethanol benders credit (VEETC subsdy) costs appx $1 dollar per car per day
Seems a very small price to pay for the benefits received.
Poptech,
I have thoroughly enjoyed your responses and agree wholeheartedly. Carbon footprint? Yeah…horsespit! Before anyone gets too dreamy-eyed for cellulosic ethanol they might want to consider what the stuff they propose to make it out of is used for (e.g. compost and tillage).
I’ve been on this planet for 54 years. Name ONE thing (other than ethanol) that came into existence due to subsidies in my lifetime. OK…let’s make it a little tougher. Name one USEFUL thing. Subsidies, mandates and tariffs are all artificial distortions of the free market. Remove them and all non-viable markets collapse.
Good job!
Dr. Dave says:
March 8, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Poptech,
I have thoroughly enjoyed your responses and agree wholeheartedly. Carbon footprint? Yeah…horsespit! Before anyone gets too dreamy-eyed for cellulosic ethanol they might want to consider what the stuff they propose to make it out of is used for (e.g. compost and tillage).
Sorry Dr Dave, but thats a picture perfect example of refusal to educate yourself on a subject yet passing judgment regardless.
You are concerned because cellulosic ethanol is made from “compost and tillage”?
Whatever reason could there be that using these products to generate fuel would be a problem or issue for you?
If the point you are trying to make is you cannot make fuel out of these products, all I can do is shake my head.
Even the least educated among us understand that for example decomposition of these products creates methane gas – fuel from compost and tillage. Simplistically put the cellulosic process is a souped up version of natural processes.
There are MANY feedstocks suitable for ethanol and/or bio-fuel production … trees, switchgrasses, yard waste, garbage, and many more …. they are all RENEWABLE resources
Poptech,
I am trying very hard to find areas of agreement–but you make it tough.
“Markets are very efficient and highly competitive if there is no government intervention.”
I agree completely—- in the energy arena—-name one.
“But the big gains come with cellulosic, and a little down the road other bio-fuels – cellulosic net energy balance will be at least double current corn values”
The magical gains from cellolosic ethanol do not exist.
Amen, and not because I’m a corn producer, if I can produce a fuel crop and make money off of it–I’ll do it, but the cellulosic promise has been “5 years away” for about 25 years. Everytime a technological hurdle has been passed there have been more in the way. And no one has been able to deal with the feedstock logistic issue. I have a local startup company that is wanting to use corn stover as a feed stock for a gasification plant. I have to bale the stover, store it, and load it for delivery–for free. My supposed benefit is that I wont have trash management issues the following year. Huh–guess they never heard of soil organic content depletion.
“The oil companies receive big subsidies – massively higher dollar amounts than the comparatively small $6 billion ethanol receives annually. Other energy source receive similar subsidies. If you eliminate one you must eliminate them all.”
“Not when the divide by total domestic oil production. That is fine remove them it still will not make Ethanol competitive.”
What???? I have no idea how you can make such a sweeping statement. The benefits received from the government by the oil industry is not a hard number–its such a subjective glop that any discussion is meaningless. The ethanol subsidies that you take so much umbrage with have-at most- 2 years of life left. The tax reconciliation package passed in December extends the blender’s credit (@ur momisugly the $0.45 level) for two years. The industry is very much aware that the congress critters will not extend past that. In fact, were it not for a division of opinion between the 2 lobby players (RFA/Growth Energy) of how to proceed without it–a better compromise would have been reached. Of course the tariff will go once the blender’s credit sunsets. The Commodity Title within the Farm Bill is going to be dismantled in the name of deficit reduction–we know this is coming. So what is the basis for your assertion? Do you have a crystal ball that tells you what oil price will be–a month from now? 6 months?
And every move up in oil price makes ethanol more competitive-without mandates, subsidies, tariffs.
220mph,
Forgive me for asking, but have you ever taken a college level course in physics or organic chemistry? Judging by your responses I’m guessing the answer would be no. If you remove substrate for compost or tillage you have no more compost or tillage and all the benefits these yield. Shucks…you CAN make fuel out of this stuff…in theory (although currently not in practice on a practical scale). The question one must ask is should we? We can remove a proportion of feedstock and convert it into to corn liquor motor fuel without much harm.
But even you, I assume, can realize that we can’t take a whole lot MORE than 40% of our country’s corn production for ethanol production with suffering some untoward consequences. We have uses for everything from corn cobs to garden waste. Do you suppose this might be altered by unfettered ethanol production? If there were mountains of unused, rotting corn cobs that might be one thing, but farmers are pretty smart (having had centuries to refine their craft). Modern farming is much like a modern slaughterhouse. There ain’t much waste. No matter what you start with you have to make ethanol out of organic material.
The bitter truth is that we can’t possibly produce enough ethanol to make a significant difference in our demand for foreign oil (i.e. liquid transportation fuel). You can wish and want ethanol to be everything you hope for…but even under the best of circumstances, it ain’t. It’s a dead end like the steam powered automobile.
I don’t care if you want to pursue it for for e85 vehicles…I just don’t want to pay for it.