Letter to the Editor
Watts Up With That?
23rd July 2012
Nothing illustrates the anti-human ethos of the Greens better than their support for “biofuels”.
That trendy name cannot hide the fact that encouraging and mandating the burning of food for motor fuel creates nothing but negatives for the environment and for human welfare, but will have no effect on climate.
The biofuel scheme relies on taxpayer subsidies and legislated market-sharing. It wastes land, fuel, fertiliser, water and financial resources to produce ethanol from sterile monocultures of corn, soya beans, palm oil and sugar cane. Most of the land used was cultivation that once produced food. Some is stolen from peasant landowners or obtained by ploughing natural grasslands or clearing virgin forests. The distilling process produces good alcohol but an inferior motor spirit that can damage some engines and has only 70% of the energy of petrol and diesel.
The biofuel schemes have already inflated world food prices. Shortages and famines will increase. This food-burning policy is taking us back to the hungry years before tractors, harvesters, trucks and diesel fuel when teams of draft horses, working bullocks, stock horses and farm labourers consumed 80% of farm output. Some may like to return to those bucolic days, but then most city populations would not find food on their supermarket shelves. In trendy green jargon, big cities would be “unsustainable”.
Here is a new slogan which is kind to humans AND the environment:
“Don’t Burn Food for Fuel”.
Viv Forbes,
Rosewood Qld Australia
I am happy for my email address to be published.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
July 23, 2012 at 1:55 pm
It is not going away any time soon.
++++++++++++++++++++++
…. and not only that Larry, its spawning new industries, such as high value renewable specialty chemicals, and cellulosic plants are continuing to come onstream with advanced chemical and enzymatic processes to make them more efficient and reduce the feedstock price.
For example, go-ahead plans for a new $250 million cellulosic plant in Iowa (POET-DSM) were announced just today. This will utilize the corn stover.
Unlike arguing about watts per fricking meter squared, travesties and missing heat, the scientists and businessmen in this field actually go out there and make sh!t happen. Toss the negative data and move on with the positive data. This field is not static and full of the reject scientists who seem to populate the AGW climate “sciences”.
Most of the glass half empty brigade up this thread are arguing from positions that are long gone. This is a happening field for movers and shakers like these, and their scientists:
http://www.advancedbiofuelsmarkets.com/
The price of admission should be a clue here.
…. and don’t expect the Republicans to nix any of this any time soon. It may be a good way to get votes, but they’ll be doing the “Iraq War Nancy Pelosi shuffle” in unison after they’re elected.
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
July 23, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Quote from your comment:
“I can make more money selling corn than wheat which should I plant?”
That has to be the biggest Duh question of the year, any farmer that was not brain dead would plant the crop that will make him the best return on his investment,
=========================
Since you referenced to a part of my comment I guess I should respond.
You just confirmed the main point that has been made by many of the other commenters on this thread, the demand for corn is the driving factor for corn for other grain price increases. I’m sure you will have an explanation suitable for yourself that will not reflect the government mandate for ethanol.
You failed to address the summary of the USDA report. (Ref: eyesonu says:
July 23, 2012 at 1:27 pm )
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
July 23, 2012 at 2:56 pm
” …just like a book publisher publishes the books that people want to by or car makers build the cars people want to drive.”
==================
Government mandates influence what kind of car I can drive. Just like the government mandates influence the price of my food. I won’t discuss the debt owed by the taxpayers as a result of any of these mandates.
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
July 23, 2012 at 2:56 pm
=====================
What relevance does the rest of your post have to do with the main topic of this thread. You are bringing up the 1990’s, ten years prior to the mandates for ethanol. Try to stay on topic or no one will play with you except perhaps A Scott.
I only would agree that growing corn in the temperate zone is a stupid way to produce ethanol at the expense of a useful food. But there are other very sensible ways to produce vast quantities of biofuels and reduce human sugar consumption.
Pure sugar should not be considered a healthy and proper “human food”. You dont need much arable land in the tropics to produce sugar cane in sufficient quantity to power millions of vehicles. Brasil powers 80% of their motor vehicles using less than 10% of the currently cleared arable land in that country. Sugar cane photosynthesis in the tropics is one of the fastest and most efficient ways to produce energy from the sun and rapidly take CO2 from the atmosphere.
A. Scott says:
July 23, 2012 at 1:42 pm
“And eyesonu and others claimed corn prices increased from 2006 to 2008 because of ethanol production ramping up – while ignoring that wheat, soybeans, barely and most other commodities increased faster and higher during the same time.
In the last go around on this eyesonu tried to make claims about planted acres – that corn acreage took over other commodities acreage – which was proven equally incorrect. ”
====================
My comment (Ref: eyesonu says: July 23, 2012 at 1:27 pm ) simply showed a summary of the USDA data from year 2005/2006 to 2011/2012.
My ending statement was perhaps an opinion that made no direct reference to the ethanol mandate causing the massive increase in grain prices. Where did you get that?
I would agree with “Hotrod Larry’s own words that it would make good business sense to plant corn rather than any other crop to maximize profit “Duh”. Perhaps that is why we see a dramatic drop in planted acres in other grains and a dramatic increase in corn. I simply questioned why the results are like they are. He answered it and I accept his answer. You should discuss this with him.
A Scott you seem to be showing signs of pressure. Give yourself a gold star and see if it makes you feel better.
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
“A totally free market farm economy inevitably results in a boom bust commodity market.”
No, it doesn’t.
Certainly there is much less misallocation of product than in centrally-planned economies. The futures markets take care of that.
And a totally free market [except for necessary regulation providing for a level playing field] provides for a lot more boom than bust. The U.S. economy exploded under a free market system. Now, not so much.
A. Scott says:
July 23, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Quoted from your own words:
“But hey a “model” showed that corn prices increased 30% because of ethanol … despite that a simple review of the real world numbers at places like indexmundi shows ALL commodities rose vitually in unison at that time. Its funny too, as these same people all berate the use of similarly flawed models when it comes to AGW yet blindly accept them when it supports their beliefs and agendas.
The best part is when pressed to prove or support their claims they never do – you get an adhominem attack in response – but rarely if ever support for their claims. And when they do provide links – take _Jim for example – the stories they link to are nothing but promo puffery from interest groups – often not a shred of real data or science to support their positions.”
===================
Are you psychologically reflecting yourself here? Too much pressure on WUWT? Sure appears like it to me. Place a gold star under your pillow and get some rest. You may feel better tomorrow.
@ur momisugly A scott and Hotrod Larry
I made my point so I won’t respond anymore on this thread so as to relieve you of the pressures created by your continued responses. Both of you get a gold star for effort.
If you want to grow a biofuel use something besides corn. Corn is a rotten crop because it damages the soil.
[Here] is a much better choice:
Even the USDA is recommending it as a cover crop rotated with corn. But the DEA is dead set on banning it.
@ur momisugly A Scott and Hotrod Lerry
WUWT has another thread that seems to be relevant to your corn crop. See Krugman’s corny caper. Posted on July 23, 2012 by Anthony Watts .
It may really be much worse than you thought. Forget the gold stars, face the reality. The scam is up. You got the gold stars while it last but there is no more gold.
Reality is a fact of life. You do not own it.
As usual the ethanol bashers display their ignorance with the same old trope.
Corn ethanol only uses the sugar from corn and the co-product replaces soybean protein and oil in livestock feed.
That is one bizarre series of comments eyesonu.
There’s no scam, and it’s not going away. It’s going to continue growing, and in many different areas.
If you want to look under the right rock, it would be the profit margin rock. Should the U.S. be supporting an industry with a margin that fluctuates across the profit and loss line as it does? I don’t know, but I do know that it’s more productive than occupying Wall Street.
See now – thet there’s yer problem …
You don’t understand why the historical past performance is relevant to prices today. Just like you never figured out last time we did this you were using completely wrong data – a tiny subset of what you thought you were reporting. And despite numerous attempts – pointing you directly to the correct data – you refused to pay any attention.
What should be outlawed is burying farmland under housing developments. Expansion of living space should be on the crappy land that can’t be used for farming, but much of that is classed as “wilderness” or habitat for “endangered” insects or wildflowers.
Wasn’t hemp outlawed along with marijuana around about the time DuPont invented nylon? Seems to be a bit of a handy coincidence that gave a big boost to the synthetic fibers industry, especially for materials used in rope production.
Here’s something possibly urban ledgendy. Years ago I read a tale about US government or military researchers experimenting with cross breeding hemp and pot in an attempt to increase the strength and/or quantity of fiber in the hemp but what they ended up producing was more potent pot. (Stronger dope instead of stronger rope.) Along came synthetics and the super hemp project was shut down and all the test plants etc were supposed to be destroyed, but of course some of the researchers who sampled their research personally smuggled out some seed.
In general, the government should not be subsidizing anything: ethanol, solar, wind, fossil fuel or any other type of production. It inevitably distorts markets and leads to lower efficiency and ultimately higher costs to consumers. Having said that, if you look at commodity prices over the last 10 years, the prices of ALL major commodity groups have risen essentially the same amount. I certainly don’t believe metals prices, for example, are driven by grain prices. (Only now are energy prices starting to decouple from other commodities as a result of lower natural gas prices from, primarily, fracking.) If corn-for-ethanol was really a major factor in grain pricing, those commodities should have decoupled from the rest and risen at a greater rate. They have not.
Even at today’s drought-inflated prices, the actual cost of the corn in an 18oz. box of corn flakes is on the order of $0.12 – $0.15. Double the price of corn and the price goes up by only that amount… on a $4 box of cereal. I do however agree that the world’s poor suffer disproportionate impacts from increased food prices. Again, get the government out of it and let the markets decide how to ration food crops.
In my opinion, there should be no discussion about the cost to consumers of corn-for-ethanol that doesn’t also include the impact of energy prices, increased world demand and the value of the dollar, i.e. government monetary policy. Most commodities everywhere in the world are traded in U.S. dollars — the lower the value of the dollar, the more expensive the commodities.
Let’s see now, we use Federal grants to support wood fuel power plants as renewable energy projects and turn around and cite the same plants for air violations. Then we mandate food as mandated liquid fuel in cars and greatly expand food subsidies for a third of the population as SNAP payments to offset rising poverty and rising food vulnerability among children and seniors. The housing bubble was simple and straightforward compared to this longer cycle spending distortion bubble. This would be a good time for some heard on the street interviews from Greece on how it all went wrong.
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
July 23, 2012 at 1:55 pm
You actually make an excellent argument for getting the government completely out of the agricultural products market, though I am sure that you don’t see it. Do you also argue that alcohol is an energy efficient way to go for fuel in spite of its Rube Goldberg route from field to pump?
Ethanol and Food Prices.
There is debate in some quarters as to whether subsidising ethanol affects food prices.
In the fuzzy “science” of economics, one law stands like a light-house in the fog – the law of supply and demand.
This law tells us that if the demand for corn is increased by subsidies and mandates favouring ethanol production, the price of corn will be higher than it would otherwise have been, all other things staying the same. It says nothing about whether the price will be higher or lower than it was last week/year/decade. No one can forecast next year’s corn price with confidence, although many believe their model has the answer. Like all market prices, the price of corn involves many other imponderables such as weather, politics and that most fickle factor of all – human action. The corn price model is about as good as the global temperature model.
If there were anyone who could accurately forecast the price of corn, he would not be pontificating on watts-up-with-that – he would be relaxing on the Riviera drinking champagne out of a glass slipper.
Viv Forbes
forbes@carbon-sense.com
End the ethanol madness!
And Viv Forbes, you are so right. If anyone could accurately forecast commodity prices, he wouldn’t just be sipping champagne from a glass slipper, he would have scores of naked teens peeling grapes for him as he counted his gold bars. And that’s just for starters…
Smokey: “Your arguments seem dubious to me. They excuse rent-seeking behavior and government intervention in the markets. Do you have some sort of vested interest in ethanol?” You should look up the facts for yourself. Instead, you’re changing the subject and making ad hominem attacks. I’m not in favor of the rent-seeking behvaior but that’s not the topic of the post here. The topic is “burning food in cars”. I’m familiar with the facts about ethanol from being involved with the industry. You can google my name. Right now I’m a candidate for the PhD in physics at Washington State University and have not had any connection to oil or ethanol or environmentalism for most of a decade. And who are you?
Tom H: denies (without any links or arguments) my statement that “If ethanol were not present in your modern gasoline your modern gasoline would not work in your modern car.” I think people in the industry (or people who once were in it like me) know more about this than the average Joe. “Sub-octane” means an octane level below regular. Without the ethanol it should not be burned in your car because of knocking problems. Try googling “sub-octane”+gasoline to learn more about how fuel is made.
Jim: “Then being a supporter of a “free country” you would certainly support the elimination of the ethanol mandate, yes?” Yes, I am against the continuation of the ethanol mandate. And it goes both ways, I am also against the government regulations that prevent the amount of ethanol from being more than 10%. And I think that gas companies should be allowed to advertise ethanol-free gasoline to those who want it.
Sam: “For people that argue ethanol has no impact on food prices, how do you explain the fact food prices increased.” Food prices have been going up and down since man invented money, long before corn was widely used for ethanol. Back in the good old days the primary use of corn was in making hard liquor. I bet they were arguing that this increased the cost of food back then, too. And it did. By how much? Why plant corn you can’t make into liquor? You could write instead: “For people that argue that CO2 has no impact on temperature, how do you explain the fact temperatures increased.” Similar to CGW some models show that ethanol increases the price of food. Of course it does. By how much? The real irony of your post is that it’s on WUWT where people understand the complex interaction between politics, academia and computer modeling. Do you trust an academic to make a working model of an economy with respect to a highly political subject? If the economists understood the first thing about the economy (jobs and growth) the President wouldn’t be worried about his reelection chances. Hey, I’m not saying that food and ethanol production are not related. I’m simply pointing out that some of the corn that will be eaten this year (through being fed to animals), might not have been planted if it weren’t for its prospective use in ethanol. The actual use is determined by relative prices. For the 1st world, far more of your food cost is due to transportation and the ethanol likely reduces that cost.
Jim G: “Bio fuels are insanity to the nth degree. Plowing, fertilizing, planting, weed spraying, bug spraying, harvesting, & hauling the biomass all require either deisel[sic] or gasoline fuel. Then the fuels used for processing into alcohol and shipping to the refinery for blending. End result, MORE carbon in the atmosphere not less, poorer gas mileage & higher food prices.” It’s very simple, really. Just compare the price of corn with the price of gasoline. It might be useful to know that a bushel of corn makes about 2.7 gallons of ethanol and 18 pounds of dried distiller grains. Use google to look up the prices of these three things, corn, ethanol and DDGs. You will find that converting corn to ethanol and DDGs is profitable. (To be more accurate, you will have to add in a lot of other costs covering everything from labor to electricity, but these three account for most of the costs and incomes of a distillation plant.) The only way of getting around this very simple calculation is to claim that the price of corn is heavily subsidized. But the price of corn is determined by world-wide trade. Do you think that every country also subsidizes their corn crops? No. You put a seed in the ground. Later it grows up into a big plant and makes lots of new seeds. Farming doesn’t need subsidies, it’s been a successful business for thousands of years. It may look like a lot of work to city-folk but it’s really, okay well it is a lot of work. As far as denying the “sanity” of ethanol production you could say the say the same thing about a bunch of other crazy sounding technologies. For example, I’ve heard that some think it’s intelligent to make trees into paper when every knows that that’s what papyrus is for. In short, don’t presume to tell industry what makes sense. It’s not your business and you know almost nothing about it. Eliminate the mandates and leave the industry alone.
Carl Brannan,
I did no research on you at all, I just suspected from your comment that you have a vested interest in ethanol. Now it turns out that you’re also young enough to know everything. Must be nice, having no need of decades of real world experience.
Smokey says:
July 24, 2012 at 7:56 pm
====================
Smokey, I thought you were not a big fan of ad hominems. Did someone steal your identity ?
Relax, phil. I was only pointing out that Carl knows it all. What’s wrong with that?
Try reading the section on engine-knock at Wikipedia to learn more about how modern engines work and why your comment is irrelevant, and, quite frankly, nonsense.
Mark