Ethanol too expensive, new processing plants on hold

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol too expensive, new processing plants on hold 

=?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno DeleteThis @ae86.gts>
wrote in news:zSKxj.8794$JU3.5393@trndny04:

> The price of corn has risen so sharply due to the demand to produce
> ethanol, that it is not longer cost effective to produce ethanol as a
> replacement for gasoline.



It was NEVER "cost effective" to use ethanol in fuel.

The only reason it even appeared that way in the first place is that while
you were paying for your ethanol out of your right pocket, the government
was taking more money out of your left pocket while you weren't looking and
slipping it to the ethanol makers.

Counting solely the pump price is the only way they can claim ethanol is
competitive with other additives or with gasoline.

Ethanol was considered as a gasoline additive in the 1920's (Henry Ford was
a big booster of it), but it was ultimately rejected -- for the very same
reasons it's been questioned for now. What's that famous George Santayana
saying?

--
Tegger
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol too expensive, new processing plants on hold 

Jeff <kidsdoc2000.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:EnLxj.17622$Sw6.5679@trnddc06:


>
> I have concerns about using the land for growing corn. I can't help
> but think that the land would better be used for other things, like
> growing food or restored as a forest.
>


We have more forested acres now than we did in 1920. The reason is that we
no longer use animals for transporataion or farm labor. Horses and oxen eat
enormous amounts of food, so vast swaths of land were under the plow for
animal feed.

With the advent of the motor vehicle, those acres became unneeded, so fell
back to nature.

We do not need more acres for food. We already produce an abundance of
food, more than we can eat ourselves, even in the face of decades of
steadily dwindling farm acreage. Government price supports, and modern
biotech and chemistry have seen to that.

I've read that if all the environuts' (and farm lobby's) dreams for ethanol
were answered, almost every arable acre of land in the US would have to be
plowed up for corn for ethanol.

--
Tegger
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol too expensive, new processing plants on hold 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol too expensive, new processing plants on hold 

"John Q. Public" <god DeleteThis @shamgod.com> wrote:
> In message news:zSKxj.8794$JU3.5393@trndny04, =?iso-2022-
> jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= is alleged to have said:
>
>> The price of corn has risen so sharply due to the demand to produce
>> ethanol, that it is not longer cost effective to produce ethanol as a
>> replacement for gasoline.
>
> Ethanol was NEVER cost-effective.

But it's very good for farmers...



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol too expensive, new processing plants on hold 

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno.RemoveThis@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:zSKxj.8794$JU3.5393@trndny04...
> The price of corn has risen so sharply due to the demand to produce
> ethanol

If you adjust corn prices for inflation, they are still at depression era
levels. And actually the recent rise in the price of farm commodities has
more to do with the falling value of the dollar than with corn diverted to
ethanol. Crops that have never been used to make ethanol have seen even more
spectacular rises in prices. My contract price for peanuts increased by over
30% this year (but still only marginally profitable). Unadjusted soybeans
prices are at historic highs (although when you adjust them for inflation,
they are still well below the highs of 35 years ago). I've never seen wheat
higher (again unadjusted for inflation). Even cotton prices are looking
better for next year, after several years of decline. Around my area people
are moving away from corn in droves. Corn acreage will probably be down 30%
or more this year (in my area). The grain dealer I do business with has been
trying to lock up by pitifully few acres for weeks. The fact is, when you
adjust corn prices for inflation, we are still below depression era prices.
On the other hand - the cost of input has risen even more spectacularly than
the price of the crops. Fertilizer is up astronomically. Diesel fuel is at
an all time high (even adjusted for inflation). If we have another year like
last year (drought problems) more than a few local farmers are likely to go
under. Americans have gotten used to low food prices. And even now food is a
bargain. How much do you think the wheat in a loaf of bread actually costs?
Maybe $0.30....even at today's very high prices for wheat.

Ed
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol too expensive, new processing plants on hold 

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:49:00 -0500, C. E. White wrote:

>
> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno DeleteThis @ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:zSKxj.8794$JU3.5393@trndny04...
>> The price of corn has risen so sharply due to the demand to produce
>> ethanol
>
> If you adjust corn prices for inflation, they are still at depression era
> levels. And actually the recent rise in the price of farm commodities has
> more to do with the falling value of the dollar than with corn diverted to
> ethanol. Crops that have never been used to make ethanol have seen even
> more spectacular rises in prices. My contract price for peanuts increased
> by over 30% this year (but still only marginally profitable). Unadjusted
> soybeans prices are at historic highs (although when you adjust them for
> inflation, they are still well below the highs of 35 years ago). I've
> never seen wheat higher (again unadjusted for inflation). Even cotton
> prices are looking better for next year, after several years of decline.
> Around my area people are moving away from corn in droves. Corn acreage
> will probably be down 30% or more this year (in my area). The grain dealer
> I do business with has been trying to lock up by pitifully few acres for
> weeks. The fact is, when you adjust corn prices for inflation, we are
> still below depression era prices. On the other hand - the cost of input
> has risen even more spectacularly than the price of the crops. Fertilizer
> is up astronomically. Diesel fuel is at an all time high (even adjusted
> for inflation). If we have another year like last year (drought problems)
> more than a few local farmers are likely to go under. Americans have
> gotten used to low food prices. And even now food is a bargain. How much
> do you think the wheat in a loaf of bread actually costs? Maybe
> $0.30....even at today's very high prices for wheat.
>
> Ed


There was a $20/ton rise in the price of pasta in one day. The guy who
said this said that a rise of $20/ton in a YEAR was a lot!
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol too expensive, new processing plants on hold 

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:42:56 +0000, John Q. Public wrote:

> In message news:zSKxj.8794$JU3.5393@trndny04, =?iso-2022-
> jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= is alleged to have said:
>
>> The price of corn has risen so sharply due to the demand to produce
>> ethanol, that it is not longer cost effective to produce ethanol as a
>> replacement for gasoline.
>
> Ethanol was NEVER cost-effective.


It was for a short time. That's why new ethanol plants were built.

Hey, they can always bottle it as Everclear...
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol too expensive, new processing plants on hold 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol too expensive, new processing plants on hold 

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:21:03 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno.TakeThisOut@ae86.gts>
wrote:

>The price of corn has risen so sharply due to the demand to produce
>ethanol, that it is not longer cost effective to produce ethanol as a
>replacement for gasoline. Plans to build new ethanol plants are on hold,
>and two plants under construction have filed for bankruptcy. Even with the
>price of gasoline on the rise, it is now more expensive to produce a
>gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gas, just as it was in the days when
>gas was 'cheap'.

Ethanol has never been an economical replacement for gasoline. It
takes the energy equivalent of 1.5 gallons of ethanol to produce one
gallon of ethanol. A loosing proposition regardless of the price of
corn.
>
>However, the rise in the price of corn has a multifaceted effect, since
>when gas rises, the price of anything else rises to a small degree. When
>the price of corn goes up, the price of anything made with corn also rises
>to a greater degree, since all producers of any goods using corn have to
>pay the same price.
>
>Also, GreenPeace is now saying the ethanol is no less polluting than
>gasoline, but then again, what did we expect from them?
>

Yes, you are right about that too. Add in the fact that the amount of
energy in ethanol is about 15% less than gasoline and you have a
greater amount of CO2 released by traveling a mile on ethanol than
that same mile using gasoline. Remember that the carbon foot print
should be the total amount of carbon produced in the production cycle
of the fuel, not just the amount released by burning the fuel.

Since we have now entered a cooling cycle in our global weather, we
should be emitting more, not less, carbon to offset the cooling trend.
So lets all go out and drive our Detroit Iron to the corner store and
leave the rice burners at home.

Jack
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol too expensive, new processing plants on hold 

Retired VIP wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:21:03 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno.TakeThisOut@ae86.gts>
> wrote:
>
>> The price of corn has risen so sharply due to the demand to produce
>> ethanol, that it is not longer cost effective to produce ethanol as a
>> replacement for gasoline. Plans to build new ethanol plants are on hold,
>> and two plants under construction have filed for bankruptcy. Even with the
>> price of gasoline on the rise, it is now more expensive to produce a
>> gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gas, just as it was in the days when
>> gas was 'cheap'.
>
> Ethanol has never been an economical replacement for gasoline. It
> takes the energy equivalent of 1.5 gallons of ethanol to produce one
> gallon of ethanol. A loosing proposition regardless of the price of
> corn.

Actually, the process has become more efficient over time. The ethanol
produced provides a little more energy than the fossil fuels that went
into it and does reduce greenhouse gases a bit. But the cost is probably
not worth the expense nor the other environmental impact, like all the
land used to grow corn.

Plugins are not the best solutions, either:
<http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E0LYwQq0w4AVRJUYsCDZAxTIhQjAbTIS0E_v4nwWv8Tmytk3lucb1zoAAHOFD9o/2-0&fp=47c9db2be947e2f7&ei=r2_JR76JDpK4ygTDm7n1CA&url=http%3A//www.usatoday.com/tech/products/environment/2008-02-25-plug-in-hybrids-pollution_N.htm&cid=0&sig2=Gkzz3S_MsGVmXz8lBlpYOA>

>> However, the rise in the price of corn has a multifaceted effect, since
>> when gas rises, the price of anything else rises to a small degree. When
>> the price of corn goes up, the price of anything made with corn also rises
>> to a greater degree, since all producers of any goods using corn have to
>> pay the same price.
>>
>> Also, GreenPeace is now saying the ethanol is no less polluting than
>> gasoline, but then again, what did we expect from them?
>>
>
> Yes, you are right about that too. Add in the fact that the amount of
> energy in ethanol is about 15% less than gasoline and you have a
> greater amount of CO2 released by traveling a mile on ethanol than
> that same mile using gasoline.

Actually, it is a little less CO2 with ethanol.

> Remember that the carbon foot print
> should be the total amount of carbon produced in the production cycle
> of the fuel, not just the amount released by burning the fuel.

Exactly. Which is why plugin electrics are not so good in many areas.

> Since we have now entered a cooling cycle in our global weather, we

We have not entered a cooling cycle.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/feb/global.html#Temp
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2008.htm

> should be emitting more, not less, carbon to offset the cooling trend.

If we were entering a cooling trend, why should we be emitting more?
Would the build up in CO2 eventually come back to haunt us?

> So lets all go out and drive our Detroit Iron to the corner store and
> leave the rice burners at home.

And what are we going to do to afford the gas?

> Jack
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol too expensive, new processing plants on hold 

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:09:09 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000 RemoveThis @hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Retired VIP wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:21:03 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno RemoveThis @ae86.gts>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The price of corn has risen so sharply due to the demand to produce
>>> ethanol, that it is not longer cost effective to produce ethanol as a
>>> replacement for gasoline. Plans to build new ethanol plants are on hold,
>>> and two plants under construction have filed for bankruptcy. Even with the
>>> price of gasoline on the rise, it is now more expensive to produce a
>>> gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gas, just as it was in the days when
>>> gas was 'cheap'.
>>
>> Ethanol has never been an economical replacement for gasoline. It
>> takes the energy equivalent of 1.5 gallons of ethanol to produce one
>> gallon of ethanol. A loosing proposition regardless of the price of
>> corn.
>
>Actually, the process has become more efficient over time. The ethanol
>produced provides a little more energy than the fossil fuels that went
>into it and does reduce greenhouse gases a bit. But the cost is probably
>not worth the expense nor the other environmental impact, like all the
>land used to grow corn.
>
>Plugins are not the best solutions, either:
><http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E0LYwQq0w4AVRJUYsCDZAxTIhQjAbTIS0E_v4nwWv8Tmytk3lucb1zoAAHOFD9o/2-0&fp=47c9db2be947e2f7&ei=r2_JR76JDpK4ygTDm7n1CA&url=http%3A//www.usatoday.com/tech/products/environment/2008-02-25-plug-in-hybrids-pollution_N.htm&cid=0&sig2=Gkzz3S_MsGVmXz8lBlpYOA>
>
Jeff, you are wrong about CO2 but right about hybrids. You need to
find out how much energy is needed to produce the hybrid seed, plant,
cultivate, manufacture and transport the fertilizer it needs,
transport the seed corn it to the retailer, transport it to the
farmer, plant it, cultivate it, manufacture and transport the
fertilizer it needs, harvest it, transport the corn to the elevator,
dry it for storage, transport it to the distillery, make the mash,
distil the mash and transport the ethanol to the refinery. All of
this requires energy and if you try to use ethanol to supply the
energy, you end up with an energy deficit. That's not counting the
energy needed to build the distillery (we can use that for some good
Tennessee sipping juice) or the trucks to haul it.

Don't try to tell me that you need to do all that anyway because we
produce corn for food. If you didn't produce corn for energy, you
won't need all the above energy to produce that corn.

Jack
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol too expensive, new processing plants on hold 

Retired VIP wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:09:09 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000.DeleteThis@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Retired VIP wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:21:03 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno.DeleteThis@ae86.gts>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The price of corn has risen so sharply due to the demand to produce
>>>> ethanol, that it is not longer cost effective to produce ethanol as a
>>>> replacement for gasoline. Plans to build new ethanol plants are on hold,
>>>> and two plants under construction have filed for bankruptcy. Even with the
>>>> price of gasoline on the rise, it is now more expensive to produce a
>>>> gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gas, just as it was in the days when
>>>> gas was 'cheap'.
>>> Ethanol has never been an economical replacement for gasoline. It
>>> takes the energy equivalent of 1.5 gallons of ethanol to produce one
>>> gallon of ethanol. A loosing proposition regardless of the price of
>>> corn.
>> Actually, the process has become more efficient over time. The ethanol
>> produced provides a little more energy than the fossil fuels that went
>> into it and does reduce greenhouse gases a bit. But the cost is probably
>> not worth the expense nor the other environmental impact, like all the
>> land used to grow corn.
>>
>> Plugins are not the best solutions, either:
>> <http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E0LYwQq0w4AVRJUYsCDZAxTIhQjAbTIS0E_v4nwWv8Tmytk3lucb1zoAAHOFD9o/2-0&fp=47c9db2be947e2f7&ei=r2_JR76JDpK4ygTDm7n1CA&url=http%3A//www.usatoday.com/tech/products/environment/2008-02-25-plug-in-hybrids-pollution_N.htm&cid=0&sig2=Gkzz3S_MsGVmXz8lBlpYOA>
>>
> Jeff, you are wrong about CO2 but right about hybrids.

Why don't you show me where I am wrong about CO2?

> You need to
> find out how much energy is needed to produce the hybrid seed, plant,
> cultivate, manufacture and transport the fertilizer it needs,
> transport the seed corn it to the retailer, transport it to the
> farmer, plant it, cultivate it, manufacture and transport the
> fertilizer it needs, harvest it, transport the corn to the elevator,
> dry it for storage, transport it to the distillery, make the mash,
> distil the mash and transport the ethanol to the refinery. All of
> this requires energy and if you try to use ethanol to supply the
> energy, you end up with an energy deficit. That's not counting the
> energy needed to build the distillery (we can use that for some good
> Tennessee sipping juice) or the trucks to haul it.
>
> Don't try to tell me that you need to do all that anyway because we
> produce corn for food. If you didn't produce corn for energy, you
> won't need all the above energy to produce that corn.
>
> Jack

I don't disagree. At the University of California at Berkley actually
showed that corn-based ethanol provides more energy that the fossil
fuels that went into it. And, that fewer greenhouse gases were produced
when using ethanol (including all the fossil fuels that went into making
it). It's pretty close. Personally, I think there are better uses for
the farmland and corn.

Jeff
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol too expensive, new processing plants on hold