"Ethanol . . . . what a joke!"

[TexasTimbers]

I think what he means, since he was speaking in the context of the short term relief needed to fill the 2 to 3 million barrel a day (and growing) shortfall, was that ethanol is not going to be able to help out there because it won't be any cheaper than oil for quite some time. That's my take on it anyway.

I still believe my 50 x 2% strategy, and maybe ethanol could be a viable  long term option. Maybe quite possible. But it's not a short term solution is it? Maybe *part* of the short term soultion? Like 2%? I hope so. But at current prices and short term expectations it isn't is it?

But before the thread inaccurately becomes "Kevin is pro Boone Pickens" let me emphasize what I said. I don't know anything about the guy - I just said he seemed to make sense to me with what he said in the video. Doersn't mean I can't change my mind if I find out ethanol is truly a viable option and he is calling it a joke and *knows* it is part of a solution for our immediate crisis.

I think alot of folks just dislike the guy because he seems to be a rich arrogant jerk (and maybe he is). I don't necessarily hold that against him if he has something of value to offer, whether he makes money with his solutions or not doesn't ruffle a single feather on my tail as long as what he is saying has merit.

It's possible to be both rich and right. To at least some degree.

DanG I am not "pro Boone" so I don't care what peeps think of him. I am also not staunchly "anti" ethanol and I do not know it to be a joke. As I said my impression from my exhaustive study on the topic (see that's also a joke) is that it isn't going to be any more affordable than fossil fuels in our lifetimes. But I am certainly able to be learnt on stuff. My title is in quotes. Phil caught the play but as Gary inferred maybe it was not obvious enough for me to have used. I know you like a good joke from time to time, and that's all I was trying to do. I probably confuse things though when I mix one in so closely with something I am also being serious with. Makes it hard for folks to know what is what I suppose.

Norm I am not supporting Boone or the sauds any more than you. I posted a video where he laid out a more reasonable sounding plan for the short term solutions than anyone else I have yet heard. That doesn't make me a Boone supporter. I am an America First supporter. Boone is a Boone supporter. If his interests are served the same time ours are, even for a little while, I guess that makes him richer and us a little less foreign oil dependent. But I don't know for sure that that's the case. But with my limited information, his wind/solar/natural gas/domestic drilling seems to make the most sense to me thus far.

I do apologize for making light of ethanol. I was not being thoughful of those of you who are giving a large portion of your time money and efforts in trying to develop a viable long term energy solution. I'll be back later today Norm if you need to rag on me a bit, I have to go to the emergency room and have a size 10 1/2 extracated from my pie hole.

[jeffreythree]

And if you think the energy problem is scary, T Boone Pickens has an interview in a financial mag this month about water.  He says this is the next "energy" crisis.  Oil and gas was historically underpriced for the past 15-20 years and caused todays problem.  U.S. water has been extremely cheap for over 50.  All that infrastructure is now over 50 years old in the cities and he is betting big the companies that fix and replace water utilities are going to start raking in the dough.  I have a couple of ex-ranchers in my neighborhood that were forced to move to the city and get jobs when their wells dried up because the aquifers are being drained.  We are already on watering restrictions even though the local lakes are still over pool, yet the luxury neighborhood down the street has wells in every backyard so that they can ignore the restrictions and water all they like, and one of DFW's top earners was qouted as saying he could care less about restrictions and his water bill is $100K a year for his house.  You may not like him, but Mr. Pickens is usually right.

[DanG]

Kev, I thought all along that was your tongue in your cheek.  I didn't know it was your foot!   I knew that the "joke" in your title was a spoof, but I thought you were quoting Ibseeker instead of Pickens.  At any rate, you opened a new chapter in an already good discussion.  It doesn't really matter what any of us think of Pickens.  He's gonna do what he's gonna do, regardless of our opinions of his motives.  As for him being an oil man, that's just how he made his money.  He doesn't care where the money comes from, as long as it keeps coming.  Of course, since he is into oil and wind, he is going to criticize ethanol, just as he would be calling wind power a joke if he was growing corn.

Norm, I guess it is lucky for you that the prices went up like they did.  If corn was still $2, it wouldn't even be worthwhile trying to harvest.  Farming has always been a gamble.  Sometimes ya win, sometimes ya lose.  I sure would have liked to see you make a great yield this year, though.  The floods in the Midwest couldn't have come in a worse year, as far as our economy is concerned.  We are all gonna see hard times because of it.  The cock-eyed optimist in me is telling me that these hard times are gonna bring us better times in the future, though.  

Jeffreythree, you are correct in that Pickens is usually right.  That's what made him rich.  It also makes him worth listening to, as long as you filter out the BS that is just designed to make him richer.  Water is definitely a major issue, and I'm sure we'll have plenty of discussions here about it.  It will soon become critical enough for us to do something about it, just as fuel has done.  At least all this trouble we're having will help the unemployment problem.  There's gonna be oil rigs, refineries, distillaries, pipelines, and desalination plants to be built and operated.  Opportunity will abound for those who want to work!

[Gary_C]

Yes TT, I saw the title for what you intended it to be. But I also recognized what the unintended consequences would be. 

It seems to me if ethanol is such a good idea, it ought to be able to stand on its own.

You could also say the oil companies should be able to protect their own assets worldwide, the railroads should not receive any help from the government, the trucking industry should not be able to use the roads and bridges that are paid for with public money, and Bear Stearns should be bankrupt.

If you only consider the part about "ought to be able to stand on its own" then we as a country and people would not be what we are. For we could say the victims of Katrina, the floods in Iowa, and especially the victims of disasters around the world ought to be able to stand on their own.

Many years ago there was an editorial in a Canadian newspaper about the difficulties as a country to share a border with the US. As the writer pointed out, it was somewhat like a mouse sleeping in a bed with an elephant. Even the slightest hiccup or sneeze could have serious consequences. But yet as troublesome as it may seem, no other country or people in this world would be a better neighbor to have. For the US stands ready and able to help anyone around the world at any time and asks nothing in return. We are very generous with what we have and more than willing to share our assistance with both friend and foe.

And yet at the same time, some people are more than eager to villify our own farmer or business that is providing food or energy for our enormous appetites if they are profiting from their efforts. I know that ADM is not a model company, but they do provide many food ingredients that we could not do without. But just because they take advantage of government assistance to promote energy independence for this country is certainly not a good reason to dislike them or anyone else that is "profiting" from this worthy energy goal.

So I just do not understand this anti business, anti ethanol, anti farmer, and anti profit sentiment that some people seem to have. I guess they would prefer to sent their money to people that hate us and are our sworn enemies. 

[DanG]

It seems to me if ethanol is such a good idea, it ought to be able to stand on its own.

You could also say the oil companies should be able to protect their own assets worldwide, the railroads should not receive any help from the government, the trucking industry should not be able to use the roads and bridges that are paid for with public money, and Bear Stearns should be bankrupt.


So I just do not understand this anti business, anti ethanol, anti farmer, and anti profit sentiment that some people seem to have. I guess they would prefer to sent their money to people that hate us and are our sworn enemies. 

I agree with all of that except the part about the truckers.  They pay for their share of the roadway, and also enable the rest of us to pay for our share.  The rest of it could easily stand on its own if the Government would just leave it alone, in my opinion.  We are all part of a team here, and each of us doing our part makes us a winning team.  What I don't understand is, if the Gov't is the quarterback, why does he keep tripping up the running back after he hands him the ball?

[Gary_C]

  We are all part of a team here, and each of us doing our part makes us a winning team.  What I don't understand is, if the Gov't is the quarterback, why does he keep tripping up the running back after he hands him the ball?

That's a good question. Sometimes I think our US Dept. of Agriculture has a "poison of the month club." The food safety people would announce just before the start of summer grilling season that you should not eat chicken because it might contain salmonella or don't grill that beef as it could cause cancer or just before the super bowl weekend they would caution you about eating cheese. 

And at the same time, many commodities have manditory contributions for product promotions. Maybe the promotion money would not be necessary if they would just stop bad mouthing the "safest food supply in the world."     

[TexasTimbers]

Not trying to beat a dead horse, but just to finally clairfy, I *was* conscience of the other "joke" thread of course, and that's part of what was going on. I saw some irony at play from more than one angle. Coincidence is often given credit as irony and here I saw genuine actual irony playing out from 3 (4 sort of) angles. Not claiming innocence there. Nuff said on that.

It's no secret I too am in the limited government camp, especially limited federal, even when it seems like the "moral" thing to have Uncle Sam step out of the confines of Constitution for "humanitarian" purposes. I know that pesky old Constitution is a PIT behind sometimes, but I still think without it we are in a worse mess. I also think the mess is directly proportional to distance we stray from it. Examples abound. No point in reitterating them.

Not wanting to get into a Constitutional debate, but it's impossible to discuss the role of the central government without it. And it's hard to agree that the plethora of dabbling being done by the federal government is within its legal mandate. Sure the Congress can do whatever it wants as long as 5 of the 9 black robes say it's okay, because they have the tanks, but we should still not rubber stamp every little thing they consistently, and predictably, mess up. it's the same old tired "thge market corrects itself" argument I know, but I am a diehard adherent to it.

When congress is investigating steroids in sports, gambling, in sports, cheating i.e illegal video taping of a teams practices in sports, and saying it is vital to the interest of the country and within their power and even responsibility to do, then can anyone besides me agree the federal monster is off its rocker? Even though they may technicaly have authority by a supporting law in the CFR, does it make it okay to spend our time and resources on that?

Where were we. Oh yeah ethanol. Good stuff I'm told. Maybe congress should investigate it further when they are through with Barry Bonds and Roger Clements and Bill Belichek. Public enemies with the power to destroy America, to be sure.

[Ron Wenrich]

I think you have to look somewhat at the energy balance of the different fuels.  A lot of hubbub about ethanol is that it supposedly takes in more energy than you get out of it.  I've seen arguements on both sides.  

The energy balance for corn is 1.3.  That means you get out 30% more energy than you put into it.  That's supposed to include all the cost of farming and refining.  Sugarcane has an energy balance of 8.0.  That's really hard to compete with.  Biodiesel has an energy balance of 2.5.  Cellulosic ethanol has an energy balance of between 2-36 with switchgrass in the 5.4 range.  This all comes from Wikipedia.

Given the better energy balance for biodiesel, you would think there would be a bigger push for that.  I also wonder why its always the big push for corn.  Would it be any better to raise sugar beets than corn?  That's a farming question that maybe a few of you farmers could better answer.  I know it boils down to economics, but considering the higher amounts of sugar, and therefore, ethanol that could be produced, is it feasible?  Are the yields to low for sugar beets to be considered or are we back to subsidies?  

Ethanol is subsidized to the tune of 51¢/gal.  Imported ethanol is taxed 54¢/gal.  Biodiesel is subsidized at $1/gal.  Big oil gets about $18 billion in tax relief and subsidies, which amounts to about 6¢/gal of crude.  Coal doesn't receive too much as of yet, but will be looking for a subsidy to build coal to liquid plants.  Not saying that subsidies are good or bad, just pointing out what they are.  

To me, ethanol is a feel good type of fuel.  I know, it feels even better if you drink it.  But, its easy to make, and it makes everyone feel like they're doing something on the energy front.  You can take that to be anti farmer or anti business if you like.  Ethanol is a bandaid for a much larger problem.  It won't fix it, but it'll help.

[DanG]

Ain't that the DanG truth?  This latest thing about the tomatoes is totally absurd!  Less than 300 people got mildly ill from Salmonella, so the FDA shut down an entire industry.  It ain't like they can just hang on to the product until the situation is resolved.  Besides, that was only 1 person for each million in our population.  I cannot imagine that there has ever been a time when at least one out of every million people did NOT have Salmonella poisoning.  How do they know it came from a tomato, anyway?  Did those people not eat anything but tomatoes?  Did they not touch anything since washing their hands?  One guy from Florida ate a tomato in New York, but was back in Fla by the time he got sick, so they shut down the tomato business in Fla!  This is exactly what I was referring to with the quarterback analogy.

(I see there have been more posts.  This was in response to what Gary_C said.)

[Warbird]

And if you think the energy problem is scary, T Boone Pickens has an interview in a financial mag this month about water.  He says this is the next "energy" crisis.

I agree.  Which is why I believe this is a good idea.  Water will definitely become more of a shortage if that new car that consumes h2o becomes a big hit.  Unless it can consume salt water but I highly doubt it.  It likely needs to burn distilled water. 

[RichlandSawyer]

I'm not an expert but i did stay at a super 8 motel last night. Here in Iowa we've been producing 10% ethanol gas for (help me out here Norm!!!) 35 or 40 years. I have even seriously considered investing in one of the many ethanol plants. Yes its true people like you and me own those plants not just ADM. I hear constantly the facts and figures about how switch grass and sugar cane and the likes are more efficiently converted to fuel but the folks that grow those types of crops havent put down the cash and built the plants to make the fuel. The argument is the money paid for ethanol goes to a few farmers. Well i would gladly give my money to a bunch of US farmers rather than 3 arab sheiks. I will subsidize the ethanol rather than subsidize the welfare recipients who are able but dont want to work. Atleast the farmers here are making an effort to reduce the problem not just sitting around complaining about it. The ethanol technology is constantly improving, Iowa state university recently discovered that by using a 25% to 30% blend they can improve gas mileage by as much 30%, they are doing tests now.

Ethanol a joke?  We have been working on solar, wind and ethanol technologies for about the same number of years. Can you run your car on a windmill? Nope. Can you run your truck on solar panels? Nope. Can you run your vehicles on ethanol? Yep !! If you think ethanol is a joke then get off your lazy behind and come up with something better. You will be rich and we will all be better off for it. But be warned if you do invent something better and you become wealthy be prepared because you will be labeled as the "evil money grubbing something better guy".

[TexasTimbers]

Ron I wasn't aware of the "energy balance" standard. Lots of basic stuff I don't know obviously. Man if sugarcane has an 8.0 there has to be more than one underlying reason why that industry isn't seeing throngs of entreprenuers.

Maybe it is because there are no congressman behind it? Lots of representitives from corn states. Texas is even a pretty big corn state I thnk. I see it all over the place here and have for years. All the old cotton fields are planted in some type of cattle grass or corn. My USDA agent told me once we have only a few hundred measly acres of cotton here in Fannin County just for an FYI.

You can't say it is not possible to both uphold your oath to the constitution and get re-elected. Ron Paul, who's constiuency lives in areas that flood pretty regular, consistenly vote him back into office even though he has never, and will never vote for federal flood aid for them. He says it is not the role of the federal government to spend money on that. His flood victim voters bite their lip, put on their waders, and vote him back into office.

Maybe that could only happen here in Texas I don't know. I seriosuly doubt Ted Kennedy, who doesn't just bring home the bacon or the pig, but the whole dern pig farm year in and year out, could pull that off.

I know I am talking politics here, but you can't seperate the two. Pick any industry and it's controlled to some degree by congress. If washington kept out of the markets don't you think the overall, the ones most feasable for industry, and beneficial for the user would win out in the order they were found to be that way?

If corn is being subsidised to the point that that's the only reason it is still floating along, then maybe sugar cane (or something else I never even heard of) is being silently developed and even more plausible, but doesn't yet have the dollars to compete with big federal money and the publicity that only washington can give it.

Always comes down to grits and politics in the end. I wonder what the energy rating of grits is . . .

[DanG]

Ron, I have many of the same questions as you, as well as a couple of speculative answers.  Why corn rather than beets?  Maybe it is because Monsanto doesn't have a monopoly on beet seeds?   On the other hand, I believe there is lots of room for improvement in the "energy balance" of corn ethanol.  As the economy changes, it may well become more practical for farms to diversify, rather than specialize as has been the trend.  A diverse farm can produce its own energy and fertilizer, and that might prove worthwhile again as transportation costs go up.

I wonder why there is only one "energy balance" figure listed for biodiesel?  Wouldn't that fluctuate with the use of different materials, just like ethanol does?

Kev, Congress dabbling in sports is nothing new.  It is pretty widely known that Babe Ruth was a heavy ethanol user, and most of Congress is still doing personal research in that field.

[TexasTimbers]

Kev, Congress dabbling in sports is nothing new.  It is pretty widely known that Babe Ruth was a heavy ethanol user, and most of Congress is still doing personal research in that field.

[Tom]

Here in Iowa we've been producing 10% ethanol gas for (help me out here Norm!!!) 35 or 40 years.

We've been producing ethanol for over 200 years around here, but, if you don't hide it good, the Feds will tear down your ethynol plant and send you to the big house for "boiling water too hard".  You got to grease the right palms if you want to do business in alkyhol.

That's a joke, son.....  a joke

Foghorn

[DanG]

I hear constantly the facts and figures about how switch grass and sugar cane and the likes are more efficiently converted to fuel but the folks that grow those types of crops havent put down the cash and built the plants to make the fuel.

Excellent point, Rich!  That is one of the best explanations I've heard.  There are some other factors as well.  Sugar Cane is very volatile stuff, but is difficult to store.  We can grow it here, but it all comes in at once, then there is no more until next year.  Corn, on the other hand, can be stored quite easily and used as needed.  I don't even know what switchgrass is, or what is left after the ethanol is made.  I do know that the corn used in ethanol production is only borrowed, in a sense, and the residue is just about as valuable as the original product.

There is some progress in other areas, but they are small compared to the corn ethanol industry.  Down here in Florida, they are making ethanol from orange peel without compromising the other products made from it.  There is a small power plant down south that is using sugar cane bagasse(pulp) by burning it.  Now they are building a plant to extract ethanol from it before burning it.  These programs are designed to utilize waste products, so there is no additional expense in growing them.

[BaldBob]

Well, I must say I'm amazed.  This is basically a forestry forum, yet in this whole discussion there is virtually no specific discussion of cellulosic ethanol from waste wood.
 
If you read my previous comment carefully you should note that I stated that using corn, or soybeans or other food crops to try to replace our fuel needs was a cruel hoax on the American people; not that ethanol or any other home grown alternative is a hoax.  While it is nice that American farmers benefit from higher corn prices and even that American companies are the primary recipients of the huge subsidies for corn ethanol, instead of that money going to Middle Eastern sheiks, remember that farmers and ADM etc. shareholders combined are only a tiny fraction of the US populace, but the entire populace bears the much higher food costs that are in large part caused by the huge subsidies to grow food crops for fuel.

If one studies the latest research into the relative energy return ratios for corn ethanol, he will see that the 1.3 ratio quoted in a post above is among the most optimistic.  Many recent studies indicate a 1:1 or even a negative ratio when all the life cycle inputs are considered.  Additionally, if you use reduction of greenhouse gases as a reason for using corn ethanol as fuel, you should note that although the actual burning of ethanol produces up to about 30% less greenhouse gas than burning petroleum, the increase in the release of methane and nitrous oxide - gases which are 10-30 times more effective at causing a greenhouse effect than CO2 is- as a result of substituting corn for other crops which require far less fertilization than corn, far offsets any gain from using corn based ethanol.

While corn based ethanol production and development have received huge subsidies, little has gone to cellulosic ethanol development, and other promising potential fuel sources such as methanol, butanol, and wood gas ( all more easily recoverable from wood waste than is ethanol and all with significantly better energy return ratios than corn based ethanol) have gone almost totally ignored when it comes to subsidies. Yes there are problems to be solved before these other potential fuel sources could go into commercial production, but if they received as much government incentive money as corn based ethanol has, maybe they would be on the market now.

[DanG]

Thanks for clearing up your position, BaldBob, and welcome to the Forum.  Are you familiar with the "Alternatives" board on this forum?  There is a bit of discussion on celllulosic ethanol production there.  Maybe if we put something in the title about it being a joke, it would get more attention, eh?

I know they are working on cellulosic, but I'm not sure how much money is being thrown at it.  I figure they're just keeping a low profile because of the tree huggers.  There is a plant under construction in Georgia but it isn't up and running yet.

Corn is all the rage right now in the midst of skyrocketing oil prices, because it is available here and now.  These other things will come along as their technology catches up with corn.

[Bro. Noble]

Hi,  BaldBob,

Well,  first of all,  I would like to say I'm pretty much in agreement with you (largely because I like your name) after you explained yourself a little further.  I have mixed emotions about using feed/food for fuel.  I really have trouble with the use of corn as a heating fuel when wood could be used instead.

As a dairy farmer who no longer raises any grain,  the increase in feed and fuel prices have really put a hurt on us.  We were told the same thing that DanG mentioned about the by-product feeds.  There was supposed to be an abundance of cheap distillers grains that would make up for the high priced grains.  When our dairy feed went from around $9/cwt. to over $13,  I made some calls to get a ration made by using mainly distillers grains.  It was going to cost over $13 and I would have to buy it by the semi load and build storage for it.

I'm glad to see the grain farmers making a profit and don't have any solutions or blame.  We used to raise feeder pigs and so did everyone else in this area.  About 25 years ago this came to an end as did poultry (for the smaller commercial producers) about 10 years before that.  Dairies in this area ane disappearing fast.

Things are changing and it's scary to me.  Petrolium fuel is a problem and will get worse before it gets better.  I'm wondering about our future food supply and hate to see it burned in stoves or cars.

[Bibbyman]

I too scratched my head and wondered about the wisdom of using corn and soybeans to make fuel when there are already many uses for what is being produced.   It’s not like you’re using something that didn’t have a valuable use otherwise.

I kind of felt too that if they calculated on paper that corn to ethanol was a 1=1.3 gain in energy,  that maybe it just a bit risky.  I wonder how the economics stack up now that fuel and fertilizer, etc. that it takes to raise the corn has went up so much and the expected shortage this year of corn that is expected to raise the price over $7.00 per bushel. 

Any corn farmers out there that can tell us how much more it cost to plant, fertilize and apply pesticides and herbicides this spring compared to last year and years before?    How much more is it going to cost to harvest and haul the grain to market or storage?