Thank the Ethanol Hoax for higher malt prices

[EdWort]

A very interesting article on the ethanol BS. Facts gleened from it are....

Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove.
It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank.
It takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol.
It takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol.

Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. President Bush said, during his 2006 State of the Union address, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." Let's look at some of the "wonders" of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline.

Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines.

Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers -- all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent.

Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax -- one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.

There's something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.

Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact that the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.

It's easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn't support subsidized ethanol production. That's the stick. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot.

The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them -- higher wages and profits. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. After all, who do you think a politician will invite into his congressional or White House office to have a heart-to-heart -- you or an Archer Daniels Midlands executive?

I cannot believe we've been suckered into this BS and now are paying for it via taxes, higher food prices, higher malt prices, and higher gas prices.

 

[mrkristofo]

The current issue in Science has 2 articles in it debunking ethanol. I was quite surprised.

By the way, Ed, PM me when you get into SLC.

Edit: Actually, I think it's in Nature.

 

[wihophead]

You are 100% correct Ed.....If the government wants a viable renewable energy source to help elevate the need for fossil fuel we should be working on a better more reliable Bio-diesel. At least with Bio-diesel you can use recycled vegetable oils instead of relying on a world food source. Ethanol from corn is going to be the death of us yet.....

 

[FlyingHorse]

Told ya so

 

[CodeRage]

Yeah, I never cared for the whole ethanol craze. Lowers octane ratings, absorbs water and dollar per mile, it is cheaper to run regular gasoline. I have noticed alot of gas stations around here have %10 ethanol with out any real notification. I put a system in an ethanol plant in KS and it is rediculous how much corn and water the go through. However the water they used for the process was reuse water from the local waste water plant. So I wouldnt say they were wasting water.
I hear locally they are putting in a large algae bioreactor for Bio-diesel. ought to be interesting.

 

[EdWort]

Told ya so

Yep, Mexicans are pissed at the price of a corn tortilla these days.

 

[cheezydemon]

Strangely I am with you ED.

The government saw this as a trendy "we are eco friendly" thing.

It was preposterous from the start.

 

[EdWort]

Strangely I am with you ED.

It's the beer the brings us together! LOL!

 

[wihophead]

Lowers octane ratings

Actually it has a much higher octane rating, that is why you usually can't run higher then 70% ethanol in the winter. I know what you mean though....it has less energy per volume then gasoline, around 30%

 

[McKBrew]

Why is it that so many of these "environmental" solutions are actually worse for the environment that just leaving things alone. I have no problem balancing environmental conservation with the survival and advancement of the human species, but so much "environmental science" is based on flawed research. The big names in saving the environment really only care about lining their pockets.

 

[CodeRage]

Actually it has a much higher octane rating, that is why you usually can't run higher then 70% ethanol in the winter. I know what you mean though....it has less energy per volume then gasoline, around 30%

Thanks for the correction. I drew the conclusion cause all of the green fuel I have seen is soo low on the octane scale

 

[wihophead]

The damn ethanol activists need to take a lesson from Willie.....

http://www.biowillieusa.com/

 

[cheezydemon]

It is not exactly "green", gasoline is a natural product, it is just running out.

 

[EdWort]

It is not exactly "green", gasoline is a natural product, it is just running out.

It's not running out any time soon, but we just cannot drill for oil in America anymore. Canada has the largest reserves which dwarf what is left in Saudi Arabia. We inflict our own pain.

 

[homebrewer_99]

I find this all very funny.

We have an Ethenol plant in the town I used to live in (about 20 miles away) and another about 7 miles away.

I recently spoke with a couple of retirees who wanted to talk to me about investing MY $$$...they said they invested 200K in those plants and found out they aren't expected to receive a dime from any of them for a couple of years...meanwhile all my $$$ are plain old cash and CDs...low rates, but low risk also...

 

[Cookiebaggs]

This is just the tip of the iceberg I'm affraid.

I predict you will see other large food manufacturers just deciding to cut production and operations due to the simple fact that ingredient costs are just out of control. Government ethanol mandates are to blame.

Lawmakers have listened and taken money from the well heeled lobbyists at ADM and the corn producers while ignoring the consequences with regard to the impact these policies will have on food prices and what that means for Joe consumer.

Unintended consequences.....

 

[Ize]

Where I live it's all about the corn. Ethanol is the mantra. And they can smoke me.

IMHO, we'd be a helluva lot better off drilling, and taking advantage of the nuke power we developed then stopped using, as opposed to driving up food costs because of the high demand of corn based fuels.

It's nonsense. And in the end I bet by the end of this summer, I'll still be paying over $4 a gal to drive my 13 year old car. Mad Max would be impressed.

Ize

 

[Denny's Evil Concoctions]

Most environmentalist's are against the ethanol craze. Yes ethanol is a clean burning fuel. Downside is it causes more harm than good to make the damn stuff.

Same thing with hydrogen, unless you have a a steady supply of thermo energy and even then I've heard that this done on a long term/large capacity can actually lead to problems with things like earthquakes.

 

[Jesse17]

I haven't studied much about distillation, but I know you can ferment, and distill sawdust (just don't drink it!) So why couldn't you ferment sawdust, yard waste, and left over hey (if you have livestock), and distill it with a solar still, in order to make your own fuel? I know it's illegal to use home made ethanol/methanol on public roads, because you haven't paid highway taxes, etc. on it.

But, like I've been telling people at work...In the last great depression, people distilled to bootleg booze. Since booze is now legal, I believe that in the next great depression (which we're headed full speed into in the next 2 years) people will be distilling to bootleg fuel.

 

[MikeFlynn74]

thermo energy and even then I've heard that this done on a long term/large capacity can actually lead to problems with things like earthquakes.

Thats the silliest thing Ive ever heard. A combination of Nuke and Thermo energy could reduce our dependency on oil to almost nothing. Coal has been turned into diesel fuel and alge can be used to make biodiesel.

New tech like pebble bed reactors which do not use enriched uranium, are designed so that they can never over heat. A combination of safe fuel, lost cost structures and long term energy production could make Electricity almost free. But who wants that?

 

[Denny's Evil Concoctions]

Thats the silliest thing Ive ever heard. A combination of Nuke and Thermo energy could reduce our dependency on oil to almost nothing. Coal has been turned into diesel fuel and alge can be used to make biodiesel.

New tech like pebble bed reactors which do not use enriched uranium, are designed so that they can never over heat. A combination of safe fuel, lost cost structures and long term energy production could make Electricity almost free. But who wants that?

Why is it the silliest thing you've ever heard. If you take enough thermo operations in a given area, that will cool the magma in that area.

We're talking large scale here. On a scale large enough to power the worlds energy needs. The energy has to come from somewhere and there is almost always a cost of some sort. Though I personally say go for it.

Yellowstone could probaly provide the energy for the worlds needs big time, of course if you were to cause an EEE by unbalcing the magma coure due to not doing enoug research in the first place...

I was told this by an Engineer after I was ranting that we should be doing large scale thermoenergy ops in BC, so?

 

[MikeFlynn74]

I cant see humans sapping enough energy from the earths core to make a difference. The mass and energy in the core is beyond comprehension.

 

[PeteOz77]

Here's a better idea..

STOP using so damned much fuel!!!

You don't need an escalade to drop the kids off at daycare.

The SUV craze is insane, and it just keeps getting worse and worse. People keep buying bigger and bigger gas hogs that are not required for any use that they have.

Yuppie soccer moms driving HUGE 4X4 guzzlers.......

I reckon you should need a PERMIT to purchase a 4x4... like prove a need for one.

I think we should quit bitchin about the "Fuel Crisis" and just stop using it as much as we can.

Fuel is eexpensive here in AUS, and it's hard to find a V8 here... although it's getting worse here too...

 

[MikeFlynn74]

Fuel is eexpensive here in AUS, and it's hard to find a V8 here... although it's getting worse here too...

I can buy a 3500 Chevy for 60K- Have it imported to AUS for about 10K and sell it there for 100K.

The demand for big trucks there is insane. Thats why your govenrment has gone to great lenghts to stop imports of those big trucks.

 

[PeteOz77]

I can buy a 3500 Chevy for 60K- Have it imported to AUS for about 10K and sell it there for 100K.

The demand for big trucks there is insane. Thats why your govenrment has gone to great lenghts to stop imports of those big trucks.

Too bad you have to spend $30K to convert it to right hand drive, or it cannot be road registered.

Yes there is a demand here for big trucks... Two reasons for that:

#1. Big powerful trucks are not manufactured here and a Toyota Lancruiser that can perform this work cost well over $100K. Some people do need that much power to pull Horse floats etc and an imported 3500 is a good option.

#2. There are stupid Yuppie Soccer Moms here that drive ridiculous SUV's that never leave the highway as well.

USA doesn't have the market cornered on wasting fuel.. but they are the world leaders...

I am not having a go at USA, it just seems that they consume a LOT more fuel than is required, and then bitch about the price...

 

[MikeFlynn74]

it just seems that they consume a LOT more fuel than is required

And 49% of all fuel the US used last year was used my the Military.

Imagine that

 

[PeteOz77]

And 49% of all fuel the US used last year was used my the Military.

Imagine that

So are you saying they spend too much on the military now?

 

[MikeFlynn74]

Im saying our insane Fuel usage is 50% due to the 2 ongoing wars.

50% of the total usage is a lot

 

[adx]

Just remember that you're stats are for corn-based ethanol. Ethanol itself isn't really the problem. It's planting so much damn corn to get very little enegry out of it. Things like sugarcane and switchgrass have a much higher yield. However, the government loves to hand out those farm subsidies to the midwest where you can't grow sugarcane or switchgrass...

 

[MikeFlynn74]

adx

I think HEMP has better bioavailability too