The ethanol scam

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:31:40 -0700, Jay Honeck
wrote in . com:

The fact remains that converting corn into
ethanol, for the purpose of fueling automobiles, is simply absurd.

Here is a quote that sums it up nicely, IMHO:

"Overall (farming, distillation), it takes 129,600 BTU to produce a
gallon of EtOH (ethanol), but the energy value of a gallon of EtOH is
only 76,000 BTU. In SI units [conversions in footnote 3]: it takes
45.7 MJ to produce a kilogram of EtOH, but the energy value of that
kilogram of EtOH is 26.8 MJ."

"There is thus a net energy loss of about 54,000 Btu for every gallon
(18.9 MJ for every kilogram) of EtOH produced. Unlike the old joke
about the tailor who claims he loses money on every suit, but stays in
business by 'making up for it in quantity', there is no deception
here. It's a losing proposition."

You can read the whole article he
http://www.energyadvocate.com/etohscam.htm

While I agree with you about the gasohol boondoggle, consider that the
energy necessary to distil the ethanol needn't be petroleum based.

Couldn't agree with you more, and that's the argument I've been touting
since the gobment started subsidizing ethanol plants. And the numbers WILL
get worse. This year's expected corn production will include corn from an
ADDITIONAL 14,000,000 acres that was not planted to corn last year. A large
majority of these acres will not be prime ag-land acres. They are acres
that were historically planted to alfalfa, grass, left fallow, and are
mainly not irrigated. They will not produce the yields that the prime land
has, and they will require MORE oil to produce corn to turn into ethanol...
so the efficiency of these additional acres will be less than historical
acres.

The congress critters, as well as the news media, continually confuse the
"energy savings, foreign oil dependency" argument with the environmental
argument. The primary markets for ethanol are the formulated gasoline areas
mandated by the EPA. It has NOTHING to do with reducing any dependency on
foreign oil or any kind of energy conservation.

I heard a joke today about a man walking down the street and upon meeting
his friend he said "Joe?! Is that you? They told me you had died!" Joe
says "nope, can't you see for yourself? I'm alive and well!" And Joe's
friend refuses to listen retorts back with "Nope, you just have to be dead,
because the guy that told me runs the funeral home, he's much more of an
expert on dead people than you."

Chris Matthews has a self promoting commercial on MSNBC where they cut to a
snip of him saying "Absolute BS, does anybody check these politicians
anymore?!"

Ethanol vs. foreign oil dependency... not even a fight... not even close to
an argument.... just a talking point pushed onto the American public by
politicians.

Jim
Farmer of several thousand acres of corn.

In article . com,
Jay Honeck wrote:

"There is thus a net energy loss of about 54,000 Btu for every gallon
(18.9 MJ for every kilogram) of EtOH produced. Unlike the old joke
about the tailor who claims he loses money on every suit, but stays in
business by 'making up for it in quantity', there is no deception
here. It's a losing proposition."

You can read the whole article he
http://www.energyadvocate.com/etohscam.htm

Write your Congress Critters. The politicians are leading us down
this path for purely political purposes, and it's up to us to stop it.
--
Jay Honeck

As a reality-based rather than faith-based individual myself, I'm
genuinely delighted to have you post this, Jay. Agrees exactly with
what I hear from scientific colleagues. But just who are the villains
here?

* Farm-subsidy-addicted Midwest voters?

* The politicians they elect?

* Big corporate firms like ADM, who'll gladly accept (and defend)
similar subsidies, even while knowing full well that they're
absolutely undeserved, and while spouting free market rhetoric in
all directions?

* The politicians they bribe?

* The Bush/Cheney administration, with its near-endless record of
suppressing scientific reality in any and every area where they
find the facts inconvenient?

* The voters who elected them?

Lots of villains around -- not all of them politicians

Just to put your subsidy comments in proper perspective, last year the grand
total of our government program receipts amounted to less than 0.5% of our
total farm income. 100% of that amount was from the corn program and for
our operation it is the monetary maximum that any single entity can receive.
It's also less than 4% of our non-officer/owner wages. And it's less than
18% of our fuel bill. It's not a lot of money and we receive the maximum.
It might buy a fancy pickup truck, but it sure wouldn't swing my vote.

I've never advocated farm subsidies. For those who depend on them, they
produce a false economy that can cause them to spend and expand during
markets when they should be contracting and conserving. In recent years the
cash payments from most programs have been drastically cut in favor of low
interest loans and crop insurance premium programs. Have a building blow
down? Don't have insurance? They'll give you a low interest loan. (why
didn't you have insurance on your building?) Heavily financed and your bank
demands crop insurance? They'll help you with the insurance premium BUT be
warned, you'll have to insure ALL your crops... and good luck trying to
collect if you have a disaster. huge $ Nowadays, if you're dependent upon
any kind of farm subsidy, you're probably farming off your credit cards and
aren't long for the farming world anyway.

I understand that the subsidy's to the ethanol plants for construction and
initial operation are all but over. They'll get a real welcoming into the
real world soon.

Jim



"AES" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Jay Honeck wrote:

"There is thus a net energy loss of about 54,000 Btu for every gallon
(18.9 MJ for every kilogram) of EtOH produced. Unlike the old joke
about the tailor who claims he loses money on every suit, but stays in
business by 'making up for it in quantity', there is no deception
here. It's a losing proposition."

You can read the whole article he
http://www.energyadvocate.com/etohscam.htm

Write your Congress Critters. The politicians are leading us down
this path for purely political purposes, and it's up to us to stop it.
--
Jay Honeck

As a reality-based rather than faith-based individual myself, I'm
genuinely delighted to have you post this, Jay. Agrees exactly with
what I hear from scientific colleagues. But just who are the villains
here?

* Farm-subsidy-addicted Midwest voters?

* The politicians they elect?

* Big corporate firms like ADM, who'll gladly accept (and defend)
similar subsidies, even while knowing full well that they're
absolutely undeserved, and while spouting free market rhetoric in
all directions?

* The politicians they bribe?

* The Bush/Cheney administration, with its near-endless record of
suppressing scientific reality in any and every area where they
find the facts inconvenient?

* The voters who elected them?

Lots of villains around -- not all of them politicians

Jim Burns wrote:
It might buy a fancy pickup truck, but it sure wouldn't swing my vote.

Maybe not yours but a truck is not insignificant. Heck,
the 2000 election was bought with a $600 tax break.

Yep, which I didn't get either.
Jim

"Road Dog" wrote in message
ink.net...
Jim Burns wrote:
It might buy a fancy pickup truck, but it sure wouldn't swing my vote.

Maybe not yours but a truck is not insignificant. Heck,
the 2000 election was bought with a $600 tax break.

AES wrote:

As a reality-based rather than faith-based individual myself, I'm
genuinely delighted to have you post this, Jay. Agrees exactly with
what I hear from scientific colleagues. But just who are the villains
here?

* Farm-subsidy-addicted Midwest voters?

* The politicians they elect?

* Big corporate firms like ADM, who'll gladly accept (and defend)
similar subsidies, even while knowing full well that they're
absolutely undeserved, and while spouting free market rhetoric in
all directions?

* The politicians they bribe?

* The Bush/Cheney administration, with its near-endless record of
suppressing scientific reality in any and every area where they
find the facts inconvenient?

* The voters who elected them?

Lots of villains around -- not all of them politicians

Yes to all including Bush/Cheney but not for the reason you list. I only
blame them for not shouting from the roof tops how stupid the corn for fuel
plan is.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:

politicians

Yes to all including Bush/Cheney but not for the reason you list. I only
blame them for not shouting from the roof tops how stupid the corn for fuel
plan is.


Why should they?

If I were an oil man, I'd *love* the corn ethanol scam for two reasons: it
will never provide a viable supplement to the nation's energy suppy, and it
may end up giving the whole biofuel idea a bad name.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

In article ,
AES wrote:

In article . com,
Jay Honeck wrote:

"There is thus a net energy loss of about 54,000 Btu for every gallon
(18.9 MJ for every kilogram) of EtOH produced. Unlike the old joke
about the tailor who claims he loses money on every suit, but stays in
business by 'making up for it in quantity', there is no deception
here. It's a losing proposition."

You can read the whole article he
http://www.energyadvocate.com/etohscam.htm

Write your Congress Critters. The politicians are leading us down
this path for purely political purposes, and it's up to us to stop it.
--
Jay Honeck

As a reality-based rather than faith-based individual myself, I'm
genuinely delighted to have you post this, Jay. Agrees exactly with
what I hear from scientific colleagues. But just who are the villains
here?

* Farm-subsidy-addicted Midwest voters?

* The politicians they elect?

* Big corporate firms like ADM, who'll gladly accept (and defend)
similar subsidies, even while knowing full well that they're
absolutely undeserved, and while spouting free market rhetoric in
all directions?

* The politicians they bribe?

* The Bush/Cheney administration, with its near-endless record of
suppressing scientific reality in any and every area where they
find the facts inconvenient?

* The voters who elected them?

Lots of villains around -- not all of them politicians

I am sure that all of the above should be on the list of "usual
suspects" -- but -- you forgot the environmentalist crowd, who, for
years have sought ways to cripple our economy and way of life. The old
leftists, who lost their cause when communism went TU, found a ready
home in the environmental movement. Much of the "climate change"
"science" is hokum and poorly-devised models, resulting in
Garbage-garbage out.

I recently watched a BBC documentary on U-Tube that stated that nearly word
for word and added that scientists requesting funding for nearly any type of
research had better link it to an environmental issue or it would surely be
denied. They also interviewed scientists who had been shunned from the
scientific community for asking even the most innocent or logical questions
if those questions shed any skepticism on the climate change theory. Of
course, this might lead to hundreds if not thousands of projects loosing
their funding.. so I guess if it's funded, it must be science? and of
course all science is good science? wait.. all funded science is good
science! or would the prefer "only funded science is good science"?
Jim

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote
I am sure that all of the above should be on the list of "usual
suspects" -- but -- you forgot the environmentalist crowd, who, for
years have sought ways to cripple our economy and way of life. The old
leftists, who lost their cause when communism went TU, found a ready
home in the environmental movement. Much of the "climate change"
"science" is hokum and poorly-devised models, resulting in
Garbage-garbage out.