The ethanol scam

As gas -- and corn -- prices creep ever higher, everyone in my great
State of Iowa is all ablush with talk of riches pouring in, thanks to
ethanol production. They can barely contain their glee at this
remarkable turn of economic fortune. (Remember, just a few years ago
farmers here had one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana
peel...)

Thus, I feel like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills, trying to get a
word in edgewise about the absurdity of it all. Of course, since
subsidized ethanol production is the single greatest farm subsidy
program in US history -- and since Iowa remains largely an
agricultural society -- facing facts is not a popular passtime here.

But it must be done, or our country is being led down the primrose
path to perdition. 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

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
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
As gas -- and corn -- prices creep ever higher, everyone in my great
State of Iowa is all ablush with talk of riches pouring in, thanks to
ethanol production. They can barely contain their glee at this
remarkable turn of economic fortune. (Remember, just a few years ago
farmers here had one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana
peel...)

Are they still subsidized? If (if) they're making money growing and selling
corn such that taxpayers don't have to subsidize their farms it seems like
there's
a general economic benefit in there.

Still doesn't solve the oil problem. Brazil uses sugarcane, which the US
could do on a smaller scale, but CNN is correct in that we can't grow enough
corn to meet our own needs.

-c

Jay Honeck wrote:


"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."

Does anyone know how much energy it takes to pump crude out of the
ground, ship it to a refinery, and the refine it to make a gallon of
gas? I don't, just asking for a comparison.

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.

In article ,
"Gatt" wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
As gas -- and corn -- prices creep ever higher, everyone in my great
State of Iowa is all ablush with talk of riches pouring in, thanks to
ethanol production. They can barely contain their glee at this
remarkable turn of economic fortune. (Remember, just a few years ago
farmers here had one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana
peel...)

Are they still subsidized? If (if) they're making money growing and selling
corn such that taxpayers don't have to subsidize their farms it seems like
there's
a general economic benefit in there.

Still doesn't solve the oil problem. Brazil uses sugarcane, which the US
could do on a smaller scale, but CNN is correct in that we can't grow enough
corn to meet our own needs.

Sugar cane has a higher sugar (and therefore energy) content than corn.
Approximately 7-10 times the energy content of corn.
A WSJ article this week reported that a US university has modified a
grass that can be broken down without the use of acids and has an energy
content 7 times greater than corn.
Just think, everyone could plant their yards with this grass, mow and
bag the clippings, have them picked up curbside and taken to the
processing plant. Corn prices drop back down to food levels and more
ethanol gets produced from our lawns.

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.

"john smith" wrote in message
...

Just think, everyone could plant their yards with this grass, mow and
bag the clippings, have them picked up curbside and taken to the
processing plant.

That would be huge. Could probably get a lot more citizens to sign on if we
reactivated the term "Victory Garden."

I wonder how much lawnmower fuel I could produce from my own grass compost.
If every lawnmower-operating family or business did that, it really would be
substantial.

-c

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

"john smith" wrote:

Just think, everyone could plant their yards with this grass, mow and
bag the clippings, have them picked up curbside and taken to the
processing plant. Corn prices drop back down to food levels and more
ethanol gets produced from our lawns.

That sounds like a terrific idea, if you could get folks over their
compulsion to have to have a manicured lawn.

How high does it grow? How many times a year would you cut the stuff? I cut
my lawn about 14 times/year. Reducing that to once or twice would sell me on
the idea!

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

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