Skip to comments.Racing into Oblivion
Posted on 07/01/2012 1:15:20 PM PDT by 867V309
Third, it takes roughly as much fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol (transportation, cultivation, fertilizers, pesticides, refining) as it releases. So in terms of energy inputs and outputs, youre essentially running in place. How does that contribute to energy independence?
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
bump for later
Nice article. But the comments are more interesting, IMHO.
It promotes BURNING FOOD (corn) in our cars, removing that corn fom the food chain and promoting the starvation of millions in third world nations, thereby accomplishing the Malthisian objective of getting some of these superflous folks off the planet.
Really none of my concern. On the other hand the continuing use of the 'eat'n corn' talking point is tiring.
You wouldn't eat that corn that goes in the ethanol pots and your hogs wouldn't eat it. My animals don't eat it ~ not even the crows.
Besides, it's all water under the bridge. T. Boone Pickens says that natural gas is so cheap now we should convert all the trucks in the country immediately. We'll get to the cars later.
Total BS! There may be several debatable points regarding the efficacy of ethanol as a motor fuel replacement. However, burning food for fuel is not one of the. The corn used for ethanol is not grown for human consumption. It is for cattle and other products. Ethanol byproduct Distillers Grains) is enriched cattle feed. I guarantee you would not want to eat the corn raised for cattle consumption.
The food for fuel rumors were started by the oil companies and food processors. The oil companies to keep down the pressure to reduce petrol prices, and the food processors to justify higher prices.
You make my point — probably without even knowing it: The corn feeds cattle — which then can go on to feed HUMANS!!
And if E10 was causing engine problems, wait until fedzilla mandates E15!
Ethanol plants here in Indiana are closing up faster than old Kmarts. Congress repealed the tax credit for domestic production and the tariff on imports - as of Jan 1 2012.
Brazil’s sugar cane ethanol is far more cost effective to produce than our corn ethanol.
No. You are wrong again. The only things removed from the corn during the ethanol making process are the components that the cattle do not digest anyway. The corn used to make ethanol is essentially removed from the pipeline to the cattle for a short period. In turn, the ethanol byproduct (DDGS) is enriched animal feed that is sold to cattle farmers and mixed into the normal corn/grain cattle ration. In particular, WDDGS (wet distiller’s grains) under ideal feeding conditions can add up to 10% productivity in finishing cattle for weight gain, etc. Using feed corn to make ethanol has virtually no effect on the supply of food for humans. The type of sweet corn suitable/tasteful enough for humans to eat is not used for ethanol because it is generally higher priced than feed corn.
Question: You wouldn’t be one of those farmers now growing corn for ethanol production and currently getting federal subsidies for doing so would you?
Even if that is not the case, help us all understand why subsidies are required if this is such a profitable business.
My only purpose in replying to your posts is to give you the facts. There is no food for fuel problem. Its all bullshit from interest groups with an agenda. But, there sure as hell is a corrupt government problem at all levels.
By the way, with a few exceptions, the cellulosic approach to chemicals/ethanol will never be economical without government support. It is another government boondoggle that will likely end up worse than corn to ethanol.
So I guess we can't eat the beef or drink the milk either. SCheesh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.