Posted on 10/23/2015 9:13:07 AM PDT by VinL
Good stuff, 100A. Thanks for sharing.
More insight to Carson’s love of gas0hol and the whore voters of Iowa who need our $’s to support gas0hol.
Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as ‘unsustainable subsidized food burning’ in analysis by Cornell scientist.
Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what one Cornell University agricultural scientist calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces.
At a time when ethanol-gasoline mixtures (gasohol) are touted as the American answer to fossil fuel shortages by corn producers, food processors and some lawmakers, Cornell’s David Pimentel takes a longer range view.
“Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning,” says the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Pimentel, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy panel that investigated the energetics, economics and environmental aspects of ethanol production several years ago, subsequently conducted a detailed analysis of the corn-to-car fuel process. His findings will be published in September, 2001 in the forthcoming Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology .
Among his findings are:
An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel’s analysis.
Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.
The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline. o Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. “Put another way,” Pimentel says, “about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU.”
Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. “That helps explain why fossil fuels — not ethanol — are used to produce ethanol,” Pimentel says. “The growers and processors can’t afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn’t afford it, either, if it weren’t for government subsidies to artificially lower the price.”
Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. “Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol.”
The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: “In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace.”
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2001/08/ethanol-corn-faulted-energy-waster-scientist-says
100% - Iowa has proven itself to be a joke.
Cool.
Iowa can elect him president then.
More insight to Carson’s love of gas0hol and the whore voters of Iowa who need our $’s to support gas0hol.
Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as ‘unsustainable subsidized food burning’ in analysis by Cornell scientist.
Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what one Cornell University agricultural scientist calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces.
At a time when ethanol-gasoline mixtures (gasohol) are touted as the American answer to fossil fuel shortages by corn producers, food processors and some lawmakers, Cornell’s David Pimentel takes a longer range view.
“Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning,” says the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Pimentel, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy panel that investigated the energetics, economics and environmental aspects of ethanol production several years ago, subsequently conducted a detailed analysis of the corn-to-car fuel process. His findings will be published in September, 2001 in the forthcoming Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology .
Among his findings are:
An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel’s analysis.
Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.
The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline. o Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. “Put another way,” Pimentel says, “about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU.”
Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. “That helps explain why fossil fuels — not ethanol — are used to produce ethanol,” Pimentel says. “The growers and processors can’t afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn’t afford it, either, if it weren’t for government subsidies to artificially lower the price.”
Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. “Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol.”
The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: “In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace.”
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2001/08/ethanol-corn-faulted-energy-waster-scientist-says.
Did Santorum have a great ground game? It was so bad he had trouble getting ballot access and a full slate of delegates in every state. But he won Iowa. Iowa is all about the network of churches, pastors, social conservatives, etc. getting together. That’s what drives the turnout, why social conservatives always win there and why Trump will be lucky to come in 3rd.
Yeah, but the Bush/Rubio group cannot tolerate an outsider on top.
I wonder if those retards can even tell you any details of Carson's policies? Well, except for ethanol subsidies!
Santorum had a hell of a ground game in Iowa. He basically lived there for 18 months before the caucus. He had a action in ever county. His plan was to win in Iowa and create a buzz from that. Problem was he was never able to get enough early traction to even get on the ballot in every state.
Regardless, I have never understood why Iowa and New Hampshire where allowed to hold their elections first. Two more inconsequential states would be hard to find. Neither is representative of the country as a whole.
Could be wrong. He may have more juice than we think. He says all the right stuff on the campaign trail, but just doesn't seem to have the passion to fight a dedicated political machine such is Clinton.
Not voting for Blinks Magoo, ever
Iowa is not a vote its some sort of corn pone system where people stand in a tent or some such....
Carson is a totally unqualified Amnesty shill.
What is his ground game like.
************
Well, I’m a Cruz supporter, and Dr. Carson has Cruz’s votes— so I’d like to say Carson’s campaign is weak. But, from what I read, in Iowa, he’s all in. Organized, with plenty of money. And since it appears he has a great chance of winning, I’d imagine he is going to continue to fortify his efforts.
Trump certainly has a lot of appeal nationwide— but in Iowa, Carson appeals to the very conservative and religious— and they often carry the day as with Huckabee in 2008, and Santorum in 2012.
Carson’s weakness is his inexperience— his task will be not to make a mistake, and to fend off the attacks that are going to come from the experienced opposition campaign operatives.
In any event, it’s still very early. Iowa is always late in solidifying— Iowans knows the nation hangs on their result, so they have learned to milk the attention until the final hour.
“Now, we know why the Iowa Corn Whores faux conservatives for ethanol favor Carson.
Carson favors burning food as an expensive and worthless gasoline additive, which needs our tax $’s to subsidized this bs.”
Carson, just like so many other issues, probably doesn’t have a clue about the whole corn-ethanol-taxpayer funded farm welfare-vote buying that goes on in Iowa and the rest of the ‘corn belt’ other than what his paid advisors tell him. They prolly tell him the truth, that in order to win Iowa, you have to promise to keep bilking the taxpayer to keep these farmers, bankers, and all the ancillary jobs in business. Never mind that the whole purpose for growing that corn is a complete racket. He must tell the ‘conservatives’ of Iowa that he will look the other way and pay no mind to their drinking problem, and will continue to redistribute the wealth to them. After all, Billy Bob the farmer is a *good* man, (just like the *good* doctor). He works hard on that farm, goes to church on Sunday, and it’s not HIS fault, the banks own everything.
So Carson will do like most every candidate does, and that is, he’ll look the other way from this monstrous racket and promise to keep their welfare flowing if they vote for him.
Looks like ethanol is a subject you have studied and care a great deal about. While I do not appreciate the fact that, in its current form it reduces efficiency, and cases harm to internal combustion engines as we know them, I do not the the issue as one upon which I would decide who should be President of the United States or not.
True enough, corn serves as food, but I see know moral reason it may not be used for something else. We use various plants for any number of products, and they are - to the extent there is sunshine, rain, and good soil - resources that are both abundant and renewable. Doubtless there are shysters who work the system to benefit from government regulation and largess.
May I ask what it is that bugs you most about the subject? Is it the government subsidies that go to farmers? Are we doing our country great harm if we do not take ethanol into account when electing a President? Mind you, I am but a laymen when it comes to this stuff.
Thanks in advance for any correspondence forthcoming on the matter.
Wow - Chuck Swindoll - I listened to him in the 80’s. Great guy!
Carson must be getting some of the gas0h0l $’s sent his way:
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/05/14/ben-carson-in-favor-of-scrapping-big-oil-subsidies-in-favor-of-e/
The 2016 presidential election is putting Iowa in the news a lot recently because a strong showing in the state’s early primary can give a big boost to campaigns. The location also gives us a chance to learn the candidates’ positions on the Renewable Fuel Standard and ethanol subsidies because the Hawkeye State is a major farming region, especially of corn. Republican hopeful Dr. Ben Carson recently made his feelings known as a definite supporter of the crop-based fuel.
“I don’t particularly like the idea of government subsidies for anything because it interferes with the natural free market,” Carson said to the Des Moines Register. “’Therefore, I would probably be in favor of taking that $4 billion a year we spend on oil subsidies and using that in new fueling stations’ for 30-percent ethanol blends.” Carson predicted that under his plan gasoline would be 50 cents to 80 cents less expensive per gallon.
Carson could face serious pushback outside of Iowa, if he’s serious about offering a 30-percent ethanol blend. States like Hawaii and Oregon have been trying to pass laws to get rid of their 10-percent mix mandates, and Florida has already done so. The national debate over increasing the nationwide blend limit from E10, or 10 percent ethanol, to E15, is also already contentious. As Hotair notes, Dr. Carson’s statement also seems contradictory. If he’s against government subsidies, then moving $4 billion from one place to another doesn’t really change anything.
Among the candidates in Iowa, Dr. Carson is hardly the only ethanol supporter, though. Hillary Clinton already signaled her support for the fuel and several Republican hopefuls did, as well.
You sir have hit the Bullseye...
I was gonna call em Corn Wrestlers for a reason...
Thanks!
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.