I agree, and wonder why Trump is in favor of it. Do you think there’s more to the story?
I don’t like ethanol in my car. I also deplore the idea of taking food and converting it to car fuel...So here are my questions.
1. Is ethanol made from corn and other eatable crops, or is it made from the waste products, eg corn cobs, and corn stalks?
2. Is it true that it actually takes more energy to produce ethanol than what it saves?
3. Does ethanol improve mpg? If not, then why are we using it?
4. Does ethanol contribute to higher prices for food? (meat, corn based products etc etc.)
5. Does the gov’t subsidize this industry or can it make it on its own?
6. In summary, what are the facts about this?
Ethanol corn DOES use land that could otherwise be used to grow food. It requires more fertilizer and WAY more water than other crops. There is debate on how much it increases the cost of other food (farmers growing ethanol corn instead of soybeans for example, or feed stock for cattle).
I am totally against ethanol from every thing I studied on it. But it should fall by it’s own bad merits, not regulations. So those of you upset about the loosening of regulations on this, try to trust our President Trump. This might just be what is needed to let the market and natural consequences decide its fate.
2. Depends how you calculate it. Pimetal’s study said that ethanol is a net negative, but he assumed that all the roads, tractors, and such were only built for ethanol production. In short, the corn is going to be grown one way or another. When I did a similar balance for Iraqi oil (with the added military occupation and deployment costs) it was also a net negative. The Ithaca study is flawed. A better energy balance shows a net positive energy balance on corn ethanol and a negative on cellulose. If you want to have your head explode, do a life cycle cost on hybrid and electric cars. Lithium batteries and transmission electricity are horribly inefficient.
3. It does not improve mileage. EtOH has less energy than gas. It does however act as an extender. Using ethanol was a great policy against the Middle East (most of the above mention studies were paid for by Saudi).
4. Depends on the study, but was I said above the corn a wet mill buys for say, corn flakes, will have a bit of a premium over corn for ethanol. Locally, the wet mills will pay for a nickel or dime premium over the dry mills (wet make a more varied product line than just ethanol). In areas without an ADM or Cargill plant, farmers get a bit more for ethanol corn because they don't have to ship it over 500 miles. Most of the wet mills pull in from over 300 miles (or more) via rail, barge and truck. Most dry mills tend to stay more local. Spent grains for cattle feed actually make meat prices cheaper, as it goes for less per protein pound than corn. I know of quite a few cattle operations that partner with or build ethanol plants just for the feed. This also gives them other revenue streams (ethanol, fusel oil, CO2, etc) than just beef.
5. Credits help. A great many plants have structured themselves only to be profitable with the credits. That is a failure of the industry. I also know quite a few who, while they will apply for the credits, they don't rely on them (Flint Hills requires that they be profitable without any blending credits). The smaller CO OP plants will not work without some sort of credit by design. That is a long and angry story about some rather evil fly by night companies who would come in a build badly designed plants. Many of those company execs are in some rather deep legal trouble now.