Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ethanol Industry Sets Record in 2005
RenewableEnergyAccess.com ^ | March 6, 2006 | staff

Posted on 03/06/2006 11:00:00 AM PST by kellynla

Washington, DC [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) announced that the U.S. ethanol industry set annual production records in 2005, producing just less than 4 billion gallons (3.904 billion gallons) and averaging nearly 255,000 barrels of ethanol production daily, according to data released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

"These figures represent not only the tremendous growth our industry is experiencing, but also the future growth that will occur," said RFA President Bob Dinneen.

"Demand for ethanol will only continue to grow as refiners remove MTBE from the marketplace and more Americans switch to this clean burning, renewable fuel," said Dinneen. "The U.S. ethanol industry, with 2.1 billion gallons of capacity currently under construction, will continue to expand to meet this soaring demand."

Currently, 95 ethanol plants have a combined production capacity of more than 4.3 billion gallons a year.

(Excerpt) Read more at renewableenergyaccess.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: 2005review; energy; ethanol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-258 next last
To: brainstem223

India is BUYING civilian nuclear technology from us. That's a good thing. That's business.

We have to build more nuclear power plants ourselves. Unfortunately energy policy has been conducted in a pragmatic way anywhere in the West except maybe France where today near 70% of the power is nuclear.

Nuclear power was vilified by the tree hugging liberal in the West through the 80s and 90s; those are now the same people complaining about our dependency on foreign oil and brownouts in California.


41 posted on 03/06/2006 11:48:35 AM PST by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Red6

I meant to say NON-pragmatic way.


42 posted on 03/06/2006 11:49:26 AM PST by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Rakkasan1

"With Brazilian ethanol selling for 45% less per liter than gasoline in 2003 and 2004, flex-fuel cars caught on like iPods. In 2003, flex-fuel had 6% of the market for Brazilian-made cars, and automakers were expecting the technology's share to zoom to 30% in 2005. That proved wildly conservative: As of last December, 73% of cars sold in Brazil came with flex-fuel engines. There are now 1.3 million flex-fuel cars on the road. "I have never seen an automotive technology with that fast an adoption rate," says Engle."

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/06/8367959/index.htm


43 posted on 03/06/2006 11:50:15 AM PST by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

Fermentation is the process by which most hillbillies prefer to obtain their drink of choice.


44 posted on 03/06/2006 11:50:46 AM PST by Wasanother (Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
They(Brazil) sell it at the pump for HALF the cost of gasoline. And that's not E85. That's pure ethanol. In Texas at today's prices, that would be 2.20 for gas and 1.10 for ethanol. That's WITH a 40 cent a gallon tax. Let's say 10 cents for the retailer, that leaves 60 cents for ethanol delivered to the pump. < The problem is the retards we have here think ethanol comes from corn. It comes from sugar, starch, cellulose, natural gas, coal, methane, cow dung and pig poop. We could outlaw corn use all together and switch to ethanol tomorrow.

For the retards here, repeat over and over.......

Ethanol can come from coal.....

Ethanol can come from coal......

Ethanol can come from coal......

45 posted on 03/06/2006 11:57:13 AM PST by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: chuckles
I was up in Iowa a couple months ago and they were selling regular for $2.30 a gallon and E85 for $1.92 a gallon. Not bad but with more coming to the market it would even go lower. One thing holding it back is the car manufacturers not getting their E85 compatible engines on the market fast enough.
46 posted on 03/06/2006 12:05:53 PM PST by Wasanother (Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Great. All the farm lobby should invest and become overnight millionaires.(then say 'nana-nana boo boo' at all us chumps.)


47 posted on 03/06/2006 12:06:18 PM PST by Rakkasan1 (Muslims pray to Allah, Allah prays to Chuck Norris.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Rakkasan1

"Great. All the farm lobby should invest and become overnight millionaires.(then say 'nana-nana boo boo' at all us chumps.)"


it's already happening....
google ethanol and read all about what's happening in places like Iowa!


48 posted on 03/06/2006 12:08:27 PM PST by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

An ethanol plant is being constructed in our county here in Indiana. It won't employ many people, but it's being touted as the cutting edge of energy. The county and city have given them all sorts of incentives.


49 posted on 03/06/2006 12:11:23 PM PST by raisincane (Dims think we're all oblivious to the obvious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
All you know about energy consumption in American agriculture and grain processing is that fermentation has been around a long time?

You're right. It's very complicated, please explain it to me.

50 posted on 03/06/2006 12:12:26 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (A.Pole "I escaped Communism, but think we need more of it in America. Because Communism works")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: chuckles

well actually you can produce ethanol from all kinds of sources like switchgrass; an acre of land can produce four times the mass of switchgrass as of corn. And switchgrass is far hardier and easier to grow than corn. The energy balance for ethanol from switchgrass is tremendously better. It doesn't require all the fertilizer, all the irrigation, all the energy intensity that corn does.


51 posted on 03/06/2006 12:13:04 PM PST by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: chuckles
We could make ethanol FROM coal, if we just would.

That would make much more sense than using corn.

52 posted on 03/06/2006 12:13:14 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (A.Pole "I escaped Communism, but think we need more of it in America. Because Communism works")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Wasanother
Somehow, somewhere we've "decided" to become Brazil ( no crude imports).

I've never seen so much behind the scenes activity towards this end, and I'm a third gen. oil worker in an oil town.

They're quietly & quickly gearin' up for no oil from towelheadland, for some reason.

53 posted on 03/06/2006 12:14:45 PM PST by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
"And Brazil no longer IMPORTS ANY FOREIGN OIL!"

Wrong. It depends on the current world price of sugar. When sugar is up Brazil imports oil to offset the increased demand of sugar. when the price is down they produce ethanol.

Also you're making the mistake of comparing ethanol from sugar to ethanol from corn or other material. It's way easier and cheaper to produce ethanol from sugar cane then corn.

54 posted on 03/06/2006 12:19:31 PM PST by Trinity5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: norraad
"They're quietly & quickly gearin' up for no oil from towelheadland, for some reason"

Because Marines like me are tired of seeing our brothers and sisters come home from the Middle East maimed or in caskets.

Semper Fi,
Kelly
55 posted on 03/06/2006 12:22:02 PM PST by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Trinity5
...and easier yet from hemp, thas' right, I said it!

Too bad the corn & sugar mafia won't let us.

But it would be a very neat & quick way to kiss the sheik goodbye.

I only wish Bush was doing that when we saw him kissin' him.

56 posted on 03/06/2006 12:23:14 PM PST by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Trinity5
It's way easier and cheaper to produce ethanol from sugar cane then corn.

How dare you question kellynla. Brazil is exactly like the US. Corn is exactly like sugar cane.

57 posted on 03/06/2006 12:26:13 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (A.Pole "I escaped Communism, but think we need more of it in America. Because Communism works")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Corn = cane, both "controlled" by kissin' cousins, I mean kissin' contributers to our gov. cronies.

Evedently, we're in the process of trading lover's on the gov. level.

58 posted on 03/06/2006 12:30:17 PM PST by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Article from last year. I believe both of these professors are in the pockets of "Big Oil":

Ethanol And Biodiesel From Crops Not Worth The Energy
ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.

Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).

In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:

* corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
* switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
* wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:

* soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
* sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and state subsidies that are passed on to consumers and the costs associated with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures were not included in the analysis.

"The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products."

Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations.

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says Pimentel. "Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits." He says the country should instead focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705231841.htm


59 posted on 03/06/2006 12:31:50 PM PST by Trinity5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: norraad
I love our military and I know there is not a fight they can't win but if we could just cut OPEC by some, we effect their economies which in the end help our troops stop the blackmail of our country. If these OPEC countries start playing by the rules and quit playing two ends against the middle then maybe we can do business but to show they're serious they need to give us Bin Laden's head on dry ice.
60 posted on 03/06/2006 12:32:38 PM PST by Wasanother (Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-258 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson