[centerchannel68]

Found this funny:

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200701/decoder.asp

[King Bob On The Cob]

So, Farmer's don't contribute to Sierra Club I would take it?

(There's tech out there that changes corn stalks into Ethanol. They even talk about it on the page, but ignore the fact that corn waste can be converted into ethanol.)

Plus, the "ethanol takes more energy to create than it produces" is a theory spearheaded by one professor from Cornell that ignores alot of other facts.

Plus, if we get to a point where every car can run on Ethanol and every station will offer it, you can pump up compression and get a cleaner burn and therefore more energy per gallon from ethanol than from gasoline. (Gasoline burns very dirty, so even though it technically does have more energy per liter, cars can never realize it's potential.)

[nonhuman]

The only people who are in favor of corn Ethanol as a fuel are Midwestern farmers/congresspeople and the idiots who believe them.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

(There's tech out there that changes corn stalks into Ethanol. They even talk about it on the page, but ignore the fact that corn waste can be converted into ethanol.)

That would be the cellulosic ethanol that people thing might actually be worthwhile, but is currently beyond our grasp.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The only people who are in favor of corn Ethanol as a fuel are Midwestern farmers/congresspeople and the idiots who believe them.

Think about this for a second...

What can America grow in large quantities in it's large grain producing areas (as it has already proven?)

Corn, Wheat, and Soy.

Wheat is too important of a foodstuff to make into fuel. That leaves us with Corn and Soy.

Soy can be changed into bio-diesel, but most people don't have any cars that run on diesel, and there's no way to use our current gasoline distributors to distribute diesel without major investment and convincing people to change over their cars to diesel.

So that leaves corn, which right now our government pays out large subsidies to farmers so that they will not grow it because we can make so much of it that it would cause the worldwide corn prices to bottom out. We'd be using farm feed which can still be fed to livestock after we make ethanol out of it anyways.

[OldManMac]

Consumer Reports had a detailed article a month or so back, debunking the E85 myth. Corn prices are starting to go up, which means that a lot of the food you eat, which has derivatives from corn, will go up. We couldn't grow anywhere near the corn we need to even make much of a dent in what we import, even if we used all corn we grow, which would leave us with no corn products to eat, and nobody wants to advertise that your mileage will go down 20 to thirty percent using E85, so you gain absolutely nothing. It's another feel good campaign put out by those who have something to gain.

[Ganesha]

Alga derived bio-diesel and nuclear power is the future.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Consumer Reports had a detailed article a month or so back, debunking the E85 myth. Corn prices are starting to go up, which means that a lot of the food you eat, which has derivatives from corn, will go up. We couldn't grow anywhere near the corn we need to even make much of a dent in what we import, even if we used all corn we grow, which would leave us with no corn products to eat, and nobody wants to advertise that your mileage will go down 20 to thirty percent using E85, so you gain absolutely nothing. It's another feel good campaign put out by those who have something to gain.

E85 has nothing to do with the corn you eat! We refine it from feed corn, which is fed to livestock, not sweet corn, which we feed to people. When you see vast corn crops, it's almost always feed corn, which is nearly inedible as far as humans go. There's been significant research lately that says that you can even feed the post-processed corn to the cows anyways, and it's no worse than when we were feeding the cows swill.

Gas milage will go down if you use a flex-fuel car, yes, because you have to do engine modifications to allow it to run both gas and ethanol. If you could have an engine that did not have to worry about gasoline at all, it would have the same or better milage than the gasoline engines.

[tie]

It's welfare for the corn farmers, and it lets them feel good about helping the environment, too. We need bigger farm subsidies.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

E85 has nothing to do with the corn you eat! We refine it from feed corn, which is fed to livestock, not sweet corn, which we feed to people.

Um, number one, people eat the livestock eating the corn. If their feed prices go up so do the meat prices.

Number two, corn is used to make high fructose corn syrup, starches, sweeteners, corn oil, alcohol, adhesives…there are quite a LOT of things that are made from corn.

Number three, things like tortillas and corn chips are indeed made from field corn.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by tie 

It's welfare for the corn farmers, and it lets them feel good about helping the environment, too. We need bigger farm subsidies.

I don't think we need MORE subsidies, but the greater interest in corn is a good thing.

The average age of farmers has been rising steadily for decades. People are caring less and less about farming, too much work compared to the pay, it take TONS of very expensive equipment etc.

We need more people interested in farming for the future.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Plus, the "ethanol takes more energy to create than it produces" is a theory spearheaded by one professor from Cornell that ignores alot of other facts.

You mean the outdated one that's really old that people use to defend ethanol but don't realize how outdated their sources are? Yeah, I've heard of that. And it's rubbish. Do you know what they use to create E85? NATURAL GAS. A gas that is subsidized by the government, because it was developed and refined originally to HEAT HOMES, not to create fuel. So basically E85 producers are using a government subsidized gas (ie, your taxes pay for some of that gas) that is supposed to only be used to heat homes, in order to create fuel, which you will then buy and pay taxes on AGAIN.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Gas milage will go down if you use a flex-fuel car, yes, because you have to do engine modifications to allow it to run both gas and ethanol. If you could have an engine that did not have to worry about gasoline at all, it would have the same or better milage than the gasoline engines.

Source? I don't buy it, because E85 contains a lot less BTUs than gasoline, per gallon.... so how the **** would it get the same MPG?

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Source? I don't buy it, because E85 contains a lot less BTUs than gasoline, per gallon.... so how the **** would it get the same MPG?

Gasoline does not burn cleanly, so it doesn't matter how many more BTUs it has, it's not using them. Your car spews alot of unburnt hydrocarbons no matter what you do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol...and_efficiency (They've got a reference link to their source as well)

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

You mean the outdated one that's really old that people use to defend ethanol but don't realize how outdated their sources are? Yeah, I've heard of that. And it's rubbish. Do you know what they use to create E85? NATURAL GAS. A gas that is subsidized by the government, because it was developed and refined originally to HEAT HOMES, not to create fuel. So basically E85 producers are using a government subsidized gas (ie, your taxes pay for some of that gas) that is supposed to only be used to heat homes, in order to create fuel, which you will then buy and pay taxes on AGAIN.

Corn ethanol is not produced by this procedure. It's made by fermenting the sugars from corn into yeast. Actually, according to the Wikipedia, 5% (As of 2003, which is not a great deal) is formed via the breakdown of ethylene, which is one of the products of breaking down Natural Gas.

[itistoday]

Have you guys seen that awesome series on the discovery channel called "Future Cars"? The future has many great solutions to this car problem thing we're dealing with, some of the best include electric cars and hydrogen fuel-cell cars.

I think that if we can get hydrogen fuel cells working that will probably be the best solution. The only difficulty is getting the hydrogen, and all that needs is some water and some electricity. Thus if you have a car with a solar roof panel and a tank of water you can create a closed system where the car will actually produce its own fuel and recycle it back into itself with zero emissions!

[skipjack]

This thread is so full of misinformation and lack of credible references, particularly on the pro-ethanol side, that it rightly belongs in the Political Outsider lounge.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Um, number one, people eat the livestock eating the corn. If their feed prices go up so do the meat prices.

Number two, corn is used to make high fructose corn syrup, starches, sweeteners, corn oil, alcohol, adhesives…there are quite a LOT of things that are made from corn.

Number three, things like tortillas and corn chips are indeed made from field corn.

Number one, We can still feed the post-mashed corn to livestock, so theoretically, it should not drive feedstock pricing up.

Number two, well you got me, we'll just have to use some of the land that we pay farmers not to plant on.

Number three, Ethanol is made from yellow corn, while you average everyday tortilla and corn chip will be made from white corn. Mexico's tortilla problem was a result of their tariffs. http://domesticfuel.com/?p=1513

[tie]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I don't think we need MORE subsidies, but the greater interest in corn is a good thing.

The average age of farmers has been rising steadily for decades. People are caring less and less about farming, too much work compared to the pay, it take TONS of very expensive equipment etc.

We need more people interested in farming for the future.

Why? We need food and we have food. Capitalism will ensure that we always have food. What does it matter if the average age of farmers is rising steadily? You think they're all going to die and we'll starve to death. Not likely.

I agree that it is good for these communities to have more interest in corn. Ethanol is also doing well at the grassroots level -- its production is not dominated just by huge companies. If local governments want to encourage ethanol production to help their communities, good for them. But the federal government should have nothing to do with it. These farming communities are already essentially on welfare, and they should be ashamed of it. No more government subsidies are required.

[bstone]

My 93 Explorer gets about 250 miles per a full tank of regular gas. When I filled up with E85, I hit the trip meter and went 250 miles until I had to refill again. I know it's NOT scientific, but I saw no decrease in miles per gallon.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by tie 

Capitalism will ensure that we always have food.

Are you completely nuts. I'm not sure where you learned about how capitalism works but it has absolutely zero concern about ensuring that we "always have" anything ... it concerns itself with producing commodities for which there is a profitable market. By its nature, capitalism will strive for efficiency and profitability which means it would produce exactly as much food as it can SELL, not as much as people actually need.
So, take a scenario where the cost of feeding oneself spiked to $10000/wk and only 5% of the population could afford that amount. Capitalism would only insure that those 5% get fed. It has no concern for growing food for the other 95% of the population that could not afford to pay an amount that would make it profitable for Capitalism to grow food for them. Remember ... Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Monarchies, Religious theocracies, and Tribalism have ALL successfully managed to feed their populations ... Capitalism has no special claim to being a more reliable way to feed people. If Capitalism can no longer profitably produce food it will simply abandon that particular commodity to whomever/whatever wants to step in and take over that function.

On the more general question of farm subsidies (directed to the thread, not to tie in particular), why are farm subsidies any different than the government's Savings and Loan bailout ? To its various bail outs of the airline industry ? In each instance, the goverment stepped in to make sure an industry that is critical to the national interest did not fail (when, by the laws of pure capitalism, they absolutely should have). Farming and farmers are roughly in the same position .... it is in the national interest to make sure that we have plenty of excess food production capability to insure that we a major freeze, blight, or natural disaster doesn't put us in a position where we actually don't have enough food to feed ourselves. We subsidize farming to make sure that this excess capacity exists even though the laws of pure capitalism says it shouldn't.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

Are you completely nuts....
So, take a scenario where the cost of feeding oneself spiked to $10000/wk and only 5% of the population could afford that amount...

Who here is nuts? I don't need to make up fantastic scenarios to justify my position. Say aliens crash-landed and demanded all our food, or else...

Farming isn't failing or even close to failing. What the people who say it is failing mean, is that farming communities are failing. Farmers are aging, populations shrinking, farm sizes increasing with big companies gaining control. But this is a completely different problem from the security of our food supplies.

[d4nth3m4n]

i had a professor at cornell, David Pimentel, who has taken a vocal stance against ethanol, citing numbers to support his theory that the energy required to produce ethanol is more than the energy contained in the ethanol.

Ethanol Woes
Biomass for biofuel isn't worth it
Scientist opposes ethanol

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n 

i had a professor at cornell, David Pimentel, who has taken a vocal stance against ethanol, citing numbers to support his theory that the energy required to produce ethanol is more than the energy contained in the ethanol.

Ethanol Woes
Biomass for biofuel isn't worth it
Scientist opposes ethanol

EPA will argue, as will a recent study from Berkley.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by skipjack 

This thread is so full of misinformation and lack of credible references, particularly on the pro-ethanol side, that it rightly belongs in the Political Outsider lounge.

I'm basically just paraphrasing the Wikipedia article (which is well cited).

[skipjack]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

I'm basically just paraphrasing the Wikipedia article (which is well cited).

Do you think no one would check your statement? I don't think anyone is arguing with your explanation on the mechanics of ethanol production. However, besides the "factual" part of your argument, there are "political" implications. Review the Wikipedia article again to see how well it is cited, how it is cited, and how many statements admit that a citation is required, but not provided.

Note that this statement it particular, "EPA will argue, as will a recent study from Berkley (sic)," is not well supported by the Wikipedia article, which indicates that its statement needs citation.

I would take issue with your assertion that a recent study from Berkely disputes the fact that it takes more energy to produce the ethanol additive than is gained by using it in fuel.

"A recent study by Tad Patzek, an engineering professor at the University of California-Berkeley, reviews all of the existing studies and provides some new data. Patzek’s analysis indicates that “as much fossil energy is used to produce corn ethanol as can be gained from it.” (p. 9) "

Patzek, Tad. “Ethanol From Corn: Clean Renewable Fuel for the Future, or Drain on Our Resources and Pockets?” Working paper, University of California-Berkeley, June 2003

I'll leave the "validity of Wikipedia" argument out of this, except that if, as you have stated, you are just restating the Wikipedia article on E85, then this is a poor reference to refute the commentary in the original post.

Regarding the level of scholarship in the Wikipedia article, I note that it provides this statement:

"It should be pointed out though, that many of these concerns are derived from studies by a single author (Pimental) which have been rebutted by several reports.[3][4]"

If you follow the footnotes, this statement cites exactly one study in which Pimental is the author and exactly one (not several) report that provides a different viewpoint. Additionally, while the Pimental report includes two coauthors, the opposing viewpoint is only an excerpt which is not datedand is attributed to only one researcher. Pimental is clearly not the "only" proponent of these concerns (seeing how I have independently come up with another author with similar views on the first page of a Google search).

Ethanol has been discussed in this forum. I'm not going to take the time to repeat research, but you can find where I have provided calculations on how much mixed fuel can be produced using the full capacity of corn production.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by skipjack 

Do you think no one would check your statement? I don't think anyone is arguing with your explanation on the mechanics of ethanol production. However, besides the "factual" part of your argument, there are "political" implications. Review the Wikipedia article again to see how well it is cited, how it is cited, and how many statements admit that a citation is required, but not provided.

Note that this statement it particular, "EPA will argue, as will a recent study from Berkley (sic)," is not well supported by the Wikipedia article, which indicates that its statement needs citation.

I would take issue with your assertion that a recent study from Berkely disputes the fact that it takes more energy to produce the ethanol additive than is gained by using it in fuel.

"A recent study by Tad Patzek, an engineering professor at the University of California-Berkeley, reviews all of the existing studies and provides some new data. Patzek’s analysis indicates that “as much fossil energy is used to produce corn ethanol as can be gained from it.” (p. 9) "

Patzek, Tad. “Ethanol From Corn: Clean Renewable Fuel for the Future, or Drain on Our Resources and Pockets?” Working paper, University of California-Berkeley, June 2003

I'll leave the "validity of Wikipedia" argument out of this, except that if, as you have stated, you are just restating the Wikipedia article on E85, then this is a poor reference to refute the commentary in the original post.

Regarding the level of scholarship in the Wikipedia article, I note that it provides this statement:

"It should be pointed out though, that many of these concerns are derived from studies by a single author (Pimental) which have been rebutted by several reports.[3][4]"

If you follow the footnotes, this statement cites exactly one study in which Pimental is the author and exactly one (not several) report that provides a different viewpoint. Additionally, while the Pimental report includes two coauthors, the opposing viewpoint is only an excerpt which is not datedand is attributed to only one researcher. Pimental is clearly not the "only" proponent of these concerns (seeing how I have independently come up with another author with similar views on the first page of a Google search).

Ethanol has been discussed in this forum. I'm not going to take the time to repeat research, but you can find where I have provided calculations on how much mixed fuel can be produced using the full capacity of corn production.

Fine, here's a more "reliable" source. The US Department of Energy. It has multiple pro-ethanol literatures on it, including rebuttals to the Pimental/Paztek arguements, it also includes an research article from Berkley dated 2005, published 2006. (which was the one I was referring to)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Fine, here's a more "reliable" source. The US Department of Energy. It has multiple pro-ethanol literatures on it, including rebuttals to the Pimental/Paztek arguements, it also includes an research article from Berkley dated 2005, published 2006. (which was the one I was referring to)

1. Berkley is a business school in Spain.
2. The US department of Energy is as beholden to political interests as any other governmental organization. I'm sure the corn lobby has spend tons of money to ensure that the DoE has pro-ethanol literature.

[skipjack]

Your Berkeley study says this:

"The study that ignored coproducts but used
recent data found a slightly positive net energy
for corn ethanol (13). However, comparisons
of the reported data are somewhat misleading
because of many incommensurate assumptions
across the studies."

It does not rebut Pimental/Patzak, but use their data as two points in a study of six sources. One point of this article is that they consider different criteria than Pimental/Patzak; that is, they consider coproducts associated with ethanol production rather than solely the ethanol production process itself.

Just because one single, more recent study produces different results than an older study does not make it more valid. If the results are reliably reproduced, then they are weighed more heavily. If the results are obtained under the same conditions, they may be fairly compared. Hence, the last sentence of the quoted section is included.

As for your reference from the DOE, particularly the claimed rebuttal to Pimental/Patzak, I find it interesting that the document is no longer available, or at least that the link to support this claim is broken.

How many of these articles show an affiliation with the National Corn Growers Association? Surely these is no bias there.

There is no doubt that the production of ethanol takes energy. What were the energy costs at the time of the earliest Pimental studies compared to the costs now? What is the difference between the technology used at the time of the earliest Pimenal studies compared to now? Does the industry use the best technology and is the best technology practical? Do all the studies factor in transportation costs? Which studies account for coproducts? Is the demand for those coproducts constant and can we assume that an increase in ethanol production will have a market for those coproducts? Which studies use gasoline for ethanol production and which studies use coal or perhaps renewable energy sources? These are some of the factors that lead to the Berkeley statement that, " ... comparisons
of the reported data are somewhat misleading because of many incommensurate assumptions across the studies."