corn

Don Quixote

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
given that earth's climate is less stable than in previous years (and is likely to get even less stable), is this a good time to use a food like corn for conversion to ethanol
 
DonQuixote said:
given that earth's climate is less stable than in previous years (and is likely to get even less stable), is this a good time to use a food like corn for conversion to ethanol
Click to expand...
It is almost never a good idea, it very nearly uses one gallon of gasoline to make one gallon of E-85 from corn...

Use sugar beets.
 
uscitizen said:
Such a shame to burn corn liquor too :eek:

revenoors in reverse ?
Click to expand...
Even worse. The gallon of E-85 is not as efficient of a fuel. Therefore you get less mileage. It is a net loss by the time you are done. You burn nearly a gallon of fossil fuel to make it, then it gets you about 20% less mileage. By the time you are done we are all net losers.
 
"The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30.

One of the most politically charged debates in Washington revolves around business subsidies known as "corporate welfare." A number of policy organizations have published studies examining the corporate welfare phenomenon: what qualifies as corporate welfare, how much it costs taxpayers, and how much it damages the economy. This study examines the dynamics of corporate welfare somewhat differently by investigating ADM as a classic case study of how those subsidies are obtained, how the welfare state encourages such "rent seeking," and how such practices fundamentally corrupt the political life of a nation. Congress's expressed desire to foster a free marketplace cannot be taken seriously until ADM's corporate hand is removed from the federal till."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

yea, we need more corporate welfare. yea, sure.
 
Yep crash that is what is driving the ethanol boom.

And they were the ones caught in the Lysine price fixing scandal weren't they ?
 
uscitizen said:
Yep crash that is what is driving the ethanol boom.

And they were the ones caught in the Lysine price fixing scandal weren't they ?
Click to expand...

yep...
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/investing/20001221c.asp?prodtype=grn

"ADM also was adept at protecting itself from media inquiries and political opposition through its sponsorship of news programs. From January 1994 to April 1995, ADM spent $4.7 million on NBC's "Meet the Press," $4.3 million on CBS's "Face the Nation," and $6.8 million on PBS's "MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour." It also was the primary sponsor of ABC's "This Week with David Brinkley."

price fixing and covering it up.
 
Last edited:
Crashk said:
yep...
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/investing/20001221c.asp?prodtype=grn

"ADM also was adept at protecting itself from media inquiries and political opposition through its sponsorship of news programs. From January 1994 to April 1995, ADM spent $4.7 million on NBC's "Meet the Press," $4.3 million on CBS's "Face the Nation," and $6.8 million on PBS's "MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour." It also was the primary sponsor of ABC's "This Week with David Brinkley."

price fixing and covering it up.
Click to expand...

that darned liberal media :D
 
DonQuixote said:
given that earth's climate is less stable than in previous years (and is likely to get even less stable), is this a good time to use a food like corn for conversion to ethanol
Click to expand...

The best plant for ethanol would be sugar cane. It yields energy at a ration of 8 units produced to 1 unit spent (in making it). This is slightly better than gas, which has a ratio of 5 to 1. Corn ethanol, on the other hand, yields energy at a ration of 1.3 to 1. Corn ethanol is NEVER going to be a viable alternative to gasoline.

However, cane sugar isn't a domestic crop. We'd have to import it. And the corn lobby will be against that, with their heavy lobbying. They can even do this lobbying behind the populist "I'm a farmer, so you have to help me" veil. So I guess we're just stuck with gas for the next 100 years, because the corn lobby killed ethanol with their greed.
 
Watermark said:
I just really think we should give up on the corn lobby and use imported sugar cane. But I guess for suggesting that I'm "unamerican".
Click to expand...

w

Not really, I am for whatever works best and costs the least

My fiscal conservative side wants the biggest bang for my tax extorted dollars - as does my social progressive side

ps would 'veggie trash' be more cost effective (be sure and deduct its value as compost)

Perhaps we would be best off making plans for the wild weather predicted like;

We need to build and strengthen levees

Evaluate the use and placement of dikes and seawalls

Determine changes in flood plains

Determine where and what kind of precipitation levels will decrease or increase

Determine where and what type of wind changes will occur

Determine likely tectonic and volcanic shifts

And (just in case it will do any good) reduce greenhouse gases and other gases that will affect our biosphere (anyone remember Freon and the number of nations that cheated and continue to cheat)

And last but not least, what will we do with all of the people displaced by global weather changes and population increase
 
You have a unique writing style, Don ;)

I'd support the tariffs if there was even an inkling of a chance that any domestic crop would ever become as energy efficient as sugar cane. One of the few good arguments for tarriffs is that they will support an "infant industry", and help it bloom into a productive one. I just don't think that's a realistic expectation.

Ethanol in Brazil sells for like 1.50 a gallon. Try that with Ethanol in America. If we keep on this futile search for a domestic ethanol crop we're just going to be stuck with oil forever. And honestly - I'd rather be dependant on Brazil and other tropical, sugar cane producing nations than Saudi Arabia and Iran.
 
"ps would 'veggie trash' be more cost effective (be sure and deduct its value as compost)"

I'm not sure about the cost effectiveness of switchgrass in those fancy new cellulose ethanol plants. I once read that it would take 13% of the land in the US to grow enough to feed our energy supply, though. Which isn't entirely unrealistic (the US actually has a lot of free land), but the question is, can we ever expect to do it better than Brazil's sugar cane? Maybe it would be better to just devote our American labour to something else, like engineering, and just export that job to Brazil?
 
NM, I just read this on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgrass

Switchgrass has the potential to produce the biomass required for production of up to 100 gallons (380 liters) of ethanol per metric ton.[4] This gives switchgrass the potential to produce 1000 gallons of ethanol per acre, compared to 665 gallons for sugarcane and 400 gallons for corn.[5]


However, you need to take that with a grain of salt. It also requires money to make the ethanol:

"However, there is debate on the viability of switchgrass, and all other biofuels, as an efficient energy source. University of California, Berkeley professor Tad Patzek points out that switchgrass has a negative ethanol fuel energy balance, requiring 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.[6] In a 2007 lecture Professor Richard Muller, also of the University of California, Berkeley, noted that it is the conversion of switchgrass biomass into ethanol which introduces significant inefficiencies. He also noted that The Helios Project at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory is actively trying to engineer metabolic pathways in bacteria to more efficiently convert cellulose to ethanol."



I think that what makes sugarcane so good is that it doesn't require much to make and it produces a lot - switchgrass takes A LOT of energy to make and produces less than it takes, and corn only produces a little more than it takes.
 
Why not just try to create a car that uses wind and solar energy and runs on electric?

You know, a car that has turbines on the wheels, solar panels on top, and some tiny windmill like objects to create energy while driving?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top