APP - I'm starting to change my mind on ethanol.

[DamnYankee]

First, the facts:

Ethanol production from corn is not leading to a shortage of grain for livestock feed. Quite the opposite is true. Because ethanol production produces both fuel and livestock feed, its quickly becoming a driving market force in the location and production of beef and dairy cattle.

Specifically, the production of ethanol from corn requires just the starch in each kernel. In the dry mill ethanol process, the entire corn kernel or other starchy grain is ground into flour (or “meal”) and processed without separation of the various nutritional component parts of the grain. The meal is slurried with water to form a “mash.” Enzymes are added to the mash, which is then processed in a high-temperature cooker, cooled and transferred to fermenters where yeast is added and the conversion of sugar to ethanol begins.
After fermentation, the resulting “beer” is transferred to distillation columns where the ethanol is separated from the remaining “stillage.” The stillage is sent through a centrifuge that separates the coarse grain from the solubles. The solubles are then concentrated to about 30 percent solids by evaporation, resulting in condensed distillers solubles (CDS) or “syrup.” CDS is sometimes sold into the feed market, but more often the residual coarse grain and the CDS are mixed together and dried to produce distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS). In some cases, the syrup is not reapplied to the residual grains; this product is simply called distillers dried grains (DDG).
If the distillers grains are being fed to livestock in close proximity to the ethanol plant, the drying step is avoided and the product is called wet distillers grains with solubles (WDGS). Because of various drying and syrup applications practices, there are several variants of distillers grains (one of which is called modified wet distillers grains), but most product is sold as DDGS, DDG, or WDGS. The vitamins, fibers, and nutrients that remain are processed into a high-value livestock feed most commonly referred to as distillers dried grains with solubles, or DDGS.

http://www.americancattlemen.com/articles/ethanol-impact-feed-prices

Then, the take of the smartest politician in America:

http://www.radioiowa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GingrichJan25.mp3

 

[Damocles]

Then why do we need to keep dumping government money into the production to make it viable?

 

[DamnYankee]

Because we have a large infrastructure built to supply and consume gasoline, and like any large thing a lot of effort to get moving in a different direction. We get the same resistence from this industry when discussing natural gas fueled vehicles.

Plus, parts of this existing infrastructure are also supplemented by the government, in fighting mid-east wars and propping up dictatorships.

 

[Damocles]

Because we have a large infrastructure built to supply and consume gasoline, and like any large thing a lot of effort to get moving in a different direction. We get the same resistence from this industry when discussing natural gas fueled vehicles.

Plus, parts of this existing infrastructure are also supplemented by the government, in fighting mid-east wars and propping up dictatorships.

One reality is the oil lobbyists killed this option for most vehicles way back when we first started mass-producing vehicles. The original carburetor that Ford had designed could be used for either Ethanol or Oil, the Oil lobby in its early years put the kibosh on that particular option, Big Farming hadn't a centralized lobby system at the time and lost out.

I do believe that Nat Gas is a more viable option and one that we should move towards for interim until we find a truly viable option. Corn simply isn't efficient enough, it isn't like sugar beets, and the 20% drop in fuel efficiency is a killer, without the government giving them cash to keep the price lower there would never be a time it would be cost beneficial to purchase Ethanol over Gasoline.

 

[DamnYankee]

One reality is the oil lobbyists killed this option for most vehicles way back when we first started mass-producing vehicles. The original carburetor that Ford had designed could be used for either Ethanol or Oil, the Oil lobby in its early years put the kibosh on that particular option, Big Farming hadn't a centralized lobby system at the time and lost out.

I do believe that Nat Gas is a more viable option and one that we should move towards for interim until we find a truly viable option. Corn simply isn't efficient enough, it isn't like sugar beets, and the 20% drop in fuel efficiency is a killer, without the government giving them cash to keep the price lower there would never be a time it would be cost beneficial to purchase Ethanol over Gasoline.

The BTU's per gallon E85 / E10 is about 75%, so with E10 gas at $3.50 E85 has to be $2.60 or so to be competitive.

The federal government subsidizes oil by spending huge amounts of blood and treasure in the Mideast. I'm on record here long ago that the price of all that should be figured into the tax on OPEC oil so alternatives can compete fairly.

 

[Damocles]

The BTU's per gallon E85 / E10 is about 75%, so with E10 gas at $3.50 E85 has to be $2.60 or so to be competitive.

The federal government subsidizes oil by spending huge amounts of blood and treasure in the Mideast. I'm on record here long ago that the price of all that should be figured into the tax on OPEC oil so alternatives can compete fairly.

Sort of "works" for me. I'm of the opinion that subsidies for any of these should be out, but it makes some sense to call all the wars for cheaper commodities a "subsidy" of a sort. I've always been of the opinion that we should be truly aiming at real independence first rather than pretending that the only option is green and we should be throwing every source of energy at the problem of foreign dependency. If we can get off the oil teat, we wouldn't be in the ME messing with their governments and could be an exporter of Nat Gas solutions as well as other alternatives. We waste our own resources and treasure supporting our dependency on foreign resources.

 

[DamnYankee]

Sort of "works" for me. I'm of the opinion that subsidies for any of these should be out, but it makes some sense to call all the wars for cheaper commodities a "subsidy" of a sort. I've always been of the opinion that we should be truly aiming at real independence first rather than pretending that the only option is green and we should be throwing every source of energy at the problem of foreign dependency. If we can get off the oil teat, we wouldn't be in the ME messing with their governments and could be an exporter of Nat Gas solutions as well as other alternatives. We waste our own resources and treasure supporting our dependency on foreign resources.

I'm not a fan of government intervention to force energy independence, but I think using tariffs to pay for the actual cost of OPEC oil makes a lot of sense.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Then why do we need to keep dumping government money into the production to make it viable?

we set up tax credits to build ethanol refineries......we also have tax credits to build petroleum refineries.....we do require ten percent of gasoline sold be made up of ethanol......there are no subsidies beyond that.........keep in mind that when corn was selling for $1.99 a bushel we were subsidizing farmers to raise the production price to $3.85 a bushel just to keep them from going out of business......now that the market price is over $3.85 we no longer have to pay that subsidy......thus the current situation actually costs us less......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

One reality is the oil lobbyists killed this option for most vehicles way back when we first started mass-producing vehicles. The original carburetor that Ford had designed could be used for either Ethanol or Oil, the Oil lobby in its early years put the kibosh on that particular option, Big Farming hadn't a centralized lobby system at the time and lost out.

I do believe that Nat Gas is a more viable option and one that we should move towards for interim until we find a truly viable option. Corn simply isn't efficient enough, it isn't like sugar beets, and the 20% drop in fuel efficiency is a killer, without the government giving them cash to keep the price lower there would never be a time it would be cost beneficial to purchase Ethanol over Gasoline.

it's a whole lot easier to convert existing cars to run on even E80 than it is to convert them to run on natural gas.

 

[DamnYankee]

The cost difference between a gasoline only vehicle and a flex-fuel vehicle is almost negligible. The only reason why I don't use it in my 2004 Exploder is that there isn't a fueling station nearby. This summer my son will be commuting past the only station in the area so will be fueling that vehicle almost exclusively with E85.

 

[Damocles]

it's a whole lot easier to convert existing cars to run on even E80 than it is to convert them to run on natural gas.

Very not true. It is about $2,000 to convert any vehicle to Nat Gas. Many municipalities require taxis to run on Nat Gas as well as run their bus lines. It's silly to ignore this stuff.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Very not true. It is about $2,000 to convert any vehicle to Nat Gas. Many municipalities require taxis to run on Nat Gas as well as run their bus lines. It's silly to ignore this stuff.

you can convert a car to run E80 for well under $500.....and it can still burn gasoline after.....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Then why do we need to keep dumping government money into the production to make it viable?

Infrastructure. You don't just flip a switch and everyone starts using ethanol.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

One reality is the oil lobbyists killed this option for most vehicles way back when we first started mass-producing vehicles. The original carburetor that Ford had designed could be used for either Ethanol or Oil, the Oil lobby in its early years put the kibosh on that particular option, Big Farming hadn't a centralized lobby system at the time and lost out.

I do believe that Nat Gas is a more viable option and one that we should move towards for interim until we find a truly viable option. Corn simply isn't efficient enough, it isn't like sugar beets, and the 20% drop in fuel efficiency is a killer, without the government giving them cash to keep the price lower there would never be a time it would be cost beneficial to purchase Ethanol over Gasoline.

Corn may not be viable in the long run but bio-ethanol most certainly is. There is more available that can be grown on non-productive lands that can produce ethanol then food crops.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Very not true. It is about $2,000 to convert any vehicle to Nat Gas. Many municipalities require taxis to run on Nat Gas as well as run their bus lines. It's silly to ignore this stuff.

You still have the same issue with natural gas, you have to explore, drill, produce a product that can be used, then develop the infrastructure. Over the long haul Natural Gas is not indefinately sustainable where as bio-ethanol/bio-fuels are. You're just stuck on using food crops for ethanol production. Look at those as a political means of developing the infrastructure and gaining the political will and support for changing and creating the infrastructure. As the market for ethanol grows, then you can expect a shift to other sources which are viable such as saw grass and mulitflora rosa.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

for those who don't understand the ethanol subsidy....
http://www.energyfuturecoalition.org/biofuels/fact_ethanol.htm

The federal government provides a tax incentive to gasoline blenders (not ethanol producers) to encourage the use of ethanol. This subsidy affects how ethanol’s competitiveness with gasoline. For example, gasoline blends containing 10% ethanol earn a tax credit of 5.1 cents per gallon. In effect, the blenders can pay up to 51 cents more for a gallon of ethanol than the equivalent amount of gasoline and still break even. This tax break is called the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit. Its cost to the government ($2.5 billion in 2006) is offset by savings in crop payments to farmers. In 2006 high corn prices caused by ethanol demand reduced farm support payments by roughly $6 billion.

so the government spent $2.5 billion subsidizing ethanol but saved $6 billion for not having to subsidize farmers.....in the meantime reducing domestic consumption of gasoline by 10%.......

and then there is this....

a new report concludes that the ethanol fuel industry created nearly 240,000 new jobs in 2007 and added $47.6 billion to the nation's gross domestic product

$2.5 billion to create 240,000 jobs.....Obama's stimulus should have been so effective....

 

[Damocles]

Corn may not be viable in the long run but bio-ethanol most certainly is. There is more available that can be grown on non-productive lands that can produce ethanol then food crops.

Yeah, I'm certainly not against any alternative. I'm pro-energy and believe we should throw every option at it.

 

[Damocles]

You still have the same issue with natural gas, you have to explore, drill, produce a product that can be used, then develop the infrastructure. Over the long haul Natural Gas is not indefinately sustainable where as bio-ethanol/bio-fuels are. You're just stuck on using food crops for ethanol production. Look at those as a political means of developing the infrastructure and gaining the political will and support for changing and creating the infrastructure. As the market for ethanol grows, then you can expect a shift to other sources which are viable such as saw grass and mulitflora rosa.

Very big difference, we have all that we need and the same companies that drill for oil produce Nat Gas. The infrastructure will not be that difficult to create. I've also seen pickup trucks that run on both Propane and Gasoline. Flip a switch to change tanks and whammo...

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Very big difference, we have all that we need and the same companies that drill for oil produce Nat Gas. The infrastructure will not be that difficult to create. I've also seen pickup trucks that run on both Propane and Gasoline. Flip a switch to change tanks and whammo...

Not really, we all ready have a vast infrastructure in the petro chemical industry for distillation and a significant infrastructure for spirits manaufacturing. Natural gas would require large infrastructure changes to how automobiles are manufactured and how the LNG/LPG is transfered into those vehicles and then there is the issue of storing, transporting and transfering LNG/LPG safely, in mass quantities, to consumers. It will take a large investment in infrastructure development for LNG/LPG too. Though I do agree with you that all energy options should be on the table for development I find bio-fuels more attractive then LNG/LPG primarily because it's more sustainable over the long haul and because it's safer then LNG/LPG.

 

[Damocles]

Not really, we all ready have a vast infrastructure in the petro chemical industry for distillation and a significant infrastructure for spirits manaufacturing. Natural gas would require large infrastructure changes to how automobiles are manufactured and how the LNG/LPG is transfered into those vehicles and then there is the issue of storing, transporting and transfering LNG/LPG safely, in mass quantities, to consumers. It will take a large investment in infrastructure development for LNG/LPG too. Though I do agree with you that all energy options should be on the table for development I find bio-fuels more attractive then LNG/LPG primarily because it's more sustainable over the long haul and because it's safer then LNG/LPG.

No, it wouldn't require a change in how they are manufactured. One can have their current automobiles modified to use both Propane (or CNG) and gasoline both. The idea that this would take a major shift is a bit incredulous.

What they'd need to do is change delivery systems, much of that infrastructure is already in place. For me it is a credible interim measure until we find a truly viable alternative solution, not "the" solution itself.