Governors talk of moving beyond corn-based ethanol

Recent studies show that ethanol from switchgrass is more energy efficient to produce than corn-based ethanol, when you take into account the energy used to plant, fertilize, harvest, and refine the ethanol. Even better for people in Iowa, the extensive root structure of switchgrass can help shore up levees in case of heavy flooding. Subsidies for corn-ethanol need to be eliminated, and tax-breaks should be given to companies which produce biofuels. I think it would be better than giving the money to foreign nations for their oil.

Anthony wrote:

Recent studies show that ethanol from switchgrass is more energy efficient to produce than corn-based ethanol, when you take into account the energy used to plant, fertilize, harvest, and refine the ethanol. Even better for people in Iowa, the extensive root structure of switchgrass can help shore up levees in case of heavy flooding. Subsidies for corn-ethanol need to be eliminated, and tax-breaks should be given to companies which produce biofuels. I think it would be better than giving the money to foreign nations for their oil.

www.algenol.com ; www.valcent.net .

Anthony wrote:

Recent studies show that ethanol from switchgrass is more energy efficient to produce than corn-based ethanol, when you take into account the energy used to plant, fertilize, harvest, and refine the ethanol. Even better for people in Iowa, the extensive root structure of switchgrass can help shore up levees in case of heavy flooding. Subsidies for corn-ethanol need to be eliminated, and tax-breaks should be given to companies which produce biofuels. I think it would be better than giving the money to foreign nations for their oil.

5 to 1 energy return.Ethanol is 1 to 1 at best. Light sweet crude oil is 50 to 1.

"They" don't like it because switchgrass grows all by itself without a seed or fertilizer or herbicide or...MONSANTO CORP, ADM, etc versteh?

goon wrote:

<quoted text>5 to 1 energy return.Ethanol is 1 to 1 at best. Light sweet crude oil is 50 to 1.
"They" don't like it because switchgrass grows all by itself without a seed or fertilizer or herbicide or...MONSANTO CORP, ADM, etc versteh?

Never grown switchgrass huh?

I guarantee you ... If you start harvesting off a stand of switchgrass you will need fertilizer and herbicide within a year. If you continue to harvest yearly, the stand will deteriorate within a few years to a point where you will have to re-seed.

It's not as easy as the uninformed will have you believe.

finally a spec of common sense developing...still a ways to go.

The failed corn experiment days are numbered I think. Enough with inflation, enough with using food and water to make low grade fuel. Enough with the free handout to greedy farmers.

Enuf

Factnut wrote:

finally a spec of common sense developing...still a ways to go.
The failed corn experiment days are numbered I think. Enough with inflation, enough with using food and water to make low grade fuel. Enough with the free handout to greedy farmers.
Enuf

I appreciate the irony.
You have been spoiled by an unlimited supply of the least expensive and consistantly 'finest quality' food on the planet, having spent the smallest portion of your income on food your entire life. Then you turn around and call the farmers 'greedy'? How on earth could you possibly say that farmers are greedy? I hope you realize that out of every $1 increase in grocery prices, farmers are lucky to see a nickle in added revenue for their products.
Apalled by the high price of milk? The price paid for raw milk to the dairy farmer is less now than it was last year. That is a fact!
The wrapper on a loaf of bread costs more than the wheat used to make the flour for that loaf.
There is about fifteen cents worth of corn in the largest box of corn flakes.

real information wrote:

<quoted text>
Never grown switchgrass huh?
I guarantee you ... If you start harvesting off a stand of switchgrass you will need fertilizer and herbicide within a year. If you continue to harvest yearly, the stand will deteriorate within a few years to a point where you will have to re-seed.
It's not as easy as the uninformed will have you believe.

Of course I haven't grown switchgrass. I grew up in the freakin suburbs in Pennsy. Switchgrass is a native prairie grass that grows all by itself. Sounds better than using corn to me

How about letting the actual producers figure out how to do it efficently and just subsidize the ethanol itself not the commodity.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

How about letting the actual producers figure out how to do it efficently and just subsidize the ethanol itself not the commodity.

Isn't that what is currently being done?

goon wrote:

<quoted text>Of course I haven't grown switchgrass. I grew up in the freakin suburbs in Pennsy. Switchgrass is a native prairie grass that grows all by itself. Sounds better than using corn to me

Native where? Do you have alot of switchgrass prairies in Pennsy?

This should not degenerate into silly arguments -- even the Governors are thinking about the needs of the country, and not exclusively about the interests of their states. As an Iowan, of course, years ago, I supported ethanol using corn, especially when I heard there was a cancer-causing substance in regular gasoline, that it replaced. Now I hear about higher food prices; and there has been damage to corn crops from our floods in the Mid-west, and the new generation of cellulosic fuels may be coming on line. So of course I am willing to give up on ethanol made from the corn itself, but not necessarily from the rest of the corn plant. Scientists and technology people had better get to work and find out which of these possibly good ideas will work in practice. Also, there is the option of plug-in cars, with more of the electricity coming from wind and solar. We need energy-efficient (even self-sufficient)buildings as well as local solar and wind, and the opportunity for people with their own wind-energy to feed the surplus into the grid. It is the greed of the current economic winners that is the major block to all sorts of innovations: big oil, especially. As for big coal, since China is bringing so many coal plants on line, I think US inventors had better get to work on "clean coal" and "carbon sequestration" even if they sound far-fetched. I am not happy with nuclear energy, because of the long-term danger from waste that is not safely stored (which is far more difficult than anyone admits) and the problem of terrorist attacks on the plants themselves (which is not now adequately guarded against), and the problem of terrorists capturing some of the nuclear materials. Conservation is not exciting, but that and in various household appliances and industrial machines, will help. Much of the waste comes from buildings, and architects should actually enjoy the challenge of building "green" - I've seen some gorgeous pictures of "green" buildings - both homes and commercial.

real information wrote:

<quoted text>
Native where? Do you have alot of switchgrass prairies in Pennsy?

Actually there are native prairie grasses, if that's what they are called, in Pennsylvania. The Lehigh Gap Nature Center guys are using them to re foliate a mountain side that was destroyed by zinc smelting emissions. This program is very succesful and has been recognized by the federal government I beleive. CBS is now paying for it.

The idea is that the grass roots go down below the contaminated soil, and then die off forming a bed on top of the soil that will eventually form new soil without pulling the contaminants out of the old soil.Pretty clever. Anyhow some of these grasses are native to PA and maybe even switchgrass is native.

Hemp might work to make ethanol too but that is a whole 'nuther discussion.

real information wrote:

<quoted text>
Isn't that what is currently being done?

Thank you, you are correct. It took a little research and some re-reading of a few poorly worded news stories to find out.

The federal subsidy is the Federal Blenders Credit that does not depend on the source of ethanol. Some of the articles I read included a portion of corn subsidies in their numbers because the corn was used for ethanol production. Most of the articles just refered to "corn ethanol subsidies" without further explanation.

There are some other funds from the Department of Energy that are specific to cellulose ethanol plant development, but they are minor compared to the Federal Blenders Credit.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you, you are correct. It took a little research and some re-reading of a few poorly worded news stories to find out.
The federal subsidy is the Federal Blenders Credit that does not depend on the source of ethanol. Some of the articles I read included a portion of corn subsidies in their numbers because the corn was used for ethanol production. Most of the articles just refered to "corn ethanol subsidies" without further explanation.
There are some other funds from the Department of Energy that are specific to cellulose ethanol plant development, but they are minor compared to the Federal Blenders Credit.

As a midwestern farmer, it is hard to read these 'poorly worded news stories' and to realize that the general population of the country (heck, the world) thinks that I am getting rich while the world starves.
I'd like to take the credit ... but I didn't think up this ethanol idea, and I can't specify what my product will be used for. While planting the crop this spring, I was thinking it was food.
Still, if anything helps ag producers in the heartland, it helps small communities, it helps larger cities, and it helps the general economy, so it helps our country.
btw ... the farm subsidy is earned by and paid to the land. The direct payment is calculated using historic corn acreage and yield, but is paid out no matter what program crop is grown. So there is no subsidy specifically for corn, and certianly no subsidy for any crop with a specific end use in mind (ethanol corn).
Ethanol is a good thing.

Sugar cane ethanol is significantly more efficient than corn ethanol. Brazilian sugar cane ethanol is hit with stiff U.S. import tariffs, which helps prop up corn, corn ethanol, and food prices in the U.S..

McCain favors a repeal or reduction of the tariff on sugar cane ethanol to help lower fuel and food prices. Obama favors continuing the tariff to help protect corn farmers and keep corn prices higher.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you, you are correct. It took a little research and some re-reading of a few poorly worded news stories to find out.
The federal subsidy is the Federal Blenders Credit that does not depend on the source of ethanol. Some of the articles I read included a portion of corn subsidies in their numbers because the corn was used for ethanol production. Most of the articles just refered to "corn ethanol subsidies" without further explanation.
There are some other funds from the Department of Energy that are specific to cellulose ethanol plant development, but they are minor compared to the Federal Blenders Credit.

You are welcome.
Poorly worded partly because of ignorance, and partly because it is popular to blame the farmer for all ills in this country.
The 'blenders credit' is paid to oil companies ... the farmer receives no subsidy for ethanol.
That is the crux of the argument that ethanol will stand on it's own merit. The production of ethanol is profitable and occurs without subsidy. Remove the blenders credit, it is unnecessary.
And remember ... what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular.

howzat wrote:

Sugar cane ethanol is significantly more efficient than corn ethanol. Brazilian sugar cane ethanol is hit with stiff U.S. import tariffs, which helps prop up corn, corn ethanol, and food prices in the U.S..
McCain favors a repeal or reduction of the tariff on sugar cane ethanol to help lower fuel and food prices. Obama favors continuing the tariff to help protect corn farmers and keep corn prices higher.

Too bad we do not have tens of thousands of acres of old growth rain forest that we could bulldoze, burn, and clear to grow our own sugarcane like Brazil has done. I'm startled that you advocate supporting such devastation to our world environment.
It's also interesting that you would favor sending American dollars to foreign counties over fueling our own economy (to acheive the same end result).

What is interesting is that you read any advocacy in that post. I simply stated factual elements of each candidates stated platform. The different approaches support different constituencies. Your preconceived notions have apparently prevented you from reading objectively.

real information wrote:

<quoted text>
Too bad we do not have tens of thousands of acres of old growth rain forest that we could bulldoze, burn, and clear to grow our own sugarcane like Brazil has done. I'm startled that you advocate supporting such devastation to our world environment.
It's also interesting that you would favor sending American dollars to foreign counties over fueling our own economy (to acheive the same end result).

Corn-based alcohol was always a political gimmick to help out midwestern farmers; it makes absolutely no sense to use an important food crop for fuel production. Unfortunately, short-term political ploys, not real long-term, strategic planning is what America is all about (and you can blame the policies but We, the Voters seem to love short-term political gimmicks), and it's why candidates will keep supporting equally stupid notions like "We have to weem America off FOREIGN oil." Simply put, we as a nation have NO national energy policy. Political necessity seems to dictate this fact as well as the necessity that all political decision benefit big oil.

True wrote:

Corn-based alcohol was always a political gimmick to help out midwestern farmers; it makes absolutely no sense to use an important food crop for fuel production. Unfortunately, short-term political ploys, not real long-term, strategic planning is what America is all about (and you can blame the policies but We, the Voters seem to love short-term political gimmicks), and it's why candidates will keep supporting equally stupid notions like "We have to weem America off FOREIGN oil." Simply put, we as a nation have NO national energy policy. Political necessity seems to dictate this fact as well as the necessity that all political decision benefit big oil.

There are hundreds of non-food products made from corn. Are all of these gimmicks?
Likewise, are peanut butter and the hundreds of non-food products developed to make uses for peanuts just gimmicks to help out cotton farmers?
How about soy?
Utilizing surplus ag commodities for energy is an important part of our future.