WarrenJ Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Fully one quarter of our nation's corn production now goes to ethanol production so as to allow/force your gasoline retailer to dilute your purchases by virtue of adding 10% of the stuff to your tank. Not withstanding the FACT that ethanol production is a net-net negative in energy/economic terms, our congress now appears ready to move, yet again, in the wrong direction. Again. Yes, again! You see, courtesy of pressure by farmers and ADM (Archer Daniels Midland), our best-that-money-can-buy congress is now considering increasing to 15% the amount of ethanol added to our already diluted fuel. Auto companies complain of difficulties complying with this fuel requirement. No problem . . . these megabucks auto corporations have bottomless pockets and can surely absorb the cost. Right ???? At what point do we stop eating our seed corn? I "enjoyed" grass fed beef in Europe. It stinks. Get used to it. If you can afford it. Regards, Warren There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved. - Ludwig von Mises Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Nunnally Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 This is not a simple topic. Ethanol is criticized as being energy negative, which means that it takes more energy to create ethanol than it yields. However, when the other by-products of the ethanol production process are included it is a net positive process. I also am suspicious that this type of argument is specious in that it yields counter-intuitive results, and thus bears more investigation by objective researchers into the claims by the pundits. Corn used for ethanol production leaves a cattle feed supplement as a by-product. About 7 lbs of cattle feed supplement per gallon of ethanol. America’s ethanol producers delivered 23 million metric tons of livestock and poultry feed to the world last year, or nearly three times the amount of wheat, sorghum, barley and oats fed to U.S. livestock in the 2007/08 marketing year. Places - TV Ad from GoodFuels on Vimeo. Cellulosic Ethanol seems the ideal solution, especially if the cellulose is generated off lands not suitable for food production. Then it seems to be a win-win solution and we can stop hearing about the poor cattle who are not getting fed. Or are getting fed, but the ranchers are having to pay the farmers $4 a bushel instead of $2? I suppose I don't mind if steak goes up and gas prices go down. Bruce 2023 Cadillac CT4-V Blackwing Follow me on: Twitter Instagram Youtube Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenJ Posted April 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 This is not a simple topic. Ethanol is criticized as being energy negative, which means that it takes more energy to create ethanol than it yields. However, when the other by-products of the ethanol production process are included it is a net positive process. A friend once asked me why he couldn't mount a battery on a bicycle at mid-frame and install a generator at the front wheel and a motor at the rear wheel and ride happily and energy-free into the sunset. His eyes glazed over when I mentioned the Second Law of Thermodynamics; those same eyes perked up a bit when I mentioned perpetual motion machines (one of which which he had just proposed), only to dim again when I explained the impossibility of such a device. In a "closed system" you can put energy IN and you can take energy OUT, but the energy you take out will always be less than the energy you put in. There is ALWAYS a loss when energy is converted from one form to another. Energy conversion is not a "net-positive" unless you can counter demand the known laws of physics. Regards, Warren There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved. - Ludwig von Mises Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.