That's my impression too. I still think it'd be better than what we have now - dirt in spring, sprayed/sterile crops through summer, and dirt again for fall/winter.
Ethanol Subsidies Ends
- Thread starter OKIEGunner
- Start date
I'm not sure it's even legal to sell un-doctored fuel here in Missouri. We are all in with ethanol. I have decided it's the first sign of the apocalypse.
Downtown Bang!
Member
You are correct. Cellulosic ethanol receives a $1.01 per gallon production tax credit that is on line through December 31, 2012. It is under review and will likely get extended but is not the slam dunk for a five-year extension that was previously expected.
Be careful what you wish for though. The RFS requirements are still out there and the Corn Lobby made damn sure the deck was stacked. Corn ethanol can qualify as an RFS suitable fuel with only a 20% reduction in life cycle emissions over gasoline vs. a 60% reduction requirement for cellulosic ethanol.
If cellulosic ethanol can't meet production goals (they have not to date) corn ethanol production will fill the vacuum. Isn't it fortunate timing for the corn lobby that the USDA just approved drought resistent corn varieties that will open up millions more acres for potential corn production?
Last edited:
OKIEGunner
New member
I don’t want to stir up the pot; however I was hoping that our discussion here would lead to supporting other alternative fuels that favor habitat for wildlife.
We are smart enough to see that ethanol is not wildlife-friendly. For 32 years the Government had too subsidized the corn ethanol industry. Most of us only have to look out the window as we drive the country-side to see that it seriously diminished our wildlife-habitat.
The Government will now take that same 6 Billion dollars a year and invest it in a cellulosic ethanol program. What is the projected damage to our future wildlife habitat?
DownTown Bang! Provided us with this: “Even more disturbing is the fact that the EPA intends to accelerate the RFS requirements for renewable fuel from 15 billion gallons in 2012 to 36 billion gallons in 2022.”
If we think diminishing fence rows is a problem now just wait a few more years. Bottom-Line increased ethanol production = decrease in wildlife habitat.
As Hunters we should be thinking “as a group” in supporting other alternative fuels in order to save wildlife habitat.
We are smart enough to see that ethanol is not wildlife-friendly. For 32 years the Government had too subsidized the corn ethanol industry. Most of us only have to look out the window as we drive the country-side to see that it seriously diminished our wildlife-habitat.
The Government will now take that same 6 Billion dollars a year and invest it in a cellulosic ethanol program. What is the projected damage to our future wildlife habitat?
DownTown Bang! Provided us with this: “Even more disturbing is the fact that the EPA intends to accelerate the RFS requirements for renewable fuel from 15 billion gallons in 2012 to 36 billion gallons in 2022.”
If we think diminishing fence rows is a problem now just wait a few more years. Bottom-Line increased ethanol production = decrease in wildlife habitat.
As Hunters we should be thinking “as a group” in supporting other alternative fuels in order to save wildlife habitat.
UGUIDE
Active member
OKIE, I agree in part. We on this forum tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
When we take about switchgrass for ethanol the question always comes up "When do you cut it?" Why is that the first question?
Becuase we want land to hunt birds. Don't we also want clean water (I am speaking for populous as a whole including non-hunters).
What good is land to hunt birds without bird production? I think they call that walk-in-land.
We need to get really good at finding multi-stakeholder solutions to issues that affect us all. what I mean by this is the hunter will not get their agenda without finding a couple good things that there alndscape would look like without benefiting the non-hunting taxppayer and/or the farmer that owns the land. What's usually lacking in our civilization is education and the resources to educate those that need persuading or convincing to do the right thing. And the right thing of course depnds on who you ask.
PF has done some excellent collaborative efforts in South Dakota to joins forces and resources with other organizations and continues to do so. Others can learn and benfit from this model. I hope to learn more about these success sotries at Pheasant Fest.
The point of this post was that it seems some would argue that ground in corn production for ethanol is no worse for environment as ground in switchgrass production for ethanol that gets clipped once per year. I will take the bird production and clean water in the switchgrass scenario, thank you very little.
When we take about switchgrass for ethanol the question always comes up "When do you cut it?" Why is that the first question?
Becuase we want land to hunt birds. Don't we also want clean water (I am speaking for populous as a whole including non-hunters).
What good is land to hunt birds without bird production? I think they call that walk-in-land.
We need to get really good at finding multi-stakeholder solutions to issues that affect us all. what I mean by this is the hunter will not get their agenda without finding a couple good things that there alndscape would look like without benefiting the non-hunting taxppayer and/or the farmer that owns the land. What's usually lacking in our civilization is education and the resources to educate those that need persuading or convincing to do the right thing. And the right thing of course depnds on who you ask.
PF has done some excellent collaborative efforts in South Dakota to joins forces and resources with other organizations and continues to do so. Others can learn and benfit from this model. I hope to learn more about these success sotries at Pheasant Fest.
The point of this post was that it seems some would argue that ground in corn production for ethanol is no worse for environment as ground in switchgrass production for ethanol that gets clipped once per year. I will take the bird production and clean water in the switchgrass scenario, thank you very little.
Last edited:
morrismike
New member
I am an engineer and corn or switchgrass ethanol is politics and not energy policy. If the tractors working corn fields for ethanol used ethanol (from that farm) and various chemicals used on that farm had those plants using ethanol for needed energy (from that farm) you'd find there would be no ethanol left to sell. Until someone finds a huge lake of ethanol to take to market, it is not a legit energy source.
Thankyou for getting us focused on the obvious. :10sign:. To clarify my thinking, what you are saying, is it requires as much energy to produce ethanol, as the ethanol we produce. so it is at best energy nuetral, and that does not include the water consumption, rising cost of food, and other asundry enviornmental damages. Make BP look like a puppet show.
morrismike
New member
It can and is that much of a scam. Making fuel out of food (and doing it badly) is something only the US governement can dream up.
While corn into ethanol is at best energy neutral. Their is some other issues that have pushed ethanol into a positive light.
In the US I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a person who feels sending BILLIONS of dollars off to some Saudi Prince is a good thing.....(if anyone knows of such a person I sure would like to have a civil debate with them. DO NOT expect the US government to ever back off their support of the Saudis, their is a key reason for that and it is much more complex than the oil they have.)
Hence one of the reasons ethanol has become attractive. Ethanol is here to stay. The infrastructure has been put into place. The auto makers have tweaked engines to run on E-85. It is not difficult to find a filling station selling E-85 in many places. Consumers are willing to accept the concept of ethanol.
Please note I am not debating whether it is good or bad for an engine nor the environment. Simply stating. In the US it has become an accepted form of fuel to use.
Once a product is accepted in mass distribution. It is much easier to get companies to pour money into research of the product. If a company can see a need for its product, they will spend money to capture market share.
Years ago I was asked about my view on investing in a corn based ethanol plant. I said no then and I still say no today, even though I live in the middle of corn country. Given that corn based ethanol is at best energy neutral.
This does leave the door wide open for many alternatives to corn based ethanol.
Once again I am going to point out that the infrastructure does currently exist for the product. The demand does exist for the product. The product is not going away. Money is to be made off of ethanol.
What I do feel will happen in the not to distant future is a replacement for corn will be found to produce ethanol. The concept of making ethanol from corn is very old science.
What I feel shows the strongest long term promise to ethanol production is Algae. (a brief explanation of the concept. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/biofuel/4213775 )
If science today can manipulate the genes of a complex plant like corn. Manipulating the genes in a plant like algae will take place.
The genetically altered algae will be able to produce more of the desired products just like genetically altered corn can and does. The big difference being the amount of energy needed to grow algae compared to corn is a lot less. Algae can double is mass in 24 hours...something corn scientist have not been able to do yet. Once the energy neutral can be over come. Corn ethanol will die.
The US government did accomplish one thing, and it is something they can do. They did provide the infrastructure and created the consumer demand for the product. Now simple capitalism will result in a more efficient way to produce the product.
If you are a corn farmer I would suggest you DO NOT bank on the idea that ethanol will always demand corn...or switchgrass
In the US I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a person who feels sending BILLIONS of dollars off to some Saudi Prince is a good thing.....(if anyone knows of such a person I sure would like to have a civil debate with them. DO NOT expect the US government to ever back off their support of the Saudis, their is a key reason for that and it is much more complex than the oil they have.)
Hence one of the reasons ethanol has become attractive. Ethanol is here to stay. The infrastructure has been put into place. The auto makers have tweaked engines to run on E-85. It is not difficult to find a filling station selling E-85 in many places. Consumers are willing to accept the concept of ethanol.
Please note I am not debating whether it is good or bad for an engine nor the environment. Simply stating. In the US it has become an accepted form of fuel to use.
Once a product is accepted in mass distribution. It is much easier to get companies to pour money into research of the product. If a company can see a need for its product, they will spend money to capture market share.
Years ago I was asked about my view on investing in a corn based ethanol plant. I said no then and I still say no today, even though I live in the middle of corn country. Given that corn based ethanol is at best energy neutral.
This does leave the door wide open for many alternatives to corn based ethanol.
Once again I am going to point out that the infrastructure does currently exist for the product. The demand does exist for the product. The product is not going away. Money is to be made off of ethanol.
What I do feel will happen in the not to distant future is a replacement for corn will be found to produce ethanol. The concept of making ethanol from corn is very old science.
What I feel shows the strongest long term promise to ethanol production is Algae. (a brief explanation of the concept. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/biofuel/4213775 )
If science today can manipulate the genes of a complex plant like corn. Manipulating the genes in a plant like algae will take place.
The genetically altered algae will be able to produce more of the desired products just like genetically altered corn can and does. The big difference being the amount of energy needed to grow algae compared to corn is a lot less. Algae can double is mass in 24 hours...something corn scientist have not been able to do yet. Once the energy neutral can be over come. Corn ethanol will die.
The US government did accomplish one thing, and it is something they can do. They did provide the infrastructure and created the consumer demand for the product. Now simple capitalism will result in a more efficient way to produce the product.
If you are a corn farmer I would suggest you DO NOT bank on the idea that ethanol will always demand corn...or switchgrass
The whole point of energy production is to produce more energy than it takes to produce the energy your creating. if it takes as much energy to deliver ethanol, as the value of the ethanol produced, than we are merely shuffling dollars around in a weird economic shell game. Saudi oil shieks are still lining their pockets because they are one of the few net energy producers, it takes less effort and energy to drill and pump oil. It requires at least the same amount of energy to produce ethanol as the ethanol is worth, it's really that simple. Algae research not withstanding. If there is some breakthrough perhaps it will change some dynamics. As an alternative fuel, it's inferior, as a policy it's a loser, if our goal is energy independence, than we are the fool.
Yep I agree oldandnew, the whole point would be to produce more energy then it takes to make the energy.
The only possible positives I see would be.
Increased research into a possible alternative. But this should be done with private money not federal funds. In my view. One of my points above is that when a company "sees" an opportunity it will then spend funds on R&D to capitalize on that market..The infrastructure has been set into play, something that was seriously debated would happen 15 years ago.
Almost anything we can do to get the money flow to countries non friendly to us is a positive. But the House of Saud is safe for a long long time thanks to as BS agreement made....more politics.
The USA has enough Natural Gas reserves to be a net exporter...yet those wheels are moving extremely slowly???
Energy independence has been a catch phrase for decades from politicians. Yet we are no closer to the independence no matter which politicians are in power. My point being, I would not look to a politician to solve the problem, I would look to free enterprise.
If we want energy Independence. Start with stopping ALL subsidies to any energy production.
UGUIDE: the Keystone XL pipeline.
One thing I would add is I know that oil from North Dakota* would also be flowing through the pipeline. I believe but am not positive the amount would be about 30% of pipeline capacity.
I have one glaring issue with the pipeline and that is the ARROGANCE of the agents who were/are sent out to get land owner permission for a right of way. The arrogance was born out of the belief they have the federal government in their back pocket. Via the threat of Eminent Domain to seize private property.
Over all should it be done, yes in my view. Is it a perfect solution. Nope and waiting for a perfect solution is a long shot.
*North Dakota has a low unemployment rate. Canada has a growing economy, in large part to the oil resources it is developing. Several other US states have proven oil reserves that are "off limits" to development....every time the feds get involved in private enterprise...expect a cluster F*** Corn ethanol is no different.
You bring up an excellent point. Why is compressed natural gas never discussed in the energy equation? It's proven technology, we have a good start on a delivery infrastucture, we have more than we can use in reserves, it's domestic production so the dollars stay at home, it burns much cleaner than alternatives, how did this idea get left at the starting gate. When I was a kid we had propane powered Minnie Mo's, if you bought in quantity and in the summer, it was literally pennies a gallon. More now but still domestic and clean burning. I still have a tank with a filler hose!
morrismike
New member
How many tractors on those farms are running on ethanol? How many of the plants making various farm commodities and those distalling the ethanol use ethanol for that energy source. The saudi princes are getting theirs one way or another. Ethanol is farm and bunny hugger politics nothing more. There are process available to make gasoline, ethanol, diesel, etc. from garbage/coal/stm etc. and that may be a viable source of energy in the very near future.
This is the future of ethanol and it doesn't involve corn.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Coskata_Inc
Last edited:
OKIEGunner
New member
UGuide
It is a very political issue. With that said here are some of the numbers I have come across.
The $7 billion (1 year of Ethanol Sustidies) pipeline will create over 13,000 jobs in each of the two years it takes to build, generate $5 billion in property tax revenue and pump a total of $20 billion into the U.S. economy over the project's 100 year lifetime.
Crucially, they say that while the 700,000 barrels of oil a day the pipeline would carry is still imported oil, at least it's from politically stable Canada. What scares me is if we do not take the Oil what country will.
There are many environmental concerns with the pipe-lines being in close proximity to the Aquifer. Since then, the Nebraska State legislature is working to ensure a pipeline route will be developed in Nebraska that avoids the Sandhills.
The bigger picture is the U.S. consumes 15 million barrels of oil each day and imports 10 to 11 million barrels per day. Industry forecasts predict oil consumption will continue at these levels for the next two to three decades.
morrismike
New member
Algae won't work. Many have tried to bulk produce algea (chlorella) for food on an industrial scale and yeast, mold, bacteria etc alway muck it up.
morrismike
New member
That oil is to produce exporting gasoline. There will be some refining jobs in USA but it will cause an increase in midwest gasoline prices.
Keystone XL is shipping a type of heavy crude which has not been shipped via pipeline ever in history. There are very serious concerns within the oil industry, as to whether the pipeline as designed can handle this pressure and sludgy material without catastrophic failure. It crosses the acquifer and some very sensitive natural areas, not to mention the landowners who's ground is being seized without the landowners approval or consideration of the impact on the rest of their property and living conditions and lifestyle. It's still a bandaid. There are also concerns about the fracturing technology used to recover oil sand reserves. Earhtquakes are occuring in proximity to the blasting and fracturing, water contamination is an issue as well. Legislation approving this plan were fast tracked through the process, without due dilligence research into the consequences of a catastrophic failure. Just like BP and the fast track construction in the gulf. It may be that no one wants to here this, but the best alternative currently, may be to milk the mid-east, Venzeula, Nigeria, et. al. dry. Meanwhile, serious mandated conservation measures at home to drastically reduce consumption, will do more for the bottom line, the trade deficit, and the domestic economy than all the pipelines and ethanol ever built. Fuel taxes cripple the economy, and we cannot afford that, but we could use rationing, force better mileage requirements faster, quit fighting conversion to flourecent lighting, develop better batteries, go to a 12 hour -4 day work week, get serious about public transportation, green building technology/construction, and I hate to say it, because I like to drive fast, but lower the speed limit.