Ethanol Subsidies Ends

Good news is, We can all take off across the country and not worry in the least about gasoline or diesel being available and plentiful. Those homes and businesses connected to NG can turn the thermostats to whatever and not worry about availability same with cooking/water heating. We all turn on the switch and have no worry about getting low on electricity.

We have enough refineries, pipelines and power plants now to satisfy the US needs.

I have no doubt there will be more as demand increases.

We would all like more oil production. More production does not mean lower prices at the pump. Excess will be controlled to maintain the current price or a steady increase. Like the price on fuel drops 10 cents but goes back up 15.

Alternate energy is a LONG ways from making a heck of a lot of difference.
If there were a shortage of fossil fuels then it would be time to get going with the alternates. Until then the energy business will do what it does.
 
Live2Hunt said:
Oldandnew while I disagree with you on the Keystone pipeline. I like the idea still, that is my opinion and I doubt I will change your view. As of yet no one has been able to change my view.

As far as I am concerned. The president has made his final decision about the pipeline. Case closed. It will probably come up in the presidential debates and if one is moved one way or the other to vote for the president due to his decision. So be it. That is one of the wonderful things about this country.

I do agree with you about all of this.

This buys us a window to get serious about short term solutions like CNG and LNG, cleaner burning coal, hydro-electric, and yes dare I say it nuclear energy, while we work the kinks out of active solar energy, wind energy, in some applications, and hydrogen generation.
but somehow I think even some of those who may agree with you about the Keystone pipeline, will not agree with you on the alternatives.

What escapes me is; no one appears to care that this country has not had a successful energy policy to get us off primary dependance of crude oil. We have known their is issues of one sort or another for FORTY years now. Yet not one administration has taken steps to alleviate our exposure....I wonder if their is a reason for that?..(yea their is, but not many appear to care)
:cheers:
Click to expand...

Nebraska didn't agree to the pipeline and there was no alternate route. I'm not even seeing how Obama would have been able to impose this upon Nebraska anyway. It would be different if that oil was going towards our own gasoline needs (could argue national economic security) but that is likely not the case.

I think the best solution is to refine this stuff on the border (each side) and distribute finished product in a pipeline or other means of transportation. People along the border could use the work.
 
morrismike said:
Nebraska didn't agree to the pipeline and there was no alternate route. I'm not even seeing how Obama would have been able to impose this upon Nebraska anyway. It would be different if that oil was going towards our own gasoline needs (could argue national economic security) but that is likely not the case.

I think the best solution is to refine this stuff on the border (each side) and distribute finished product in a pipeline or other means of transportation. People along the border could use the work.
Click to expand...

mike. I live in the state. I follow what the special session did. What was agreed on in the special session was that the State of Nebraska would pay for the environmental impact statement needed to be completed before a alternate route can be completed. The impact statement is/was being done ON the alternate route. The agreement exists between the builders of the pipeline and the State of Nebraska.
It was voted on and it passed. The Governor signed off on it.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...e-seen-moving-ahead-on-alternative-route.html

New Plans ‘Underway’

“While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL,” Girling said. “Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project.”

Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman said today that the decision brought to a halt the environmental-review process underway in the state for a new pipeline route. Heineman, a Republican, says it’s unclear if the permit process must start over or if Nebraska can continue working on a route that takes the pipeline away from an environmentally sensitive region.

“It certainly is a major step backwards,” Heineman said in a telephone interview. “We need to make contact with TransCanada. We need to review our statutes relative to what the president did. We need to figure out if this means we have to start all over again.”
 
OKIEGunner said:
Over the weekend, Congress allowed the multi-billion dollar subsidy for ethanol expire. It has been in place for more than 30 years.

The subsidy went to the producers of energy, not directly to farmers. Will this change have an effect on crop production?

As I understand the issue The subsidy was paid to the oil companies to entice them to buy ethanol, which then increased the price of corn. So with that rational, I amagine Corn prices will drop 10% in the near future.

From what I have been able to compehend some subsidies for cellulosic ethanol are going to continue, meaning switchgrass, corn stalks and corn cobs.

So now what is the benefit for wildlife and habitat nuts like us?
Click to expand...

Getting in a little late on this one, but I will have to see how the futures prices react to make an estimate on the impact. After all, prices dictate nearly everything in one sense or another.

Depending on the delta of the futures prices, I'd say some farmers may revert back to sorghum or some other type of crop production.

I can't say which crop is better than the next in terms of habitat though, as I am not very educated on the subject. I do however still believe that the change in grass species used in the Midwest has had the biggest impact on habitat, at least in terms of the upland population.
 
Just got DVR and started taping and watching some farm shows.

One interesting stat to me was that the US EXPORTED 152 Million gallons of ethanol last month and most likely close to that every month.

What the? Must have enough to put in our own gas and quite the surplus.

How many bushels of corn does it take to make a gallon of ethanol?
 
UGUIDE said:
Just got DVR and started taping and watching some farm shows.

One interesting stat to me was that the US EXPORTED 152 Million gallons of ethanol last month and most likely close to that every month.

What the? Must have enough to put in our own gas and quite the surplus.

How many bushels of corn does it take to make a gallon of ethanol?
Click to expand...

I maybe wrong but I believe it takes 1 bushel of corn @ 56# to equal roughly 2.77 gallons of ethanol. It also takes 8.2 gallons of water, crude oil takes approximately 2-2.5 gallons of water to produce. It also requires 1 gallon of petro-oil to produce 1.3 gallons of ethanol. Boy what a bargain!
 
Last edited:
I watched a very interesting documentary a few years back; I think the title was “Peak Oil”. Rumor has it that the sequel will be “Peak Water”.
 
oldandnew said:
I maybe wrong but I believe it takes 1 bushel of corn @ 56# to equal roughly 2.2 gallons of ethanol. It also takes 8 gallons of water!
Click to expand...

Interesting O & N. At that rate it would be equal to another 75 million bushels of corn exported from the US in the form of ethanol.

Very interesting article that sheds some light on this and that the more ethanol we export the worse our Ag policy is.

http://bigpictureagriculture.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-much-corn-ethanol-is-us-exporting.html

Looks like the US exports roughly 1.5-1.8 Billion bushels of corn per year.

http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/blog/us-corn-exports-perk
 
oldandnew, I just read that link you posted.

To myself, the article re enforces my view on energy use-age in the US and some sort of solid plan to that needs to come out of Washington (yea that is gonna happen....NOT.)

Here is a company, Chesapeake Energy, that is taking the approach it will scale back production of NG inside the US.

Their logic is "Chesapeake said in a presentation earlier this month that it makes far more money from natural-gas liquids and oil than from natural gas,"

I am ok with their decision. They are a business in business to make money. No problem by me.

What I do have a problem with is, because our primary energy source inside the US is oil. We as Americans are susceptible to any fluctuations in crude oil prices.

As I have attempted to point out before. Those who do control the flow of crude oil can increase or decrease the production in order to cause other companies to expend massive amounts of capital on new energy sources. Only to be driven out of those new energy sources because the profits made from them are to small.

(If the Chesapeake company ONLY had NG as its product...they would be going broke right now)

My main point being, if demand for NG (in this articles case) were higher, than production of NG would continue. But because their is currently a glut in NG due to over production. The prices are lower, cause companies to scale back on production.

Basic supply and demand economics...

When we as Americans figure out. IF we want stable energy prices we need more sources of usable energy.

Crude, ethanol, nuclear, solar, Geo-thermal, natural gas, propane, wind to name a few.

Leave our primary energy source in one supply. (no matter which one) will always lead to unstable energy costs.

If the US had stable energy costs, the economy in the country would be dramatically better. The cost of energy directly affects the cost of everything else.
 
Would the adoption of drought-tolerant corn help reduce crop water consumption as well as lessen the need to plow more crop land for corn based ethanol? I am hearing that Monsanto plans farm trials in the western U.S. Plains in 2012.

I see a point of no return if the rapid depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer due to the US ethanol demand.
 
I doubt it OKIE and here is why.

A few years back corn prices shot up. Ranchers in the Sand Hills of Nebraska decided to plant corn because corn was bringing in more than grass land.

The ecosystem in the hills is incredibly fragile.

Corn prices came back down and the land remains scared to this day. It is not useful for corn or for grazing.

My point being, make drought tolerant corn and the only thing that will happen is more corn will be grown in marginal areas of farmland.

This land will be much more likely to erode among other issues.

The better solution (in my view) find a way to make cheaper ethanol, once someone brings a commercially viable way to make ethanol cheaper than using corn.
Corn will no longer be used for ethanol production. It will happen, now that ethanol is an accepted form of fuel, a new cheaper source will be found.
 
So corn stover will be used for cellulosic ethanol production in Iowa. Any idea on the projected production numbers?
 
Live2Hunt said:
"The initial capacity of the Project Liberty plant is expected to be 20 million gallons in the first year, growing to about 25 million gallons per year."


Source for the information is http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2012/2012-01-24-091.html
Click to expand...


Yea.......did you see this

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that as many as 350-400 new bio-refineries will have to be constructed in the United States by 2022 to meet the volume requirement of 16 billion gallons a year of cellulosic bio-ethanol mandated under the National Renewable Fuel Standard.
 
Live2Hunt said:
I doubt it OKIE and here is why.

A few years back corn prices shot up. Ranchers in the Sand Hills of Nebraska decided to plant corn because corn was bringing in more than grass land.

The ecosystem in the hills is incredibly fragile.

Corn prices came back down and the land remains scared to this day. It is not useful for corn or for grazing.

My point being, make drought tolerant corn and the only thing that will happen is more corn will be grown in marginal areas of farmland.

This land will be much more likely to erode among other issues.

The better solution (in my view) find a way to make cheaper ethanol, once someone brings a commercially viable way to make ethanol cheaper than using corn.
Corn will no longer be used for ethanol production. It will happen, now that ethanol is an accepted form of fuel, a new cheaper source will be found.
Click to expand...

Add in that drought tolerant corn, just translates into corn which uses a little less water than current varieties, not that this corn will be any great conserver of moisture or an ecological breakthrough.
 
I would have thought that drought tolerant corn would promote and return to dry land farming practices of days past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top