Ethanol

D

Dcup

New member
Group Wants Iowans to Use more Ethanol

DES MOINES, Iowa --
The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association wants Iowa to increase its use of ethanol in motor fuels.

Association vice president Monte Shaw notes the percentage of fuel sold in Iowa with ethanol blended in has been stuck around 75 percent. He said the percentage of ethanol-blended gasoline now stands at 80 percent in the rest of the nation.

To increase Iowa's consumption, Shaw said the association will ask the Legislature to pass a bill requiring motor gasoline in the state carry at least 10 percent ethanol.

Shaw estimates with a state mandate, ethanol use in Iowa would increase from 100 million gallons annually to about 140 million gallons.

Republican Rep. Annette Sweeney, of Alden, indicates there is interest in the Legislature in the ethanol producers' proposal.

kcci.com
 
I just dont understand it. Some of these people are so blind. What about the loss of habitat for not just pheasant but all walks of wildlife. I'm not even so sure this benefits farmers, it just puts more pressure on them to get crops in, get 'em out, and get paid.

What happened to being a country of choices. First lawmakers tell auto makers how to build cars, and now they are telling everyone what to put in them. This is the crap that upsets me. We are turning into a socialist country.

Not only is ethanol bad for your vehicle, think about the increased production levels that it will take to produce 40 million more gallons of ethanol? Sure we think about our vehicles burning the fuel, polluting less. But, now we are working to produce more? Does this not pollute more?

Maybe I need to do some more research to fully understand the impact of this, but as of now I am incredibly opposed.

Thoughts?
 
You have alot of good accurate points here. At best ethanol is a short term solution very short. Wasn't worth the time or resources spent to get it started. I farm the higher markets are good but now we are paying for it in much higher input cost. Good ideas don't need gov't help to get started bad ideas do. Nice post people need to learn the facts on this.:)
 
Ethanol is a terrible biofuel to support. Its production externalities entirely mitigate any and all supposed benefits. A very poor choice that was showcased two years ago and one that we need to continue moving away from.
 
Dcup said:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

My thoughts are this:

For one, I don't think ethanol is bad for cars, in fact, ethanol burns much cleaner than regular fuel and will make your engine last longer. I thought the outdated adage of ethanol being bad for cars was over long ago. In our northern climates 10% ethanol will prevent gas line freeze ups too.

There are many good and valid arguments for ethanol, such as less polution, less dependence on foreign oil and improved economic development and employment for rural areas.

If we argue that the increased demand for corn from ethanol production is bad for habitat then we must also say that ANY demand for corn is bad for habitat including corn flakes, pork chops and T-bone steaks. Under that reasoning just being a vegetarian and avoiding corn would help improve habitat.

When ethanol production began, corn was selling below $2.00 per bushel due to excess supply. Economically speaking ethanol used up that excess supply, which helped increase the price of corn. In my opinion, ethanol production increased too rapidly and the result was that corn prices increased so much that many ethanol plants became unprofitable. In my old MBA studies at the Univ of TX we studied how growing industries have a tendency to grow too fast and overshoot demand, which in turn causes a decline. So today, we aren't seeing much ethanol expansion so the industry is trying to find ways to get things going again. Ideas such as using cobs, switchgrass or stover instead of kernal corn are examples of that.

So those are my thoughts about the situation.
 
landman said:
If we argue that the increased demand for corn from ethanol production is bad for habitat then we must also say that ANY demand for corn is bad for habitat including corn flakes, pork chops and T-bone steaks. Under that reasoning just being a vegetarian and avoiding corn would help improve habitat.
Click to expand...

This sentence was written by someone with an MBA? Paleeeeeze.
 
landman said:
My thoughts are this:


If we argue that the increased demand for corn from ethanol production is bad for habitat then we must also say that ANY demand for corn is bad for habitat including corn flakes, pork chops and T-bone steaks. Under that reasoning just being a vegetarian and avoiding corn would help improve habitat.

.
Click to expand...

With the advent of ethanol the corn market became linked to the oil market that's what created the high corn prices in the past couple years, and more market volatility. This made CRP look a lot less attractive financially. Almost a third of the corn crop in the US goes for ethanol production.

The majority of corn is still grown for animal feed. But prior to the ethanol demand corn prices were tied to other grain prices. If corn got too high cattle feeders would shift demand to other feed stuffs and help keep the price of corn in check. That is no longer the case.

My thought is that the demand that ethanol places on corn is much more inelastic than corn used for feed.
 
Last edited:
You cant say that ethanol doesnt effect internal combustion engines. Because ethanol is a solvent, it wont allow the combustion stroke to be completed everytime the piston moves up and down. This in turn decreases the life of the engine because it is unable to complete the whole stroke.

Second. It has been said that ethanol actually project 2 times more ground level ozone than straight gasoline does. This is how our water and food gets polluted. Since the ozone pollutants are so close to the ground, they filter into the things we do not want them to.

Basically what I would like to see is more dependence on other renewable resources as fuel alternatives. This is a huge argument that I'm sure will never be put to rest, but I just dont want it to be something that damages the next generation's ability to explore the great outdoors.
 
Dcup said:
You cant say that ethanol doesnt effect internal combustion engines. Because ethanol is a solvent, it wont allow the combustion stroke to be completed everytime the piston moves up and down. This in turn decreases the life of the engine because it is unable to complete the whole stroke.
Click to expand...

Allow me to say this then. Using 10% Ethanol Blend does not hurt gasoline engines. Using 10 percent blend in modern gasoline engines will decrease polution, prevent gas line freezeups and prolong engine life.

Using 85% ethanol blend will not harm engines designed for such and will help prolong the life of your engine.
 
Uncle Buck said:
There is no question ethanol has increased corn production/ground. The vege theory might work if there had been a shortage before all this started. There was not.
Click to expand...

The presumption is that an increase in demand from ethanol caused farmers to convert grassland to crop at a more rapid pace than in the past. Given that, one can assume that any increase in demand for corn would have the same impact. In an economic model, price is the driver that controls supply and demand. So if demand increases, whether from ethanol or any other sources, then price increases and the result is an attempt to increase supply or decrease demand. The increased price will put a damper on demand, which in turn will decrease the price. The result is a supply and demand equilibrium.

It isn't surprising at all, at least to me, why grassland is converted to crop. Grassland has for years been of less value than cropland, usually about half the price. Therefore it isn't surprising at all that landowners desire to have crop acres over grass acres.
 
landman said:
Given that, one can assume that any increase in demand for corn would have the same impact. In an economic model, price is the driver that controls supply and demand. So if demand increases, whether from ethanol or any other sources, then price increases and the result is an attempt to increase supply or decrease demand. The increased price will put a damper on demand, which in turn will decrease the price. The result is a supply and demand equilibrium.
Click to expand...

You can not make the assumption that any demand would have the same impact as another. That totally ignores demand elasticity. An increase in price does not affect all product demand the same way.
 
moellermd said:
You can not make the assumption that any demand would have the same impact as another. That totally ignores demand elasticity. An increase in price does not affect all product demand the same way.
Click to expand...

When it comes to the equilibrium of price as related to damand and supply it does not matter where the demand for the extra bushel of corn comes from, whether it is from ethanol, pork chops or corn flakes. Demand for a product is the sum total of the purchases at a given price. In a normal price curve relationship, an increase in demand, wherever the source, will cause the price to go up and vice versa. In the case of grass land being converted to crop, it is a relationship between the income one can get from grazing and haying compared to the income one can get from crops. The wider the price differential between hay/grazing income and crop income the greater the probability that hay ground will convert to crop. Of course some hay and grazing land is not suitable for crop production because of rocks, slope or soil types and so will remain grazing land. At least in South Dakota, as long as I can remember, crop land brings more income than grass land. And that is why we continue to lose our grass land.
 
Landman you are not addressing the affect that elasticity has on the corn market. If I am feeding livestock and the price for corn gets to high I can shift to a different feed stuff. That price curve is very elastic and fits nicely into the theoretical supply demand curve. But, if I am an operate of a ethanol plant I can't shift to a different product. I have to buy corn no matter what the price is, at some point I would have to shut down. This created a totally different supply demand curve for corn. Helping to create higher prices over the last few years. Making CRP less attractive.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
Last edited:
moellermd said:
Landman you are not addressing the affect that elasticity has on the corn market. If I am feeding livestock and the price for corn gets to high I can shift to a different feed stuff. That price curve is very elastic and fits nicely into the theoretical supply demand curve. But, if I am an operate of a ethanol plant I can't shift to a different product. I have to buy corn no matter what the price is, at some point I would have to shut down. This created a totally different supply demand curve for corn. Helping to create higher prices over the last few years. Making CRP less attractive.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that corn does not have some price elasticity but it is far from being inelastic. Corn, like many other products, have an elasticity coeficient, which is usually a measurement of how quickly the market can respond to changes in demand or supply. Few, if any, ethanol plants will continue to produce ethanol when gross income fails to cover fixed costs due to the price of corn. When corn prices were over $6 a couple of years ago several ethanol plants did stop running and some went bankrupt. New construction stopped.
 
Last edited:
WSJ reporting 33% of last years corn crop going to ethanol production. The millions of acres of CRP plowed up is now growing what? Why do our tax dollars need to continue to subsidize it at a rate of a $1.35/bushel? LM the real question is why someone who cares about his fellow pheasant hunters is trying so hard to defend ethanol?
 
niceshot said:
WSJ reporting 33% of last years corn crop going to ethanol production. The millions of acres of CRP plowed up is now growing what? Why do our tax dollars need to continue to subsidize it at a rate of a $1.35/bushel? LM the real question is why someone who cares about his fellow pheasant hunters is trying so hard to defend ethanol?
Click to expand...

There are a lot of good reasons to support ethanol, which is why it is a growing industry. Some good reasons are:

1. Ethanol reduces pollution
2. Ethanol reduces dependence on foreign oil
3. Ethanol helps increase the demand for grain, which in turn improves farm income.
4. Ethanol production helps the economy and creates rural emploment.
5. Ethanol helps extend the life of your car.

The benefits of ethanol, in my opinion, far outweigh the negative impact that might occur because of the increase in demand for corn. If we want to preserve grass land then we must find another way than to try to kill the ethanol industry or otherwise drive corn prices back to two bucks a bushell so farmers can enjoy a pay cut just so hunters can shoot more pheasants.
 
landman said:
There are a lot of good reasons to support ethanol, which is why it is a growing industry. Some good reasons are:

1. Ethanol reduces pollution
2. Ethanol reduces dependence on foreign oil
3. Ethanol helps increase the demand for grain, which in turn improves farm income.
4. Ethanol production helps the economy and creates rural emploment.
5. Ethanol helps extend the life of your car.

The benefits of ethanol, in my opinion, far outweigh the negative impact that might occur because of the increase in demand for corn. If we want to preserve grass land then we must find another way than to try to kill the ethanol industry or otherwise drive corn prices back to two bucks a bushell so farmers can enjoy a pay cut just so hunters can shoot more pheasants.
Click to expand...

All though I think your economics are flawed I would agree that ethanol is a good thing for the rural economy in general. But I think in order for it to be a long term solution it needs to be able to stand on its own with out the government subsidies.
 
moellermd said:
All though I think your economics are flawed I would agree that ethanol is a good thing for the rural economy in general. But I think in order for it to be a long term solution it needs to be able to stand on its own with out the government subsidies.
Click to expand...

Because of the many benefits of ethanol the government has chosen to help the ethanol industry get started. If the benefit/reward equation were to change then the assistance will probably end.

I don't know where the $1.35 per bushel subsidy number came from but doubt if any government is paying farmers that much to grow corn for ethanol. I grow corn and haven't seen any of that.
 
landman said:
Because of the many benefits of ethanol the government has chosen to help the ethanol industry get started. If the benefit/reward equation were to change then the assistance will probably end.

I don't know where the $1.35 per bushel subsidy number came from but doubt if any government is paying farmers that much to grow corn for ethanol. I grow corn and haven't seen any of that.
Click to expand...

I think the 1.35 figure comes from the subsides that refineries get along with the import tariff that is placed on ethanol from other countries.

Without the government help us ethanol would be dead. If we really wanted to get the ethanol thing going would would import cheap ethanol from Brazil and other countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top