  Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 14 Registered: 01-2007 |
Nolan Finley wrote an editorial article denouncing the production of ethanol from corn grain. If you want to read nonsense, it is at http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20070225/O PINION03/702250302/1008/OPINIO N01/. I'm not going to get into an argument about ethanol production, that has little to do with Detroit. But this editorial has so many lies and distortions, I laughed out loud when I read it this morning. So my question is whether the Nolan Finley is a complete idiot all the time, most of the time occasionally, or just regarding this topic. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2638 Registered: 10-2004 |
Wondering who the real idiot is because his editorial makes sense. | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 15 Registered: 01-2007 |
I figured this Finley guy was your boy Lyard, but just because he's a conservative doesn't mean he has a clue on this topic. What details about this editorial make sense other than he is a conservative, therefore logically his editorial must sense? Anybody with any knowledge about agriculture and ethanol production knows this guy is blowing smoke | ||
Psip Member Username: Psip Post Number: 1444 Registered: 04-2005 |
Why not make ethanol from Seaweed? We have a corner on that market. Alcohol can be made from just about any organic substance. Corn is just one and is abundant. http://www.radford.edu/~wkovar ik/papers/fuel.html http://www.seaweedireland.com/ seafruitwines.html | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 11319 Registered: 10-2003 |
What an idiot. I read the article and am simply baffled. Ok, so we'd come up 20% short if every available acre were used for raising corn for ethanol production. Hmmm, ya think maybe we could import corn from other countries? Countries that don't operate via a cartel that controls the market according to the mood they are in, like OPEC does? What about oil production in this country? Is he taking into account the new techniques for drilling for oil domestically? How about the continued efforts to make vehicles more efficient? The decline of sales of inefficient vehicles like SUV's? Who ever said we need to be 100% independent from foreign oil? Does he realize the impact on oil prices we would have with an alternative? Say E85 accounted for 50% of our fuel needs, you really think oil prices would remain high? We would actually have leverage for once, as we could either buy more foreign oil from the cartel, or import corn from some other country, as last I checked, corn doesn't grow so well in the desert. In addition, his focus is purely upon corn, when in fact E85 can be made from numerous crops. I view the future of E85 as a way of helping those in our country in the agricultural business, perhaps he needs to sit down with the farmers of America and see what they think about E85. This guy also fails to recognize ANY of the benefits of E85. For me, most notably the ability to run a much higher compression engine. Higher compression = better efficiency/better power, this is due to better atomization of the fuel charge. I plan on building up my engine for my 69 Camaro to run solely on E85 for this reason. It's cleaner burning, helps the farmers, makes more power, and puts money into the pockets of Americans instead of the middle east, how is that a bad thing? Rest assured Mr Finley, there will be enough corn left over for you to get yer drink on with bourbon and write halfassed editorials. E85 isn't the fix all solution, but it's a step in the right direction to ending our foreign dependence upon oil. | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 16 Registered: 01-2007 |
They are going to someday, ethanol will be made out of biomass such as switchgrass, which is more efficient and uses far less energy than fermenting corn grain. President Bush's ten second plug of switchgrass ethanol production in his State of the Union address was the smartest thing he has said in his six years as president (There aren't too many other examples). However, they are still trying to get the enzymes for biomass digestion cheap enough and scalable for mass production, and that is a few years off. But the argument the corn grain ethanol burns more energy than it produces is a lie perpetuated by the petroleum industry and those who support it, like Nolan Finley | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 17 Registered: 01-2007 |
Supersport is exactly right, corn grain ethanol is a step in the right direction. How does Finley have a job like that, where he can just spout lies and half truths in a paper of that size and get paid well to do it? He must have been sipping (or guzzling) Jim Beam as he wrote that editorial. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1730 Registered: 06-2004 |
probably just representing his employer's interests, Schulzte | ||
Mpow Member Username: Mpow Post Number: 237 Registered: 11-2003 |
he has a point about the greenhouse gases though... | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 18 Registered: 01-2007 |
No, he actually doesn't "Using ethanol (E85) fuel in a midsize passenger vehicle can reduce GHG emissions by 41-61%." (Kim and Dale, Biomass and Bioenergy Volume 28, 2005). | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1731 Registered: 06-2004 |
ethanol burns cleaner and the technology is here *now* as opposed to waiting for more development on battery and fuel cell systems - the primary delay in wider E85 usage is distribution - the oil companies own the nation's auto fuel distribution system (there is ONE public E85 source in the entire state of California) while most scientists accept the idea of global warming, the debate about warming's cause still goes on - why? - among other reasons, Mars is also experiencing warming without humans stinking the place up | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 19 Registered: 01-2007 |
I heard Meijers was going to have E-85 at many of their gas stations in the near future. Hmmmmm, thats weird, Meijers, but not BP, Shell, Sunoco, Citgo, Marathon, Phillips, Speedway, etc. Imagine that! This site shows where Meijer has and will have E85 soon. http://www.meijer.com/gasstati ons/e85.asp | ||
Mpow Member Username: Mpow Post Number: 238 Registered: 11-2003 |
it may reduce the emissions in cars but the processing of the actual e85 is where the greenhouse gases increase.. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1732 Registered: 06-2004 |
nope, that study has been soundly repudiated and processing technology has been improved - and as a matter of fact I just read that many ethanol processors now using corn will be eventually switching over to cellulosic materials because it's less expensive, so there goes the corn pricing argument Is ethanol energy efficient? (Message edited by lilpup on February 25, 2007) | ||
Gene Member Username: Gene Post Number: 33 Registered: 10-2006 |
Relax, an editorial is just an expression of an opinion. I am still waiting to drive that electric car that all the experts from the 60s and 70s said we would be driving because we would be out of oil by now. Send a letter or e-mail off to the editor if you dont agree. | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 20 Registered: 01-2007 |
Back to Mr. Finley. Here is how this editorial came about. 1. Mr. Finley drank too much bourbon the night before his editorial deadline and had a hangover the next day. 2. He work up the next morning and needed a topic quickly, so he went to his conservative talking points workbook. The problem was all he could think about was how bad he felt and why he drank so much the night before. 3. Mr. Finley got to page 27 of the conservative talking points workbook and got to the section "Energy policy....maintaining the status quo" 4. That gave Mr. Finley an idea. He could write a column about why it is stupid to invest in ethanol production. He had heard lots of propaganda from the right wing about the problems with ethanol production, so he used it in his column. That and some stuff he just plain made up that he knew nobody at the News would call him out on. 5. Then he could make it sound cute and wrap it up in a little bow by relating it to how he likes bourbon. So there you have it, the genesis of a shabby editorial in a newspaper that deserves better | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 1239 Registered: 02-2004 |
To a public that deserves better. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 619 Registered: 12-2005 |
The U.S. Department of Energy has concluded that "the net energy balance of making fuel ethanol from corn grain is 1.34; that is, for every unit of energy that goes into growing corn and turning it into ethanol, we get back about one-third (34%) more energy as automotive fuel". However, other studies have concluded that the net energy balance is closer to 1.0 or even negative. The various studies differ in their assumptions on things like the amounts of fertilizer used, the efficiencies of the ethanol refineries and even how much of the refinery by-products (used for livestock feed) can be sold and how much of their energy content can be credited in the net energy balance to make ethanol look more favorable. Keep in mind that ethanol contains about 34% less energy per gallon than pure gasoline. Therefore using E85 will result in about a 27% reduction in miles per gallon compared to a reformulated or E10 gasoline product. Therefore, it is clear to me that ethanol is not an energy-efficient solution. That is probably why the US Government provides a 51 cents per gallon subsidy to corn ethanol refiners and why so many new corn ethanol refineries are coming on line right now. There is not enough fallow fertile land in the US to grow enough corn to allow 100% usage of E85 (remember that at the current number of miles driven annually in the US, we would burn about 37% more gallons of fuel with all E85 because of its lesser energy content). Switchgrass based ethanol would be even less efficient to refine than corn ethanol. (Message edited by Mikeg on February 25, 2007) | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 21 Registered: 01-2007 |
A well formed opinion that will be read by tens of thousands of people should have some factual basis. This editorial did not. And the letter to the editor has already been sent. | ||
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy Post Number: 4535 Registered: 11-2004 |
I guess my question is how much of that $7 billion is also geared towards research. I'd like to think it's not all just freebies the government's throwing at farmers, is it? I'd like to think that maybe some of that money is used to possibly purify or improve their processing. Spending some of that money to improve the product as well as just cranking it out perhaps? Somehow the lead in on the article about the Finley moonshining tradition seemed a bit odd to me, but if that's how he wants to approach it- that's his editiorial/ opinion. | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 22 Registered: 01-2007 |
There was one study that claimed that there was a negative net energy balance, performed by a Cornell entomolgist, cited repeatedly by the right, and funded by the petroleum industry. This study has been refuted many times by countless other researchers. The energy balance is getting better every time it is studied and advancement in technology occurs. And before you whine about subsidies to ethanol producers, look at the subsidies and tax breaks that have gone to the petroleum industry in recent years. If it costs money to get away from gasoline use and shift profits from oil corporations and terror supporting countries to American farmers and bioenergy cooperatives, so be it. Sometimes the government can invest in new industries without summoning the spirit of Karl Marx. Switchgrass based ethanol will be incredibly efficient compared to corn grain based ethanol because the biological reaction does not require natural gas to fuel the process; the chemical conversion does not require the heat. Cellulose ethanol production is an entirely different reaction that will be highly efficient once the enzymes for the reaction are figured out in a cost effective way. | ||
Gene Member Username: Gene Post Number: 34 Registered: 10-2006 |
Well, Schulzte1 I enjoyed reading and agree with Mr Finley's editorial. Now, before you label me a conservative for my point of view that happens to differ with yours, and resort to calling the man an idiot,in his and my opinion he is correct. (Message edited by gene on February 25, 2007) | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2639 Registered: 10-2004 |
Not only do the feds provide subsidies for corn farming, they also impose a 54 cent/gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol into the US made from their sugar. It isn't hard for those better able to understand the big picture to notice the scamming going on. (Message edited by LivernoisYard on February 25, 2007) | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 23 Registered: 01-2007 |
What is he correct about? There isn't one thing in that editorial that is close to being true other than livestock farmers are hurting because corn is expensive right now (and I'm not sure about the Mexican tortilla riots). Everything else in that article is a lie or mischaracterization. I don't have a problem with an opinion. Most of my friends are conservative, we argue about politics and drink beer and have fun while doing so. This editorial is nothing but a string of lies, that is my problem. You can't lie your way to a well formed opinion. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 620 Registered: 12-2005 |
Schulzte1, Switchgrass based ethanol will be more efficient that corn based ethanol only if the current R & D efforts can overcome the high cost of the cellulose enzyme process, which remains a key impediment to the economical production of ethanol from cellulose materials. In the meantime, I will stand by my original statement. | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 24 Registered: 01-2007 |
You would expect someone who knows the big picture to realize that sugar is sold by pound, not the gallon. This is because sugar is a solid, not a liquid. I guess Lyard hasn't been baking recently. | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 25 Registered: 01-2007 |
I agree with Mikeg, but is that not worth the effort if it is much more efficient from an energy balance standpoint than current corn grain methods? | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 621 Registered: 12-2005 |
Schulzte1, I fully support R & D efforts, particularly those when the research dollars are spent here in the USA on something that might benefit our citizens in the future. However, the whole energy balance study methodology is very complex and can be manipulated based on what factors one chooses to ignore or include, and that usually depends on whether the sponsors are buying or selling. I for one am not even buying into the E85 hype. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2179 Registered: 10-2003 |
It doesn't matter what kind of fuel alternatives are developed--anything will be a band-aid solution. Ethanol, among other proposed alternatives, just pretends that we can keep sustaining our automobile-dependent infrastructure. Until the vast majority of people in the nation don't have to get in a car for the most meager of tasks, we're never going to solve the energy problem. I'd rather have corn to eat than to put in a gas tank. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1733 Registered: 06-2004 |
feel free to eat that corn with your buddies in Iraq | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 26 Registered: 01-2007 |
I agree with you again MikeG. I looked at that Cornell study, he was using things like the energy of the sun to grow the corn, and the energy used in building the ethanol plant to formulate his energy budget. He was stretching it so far it was funny an very obviously biased. BTW, Henry Ford's first automobiles ran on ethanol, but were converted to run on gas because gasoline was initially a cheap byproduct of oil refining into products like heating oil and kerosene. I don't think E85 is all hype, however. The economic benefit to Michigan is a lot of hype; as a typical ethanol plant only directly employs 40-60 people. There are political and environmental benefits to using it over gasoline. Once cellulose ethanol is cost efficient, the environmental benefits will be much greater because fossil fuels won't be used in its manufacture and we won't have to use so much nitrogen fertilizer to grow corn, which also uses a great deal of fossil fuel for processing. Also BTW, Danindc have you ever eaten regular grain field corn? It sucks, that is why people don't eat it, we eat sweet corn. Cows and pigs eat the vast majority of corn grown in the US. | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 27 Registered: 01-2007 |
The uses for grain corn for human food is limited to processed food like tortilla chips, corn syrup production (soda pop), and products which use corn meal (baked goods usually) | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2640 Registered: 10-2004 |
Another, minor point concerning the distillation of ethanol is that conventional fractional distillation at atmospheric pressure, an azeotrope characteristic of ethanol allows it to be produced to only 192 proof (96%). The remaining 4% water content has to be removed at the expense of added cost, etc. if the ethanol is intended to be mixed as anhydrous ethanol with naphthas (E10 or E85, for example). However, it is possible to burn hydrous ethanol(<96%). | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2180 Registered: 10-2003 |
Never mind that production of ethanol requires fertilizer--a petroleum derived product. Let's not forget to account for the opportunity cost of using fertile soil to grow grain corn instead of edible crops. Anyone truly serious about solving the energy crisis must acknowledge that reduction of automobile usage is key. So far, everyone seems to want to ignore that. | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 28 Registered: 01-2007 |
The fertilizer cost for growing corn is already figured into energy budgets, which still show ethanol production to be an efficient process (except one study). Corn acreage in the US hasn't grown that much from what is was pre ethanol, 10% max. I don't know what you mean by edible crops, but just about any crop requires inorganic fertilizer, be it nitrogen or phosphorus or potassium. I will say that growing switchgrass for ethanol would be great for the environment. The areas out west that have irrigated corn now were tallgrass prairies long ago. If those areas could be converted to switchgrass production, that massive irrigation could be reduced, and fertilizer use for switchgrass is about 1/3 to 1/4 that of corn. | ||
Gene Member Username: Gene Post Number: 35 Registered: 10-2006 |
Who are the farmers in America today? Bet most farms are owned by multi-national capitalists. | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 29 Registered: 01-2007 |
1. I like my car, sorry, cars aren't going anywhere. The best we can do is run them with less energy 2. Any edible crop requires some fertilizer, though some less than others. Fertile soil doesn't stay fertile without it. 3. Cellulose ethanol can lower energy inputs into the ethanol equation in at least two significant ways. First, the reduction in natural gas use to fuel a cellulose ethanol fermentation would be huge compared to grain fermentation. Second, a cellulose crop (switchgrass) requires only about 1/4 the nitrogen of a corn crop. Nitrogen fertilizer production is a huge natural gas hog. Not only that, switchgrass could be grown with less precipitation, meaning in areas out west which used to be tall grass prairies that are now in irrigated corn production could be converted back into managed tall grass prairies for biomass production. This would have tremendous environmental benefits, and would reduce water usage in areas where aquifers are being depleted from irrigation | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2181 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Completely incorrect. 1. How can you wean off petroleum with ethanol, if you need petroleum to make the fertilizer to grow the corn that you make into ethanol? 2. Organic farming techniques, i.e. those used before agribusiness started producing most of our food, don't require fertilizer. 3. Corn acreage isn't growing for sure--especially when we keep paving it over to build new suburbs, accessible only by automobiles. Buy a bike. Walk. Take transit. Stop-gap solutions aren't going to get us anywhere. You're out of your mind, or hopelessly naive, if you think ethanol is a permanent solution. | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 30 Registered: 01-2007 |
Gene, That is a preposterous lie, and you need to get out more. That kind of statement shows how out of touch you are. Do you even know any farmers? I grew up in the country, and there aren't any multi-national capitalist grain farms in this state! Some are small (200 acres) and some are big (5000 acres) but damn near all of them are family owned. There are a couple big time dutch dairy farms in this state and that is it. Why do you and others post such wild speculation? | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 31 Registered: 01-2007 |
I WILL NOT ENGAGE WITH AN ORGANIC SUPPORTER. I could smoke you, but there is no reasoning with organic supporters. | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 32 Registered: 01-2007 |
Good God, an hour ago I was fighting neo-cons, now I'm fighting neo-libs. Where is the center? Last time I start a thread  | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2182 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Always good to see level-headed, reasonable, objective people like Schultze1 posting their opinions. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1734 Registered: 06-2004 |
Dan I don't think anyone is pushing ethanol as the only alternative, but it the one that RIGHT NOW offers the quickest switch away from conventional gasoline. Any one source fuel scenario is not good, numerous alternatives need to be available to the market to avoid creating a dependency like the one we have now. But in the scheme of things autos aren't the entire energy problem. Heating, electricity use and generation, and even the use of other petroleum based products (e.g. plastics) need to be considered. Overconsumption of all natural resources is an issue. (Message edited by lilpup on February 25, 2007) | ||
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy Post Number: 4537 Registered: 11-2004 |
Gene, admittedly that was too broad of a statement. I know several farmers personally and they're one family run operations. I'm not saying there are any conglomerate run farming businesses out there but there are still many independent farmers all around. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2184 Registered: 10-2003 |
No, DIESEL, which is currently widely available, offers the quickest switch from gasoline. It has not been definitively proven that ethanol requires less energy to produce than gasoline, or if it is more cost-effective. Switching to "something else" just to reduce gasoline demand is a result of flawed logic. Why not work toward a permanent solution, instead of stringing along a series of short-term fixes? | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 33 Registered: 01-2007 |
I've dealt with Organic folks for 5 years here at MSU. Trying to convince organic folks that pesticides and chemicals are not implements of the devil is like talking to a brick wall. An organic guy actually asked me if Jesus would want us to use pesticides. I said if they saved millions of acres of cropland annually (which they do), then Jesus would be loading the dimethoate into the tank. I shouldn't have used caps and said I'll smoke you. That was too much. But I've tried to reason with the organic folks and there is no proving them wrong ever. I can't start another debate like that. I would be on Social Security before it would end. | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 34 Registered: 01-2007 |
What alternative to automobiles would folks living in rural areas have? 10 mile bicycle rides with huge rear carts for groceries? Horses and buggies? Donkeys? The IT machine? Teleportation? | ||
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy Post Number: 4538 Registered: 11-2004 |
Schulzte1, looking for a center? I think lilpup hit the nail on the head. Is Ethanol the do-all, end-all? Hardly, I think it's a very viable band-aid for the crisis at hand. Until the time we can either ween ourselves off of non-renewable energy sources, it's most definitely an option to explore. Even you said you weren't willing to give up your car yet- but what if fuel costs were suddenly astronomical to what they are now? We all have a hand in this. We need to attack this on two fronts- exploring viable fuel alternatives as a stop gap along with finding renewable energy sources and then finding a way for us to be less environmentally impactful. We all want the same things- it's just that a lot of people have differing opinions on how to solve them. Somewhere in the middle is probably the solution. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1735 Registered: 06-2004 |
diesel? you mean biodiesel? biodiesel isn't much more available in the market than E85 is | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 35 Registered: 01-2007 |
Thank you Smogboy. Ethanol could run our automobiles for a couple decades until a better technology is found. But there is a lot of unfounded poo-pooing from the right (petroleum supporters) and the left (neo-environmentalists). Then they use each others arguments poorly as Nolan Finley did and act as if they are on the same side. | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 36 Registered: 01-2007 |
Biodiesel has one huge flaw right now. It gels at below freezing temperatures because it is made of refined soybean oil. There were school bus fleets that use an 80-20 diesel/biodiesel mix that had there fuel tanks gel during that cold snap, resulting in major problems | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1736 Registered: 06-2004 |
80% diesel/20% biodiesel and it still gelled? or are the percentages reversed? Schulzte, are you student or staff at MSU? What do you do? | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 37 Registered: 01-2007 |
I'm pretty sure, B20 is the highest an unmodified engine can run and they had problems with it. I'm a grad student in the Crop and Soil Science department, I should be working on my thesis today, but this thread has been a bit of a distraction. My own fault, I started it. That editorial really pissed me off though. I've been somewhat critical of people in the ethanol industry regarding those who would bloviate about how bioenergy was going to save our economy, blah, blah, blah. It won't. But this editorial was of a very poor quality from a science standpoint, with lots of mistruths about ethanol. I guess I figured people who write editorials would TRY to tell the truth, but I was way off. It really pisses me off when politically minded people twist science to support a political ideology, which is what happened in this editorial, and happens on both sides of the political spectrum (organic supporters). | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 1240 Registered: 02-2004 |
Your problem is you are mistaking that News editorial for real "newspaper" type comment. It's infotainment, you will find more real research and effort in the latest story about Anna Paris Spears. It's so fucking sad to see what's become of those papers. It's going to get a lot worse, too. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2185 Registered: 10-2003 |
You expected Nolan Finley to deliver a decent piece of writing??? | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 1598 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: | ||
Rosedaleken Member Username: Rosedaleken Post Number: 286 Registered: 06-2005 |
It wasn't a great article, but I still have doubts about E-85. I've heard that E-85 is so corrosive it can't be transported in pipelines and would need many more fuel trucks on the roads instead. Does anyone have expertise in this area? | ||
Craggy Member Username: Craggy Post Number: 228 Registered: 10-2003 |
Now, if we could make ethanol out of some of the invasive weed species in the lakes, we'd be onto something. Ethanol from Purple Loosestrife! | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 38 Registered: 01-2007 |
I live in Lansing, I usually read the LSJ, but I read the Detroit News online today and could not believe this column. The LSJ editorials usually make more sense, but I probably knew this topic better than most. I don't expect an editorial writer to be unbiased, but flat out lies are entirely different. He said "Corn prices shot up 55 percent last fall and are expected to double this year as ethanol plants gobble up more of the crop." Is he some commodity marketing expert aside from being a poor editorialist? Apparently, Finley either knows enough about corn futures or knows somebody who projects corn prices to go to $7.60/bushel. Did he ask Dr. Hilker, the commodity marketing professor at MSU? If he had, Dr. Hilker's projection looks more like this. http://www.msu.edu/~hilker/out look.htm So who is right? (Pun intended). Some whack job with a crappy column who lies and says corn is going to $7.60 because it fits his political agenda, or a professor who teaches two commodity marketing classes at MSU and is published weekly in the Farmers Advance to make futures predictions who projects 2007 Corn prices at $3.40, down from where they are now. That makes this column exactly 123% bullsh!t. This is my problem with the column, straight lies. Doesn't something like this make one question everything he has ever written? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2186 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Yes, it should. This op-ed is pretty much par for the course for Mr. Finley. | ||
B24liberator Member Username: B24liberator Post Number: 28 Registered: 01-2007 |
The whole ethanol push comes from one source: Championed by a little company called ADM (Archer-Daniels-Midland)-- The "Super Market to the World" folks.... Look closely, and you'll they've been manipulating things like corn and sugar (and their pricing) for years, and E85 is just one of their little "pets"- a short term "feel good" bandage that may cost more than it's actually worth, but hey, from certain narrow-viewed perspectives, it's always (cha-ching!) worth it. | ||
B24liberator Member Username: B24liberator Post Number: 29 Registered: 01-2007 |
But please excuse me, I'm off to my basement to tend to my vats of algae, for that slimy little beauty's gonna make me rich, I tell ya! | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1737 Registered: 06-2004 |
Oh, please, you're going to put ADM up against the oil companies that posted record profits last year? The ethanol push is coming from a lot more than ADM. And the push back is coming from nowhere BUT the oil companies and their lackies. Think about it, ADM and the other crop processors aren't getting American troops killed to ensure their product flow. | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 39 Registered: 01-2007 |
Lots of companies besides ADM are getting into ethanol production. The plant in Lake Odessa was started as a farmer Co-op. They couldn't raise enough shares, so US Bioenergy raised the capital and gave farmers who invested money into the plant the equivalent value in shares of US Bioenergy stock. There are several ethanol companies like that having nothing to do with ADM. And how dare a large company push for energy profits...That's never happened before! | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 40 Registered: 01-2007 |
At least DaninDC and I have common ground now, Nolan Finley sucks. Thats a start | ||
B24liberator Member Username: B24liberator Post Number: 30 Registered: 01-2007 |
Your right, Lilpup-- My statement was too broad. The feasting table is for the most part crowded by your oil fat-cats. But allow me to envision them tossing a scrap or two to that fat little ADM dog in the corner-- Which he greedily and readily accepts. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 623 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: Ethanol has a natural affinity for water and it is also more conductive than gasoline, meaning it will act as an electrolyte causing galvanic corrosion in pipelines and vehicle fuel systems where dissimilar materials touch. Also, ethanol can dissolve and carry impurities that are normally present inside pipelines that carry multiple types of petroleum products. Those impurities would be harmful if they are burned in a car engine. For all these reasons, ethanol must be transported by over-the-road tankers to the gasoline terminals where they are then blended with the gasoline to the desired proportion. Also, E85 can only be used in vehicles that have upgraded fuel system materials that will withstand the corrosive nature of ethanol. Proponents of ethanol tend to gloss over the extra energy costs of transporting and blending ethanol when they do their studies comparing E85 vs. gasoline. Of course, they simply ignore the added costs to upgrade the vehicle fuel systems since those one-time costs are paid by the vehicle purchaser. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1738 Registered: 06-2004 |
How interesting that you gloss over the fact that ethanol gets transported by rail and barge as well as over the road tankers AND the fact that even crude oil pipelines corrode (BP Prudoe Bay anyone?) | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 625 Registered: 12-2005 |
What's to gloss over? Transportation by rail and barge are both more costly than pipeline. Refined gasoline can also be transported by pipeline to distribution terminals but blended E85 cannot. Crude oil corrodes a pipeline much more slowly than ethanol. How old was that section of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline? | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 1070 Registered: 11-2004 |
I remember when Nolan wrote a column about two years ago about how the Book Cadillac deal would never fly. He sure was on point with that one. | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 41 Registered: 01-2007 |
I guess the whole reason I started this thread today was not to show ethanol was a perfect solution. It isn't; there could very well be transportation issues, I'm not sure. But nearly every point that Mr. Finley made in this editorial was a lie or a fabrication. If you want to argue against ethanol, make a good argument with facts, not ideas you pulled out of your ass and didn't fact check. | ||
Barnesfoto Member Username: Barnesfoto Post Number: 3068 Registered: 10-2003 |
There are issues with the Ethanol thing...Demand in the US for corn has caused the price of (corn based) Tortillas in Mexico to shoot up. When you consider that tortillas are perhaps the most basic staple food item of the poor, and that already because of Nafta, many Mexican corn growers have given up farming to enter the US illegally, well, there's going to be some unplanned side effects. That's just one facet. However, Nolan Finley is a buffoon. He blames the demise of the US auto industry on John Kerry! How anybody could take his columns seriously would have amazed me a few years back, but considering the cabal in the White House, my threshold for amazement has changed considerably. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 434 Registered: 04-2006 |
Wow, Detroit journalism really does suck. He pulled his "opinion" from an article print in the Wall Street Journal last week, lol. Only thing is that they were much more eloquent. I'm no Nolan Finley or gasoline fan but I think the rise in corn prices as a result of this is a legitimate concern. Maybe not immediately for us but it is for populations like Mexico whose economy is a lot more dependent upon that crop. I personally have always been more of a fan of fuel cells. Ethanol engines sound like a farm tractor. | ||
Titancub Member Username: Titancub Post Number: 32 Registered: 08-2006 |
Schultz - please go thru and explain what all the 'lies' are. I think its relatively bold to claim its full of lies then not make any counter claims. You even said 'there could very well be transportation issues, I'm not sure'. How can you not know this, yet be wise enough to say he's full of lies? I'm all for debating ethanol but in the context of you calling him a liar over and over is perhaps the wrong way to do it. You seem to hate the guy so perhaps that should've been the focus of thread not on the article that you haven't attempted to dispute. Reality is he didn't try to make huge or unheard of points - they've all been made before: Ethanol is only economically viable right now by huge tax dollars (true), use of ethanol has pushed up corn prices/demand (true), ethanol can't use existing distribution channels (true). I'm no ethanol expert but these are his main points that have been presented a million times before. Not sure where his 'lies' are when he's not making any new bold claims on the topic. But I can understand if you just don't like him as a writer since he can be polarizing. Just my .02. | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 42 Registered: 01-2007 |
Lie #1-Prices are expected to double this summer. Completely false, look at the link to Dr. Hilker's projection up above. Dr. Hilker projects corn at $3.40 in 2007, while Mr. Finley projects $7.60. I have already compared Finley's credibility (zero) to Dr. Hilker (years of marketing experience) Somebody claiming the corn is going to double in price without looking into any market dynamics is lying to his readers. Lie #2-The federal government is providing $7 billion in subsidies to ethanol this year. That $7 billion is spread through 2012 in the energy bill. He has misstated this claim by a factor of 5. If not a lie, a fabrication Lie #3-Ethanol offers minimal effects on greenhouse gases. "Using ethanol (E85) fuel in a midsize passenger vehicle can reduce GHG emissions by 41-61%." (Kim and Dale, Biomass and Bioenergy Volume 28, 2005). Lie #4-ethanol creates other types of dangerous air and water pollution. The only air pollution ethanol production causes is CO2, and the EPA doesn't classify CO2 as a pollutant, so that is lie number 4, and I have no idea what water pollution ethanol could cause. I guess ethanol or DDG could spill out of an overturned train car and get in the water or something. Lie #5-Ethanol is too expensive to make. Corn costs $3.80 right now. A bushel of Corn produces 2.8 gallons of ethanol, worth $7-9 depending on the market. Corn grain is by far the largest input cost in ethanol production. Also, many petroleum backers claim ethanol is too expensive energy wise, which is also a lie. Every study on ethanol production beside the one paid for by petroleum companies finds ethanol production an energy efficient process Lie #6-Meat prices are up. http://chartsrdc.cme.com:443/c s/charts.jsp?_symbol=LC&_month =-1 Meat prices are the same as they were a year ago when corn was $1/bushel cheaper IS THAT ENOUGH LIES FOR YOU? Nolan Finley made 3 truthful points in his column 1. Livestock farmers are hurting 2. Corn farmers are enjoying higher prices, so they can actually enjoy the profits of their hard work (for shame! How dare a Corn farmer make $50K in one year!) 3. Nolan obviously likes his whiskey, which he must have been drinking much of as he concocted this piece of trash | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 474 Registered: 01-2005 |
Just have to jump in here. Nolan Findley is absolutely correct in everything he wrote. He did not clearly point out that every gallon of ethanol is subsidized by we taxpayers, however. I'm not real happy he writes this stuff because if enough people wise up about the issue it'll hurt me financially. Be honest. The politicians jumped on the "global warming" bandwagon and recognized an opportunity to become heros w/ the farm belt by adding on another subsidy. Just buying votes as usual. George Bush in his state of the union speech was correct in one respect: The U.S. is addicted to oil. But, he then fell back to the same solutions to remedy the problem that every pres since Carter has relied on. "Alternative Energy." That's fine with me because my main business is producing oil and gas in TX. What Bush should have done is created an energy policy that mandates the development of our oil shale resources in the U.S. West; we have a TRILLION barrels of recoverable oil in the form of kerogen locked in shale. Most can be strip mined and some can be produced from deeper depths by in situ combustion. It could be done economically as the Canadians are doing it, and in the process providing us w/ over a million bbls a day; the rest is and will be exported to Japan. Of course it won't happen here because of the environmentalists, and that's too bad for the country which inevitably is as a result of its oil consumption going to end up as the worlds greatest debtor nation and a second class "world power" if that. But, we'll lead the planet in the number of spotted owls. But the less oil produced here, the better for me. Alternative fuels will never work to the point where they will lessen our dependance on foreign oil. Ethanol mixed w/ gasoline produces 20% less power, and coupled with the $.44 subsidy will inevitably cause people to take notice and stop using the stuff. Shame, from my point of view. I'll share my first hand experience w/ alternative fuels. I and 4 partners produce oil and gas on about 8000 acres in Texas; I run the operation. The gas we produce is low in volume and "wet." That is, it is loaded w/ "liquids" such as propane, methanol etc. The pipelines don't like wet gas and there's not enough of it anyway to justify laying a pipeline to our lease. So, 2 years ago I put in a gas stripping plant. The gas is gathered from many wells and sent by flow lines to the centrally located plant where it is pressurized, cooled, and stored in a 30,000 gallon pressurized tank until the liquids are transported away in pressurized trucks. The remaining "dry" gas is burned in a generator to produce electricity to run the plant. Last year I produced about 800,000 gallons of propane (from nat gas which has for 40 years or more been vented to the atmosphere; am I a conservationist or not?)So, I had just bought 4 new GM pickups and since several folks down ther run their p/ups on propane I thought I'd try it. I talked to friends who were doing it and discovered that it's a very clean burning fuel and reduces engine wear significantly. On cool days the trucks are hard to start, so everyone maintains a duel fuel system so the trucks can use gas and propane. Propane causes quite a bit of stalling. It also costs about $6,500 per truck to install the additional carburation system and a pressurize tank. We ran the numbers every which way, and determined that even w/ our "cost" per gallon of propane (about $1.10/gal, which is what we were getting for it on the market) the numbers did not even come close to being economical and we didn't convert. I can tell you that no one is publishing the real cost of ethanol for use in automobiles. When they do, very few people will use the stuff. That's my problem. Then they will insist we drill in ANWR and currently prohibited offshore areas, and oh no, start exploiting our oil shale resources. I'll then have to go to the poor house. Damn you Nolan Findley. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2651 Registered: 10-2004 |
There is a taxicab company--Badger Cab--in the People's Republic of Madison that has been using LPG completely for their fleet of four dozen vehicles for over twenty-five years. On really cold nights, the mechanic might tow a recalcitrant vehicle into the heated garage for starting. However, the need to do that was very rare and only on those nights where the temps would be about twenty degrees colder than Detroit ever gets. | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 46 Registered: 01-2007 |
So, is it the People's Republic of East Lansing? People's Republic of Ann Arbor? People's Republic of fill in the name of any town with a disproportionate number of college students and professors? Lyard, you're nothing but class. There is a difference between truth and truthiness. Everything about that column was truthiness. | ||
Psip Member Username: Psip Post Number: 1462 Registered: 04-2005 |
Converting your car to propane http://cars.rasoenterprises.co m/ I really question the cost of 6,500 for a conversion. Maybe 2K but for 6.5K you can buy a new engine. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 475 Registered: 01-2005 |
You can question the $6,500 cost all you want. I got the bids, from Dallas to OK City.. Why would I lie? Had the cost been $2,500, I'd have done it. By the way, of all the people I know down there who did experiment with propane, none would do it again. Trust me. wish it'd worked economically. I'd burn cow manure if it would work. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 483 Registered: 01-2005 |
Per Wall Street Journal today (can't post the link.) The Dept of Energy just announced a $385,000,000 giveaway to six companies to help them find new ways to produce ethanol from non-corn sources, acknowledging that it is a much more difficult and expensive process than making it from corn. Reason: "Soaring demand for corn by ethanol refineries will push food and meat prices up to "politically unacceptable levels." (my quotation marks) 'Nuff said? The idiots in Washington will never run out of tits to get caught in the wringer. | ||
Psip Member Username: Psip Post Number: 1480 Registered: 04-2005 |
Sorry 3rdWorld, I forgot to respond. I am sorry if I questioned your honesty and truthfulness. That was not my intention. It just seems awfully high to me. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2661 Registered: 10-2004 |
quote: Bingo! For some... From the Wiki: quote: | ||
Ordinary Member Username: Ordinary Post Number: 146 Registered: 06-2006 |
3rdworldcity, The kerogen that you are talking about that is locked in shale. Is that the same thing as tar sands? I've heard (correct me if I'm wrong), that a lot of natural gas is being burned in Canada to get the oil out of the tar sands and that is causing the price of natural gas to increase. |
