Rolling Stone Magazine does not Heart Ethanol

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tempus @ Jul 31 2007, 01:23 PM) [snapback]488195[/snapback]</div>

I think the one thing that is certain is this is a big boon for the corn growers. While I'm glad we can help our farmers out (at least a specific segment) it causes a number of problems across the board which may not make Ethanol a viable long-term option.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Washington1788 @ Jul 31 2007, 02:29 PM) [snapback]488237[/snapback]</div>

That may help the corn growers, but I'll bet it's causing major headaches for other farmers. Those that depend on corn for the feed for their animals are going to feel the pinch. Either the price of their meat is going to go through the roof because of the escalating feed costs, or they're going to go bankrupt.

 

farmers who grow corn just to feed their livestock are really getting hit. my family back home has a dairy farm, and corn prices are really hurting their bottom line. they haven't seen an increase in milk checks to reflect the increased cost of corn seed. they don't have a lot of choice, they need the corn. being a small family farm is hard enough without this.

 

With the price of corn going up, is there a viable alternative feed? Mixture of hay and grain or something? I know cows are fed corn because it's cheap, but it's also not the healthiest diet for them. If corn becomes as expensive as the alternatives, is it possible to substitute an alternative for the corn?

 

There are alternatives for feed. Some of the ethanol waste is even used as feed. But once one goes up in price, it is just a matter of time until the rest do. Then there is the issue of getting the same levels of production. Pasture fed cows give the best tasting milk, but at cost of volume. It's been years since I took the class, so I may be way off, but I want say the pasture fed cow might make nearly half the volume.

 

when everything's all frozen in the winter they have to feed whatever they have stored up. the hay mow won't hold enough hay to feed all the animals all winter, and round bales are fed outdoors which only takes care of part the problem. so they fill the silo with corn silage and that's usually almost enough to get them through. by the end of winter they're buying feed which is much more expensive than growing and storing it yourself.

 

The solution is to move away from corn as a feed stock. Unfortunately, that means getting other feed stocks down in cost. Of course, as corn prices spike, the profit margins on ethanol will plummet and that might make ethanol alternatives more favourable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jul 31 2007, 05:01 PM) [snapback]488326[/snapback]</div>

And while the cost of corn goes up, it is being matched by the cost of hay. The supplies to cut & bale hay have gone up 30% in the last year alone due to the rise in oil prices. I buy round bales and am paying $40 per bale this year. Last year it was $27.50.

 

Even without ethanol, costs of everything mentioned above will continue to go up as the cost of oil goes up.
Recently the price of milk DID shoot up. These things are normal and should happen. They will force us all to eat and live more efficiently. Instead of sending our surplus corn overseas, we'll convert it to fuel. The ramping up of this process will match the ramping down of the oil imports we are able to get INTO the country.

Besides, it's not the corn ethanol that is important here. Setting up the biofuel infrastructure is what is important. Doing it on the backs of the corn subsidies that have been there for YEARS, is just a way to make the investment in this infrastructure profitable instead of a feel good money losing excercise. We subsidize oil just as much, if not more than ethanol.

I'm not saying ethanol is the future, small EV's and less transportation in general is the future, but we WILL need biofuel in some form or another from multiple feedstocks and it will be nice to have the plants up and running for when we do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tempus @ Jul 31 2007, 06:07 PM) [snapback]488385[/snapback]</div>

The subsidies are included. The price of corn has almost doubled since 2005. That really cut into the profitability of ethanol.

 

But oil hit an all time high also, which makes ethanol look real good too.
Oil, ethanol, corn/milk/etc are all commodities that are "rubberbanded" togethor. One goes up, the others do to. This is not going to change.

Calling ethanol an energy loser is short sighted and a bit of a misnomer.
Those calculation are based on the past (and current) farming methods which are very inefficient. Farmers have never had to worry much about fuel usage, as it's always been pretty cheap. They will be forced to improve, as will the whole biofuel process. Also, the energy inputs can be (and should be) more green, as opposed to fossil.
On the other side of the equation, every year, worldwide oil production is becoming more and more energy intensive. What used to be 1 barrel input to 30 barrels output, is more like 1:5 now and getting worse. IE: tar sands, which are worse than 1:5 and getting heavily funded due to a lack of other options. At least with ethanol we'll be able to keep the money in the US instead of funding OPEC, and we need to hedge our bets anyways with investment in ALL energy fronts. We aren't building biofuel infrastructure for profit today, we are doing so to provide energy security for tomorrow. Or does tomorrow not matter?

 

Darwood, Darwood, Darwood... farmers have always cared about fuel prices. The means for adding ethanol to fuel already exist and will not be helped by continuing subsidies for *corn* ethanol. Corn ethanol fans should arrange for periodic debitting of their checking accounts direct to Cargill, ADM, and the re-election campaigns of certain plains states Senators, and leave the rest of us out of it.

US farm policy is both fiscally irresponsible and immoral: welfare for rich landowners which simultaneously strangles the free-market efforts of farmers in developing nations to establish themselves.

 

I completely agree that *corn* is not the best biofuel.
But to compete with oil, the biofuel industry needs artificial price pillars. Oil companies receives far more economic support that ethanol producers do in the form of military protection of assets, land rights for resource extraction, as well as direct subsidies and tax breaks. Ethanol producers need to get their infratructure expanded BEFORE we start to hit the inevitable downlope of oil supply, and that means investing in something that doesn't really look like a money winner currently.

I would love for the subsidies of corn to be switched to better projects like agricultural waste product conversion to biofuel, but lets face it, the current administration is NOT going to allow competitors of the oil companies to get any advantage. So they are building plants on the back of subsidized corn. But the plant processes can be changes at any time to process many different feedstocks and produce not just ethanol, but other types of biofuels, plastics, or other end use products.

.