CORNHICK
All-Star Author
Omaha
Posts:598
Points:270,525
Joined:May 2008
|
Message Posted: Jan 15, 2009 5:55:58 PM
ok that video was probably fake
|
goldseeker
Champion Author
West Virginia
Posts:19,573
Points:2,721,740
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 24, 2008 11:57:23 PM
"I have read up, my friend. That is why my numbers were close to the mark, but on the best case side. As far as I can tell, at this time US corn yield ranges from 150-250 bushels per acre. The ethanol plants are making 1.5-3.5 gallons per bushel"
There is a lot more to "reading up", than living and working on a major grain farm. Internet junkies do not get much perspective on the real conditions on the family farm.
Lets look at the real yields.
GM is basically right. 2.8 gallons per bushels is considered the industry standard. Almost all plants that have been buILt in the last year would yield 2.9 or better. Some are using a new fractionization technology and yielding better than 3. Due to the competitive nature of the market others are upgrading or wILl soon.
Now less talk about yields. This years nationwide average came in at 153.8. The highest ever was 166.
However, lets look at two major cornbelt producing states. Iowa came in at 172 bpa. Their best yield ever was 181 in 2004. So if you use this years yield total production of ethanol would come in at better than 500 gallons per acre. If you go with the 2004 figure that would be 543.Now lets look at the other big corn producing state of ILlinois. Total yield this year came in at 179 bpa. There best yield ever was also in 2004 at 180. In both cases the yield of ethanol per acre would exceed 500 gallons.
When you break these two states down by county some counties wILl show yields near 200 bpa.
The corn growers expect due to better hybrids and more efficient farming practices that yields can and will exceed 200 bushels per acre within the next 20 years.
Each year the corn growers sponsor a national yield contest.
The winners this year have posted some impressive marks indeed.
The top yield for non-irrigated corn was 295 bpa in DansvILle, NY.
The top yield for irrigated corn was 348 bpa in Fowler, IL. Hmmm. That is better than 900 gallons per acre.
Now it is common knowledge that a bushel of corn is approx. 56 lbs. Also it is well known that 1/3 of the dry weight is returned to the feed supply which would come to about 18.6 lbs.
If we produce 10 billion gallons of ethanol from corn that would mean that it would take approx. 3.3 billion bushels of corn. Multiply that by 19 pounds and you have a huge mound of ddgs, which just happens to be a high protein low cost feed supplement.
By the way, did you know that the great states of Iowa and ILlinois alone produced over 4 billion bushels of corn this year. That is more than enough to supply every single ethanol plant in America......And also thousands of tons of a high quality feed supplement.
Also some plants are now already extracting corn oil that is either food grade, or fuel grade that can easILy be converted to biodiesel.
[Edited by: goldseeker at 12/25/2008 12:59:09 AM EST]
|
BeepBeeplookout
Champion Author
London
Posts:7,238
Points:426,295
Joined:Dec 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 24, 2008 10:03:36 PM
I have read up, my friend. That is why my numbers were close to the mark, but on the best case side. As far as I can tell, at this time US corn yield ranges from 150-250 bushels per acre. The ethanol plants are making 1.5-3.5 gallons per bushel. Both are improving yield and efficiency almost yearly for various reasons (especially the last 20 years). That sound accurate to you?I live in corn and tobacco country myself, but am not involved with agriculture (me-auto parts manufacturing) so
I'm not an expert, but it is around me for casual observation. 2007 harvest was amazing and this year was also excellent weather.
But not every year is a bumper crop, yields vary. The question was what are the Eth plants currently producing ie. the latest data.
BTW You do present yourself as an expert.
Merry Christmas, God Bless
|
GM1954
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:7,950
Points:131,880
Joined:Dec 2004
|
Message Posted: Dec 24, 2008 8:14:35 PM
"Why don't you give us the figures Ethanol plants CURRENTLY in operation are producing?"
I'm not in the industry. Find out for yourself. Google will give you hundreds of industry papers on what ethanol plants are producing now.
"Best case: 240 bushel/acre x 3.5 gal eth/bushel = 840 gal/acre, I don't think they are getting that much."
That one I can comment on. I own Iowa farmland. The renter averaged 230 bushels per acre this year. Our farm is adjacent to literally several sections worth of CRP, so the deer, racoon, and other animals devastate the corn. If you take out the wildlife devastation in the perimeter of the fields, the yield was over 250 bushels per acre this year. Yea, 240 bushels per acre where the ethanol plants are located is real.
|
gougedQC
Champion Author
Montreal
Posts:5,130
Points:69,885
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 24, 2008 6:11:55 PM
Not sure "food grade corn oil" is such a great thing either. Lots of controversy about that.
"It is a major error to put corn oil among the healthy macrobiotic oils to consume regularly. Corn oil is too high in polyunsaturates to be healthy and when it is heated, it becomes toxic."
--Steven Acuff (the co-founded a macrobiotic centre in Sweden, which lasted for 12 years and travels throughout the world, lecturing and counseling--
"I very much agree with Steve Acuff's point. In my view, the encouragement of the use of corn oil that we often see in the macrobiotic literature is unwise. We may theorize, based on yin-yang philosophy, that corn oil is healthy, but the scientific literature tends to suggest otherwise.
Corn oil is high in polyunsaturated fat and tends to undergo oxidation more readily than some other oils (e.g., olive). Oxidized fats generate free radical damage to cells, a process that is implicated in various degenerative diseases, especially certain cancers. For example, corn oil is used experimentally to promote tumor growth in some laboratory models of breast, colon, and other cancers.
Corn oil may also impair immune function. I typically recommend to my patients that they try and limit or avoid corn oil and use olive or other monounsaturated or essential fats instead.
I also recommend that they refrigerate and light-protect all oils, as most commercial oils undergo oxidation more rapidly at room temperature and with exposure to light.
--Gordon Alan Saxe, MD, PhD
|
BeepBeeplookout
Champion Author
London
Posts:7,238
Points:426,295
Joined:Dec 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 24, 2008 2:38:15 PM
"You are referencing 30 year old yields."
No.
It is true that corn yields/acre have nearly doubled (in some locations) in the last 20 years, and nitrogen & pesticide use is down. True enough. Also the ethanol yield/bushel keeps getting better...Why don't you give us the figures Ethanol plants CURRENTLY in operation are producing?
Best case: 240 bushel/acre x 3.5 gal eth/bushel = 840 gal/acre, I don't think they are getting that much.
|
Demaro
Champion Author
Indiana
Posts:1,251
Points:185,300
Joined:Dec 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 24, 2008 2:00:12 PM
GM1954
I'm not implying anything, merely questioning. I was seeking some figures to establish the possibility that tons of ethanol could be produced per acre. I do appreciate your answer and for whatever reason I though the bushel per acre was far less than you reported. I will research this and continue to learn.
|
GM1954
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:7,950
Points:131,880
Joined:Dec 2004
|
Message Posted: Dec 24, 2008 1:45:44 PM
Get real, BeepBeeplookout. You are referencing 30 year old yields.
|
BeepBeeplookout
Champion Author
London
Posts:7,238
Points:426,295
Joined:Dec 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 24, 2008 10:54:33 AM
Alright let's be generous,
Yield bushels corn/acre = 140 x 2.5 gal Eth/bushel = 350 gallons Ethanol per acre of corn, at best.
|
BeepBeeplookout
Champion Author
London
Posts:7,238
Points:426,295
Joined:Dec 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 24, 2008 10:32:07 AM
Goldseeker, you are inflating your numbers. Palm Oil can produce 600 gal/acre, corn is more like 60 gal/acre. Which facility is getting that much from corn??
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,148
Points:2,188,085
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Dec 24, 2008 10:09:45 AM
Even with the tariff, government usage mandates, and Billions spent in subsidies to support the industry, 40 producers are filing bankruptcy this month. How can you consider a product viable when producers can't turn a profit even with all this support?
|
goldseeker
Champion Author
West Virginia
Posts:19,573
Points:2,721,740
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 24, 2008 7:27:33 AM
"So, to answer your implied question of how much fuel per acre, It's a bunch. Upwards of 600 gallons per acre and you get almost one to two tons of animal feed as well. It's a real effective way to use the commodity: produce fuel and food."
Plus plants are now converting to extraction of food grade and fuel grade corn oil. A definite win/win.
|
CycloneSteve
Champion Author
Iowa
Posts:1,214
Points:140,065
Joined:May 2007
|
Message Posted: Dec 23, 2008 10:43:11 PM
We need to end the 50 cent import tariff on ethanol so it's more profitable to cut down rain forests. Oh, wait??? I mean increase it. Oh, wait!!! I mean end the subsidy. Oh wait!!! Lets bury it in committee and hope someone has a sex scandal.
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,148
Points:2,188,085
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Dec 23, 2008 8:34:12 PM
"So, to answer your implied question of how much fuel per acre, It's a bunch. Upwards of 600 gallons per acre and you get almost one to two tons of animal feed as well. It's a real effective way to use the commodity: produce fuel and food."
So if it is so effective, why does it still need government subsidies and mandates? Seems to me to ber considered successful a product should be able to stand on it's own two feet...
|
GM1954
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:7,950
Points:131,880
Joined:Dec 2004
|
Message Posted: Dec 23, 2008 6:53:18 PM
"So tell me, how many bushels of corn does the average acre yield? "
The national average is about 150 bushels per acre. The midwest produces averages above 190 bushels per acre. Some of the prime area, where the ethanol plants are can produce over 250.
"How many bushels of corn are required to produce a gallon of ethanol?"
Its Measured in gallons per bushel. 2.8 gallons per bushel is the number thrown around a lot in the literature. Some of the newer, more effecient plants produce 3.3 gallons per bushel or better.
Furthermore ethanol is not the only product of ethanol production. Distiller grain is actually the main component of ethanol production. That's a high protein animal feed that goes right back into the food chain.
So, to answer your implied question of how much fuel per acre, It's a bunch. Upwards of 600 gallons per acre and you get almost one to two tons of animal feed as well. It's a real effective way to use the commodity: produce fuel and food.
|
Demaro
Champion Author
Indiana
Posts:1,251
Points:185,300
Joined:Dec 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 23, 2008 4:30:55 PM
"Ethanol producers, however, use corn because it is dirt cheap and produces literally a ton of ethanol per acre".
Interesting answer.
So tell me, how many bushels of corn does the average acre yield?
How many bushels of corn are required to produce a gallon of ethanol?
|
Demaro
Champion Author
Indiana
Posts:1,251
Points:185,300
Joined:Dec 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 23, 2008 4:21:27 PM
Perhaps the Government ought to have a contest with a respectable prize for anybody or organization that can create an inexpensive alternative fuel. Once tests have been completed and verified they could then look into real studies to see if it will truly be cost effective and worth marketing. Not just put taxpayers dollars behind an elephant called ethanol that was understudied, unprofitable and doomed to fail.
|
jacksfan
Champion Author
Lincoln
Posts:2,554
Points:1,238,955
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2008 4:58:52 PM
"Corn should go back to what is was used before, food."
It never stopped being used for food.
|
GM1954
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:7,950
Points:131,880
Joined:Dec 2004
|
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2008 4:49:25 PM
"The government needs to admit they made a mistake of requiring Corn to use to make ethanol. "
But, the government does not require corn be used to make ethanol. Where did you hear that one? Ethanol producers, however, use corn because it is dirt cheap and produces literally a ton of ethanol per acre.
By the way, the main product of ethanol production is not ethanol, it is actually animal feed. Distillers grain is the product left over after ethanol production and exceeds ethanol by weight. Distillers grain is a high protein feed that lowers the cost of feeding cattle and hogs.
|
SBlouch
Champion Author
San Antonio
Posts:8,745
Points:1,862,190
Joined:Apr 2007
|
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2008 3:18:37 PM
The government needs to admit they made a mistake of requiring Corn to use to make ethanol. Corn should go back to what is was used before, food.
|
PinHeadIN
Sophomore Author
Indiana
Posts:235
Points:68,920
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2008 10:29:35 AM
Stop corn derived ethonal
|
GM1954
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:7,950
Points:131,880
Joined:Dec 2004
|
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2008 10:18:41 AM
"If a large percentage of land is switched over to eth/biofuel production because of increased prices (which was the case in 2008) then its entirely likely the effects of additional fertilizer runoff won't be noticed for another couple of years."
Not really gougedoc. In the US, the EPA monitors nitrogen and phosphorus. The EPA requires the farmer to submit soil samples on every 15 acres. Urban sprwl is more likely to cause problems due to more golf courses and lawns than farming land that has been in production for a couple hundred years. The amount of chemicals for the typical suburban lawn or golf course far exceed any amount applied to farm land.
|
gougedQC
Champion Author
Montreal
Posts:5,130
Points:69,885
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2008 10:02:09 AM
the environment seldom acts in an immediate cause and effect relationship within one calendar year or even a few. If a large percentage of land is switched over to eth/biofuel production because of increased prices (which was the case in 2008) then its entirely likely the effects of additional fertilizer runoff won't be noticed for another couple of years.
but it will be seen.
|
GM1954
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:7,950
Points:131,880
Joined:Dec 2004
|
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2008 6:44:45 AM
"We need to stop ETOH to fuel and put all the corn back to food. "
Do you understand that the US is a surplus producer of grain? Your tax dollars pay farmers NOT TO GROW crops on 40 million acres of land. that's enough land to produce an incremental 20 to 30 billion gallons of transportation fuel. Combined with current ethanol production that's 30 to 40 billion gallons of transportation fuel.
This produces downward pressure on the fuel market, reduces ag subsidies by tens of billions, and has little impact on retail food prices. Yes, little impact on food prices: that's because grain is so darned cheap, relative to retail price.
If you are thinking that halting all ethanol production will impact your food prices, dream on. The price of oil is what currently drives food price and ultimately supply.
|
Skoudah
All-Star Author
Massachusetts
Posts:521
Points:165,645
Joined:Oct 2003
|
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2008 7:43:39 AM
The dead zone is part of the nature of chemically-based fertilizers. If natural fertilizers were used, such as methane digester-generated compost, the problem would be eased. Compost is made up of non-soluble nutrients, while chemical fertilizers are easily soluble nutrients.
Considering this, using the herdstock feed/manure/digester/fertilizer/herdstock feed cycle to produce corn (or soybean fertilizer) would become an ever-broadening source of foodstuffs, ethanol and a partial solution to the dead zone. Not to mention that the digesters would produce a usable form of energy (methane) which could be used as a tractor fuel, heat source for distillation, cooking fuel, home heating fuel, etc.
Composting also builds up the tilth of the soil, which allows the soil to absorb and hold more water and would prevent excessive runoff which carries the fertilizer downstream, causing the dead zones. Soil holding more water would also cut down on floods in many ways.
The big problem here is that a great paranoia is being created over the method of producing ethanol, where instead its technologies should be looked at as environmentally more acceptable than the petrodrug.
|
billy44bo
Champion Author
Mobile
Posts:7,222
Points:1,493,795
Joined:Feb 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2008 3:33:22 AM
crude oil tumbled nearly 10% to $36.22 a barrel today as traders concluded that sagging global demand would overwhelm a production cut by opec. We need to stop ETOH to fuel and put all the corn back to food.
|
BeepBeeplookout
Champion Author
London
Posts:7,238
Points:426,295
Joined:Dec 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2008 5:35:32 PM
The dead zone reached 8,000 square miles this year, the second-largest area recorded since mapping began in the 1980s."
Gold:"Not according to the USGS. Both 2001 and 2002 was larger."
I read it was 7900sq.Miles down from 8500sq.Mi.The point is it IS THERE. It's big, and agriculture run-off is largely responsible.
"You also seemed to skip over the most important part of all. Only 5.1% of the run off can be attributed to corn ethanol. Pretty small amount."
I didn't know that. Why I ask questions. I asserted that more corn has been planted in the last 2years because of reasons specified. So that extra(volume)represents a fraction of all corn used for ethanol, which in total is responsible for 5.1% of total run-off pollution according to your figure. How much pollution does that 5.1% equate to?
How much does all corn represent? What is the total run-off from all sources combined? And is it decreasing in significant amounts yearly?
Actually Americas farmers are well ahead of the curve and can use little advice from you and others in here when it comes to "sustainable farming practices."
If you mean GM&Bio-tech;genetics;and automation, Absolutely. "Sustainability" LOL..funniest thing I'v seen today. thanks for the joke.
"The seed companies are now very close to development of the nitrogen fixing gene attached to corn. When this happens (and it will) the amount of nitrogen used to grow corn will be greatly reduced."
That is great. When they do I will kiss the shoe of a Monsanto Executive. That will really help solve a serious problem.
..."farmers use whatever method they can to reduce crop planting costs."
Yes, I trust in human nature and Capitalism. I believe humans who work their land know it best. The problems come with scale.
"The RFS states 36 billion by 2022 not 2017. And that is the law, passed by congress and signed by the president."
Depends when the statement was made. Bills get changed a lot on the way through the process of Law making (not unlike sausages).
The question was, is it a worst-case figure used in that one study, looks like it.
|
goldseeker
Champion Author
West Virginia
Posts:19,573
Points:2,721,740
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2008 4:02:47 PM
"The government has been debating for years about how to address the oxygen-depleted dead zone, or hypoxia, in the gulf. The dead zone reached 8,000 square miles this year, the second-largest area recorded since mapping began in the 1980s."
Not according to the USGS. Both 2001 and 2002 was larger.
You also seemed to skip over the most important part of all. Only 5.1% of the run off can be attributed to corn ethanol. Pretty small amount. However when you and others in here allude to the dead zones you never mention that.
"I really hope farmers do take those steps and change their practices to more sustainable ones, for the good of us all. Only if farmers acknowledge their part in the problem will they take steps to change."
Actually Americas farmers are well ahead of the curve and can use little advice from you and others in here when it comes to sustainable farming practices.
The seed companies are now very close to development of the nitrogen fixing gene attached to corn. When this happens (and it will) the amount of nitrogen used to grow corn will be greatly reduced.
It is also a well know that many of Americas farmers use crop rotation. A favorite is corn to soy beans. Soy beans, a legume is nitrogen fixing. That means when you rotate out of soy bean into corn you use less nitrogen. With todays high prices for nitrogen ($1400 per ton in 2008) farmers use whatever method they can to reduce crop planting costs.
"the President aims for the United States to produce 35 billion gallons of alternative and renewable fuels by 2017."
I am not sure what the president said. The RFS states 36 billion by 2022 not 2017. And that is the law, passed by congress and signed by the president.
[Edited by: goldseeker at 12/18/2008 5:05:12 PM EST]
|
BeepBeeplookout
Champion Author
London
Posts:7,238
Points:426,295
Joined:Dec 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2008 10:50:24 AM
www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081212/BUSINESS01/812120351/1030
Study says cuts in pollution needed to shrink dead zone:
"Washington, D.C. - Scientists are urging the government to start reducing pollution from Midwest farms that fouls local water supplies and helps create a large dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico."
"It will take at least a decade to start seeing results once the measures are taken to curb the pollution, much of it excess fertilizer that washes off corn farms in Iowa and other states, according to a study released Thursday by the National Academy of Sciences."
"The government has been debating for years about how to address the oxygen-depleted dead zone, or hypoxia, in the gulf. The dead zone reached 8,000 square miles this year, the second-largest area recorded since mapping began in the 1980s.
"www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200881211020
Scientists urge action to curb farm runoff:
"However, efforts to shrink the oxygen-depleted dead zone have largely stalled during the Bush administration while the EPA pursued additional studies of the problem. The dead zone reached 8,000 square miles this year, just short of the record 8,500 square miles set in 2002. A hurricane prevented the zone from being even larger this year, scientists said."
----------------------------------------------
"Now I am not saying that there is no nitrogen run off due to corn farming. However I do know that it has been reduced by using no-till practices by about 40%. You seldom see any mention of that in here by the anti-ethanol crowd."
If no-till farming and other mitigating measures taken by farmers in that region have reduce run off by 40%, than the originating cause seems pretty clear. I really hope farmers do take those steps and change their practices to more sustainable ones, for the good of us all. Only if farmers acknowledge their part in the problem will they take steps to change.
[Edited by: BeepBeeplookout at 12/18/2008 11:51:06 AM EST]
|
goldseeker
Champion Author
West Virginia
Posts:19,573
Points:2,721,740
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2008 10:39:39 AM
And just a little more on the net effect of ethanol on the dead zone.
Ethanol's Effect on the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone
The USGS recently completed a report on the factors effecting the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone. As has been known for some time the Dead Zone is caused by nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Mississippi River system. This study attempted to answer the question of where these nutrients are coming from.
52% of the nitrogen was found to come from Corn and soy bean production and 25% of the phosphorus came from corn and soybeans.
As you can see corn and soybean farming is a significant contributor, but it also shows that if all corn and soybean farming were ended not even half of the problem would go away.
But the real question is how much is ethanol effecting the situation. Well with a little math we can figure that out.
First let's see how many acres of corn and soybeans were planted in 2007.
Corn - 93,600,000 acres
soybeans - 63,631,000 acres
Total - 157,231,000 acres
Now let's see how many acres of corn went to ethanol production. The final numbers aren't out for 2007 yet, but it looks like about 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol will have been produced in 2007. The average yield of ethanol per bushel of corn is about 2.8 gallons. The average yield per acres of corn in 2007 was 151 bushels.
6,500,000,000 / 2.8 / 151 = 15,373,700 acres
Now to find out what percentage of the total acreage was devoted to ethanol production.
15,373,700 / 157,231,000 x 100 = 9.8%
So 9.8% of all the acres planted in corn and soybeans went to ethanol production.
So using the chart above, if 52% of all nitrogen was from corn and soybean farming and 9.8% of that was from ethanol that would mean that 5.1% of all the nitrogen delivered to the Gulf of Mexico was because of ethanol production.
And if 25% of the phosphorus was from corn and soybeans farming and 9.8% of that was from ethanol that would mean that 2.5% of all phosphorus delivered to the Gulf of Mexico was because of ethanol.
That would mean that if all the acres that produced corn for ethanol in 2007 were taken completely out of production, 5.1% less nitrogen and 2.5% less phosphorus would be delivered to the Gulf of Mexico. Truly a insignificant amount.
[Edited by: goldseeker at 12/18/2008 11:42:24 AM EST]
|
goldseeker
Champion Author
West Virginia
Posts:19,573
Points:2,721,740
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2008 10:16:15 AM
Actually I forgot to include the results for this years dead zone.
For at least the second year in a row the predictions of a record sized dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico have failed to appear.
Researchers were predicting that the dead zone would measure 8,800 square miles this year and many articles proclaimed that the sure to be record was because of increased ethanol production. The results released today by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) show that the dead zone measured 7,988 square miles, well below the prediction and the record of 8,500 square miles set in 2002.This report was dated July 28, 2008.
While you can draw the assumption if you choose to, that ethanol from corn is a contributor to the dead zone, if you will look at the figures of 2001 and 2002 you will see that the dead zone was then reported to be the at the largest peak. Hmmmm. Stop and think about that one for a minute. How much ethanol was being produced in this country at that time? Less than 1 billion gallons.
Now I am not saying that there is no nitrogen run off due to corn farming. However I do know that it has been reduced by using no-till practices by about 40%. You seldom see any mention of that in here by the anti-ethanol crowd.
|
gougedQC
Champion Author
Montreal
Posts:5,130
Points:69,885
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2008 7:30:37 PM
BEEP- you should always research more sources than the info supplied by Goldseeker. The Gulf figures he supplied come directly from an ethanol industry website for example. Numbers by themselves do not tell the whole story.
From the Environmental News Service.
"The difference between 2007 and 2002 cannot be explained by increased river flow. The riverine flow in May 2007 was 77 percent of the May 2002 discharge, but it contained 35 percent more nitrogen," he said.***
The relatively high nitrate loading may be due to more intensive farming of more land, including crops used for biofuels, unique weather patterns, or changing farming practices, the scientists said.
*** The scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, and Louisiana State University, led by R. Eugene Turner of LSU,
|
BeepBeeplookout
Champion Author
London
Posts:7,238
Points:426,295
Joined:Dec 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2008 6:49:32 PM
Goldseeker, thank you for the comprehensive reply.
"To blame all of this on ethanol is just not fair."Nowhere did I say Ethanol is DIRECTLY responsible for the Dead Zone. That maybe a reasonable assumption on your part considering this is an Eth topic forum, I did IMPLY it was a 'contributor'.
Corn is a VERY heavy feeder of nitrogen, looking at a range of ag produce, that is clear.
The value of many commodities have been very high the last couple years. The commodity price of corn more than doubled,
prompting more to be planted. Now the price has dropped considerably and the bubble is over, for the time being. (due to world markets value loss/contractions; fuel consumption and oil price plummet). Looks like the peak was July '08, all down hill since then.
According to: www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0702-e.htm
Corn Ethanomics:A Look at the Recent US Experience (early 2007)
"Corn, which is currently by far the main feedstock used to produce ethanol in the United States, represents close to 60% of the total cash cost of producing ethanol."
"Ethanol production reached an estimated 4.9 billion gallons in the United States in 2006, which corresponds to an increase of 25% over 2005 and an increase of 130% over 2002."
"At least five factors explain the expansion in ethanol production in the United States:
1. a tax credit provided to blenders of ethanol with motor fuel;
2. regulations regarding minimum ethanol content for blended fuel;
3. the elimination of ethanol’s main oxygenate competitor, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE);
4. high and volatile fossil fuel prices, which make ethanol relatively more competitive; and
5. low corn prices."
"Rapid and profitable growth in ethanol production typically generates substantial increases in demand for corn and can eventually trigger an increase in corn prices. The combination of low corn prices, high energy prices, and strong ethanol demand encouraged by various government measures, stimulated the rapid expansion of corn-based ethanol production. This expansion is deemed to be the main factor that drove the price of corn up by approximately 90% from August 2006 to February 2007."
"According to Credit Suisse, the estimated profit from ethanol processing decreased from US$1.06 per gallon to a net average of US$0.03 per gallon in that period as a direct result of higher corn prices."
-Price goes up, more gets planted.Bubble created,bubble popped. Human nature and the beauty of capitalism, seems logical.
"...the Energy Policy Act of 2005 specifies a new Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that will ensure that gasoline marketed in the United States contains a specific minimum amount of renewable fuel. Between 2006 and 2012, the RFS is slated to rise from 4.0 to 7.5 billion gallons per year. Assessments of the existing and likely future capacity of the U.S. ethanol industry indicate that the RFS will easily be achieved. In his 2007 State of the Union address, President Bush proposed the establishment of a broader Alternative Fuel Standard (AFS) that would encompass corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, methanol, butanol, hydrogen, and other alternative fuels. As part of his goal of reducing U.S. gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years, the President aims for the United States to produce 35 billion gallons of alternative and renewable fuels by 2017."
www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April06/Features/Ethanol.htm
There's the 35 Billion gallon figure, however, clearly a future projection and not just corn as a source of Eth.
So if Ethanol production has expanded greatly;
Corn is by far the largest feedstock for Ethanol;
Corn is a heavy utilizer of fertilizer and pesticides;
Agricultural runoff is the cause of the Dead Zone at the end of the Mississippi river;
...it is a reasonable assumption to make (by a neophyte like myself) that the boom in corn based Ethanol production may adversely affect the Dead Zone of the Gulf of Mexico.
Considering the current economic situation, with low corn prices at present(&cheap gas), one would think less corn will be planted in 2009. Unless crude oil goes high again, and the Ethanol plants finish paying off the high cost corn contracts they're stuck with in the short term.
[Edited by: BeepBeeplookout at 12/17/2008 7:53:48 PM EST]
|
Skoudah
All-Star Author
Massachusetts
Posts:521
Points:165,645
Joined:Oct 2003
|
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2008 8:53:18 AM
Simple solution to the acreage problem. Plant more acreage.
|
goldseeker
Champion Author
West Virginia
Posts:19,573
Points:2,721,740
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2008 5:34:48 PM
Cummins2500: That is fine if you want to use stablizer. I have not and will not use it, as I have had no problems.
Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating that others should follow my practice. Water could condense in your tanks and creat problems. It has not been a problem for me. It would actually be better to drain your tanks. However, most people are like me, lazy. Last spring my lawnmower started right up on the first pull. This mower is now 16 years old and going strong.
About 25 years ago I had a tiller with a Tecumseh engine. Water got in the tank and froze damaging the float bowl which was made of very thin brass. That was before ethanol blends were available around here.
All of my motors today are either Briggs & Stratton or Kolhler.
And no, I do not work for or have money invested in ethanol.
|
goldseeker
Champion Author
West Virginia
Posts:19,573
Points:2,721,740
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2008 5:20:47 PM
"Since you got me thinking about it.....more corn is being cultivated than ever before, whatever it's end use."
Well that is not entirely true. There was 8 million acres less cultivated last year and that is significant.Also there is no direct correlation of ethanol production and the size of the dead zones.
2007 - 7900 square miles 93,616,000 acres of corn planted
2006 - 6662 square miles 78,327,000 acres of corn planted
2005 - 4564 square miles 81,779,000 acres of corn planted
2004 - 5800 square miles 80,929,000 acres of corn planted
2003 - 3220 square miles 78,736,000 acres of corn planted
2002 - 8500 square miles 79,054,000 acres of corn planted
2001 - 8006 square miles 75,752,000 acres of corn planted
The total square miles are actual number taken from the USGS based on satellite photos of these dead zones. What this shows is that there are plenty of factors involved in the creation of the dead zones. To blame all of this on ethanol is just not fair.
Also those two links you posted have plenty of holes in them. The first link claims 20,000 square miles. Actual figures shows that is not true.
Studies often use worse case scenarios. Now why would that be so. Are they showing their true colors?
Also the second link uses a second scenario that claims 36 billion gallons of corn ethanol. That is also not so. Even the National Corn growers say a maximum of 15 billion gallons.
Now why would they use the 36 billion gallon figure? Could it be that they are trying to skew the results of their study.
Studies like that do not impress me one bit. Once the real figures come out you can make comparisons and see how useless these studies really are.
The Renewable Fuel Standard which has already been signed into law calls for 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol by 2022, not 36 as your study claims. If you will read it closely it calls for advanced biofuels which is fuel derived from other than corn starch and also cellulosic ethanol.
In reality there are not projected increases in corn acreage to meet these goals. Projected increases in corn yields by 2022 will come from better high yield hybrids and more efficent farming practices.
While it is likely true that some CRP lands will be planted, there is no assurance that they will be planted in corn. Congress has already cut several million acres of CRP lands from being renewed during the next few years. To assume that all of these lands are marginal and highly suseptible to erosion is just not so. I actually lived on a large grain farm that had CRP lands right next to cultivated fields. There was absolutely nothing wrong with those lands. The farmer chose not to farm it and put it in CRP.
Also it is well known that many midwestern farmers are now using no-till practices, which can and have prevented runoff drastically.
If the authors of these studies would get out of their ivory towers and spend some real time in the corn belt states, they might have a better understanding of what is really going on out there.
[Edited by: goldseeker at 12/16/2008 6:26:19 PM EST]
|
BeepBeeplookout
Champion Author
London
Posts:7,238
Points:426,295
Joined:Dec 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2008 2:07:41 PM
Goldseeker: "Dead zones.Well I am well aware of that, but I am also well aware that you cannot blame it on just ethanol. There are plenty of others contributing to the cause. If we were not making ethanol from corn, would the dead zones still be there????"
"A planned increase in US ethanol production from corn would spell environmental "disaster" for marine species in the Gulf of Mexico, said a co-author of a science study published Monday."
US corn Biofuels will expand Gulf of Mex Dead Zone
"The zone is caused indirectly by nitrogen fertilizers used on cornfields in states like Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska and Wisconsin. Excess nitrogen runs into the Mississippi River, becomes nitrate, and feeds algae growth. When the algae eventually dies it sinks to the bottom and rots, a process that sucks oxygen out of the water and kills all other life forms."
The Study
"Fertilizer applied to corn in the U.S. Midwest is a primary source of nitrogen exported to the Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers."
Since you got me thinking about it.....more corn is being cultivated than ever before, whatever it's end use.
[Edited by: BeepBeeplookout at 12/16/2008 3:10:27 PM EST]
|
BeepBeeplookout
Champion Author
London
Posts:7,238
Points:426,295
Joined:Dec 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2008 12:48:27 PM
Goldseeker: "What about the huge dead zone in Alberta created by the tar sands project? Is that OK?"
No. The Canadian Govmnt get hammered at every international environmental type conference over it. It is Canada's single largest source of pollution (greenhouse gasses). Also the most highly regulated and studied (series of) industrial projects. It is encroaching on nearby Native Land (possibly) causing terrible health effects on people and wild animals.
Regardless, the discussion was about agriculture run-off. Oceanic dead zones are not limited to the US, so quit being so touchy.
BTW The Alberta Tar Sands are not the only source of Canadian oil and gas. We are a major supplier to our favorite neighbors, part of American Energy Independence, as we are a stable Democracy and not located in the Middle East. When have WE EVER threatened to cut production or turn off the tap? It's not us creating instability/fluctuations in the market.
|
Cummins2500
Champion Author
Iowa
Posts:3,128
Points:752,375
Joined:Jan 2007
|
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2008 12:17:43 PM
goldseeker,
I can say if I don't use gas additives at the end of the year in my lawn mower or garden tiller neither will start in the spring as any gas that is left in the tank breaks down over the winter and its a pain to get them running again if I don't use a gas stabilizer. FYI both regular gas and ethanol gas will break down over the winter if I don't use gas additives.
BTW with all of the pro ethanol words you post all of the time do you work for or have money invested Ethanol?
|
MooTown
Rookie Author
Wisconsin
Posts:85
Points:68,250
Joined:Nov 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2008 8:12:55 PM
Ethanol suck as bad as that Chevy ad competing my computer resources as I type this.
|
goldseeker
Champion Author
West Virginia
Posts:19,573
Points:2,721,740
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2008 5:39:40 PM
"I'd like to see your source of info on that one. I highly doubt that considering how much land is under cultivation compared to volume of land used as golf courses. "
Over 8000 golf courses in America.
Countless millions of lawns.
I have lived in 10 states and have yet to see pesticides, herbicide ban in any of these states. Dead zones. Well I am well aware of that, but I am also well aware that you cannot blame it on just ethanol. There are plenty of others contributing to the cause. If we were not making ethanol from corn, would the dead zones still be there????
What about the huge dead zone in Alberta created by the tar sands project? Is that OK?
"My small engines, lawn mower, blower, etc, are beginning to run very bad because of the ethanol. You cannot let this gas sit around for very long or your engines will gum up. "
Hmmm. I thought ethanol was a solvent. Now how would that cause gum to build up in your engine?
I have used ethanol blends exclusively in my small engines for over 10 years and they all run just fine. I also let my mower and garden tractor, chainsaw, and weedeaters set all winter with a tank of E10. I guarantee you they will start every spring and run with no problems.
I am always amazed at those that would use ethanol as a scapegoat. In reality they do not have a clue.
[Edited by: goldseeker at 12/15/2008 6:41:40 PM EST]
|
goldseeker
Champion Author
West Virginia
Posts:19,573
Points:2,721,740
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2008 5:39:29 PM
"I'd like to see your source of info on that one. I highly doubt that considering how much land is under cultivation compared to volume of land used as golf courses. "
Over 8000 golf courses in America.
Countless millions of lawns.
I have lived in 10 states and have yet to see pesticides, herbicide ban in any of these states.Dead zones. Well I am well aware of that, but I am also well aware that you cannot blame it on just ethanol. There are plenty of others contributing to the cause. If we were not making ethanol from corn, would the dead zones still be there????
What about the huge dead zone in Alberta created by the tar sands project? Is that OK?"My small engines, lawn mower, blower, etc, are beginning to run very bad because of the ethanol. You cannot let this gas sit around for very long or your engines will gum up. "
Hmmm. I thought ethanol was a solvent. Now how would that cause gum up in your engine.
I have used ethanol blends exclusively in my small engines exclusively for over 10 years and they all run just fine. I also let my mower and garden tractor, chainsaw, and weedeaters set all winter with a tank of E10. I guarantee you they will start every spring and run with no problems.
I am always amazed at those that would use ethanol as a scapegoat. In reality they do not have a clue.
|
AUeagle
Rookie Author
South Carolina
Posts:9
Points:40,590
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2008 4:06:55 PM
My small engines, lawn mower, blower, etc, are beginning to run very bad because of the ethanol. You cannot let this gas sit around for very long or your engines will gum up.
|
jacksfan
Champion Author
Lincoln
Posts:2,554
Points:1,238,955
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2008 3:55:47 PM
Wow, gouged, you know how to search the internet! Well, so can I. Look at the quotes I found about your beloved magazine:
"The Economist is editorially constrained because so many scribes graduated from the same school."
"A stereotype of Economist writers as hacks: overconfident young graduates of elite English universities who lack originality."
"Editorial anonymity, said by the editor to reflect “a collaborative effort,” is said to hide the youth and inexperience of those writing articles. The magazine is written by young people pretending to be old people. If American readers got a look at the pimply complexions of their economic gurus, they would cancel their subscriptions in droves.
"it uses “marketing genius” to make up for deficiencies in analysis and original reporting, resulting in “a kind of Reader's Digest” for America’s corporate elite"
"Am I the only economist who does not read The Economist? Well maybe the first one to confess to it. … Call it a one-man boycott of ideology that masquerades too often as journalism. … I realized that the more I knew about a subject, the less The Economist was making sense. It’s one thing to be opinionated, another to be misinformed and arrogant at the same time. After one too many articles in this mold, I simply stopped picking up the magazine.
[Edited by: jacksfan at 12/15/2008 5:00:31 PM EST]
|
gougedQC
Champion Author
Montreal
Posts:5,130
Points:69,885
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2008 1:24:46 PM
No Jackie- just because I say something doesn't make it true, nor does it make it untrue just because you don't like it.
The Economist, whether you like it or not, is the most respected news magazine in the world. And if says food-based ethanol is a problem, then it does so after informed research.
Goldi- I would think that all the scientists from the various disciplines who've studied fertilizer pollution would be extremely cognizant of the amount of fertilzer used on golfcourses and domestic use. Funny though, none of them have said this is much of a consideration regarding the contribution to the dead zone in the Gulf. They do say that Ethanol/corn production is a major contributor. HOw could someone from the Ethanol industry be so smart, and the scientific experts so silly as to have overlooked this? Maybe, just maybe it ain't true?some online comments re The Economist
“After over eight thousand issues, The Economist retains its unchallenged title of the world’s best weekly news magazine, completely burying such second-raters as Time and Newsweek in the U.S. and Der Spiegel in Germany. Regardless of one's political inclinations (and the magazine does not wear its politics on its sleeve), it is essential reading for any one seeking to be called "informed". At $3.95 an issue, it is a bargain given the extraordinary amount of content and the consistently high caliber of the writing.
What makes the magazine so important from the American perspective is its utter lack of the provincialism that drenches the U.S. news media. When one reads “The Economist”, one learns that there is life outside of New York, Washington, Hollywood, and human interest stories. Each issue contains a solid survey of political, economic, financial, and cultural events occurring around the world, written in an erudite, educated prose for people who don’t read “People”.
“The Economist is one of the world's most respected publications, founded in September 1843. It is edited in London, but aims at being a global magazine. Half of its 1.3 million copies per issue are sold in North America.”
“This is how a friend of mine once described economist magazine. This is a news magazine par excellence; it is head and shoulders above the rest, and claims (which great justification) to be the news reporter of the world. 'Since its founding the economist has been the world's most enduring and distinguished proponent of free markets and free trade. This magazine is read by the powerful and the power-hopefuls in every capital in the world. “
|
outridin
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:15,726
Points:3,056,860
Joined:Jan 2004
|
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2008 11:19:16 AM
any one's opinion changed by what they read here?
there "facts and numbers" to support all prejudices if you look and selectively sort the ones you agree with.
the expression " figures do not lie, but liars can figure" comes to mind
|
BeepBeeplookout
Champion Author
London
Posts:7,238
Points:426,295
Joined:Dec 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2008 11:00:04 AM
Goldseeker:"Fertilizer runoff?????? Was you aware that more fertilizer is used on Americas golf courses and personal lawns. Is that ok? "
I'd like to see your source of info on that one. I highly doubt that considering how much land is under cultivation compared to volume of land used as golf courses.
In my country many towns and cities have banned pesticide use on lawns and golf courses entirely, and it has sparked a service industry in alternatives to that.
Fertilizer and manure/urine runoff is a terrible problem. Perhaps you've heard of 'dead zones' in the oceans. GoogleEarth where the Mississippi River meets the Gulf of Mex. for example to see the reality.
|
BeepBeeplookout
Champion Author
London
Posts:7,238
Points:426,295
Joined:Dec 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2008 8:57:54 AM
Jacksfan, thanks for responding to my questions.
|
goldseeker
Champion Author
West Virginia
Posts:19,573
Points:2,721,740
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2008 1:57:53 AM
tduch: "At the usage rate globally if all gas was replaced by E85 approximately 80% of the worlds arable land would be used for corn production alone which would in my viewpoint destroy the global economy not to mention the land."
This is a story that has been fommented by the anti-ethanol crowd. No one in the ethanol industry, nor any of the corn producers have ever suggested such.
Fertilizer runoff?????? Was you aware that more fertilizer is used on Americas golf courses and personal lawns. Is that ok?
|
tduch
Rookie Author
Little Rock
Posts:1
Points:370
Joined:Dec 2008
|
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2008 10:28:35 PM
I recently read an article in North American Fisherman stating that Ethanol has less energy than gasoline and actually cost more to produce. Yes it is a renewable resource but if more people used E85 than either less land would be used for food production or more "marginal" land would be used for ethanol production. At the usage rate globally if all gas was replaced by E85 approximately 80% of the worlds arable land would be used for corn production alone which would in my viewpoint destroy the global economy not to mention the land. Not to mention the ecological impact from fertilizer runoff into lakes and rivers causing algae blooms effectively killing everything else in the water. More money should be used for the development of hydrogen fuel cells after all hydrogen is the most abundant substance in the universe and one of the byproducts is hydrogen itself.
|