What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The scam of corn ethonal

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

ScoobyDoo said:
Perhaps. We're voting on gay marriage here in Minnesota next election day. There's a 6 billion dollar deficit but gays are way too important not to spend time on.
Click to expand...

So, because we aren't paying enough attention to the deficit problems, we shouldn't pay attention to other issues either? That's an interesting approach.
 
Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Bob Gray said:
So, because we aren't paying enough attention to the deficit problems, we shouldn't pay attention to other issues either? That's an interesting approach.
Click to expand...

No. They're not paying any attention to the deficit problems. And we already have a marriage law on the books that defines marriage. It's pandering for votes. And while we're at it since this is a Constitutional Amendment vote the legislature is essentially punting on the issue anyway.

If the voters are going to decide this then the voters should have decided on slavery, civil rights, interracial marriage, etc. In fact we should just throw the Bill of Rights out the window.
 
Re: The scam of corn ethonal

ScoobyDoo said:
No. They're not paying any attention to the deficit problems. And we already have a marriage law on the books that defines marriage. It's pandering for votes. And while we're at it since this is a Constitutional Amendment vote the legislature is essentially punting on the issue anyway.

If the voters are going to decide this then the voters should have decided on slavery, civil rights, interracial marriage, etc. In fact we should just throw the Bill of Rights out the window.
Click to expand...

People still pay attention to that document in government?
 
Re: The scam of corn ethonal

ScoobyDoo said:
Perhaps. We're voting on gay marriage here in Minnesota next election day. There's a 6 billion dollar deficit but gays are way too important not to spend time on.
Click to expand...

There's actually not much more juice in that turnip; they're going to need a new one. Abortion's evergreen, anyway.
 
Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Hey, we've got plenty of other threads to argue about abortion, deficits, gay marriage, etc. I think we need to be respectful of this thread in keeping the focus on the scam that is ethanol production in this country, and take our other political issues elsewhere. I'm half wondering if Scooby is a ethanol operative and is purposely sending this thread into other topics to take the heat off his ethanol buddies? Just a hunch.

And back on the subject, here's a good article:

http://http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/7401/Corn-based-Ethanol-The-Real-Cost

Not only is there less corn for food, but corn production is edging out lots of other stuff we used to use more acreage to grow. But, you subsidize something heavily enough, and it'll have those sort of bad side effects.
 
Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Bob Gray said:
Hey, we've got plenty of other threads to argue about abortion, deficits, gay marriage, etc. I think we need to be respectful of this thread in keeping the focus on the scam that is ethanol production in this country, and take our other political issues elsewhere. I'm half wondering if Scooby is a ethanol operative and is purposely sending this thread into other topics to take the heat off his ethanol buddies? Just a hunch.

And back on the subject, here's a good article:

http://http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/7401/Corn-based-Ethanol-The-Real-Cost

Not only is there less corn for food, but corn production is edging out lots of other stuff we used to use more acreage to grow. But, you subsidize something heavily enough, and it'll have those sort of bad side effects.
Click to expand...

Server not found...
 
Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Bob Gray said:
Hey, we've got plenty of other threads to argue about abortion, deficits, gay marriage, etc. I think we need to be respectful of this thread in keeping the focus on the scam that is ethanol production in this country, and take our other political issues elsewhere. I'm half wondering if Scooby is a ethanol operative and is purposely sending this thread into other topics to take the heat off his ethanol buddies? Just a hunch.

And back on the subject, here's a good article:

http://http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/7401/Corn-based-Ethanol-The-Real-Cost

Not only is there less corn for food, but corn production is edging out lots of other stuff we used to use more acreage to grow. But, you subsidize something heavily enough, and it'll have those sort of bad side effects.
Click to expand...

I just argued against Ethanol in this thread in the past couple of days. But AGAIN you misrepresent my positions.

The current trend in the thread started because someone posted that they actually believed one of the parties was focused on fiscal issues this time. I strongly beg to differ. And your reaction only reinforces my suspicions.
 
Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Bob Gray said:
I'm half wondering if Scooby is a ethanol operative and is purposely sending this thread into other topics to take the heat off his ethanol buddies? Just a hunch.

And back on the subject, here's a good article:

http://http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/7401/Corn-based-Ethanol-The-Real-Cost

Not only is there less corn for food, but corn production is edging out lots of other stuff we used to use more acreage to grow. But, you subsidize something heavily enough, and it'll have those sort of bad side effects.
Click to expand...

nah, he seems on board to loathe it as much as the rest of us. Of course, its kind of hard not to hate it given what is out there. Energy tribune is a great resource and I frequent it. Other good ones are Robert Rapier ( he did a piece on how corn ethanol does not impact domestic imports of petrol) and of course Robert bryce who constantly rails on the ethanol industry more than I do.
 
Re: The scam of corn ethonal

ScoobyDoo said:
I just argued against Ethanol in this thread in the past couple of days. But AGAIN you misrepresent my positions.

The current trend in the thread started because someone posted that they actually believed one of the parties was focused on fiscal issues this time. I strongly beg to differ. And your reaction only reinforces my suspicions.
Click to expand...

Hey, I guess you're just subtle in your efforts to take the focus off of ethanol. I give you credit!


(note, I'm not saying anything about Obama and ethanol, so no need to jump to Obama's defense)
 
Re: The scam of corn ethonal

unh_hockey said:
nah, he seems on board to loathe it as much as the rest of us. Of course, its kind of hard not to hate it given what is out there. Energy tribune is a great resource and I frequent it. Other good ones are Robert Rapier ( he did a piece on how corn ethanol does not impact domestic imports of petrol) and of course Robert bryce who constantly rails on the ethanol industry more than I do.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's nice to have some good substantive folks out there tearing this issue to shreds.
 
Re: The scam of corn ethonal

unh_hockey said:
I read somewhere that the EPA recently slashed the required domestic fuel required to come from next gen biofuels 100 million gallons ( 2010) and 250 million gallons in (2011) to 6.5 million each year . This , also, could be a sign that the political climate is changing. Being fiscally responsible means one must not advocate delusions of biofuels - and since the EPA stands to have part of its funding axed, maybe they are making the right move not backing a failed venture.
Click to expand...

I know people like to take pot shots at the EPA. But do understand that they only do what they are told to do. By congress. If congress wants them to find a reason to push E20, they will. Not willingly, though.

I know the people who worked on the recent ethanol work didn't want to work on it at all. Avoid like the plauge.
 
Re: The scam of corn ethonal

To follow it up is a great article by R. Rapier on the economics of corn ethanol. He has a fairly rigorous engineering background so he plays with numbers a great deal. He basically examines the cost vs benefit of producing corn ethanol. As soon as the cost of the lifecycle goes up, ethanol loses profitability and sinks into loss - ergo the need for continued subsidies.

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2008/02/02/corn-ethanol-economics/

Slide 16 illustrates the cost vs the amount made.

http://www.mncpoe.org/Previous_events/Redwood_ppt/AURIEthanolPlantEnergyMay162006.pdf

lastly here is the article from energy tribune which argues against domestic oil import reduction via corn ethanol

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/2455/Why-Ethanol-Doesnt-Reduce-Oil-Imports

edit: the EPA earned a few points when they slashed the biofuels requirement signficantly for the next few years. It shows they at least know about the issues.
 
Last edited:
Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Bob Gray said:
Agreed. It's nice to have some good substantive folks out there tearing this issue to shreds.
Click to expand...

I try and argue for what makes sense. its all an individual can do in this world...

Thanks though for the support.
 
Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Ah yes, clean coal which is an oxymoron.

I believe one of the technologies they might be referring too is a process called carbon sequestration. Basically you reduce the net CO2 emissions somehow. People have proposed many things. The most asinine is to stick a smoke stack literally upside down into the ground, and score the carbon slurry. What does this do? I makes your coal burning more inefficient, so you need to burn more to get the same energy equivalent. Oh yes, what happens when this slurry gets back out into nature? Take a wild guess…

Basically its trading putting carbon one place ( the air), for another ( the ground, in someone else’s back yard). Its so stupid, its funny.
 
Re: The scam of corn ethonal

unh_hockey said:
lastly here is the article from energy tribune which argues against domestic oil import reduction via corn ethanol

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/2455/Why-Ethanol-Doesnt-Reduce-Oil-Imports
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I'll have to look at this later since many of the linked graphs are blocked here at work. But the quick perusal of the paper itself leaves one overarching question: why not?

His case that ethanol supporters exaggerate the substitution effect is pretty solid, for sure.

His claims that it's had no effect whatsoever are much less so, and he doesn't profer any explanations for why that'd be the case. My educated guess would be a demand-pull situation where ethanol's cheaper price due to subsidies creates a higher demand that negates the offset. In essence, ethanol's "benefits" cause people to want to use it more, thus eliminating any offset gains. See also, e.g., lighting (more efficient lightbulbs individually use less electricity, but people then use them more or use a brighter bulb - rather than receiving the same amount of light at a lower energy cost, they use the same amount of energy for more light). But that's just a guess, and given the relatively inelastic nature of gas, doesn't seem like it'd be enough to completely negate the substitution effect entirely.

The obverse of this theory that ethanol doesn't replace any oil is that if we took away all ethanol tomorrow, we wouldn't use a single drop more of oil than we already use to make up for ethanol's disappearance. Which may or may not be a true statement (since we can't exactly test it), though anecdotedly I find it hard to believe that would be the case -- I currently fill up with the 10% blend since it's the cheapest; even after accounting for any mileage gains from going to pure gasoline, still seems like I'd be using some amount of oil more than I currently use, even if it wouldn't be 10% more.

So, unless there's a magic bullet waiting for me to see in one of the graphs, I'm skeptical to the extent he argues there's no substitution effect at all. I fully agree the effect is exaggerated by proponents, though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top