From: Steve on
Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauffer(a)usfamily.net> wrote:
>
>>To me the big thing about ethanol is that it takes a lot of energy to
>>make it, and some mfgs use petroleum to make it, in which case it
>>doesn't save petroleum imports by that much. It has only a negligible
>>improvement in greenhouse emissions.
>
>
> Yes, thinking about ethanol as a petroleum replacement is silly. It just
> doesn't work out, costing more to make than you get out of it.

I saw another interesting article about the impact of the ethanol fuel
lunacy going on. So much more cropland is being converted to corn to
support the craze that the amount of nitrogen-rich fertilzer entering
the Mississippi River has jumped significantly in the last couple of
years (corn "leaks" more fertilizer into runoff water than other crops
do). Cutting to the chase, the result is that the Gulf of Mexico "dead
zone" of severe oxygen depletion (which drives away fish and kills
shellfish that cant escape ) off the coast of Louisiana and Texas is
expected to grow significantly over the next couple of years.

Thank you ever so much, "environmentalists." But I have no doubt that
they'll find a way to put the blame on something other than the corn
surge due to ethanol....




From: Steve on
C. E. White wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge(a)panix.com> wrote in message
> news:fke0ap$d3m$1(a)panix2.panix.com...
>
>
>>Yes, thinking about ethanol as a petroleum replacement is silly. It
>>just
>>doesn't work out, costing more to make than you get out of it.
>
>
> Not true. See Brazil.

Not applicable. The US is at a different latitude than Brazil. Besides,
even Brazil's ethanol craze has a huge negative impact in that
rainforest is being clear-cut to make room for more sugar cane fields.
Not a good trade, IMO.

From: C. E. White on

"Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:7_6dnTvVrcGWBffanZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d(a)texas.net...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauffer(a)usfamily.net> wrote:
>>
>>>To me the big thing about ethanol is that it takes a lot of energy
>>>to
>>>make it, and some mfgs use petroleum to make it, in which case it
>>>doesn't save petroleum imports by that much. It has only a
>>>negligible
>>>improvement in greenhouse emissions.
>>
>>
>> Yes, thinking about ethanol as a petroleum replacement is silly.
>> It just
>> doesn't work out, costing more to make than you get out of it.
>
> I saw another interesting article about the impact of the ethanol
> fuel lunacy going on. So much more cropland is being converted to
> corn to support the craze that the amount of nitrogen-rich fertilzer
> entering the Mississippi River has jumped significantly in the last
> couple of years (corn "leaks" more fertilizer into runoff water than
> other crops do). Cutting to the chase, the result is that the Gulf
> of Mexico "dead zone" of severe oxygen depletion (which drives away
> fish and kills shellfish that cant escape ) off the coast of
> Louisiana and Texas is expected to grow significantly over the next
> couple of years.
>
> Thank you ever so much, "environmentalists." But I have no doubt
> that they'll find a way to put the blame on something other than the
> corn surge due to ethanol....

You mean like municipal waste treatment plants?

Now as for crop land being converted to corn...converted from what?
There is very little crop land in the Mississippi river system that
isn't already devoted to either corn, cotton, or wheat. All of these
crops get similar amounts of nitrogen fertilizer. The only crop that
is routinely grown in these areas that doesn't get a lot of nitrogen
fertilizer is soybeans, and soybean prices are even better than corn
prices. In my area, people are switching to soybeans and away from
corn because of the high cost of nitrogen fertilizer. I personally
plan to plant less corn next year and more soybeans. Soybeans require
less labor, less fertilizer, and less water. Given the current price
differential, soybeans are far more profitable (at least for many
farmers).

I am not sure that ethanol is the answer, but I also think that the
anti-ethanol lobby is lying through their collective teeth. I know who
is funding the pro-ethanol lobby. Who is funding the anti-ethanol
lobby? I'd say follow the money......Who stands to loose the most if
ethanol displaces a significant amount of foreign oil?

Ed


From: C. E. White on

"Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:7_6dnTvVrcGWBffanZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d(a)texas.net...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauffer(a)usfamily.net> wrote:
>>
>>>To me the big thing about ethanol is that it takes a lot of energy
>>>to
>>>make it, and some mfgs use petroleum to make it, in which case it
>>>doesn't save petroleum imports by that much. It has only a
>>>negligible
>>>improvement in greenhouse emissions.
>>
>>
>> Yes, thinking about ethanol as a petroleum replacement is silly.
>> It just
>> doesn't work out, costing more to make than you get out of it.
>
> I saw another interesting article about the impact of the ethanol
> fuel lunacy going on. So much more cropland is being converted to
> corn to support the craze that the amount of nitrogen-rich fertilzer
> entering the Mississippi River has jumped significantly in the last
> couple of years (corn "leaks" more fertilizer into runoff water than
> other crops do). Cutting to the chase, the result is that the Gulf
> of Mexico "dead zone" of severe oxygen depletion (which drives away
> fish and kills shellfish that cant escape ) off the coast of
> Louisiana and Texas is expected to grow significantly over the next
> couple of years.
>
> Thank you ever so much, "environmentalists." But I have no doubt
> that they'll find a way to put the blame on something other than the
> corn surge due to ethanol....

One more thing you should factor in is that unadjusted corn prices are
still below the peak years of 1974 and 1975. If you adjust corn prices
for inflation, they are still historically very low, despite the
ethanol craze. More land was devoted to corn in 1974 than was devoted
to corn in 2007, more nitrogen was applied to corn in 1974 than in
2007, and yet you are blaming the increase in nitrogen run-off on
corn. Hmmmmm

Ed


From: Steve on
C. E. White wrote:

> "Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message

>>Thank you ever so much, "environmentalists." But I have no doubt
>>that they'll find a way to put the blame on something other than the
>>corn surge due to ethanol....
>
>
> You mean like municipal waste treatment plants?

Who knows, but they'll find something that they aren't responsible for
and then lobby to shut it down.

>
> Now as for crop land being converted to corn...converted from what?
> There is very little crop land in the Mississippi river system that
> isn't already devoted to either corn, cotton, or wheat. All of these
> crops get similar amounts of nitrogen fertilizer.

They GET similar amounts, but the claim is that much more runs off from
corn than the others and winds up in the river.


>
> I am not sure that ethanol is the answer, but I also think that the
> anti-ethanol lobby is lying through their collective teeth. I know who
> is funding the pro-ethanol lobby. Who is funding the anti-ethanol
> lobby? I'd say follow the money......Who stands to loose the most if
> ethanol displaces a significant amount of foreign oil?

I don't know that there IS an anti-ethanol lobby, per se. I certainly
can't make it add up to being a winner just by balancing energy
in/energy out and considering the amount of cropland displaced for more
corn. Too bad we CAN'T really use sugar cane, but the climate is what it
is. Hey, maybe if we can get a little more global warming going, we will
be able to grow sugar in Iowa! :-p