This story is archived
Ethanol Fuel from Corn Faulted as 'Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning' »
Posted by: STONERS 1 year, 10 months agoNeither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what Cornell University agricultural scientist, David Pimentel, calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces.
Read Full Story at healthandenergy.com »
Submitted By:
STONERS
Welcome to my profile...I've started a ""STONERS Daily News Group"" Please stop by and have a look and join if you like it ...
Who Also Submitted:
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 54
-
TheRealizer
Jan. 22, 2008, 2:59 p.m.Thanks for the thread STONERS, Maybe if the tax payer would look a this boongogle they would see how badly they are being fleeced.
Corn ethanol is a gift to the corporate farm and supplier lobby, which will do nothing to help either the fuel supply or the price of food.
-
Gransater
Jan. 22, 2008, 5:01 p.m.How long before the public in general realizes that this ethanol fuel is only good for raising the cost of our food.
Its time to develop alternatives to the combustion engine. In the long run, not only would it be good for our pocketbook, but also for the environment.
-
-
doppich
Jan. 22, 2008, 6:10 p.m.Although I don't quarrel with the statistics in the article, ethanol is portable energy, which coal, nuclear, solar, tidal, wind, and geothermal are not. I think there are reasons - security and trade balances for a couple - for converting some domestic non-oil energy into portable ethanol to replace some imported oil.
-
Radiofreeeuropa
Jan. 22, 2008, 7:07 p.m.Doppich is correct. This is really an old technology, Model T's ran on ethanol. We only switched to petrol because at the time it was cheaper to produce. For various reasons but primarily because it is easily renewable, ethanol has a role to play. I believe with research and development it would likely become more efficient too. The large corporate farms are no worse (and at this moment perhaps far more palatable) than the oil corporations and the OPEC cartel. That's one king kong sized monkey I'd like off my back. Bottom line- no magic bullet. But plenty of reasons to pursue this and other promising fuel sources. Hydrogen, found in air and water.... the most abundant element in the universe. Let's see what can be done there too. The cars exist, the method of delivery and processing need some further development.
-
globalwarmer
Jan. 22, 2008, 7 p.m.Thanks Stoners, what will it take to stop the madness! Its hard to imagine that the powers that be would not know this would only cause more inflation! This has not been a secret, it has been known for quite some time that it is not sustainable and the other sad thing is, it takes funding away from other sources that could be developed or promoted.
But then again I don't have a corn farm in Nebraska.
-
MightyMouth
Jan. 22, 2008, 7:19 p.m.Dopp did you even read the artical?!!!!!!!!!!
The production of Ethanol uses more fossil fuel than the ammount of Ethanol netted in the end. More and more farmers are turning to corn because it is more profitable than other grain crops. One such grain that is now suffering is Barley. Why is this important? Well, Barley (more specifically malted barley) is a key ingredient in making beer!!!!! So...higher prices for barley=higher prices for beer!!!!!
This is merely one small side effect of this whole Ethanol scam. You can bet some where some relative(s) of a high ranking Gov offical(s) is making a killing on this.
-
-
1-2-Oscar
Jan. 22, 2008, 7:44 p.m.Congressman John Tanner, a Blue-Dog Democrat, has been one of the leading proponents of ethanol production. To boost production he has arranged for more than $100 million in subsidies for the construction of a single small processing plant in his district. That is the REAL secret of ethanol--it allows our elected officials to channel tax monies into their own districts.
Of course, Congresspersons and Senators from Southern and Midwestern states where a lot of corn is grown will support these expenditures because they will drive up farm prices and make their constituents happy, but the big payoffs are in extra "earmarks" for leading legislators. But we know that the number of these "earmarks" will increase exponentially with the passage of time. Mr. Pimentel is absolutely correct--we are throwing our money away and not solving our fuel problem. What we are solving is Congressman Tanner's re-election problem.
-
-
Dionys
Jan. 22, 2008, 9:23 p.m.What everyone forgets is Mexico. People are starving because of the rise in price of the basic staple of Corn (GMO or not). How long before they start rioting?
-
klr60
Jan. 22, 2008, 9:26 p.m.WVa is in the process of converting coal to gasoline,diesel, & much more. There will be 5 plants in the next 3 years. This will be absolutely clean coal-no sulphur emissions. The US has at least 100 years of coal-can't we give it a try?
-
IcCaRus
Jan. 22, 2008, 10:43 p.m.the proper source for biofuels (ethanol) is industrial hemp, NOT corn...
-
-
Ratskii
Jan. 22, 2008, 11:04 p.m.Corn and soybeans for ethanol is stupid. Switchgrass and canola are more economical to grow and provide more ethanol.
-
canadianrancher57
Jan. 22, 2008, 11:10 p.m.One argument I have against the artical is when the price of growing corn is factored into the price, alot of this land would lkely be growing corn any ways so we should throw that part out, as for the rest of the artical no arguments. For any one who thinks that ethanol is a green fuel think again, one of the biproducts of fermentation is carbon dioxide, so fermenting any bio mass will not be a green solution. As for hydrogen fuel cells the two types they have are both not worthy either, one used low grade hydrocarbon gas such as methane to get hydrogen but releases CO2 and the other uses pure hydrogen which results in a net loss of energy because of the energy needed to produce pure hydrogen. The solution to the price and pollution issue is the number of internal combustion engines needs to be reduced plane and simple. The solution is electric trains, buses, subways, ect. there will always have to be a certain number of internal combustion engines for specific tasks.(continued)
-
canadianrancher57
Jan. 22, 2008, 11:13 p.m.Henery Fords idea of a vechicle for everyone has to go, this is something that our planet cannot sustain.
-
dheg
Jan. 23, 2008, 12:33 a.m.Ok, the article states "His findings are published in the September, 2001 issue of the Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology "
That was over 7 years ago folks. I think that this argument is dated. We heard a lot of this type of 'ethanol not viable' whining but it has mostly been put to rest.
After Pimentel published his article, it was discredited - read this rebuttal to Pimentel's arguments.
http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_rooster.html
They state, for instance "Pimentel's analysis is based upon older data, and contains a number of inaccuracies."
That was older data 7 years ago. What validity does it have now?
Ethanol is probably not our way out of this energy mess, but I think it has a place in the big picture.
-
JohnQPublicComment has been removed: Retracted by user
-
getreal1
Jan. 23, 2008, 9 a.m.No matter what the public comes up with to find cheaper ways to live the Rich are going to find a way to stop it or capitalize on it leaving us out of the receiving line. For years they pay farmers not to grow enough food just so big grocery lines can keep a monopoly. They keep marijuana off the market because it would be too cheap and make life too affordable. It grows real well in abundance, can be turned into fuel and is good for medical ills. This plant would give the world some peace.
-
Justice4All
Jan. 23, 2008, 8:54 a.m.Corn is the wrong crop to produce sugar from. It's great for making farmers rich, but not a great source of sugar for ethanol.
Something like hemp is much more efficient. Easier to grow and a better yield of ethanol.
-
simonsez
Jan. 23, 2008, 9:48 a.m.What about corn stalks into ethanol?
We grow so much corn ... what do we do with the stalks?
Do they just plow them under for fertilizer?
-
Cityslicker
Jan. 23, 2008, 10:24 a.m.My God you people just figuring this out .
Moonshiners for years used Corn but does not mean it can't be made from something else , but GM Corn is not for human consumption so why raise the price for the public .
Oh if is is not dependent on Oil why does it prices rise right along with Gasoline or it is just as high as Gasoline .
Don't buy the scam , "Once it is more widely available it will go down in price" , just like anything else once the price has risen it is hard to get the price down , greed sits in .
Rubber Band cars , no emissions , sound like foolish gibberish , so does most of any talk of alternative fuel , we get what the greedy wants us to have and only if they can continue to make a profit from it .
Sheep , bah , bah , follow in single file !
-
chevydog
Jan. 23, 2008, 12:46 p.m.Seems to me that in order to do the analysis, the guy had to make multiple assumptions about corn yields, power sources and costs, and all sorts of other things in the supply chain. It's in the nature of industrial processes to change, generally for the better. Especially when the chain is this complex. Given that, I wouldn't be surprised if the analysis was outdated the day it was completed--perhaps sooner.
-
brothermichaelComment has been removed: Retracted by user
-
crespi
Jan. 23, 2008, 12:54 p.m.I'm worried about a forced choice between the wealthy driving, or the poor eating...
Who will win that one?
-
joeblowe
Jan. 23, 2008, 12:55 p.m.Here we see clearly illustrated that using ethanol - at the current state of development - doesn't make sense. It's clear that a better way to make ethanol needs to be found. The problem is that land currently being used to grow corn or other human feedstocks will have to be diverted to grow... hemp? Sugar cane? Whatever.... it will still cause the price of food to go up. What we need is for someone to figure out a good way to make ethanol from WEEDS. They are free, and grow right along WITH the foodstock. {8>D)=
-
ETproductions
Jan. 23, 2008, 1:22 p.m.Ethanol is only a step in the right direction even if done in a energy positive way. Corn is NOT the answer. It can be made with 26% more energy output than input, but that's not a good return. Sugar cane and saw grass both provide much better energy returns, and save corn for food and good whiskey where it belongs.
Oh, and for all you fossil fuel fans, it takes more energy to provide a gallon of gasoline than the gasoline yields. So guess again, Exxon Mobil stockholders. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-02-01...
-
brothermichaelComment has been removed: Retracted by user
All 54 comments are shown.
Submit a Story
Advertisement
