Ethanol causes food prices to rise!

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU51A5pcre8

[Seraphim]

Who knew that destroying large portions of the supply of a product would cause said products price to rise?

Unforseeable, I tell you!

[TheNcredibleEgg]

The video does not tell the full story and the person being interviewed is somewhat disingenuous.

He only talks about the visible effects of ethanol - rising food prices.

He does not talk about the other less visible effects - cheaper oil prices. Yes, oil is cheaper because of ethanol. The country blends 10B+ gallons per year of ethanol gas. That's 10B gallons of oil gas we don't import.

Plus - the biggie - he implies the rise in corn (and other food) is ONLY due to ethanol. Total bunk. Yes, part of it is. But a big part of it also is simply due to the FED. If there was no ethanol whatsoever - food prices would still be substantially higher.

That being said - I'm not defending gov't policy towards ethanol. The free market should decide policy. There should be no mandate and no subsidies for it. (Some defenders of the subsidies will point out that oil has an indirect subsidy since the military spends so much defending it - but that should end also.)

[Matt Collins]

He does not talk about the other less visible effects - cheaper oil prices. Yes, oil is cheaper because of ethanol. The country blends 10B+ gallons per year of ethanol gas. That's 10B gallons of oil gas we don't import.From an economic standpoint ethanol takes more energy to make than it saves. It's a net loss.

Not to mention that it's fundamentally anti-freedom to have the government force you to use a specific product.

But of course the reason we have corn in our gas tank is because Iowa is first in the nation.



Plus - the biggie - he implies the rise in corn (and other food) is ONLY due to ethanol. Total bunk. Yes, part of it is. But a big part of it also is simply due to the FED. If there was no ethanol whatsoever - food prices would still be substantially higher.I think he was quite clear that it wasn't the only factor specifically disclaiming that point.

[nate895]

The video does not tell the full story and the person being interviewed is somewhat disingenuous.

He only talks about the visible effects of ethanol - rising food prices.

He does not talk about the other less visible effects - cheaper oil prices. Yes, oil is cheaper because of ethanol. The country blends 10B+ gallons per year of ethanol gas. That's 10B gallons of oil gas we don't import.

Plus - the biggie - he implies the rise in corn (and other food) is ONLY due to ethanol. Total bunk. Yes, part of it is. But a big part of it also is simply due to the FED. If there was no ethanol whatsoever - food prices would still be substantially higher.

That being said - I'm not defending gov't policy towards ethanol. The free market should decide policy. There should be no mandate and no subsidies for it. (Some defenders of the subsidies will point out that oil has an indirect subsidy since the military spends so much defending it - but that should end also.)

My radical leftist environmentalist biology went off on a rant against corn ethanol. Why? It takes more energy to produce corn ethanol than it produces.

Sugar and hemp ethanol are efficient. One's got a super tariff on it, and the other is illegal.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Ethanol also costs all of us in the wallet a different way...

Ethanol Subsidies and Import Tariffs... It's the American Taxpayers that are subsidizing the Ethanol Industry and Department of Commerce.

43% of the subsidies are newly created debt... Debt = Inflation Inflation = Hidden Tax of Americans


Almost everything the Federal Government intervenes and/or controls on Commerce/Capitalism costs the American People more.

[acptulsa]

Now then. Let's suppose for a moment that we end pay-not-to-grow farm subsidies. Admittely the net effect wouldn't be that large, as few of these subsidies go to real farmers and most go to the dude ranch playgrounds of ridiculously wealthy people. But I'll just bet it would be enough to greatly increase, for example, sunflower (biodiesel) and sawgrass (ethanol) production.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

From an economic standpoint ethanol takes more energy to make than it saves. It's a net loss.




That is a debatable argument. There are more recent studies that show a net energy gain due to the improved efficiencies in ethanol production in recent years.




But the critics have created an echo-chamber effect by repeating each others’ recycled canards about ethanol in a way that presents a veneer of validated truth. Take the issue of water use. Cornell University entomologist David Pimentel—the fountainhead of quasi-scholarship for the anti-ethanol movement—makes the bizarre claim that it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce a gallon of ethanol (if you count rainfall absorbed by corn plants as a bad thing). The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page gleefully repeats it. Walter Williams repeats it again. And so it goes, ad infinitum. Pimentel is also the source of the yarn—repeated by Williams—that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the ethanol itself contains. The critics never mention that it takes more energy to produce gasoline than the gasoline itself contains (because it takes petroleum-powered equipment to drill, transport and refine crude oil). Nor do they mention the fact that a substantial percentage of the energy required to produce ethanol is the free solar energy that makes plants grow. Details, details.




http://ethanolfactfictionreality.blogspot.com/2008/04/best-defense-is-truth.html

I don't think the answer is known for certain about net energy gain. That's why the free market ought to decide on ethanol. No subsidies. No mandates. Just let the market decide if it's beneficial to use. That's the only way to get the correct answer.

[acptulsa]

I consider them both red herrings. Don't know where they came from, but the oil industry has b.s.ed us before--many times. But I will say this. Factoring in the sunlight the corn absorbs is beyond disingenuous, and completely invalidates the argument by confirming it to be something other than a practical argument in nature. And citing water usage is disingenuous as well, as burning ethanol creates water as a major component of the exhaust output.

A renewable energy source created from solar energy and producing water as an exhaust component is just what they say we need, and on the face of it I don't know how it can be denied. It seems to me the only question remaining is, why aren't we growing sawgrass or hemp instead?

In the end, the only possible reason for this skewing of the discussion is someone has their hearts set on cap 'n trade, and renewable energy souces that don't require major reinvestments in either the equipment that produces it or the equipment that uses it will completely short-circuit that scheme.

[nate895]

That is a debatable argument. There are more recent studies that show a net energy gain due to the improved efficiencies in ethanol production in recent years.





http://ethanolfactfictionreality.blogspot.com/2008/04/best-defense-is-truth.html

I don't think the answer is known for certain about net energy gain. That's why the free market ought to decide on ethanol. No subsidies. No mandates. Just let the market decide if it's beneficial to use. That's the only way to get the correct answer.

Even assuming corn is a net positive, it still is way less efficient than hemp and sugar ethanol, neither of which are food staples. It would much more efficient for Congress to allow hemp farming and then have ethanol produced from that than corn. That idea is much better than taking corn meal from Mexican peasants.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

Even assuming corn is a net positive, it still is way less efficient than hemp and sugar ethanol, neither of which are food staples. It would much more efficient for Congress to allow hemp farming and then have ethanol produced from that than corn. That idea is much better than taking corn meal from Mexican peasants.

Yup - that's why I think no mandates or subsidies. Let the market work. (It works so well.)

One thing about hemp and/or sugar. If those were used instead of corn - those prices would skyrocket - perhaps making them less beneficial. And if hemp were grown, well, other things could not be grown. Just sayin'. But the market would sort that out also. And probably hemp would be the winner.

[nate895]

Yup - that's why I think no mandates or subsidies. Let the market work. (It works so well.)

One thing about hemp and/or sugar. If those were used instead of corn - those prices would skyrocket - perhaps making them less beneficial. And if hemp were grown, well, other things could not be grown. Just sayin'. But the market would sort that out also. And probably hemp would be the winner.

The problem of skyrocketing costs in those cases would be way offset by the fact that Congress is currently putting up barriers to their most efficient production. Also, there would not need to be many crops changed in the United States since we could simply use land that no one farms right now if we needed to.

[Matt Collins]

That is a debatable argument. There are more recent studies that show a net energy gain due to the improved efficiencies in ethanol production in recent years.It lowers gas mileage and causes premature wear.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

It lowers gas mileage and causes premature wear.

You keep changing the argument.

First it was net energy loss. I showed a source disputing that - so you now cite lower gas mileage and premature wear. I've heard that too. But I also heard that's only true in older models.

So instead of just hating on ethanol for the sake of hating on ethanol, why not just let the market decide? As simplistic as this is : the market knows best. And it will decide correctly the role for ethanol in our economy (if the market is allowed to function properly.)

[Matt Collins]

You keep changing the argument.)I haven't changed the argument, I just keep piling on more reasons why ethanol is a "bad concept". And no, you haven't disproved the fact that ethanol is a net loss in terms of energy.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

I haven't changed the argument, I just keep piling on more reasons why ethanol is a "bad concept". And no, you haven't disproved the fact that ethanol is a net loss in terms of energy.

Oh, and you have proved it is a net loss in energy?

You can't and I can't. That's my whole point. The market will prove it for us - if allowed to function. (But I don't consider ethanol a "bad concept," per se. At least not until the market has decided is it a bad concept.)

[Matt Collins]

Oh, and you have proved it is a net loss in energy?

You can't and I can't. That's my whole point. The market will prove it for us - if allowed to function. (But I don't consider ethanol a "bad concept," per se. At least not until the market has decided is it a bad concept.)
No, this isn't a market preference, it's a fact. It's a scientific fact. When ethanol is produced and put into gasoline, does it cost more energy than it saves? And of course the answer is yes.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

And of course the answer is yes.

Source it then. Where's you proof?

I've seen some flawed studies which count rainwater as water and sunlight as energy against ethanol. But I have not seen a clean study. Plus I hope it is an apple to apple comparison vs the total expenses of producing gasoline - since my source says using the same standards that gasoline is a net energy loss also.

And since you are so cemented in your belief, I'm assuming you have a source?

(I honestly want to read it.)

[acptulsa]

It lowers gas mileage and causes premature wear.

Does it take more ethanol than gasoline to go the same distance in the same car at the same speed? Yes. The energy content is lower. Does it cause premature wear? Maybe. Cars today are made with rubber lines in the fuel system that can stand up to it. This leaves only the question of does alchohol dilute the oil. And it does--if and only the car has weak rings and 'blow-by'. But engines are also built of better materials these days and they're tighter. Use synthetic oils and wear is reduced and retarded to the point where most of this is no longer an issue.

As to the question of whether there's a net energy gain or loss, the question is complex and, I suspect, too complex for a simple yes or no answer (or, at least, for a reliable one). But one thing is certain. These imperialistic oil wars are making homegrown fuels of any stripe well worth a try. And until we get to where we are doing this on a true wholesale level, we just aren't going to get better at it very quickly.

As for the notion that the sunlight absorbed by corn as it grows has a practical place in this equation, that is ridiculous. If that energy weren't used to produce the plant, it would fall on the ground and go to waste. Non-issue. Just a monkey wrench in the data, nothing more.