Will food prices be that proverbial straw?

Well, Joe made the point I came back to make(since I forgot to earlier). Yes, gas is a net loss but it's not a net loss to US. It's a net loss to the dinosaurs(assuming you accept that explanation for oil/coal). Ethanol is an immediate net loss for US, both in production and in relative to gasoline. That fact is what they refer to in citing production as a net loss.

GC70, the problem with your figures is they are literally for every bit of tillable land in the country. To produce that 60% they are using everything we have AND assuming all tillable land is also useful for producing source crops for ethanol. Obviously it isn't and we couldn't do it anyway. We can't commit more than 10 or 15% so we get maybe 9 or 10% in a real world maximum effort.
 
gc70

Thank you for that. I have a link to the CIA World Fact Book in my favorites and never gave it a thought :o

I checked your numbers and they are dead on so let me make this really big for all those reading this

I STAND CORRECTED

The numbers are disturbing from the standpoint that we would have absolutely nothing to eat; all of the seed crops would be displaced; no wheat, rapeseed, soybean, sugar cane, potato, vegetable crops; and we would still need to import 8,723,710 barrels of foreign oil every day to continue to run vehicles operated by drivers who have long ago died of starvation.
 
GC70, the problem with your figures is they are literally for every bit of tillable land in the country.
Click to expand...
No agenda here, just math. I saw the 17% cited, it did not look right, so I did the math and came up with a different answer.

jimpeel:
You, sir, are a gentleman.
 
Last edited:
oh excuuuuuse me, princess. I should have said procure. But anywho, yahoo answers is not a source and neither of those links actually works.
Click to expand...

If "I asked you for an answer, and you gave me an answer, and I don't like the answer, nor where you got the answer" is an answer then I guess you have answered my post.

I tried the links and knew they didn't work; but if I had not given them the accusation would have been "Why were you afraid to give the links?"

If you can come up with the correct numbers, not just "Nu-uh!", I will be more than happy to review your math, sources, cites, etc and get back to you; but consider this:

You have to factor into your equations all of the following:

Exploratory and laboratory costs
Infrastructure costs on a amortized basis
Drilling costs
Transportation costs
Refining costs
Transportation costs
Distribution costs

and you would find that you can STILL sell that product for under $3.50 / gallon (unlike milk) and make a paltry profit of $.09 / gallon.

So show me how much it truly costs in energy to procure one gallon of gas as opposed to getting out that 125,000 BTUs of energy. You already knoew that it takes 8,310 BTUs to refine one gallon of gasoline so you have but to find those remaining 116,690 BTUs.

Remember this, though. Pumping oil through pipelines, the most common method of transport, costs nearly nothing compared to the given result. Most tankers hold about 10 million gallons of oil but the newest supertankers -- Polar Resolution and Polar Endeavor, et al -- can transport 42 million gallons of oil in one trip. So the cost to turn the screws to move the ship forward plus the cost of the ship, amortized after every trip, etc., etc., etc. will have to be realized.

I hope you have a good calculator and, better yet, the wherewithal to even attempt the task.
 
GC70, the problem with your figures is they are literally for every bit of tillable land in the country.
Click to expand...

My assertion, based upon what I had heard the figures to be, was for every acre of tillable land in the U.S. so his figures were based upon that assertion.
 
I found this article interesting which puts this in even greater perspective. This has to do with cellulosic ethanol as opposed to corn ethanol and how common prairie grass is so much mor viable as a source of feedstock for ethanol production. It all sounds great until the figures at the end ...

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/reviews_third.cfm?NewsID=35051

The Promise of the Prairie

Searching for a biofuel that would produce more energy while releasing fewer or no greenhouse gases, Hill and fellow University of Minnesota scientists discovered a surprising potential solution. For a decade they have been measuring the energy outputs of various biofuels in the University's Cedar Creek Natural History Area. In a report released in December 2006, they announced that prairie grasses might just make better soldiers than crops in the battle against global warming.

Mixtures of native perennial grasses grown on marginal land and converted into cellulosic ethanol (ethanol produced from cellulose commonly found in plant walls) yield up to 238 percent more energy per acre than any single cultivated species such as corn, soybeans or sugarcane, they concluded. Another big advantage of cellulosic ethanol is that, in contrast to food-based biofuels, cultivating prairie grasses does not require fertilizers, irrigation, or pesticides. Prairie systems' massive root structures sequester carbon and propagate without tilling.

(WOW! This is sounding GREAT!)

Motivated by cellulosic ethanol's potential as a renewable energy source, private investors and governmental bodies worldwide have already invested approximately two billion dollars developing it, says Bill Holmberg, chair of the American Council on Renewable Energy. Despite this investment, cellulosic ethanol remains in the research stage. And while it should prove far more efficient than corn, soybeans and sugarcane, scientists estimate it would still require 1.25 billion acres of mixed prairie grass to supply just 15 percent of the world's energy needs.

(Uh, oh, here it comes ...)

This massive amount of land is larger than the United States, Australia, China and Mexico combined. (Ouch! That hurt!) The push for biofuels could sacrifice cropland, homes and prized wilderness areas. Environmentalists say they are particularly worried because wildlife conservation reserve programs that protect millions of U.S. acres are due to expire and could be used instead for biofuel production.

Dick Kempka, a director at the U.S.-based conservation organization Ducks Unlimited warned that "when it comes to global warming, we have to look at all sides and impacts. People are just starting to realize that biofuels are no silver bullet. Instead, it will take a shotgun with a lot of BB's. "
Click to expand...
 
"I firmly believed, nowbeit incorrectly, that those who assemble here would have the wherewithall and good sense to know that ethanol is not being manufactured using the same material it is being produced to replace."

WHAT?

Where the hell did I EVER say that?

I'll save you the trouble.

I didn't.

But, that would be interesting...

Making ethanol from gasoline!

Would that easy your panicking about the price of tortillas in Monterey, Mexico?



"I am merely addressing the reality of the downside effects on the food supply that ethanol production may have on the political and economic aspects in the United States."


No, you're coming in here screaming panic, the sky is falling, or I should say the food supply is drying up, at the top of your lungs as if it is a foregone conclusion that the big, nasty ADMs and Conagras are going to, on purpose, starve the world just to maximize their ethanol profits.

Your bottom line insinuation is, right now, people are starving and a hairbreadth away from rioting because of the jump in corn prices and it is ALL due to the evil, Satanic specter of ethanol looming over our heads like a noose ready to snap.

What next, that the jump in oil prices is a move by the Bildabergers to force a shift to ethanol so that people will starve so that repressive governments can seize control so that the herd can be culled down to a more manageable size?

As I've tried to point out, there are a number of SERIOUSLY problematic issues with your contentions, first and foremost that the prices of corn and oil are independent and one doesn't affect the other.

Another is the apparent belief that ethanol is it. It's all that's left. We've no other options to play. When you get right down to it, there are one hell of a lot of people in the United States and elsewhere who are already having to make that kind of decision on a daily basis, and ethanol isn't involved... Home heating or food... Gas to get to work or food... My medications or food...

I'm sorry, but in this sense, you're no better, and are perhaps worse than, the NIMBYs you apparently dislike so much. You just have a different acronym associated with your particular crusade -- DTMTIEF.... Don't Turn My Tortillas Into Ethanol Fuel!
 
And while it should prove far more efficient than corn, soybeans and sugarcane, scientists estimate it would still require 1.25 billion acres of mixed prairie grass to supply just 15 percent of the world's energy needs.

This massive amount of land is larger than the United States, Australia, China and Mexico combined.
Click to expand...

Since the US has a land area of 2.3 billion acres (see #57), I will assume the author meant "larger than the arable land in the United States, Australia, China and Mexico combined" (926 million acres).

Sorry to be picky about the numbers, but I find that many advocacy articles tell a better story if they don't stick strictly to the facts.
 
"Claiming that a gallon of gasoline gives you more energy than it took to get that gallon of gasoline ignores basic laws of physics."

No. The energy required to process some material that already contains scads of energy into a useable form does not necessarily take as much or greater energy than you get from the useable form. If I cut down an oak tree for firewood, I use a quart or two of gasoline for my chain saw, a gallon or so for my splitter, and a bowl or two of Wheaties for me. The energy returned as heat when I burn the wood is far greater.

Tim
 
I don't think there is a 'silver bullet' that will solve our energy needs. Oil, ethanol, bio-diesel, coal, hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, and ??? should all be part of an integrated plan for energy independence and, ultimately, sustainability. Unfortunately, powering the nation is BIG business, meaning that policy will largely be driven by short-term profitability rather than the long-term good of the country.
 
Where the hell did I EVER say that?

I'll save you the trouble.

I didn't.

But, that would be interesting...

Making ethanol from gasoline!
Click to expand...

Oh, Mike, Mike Mike. Of course you didn't say that ethanol is made from gasoline. What idiocy that would have been. I, of course, didn't say you said that either. You just thought that's what I said.

Here is what I posted, that you reposted, and you still didn't get it.
"I firmly believed, nowbeit incorrectly, that those who assemble here would have the wherewithall and good sense to know that ethanol is not being manufactured using the same material it is being produced to replace."
Click to expand...
They make ethanol from corn and they use fossil fuels to process it. I am sorry you read that wrong but in retrospect I can see how that could happen. Ethanol is not made from fossil fuels it is made using fossil fuels to process corn into ethanol. I hope that salves the wound.

Would that easy your panicking about the price of tortillas in Monterey, Mexico?
Click to expand...

I believe that the riots occurred in Mexico City and were small in nature; but the Mexican government had to take steps to control the price of corn. Perhaps it is okay in the eyes of some Americans that poor people starve so they can drive their private conveyances.

No, you're coming in here screaming panic, the sky is falling, or I should say the food supply is drying up, at the top of your lungs as if it is a foregone conclusion that the big, nasty ADMs and Conagras are going to, on purpose, starve the world just to maximize their ethanol profits.
Click to expand...

Actually, I have no problem with ConAgra or ADM whatsoever. I wish them the same success I do all American businesses which supply a needed good or service.

My problem is with the politicians who are beating this drum of ethanol being the panacea that will lift us out of foreign oil dependence. Re-read my thread header and you will see, perhaps finally, that I have no enmity toward business. Did you simply not read what I posted? Did you miss these gems?

the usual unintended consequences that politicians never seem to address. This time, however, the very food supply of the nation is at risk as they (politicians) sing their siren song "ethhhhhanoooollllll".

...

Food riots in Mexico over the price of the tortilla were narrowly averted by the government stepping in and placing price controls on corn.

...

Farmers are switching to corn crops for the ethanol subsidies (That would be the government giving those subsidies, not the farmers, ADM, or Con Agra, or "Big Agri")

...

... burn up its food supply to satisfy a political agenda

...

(and then I urged you to do this)

When your legislators have their (politicians) open houses in your area, you need to get in there and tell them (politicians) what they (politicians) are doing and how it is affecting the economy at large -- especially the food supply. Make them (politicians) understand that they (politicians) do not want to be on the receiving end of the enmity of a starving people.
Click to expand...

I didn't urge you to write to Con Agra or ADM or any other agruicultural entity. I urged you to speak to your legislator. But I guess you missed that, too.

What next, that the jump in oil prices is a move by the Bildabergers to force a shift to ethanol so that people will starve so that repressive governments can seize control so that the herd can be culled down to a more manageable size?
Click to expand...

You sure can make up one steaming pile of BS out of one single post, can't you? Wow!

First of all, I never said anything about any conspiracies or plots to overthrow the government nor to slaughter the population to a manageable size. If I would have mentioned the Bilderbergers I would have at least gotten the spelling correct; but I didn't.

As I've tried to point out, there are a number of SERIOUSLY problematic issues with your contentions, first and foremost that the prices of corn and oil are independent and one doesn't affect the other.
Click to expand...

I never stated that the rush to ethanol was the sole driving force in the increase in the cost of food. I didn't think that I needed to detail, ad infinitum, every aspect of those forces. Apparemntly, you did need me to do so. Again, I simply failed in that "wherewithal and good sense" thing. Sorry about that.

Another is the apparent belief that ethanol is it. It's all that's left. We've no other options to play. When you get right down to it, there are one hell of a lot of people in the United States and elsewhere who are already having to make that kind of decision on a daily basis, and ethanol isn't involved... Home heating or food... Gas to get to work or food... My medications or food...
Click to expand...

This entire paragraph is outta left field. I don't know what you are talking about. I have never said that "ethanol is it" or "It's all that's left" or "no other options to play". You simply made all of that up.

Shifting, or attempting to shift, the debate onto other economic issues such as heating, and medical issues is disingenuous.

I'm sorry, but in this sense, you're no better, and are perhaps worse than, the NIMBYs you apparently dislike so much. You just have a different acronym associated with your particular crusade -- DTMTIEF.... Don't Turn My Tortillas Into Ethanol Fuel!
Click to expand...

First of all, Peel is a purely English name. I am not Mexican. If I were, my last name would be Cascara. Second of all, I am not the only one talking about this. Read the next post and see what I mean.
 
Maybe Livestock owners, food manufacturers, international charitable groups, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Turkey Federation, National Chicken Council, Tyson's, Grocery Manufacturers Association, Coca-Cola, and Ducks Unlimited see the Bilderbergers lurking in the wings also.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/colum...10094&mod=RSS_Opinion_Journal&ojrss=frontpage

POTOMAC WATCH

Ethanol's Bitter Taste
Congress is choking on corn-based fuel.

BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Friday, May 18, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

It was a scant two years ago that Georgia's Saxby Chambliss voted with 73 other giddy senators for an energy bill that required the nation to use 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol. Georgia's farmers loved corn-based ethanol; Georgia's agri-businesses loved corn-based ethanol; and all that meant that then-Agriculture Committee Chairman Chambliss loved corn-based ethanol, too.

Earlier this year, Mr. Chambliss introduced a bill calling for even greater ethanol use, though with one striking difference: The bill caps the amount of that fuel that can come from corn. Turns out Georgia's chicken farmers hate corn-based ethanol; Georgia's pork producers hate corn-based ethanol; Georgia's dairy industry hates corn-based ethanol; Georgia's food producers hate corn-based ethanol; Georgia's hunters hate corn-based ethanol. And all that means Mr. Chambliss has had to find a new biofuels religion.

The shine is off corn ethanol, and oh, what a comedown it has been. It was only in January that President Bush was calling for a yet a bijillion more gallons of the wonder-stuff in his State of the Union address, and Iowa's Chuck Grassley was practically doing the Macarena in his seat. And why shouldn't Mr. Grassley and fellow ethanol handmaidens have boogied? They'd forced their first mandate through Congress, corn farmers were rolling in dough, billions in taxpayer dollars were spurring dozens of new ethanol plants--and here was the commander-in-chief calling for yet more yellow dollars. All in the name of national security, too!

Corn ethanol seemed unstoppable, but a remarkable thing happened on the road from Des Moines. Just as the smart people warned, the government's decision to play energy market God and forcibly divert huge amounts of corn stocks into ethanol has played havoc with key sectors of the economy. Corn prices have nearly doubled, which means livestock owners can't afford to feed their animals, and food and drink manufacturers are struggling to buy corn and corn syrup. Environmentalists are sour over new stresses on farmland; international aid groups are moaning that the U.S. is cutting back its charitable food giving, and many of these folks are taking out their anger on Congress.

Call it a case study in how a powerful lobby can overplay its hand. While many members are still publicly touting corn ethanol, privately they are quietly backing away from another round of corn-mania. The most extraordinary sign was the Senate Energy Committee's recent ethanol bill, hailed by Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Pete Domenici as "bipartisan" legislation for more "homegrown fuels." What the committee didn't mention in its press release was that it had built the legislation around Mr. Chambliss's cap on corn ethanol (at 15 billion gallons), and that the rest of the 32 billion-gallon-a-year mandate would have to come from other (still imaginary) sources, say switchgrass. The bill passed 20-3.

It's taken politicians a while to catch on to these anti-ethanol vibes, but they've now got the picture. At an agriculture conference in Indianapolis last fall, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns and EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson spoke, delivering their usual fare about how ethanol was the greatest thing since sliced corn bread. They expected warm applause; in the past the entire ag community united around helping their brother corn farmers make a buck. But now that ethanol is literally taking food from their beasts' mouths, much of that community has grown less friendly. According to one attendee, Messrs. Daniels, Johanns and Johnson were later slammed with snippy ethanol questions from angry livestock owners, much to their dazed surprise. Word is that even the presidential candidates--who usually can say no wrong about ethanol while touring the Midwest--are having to be more selective about where they make their remarks.

Things are even hotter in Washington, where lobbying groups are firming up their positions against corn ethanol. The hugely influential National Cattlemen's Beef Association has gone so far as to outline a series of public demands, including an end to any government tax credits (subsidies) for ethanol and an axe to the import tariff on foreign ethanol. Put another way, the cattlemen are so angry that they are demanding free markets and free trade--a first. Maybe ethanol really is a miracle fuel. In any event, expect the ethanol call to get harder for Plains state senators such as Max Baucus, Ben Nelson and Byron Dorgan.

The National Turkey Federation estimates its feed costs have gone up nearly $600 million annually and is surely letting loose on members from turkey states such as Minnesota and Missouri. The National Chicken Council, which represents companies that produce, process and market chickens, has been hitting the southern political caucus, putting pressure on senators from big poultry states such as Georgia, Arkansas and Alabama. Chicken giant Tyson's, the second largest employer in Arkansas (after Wal-Mart), even felt the need to warn about the effect of rising corn prices on its business in its first quarter earnings statement. Food and drink manufacturers, which rely heavily on corn and corn syrup for their products, are also making the Washington rounds. The Grocery Manufacturers Association this week called for Congress to undertake a study before it imposed a bigger ethanol mandate. Soft-drink companies such as Coca-Cola (of Mr. Chambliss's Georgia) are also up in arms.

From the other side, green groups are grousing about the environmental consequences of intensive corn farming. International aid organizations are complaining that ethanol is raising the overall cost of food and diverting grain from poor countries. Ducks Unlimited, part of Washington's "hooks and bullets" conservation lobby, sported a recent article in its magazine complaining that farmers are taking idle land out of conservation programs--land currently home to ducks--and using it for corn farming again.

All this pressure is beginning to hit home. Ethanol isn't going away anytime soon; you can't unring a bill. But senators are said to be readying amendments to offer to the new ethanol bill that would use triggers or waivers to further water down the corn element. Turns out there are huge economic consequences to Congress micromanaging energy policy, and all to aid its campaign donors in agribusiness. A lesson the U.S. is now learning the hard way.

Ms. Strassel is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, based in Washington. Her column appears Fridays.
Click to expand...
 
What next, that the jump in oil prices is a move by the Bildabergers to force a shift to ethanol so that people will starve so that repressive governments can seize control so that the herd can be culled down to a more manageable size?
Click to expand...
Nah, just that the emphasis on biofuels will keep gasoline prices high.

No, really.

Oil Industry Scales Back Refinery Plans

WASHINGTON (AP) - A push from Congress and the White House for huge increases in biofuels, such as ethanol, is prompting the oil industry to scale back its plans for refinery expansions. That could keep gasoline prices high, possibly for years to come. With President Bush calling for a 20 percent drop in gasoline use and the Senate now debating legislation for huge increases in ethanol production, oil companies see growing uncertainty about future gasoline demand and little need to expand refineries or build new ones.
Click to expand...
 
Anyway, it seems that the issue, according to the previous WSJ post is being addressed at the business level. The people will continue to be good little sheep and will never rise up against the government en masse to change the mess we have become.

I am not espousing armed uprising or conflict. I am merely stating that a food crisis might be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back and would bring the people to their feet and the politicians to their knees. They, however, seem to already be getting the message. Hopefully, the entire mess will go away but as the WSJ article clearly states "you can't unring a bill".

This thread degraded to some sort of strange pod thread right out of "The Thread Snatchers" and never addressed the issue from the political ramifications to those in the government who are touting and driving this agenda.

If the mods close it now it will be no problem with me.
 
Redworm

That being said, it's IMPOSSIBLE to get more energy out of something than you put into it.

For the last time, NO IT IS NOT in the particular case.

Remember, in all cases of figuring out the efficiency of using a renewable fuel, we are not taking into account the energy that the sun adds into the equation. That energy is "free". It does not cost us anything. What we are figuring out by the efficiency of a energy source is how much energy is needed to convert that "free" energy from the sun into a form that is useful to us humans. We do not have to provide the energy to make the tree grow.

In TimRB's example. He lists the energy that he must provide to convert a tree, that is full of stored solar energy, into a fuel that is useful to him. It costs him 1.5 gallons of gasoline and two bowls of food to turn that tree into a fuel that is useful to him.

Look at a Hydroelectric plant. Once we have built it, the energy is essentially free. The only energy we have to put in is the energy needed to build and maintain the dam. The energy that moves the water from sea level high onto land is provided from the sun. The same applies to windmills.

You are missing an essential variable in your thinking, the sun. Once you factor in the energy from the sun, then yes you will get less energy out of a fuel that what went into create it.
 
gc70

:eek: WOW! :eek:

For years the oil companies wanted to build more refineries and the enviros stood in their way with lawsuits and environmental impact study after environmental impact study. Now that the price of oil is up, and they have the free dollars to upgrade and improve, this whole ethanol business throws a wrench into the works.

They are thinking like what buggywhip manufacturers must have been thinking in 1910. "Put a hold on that next order for leather strips, Miss Bromley."
 
Ah, so. Perhaps this is what got the 17% thing going in my head. I remember seeing this before but I seem to also remember some talking head give the 17% figure.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0521/p09s02-coop.html

President Bush has set a target of replacing 15 percent of domestic gasoline use with biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) during the next 10 years, which would require almost a fivefold increase in mandatory biofuel use, to about 35 billion gallons. With current technology, almost all of this biofuel would have to come from corn because there is no feasible alternative. However, achieving the 15 percent goal would require the entire current US corn crop, which represents a whopping 40 percent of the world's corn supply. This would do more than create mere market distortions; the irresistible pressure to divert corn from food to fuel would create unprecedented turmoil.
Click to expand...
 
Oh Jim Jim Jim...

"I firmly believed, nowbeit [sic] incorrectly, that those who assemble here would have the wherewithall [sic] and good sense to know that ethanol is not being manufactured using the same material it is being produced to replace."

Yep, that statement can certainly be read in any of several different ways. That's certainly not my problem.

"Ethanol is not made from fossil fuels it is made using fossil fuels to process corn into ethanol. I hope that salves the wound."

True. But even if none of that corn was made into ethanol there would still be fossil fuel use to process it.

And corn prices would STILL rise because the price of oil rises.






"Just as the smart people warned, the government's decision to play energy market God and forcibly divert huge amounts of corn stocks into ethanol has played havoc with key sectors of the economy."

Great. Another quote from another individual who thinks that the rise in oil prices has had NOTHING to do with the doubling of the cost of corn.

So, oil prices could double, or even triple, and there'd be no economic effect, right? But if one ear of corn is turned into one drop of ethanol, that's the smoking gun for the rise in corn prices.

Right.


"Perhaps it is okay in the eyes of some Americans that poor people starve so they can drive their private conveyances."

The world is a harsh place. It always has been, and it always will be.

"Actually, I have no problem with ConAgra or ADM whatsoever. I wish them the same success I do all American businesses which supply a needed good or service."

Wow.

WOW.

That has to be one of the most convoluted justifications/rationalizations I have EVER read.

It's ALL the politician's faults, but NONE of the fault lies with the American corporations.

You know, those corporations? The ones who are turning all the corn into ethanol and, by direct action, starving all the poor?

No blame? None at all for them?

In other words, capitalism as a business enterprise is fine, but capitalism as a political bastion of our government is evil.

Unfriggingbelievable.


"You sure can make up one steaming pile of BS out of one single post, can't you? Wow!"

The only BS here is being peddled by you, Sir.

We're all going to starve to death because of the evil politicians who promote ethanol, but the companies that actually produce the ethanol? Hey, they're hunky dory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top