Sort of right, then sort of not right.
First, making it out of corn is "very" easy, relatively speaking. As in, easier to make it out of corn than other commodoties. But you guys hit on the problem, use the corn for ethanol, leaves less for feed grain. So the ethanol ind and the livestock farmers are butting heads for the same product. Supply-demand thing, corn $ go up, items corn is used for go up.They are working at developing the technology to make ethanol from cellulose, grass, leaves, etc. But it takes time. The cost of oil on the global mkt is now making it cost effective to develop that technology.

Supporting the American farmer- sort of. More accurate- supporting the Archer-Daniels-Midlands, the Cargills, etc. Ppl believe we are subsidizing the farmers, if the farmers were paid for the products they produced, they would not need price supports, etc. The ADM's and Cargills are really the ones making it big time. They pay the farmer less than production cost, and sell at world mkt prices. We, (American ppl via the Ag Dept, that's Gubment)) do not want the farmers broke, so we pay the difference. It is not that simplistic, but you get the jest.

Back to the ethanol - it does contain "less" energy (BTU)than oil based gas, as such, you have to burn a little more to get the same amount of energy to move your car/truck/bike. But the goal, as stated, is to break free of the OPECs. I see both sides of the debate. The one constant, there is a finite amount of oil contained in the ground, and no more is available when it is depleted. As oil gets more costly, it becomes cost effective to go after harder accessible oil. That's happening as we speak(type).

The kick in the teeth for farmers and us (American consumer) came back in ethanols infancy. It was actually a group of farmers who thought of and developed ethanol technology in the Midwest, in an effort to somehow boost their income and profits. They were going broke. Caught the oil cos. flat footed. The Gubment stepped in and put a moratorium on building new plants back then. Soon as the oil cos. caught up to the farmers, the moratorium was lifted. But I believe there is a little rectifying that took place, but may be wrong on that. Can pretty much bet the oil cos. have their hands in ethanol big time.

The last issue that is now coming to light, but not sure I totally agree, is the land usage issue we are now hearing about. More marginal land is being diverted to corn production, etc.This requires more use of fertilizers ( usually petroleum based), herbicides and pesticides. Otherwise the farmer has to use more intense farming practices which in turn gobble up more fuel. If you think it is expensive to fill the family car, imagine filling a 4WD tractor with a 250 gal tank, and doing it daily or evey other day. Sort of mind boggling at times.

There's more to the whole pic, but this is a HARLEY FORUM, not an energy forum. Hope I have not mis-informed anybody, and if there are other farm attached "bikers" here, PLEASE jump in and correct any errors here. Thank you, Gumby

 

Food costs are rising because the things we eat, pigs, cattle, chickens, turkey, etc. all eat grain based foods. Therefore when it gets more costly to feed them, they get more costly for people to eat.

Ethanol is only cheaper at the pump because we all pay higher taxes to bring down the price of ethanol.

Ethanol is not a money saver.

You can not grow it or produce it without burning diesel fuel that can be better used to produce better products.

If ethanol was truley a good alternative to oil, the free market would support it. But the market does not support it, government supports it. Government is not wise at spending money.

Global warming? Save the Earth with Ethanol? Remember when the midwest was under glaciers? They melted and receeded without any people here. What makes you think that any global climate change is anything other than a normal natural cycle? Because al gore said so?

The more you learn about ethanol, by doing actual research, not just listening to your favorite political hack at the moment, but actually studying about how ethanol is grown, harvested, and produced, and THINK, independantly, the more you will know ethanol is a bad idea, made worse by a government that thinks the answer to any "problem" is to spend tax dollars. Noname

 

But more importantly....What about the price of beer?

 

Let's see now...who markets ethanol? That's right, the OIL companies! They have a lock on the delivery system for fuel and therefore, any alternative fuels. Ethanol will have to be made from something besides corn before it is price competitive, and the oil companies will have to have a reason to get involved in production. Right now, they are making record setting profits on oil.

 

Ethanol is a thing of mystery here in the south. What blend would we run in our HD's? I don't have a manual handy but I think its something like a 90-10 mix or something like that. Do any of you run it and is it's perfromance any different than that of gasoline?

 

It's "way" too high, Mandog.Personally, I quit in '95. But when we go out, and I see/hear what a round costs now days, I shudder to think how much it would cost if I were still drinking at the pace I used to. WOW!!!!! I'd have had to sell "all" my bikes just to keep myself in beverage. The dillemma for you is the conversion of land use from small grain production to corn production, because the farmer can make more $$ growing and selling corn for ethanol than he can for growing barley for beer. Or would you like me to make it more complex?
[sm=joke.gif]Now, grab a cold one, and N JOY the show.

 

Now this is what is wrong with this country. Congress wasting millions of dollars on investigating Roger Clemens while the price of beer is going up.

 

[sm=exactly.gif] [sm=icon_cheers.gif]

 

Ethanol is being substituted for other fuel additives due to environmental concerns. It's kinda boring, but it tells you why Congress has mandated this action. Texas has been on a 90/10 blend for over a year (maybe two by now) with no known issues except for about a 10% reduction in MPG.



Washington-In a major environmental protection turnaround, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving to eliminate the leading gasoline additive, methyl butyl tertiary ether (MBTE), due to never-anticipated groundwater pollution problems arising from the use and storage of the additive.
"The administration is providing Congress with a legislative framework which, if fully adopted, will significantly reduce or eliminate MBTE," said EPA administrator Carol Browner. Also, under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the EPA issued an advance notice of proposed rule making to ban the additive from gasoline, she said.

"We are calling on Congress to amend the Clean Air Act in order to protect drinking water and to remove the requirement from the act that has led to a threefold increase in the use of MBTE, primarily in the last decade, while taking the unprecedented step of providing current levels for ethanol and other safe biofuels in gasoline," she said.
A panel Browner convened in 1998 concluded after six months of deliberation that MBTE did pose unique threats to water supplies and recommended phasing out the additive. That led to the EPAs 1999 request to Congress to phase.out the use of MBTE. The panel asked the EPA to ensure that replacements for the controversial fuel additive do not increase pollution.
"This has always been a difficult issue to deal with," said Bob Redding, Texas-based Automotive Services Association's Washington representative.

The U.S. Senate passed a nonbinding resolution in August 1999 supporting the ban. However, Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas argued that MBTE water contamination comes from leaky underground storage tanks, not from the chemical itself. He warned that replacing MBTE with ethanol is impractical because of supply and transport problems with ethanol and because ethanol vaporizes easily, posing a threat to air quality.
Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, a longtime advocate of ethanol as a fuel additive, drafted legislation to replace the Clean Air Act's federal mandate that reformulated gasoline contain at least 2% oxygenates-MBTE being one-with a mandate to increase the market for renewable fuels such as ethanol.
The genesis for replacement came from California, where MBTE showed up in drinking water. In December 1999, the California Air Resources Board approved gasoline standards eliminating MBTE by 1 January 2003.
In making its decision, the California board heard testimony from more than 50 groups, with representatives from the ethanol industry, the automotive industry, and environmentalists. After considering testimony, regulators voted to eliminate MBTE.

 

Agree. How many of us here remember "Gasohol"? We've been down this road before.
Better to work on hybrid and electric technology.