Ethanol efficiency - Page 4 - The Combine Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #31 of 37 (permalink) Old 12-07-2013, 08:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SW Manitoba.
Posts: 4,800
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dairy7820 View Post
The oil companies are in the business of making money, just like any other business. You say that they would never sell it no matter how cheap it was but I would be willing to bet they would, it would just need to be profitable. They would be selling ethanol if it made them money but it obviously still doesn't, at least not on the scale that oil does. It's business 101.

I already mentioned the hypocrisy in farmers being for ethanol subsidies but against gov't involvement any other time. It goes for subsidies as a whole and it's pathetic. That's my biggest complaint with the entire ethanol industry is that they used the taxpayer's money to fund their start-up. If it were any other industry, we'd all be up in arms about it.

As far as efficiency goes, ethanol may be more efficient in it's production process, mostly because of the fact that it does use the sun as opposed to other methods but you must also take into account how much more ethanol you must burn per mile than gasoline or diesel because it contains less energy per gallon. I would be interested to see the true energy use per mile for each source of energy throughout the entire production process. But I'm sure that won't ever happen
Luckily the US hasn't spent millions in the Middle East protecting Americas cheap oil supply and luckily that was the governments money not tax payers. Also luckily we can't put a price on human lives or tax the public to replace dead soldiers so their wives and kids can have a dad and husband. But building the economy in the US, jobs, money that is spent over and over again bringing tax dollars back every time. I doubt the ethanol subsidy cost the tax payers ten percent of what the total of the subsidy actually was. I personally thought it was genius and I don't even live in the US. A big step to oil independence and a huge boost to the US economy at a time when it really needed it.





mbfarmer is offline  
post #32 of 37 (permalink) Old 12-07-2013, 11:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunninREDharD View Post
I never thought about that and you are correct. Wood is another form of energy which is made from the sun and we can burn for nothing. I think someone could do a better job of explaining that instead of coming up with numbers without the research. Oh, where did you get your numbers from? I would like to read that article out of interest.
I did a Yahoo search of efficiency of ethanol, the numbers came form University of Nebraska, University of Minnesota.

NCRC5315 is offline  
post #33 of 37 (permalink) Old 12-07-2013, 11:41 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dairy7820 View Post
The oil companies are in the business of making money, just like any other business. You say that they would never sell it no matter how cheap it was but I would be willing to bet they would, it would just need to be profitable. They would be selling ethanol if it made them money but it obviously still doesn't, at least not on the scale that oil does. It's business 101.

I already mentioned the hypocrisy in farmers being for ethanol subsidies but against gov't involvement any other time. It goes for subsidies as a whole and it's pathetic. That's my biggest complaint with the entire ethanol industry is that they used the taxpayer's money to fund their start-up. If it were any other industry, we'd all be up in arms about it.

As far as efficiency goes, ethanol may be more efficient in it's production process, mostly because of the fact that it does use the sun as opposed to other methods but you must also take into account how much more ethanol you must burn per mile than gasoline or diesel because it contains less energy per gallon. I would be interested to see the true energy use per mile for each source of energy throughout the entire production process. But I'm sure that won't ever happen
If you think that oil companies would sell ethanol if they could make money at it, then why do they spend so much money to kill off. Ethanol is a threat to their market share. In 2011, the US military, spent $82,000,000,000, just to protect the oil shipping lanes, is this not an indirect subsidy to the oil companies? This doesn't take into account the billions spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I realize ethanol is not a solution in of itself, but it can be part of a total overall energy solution. Another thing to remember, is that there are no, no-fly zones over any US ethanol plants, no US military personal have ever been killed protecting a US ethanol plant, and I'm, pretty sure, that none of the dollars we spend on ethanol, finds its way to a middle eastern terrorist organization. Last of all, can you image what would happen to the price of fuel, if suddenly 10% of the fuel supply was removed from the market.
NCRC5315 is offline  
post #34 of 37 (permalink) Old 12-07-2013, 11:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Dairy7820's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Fort Morgan, Colorado
Posts: 609
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbfarmer View Post
Luckily the US hasn't spent millions in the Middle East protecting Americas cheap oil supply and luckily that was the governments money not tax payers. Also luckily we can't put a price on human lives or tax the public to replace dead soldiers so their wives and kids can have a dad and husband. But building the economy in the US, jobs, money that is spent over and over again bringing tax dollars back every time. I doubt the ethanol subsidy cost the tax payers ten percent of what the total of the subsidy actually was. I personally thought it was genius and I don't even live in the US. A big step to oil independence and a huge boost to the US economy at a time when it really needed it.
I never said I was a supporter of the wars, etc.

And if they didn't protect those supplies, oil price would go up making ethanol a more viable contender. It's the free market, quit screwing with it. That goes for both sides, oil and ethanol.

Of course you don't oppose it, you don't pay the taxes for it and benefit from the higher commodity prices. It's a no-brainer for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCRC5315 View Post
If you think that oil companies would sell ethanol if they could make money at it, then why do they spend so much money to kill off. Ethanol is a threat to their market share. In 2011, the US military, spent $82,000,000,000, just to protect the oil shipping lanes, is this not an indirect subsidy to the oil companies? This doesn't take into account the billions spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I realize ethanol is not a solution in of itself, but it can be part of a total overall energy solution. Another thing to remember, is that there are no, no-fly zones over any US ethanol plants, no US military personal have ever been killed protecting a US ethanol plant, and I'm, pretty sure, that none of the dollars we spend on ethanol, finds its way to a middle eastern terrorist organization. Last of all, can you image what would happen to the price of fuel, if suddenly 10% of the fuel supply was removed from the market.
They spend that money because the gov't is/was pouring money into subsidies. I would think that having the gov't screwing with the market against you isn't very fun and I would fight back. I'm sure everyone here would fight back if the gov't started subsidizing something that they didn't produce.

I'm not totally against ethanol, I'm against gov't interference in the free market. I think there should obviously be some oversight but gov't is most often a burden. There's 76K families that produce 80% of the food in the US and 114K USDA employees. Kinda ridiculous don't you think?
Dairy7820 is offline  
post #35 of 37 (permalink) Old 12-08-2013, 12:23 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SW Manitoba.
Posts: 4,800
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
My taxes did pay for some of the plant an hour from here and I don't have a problem with that. My taxes pay for a lot worse things than ethanol plants. I understand how others can be against it. There is no end to government interference of our countries and other countries all over the world when it comes to almost everything. There is just no way of stopping corruption and policies, good and bad. A vote doesn't count for much these days as 90% of what is promised never happens.



mbfarmer is offline  
post #36 of 37 (permalink) Old 12-08-2013, 11:14 AM
Senior Member
 
Dairy7820's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Fort Morgan, Colorado
Posts: 609
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbfarmer View Post
My taxes did pay for some of the plant an hour from here and I don't have a problem with that. My taxes pay for a lot worse things than ethanol plants. I understand how others can be against it. There is no end to government interference of our countries and other countries all over the world when it comes to almost everything. There is just no way of stopping corruption and policies, good and bad. A vote doesn't count for much these days as 90% of what is promised never happens.
I unfortunately agree that there won't be an end to gov't interference. It's about voting with principle though and supporting ethanol subsidies, etc while being against other interference is pretty ridiculous if you look at it from the point of view someone who's not in the ag industry.
Dairy7820 is offline  
post #37 of 37 (permalink) Old 12-08-2013, 05:22 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SW Manitoba.
Posts: 4,800
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
The reality is for the plants that started early enough the subsidies were never even necessary. Our ethanol plant here ran for at least ten years before the first subsidy was introduced. Some of the plants in the US were paid for in 18 months. Two years of poor crops kept grain prices higher longer than the government anticipated. Up here we have crop insurance and stabilization programs but nothing like the US. We occasionally get crop insurance payments but rarely more than our premiums. Once in the last fifteen years we triggered the stabilization program in 2011 when torrential rains stopped us from seeding one third of the farm and and ruined everything that was seeded.



mbfarmer is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The Combine Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Efficiency rate patricio John Deere 3 07-15-2012 03:23 PM
Recovering water logged crops & N efficiency rusty1 Crop Production 0 07-12-2011 08:13 AM
Re: JD 8030 sets fuel record on efficiency kirschenman Tractors 31 06-29-2008 01:45 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome