Have Ethanol Critics ever seen crops slowly going to waste?

Question

I have seen a lot of people on Y! bashing the ethanol and other bio-fuel products because "it wastes food" or "it takes X much gas to make" or any number of other uninformed reasons. Well I live in the midwest and in my area we had an extremely good year for many of the crops. So good in fact that there is no place to put all the crops from the harvest.

Here is a small article from a local news station
http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=0,61587

I'm just curious if people who think Ethanol is bad have ever thought about this kind of situation. There is no place to put all of the excess crops, all the bins, elevators, and trains are full... the extra is being stored outside, in piles, on the ground. For anyone that doesn't know... that's not good. All the time and energy used to collect this energy source is being eaten by birds, mice, deer, mold, and being lost back into the ground. Ethanol is a way for us to use this energy, because it is already available.

Waffles:

The only programs I know of, that pay farmers not to grow crops is CRP and animal habitat programs. Both of which are intended to provide places for native plants and animals to grow and live. It's like having a mini-reserve or park, the government is basically renting the land from the owner to create it. Typically they are 10-15 year contracts.

Captain Algae:

No the arguement remains the same... read the article, it is not just Corn being produced here. The type of crop does not change the amount of space available in the storage bins or on the trains. This isn't really a localized problem either, every year there are areas that have excess and areas that have shortage. Since we can't magically transport the excess to the places that have shortages the excess gets wasted. Bio-fuel plants would be able to use that excess to create a useable fuel for our vehicles.

I really think I need to EMPHASIZE that corn is not the only crop raised by farmers nor is it the only crop being used as a bio-fuel. Soy beans are used as a diesel version of ethanol. The Excess crop here is not purely corn! It is EVERYTHING. A bumper year means everything was above average. Subsidies and the Government do not control the weather and thus can not control how much crop is produced. More land was not turned into farmland through subsidies to raise more crops... in fact it is the opposite, every year more farmland is turned into housing developments. And having excess food produced is not a bad thing. Not using it when it is right in front of you is wasteful. Ethanol is currently NOT a 1 for 1 replacement of fossil fuels but it does reduce our dependancy and extend our reserves. Most farmers do not sell their crops directly to ethanol producers, they sell it to a grain elevator and ethanol producers would buy it from the elevator.

Answer 1

You are absolutely correct yeearp. Unfortunately alot of people are uneducated on ethanol or cite articles that are 5 years old or older. Ethanol production has come along way in the last 5 years. And nothing raises consumer prices, including the price of food, more than crude oil. Oil is the single number one cause of inflation and raises the cost of ALL goods due to higher transportation costs. Everything you buy at the store has to be transported there by truck. Oil contributes to inflation more than any commodity by far. Any economist will attest to this. Again, most people choose to remain in the dark and not be educated on the subject. Ethanol is far superior than gasoline for a number of reasons.

Big oil has created all kinds of lies because they feel threatened by ethanol. Ethanol is way better for our environment for starters and heres why:

Cars running on ethanol, which is distilled from agricultural crops and biomass are governed by the same laws of physics as those using petrol in that both fuels emit CO2 as a consequence of combustion, however the crucial difference is that burning ethanol recycles CO2 because it has already been removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis during the natural growth of agricultural crops, such as corn plants. A corn plant removes CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to grow and produce cornstarch. The plant is harvested and the cornstarch is fermented into ethanol. The ethanol is burned and the cycle repeats. NO NEW NET CARBON is added to the atmosphere when you use ethanol, unlike gasoline which spews tons of carbon into the atmosphere which has been trapped beneath the earth's surface for millions of years in the form of crude oil. You can burn all the ethanol you want and you are not contributing one iota to global warming. You are simply recycling carbon. And creating demand for ethanol by using it in your car stimulates farmers to plant more corn to meet the demand. More corn means more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere because corn, like all plants, takes in CO2 and gives off oxygen via photosynthesis. So not only are you not adding any new carbon to the air when you use ethanol, you are stimulating the planting of more corn plants which naturally fight global warming via photosynthesis.

In addition, using ethanol means no more devastating oil spills in the ocean which destroy all kinds of marine life and birds. And ethanol is now being produced via "green" means with ZERO fossil fuels used in the process. Read that again---ZERO FOSSIL FUELS ARE BEING USED TO MAKE ETHANOL. Ethanol plants are using wind energy and biomass exclusively for power because it saves them a heap on their natural gas bill. Below are 2 links to prove it:

http://www.connectbiz.com/stories/moonsh...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/...


The top link above states that 1 gallon of fuel produces 6 gallons of ethanol. If it took more energy to make than ethanol yielded every ethanol plant in the country would go out of business because ethanol sells for cheaper than fossil fuels on a unit-by-unit basis. At some ethanol plants the net energy yield is essentially infinite as wind and biomass are used to produce it.

And why do people think that gasoline and diesel require no energy to produce? Gasoline doesn't come out of the ground. Crude oil does. That crude oil has to be shipped on a massive oil tanker 5000 miles from saudi arabia to the gulf of mexico. Then the crude oil has to be refined into usable gasoline. Both steps require massive amounts of fossil fuels.

Brazil has been using ethanol made from sugarcane for 25 years and not a single person has starved yet as a result. Believe it or not, people CAN and DO actually eat other things than just 100% corn all the time.

Haven't met a human yet who eats all corn all the time. Let's stop being brainwashed by big oil lies and start THINKING rationally for a change.

And most ethanol plants are located literally right next to the farming areas where corn is grown. In fact, 90% are farmer-owned co-ops. 5 miles is a much shorter distance than halfway around the world. As corn prices rise, more farmers will grow corn to cash in on the profits. That means the supply of corn will increase and the price of corn will drop. It is basic economics. One of the reasons oil is over $80 a barrel and headed for $100 is because the supply of oil is constantly decreasing and will continue to do so until we have none left. Again, basic economics.

Answer 2

Fine, use excessive crops (or how about corn COBS?) for fuel. I think there's the other fundamental problem that "farmers" get government subsidies to not grow crops. But the problem is that even if ALL the arable land in the us was dedicated to growing corn for ethanol, it would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by 15%. So the concept that it's this magic silver bullet that all the candidates are whoring around for votes is a total farce.

Answer 3

"Ethanol critics" are not critics of ethanol. They are critics of the government subsidizing it or giving tax breaks or requiring its use.

Food vs. Fuel debate:
It's not about us wasting corn on fuel. It's about the government artificially making farmers use the corn for ethanol instead of fuel. If ethanol companies will pay more for corn than grocery stores, then the farmers will sell to the ethanol companies. Market forces balance things out. When government gets involved stuff gets messed up.

Answer 4

Yes, it may make sense to convert excess corn to ethanol, provided the net energy gain of the process is positive, which it is, modestly, under favorable assumptions. However, even with favorable assumptions, it does not make economic sense to grow corn for the explicit purpose of making ethanol. Only the government subsidy of 51 cents per gallon makes it viable.

The problem of excess corn is due mostly to decades of government farm subsidies, all of which encourage overproduction. Converting excess corn to ethanol may remedy overproduction problems in the short term, but the only long term solution is to unwind the farm subsidies that encourage the overproduction. Adding an additional layer of ethanol subsidies on top of the pre-existing farm subsidies is counterproductive.

If the economics of ethanol are so strongly positive, as some proponents claim, then why won't they agree to eliminate the ethanol subsidy?

In response to yeearp's added details:

Yes, corn is not the only crop overproduced, but it is also not the only crop subsidized. Many crops are subsidized, often at multiple levels of the production chain. The big beneficiary of this is large agribusiness, who, by virtue of being vertically integrated, is able to capture a proportionately larger share of the subsidies relative to smaller farms.

Yes, farmland is being converted to development. But which farms - smaller farms or large agribusiness farms? Small farms. And why? Because farm subsidies, even though they benefit all farmers in the short term, put small farmers at a progressively greater competitive disadvantage over the long term, relative to large agribusiness.

Yes, one can sympathize with the small farmer. The same subsidy (including the ethanol subsidy) that he enjoyed for many years, now just barely keeps him afloat over the short term, and yet continues to undermine his own relative competitive position in the long term. Ending the subsidies will be painful for farmers, but is the only permanent solution for the problem you raise. Perhaps a way could be found to unwind the subsidies in such a way as to minimize pain for the small farmer.

Answer 5

Then why not just create a place to put all the crops?

How about lowering the price so that you create more demand? If it weren't for government biofuels bulls*** that's what they'd have to do and it would get rid of the excess rather well.

If you want to replace petrol properly you're just going to have to make a synthetic fuel.

Answer 6

You have a fine argument, presuming the biofuel companies only take the excess. And if this is the case then you could sell it at bargain basement prices, because your business plan isn't dependant on it.

We don't own the land, we're just the caretakers.

.

Answer 7

I live in Sibley, on the Missouri River. You know a lot of people think a process to make ethanol from the silage is already available. How detached from a process can a critic be?

Answer 8

Oil prices are so out of hand that its unreal. Thanks to Bush and his war on terror. Iraq is given food, clothing and money for free. If we don't send them corn and other food, clothing and money prices would drop.
Yes I think ethanol is one part of the answer to new fuel sources. But we do need to work on more alternative fuels. Corn made ethanol is only one small step in the right direction.

Answer 9

Yea I could a told people that and I'm an idiot.

There are not enough ethanol producers to use all that corn.

Answer 10

Does your argument change if:

... instead of growing, federally subsidized corn for high fructose corn-syrup and other crap foods....that land was used to grow more nutritious, less fertilizer/pesticide/herbicide intensive crops?

... during bad crop years?