Posted 2 months, 24 days ago in 
Loading ...
I would like to comment on the editorial of April 15 by The Daily Sentinel concerning ethanol production. It is ridiculous to blame ethanol production for the higher food prices in the store or to blame ethanol for world hunger.
In the first place, ethanol is made from Number 2 yellow corn, which is not used for human consumption. Its only use is animal feed and other industrial uses.
After ethanol is produced, the by-product is called distillers grain. This is then used to fatten cattle in feedlots and also for dairy cattle. Very little corn is lost from the food chain.
Yes, pasta and cereal prices have risen, but that is because of the worldwide shortage of wheat due to drought in Australia and increased demand by others such as China.
The next time you, as a consumer, go to the grocery store, look at what you are buying and ask how far has this been shipped. Many of the items we buy have been shipped 500 to 1,000 miles or more and that takes a lot of fuel. We all know fuel has nearly doubled in price, so you, the consumer, get to pay for that.
Ethanol production is good for the economy. If you spend a little time in the Midwest, where they have built these plants, you will see that the motels are full of workers. It has rejuvenated a lot of these small communities, creating jobs for trucks and the railroad.
Also more money is being spent on durable goods, such as farm equipment and vehicles.
Let’s not slam the door on ethanol or, for that matter, any alternative fuel. For every gallon of fuel we make is just that much less we have to buy from abroad.
For years the American consumer has enjoyed the safest and cheapest food supply in the world. Now, because of higher transportation costs and a growing world population, the price you pay has gone up. I assure you that the E85 that you put in your gas tank for around $2.60 per gallon is from corn that was never destined for your table.
I can also assure you that we will still be able to get the Olathe sweet corn we all enjoy every summer. This will not be made into fuel.
JOHN WELLS
Mack
Commenter uninformed about what farmers do
To the intolerant person who is so mad at the “nasty farmers” who burn, block their view and cause all the dust: You are terribly ignorant about their work.
I’ve lived and loved it here all my 84 years, on and off the farm.
We “real” people appreciate the hard-working farmers who guarantee we can keep eating fresh food. It is a seven-day, daylight-to-dark, all-weather job. They are big-time gambles, as they never know how much their crops and livestock will bring when sold — sometimes not enough to pay expenses and sometimes crops are wiped out by the weather.
On behalf of myself and all the others who upset the complainers, we would love for all you unhappy people to move immediately to New York (been there, ugh!), to a hurricane area or tornado valley and eat imported food.
JOYCE BYERS THORPE
Fruita
Demagogic rants comefrom columnists, too
In response to Ruben Navarrette’s column of April 28: Perhaps he would be a bit more “fair and balanced” if he understood that demagogic rants are not limited to just cable news broadcasts or personalities.
ROBERT MACGRUDER
Grand Junction
21 Responses to “Printed letters, May 1, 2008”
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 8:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Maybe the issue is not that the corn used for ethanol production is not used for human consumption. Maybe the issue is that if ethanol did not get the subsidies it gets, farmers would plant the corn that is used for human consumption instead. Furthermore, why give the subsidy in the first place when ethanol consumes almost as much energy as it takes to produce it? Take the subsidies away.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 9:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It takes 29% more energy to produce the comparable amount of energy from ethanol.
For instance, if the energy derived from one gallon of ethanol can move a vehicle 1000 feet, a gallon of gasoline could move the same vehicle 1290 feet.
And they even use hydrocarbon fuels to produce the ethanol.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 9:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I wonder what the answer would be if you ask a starving person if they would eat #2 corn. Did you ever notice that there is no such thing as a lactose intolerance in Somalia or Darfur? I guess there is no real substitute for the wisdom of boots on the ground. Or as the liberal mantra goes “people are dying”. I wonder if they really care what agenda is killing them.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 10:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Published on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 by Environmental News Service
UN: Biofuel Production ‘Criminal Path’ to Global Food Crisis
GENEVA, Switzerland - The United States and the European Union have taken a “criminal path” by contributing to an explosive rise in global food prices through using food crops to produce biofuels, the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food said today.At a press conference in Geneva, Jean Ziegler of Switzerland said that fuel policies pursued by the U.S. and the EU were one of the main causes of the current worldwide food crisis.
Ziegler said that last year the United States used a third of its corn crop to create biofuels, while the European Union is planning to have 10 percent of its petrol supplied by biofuels. The Special Rapporteur has called for a five-year moratorium on the production of biofuels.
++++++++++
Just think - only one fillup with ethanol in that yank-tank SUV is the equivalent amount of corn that would feed one person for one year! Go Team USA!
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 10:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Go switchgrass!Go bio-waste! Go locally grown and created energy. I gotta go with Chancho on this one. 70% of our commodity growing capacity is controlled by Con-Agra, ADM, Cargill, or one of the other food giants. They are making a killing on subsidized ( I emphasize subsidized ), corn-based ethanol production and the subsequent run-up in prices, while other, non- food based technologies are languishing without adequate federal support.
I wonder what Con-Agra and ADMs’ profits look like lately.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 10:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The biggest problem, as I understand it, is with the subsidized corn prices the farmers are turning their wheat and soy bean acreage into corn thus decreasing those commodities on the world market and causing the shortages.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 10:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I am certain that is right. There are so many possibilties to make liquid fuel out of something besides oil, natural gas, and coal. Of course, we live in a country so completely dominated by greed and other corporate interests, that it is a struggle to innovate for the sake of the greater good. A pity.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 11:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“There are so many possibilties to make liquid fuel out of something besides oil, natural gas, and coal.”————–Really! Does cost matter at all in your calculations? Please name all of the possibilites. OK, name 2. And tell us why it isn’t happening. Given all the greed that exists, I’m sure that you can find investors that will gladly give you the money to produce these liquid fuels (assuming they can make a profit).
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 11:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
subsidies and profits, love and marriage, horse and carriage. You get the idea.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 11:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh yeah, that other thing. In the 2007 Energy Policy Act, 37 billion dollars in Federal subsidies for renewable and sustainable energy research and investment were changed by the Senate into subsidies for big oil and gas. Thank you, Senator Domenici. Do you suppose that big oil and gas needed the money? Do you suppose that 37 billion dollars would have greased the wheels of Renewable/ sustainable energy research?
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 11:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Just one other possibility is sugar cane-based ethanol as used in Brazil. Brazil can produce far more ethanol than they can use so it could be a good source for export. We, however, put high tariffs on it to protect a limited number of US sugar producers which makes it an artificially limited source of an alternative energy product. Not to mention outrageously priced sugar in the US compared to just about any other place in the world you can name. Profits for US based constituencies–read: campaign donors–trump reasonable, logical, available alternative sources of energy.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 11:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Of course they need the money, look how poorly Exxon did the last few months:
—
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Record oil prices netted Exxon Mobil a $10.89 billion profit in the first three months of the year, sharply higher than a year earlier but short of Wall Street estimates and below what was needed to set a new all-time profit record.
The profit was still enough to be the second-highest U.S. corporate profit on record, falling just short of the record $11.66 billion Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500) earned in the prior quarter. The profit in that quarter came to $1,385 a second, enough to buy nearly 382 gallons of gas at current prices.
—
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 11:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog – myriad sources exist for plant-derived liquid fuels, such as switchgrass, sugar cane (see above), wood waste, urban waste, crop residues (corn stalks only). Plus algae, bacteria, etc. However, the hope for large-scale production is very slow, and certainly all sources have some downside. And, repeated studies show that burning plant materials is a much more efficient way to generate electricity (think Sweden), as compared to the inefficient conversion to ethanol.
What we need to overcome is our wasteful fascination with liquid fuels, period. There is no miracle juice that will completely replace gasoline or diesel. All we can do is utilize what remains much more wisely. As I’ve expressed before, our only hope is to quickly transition into superefficient cars, trucks, planes, boats, and trains by using lighter materials (carbon fiber), improved tires, improved batteries, improved aerodynamics, etc. The good news is that much is happening on this front in the airline, semi-truck, and plug-in vehicle industries.
Imagine driving a plug-in hybrid vehicle, charged by rooftop solar and topped off with biodiesel brewed by a local out in Fruita. Suddenly you’ve more than tripled the efficiency of a typical passenger car, while leaving a few thousand barrels of crude in the ground and kept a few tons of carbon dioxide out of our shared atmosphere.
We have all of these technologies at our fingertips and on the shelf, presently, as we speak. All it takes is an educated and committed citizenry to take charge.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 12:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
This is where it all started: Taken from the New York Times, Published: August 4, 1994
“With a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Al Gore, the Senate upheld today an Environmental Protection Agency rule requiring that ethanol and other renewable fuels get a share of the gasoline additives market.
The Senate voted 51-50 to table an amendment that would have denied financing to the agency to carry out a rule guaranteeing renewable fuels a 15 percent share of the lucrative fuel oxygenate market in 1995. That share rises to 30 percent in following years.
Under the Clean Air Act, oxygenates, which make fuel burn more cleanly, are to be added to gasoline in the nation’s smoggiest areas.
Tabling the amendment, offered by Democratic Senators Bennett J. Johnston of Louisiana and Bill Bradley of New Jersey, in effect kills it and clears the way for E.P.A. to carry out its program.
Farm state senators backed the agency’s renewable fuels rule as a way to increase demand for corn, the main ingredient in ethanol.
They also said it would keep the oil industry from locking out ethanol and creating a monopoly for methanol oxygenates made from fossil fuels.
But other senators said the rule would raise fuel prices, cost hundreds of millions of dollars in lost gas taxes and provide no environmental benefit over methanol oxygenates.
The rule’s critics also said it was a boon to the Archer Daniels Midland Company, a corn processing giant, which has more than 60 percent of the ethanol market. But supporters said new farmer cooperatives would get the added business and Archer Daniels’ overall ethanol market share would shrink. Ethanol is the only widely produced renewable fuel.
The rule is to take effect Jan. 1, when the reformulated fuels program starts.
Two oil industry trade organizations, however, are suing the E.P.A. in Federal court to try to block the rule.”
End of article.
I would also like to have the figures of how much tractor fuel in needed in the production of the corn during planting, culivating, harvesting and transporting to the purchaser compared to how much ethanol is realized. This argument would hold true also for any other farm product used in ethanol production….farm products don’t just happen you know.
Regarding Exxon’s profit’s, I just checked the market and they are paying 1.40 a share. 53% of their stock is held in funds that are the basis of 401k’s and IRA’s. If you have either one you are a stockholder. The profit figures seem obcene until you realize how many shareholders are involved. The profit margin that is commonly bandied about, not only from the oil companies but from financial institutions with no bias, is 8% of their gross. Hey folks, we’re not talking a mom and pop operation, they are BIG!
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 12:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nigel, I don’t disagree with you on the need to replace oil. But I believe that even with a huge effort, it will take many years to get there. We need to accelerate the process as much as possible.
Having said that, I know we disagree on nuclear. I believe we need to move in that direction as the primary means of generating electricity and replacing coal. We might even be able to use nuclear to power most vehicles if better batteries are developed.
We also disagree on the issue of drilling for oil in the US. I would do it to replace as much of our imports as possible. The objective would not be to increase oil usage, just to replace imports. We could raise a huge amount of money from new found oil. Someone wrote here yesterday that there are over 20 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the US. It would take 5 or more years to get the first drop of that oil if we started development now. Assume $200 per barrel and that translates into 4 trillion dollars. Put a 20% tax on that and you could generate 800 billion dollars that could go into alternative fuels. Then put an increasing tax on gasoline to make sure consumption decreases.
Now, I realize that there is opposition to drilling anywhere in the world. But Nigel, we need to make some compromises or we won’t get anywhere.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 1:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Would we be discussing alternative fuels, food shortages, high fuel cost, high taxes, costs etc., if there were one third less people in the world? The ultimate solution to these problems is less people. We can choose from several options: war, famine, disease, or draconian birth control laws. It will be debated until a solution is absolutely necessary. Then there will be a hue and cry and a great gnashing of teeth from the world to “Do Something.” When that day comes, demands will be put forth to achieve “less People” by any means necessary. Do any of you remember the zero population movement of the 70’s? What ever happened to that? I don’t know what all the answers are, but I do know that if we don’t curb the population explosion, our children or our great grandchildren will damn well freeze in the dark. If mankind does not take control of the situation, the Mother Nature will and she is a cold hard_____.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 2:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
what happened was somehow we allowed the church to make political decisions and convince the masses that birth control is immoral. but, hey, on the other hand, starvation, disease and mass suffering is acceptable! just ask the pope or momma teresa (well, read about her actions instead).
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 2:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
There’s always the Church of Euthanasia–you know the bumper sticker that says “Save the world–Kill yourself!” Now that is a radical leftist position.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 3:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The other posters will have to excuse me but, as I look at all of these posts, on the issue of energy alone, it is notable that nobody wants to broaden the discussion to the entire field of energy. What is all too obvious is that every individual looks on it from a very narrow perspective of “personal experience” or “personal interests.” As a result we, and in that “we” nobody is excluded, even this individual at times. Unfortunately, that all too frequently results in an attempt to treat symptoms only, and never addresses the “cause(s).”
Like many other social, economic or political problems, one can only recognize and identify that with which one is familiar. And, it is only based upon that view that one can possibly look for a remedy. It reminds me of that saying “If all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.” It is also true that no matter how much wood one has, but he has not brick, it is impossible to build any brick structure, and vice versa. Yet, in many cases, many attempt to do just that. They need brick, but the only thing they do is keep collecting more wood, instead of even beginning to look for bricks.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 4:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That is true RL, but there would be two ways to look at it. One, this thread was started by discussion on ethanol only so that has been the main subject of the posts, but two, even if each of us posts our own ideas on the subject I feel this exchange of ideas will broaden all of our knowledge on the subject, which is what this forum should be about rather than the personal attacts that I have been seeing on a continous basis since I’ve started following the posts.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 6:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
gfbyers: It was not my intent to constrain the conversation or divert attention from the central point. In fact, if some of our “decision makers” paid more attention to what the people wanted and thought, that instead of constantly trying to “tell us” (in the mistaken notion that they “know everything”), this country might be better off.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.