Corn and Ethanol.

[Show-me]

AP
Ethanol Demand Boosts Corn Planting
Friday March 30, 10:46 pm ET
By Nafeesa Syeed and David Pitt, Associated Press Writers

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070330/planting_report.html?.v=8

Ethanol Demand Boosts Corn Planting 15 Percent in 2007, Biggest Since 1944

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- An ethanol-fueled boom in prices will prompt American farmers to plant the most corn since the year the Allies invaded Normandy, but surging demand could mean consumers still may pay more for everything from chicken to cough syrup.
Farmers are expected to plant 90.5 million acres of corn, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's annual prospective plantings report released Friday. That would be a 15 percent increase over 2006 and the most corn planted since 1944.
Mother Nature will play a large part in the actual acreage planted. Muddy fields are already slowing plantings in some states.
"We're awfully wet out here," said John Scott, a grain farmer in west central Iowa. "Normally by this time of year we're doing quite a bit of field work. There just isn't a wheel turning out here. Illinois is in the same boat."
Corn should be planted by mid-May for good yields and soybeans can be planted as late as June, which could be a fallback plan for farmers if corn doesn't get planted in time.
The move to plant corn is in large part due to a rush to produce corn-based ethanol, which is blended with gasoline. There are now 114 ethanol refineries nationwide and another 80 under construction.
The corn rush was sparked by President Bush's initiative to support flexible-fuel vehicles, which are capable of using gasoline and ethanol blends, and his administration's plan to cut gas consumption by 20 percent in 10 years. Corn prices were already rising when Bush announced the initiative in Washington on Jan. 23 and there has been growing concern that the corn rush could hurt the poor in less-developed nations such as Mexico, where the crop is a staple used in tortillas.

 

[Show-me]

More on the great white elephant.

http://technocrat.net/d/2007/4/18/18275

A Stanford researcher claims that ethanol is more or less as bad as gasoline when it comes to air pollution, and actually worse as regards ozone. He based his study on a computer model comparing normal gasoline and E85 blend, then ran it to year 2020. <LI class=body_text>...""There are alternatives, such as battery-electric, plug-in-hybrid and hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles, whose energy can be derived from wind or solar power," he added. "These vehicles produce virtually no toxic emissions or greenhouse gases and cause very little disruption to the land—unlike ethanol made from corn or switchgrass, which will require millions of acres of farmland to mass-produce. It would seem prudent, therefore, to address climate, health and energy with technologies that have known benefits.""...more there ed; and back in the real world, we have a huge already established liquid fuels transportation sector, both the vehicles and delivery system, where a transition switch to ethanol and biodiesel is *cheap* and *easy* compared to anything else. At a minimum, the plant based fuels are carbon neutral. I also would like to see a variety of pure electric (and affordable, not just exotic sportscars for rich folks toys) vehicles on the market,(with the solar PV carport part of the package) but for extended range, there is no getting it around it right now or for the next X-years, there will still need to be liquid fuel engines (I prefer the tow-behind generator-trailer idea to make "hybrids" from pure electrics). Any pure electrics based on lithium-dang-anything batteries are going to cost a *mint* if you want any normal "tank 0 gas" range. That's just reality now. I wish it was different, but it isn't. For short range commuting and urban delivery-ya, pure electrics are good enough now if some of the majors would just get the dang things on the market and be done with it. the Model A electric, just do it. Average US commute=33 miles. Get them to do 50 and fall into the econobox price range to start with, you'll sell them. For anything else, nope, not good enough, not without them being hybrids of some sort, integral or tow behind for the ICE, which brings you back to liquid fuels necessity, which you can A) import at great expense by exporting cash and with huge political baggage from a variety of dodgy and troublesome areas of the world or B)have your local farmers make it and keep a lot of that loot circulating internally.. And no, hydrogen (which would be option C) is still a long ways away near as I can tell. Option B therefore still looks better to me until Mr. Backyard Fusion powerpacks are at home depot for $299..

http://www.sitnews.us/0407news/041907/041907_shns_ethanolrisk.html

[SIZE=-1]April 19, 2007[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Thursday[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]If ethanol ever gains widespread use as a clean alternative fuel to gasoline, people with respiratory illnesses may be in trouble.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]A new study out of Stanford says pollution from ethanol could end up creating a worse health hazard than gasoline, especially for people with asthma and other respiratory diseases.[/SIZE]

 

[Show-me]

Was talking to some farmer friend yesterday and the prices are going up. Hay ground rent is at a top. Large round bales of hay are fetching a premium price.

Under normal conditions a large round bale of hay would bring $20-$35 depending on size and quality. Now I am hearing of hay bringing $25-$75 in depleted areas.

I am also seeing more hay on the road than ever before. Trucker hauling hay to areas hit by drought that are running out now. Those are the $75 bales. My friend is debating feeding livestock or just selling the hay. Just selling the hay would be easier on him because he would not have livestock to care for every day and he lowers his risk of one getting sick or death. Big profit killer.

I have experience a 25% increase in horse hay from last month. Supply is getting tight. Feeding grain is becoming less of an option.

Small cattle producers in my area are feeding more hay and less grain or cutting the herd size.

Just sharing.

 

[robo]

Jun 08 2007 Unintended Consequences of the Ethanol Boom


While the US government foolishly turns to ethanol as part of the solution to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the rapidly rising cost of corn is having devastating unintended consequences. A shortage of tequila and pricey tortillas. You may want to stock up on supplies now for next year’s Cinco de Mayo party.

According to MSNBC “The switch to corn will contribute to an expected scarcity of agave in coming years, with officials predicting that farmers will plant between 25 percent and 35 percent less agave this year to turn the land over to corn. “

Seriously though, this is just one ripple affect on food prices. The demand for ethanol will undoubtedly lead to inflation across the entire food supply as acreage for other food supplies shrink and feed for animals skyrockets. How bad is it? It has become so expensive to feed their livestock corn based feed that one farmer is feeding his livestock cookies, licorice, cheese curls, candy bars, french fries, frosted wheat cereal and peanut-butter cups! Another farmer in Idaho is feeding them tater tots! See the entire article over at the Wall Street Journal (paid) According to the National Chicken Council (via HPJ.com) “The price of corn has driven the cost of feeding chickens up 40 percent. Chicken is the most popular meat with consumers.”

Ethanol induced food inflation could potentially have a significant impact on the economy and at worst be the catalyst for a global recession. If that weren’t enough, how about the destruction of our environment which lasts a lifetime? In Southeast Asia, vast areas of tropical forest are being cleared and burned to plant oil palms destined for conversion to biodiesel. Soybeans and especially corn are row crops that contribute to soil erosion and water pollution and require large amounts of fertilizer, pesticides, and fuel to grow, harvest, and dry. They are the major cause of nitrogen runoff — the harmful leakage of nitrogen from fields when it rains — of the type that has created the so-called dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, an ocean area the size of New Jersey that has so little oxygen it can barely support life (via ForeignAffairs.org) Well at least someone is profiting from the destruction - just take a look at the charts of leading fertilizer producers Terra Nitrogen [TNH] and Potash [POT]. It's a lose and lose situation for the environment.

Granted, to ease the pressure to produce corn, the administration is promoting such biofuels as cellulosic ethanol, which can be made from wood chips, switchgrass and corn-plant parts such as stalks and leaves. But the process of making ethanol from those sources still is still very much in its infancy and not very practical. Biofuels could be made efficiently from a variety of other sources, such as grasses and wood chips, if the government funded the necessary research and development. But in the United States, at least, corn and soybeans have been used as primary inputs for many years thanks in large part to the lobbying efforts of corn and soybean growers and Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM), the biggest ethanol producer in the U.S. market. ADM owes much of its growth to political connections, especially to key legislators who can earmark special subsidies for its products. Vice President Hubert Humphrey advanced many such measures when he served as a senator from Minnesota. Senator Bob Dole (R-Kans.) advocated tirelessly for the company during his long career. As the conservative critic James Bovard noted over a decade ago, nearly half of ADM's profits have come from products that the U.S. government has either subsidized or protected. - ForeignAffairs.org

I highly recommend reading the entire article How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor. It really lays out the case against using ethanol (particularly corn based) and how government is protecting inefficient ways of producing ethanol to preserve corporate profits at the risk of the environment and the economy. But what the heck right? After all it would be political suicide to denounce the use of ethanol. Anything for a few votes.

On a final note, here’s a good piece 20/20 did on the myth of ethanol



http://selfinvestors.com/tradingstocks/

 

[Show-me]

Were is the most fresh water use sector wise?


Agriculture...............70%


I'm seeing more irrigation pivots going up than ever before.

 

[charmed855]

Jun 08 2007 Unintended Consequences of the Ethanol Boom

I highly recommend reading the entire article How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor. It really lays out the case against using ethanol (particularly corn based) and how government is protecting inefficient ways of producing ethanol to preserve corporate profits at the risk of the environment and the economy. But what the heck right? After all it would be political suicide to denounce the use of ethanol. Anything for a few votes.

Good read. I think the hope for energy independence is clouding a lot of folks judgements right now. Once cellulous technology is advanced, say in another five years, there will be a clear and rational choice for switching to ethanal. It's not an environmental panacea, so I would not expect the tree huggers to get on board even though the use of switchgrass would be effective at reducing run-off and sulfer issues can be addressed. IMO, this is going to be huge for poor African countries without natural oil reserves.

 

[Army Invester]

Ethanol is the biggest bologna foisted on the American public ever. The energy content of ethanol is lower than fossil fuel, and only produces about 10% new energy. It's hard on engines too and reduces gas mileage. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by putting drills in the ground and accepting the fact that we need to produce our own crude, ugly or not. We need to face the truth of the matter and grow up! Secondly we need to build at least 5-10 new refineries. The ones we have are so inefficient and modern equipment would help lower costs, waste and pollution.

We need to build a 100 new nuclear plants, while we develop the hydrogen infrastructure. This will be a very long process, along with the decision about where the hydrogen will extracted (at the gas station or in the car). Hydrogen pipelines are not an option.

 

[nnuut]

Ethanol is the biggest bologna foisted on the American public ever. The energy content of ethanol is lower than fossil fuel, and only produces about 10% new energy. It's hard on engines too and reduces gas mileage. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by putting drills in the ground and accepting the fact that we need to produce our own crude, ugly or not. We need to face the truth of the matter and grow up! Secondly we need to build at least 5-10 new refineries. The ones we have are so inefficient and modern equipment would help lower costs, waste and pollution.

We need to build a 100 new nuclear plants, while we develop the hydrogen infrastructure. This will be a very long process, along with the decision about where the hydrogen will extracted (at the gas station or in the car). Hydrogen pipelines are not an option.

Finally someone that really knows the truth, AMEN BROTHER!!! Use milkweed or something not CORN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Army Invester]

Well I think we need to stuff pussy-footing around and start acting like a superpower.

 

[ou81200]

Ethanol will not solve our energy problem nor will it decrease our oil dependence appreciatively. But it is a step in the right direction. IMO, the problem is oil companies and goverment beurocracy. Even if oil companies did want to build more refineries (I don't think they really want to), who wants a refinery in their back yard.

Nuclear power is a step in the right direction, but I don't think the goverment is looking into it seriously enough. Five years ago, natural gas was suppose to be the answer. All these new electric producing plants run off the stuff. Who would have known that NG would be so expensive now.

Right now gas minus the taxes is running about $2.25/gal. So why doesnt the goverment give us a break on gas tax? Everybody is in bed with everybody else and we the consumer have to suffer.

The news tries to tell us that it's OPEC's fault. Even though my opinion of OPEC can't be printed here without colorful metafours I put the blame on China and India. It's because of them that oil prices are up because of their increased dependency on the stuff. But who are we to tell them they have no right to be industrialized nations like we are.

Since we are going to be dependent on oil for some time to come, we need more refining capacity and we need to become more dependent on domestic oil. While we use our own oil, we need to continue research on energy alternatives.

We as American consumers can step up to the plate to reduce oil
consumption. Car pooling, public transportation, no unnecessary driving would accomplish this. These habits would also send a message to oil companies that they need to revamp their strategy on buttering their wallets at our expence.

Whew!!! I hav'nt done so much writing since being on this site. I guess I had to get it off my chest.

 

[Eldritch Flatus]

Unless this country goes nuclear (solar and wind and wave will help too) within the the next 10 years, and helps the rest of the world do it also, were screwed. Much of our transportation needs could be met by electricty, without a tremendous infrastructure. There are new battery technologies developing that are truly astounding when compared to those of just 10 years ago. Hydrogen will have it's uses in the future, and could come on line sooner than later. For now though my money is on electrochemical storage of nuclear energy(solar, wind, wave, too). The writing is not just on the wall but in the books. No one believes the science guys but me it seems. Just my learned[im(not quite)ho, but I may well be a prophet:nuts:

If something isn't done to either supply the worlds' energy demands or else curtail them we are in for sweeping changes in lifestyles and standards of living. And fossil fuels aren't the answer because their never going to foot the cost of 0 emissions. Foot's in mouth here because I too am very fond of my present lifestyle.

Realistically, I really don't expect much change, though. None of that will be implemented because the big boys with the money (who control everything) won't allow it. It would interfere with them making money in the ways they are so used to. (Screwing us.) Eventually they'll have to, because the supply of fossil fuels are limited, but by then it'll be way too late. We're screwed.:worried:

 

[Show-me]

Looks like the ethanol graft is sinking in here. It was reported on the local new that most of the new ethanol plants in this area have been put on hold. LOL

One of my coworkers has a nephew that has something to do with ethanol planning for ADM. He asked him how many plant this area would support. He said...................one. We have four in the planning stages. We dumb old county boyz knew that.

Iowa is having a record breaking crop of corn as are some other states keeping the prices low.

Here is a fairly current map of ethanol plant.

http://www.card.iastate.edu/research/bio/tools/ethanol.aspx

 

[SkyPilot]

Realistically, I really don't expect much change, though. None of that will be implemented because the big boys with the money (who control everything) won't allow it. It would interfere with them making money in the ways they are so used to. (Screwing us.) Eventually they'll have to, because the supply of fossil fuels are limited, but by then it'll be way too late. We're screwed.:worried:

Or, the "Big Boys" are already laying the foundations to monopolize the next generation of energy sources, and we won't know it till it's too late to get invested. Trust their greed and influence to pave the way for their own affluence, then follow them if you can. We may not be as screwed as one might think...

 

[Show-me]

They already made it law to blend ethanol with gasoline to replace MTBE. That's the first step.

What is MTBE? http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/gas.htm

Argument against replacing MTBE. http://www.calgasoline.com/factetha.htm

Ethanol Is Not a Suitable Replacement for MTBE
In 1990, Congress passed a law requiring fuel oxygenates – such as Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) and ethanol – to be added to Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) to reduce automotive emissions and improve the air we breathe. However, for a variety of economic, logistic and environmental reasons, refiners overwhelmingly favored MTBE over ethanol:

Gasoline Production Economics: Ethanol blends evaporate more readily than MTBE blends. Therefore, using ethanol increases refiner production costs and reduces operating flexibility. For example, the Chicago/Milwaukee ethanol market saw gasoline prices increase 25 cents/gallon over the national average during the summer of 2000. In addition, ethanol contributes about one half the blending volume provided by MTBE, and the maximum amount of ethanol that can be blended into gasoline is capped at 10% (versus 15% for MTBE). As a result, ethanol is unable to dilute many, less desirable, gasoline components.

Ethanol’s Tax Subsidy: Ethanol is not economically viable without its substantial federal tax subsidy – currently 53 cents per gallon – and supplemental state tax incentives.

Supply Uncertainties & Distribution Concerns: Ethanol use is generally limited to the Midwest, with little capacity for expansion. Ethanol supplies can be uncertain due to feedstock (i.e., corn) shortages caused by summer droughts. Ethanol’s high affinity for water does not allow blending at the refinery, nor transportation through the existing nation-wide gasoline pipeline infrastructure. Ethanol must be stored in segregated tanks, can only be transported by rail or truck and must be blended into gasoline at the terminal or retail station.

Environmental Concerns: Ethanol emits more harmful smog-forming emissions in the summertime than MTBE due to its high tendency to evaporate. Because ethanol is used in lower volumes, it provides less reduction in toxic air emissions than MTBE. Ethanol also can contribute to increased NOx emissions.

Consumer Acceptance: Automaker owner manuals warn buyers of performance problems with ethanol. Some consumers perceive ethanol-blended gasoline or “gasohol” as an “inferior product.”

In addition, energy security implications and consumer costs remain a concern as ethanol’s role in future national energy policy is debated:

• Ethanol’s federal tax subsidy currently reduces money for state road maintenance and transportation infrastructure by over $1.1 billion/year. If ethanol were used to replace MTBE, this figure would grow to over $3.5 billion/year.
• MTBE supplies 2.5 times more non-petroleum energy into the nation’s gasoline pool than ethanol (at the same oxygen content), thus increasing overall gasoline supplies.
• Despite its “renewable fuel” billing, producing ethanol consumes as much energy as it yields as a finished fuel. Lower fuel economy (by as much as 2-5 %) should be expected for ethanol blended gasoline versus conventional, or MTBE-blended, gasoline.
• Increasing the use of ethanol would increase the fragility of our nation’s gasoline supply outlook and potentially result in a net increase of crude and product imports.
• Calls to triple the required use of ethanol would cost U.S. consumers $17 billion over the next nine years.
• The large ethanol subsidy generally benefits the large agri-business interests rather than average farmers.

Ethanol’s use is uneconomic without a large government subsidy and, outside of the Midwest, it can not be integrated into the nation’s gasoline supply and transportation system. Increased reliance on ethanol would result in air quality backsliding. And, most importantly, it can destabilize the nation’s gasoline supply without offering significant energy security benefits and without even benefiting America’s farmers.

 

[Eldritch Flatus]

Amen, Show-me! I agree 100%. Ethanol sucks as a motor fuel. Benefits only the crooked agribusness fatsos who claim to feed us but are really starving us while turning us into a nation of obese idiots. Themselves included.

 

[James48843]

Sorry Show-me, but I tend to disagree with your cited website.

Turns out the case of MTBE VS. Ethanol is written by a lobbyiest who is retired from the petrolium industry, and gets paid hamsomely to bash ethanol.

See his resume at:


http://calgasoline.com/about.htm

While ethanol is NOT the perfect solution, it is a heck of alot environmentally better than MTBE. And your guy?

Here is what HE has done before starting a website to bash ethanol:

*23 years at a major oil company with early retirement as Director, Environmental Issues Management in 1995. Experience includes operation and financial responsibilities in the retail and distribution sectors of the business. Also managed the introduction of various innovative fuel programs. Involved with environmental, health and safety compliance and advocacy matters since 1976.

* Former Technical ARCO Lobbyist on downstream oil industry issues. Past Vice-Chair American Petroleum Institute (API) Storage Tank Task Force and former Chair of Marketing Environmental Subcommittee. Also past Chair of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) Environmental Marketing Subcommittee. Participated in writing and revising Industry Standards and Recommended Practices.


While it is true that Ethanol can only replace a portion of the anti-knock additives in straight gasoline mixtures, I personally plan to buy and use E-85 whenever possible. Now that the price of unleaded regular is above 3 bucks a gallon, ethanol is a cost- competitive alternative, and besides, it lessons our dependance on Middle Eastern oil.

true, ADM has a part in it. But where I am, there are four Ethanol plats either in the planning stages or under construction, and our local farmers, who export 3/4 of their corn crop out of state, will now have a new domestic state market for their product.

I'm looking forward to boozing up my car on ethanol.

 

[Show-me]

Defiantly no need to be sorry James. Every one is on one side or the other. Granted lobbyist is a foul name and add that to the oil industry and that don't clean it up much. Even if the guy is a lobbyist for the petrol industry doesn't make him automatically wrong.

I disagree that it is environmentally better or cheaper. I've seen all of the marginal acres that have been planted in corn and beans that use to be pasture or hay acres. The additional tons of nitrogen, fuel, and herbicides that has to be used to make a corn crop that is so unbelievable inferior for producing alcohol that it has to be subsidized heavily in order to make it feasible. That's why the current Administration went to Brazil to make nice.

Now those marginal hay and pasture acres can't be replace to feed the beef that most Americans like to eat and are now paying $3 plus a pound for 75% hamburger.

"Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way", Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU". " http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

Now, lets take about how good the additional irrigation is. Irrigation is flat out freak'n hard on the environment. I worked in that industry for about six years. Flat out raping a natural resource. According to the "experts" 70% of our fresh water is used for agriculture and it is getting worse. I personally have seen 3 irrigation pivots go up on my way to work (22 miles). Mississippi river bottom ground makes good crops, even better if ya water. Now some say we are running out of fresh water and this ain't going to help. If we could get a pipeline from the Great Lakes down to here we could pump them down and plant the shore line with ............. corn! That was a weak attempt at sarcasm. lol Sorry.

Ethanol is not the answer or even a good band aid for this problem. It's just another government subsidy program and we won't really know the effects on the environment for a few years. What we do know is that the ethanol industry is cashing in on a subsidy payday and the petroleum industry is getting a tax break for every gallon of ethanol they blend. And, the tax payer gets to pay the subsidy and make up for the tax break, pay higher food and water costs while getting less efficient fuel (mpg) to drive with. The farmer, they will raise the price for their seed, chemicals, equipment, and energy.

Different topic, slightly.

Even if we stopped using oil today, the entire nation. Do ya think maybe the Chinese, Indians, and other nations would eventually pick up the slack. I mean the oil would really be cheap to burn then. We would just have to pay higher prices for our food, water, and alternative energy while they continued to pollute. And the Chinese don't care about MTBE's or ethanol just ask all the dead coal miners in that country.

No matter how you slice it someone will burn that oil, just don't make our food and water higher.

 

[James48843]

Pimetel's estimates are widely known to be innaccurate and not based on modern values for nitrogen production, for ammunia use, and it's dependance on estimates of fossile fuel use in production. There is a wide variety of other scientific opinion that disputes the claim by Pimentel that ethanol takes more engery to make than it offers. Ome times and places that may be true. For other locations, and at other times, it may make sends to do some ethanol.

One such alternative paper comes from a gentleman at Berkley, and is linked here:

http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf

And a whole series of papers can be found here:
http://www.newrules.org/agri/netenergy.html

While there are areas in the country where it doesn't make sense to try to do corn into ethanol, there are other areas where is DOES make sense. I'm in Michigan, where we have sufficient rain -- and don't need to irrigate. We use a lot of "no-till" corn production, and minimize the nitrogen added. In addition, we are big sugar beet producers, and they are now doing small scale testing with sugar beets as one alternative to corn.

As time and research goes on, we find more efficient ways to produce ethanol. If they can get sugar beet production to be cost competitive with corn, then I think that will be a valid alternative also. We're not there yet, but both have become much more effiencient over the last 20 years both to produce and to distill into usuable fuels.

I think solar and wind BOTH will play major roles in the future, and we've got some solar panel production going now here in this state. But neither is readily adaptable to autos- as ethanol is now. So that's one reason why I think ethanol IS a valid alternative here, now, as we move forward.

And water use is not an issue here, as it is elsewhere in the nation. At least not anywhere near as much of an issue. We have lots of clean water. a good climate for agriculture, lots of airable land, and a bright future for corn, sugar beets, and cars.

It is true that ethanol is not for everyone, and not for the long range future. It may be best described as another alternative to get us through for a while so that scientists can continue to work on other alternatives.

The good thing is that ethanol is economically competitive NOW, while work on alternatives continues. \

Some day, perhaps every home will have it's own solar/wind electric power station, so that you can plug in the car to recharge, and commute to work ( or work at home) on the energy of the sun.

But until then, we have to find and use alternatives to move us in the general direction of breaking our reliance on foreign oil.

 

[Show-me]

I doubt that I will read the entire 105 pages, but I will give it a good glance. I did find this about him in a Google search.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002722.html

To that list, on the con side, I would add a paper by Tad W Patzek. Patzek, a professor at UC Berkeley’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, who had earlier authored a paper with Pimentel, one of the energy critics of ethanol, has recently updated (24 March 2005) a paper, Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle.​

It’s an interesting and detailed paper, and in it he reviews and corrects the assumptions and calculations of both primary pro- and con- ethanol factions (including some of his earlier work), while making new calculations of his own. His conclusion is that corn ethanol is a net loss to the environment and in energy, and a net contributor of CO2. Nor is he particularly keen on biomass-based ethanol, as a paper published earlier this year (with Pimentel) details. Patzek would prefer the research money (and crop subsidies) flowing to ethanol and corn production go instead to solar and hybrid research. ​

Corn ethanol research is funded because the farmers are a powerful lobby, not because it makes sense to grow corn for energy. Though maybe some day a way will be found to take the left-over cornstalks and convert them into ethanol for less energy than it takes to do the conversion.


Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Chu argues for biomass using cellulose.

The US already subsidizes farmers to grow corn to turn into ethanol, but $7bn in the past decade has been wasted because the process isn’t carbon-neutral. “From the point of view of the environment,” explains Chu, “it would be better if we just burnt oil.”​

“But carbon-neutral energy sources are achievable. A world population of 9 billion, the predicted peak in population, could be fed with less than one third of the planet”s cultivable land area. Some of the rest could be dedicated to growing crops for energy. But the majority of all plant matter is cellulose—a solid, low-grade fuel about as futuristic as burning wood. If scientists can convert cellulose into liquid fuels like ethanol, the world’s energy supply and storage problems could both be solved at a stroke.“​

We use "no-till" here also, but corn requires much more nitrogen than the crop residue will provide.

Ethanol is a National policy so it will have to include more than just Michigan. It is law that ethanol be used to replace MTBE's even in areas "it does not make sense".

Farmers are businessman and if more nitrogen and water will increase their bottom line they will do it.

Ethanol is NOT efficient and IS heavily subsidized. I have neighbors that bought into the local plant and they told me that they break even with the tax subsidy. The DDG and other by products are pure profit. That is why the is such a boom to build plants. They want the subsidy so they can loose.

Water may not be a issue in Michigan, it is here and in many of the other corn producing states. Wet years are not guaranteed every year and the most critical time is during pollination.

You said that ethanol is not for everyone, but it has been force down everyones throat in subsidies and the law replacing MTBE's. Also, it is NOT economically competitive NOW. If it was not for the subsidy and tax break the oil companies get you would not be seeing ethanol plant like you do now.

You want to break the reliance on foreign oil, I don't think it will happen. We are already looking to Brazil for our "new" alternative energy source while putting us into deeper debt paying out yet another subsidy.

 

[Show-me]

Here is a good pro and con article. Just because it is the most "viable choice" doesn't make it economical viable.

http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2007/02/ethanol_too_muc.html

Ethanol: Too Much Hype—and Corn

Ethanol enjoys subsidies from Congress and has upped corn prices. The rush to alternative fuels has been unwisely skewed to this one industry. Pro or con?

Pro: Bush’s Cornfield of Dreams

by Moira Herbst
Amid the explosion of consumer interest in all things ecological, elected officials are rushing to promote environmentally friendly policies. In his State of the Union speech, President George W. Bush announced his proposal to cut U.S. gasoline consumption by a fifth over the next 10 years, with a major boost in ethanol and other alternative fuels.
But before the proposal gets cheered into law, it requires further scrutiny. The reality remains that ethanol is no magic potion for meaningfully reducing oil dependence and lowering greenhouse gases. The prospect of boosting ethanol production to 35 billion barrels by 2017 will require massive tax subsidies and produce such environmental damage that the plan can be considered little more than a dream.
One problem with ethanol is its cost. It’s subsidized by the U.S. government at a rate of 51 cents per gallon, and federal and state subsidies for the fuel added up to $6 billion last year. As the number of gallons produced multiplies, so will the cost to the taxpayer.
Taxes aren’t the only burden that will fall on consumers. As ethanol usurps more of the corn crop, the price of corn rises, boosting food prices. Already, about 20% of the corn crop goes toward ethanol production, up from just 3% five years ago. That drove up corn prices 80% in 2006 alone. This week, Richard Bond, the chief executive of meat producer Tyson Foods TSN, warned that if corn continues to be diverted from animal feed, consumers will likely pay “significantly” more for food.
But even if ethanol costs a lot, doesn’t it at least benefit the environment? Not necessarily. Because it’s an oxygenate, ethanol increases levels of nitrous oxides in the atmosphere and causes smog. Researchers are debating the extent to which it reduces greenhouse gases, with some estimates as low as 5%. Also, ethanol lags gasoline in fuel efficiency, and it requires fossil fuels like coal or gas to refine and transport it.
Ethanol’s supporters say that not all ethanol will come from corn crops, and point to the great promise of “cellulosic” ethanol—made from nonfood crops like corn chips and wheatgrass. But the great hope of cellulosic is dampened by a gaping hole in the technology: The enzyme that will convert these plants to starch, and thus ethanol, has yet to be discovered.
So what’s the alternative to Big Corn? If the government is serious about finding cost-effective and environmentally sound alternatives to oil, it will need to invest more in research for cellulosic ethanol, as well as for wind and solar energies. Of course, the other alternative—less costly but surely not as popular—is conservation. That word was noticeably absent from the State of the Union speech.

Con: Ethanol Is Our Most Viable Choice

by Justin Bachman
Ethanol enjoys its favored status because it constitutes the only real option the U.S. has to disrupt what President Bush terms our addiction to foreign oil. A congress of science and economics hasn’t yet managed to generate other viable technologies to power our vehicles—and a shift toward greater use of alternative fuels is clearly necessary. As a nation, we use three times more of the worldwide oil output each year than the next-largest consumer does, and we contribute far more than our share of global carbon emissions. That makes Bush’s call for 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels over the next decade practically a mandate for our role as responsible global citizens.
Additionally, the ethanol industry plays a crucial role for the U.S. Farm Belt. Higher corn prices are helping to recharge economically depressed rural economies, and new ethanol plants bring decent-paying jobs to areas that have suffered chronic underemployment (see BusinessWeek.com, 01/10/07, “Who Profits from Corn’s Pop?”). The 5.3 billion gallons of ethanol used last year consumed only 20% of the nation’s corn crop. Meeting Bush’s goal would still require less than half of the entire corn crop—and that’s only if no new corn production is added.
Moreover, the U.S.’s vital agriculture economy depends heavily on healthy corn prices for farmers, and the current cost of around $4 per bushel is manageable for the economy. The genius of free-market capitalism will sort out what needs to happen as corn prices mature and other corn-dependent industries compete for the feedstock. Ethanol also could become much cheaper than it is now, roughly in line with unleaded gasoline, if Washington ends tariffs on imported ethanol. That tariff, 54 cents a gallon, distorts ethanol’s real cost and slows its U.S. expansion.
Archer Daniels Midland ADM, VeraSun Energy VSE, and other ethanol producers are spending heavily to research feed materials beyond corn, “cellulosic ethanol” (produced from cornstalks, sorghum, wood chips, and switchgrass), and the like. These efforts would render moot worries that greater corn use will adversely affect the overall economy. Regardless of feed source, ethanol has proved a viable industry, as seen by Brazil’s dramatic success in converting its fuel systems to the fuel.