Tractor and farming, related slightly OT

Who is buying votes with ethanol?

They are running under the same policies that were set back in the early 80's.

Every penny you and I spent in taxes to support ethanol is saved at the gas pump in cheaper gas.

Now here are my figures to produce one hector of corn as fuel related. I sent these figures to Dr Pimental at Cornell and he had no disbute with these figures. I had to put my figures per hector not acres cause that is the unit of measure he was using. And he is from the US where we use acres.

I have no way to break out the fuel costs for electricity,seed,
fertilizer,and pesticides, so I will include the total cost as all fuel
related.

Fert. $250

Seed $180

Pest. $134

Fuel used to tend to the corn $45

Drying costs and electricity. $52

Fuel to deliver corn to the plant 50 miles away. $18

Total to get the corn to the ethanol plant. $679 per hector.

Now if you take that figure and divide it by $3.00 ( cost of fuel for me in December when I put these figures together)
you get 227 gallons of fuel to produce one hector.

My corn average yield for the last 3 years is 437 bushels per hector.

The national average is 375 per hector. So we will use the national figure.

That 375 bushel will make 1012 gallons of ethanol. And 10 gallons of corn
oil that can be refined into biodiesel.

I used 227 gallons to produce 1022 gallons. Leaving 735 for heating and
refining.

The cost to cook and refine those 735 gallons is $320. At $3.00 a gallon that leaves
with about 625 gallons to sell.

Trucking 500 miles to the gas station, from ethanol plant about 8 gallon per
hector. So we have a net return of 617 gallons per hector.

So it took 405 gallons of energy to produce 1022.

So I was wrong when I said 55% increase earlier.

It is closer to 155%.

Lets see your facts.

Gary

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _

IaGary said

"Lets see your facts."

Well Gary I applaud your attempt which is wayyyyy more than the rest of the touchy feely posters here with their empty rhetoric and emotionally driven leg jerk reaction posts. Using math like you did to get to your final result has been used before, I believe the accountants at Enron used methods similar to yours to arrive at a pre-determined number through the back door. Let's Ignore that for the time being and jump to your final result shall we?

-Your end result was "So it took 405 gallons of energy to produce 1022."

Actually it took 405 gallons of DIESEL to create 1022 gallons of ETHANOL that has only roughly 2/3 the energy of diesel fuel so right there you're down to 405 gallons used to make only 681 gallons. (1022 X 2/3 = 681)

You also didn't take into consideration that the same $3.00 would buy 20-30 percent more fuel on the front half of your equation if tax was taken out. You're backwards figuring a taxed fuel to create a fuel amount pre-tax. Your math is already debunked here. Using your own padded numbers were already down to 6 of one half dozen of the other in a mere two short sentences. You have given us your numbers here that actually prove corn ethanol takes as much energy to produce as it gives in return so what's your point again?

Instead of debunking your fuzzy math and junk science I could instead use some very straightforward facts as you kindly requested such as:

-Why isn't ethanol used to make ethanol in the ethanol plants? They usually use natural gas.

-Why isn't ethanol used in the tilling, planting and harvesting in the fields? Diesel is used as it's much more efficient.

-Why isn't ethanol used in the transportation of the corn to the distillery and to ship the finished product to the stations afterwards? Once again, diesel is used because it's much more efficient.

-Why is it subsidized at $1.38 per gallon?

-You could feed one person for an entire year on roughly the amount of corn used to fill the average SUV's fuel tank.

-Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of our gasoline consumption yet it consumes 20 percent of our entire corn crop.

-To replace all our current oil consumption with ethanol would require we plant 51% of the entire land area of the 50 states in corn. NOT 51% of our current tillable land, 51% of our ENTIRE land area, obviously impossible. Also take into account
the fact that the 51% number is still derived using oil to till, plant, harvest, produce and transport the corn/fuel as making corn ethanol with corn ethanol simply can't be done. It's the equivalent of having to collect 1.2 gallons of pi$$ to make 1 gallon of fresh drinking water, does my crude analogy bring it into perspective now?

I also find it strange that you used the name Dr. Pimental at Cornell University as though you showed him up and he couldn't dispute your numbers. Just because he threw your bogus numbers in the trash and didn't take the time to respond to you didn't mean you won the debate? After all, he has said in the past:

Link

IaGary said:

"That is totally false about more energy to produce than what is produced."

"I debated that professor who started that idea and he could not prove me wrong."

"I proved a 55% increase of energy and all he did was state his figures from a study done 8 years ago."

You debated him? Is it on YouTube so we can all watch? Or.... is it more along the lines that he threw your numbers in the garbage where they belong
and never responded to you and you claim victory?

More info:

Link

Link

Link

Link

Jack

Jack

I did not include electricity in my statement as you said. Cause electricity is all energy.

I farm 1000 acres of crops and have survived the high and lows of farming for 33 years.

I do not resort to criticizing ones integrity as you do. I am more concerned about getting the truth out there than having many misinformed people. I do not punch at the person. I just try to inform.

How many years have you survived in farming?

Gary

Guess you didn't see it. I hate to type it all over again cause I didn't save it.

The post got deleted cause name calling erupted from the post. Not by me but by others.

I will summarize what I responded.

I may have use the word debate wrong cause it was an email exchange between Dr. Pimental and myself. We went back and forth about 4 times and he quit when I told him he could not deduct the cost of growing the corn and then deduct the corn value again as an expense at the ethanol plant in the form of energy. He also deducted machinery expense and that is not energy cause that came from the ground as iron and labor built it. That is a money making industry.

You make my figures stronger, cause I DID figure in the tax paid on fuel to produce the corn. So part of my figures are tax money not energy.

So cost would be less per acre if I deduct the taxes off my expenses

Costs are also over stated cause we all know the total cost for seed, chemicals, and fertilizer are not all energy related part of it is labor and materials from the earth and I included the total cost.

I was being very high in my energy costs per hectare to produce and we still have a positive return after you take out your factors for ethanol being lower than diesel in kcals.

We still have the corn to feed a person instead of a tank of gas. They didn't buy the corn when it was cheap so why do I care if they don't buy the corn now for food. There will still be a carry over of corn this year for food if they want to pay us for it. Who says the U.S. has to feed the world. No one else does.

We as farmers can produce enough for food and ethanol if we are paid to do it. South America is opening up more land for production every year.

Where does the $1.38 figure for subsidizing come from?

We still have a positive amount of energy return for ethanol production and NOT a negative return as you said.

Gary

That is EXACTLY where you are going wrong. I have a good friend who is a bullder. He doesn't have a SURPLUS of new homes because he only builds what he can sell. When the market for new homes turns weak, as it does every 4-5 years, he builds something else that DOES sell. The government doesn't send him a check to NOT build homes.

If businessmen operated the way farmers do, they would all be bankrupt shortly. If you can't make money from one crop then grow something else.

Don't give me this "we feed them " bullshitt. You earn a living SELLING your product just the way my friend earns a living SELLING his product.

Your jobs do not rely on mother nature like ours do. We are about 2 weeks behind right now because of mother nature. You may get delayed a little but you can catch up when the weather is good. Our crops need so many days to mature.

Maybe we grow half our acres and it is an great growing season and we still create a surplus.

We do switch back and forth a little on crops.

And some years cattle are the best money for the year.

That's why I am diversified as many who have survived are.

I have cattle also.

If a hail storm hits does it wipe out your income for the year. It would mine if I didn't have insurance to cover it.

We don't know how much we will produce till it is in the bin.

Gary

Dave

Get a grip man. You can come up with all the psycho babble and emotional arguments you want. IT TAKES MORE ENERGY TO MAKE A GALLON OF ETHANOL THAN A GALLON OF ETHANOL PROVIDES! Would you salt of the earth farmers be holier than thou if the government paid you to dig ditches in the spring and then paid you to fill them back up in the fall? That's pretty much what you're doing with ethanol. Is your operation running on ethanol yet or is your entire fleet of equipment diesel powered? Diesel you say? Wonder why that is?

Jack

Started in 1976.

I have use 10% bio diesel in my diesel tractors for 4 years now.

Gary

I've listened to plenty of pissin and moanin at every family gathering for 50 years.

They just don't get it when I tell them that the government doesn't pay me to NOT do something.

Jack

Jack