Jetty

Three Ethanol Pioneers That Could Profit Nicely

You "recall hearing" is not a very scientific basis for bashing a viable product. The most recent studies have indicated that ethanol has a 1.4-1.6 possitive energy balance. In other words you get 40-60% more energy than is used to create ethanol. Gasoline has a negative energy balance of about 25%. So there is a significant energy gain.
Ethanol had a very insignificant role in the increase of food prices. Corn prices skyrocketed last year because of speculation, not because of supply and demand. Corn carryout will be in the 1.8 billion bushel area. There is hardly a shortage of corn. Without ethanol gasoline prices would have been 15% higher last year. I know corn ethanol is not the long term solution, but it is a vital piece to energy independence. Corn ehtanol is needed to establish and maintain an infrastructure for distribution and use. Cellulosic ethanol is viable, but needs a firm basis to encourage more investment. Other alternatives are not even close. We are not ready to give up our powerful combustion engines. There is new technology that fully utilizes the strengths of ethanol to get better mileage. Unless you have something besides depending on our friends in the middle east to supply us with our energy needs, become educated and support what we have.


On Feb 13 03:01 PM Marcap wrote:

> Hi jksisco,
>
> I recall hearing that it takes 1.5 gals of gas to make 1 gal of ethanol.
> But either way, I'm not sure that I believe either. I think that
> it was perhaps some oil company executive who made those statements.
> Nonetheless, producing ethanol is indeed a very expensive process,
> and with so little benefit it would appear. It is simply not worth
> the cost or effort.
>
> The bottom line is this: Why subject us all to $6.00 or more for
> a dozen corn, and fuel for our cars even more expensive than it is
> now, if there are no offsetting benefits? Of course if you own a
> lot of corn-producing land, you may have a completely different perspective,
> since it would be like having an oil well in your back yard.
>
> On Feb 13 12:05 PM jksisco wrote:

Does Ethanol Deserve the Blame for Rising Food Prices?

Good article--As for the comments from the poster using the Pimentel/Patzek studies, they have been proven wrong by every other study out there. There is a positive energy balance with ethanol. Gasoline has a negative 25% energy balance. As for the subsidies--Corn is not subsidized because of ehtanol. The subsidies paid to farmers are paid to idle acres and to make up for pricing that is below a break even point. Ethanol would reduce those subsidies. In 2006 the ethanol industry generated 1.2 billion more in federal revenue than was paid in blenders credits. As for the cost to the consumers at the pump, here in SD we are currently seeing as much as a 20 cent lower cost of 10% blended ethanol.
The bug doctor and the Big Oil guy need to go away!!