# How Biofuels are hurting the poor



## Dahc (Feb 14, 2006)

Last year, I posted on here in the midst of the ethanol whirlwind, that an abrupt move toward ethanol production would hurt the poor because food prices would go up. Many pro-green folks stepped up and basically made it out like I was uninformed. They began to inform me of how many crops and agricultural by-products could be used to produce ethanol. I knew all this already but what I also knew is that corn, potatos and sugar cane were going to be the best producers for maximum yeild. Couple that with an inherant need within mankind to horde up everything for himself, especially money... Anyway... People kind of made it out like these producers of ethanol would use some type of restraint and "do the right thing" and as I said then... Nope, ain't gonna happen. They're going to use the food crops because they will produce more ethanol.

Yeah, yeah, I know, it sounds like an "I told you so" letter. Well guess what, it is.

*I told you so!*

Last month, the news was released that there were some angry mexicans down in mexico. They were mad because their country had grown use to cheap GM corn dumped on the market by the US. Since the american taxpayer pays for our corn in the form of subsidies, our government thinks it's ok to sell it all to other countries... anyway, GM corn had become cheaper for mexicans to buy and use, than if they were to grow there own. All their industries began using the corn in their food products and it became a part of the economy. Now that the "corn crunch" is on, the poor in mexico can no longer afford their food due to supply and demand pricing issues.

Come to find out, mexico's problems are just the tip of the iceberg. Corn and other food staple prices are going up globally and it is getting worse. I'm done with my rant now. I'll leave everyone with a link.

antichristdotcom


----------



## Phillip (Feb 6, 2006)

Yeah, its raising chickens feed prices too


----------



## Dahc (Feb 14, 2006)

Phillip said:


> Yeah, its raising chickens feed prices too


It sure is. I've been cutting bushes for the goats and chickens.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Is there anything that does not 'hurt the poor'?


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

ET1 SS said:


> Is there anything that does not 'hurt the poor'?


Doesn't seem to be. Well, maybe the price of a Ferrari. 

Frankly I'd rather see corn prices at a level where farmers can at least have some hope of making break-even or better from the market and from the people actually using the product instead of farmers having to get subsidies from the government collecting money from people who don't even have to use the product to have to pay for it through their taxes. I just wish the US didn't feel the need to buy votes in the Midwest subsidizing overproduction then dump that overproduction below COP into other countries and wipe out their agriculture.


----------



## Hip_Shot_Hanna (Apr 2, 2005)

listened to a talk today that stated that the ethanol gas mix that the feds are bringing in will LOWER your gas milage by 18% that takes my vehicle from 22 MPG to just over 18 MPG , HOWS THAT FOR GOUGING ?


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

I've been thinking exactly the same thing. The folks that buy the big luxury vehicles, suv's, monster trucks will say " I work for it and can afford it why shouldn't I be able to drive it" . Does this not increase the demand the more gas it consumed, then the price goes up. Poor people mostly cannot afford new vehicles but buy used gas guzzling vehicles so they are affected not only by the increased fuel costs, but in what is available to buy for them. The poor person doesn't just feel a little inconvenience, he just might not be able to eat, or can't afford health care. 
This doesn't even begin to include the higher cost of everything else that is a product of corn. Last year corn went from 2.50 a bushel to 4.00 a bushel. We had a colder house then. The sheep didn't get fed corn. I'm sure it will have a great effect on meat prices. It will increase hay prices in this area as well as others because farmers see that higher income so they plant corn.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Heavan forbid that farmers can actually earn a living. We have the lowest food prices on the planet. If the poor are hungry it is because they never learned to feed themselves, not because of ethanol.


----------



## Dahc (Feb 14, 2006)

wendle said:


> I've been thinking exactly the same thing. The folks that buy the big luxury vehicles, suv's, monster trucks will say " I work for it and can afford it why shouldn't I be able to drive it" . Does this not increase the demand the more gas it consumed, then the price goes up. Poor people mostly cannot afford new vehicles but buy used gas guzzling vehicles so they are affected not only by the increased fuel costs, but in what is available to buy for them. The poor person doesn't just feel a little inconvenience, he just might not be able to eat, or can't afford health care.
> This doesn't even begin to include the higher cost of everything else that is a product of corn. Last year corn went from 2.50 a bushel to 4.00 a bushel. We had a colder house then. The sheep didn't get fed corn. I'm sure it will have a great effect on meat prices. It will increase hay prices in this area as well as others because farmers see that higher income so they plant corn.


You have hay? You lucky dog!

The corn crunch is causing everything else to go up. On the self-reliance forum someone had said most livestock owners in their area had to go with wheat because corn went up so much but a late freeze killed the young wheat. They not only had expensive corn but the supply/demand on wheat forced those prices up past corn. Now they are both too expensive and there are several areas that can't even get wheat now. What I assume is happening at the moment is that oat and barley prices are creeping up under our noses.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

My neighbor farms corn, several thousand acres of the stuff. His comment on the current, all too infrequent high corn price? Don't worry we'll find a way to get it back down (to unprofitable levels) His meant what he said even if he wasn't happy with the thought. Personally I think inner city traffic should be mass transit only and/or toll taxed.


----------



## tomstractormag (Feb 23, 2007)

tinknal said:


> Heaven forbid that farmers can actually earn a living. We have the lowest food prices on the planet. If the poor are hungry it is because they never learned to feed themselves, not because of ethanol.



Why can't farmers make money? Try growing what people want. I have stated this before (many times) STOP raising corn and cows!!! I need neither to survive. Stop cramming (or at least trying to) corn and milk down my throat. I do fine without them although I do eat a very small amount of beef. I do eat meat like chicken, turkey, pork and seafood. Veggies are a large part of my diet. Look around at the majority of the American population, lack of food is not the problem. Lack of GOOD food is! Food prices here are not low cost. There are many hidden costs through subsidies, tax breaks for the big processors. What you think you are saving in the store you make up for in taxes. Lack of knowledge to feed oneself is not really true to any extent. Maybe in this country due to the marketing of "junk" foods. The biggest problem is lack of good (or any) water. You can live without oil, but you cannot live without water. Ethanol made from any source is a joke. Its a loss game. Every time energy is transfered there is a net loss. Even the ethanol producers are complaining about the cost of corn. So lets see; grow less corn and save energy, less cows and save energy. Grow what we can locally and save energy. Drive more effecient vehicles and save energy, explore alternate fuels and save energy. In a sept/oct 1980 Mother Earth News they had a small roadster type car > 129 MPG < this was 37 years ago! My how far we have traveled... My thoughts. Tom


----------



## tooltime (Nov 16, 2003)

Yeah, it got so bad in Mexico that the Mexican government finally lowered the tariffs somewhat on corn. Maybe the Mexican government should start thinking about their own people a bit more. No, I suppose it's much more convenient to blame Americans. 

Check the numbers on ethanol production before you claim it's a loss. It's not the answer to America's energy problems, but it's not to blame for all problems in the world either. With farmer-owned ethanol plants, the rise in corn prices is a wash.

Even fully accounting for ag. subsidies and all these tax breaks to producers, your food cost as a proportion of income in the United States is still the lowest in the world. Also, realize that as commodity prices rise, the countercyclical and LDP disappear, so the only subsidy is the DCP. 

In real terms, corn was much more expensive a decade ago.


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

They say (whoever they are) that in an area of about 1,000 square miles in NW Colorado is located more oil (locked in shale) than are the stated oil reserves of Iraq and Saudi Arabia combined. Additional oil shale, though not so concentrated is found in nearby parts of Wyoming and Utah.

While it would be expensive to produce and might even devastate that 1,000 square mile area, thats only 33 miles by 33 miles, it would certainly save the croplands from being ravaged for biofuels, it would negate the need for oil development of other wild areas (ANWR has less than one percent of the oil of Colorado), it would provide hundreds of thousands of good domestic jobs, would make America energy independent, etc.. 

It might require a very large water pipeline from the Great Lakes for the process of the extraction of the oil from the shale in Colorado.


----------



## Rocky Fields (Jan 24, 2007)

Hey.

I'm sure the predicted 1.2 trillion dollars of our money going into Iraq would have paid for the technology to bring down the cost of oil extraction from shale. Too bad oil companies own the US and our politicians. It should have never gotten to this point.

Ethanol production has led to higher fert and seed prices. The cost of meat and dairy products will be going up.

Growing corn for ethanol will lead to farmland being run down by greedy people not wanting to use cover crops to rejuvenate the land. They will grow corn year after year until the land is depleted.

There is suppose to be 288% less hay in the US due to increased corn for ethanol. This should lead to some higher hay prices in some areas this year.

There definitely are some ripple effects due to increased ethanol production.


RF


----------



## Rocky Fields (Jan 24, 2007)

PS

I'm not a statistician, so I cannot explain the 288% I saw in print. Maybe it is based on 1000% which would reduce to 28.8%. Anyways, the point is there will be substantially less hay in some areas.

RF


----------



## michiganfarmer (Oct 15, 2005)

Hip_Shot_Hanna said:


> listened to a talk today that stated that the ethanol gas mix that the feds are bringing in will LOWER your gas milage by 18% that takes my vehicle from 22 MPG to just over 18 MPG , HOWS THAT FOR GOUGING ?


I would ask a good local mechanic before I believed a talk show host idiot who's only job is to look good on tv.


----------



## SHELBY (Mar 9, 2003)

michiganfarmer said:


> I would ask a good local mechanic before I believed a talk show host idiot who's only job is to look good on tv.



I don't know about the % but the ethenol mixed gas that we bought when we went out west made my mountaineer, run like carp and it did get lower fuel mileage.


----------



## bachelorb (Oct 4, 2005)

Rocky Fields said:


> Hey.
> 
> Growing corn for ethanol will lead to farmland being run down by greedy people not wanting to use cover crops to rejuvenate the land. They will grow corn year after year until the land is depleted.


I don't think I believe that. Farmers are out to make money too. They can't do that by running down their land. Corn on Corn is getting to pretty much be the standard. They've come along way using deep fertilization and zone tillage or no tillage. 



Rocky Fields said:


> There is suppose to be 288% less hay in the US due to increased corn for ethanol. This should lead to some higher hay prices in some areas this year.
> 
> There definitely are some ripple effects due to increased ethanol production.
> 
> ...


Your right there, but its a supply and demand world. When hay prices come up to where it as profitable to produce, then things will balance out again. Look corn and hay have had low prices for years. I had to basically sell my hay at cost just to compete. Which is fine with me because the stuff I sell is just the extra stuff the critters don't eat. Remember the biggest cost to produce hay is fuel. See the vicious circle? .....this is the song that never ends....


----------



## Cash (Apr 24, 2007)

Ethanol, straight or mixed with gasoline, brings miles per gallon down because it has less energy per volume than gasoline does. Ethanol contains 84,100 BTUs per gallon, gasoline has 114,100. So you need to burn more ethanol to provide the same amount of energy needed to move your vehicle. 

And yes, ethanol is slightly energy-positive, about one energy unit in for two or three out, depending on the process. It's much higher for sugar cane, barely above break-even for corn. Gasoline OTOH is one to 30 or more.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

DaleK said:


> Doesn't seem to be. Well, maybe the price of a Ferrari.
> 
> Frankly I'd rather see corn prices at a level where farmers can at least have some hope of making break-even or better from the market and from the people actually using the product instead of farmers having to get subsidies from the government collecting money from people who don't even have to use the product to have to pay for it through their taxes. I just wish the US didn't feel the need to buy votes in the Midwest subsidizing overproduction then dump that overproduction below COP into other countries and wipe out their agriculture.


What might come as a surprise to some is, sometimes, when the U.S. dumps the overproduction in other countries they will later buy the same grain back.


----------



## pixelphotograph (Apr 8, 2007)

corn is actually one of the least efficient ethanol producers when you compare plants. But we (the U.S. ) can grow alot of it in different locations. You can get alot more ethanol out of sugar cane than you can corn.
Me personally I want an electric car I'm tired of being in the pay the man loop where I rely on someone to make fuel for my vehicle.

I know electric cars need to be powered by something but there are solar panels which give free power, and they have cars now (although no one ca afford them) that plug in at night and in 6 hours you are fully charged and can go over 100 miles or more at a speed of 60+ miles per hour.


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

Power from solar panels is not free.

The panels are very expensive and require great amounts of energy to manufacture (its often said more energy is required to manufacture a solar panel than the panel will ever generate, although that equation is changing with advancing technology).


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

I gotta jump in and counter that hillside,
The figures have been done way more than once about the mano costs vs the pontential out put of a PV pannel over its life time.
After a very short time (3 years or so ??) the PV pannel is then free and clear.
And BTW the "life time" of PV pannels is still not a fixed number. I have one set of pannels that are 23+ years old and they are still doing just fine.

sorry but I don't have any "links" to that info (not that I would even know how to put them in here anyway)


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

It is my understanding that with each generation of PV design the efficiency goes up slightly. 20%, 22%, 24%

And that from date of manufacture a particular photo cells output will hold steady for about a year, and then slowly decline. Each year of age lowers a PV cell's output by 3 to 5 percent.

So that after ten years, while the cells still make electricity, they are no longer 24% efficient but rather it may be down as low as 15%, or lower.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Jim-mi said:


> I gotta jump in and counter that hillside,
> The figures have been done way more than once about the mano costs vs the pontential out put of a PV pannel over its life time.
> After a very short time (3 years or so ??) the PV pannel is then free and clear.
> And BTW the "life time" of PV pannels is still not a fixed number. I have one set of pannels that are 23+ years old and they are still doing just fine.
> ...


 Yes, 2-3 years and the 'energy debt' of manufacturing a solar panel is paid back. 'Homepower' Magazine has lots of information about that stuff.


As far as ethanol, the verdict is still out on the energy payback value. Most studies AGAINST ethanol figured in the high costs of dumping large amounts of petroleum based fertilizers on the corn, as well as powering the tractors and machinery with petroleum.
The age of cheap oil is very nearly over, we as a society have been living too long on the largess of mother earth and her millions of years of stored solar energy in the form of hydrocarbons. A correction is in order, and some people may whine about 'i'm getting 18% less fuel economy' or 'my fuel costs more', but rest assured, you will be paying what it is worth. Since the era of cheap subsidised petroluem is coming to an end, we'd better get used to it and be prepared to spend more of our money for energy. Or drive less! Aint no free lunch.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

greg273 said:


> As far as ethanol, the verdict is still out on the energy payback value. Most studies AGAINST ethanol figured in the high costs of dumping large amounts of petroleum based fertilizers on the corn, as well as powering the tractors and machinery with petroleum.



Actually, those are the fair studies.

The one's slanted against ethanol figure in the energy of the sunlight falling on the corn fields; as well as using 5-10 year old data on conversion efficiencies. Then they do not include the byproduct production of high-protien DDG nor the carbon dioxide -which has value & is a finished product.

The sunlight is 'free' (the costs are in harvesting that sunlight - whether constructing photo cells, windmills, or planting, fertilizing, & harvesting a crop) so silly to include the energy in the sunlight as a negative in the figures.

Today they are getting close to 2.9 gallons of ethanol from a bu of corn, used to be you were stretching it to say 2.4 gal per bu. As well the energy consumed by the plants has fallen by several % points, as they refine their production methods. Combined this leads to a huge efficiency increase.

You have to look at all 3 products an ethanol plant makes, not just the one, since all energy used to produce those 3 items is 100% in the equasion. If you don't, then for example the energy used to dry down the DDGs should not be inluded......

They should include the fertilizer, as well as fuel used to produce the crop.

I don't believe ethanol from corn will be _the_ ansuwer to our fuel needs, but it will help in getting us from where we are to where we will be. More-so it helps provide cleaner burning autos. Not perfect, but - better.


As to the Mexicans & poor - a loaf of bread in the USA has 5 cents worth of wheat in it. If we double the cost of the wheat, you have raised the price of a $1 loaf of bread to $1.05.

Wow, those farmers are sure ripping everyone off, aren't they??????

Used to be us dasterdly Americans were dumping our cheap corn onto the world market. This was so terrible, the poor couldn't take it - it was devastating them. Us dastardly Americans should stop dumping our cheap corn on the world market.

So, now, here we are - corn has averaged about a $1 higher per bu for 9 _whole_ months. We likely will ship a bit less corn into world markets next year. In 2 years prduction levels in the world will rise to put bulk grain prices back to poverty prices - but for 2 years, USA will do exactly what teeth-gnashers have demanded for decades.

And guess what???? We are just dastardly Americans, our high corn prices are devestating the poor. They have food riots now, because we dastardly Americans don't supply cheap food........

Sigh.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.


The growth in China & the Pasific Rim has as much to do with grain prices as ethanol pproduction.

The cheap USA dollar also has as much to do with it. China's growth & excess trade with us means they finally will spend all those dollars they got selling us Walmart & Harbor Freight trinkets. They will spend some on grains from the USA - even at today's price, USA grain is cheap because our dollar low-valued. China would rather buy raw materials at this time - fuel, metal, cement, grains - and build their empire with purchased goods. For now.

Brazil & Argentina have $$$ issues, and even with the higher world prices on grains, they are not in a position to take full advantage. Their inflation & poor transportation system keeps them has taxed their ability to compete - even with the higher grain prices in USA dollars.

All these things have come together. Along with ethanol use. Europe is also expanding it's bio-fuels, when they really don't grow much bio-fuel crops. So they too are adding to the global demand.

It is a short-term deal. There are ripple effects. It won't last. China will revert to self-sufficiency. Brazil will someday get their ecconomy working forward, not backward. USA dollar will rebound & make $2.40 corn be less inviting to other countries than today's $3.70 corn is.

It all levels out again.

Farmers in the mid-west have been leaning to corn on corn for years. It's not greed, is trying to pay the bills. Beans don't pay the bills. Corn yeilds keep going up, notill & other technology has made corn on corn work better than other crop rotations for many. It's cheaper, easier to keep soil fertility up, etc.

For some of us it is a good ripple. We've had a lot of bad ripples over the past 40 years...... Can't we get just one ripple every few decades?

--->Paul


----------



## Tad (Apr 2, 2003)

SO if the poor were smart they would plant corn in their back yards then? Who knows, I already heard everyone anticipating the high corn prices have increased plantings by 12 mill. acres. That much corn hits the market the price will not go up. Tell the mexicans they will be able to buy thier corn with the money their familly member snuck over the border to send home. If the mexicans are such good farmers send them all home and grow their own food. Corn alchol is a bad way to do it anyway. it is like 1/1.3 ratio of carbon return. Bio diesel is a better return but thanks to NY deisel cars are no not aloud to be sold, must be too effecient they don't get enough tax money. On small cars that sip gas....try being the farmer, we just raise hay for our cows to cut back on inputs and we spend a pretty penny on fuel. I would hate to run a $1000 in fuel through a combine in a day!


----------



## Dahc (Feb 14, 2006)

> It is a short-term deal. There are ripple effects. It won't last. China will revert to self-sufficiency. Brazil will someday get their ecconomy working forward, not backward. USA dollar will rebound & make $2.40 corn be less inviting to other countries than today's $3.70 corn is.


I don't agree. China sunk an "extra" 90 billion... repeat "billion", into their military last year and this year it will be more. Unless they have come up with a new, revolutionary way to power heavy vehicles, they are going to keep protecting Iran. If they keep doing that, We are still going to be in the same situation we are in now, high gas prices and a major push towards ethanol. China is going to keep protecting it's interests and it's interests at the moment is oil for military expansion.

The dollar isn't coming back. It's a dead dog. The amero will be the new north american currency. It may not be called that but it is a unified north america that is going to result from the dieing dollar. We can all kiss what little bit of american soveriegnty we had left goodbye. There is no way we can sustain this economy. I'm betting on major changes before dec 08. This place is going to be a carbon copy of godless europe and it's union.

I'm also looking for a huge war in the middle east like we have never seen before. Damascus is going down hard and the russians will get involved due to their treaties with syria and iran. A lot of people are going to die and oil imports and availability will become "0" for a while. The end of 08. Watch.



> And guess what???? We are just dastardly Americans, our high corn prices are devestating the poor. They have food riots now, because we dastardly Americans don't supply cheap food........


Have you been to the grocery store lately? The price of everything is going up... and up... and up further. Animal feeds are going up, fuel is going up, anything used to make ethanol is going up. I'm one those dastardly americans too my friend, but I can barely afford my food now. Those who make less than 15 thousand a year know what I'm saying is true and there are a lot of them here. I'm not just talking about mexicans and other foreigners, I'm talking about us!


----------



## ajaxlucy (Jul 18, 2004)

If you're interested, here's a website that explores the production and use of ethanol as an alternative to petroleum-based fuels, both generally and with regards to a specific proposal to build an ethanol production plant in a small town in Minnesota:

http://www.medialab.blogs.com/our_ethanol_debate/


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Dahc said:


> going to keep protecting Iran. If they keep doing that, We are still going to be in the same situation we are in now, high gas prices and a major push towards ethanol. China is going to keep protecting it's interests and it's interests at the moment is oil for military expansion.


Political issues blow any scenerio out of the water these days. I agree with you on that.


Heard on the news last nite, the price of corn will affect beer prices. Well, now, I will have to re-evaluate my stance on this. Maybe you are right.......... 


Processed food prices are skyrocketing because of fuel, fertilizer, copper, stainless steel, and other prices rising, govt regulations are mushrooming in the food industries. For the most part the actual food itself is the smaller part of the end cost of these products.

It's convienent to blame ethanol or greedy farmers for rising food prices, and we will hear much more of it. (I'm not saying you are blaming anyone - just a reaction to the general tone of this from the media....)

Reality is a little different tho.  Yes higher feed-grade corn prices has a ripple effect, but a lot of middlemen along the way are making bigger ripples than what the farmer is getting out of this - in addition to their increased costs of doing business.

--->Paul


----------



## Cash (Apr 24, 2007)

rambler said:


> Processed food prices are skyrocketing because of fuel, fertilizer, copper, stainless steel, and other prices rising, govt regulations are mushrooming in the food industries. For the most part the actual food itself is the smaller part of the end cost of these products.
> 
> It's convienent to blame ethanol or greedy farmers for rising food prices, and we will hear much more of it. (I'm not saying you are blaming anyone - just a reaction to the general tone of this from the media....)
> 
> ...


I think the true ripple effect isn't from higher fuel, fertilizer, copper, etc. prices. It's from higher hydrocarbon prices. The cost of the energy required to produce all of those things -- indeed, everything in our modern civilization -- has a cumulative effect as the product works its way through the supply chain. Look at crude oil and natural gas prices over the past ten years. As someone else has already noted, the era of cheap energy is ending, and with it the era of cheap food, cheap clothing, cheap tools, cheap everything.

Paul makes an excellent point about the relative effect of higher corn prices. The farmer isn't getting nearly as large a piece of the increase as he deserves, nor does he deserve nearly as much of the blame.


----------



## crafty2002 (Aug 23, 2006)

hillsidedigger said:


> They say (whoever they are) that in an area of about 1,000 square miles in NW Colorado is located more oil (locked in shale) than are the stated oil reserves of Iraq and Saudi Arabia combined. Additional oil shale, though not so concentrated is found in nearby parts of Wyoming and Utah.
> 
> While it would be expensive to produce and might even devastate that 1,000 square mile area, thats only 33 miles by 33 miles, it would certainly save the croplands from being ravaged for biofuels, it would negate the need for oil development of other wild areas (ANWR has less than one percent of the oil of Colorado), it would provide hundreds of thousands of good domestic jobs, would make America energy independent, etc..
> 
> It might require a very large water pipeline from the Great Lakes for the process of the extraction of the oil from the shale in Colorado.


I don't doubt what you say in the lest. When they rationed gas in the early 70's I was working in the shipyards in Morgan City, La.
They were drilling wells out in the gulf of Mexico and capping hem off. In one of the shipyards I worked at they had a single building that was huge. I couldn't start to tell you how many people worked in the buildngm but everyone of us were building caps fpr the wells that they were drilling and capping. 
There were literally thousands of wells sitting out the on the bottom of the culf capped off while we were setting in lines for gas. 
A television station did a series of shows on the shop and what we were making, while I was down there working. I was interviewed and taped as were many others, but it got shut down before it aired. :shrug: 
Then all of a suden everyone that had been taped on camera was laid off. They were shipping American indians in and teaching them to weld, and putting them to work. I didn't take anything at all from the s*** head Cajun bosses that were everywhere done there, and in a three year period went to work and quit, I think it was 9 jobs. It may have been 8 and the 9th was the one I got laid off at, but I went to work the same day I quit every job, at another shipyard until I got laid off. We didn't get fired. Reduction of Forces. R.O.F.ed. I couldn't get hired on at another shipyard after that period in the La. ship yards. I finally got a job in some tittle place in Texas and was laid off about three days later and that was it. 
No one would hire me anywhere and I ran into several of the others that Got ROF'ed the same time as I did and they also ran into the same brick wall. 
We were all blackballed because of the news show that never even got aired. 
I wouold bet a thousand to one that if the real truth be known, there are still thousands of wells setting down there capped off. 
As much money as the oil companies are making and they are running at full production. The number of refineries are the bottke neck and they don't build anymore because if they did the supply and demand would cut into thier profits.

Another thing, is the amount of corn being grown. 
Virginia, South and North Carilina all have millions of acres of farm land setting idle because of the tobacco buyout. They are getting paid not to grow anything. There is several thousand acres of farmland just around Danville that was full bore growing tobacco until the buyout. 
The largest part of them are just setting and letting the fields grow up with whatever wants to grow on them. 
I am fortunate to have 20 of those acres adjoining my small parcel of property that I can do as I see fit with. The man won't charge me a penny rent and I tryied to get him to lease it to me. He kept telling me not to worry about it and I even told him atleast sign a lease I drew up and lease it to me for a dollar a year so I could get some things going I can't without it, and he said enough for me to read between the lines. He had tobbacco poundage, the land leased to a tobacco grower, so the Government is paying him not to farm it. If he leased it to me, even for a dollat a year he would loose the gav. money.
Our government is screwingus and as I have said before, 99.999% of the people in America doesn't even have a clue to what is going on, and if you say something to them, They think you are some consperacy nut case.

The farmers are the ones in the know. They all know what is going on and the ones that really want to work for a living unstead of taking a Gov., handout in the way of the subs., are getting together and starting co-ops and heck yes, they are rigth to do so, even if the idiots that believe all the hog wash the Gov. is feeding us wants to yell, we are starving the entire world. 
Stupidest bunch of people I have ever seen " IN MY LIFE "!!!!!!!!!!
There is enough farmland setting idle just around here to produce God only knows how much fuel. And itn has been proven time and again that hemp is the best grop for fuel.
You get biodisel from the seeds and alcohol from the leaf and stalks and it will shoot up to 20 -25 feet in a single season. It is a high nitrogen loving plants, but it sure would be a greta place to get rid of the solid waste from the sewage plants, now wouldn't it?????????????
I gave up on talking about it because so many peoples heads are screwed on upside down it isn't funny. 
Well, that's enough steam for one day. Gotta get to the garden to make sure I have some corn for the familly to eat when the world runs out.

Dennis


----------



## crafty2002 (Aug 23, 2006)

The part about the Celluosic ethanol says it all. 
It has been proven that 40 million acres of feilds planted with hemp can produce all the fuel reguirements for the U.S.,.
40 million acres sounds like a lot of land and it is, but not as large as everyone thinks. There is 640 acres in a single sq. mile. So we divide 40,000,000 acres by 640 and wallah. It is 62,500 square miles. 
Now 62,500 square miles sounds like a lot when said like that also. Doesn't it?
Punch 62,500 into the calculator, (because I have forgotten how to do the sq. root of anything), and punch the Sq. Root button and what is this I see?? 
No it can't be. A 250 mile square. 
Now lets think about something else here for a while. I just spent an hour or so looking for info on the amount of desert land we have in the US but couldn't find a number anywhere. But the Rand McNally road atlas shows several places that looks like it would be quite easy to come up with a total of 62,500 Sq. miles. Actually it looks as if it would be easy to come up with a couple million sq. miles from say 1 or 200 sites. 
Now hemp are sun loving plants. They like sandy soil also. Im learned all this studying to grow pot plants when I was a dum kid. All they need is fertilizer and water and they will tower like you wouldn't believe. 
Ok, Ok. Where are you going to get the water in the desert, right?
they have for years built machines that make drinking water from salt water. And the oceans are so full of it that they are encroching upon already build towns along the shores so we aren't about to run out of water. It goes hand in hand with our need for fuel. More reserch needs to be done on water purification. 
We pump crude oil from Alaska threw a pipe line. Why not water. I would dare say, if there were enough thin stainless steel trays flooded with salt water, between the rows of hemp plants that when the heat and dry air would mix together, that it would start raining in the deserts with out any further maintance except to clean the leftover salt from the trays periodically.
Another pipe line from major cities with thier human waste sludge to fertilize the plants and boom, we have the plants for making our own fuel. 
Did I leave out anything except the solar panels in the correct spots to power all the equipment needed sense there seems to be an abudance of sunshine in these locations. :shrug: 
On top of all that being good for us all, there would be a lot more water filtering down to the aquifer which would in turn feed water to the places that are running out of water. 

Ok.
#1; Now we are useing land that is nearly useless.
#2; We are removng water from a very plentifull supply
#3; We are creating moisture in the air so it can feed the land for development.
#4; We are creating brand new jobs that this country needs badly.
#5; We are cutting the dependance of Overseas oil.
#6; We are feeding the Aquifer for human use.
#7; We are leaveing the corn alone.
#8; We are leaving the feed for livestock alone.
#9; We are, We are, we are doing more for this country sense the highway system was started decades ago, to give the country a boot in the a** that it needed at that time and needs even worse today.

Now ya'll can nitpick this plan to death. But if you do, come up with a better idea and I will shut up.

Just my two pennies worth. Do I get any change back?????
Dennis


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

1. Ethanol from bio-mass has great potential, but it is a theory at this point. They feel 10 years of research are needed to make it work in the real world, not just on paper. It will take some serious $$$ & time to make it work.

I'm all for it, mind you.  We just can't put the cart before the horse. It is not viable - yet.


2. Hemp has a stigma with it - the drug culture seems to be the biggest group pushing for it at every turn. I understand the difference between industrial hemp & the stuff those folks wish to grow. However, the stigma is there, and it is a public relations nightmare. Would be best if everyone who is self-medicaded would just get off the industrial hemp bandwagon.......

3. Any crop that is harvested & removed from the soil will need fertilizer to replentish the soil. There is no free lunch. Hemp is no eception to this.

4. Any crop grown intensively becomes subject to weeds & disease. Hemp will be no exception.

5. Environmentalists will wail & nash teeth about the loss of acres from whatever their pet project of the month is. Look at windmills - were promoted by that group for decades, now that people want to build windmills - nope, can't, they are bad for the environment....... So it goes.

With all that, I'm all for the continued research into bio-mass use in ethanol, bio-diesel, and other power use. I'm all for it.

Here in the upper mid-west we have a lot of wetter ground that would produce a lot of biomass from switchgrass or other fast-growing plants. Would be a good use of this land. Would need to compepte with wetlands restoration projects.

Will be interesting.

--->Paul


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

The 40 million acres referred to in the previous post by crafty2002 amounts to about 1/12th. the cropland planted and worked in the U.S. each year. Hemp would best be grown on good naturally watered farmland, and if its only 1/12th. of America's cropland to provide a source for all of our energy, it would be a bargain.

Sounds to good. There must be a catch.

BTW, there is not an extra million square miles laying around somewhere in America waiting to be discovered. This country and the entire world are currently being utilized at far beyond sustainable levels, but a million square miles is 16 times as large as 40 million acres and a conversion of cornland to hemp might well be justified if it could really supply all American energy needs.


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

Coming from a place where industrial hemp is pretty easy to grow now at least in comparison to the US, it just ain't living up to the hype. I expect it will improve....someday....but of the farmers I know trying to grow it, only one is really able to sell it for a worthwhile price, and that's only because a few people are willing to pay him extra for the novelty of building a strawbale house out of hemp instead of straw. Another friend of mine has taken all his baled hemp out to the woods to rot the last two years because the fabled insatiable market demand the hypesters convinced him existed wasn't willing to pay him enough to cover the trucking, let alone the costs of growing it. Now they're sinking their life savings into the hope that maybe, in 10 years, if there's any money left, they can somehow cobble together their own processing plant.
Think I'll watch and learn from them until (if) there's a bankable demand there.

Oh yeah, they're starting to realize that a lot of the people pushing farmers to grow industrial hemp here are just hoping to be able to use it as a cover for growing their own "medical" supply on someone else's land, although I've heard more amusing stories from them about people smoking large quantities of worthless stolen hemp than I care to remember. Some of the police officers I know claim there's a movement afoot among some of the more offbeat officers to move industrial hemp on the streets to try to turn kids off of the real stuff. One of my neighbours nephews did learn that selling massive quantities of industrial hemp to your high school classmates on Friday afternoon, then spending the money immediately, is a good way to earn a beating.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

this isn't the place for the pot arguement, but the easiest way to destroy the stigma would be to legalize recreational use. it's no worse than booze and my state makes massive dollars selling drugs to the public and then busting them when they drive while using it.


----------



## Spinner (Jul 19, 2003)

The sad part is that the prairie grasses in the ditches can be converted to ethanol more efficiently than corn can. Corn is one of the worst choices for ethanol production. So why do they insist on using it???


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

funny thing is hemp was outlawed in the US not because of its drug value but because it competed with cotton. The Cotton industry lobbied to have it made illegal.
All the negative hype about bio fuels is being fed by the oil companies who have pumped mega bucks into the anti -bio propaganda. yes at the moment its cost is high but once its up and running the prices will all equalize . its simple supply and demand. when computers first came out they were high dollar and the prices have dropped the same will be true for bio. Feed prices will stablize as well and many may even drop soy beans pressed for oil will flood the market with soy meal. corn will also be pressed then the meal fermented into mash and alcohol recovered the resulting mash will then be used as feed also . what do you think moonshiners did with their used mash  fed it to the pigs.
In addition to corn the price of sugar beets will be on the rise for a while. 
Lets be real though bio fuel doesnt hurt the poor any more than the rising cost of gas does the cost is always passed down.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Spinner said:


> The sad part is that the prairie grasses in the ditches can be converted to ethanol more efficiently than corn can. Corn is one of the worst choices for ethanol production. So why do they insist on using it???



Today? Now?

I think you are reading the hype, & not reading the facts on this issue.

Prairie grasses need more energy than they produce _today_ to make ethanol from the lignen.

As well, you need to transport about 10x as much raw material as corn - hurting the process efficiency.

Grass/bio is far less efficent than corn. Today.

With enough tinkering with the enzymes and work on streamlining the whole process, they feel someday it will work out better than converting corn starch to ethanol.

Someday.

Most reckon that will take 10 years of trial & error.

Corn starch is the best we have _today_ in the USA because the high-sugar crops do not grow well, easily, or on huge acres in most of the USA. Beets, cane, and others need special conditions or climate that is not widely available.

I'm open to better understanding what you have said. I don't want to be contrairy - I would like to see the USA make more energy at home. I also believe in 10 years new bio-processes will begin to make grass/cornstalk/wood chip/bio ethanol production competitive with other (current) processes - I'm hoping for it. 

Could you explain what you mean, as it seems misleading to me? You might be right in 10-15 years, but today you have it all backwards as I can see?

--->Paul


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

A lot of sugar beets are grown here in Mich. . . . .I'm wondering about the figures of how much petro is used to get the beets in and out of the ground. . . . . . 

Yes it does hurt the poor . . . . . . .
Sugar is double the price of not so long ago . . . . .
I know . . .so is most everything else.


----------



## Dahc (Feb 14, 2006)

PyroDon said:


> All the negative hype about bio fuels is being fed by the oil companies who have pumped mega bucks into the anti -bio propaganda.


Uh, last I heard, big oil was buying up even more land, buying out smaller ethanol facilities and putting hype INTO bio-fuels, not financing a bashing campaign against it. Why would they do that when it's clear they intend to exploit it for every penny they can get? They're also buying up all the solar and wind manufacturers. They intend to continue their control of the energy market.



> Lets be real though bio fuel doesnt hurt the poor any more than the rising cost of gas does the cost is always passed down.


A person can live without gas... A person "cannot" live without food. That's the issue here, food. It is already hurting the poor.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

The oil in the shale would be a boon - the use of fresh water to extract it - might be too high a price.

This country has fresh water problems. 

If wheat doubles, you can bet the bread will more than .05 higher.

Yes, agribusiness will use and abuse the land - no doubt about it. We are not talking family farmers here - we are talking mega farms.

I also think people with small acreage could have their land taken for imminent domain by agribusiness. "It's necessary for the good of the nation."

Somehow I don't think corn is the best answer. The fact the government gave the money to the oil companies to produce it tells me it is more of being sure we don't have a good alternative.

Is it true that hemp is a better product for this?


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Trixie said:


> The oil in the shale would be a boon - the use of fresh water to extract it - might be too high a price.
> 
> This country has fresh water problems.


???

Not around here.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

ET1 SS said:


> ???
> 
> Not around here.


No, not in your part of the country. 

We didn't get to Maine, NH,etc, but we drove through NJ, Ind, and those states this fall. Our jaws just dropped open at the number of rivers and that they were full and running was amazing. We never had that many rivers, but we once had free flowing, and clean rivers - not so now.

It has been a wet year for part of Texas and given some relief, but this part of the world is running out of water. The states on West of us are in for some bad times. They don't seem to realize it, but we drove around AZ and Nev quite a bit. On the lakes, you can see the levels from the past and the present levels. It is truly scary.

Water will be the next 'range war' they say. Personally, I think it is already a huge commodity worldwide - not many are speaking of it. Big corporations are buying up the rights to fresh water around the world - and corrupt governments are selling it. 

So if you have good water, don't be so free to allow them to use and abuse it.

There have been a lot of stories of this country having plenty of oil. There was story just a few years ago, maybe 10-15 of the discovery of a large pool of oil along the SE Gulf Coast (inland), but I haven't heard of any big boom down there. 

Whether we have oil not yet used or not, we need to do something about alternative fuel. The pollution caused by the refineries, etc are not good.

There is no reason we couldn't have several forms of alternative fuel, corn just doesn't seem to be the answer to me in the long run or as the complete answer. 

I still think this was just a handout to the oil companies and big agribusiness.

They are digging up TExas for coal now. That is good growing land and grazing land and usually gets enough water to grow a crop without irrigation. It will be unusable for food growing for generations - if ever.


----------



## Dahc (Feb 14, 2006)

> There is no reason we couldn't have several forms of alternative fuel, corn just doesn't seem to be the answer to me in the long run or as the complete answer.


Everyone in this country could have solar roofing if the government would regulate pricing a little bit. I know such regulation kind of resembles socialistic behavior but this version of a "free market" only benefits the rich and well off. As I posted somewhere else, 1 in 6 americans live in poverty making less than 10k annually per household. These folks will never be able to afford flex-fuel vehicles, solar panels and inverters. This is 50 million people just here in the U.S..

We have technologies now that would astounded people from the last generation such as photovoltaic paint (solar paint):

Spray on Solar Cells 

If every home in america had a coat of that on it, it would seem like fossil fuel use could go down as much as 50% but that doesn't happen because people are greedy, and they are greedy at the expense of those who have to take what they are offered and cannot afford to "shop around".

Huge wind power facilities could be build along coastlines and electrolysis could be used to create billions of gallons of ultra clean water. Such facilities could eliminate the strain california's water needs put on it's surrounding states but no one is doing these things. 

We like to politicise things a lot and most of the time it is the repulicans who get blamed for things of this nature but in reality, every major blow to alternative energy has come from the democrates side of the field. They struck down huge wind power facilities once because it would ruin someone's view and now they want to strike another blow to wind power saying the wind turbines kill birds (which they don't). These people don't care! They have the money to get what they need and wether the poor can afford it or not, matters very little to them. Their answers to these things have been welfare and the like but fair prices and cheaper, domestic energy is one thing that would truly help.

A cheap solar paint job rated for grid tie in, produced by a government subsidised factory could do this. If we can subsidise corn farming and pay others not to grow any corn at all, why can't this be done? This country could be completely energy independant within 10 years but globalists do not want this to happen.

The government gives 100 million to the U.N. every year, another 350 million to planned parenthood and there are hundreds of millions more dollars going to things that we don't need to be paying for. The government is the reason that we are not energy independant now, not SUV's and fossil fuel use by the public. If you give people cheap, clean energy, they will use it.


----------



## ROSEMAMA (Jan 12, 2007)

I live about 70 miles south of a town that's in a bid to get one of the new ethanol plants ('bout 15 mil. south of U of I). 

One of the university ag. profs has been warning them not to go for it. He states that the water required for production and the air pollution caused from production would put IL in worse shape. 

I'm no ag. prof, but it makes sense to me that my goobermint would certainly turn a blind eye to strict regs. on such a plant, just to show everyone IL can go green with the best of 'em!

Many around here are worried they're gonna dry up the aquifier even faster yet. Like Tom said, we can live without oil, but not without water.


----------

