[quote]The Mage wrote:
First there is a positive energy balance. This wasn’t originally true, but now is. [/quote]
Sorry to burst your bubble - but it is positive only under perfect conditions.
Not really part of the ehtanol discussion, but would be a novel idea to use in farm equipment - if the damn farmers didn’t live so far from town.
[quote]I do believe the problem is only using the corn instead of the whole stock. (Which they can do.) Actually they could still use the corn for food, and simply use the waste material (lot of it) for the ethanol, along with switch grass, and other farming and forest waste material. At that point it really doesn’t matter what the conversion is because all this material already exists.
[/quote]
I agree, and think this should have been the primary approach from the outset - not artificially driving up the prices.
[quote]Now as far as food prices go, only part of it is really a result of ethanol production. Yes it has a factor, but the price of oil is the bigger factor. It underlies the price of everything.
It costs farmers more to run their tractors to create the food, then it costs more to move the food around. Not to mention cost more to get everything involved (such as cans) to any production plant.[/quote]
I beg to differ. 2 years ago wheat was selling for about $2.80 per bushel. Last season it went for a little over $6. Futures were trading in February for over $13. It has since settled at a little over $9.
It is up over 3X in less than 2 years - that is for raw harvested wheat. Diesel has been over $3/gallon for at least that long, so I have a hard time swallowing the idea that a 50 cent increase in diesel translates to a 300% increase in commodity prices.
It is the ethanol, and the weak dollar that has driven the price up - at least to a much higher degree than diesel prices have.
I agree 100%. If it was really cost effective - there would not need to be any subsidies - I have the same bitch with the wind turbines.