Congress Ends Ethanol Subsidy

[mongers]

Yes, and that's what my reply was directed to - it depends on which study you look at.

Yes, but those fossil fuels used don't come directly from the sun, well unless you consider 50-60 million years not too round about a way.

To give you a couple of data points:

We conclude that the NEV of corn ethanol has been rising over time due to technological advances in ethanol conversion and increased efficiency in farm production. We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy output:input ratio of 1.34.

http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf

(ranges from 1.06 to 5.4 depending on the type of stock and the estimates for co-products)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance#Energy_balance_reports

It's not very impressive to get that say upto 34% gain, even before you consider the multi-billion dollar subsidy input.


And why have you included the 5.4 figure, which specifically relates to switchgrass, not the corn under discussion ?

A 2008 study by the University of Nebraska found a 5.4 energy balance for ethanol derived specifically from switchgrass.

[mongers]

As long as you sleep it off in the park then walk home in the morning.

You know, I think there needs to be a properly funded research program to consider the carbon impact of various nights on the tiles.   

[ulmont]

Mongers,

34% is high enough to make even corn ethanol viable as a fossil fuel replacer, at least with biodiesel filling in for heavy equipment.  I mention switchgrass to show that there is a lot of potential there once infrastructure is in place for corn ethanol.

[Capetan Mihali]

As long as you sleep it off in the park then walk home in the morning.

You know, I think there needs to be a properly funded research program to consider the carbon impact of various nights on the tiles.   

Well my early death from esophageal cancer or pancreatitis is sure to shrink my carbon footprint regardless.

[mongers]

Mongers,

34% is high enough to make even corn ethanol viable as a fossil fuel replacer, at least with biodiesel filling in for heavy equipment.  I mention switchgrass to show that there is a lot of potential there once infrastructure is in place for corn ethanol.

Oh yes there's a lot of potential, but I think the whole corn derived ethanol project has been a diversion; that money could have been used to develop far more efficient projects, it if hadn't all got sidetracked into political subsidies for farmers and dependent industries. 

[dps]

I have no problem with the government funding or subsidizing research, but IMO the government should not be funding or subsidizing production (unless maybe early infrastructure investment). 

[Neil]

Mongers,

34% is high enough to make even corn ethanol viable as a fossil fuel replacer, at least with biodiesel filling in for heavy equipment.  I mention switchgrass to show that there is a lot of potential there once infrastructure is in place for corn ethanol.

Oh yes there's a lot of potential, but I think the whole corn derived ethanol project has been a diversion; that money could have been used to develop far more efficient projects, it if hadn't all got sidetracked into political subsidies for farmers and dependent industries.

On the other hand, without those subsidies, the money won't ever get spent.  The point isn't to advance anything, but to buy votes.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, I'm not anti-biofuel but this whole business was all about "we already grow a shit ton of corn, let's pass some law to randomly give corn growers the government dole because they have gud Senators representing them."

Wrap it up in pretty language about "American farmers" and "sticking it to Habeeb" and then wrap that up in an American flag and you're ready to rock your way to $45bn in government subsidies.

I think biofuels are a real possibility to significant reduce dependence on traditional fossil fuels, and will be (and are) an important part of the energy portfolio of the globe as we go through the next few hundred years. But there are certain plants that, inherently, have more energy in the plants per sown acre, and thus it makes more sense to me to focus biofuel production on the raising of those plants. I don't think corn is even in the top 50% of energy/acre when it comes to biofuels, and that's with lots of technology being thrown specifically at corn production. (I'm sure if possible Monsanto has probably expended serious money into trying to genetically engineer more energy dense corn, so if any big advancements along those lines was going to happen I think we'd have heard of it by now.)