US might have been wrong about Ethanol

FishOnOne wrote:
Study show US could have been wrong with implementing ethanol to reduce emissions and could have had opposite effects.

That's been known for quite a while -- Ethanol (at least when fermented from corn) is a farm subsidy, not a good fuel.

Sugar beets? What about sugar beets? When attending my nephew's college graduation from University of North Dakota, on the trip from Fargo to Grand Forks along I-29, acres and acres of land dedicated to growing sugar beets. Saw many truckloads of sugar beets on the interstate. Also saw a.....is it a refinery or distillery when they're producing ethanol? I recall the odor emanating from that plant was, shall we say, memorable?

Very well researched video. Thank you for posting.

thomasmnile wrote:
Sugar beets? What about sugar beets? When attending my nephew's college graduation from University of North Dakota, on the trip from Fargo to Grand Forks along I-29, acres and acres of land dedicated to growing sugar beets. Saw many truckloads of sugar beets on the interstate. Also saw a.....is it a refinery or distillery when they're producing ethanol? I recall the odor emanating from that plant was, shall we say, memorable?

In their current state, biofuels are by and large an environmentally a loser. Plantstuffs for biofuels cannot be grown organically, and the amount of energy it takes to refine biofuels compared to the actual energy yield is not optimal. The incremental reduction in carbon emissions that biofuels provide is not worth the environmental impact to the land they cause. JHO....

Farms produce more corn than we can possibly eat. Whether that's directly or through the livestock it's fed to. The whole "food or fuel" argument is ludicrous and always has been. Plenty to go around. Nobody's starving for lack of corn.

This pretty much goes for any kind of produce. Way more is produced than we can consume. That's why food is so cheap. Yes, cheap.

So we stop making corn ethanol. Then what do we do with all the excess corn? Oh, just grow something else, right? Then what do we do with that something else? Give it away to poor hungry people?

The problem with that is everyone expects the FARMER to foot the bill.

It costs the farmer money to grow the food. They need to get paid money for what they produce or else they cannot afford to grow more.

That's a concept that escapes most people. They think the plants just pop out of the ground on their own, and march themselves in from the field. Farmers get it for free so they should just give it all away for free, right?

If you want to give the food away, you go and buy it from the farmer for fair market value and YOU foot the bill. Heck farmers are not monsters. Most will sell you all you want AT COST if it's going to a good cause. Just don't expect farmers to foot the bill.

I agree with Mike. People sometimes think no expense and no time goes into certain productions. Well, corn - or any produce - is not a weed, it does not grow itself.

I can draw a parallel with other professions - especially the arts. Some folks ask me "Can I have that photo to frame?" You just shot the image, after two hours in a swamp waiting for the right capture. Then you shoot it with $10,000 worth of equipment, then process it, then print it. But, of course, you just spent one second clicking the shutter, so should give it away. I also frown at "You're a photographer, can you shoot our wedding? It will save us $3000 hiring a Pro."

Same with Farmers. Get up before dawn, work all day. Drive a $50,000 tractor, and of course, the corn then grows itself and farmers can give it away. Take a second job nights to pay the mortgage and the equipment payments.

"Drive a $50,000 tractor"

The equipment, and the land, and the buildings, gives people the notion that farmers are "rich." Sorry, no. Every penny is tied up in all that equipment, land, and buildings.

Who says they have to grow those enormous amounts of corn, there's nothing wrong with letting the land lay fallow for a season or two.

"Same with Farmers. Get up before dawn, work all day. Drive a $50,000 tractor, and of course, the corn then grows itself and farmers can give it away."

You haven't priced farm equipment lately. My "compact utility" tractor costs $50,000 and that doesn't include any implements. I have about $25,000 in implements and still have a long wish list. A tractor is only as good as the tools that it has to work with.

Real farm tractors start around $70,000 and can go way past $200,000. Combines even more. I see a used 3 year old Deere combine for $350,000 without implements. Figure another $200k for those. Those tools are just the basics. Lots of ancillary equipment needed beyond those.

Personally, I would love to see a lot of corn fields revert back to nature. That would probably be more beneficial for the environment than the ethanol ever has been.

Fisherman wrote:
Who says they have to grow those enormous amounts of corn, there's nothing wrong with letting the land lay fallow for a season or two.

There's plenty wrong with it.

You going to pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance on the land when it's laying fallow? Fallow land does not bring income, but the money keeps going out.

Not to mention you have to run over it once or twice a year with the brush mower to keep it from growing up into a forest.