Read an interesting article about the consequences of ethanol production published by the Associated Press.
CORYDON, Iowa (AP) — The hills of southern Iowa bear the scars of America's push for green energy: The brown gashes where rain has washed away the soil. The polluted streams that dump fertilizer into the water supply.
Even the cemetery that disappeared like an apparition into a cornfield.
It wasn't supposed to be this way.
With the Iowa political caucuses on the horizon in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama made homegrown corn a centerpiece of his plan to slow global warming. When President George W. Bush signed a law that year requiring oil companies to add billions of gallons of ethanol to their gasoline each year, Bush predicted it would make the country "stronger, cleaner and more secure."
But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.
As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and contaminated water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.
Five million acres of land set aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined — have been converted on Obama's watch.
Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.
Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, polluted rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can't survive.
In Indiana, for instance, farmers planted 750,000 more acres of corn last year than they did the year before the ethanol mandate was passed. More than 28,000 acres of conservation land were lost.
The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative consequences.
All energy comes at a cost. The environmental consequences of drilling for oil and natural gas are well documented and severe. But in the president's push to reduce greenhouse gases and curtail global warming, his administration has allowed so-called green energy to do not-so-green things.
In some cases, such as the decision to allow wind farms that sometimes kill eagles, the administration accepts environmental costs because they pale in comparison to the havoc global warming could ultimately cause.
In the case of ethanol, the administration believes it must encourage the development of next-generation biofuels that will someday be cleaner and greener than today's.
"That is what you give up if you don't recognize that renewable fuels have some place here," EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said. "All renewable fuels are not corn ethanol."
But next-generation biofuels haven't been living up to expectations. And the government's predictions on ethanol have proven so inaccurate that independent scientists question whether it will ever achieve its central environmental goal: reducing greenhouse gases.
That makes the hidden costs even more significant.
"They're raping the land," said Bill Alley, a Democratic member of the board of supervisors in Wayne County, Iowa, which now bears little resemblance to the rolling cow pastures shown in postcards sold at a Corydon town pharmacy.
The numbers behind the ethanol mandate have become so unworkable that, for the first time, the EPA is soon expected to reduce the amount of ethanol required to be added to the gasoline supply. An unusual coalition of big oil companies, environmental groups and food companies is pushing the government to go even further and reconsider the entire ethanol program.
But the Obama administration stands by the mandate and rarely acknowledges that green energy requires any trade-offs.
"There is no question air quality, water quality is benefiting from this industry," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told ethanol lobbyists recently.
But the administration has never conducted studies to determine whether that's true.
Fertilizer, for instance, can make drinking water toxic. Children are especially susceptible to nitrate poisoning, which causes "blue baby" syndrome and can be deadly.
Between 2005 and 2010, corn farmers increased their use of nitrogen fertilizer by more than a billion pounds. More recent data isn't available from the Agriculture Department, but conservative projections suggest another billion-pound increase since then.
In the Midwest, where corn is the dominant crop, some are sounding alarms.
The Des Moines Water Works has faced high nitrate levels for many years in the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers, which supply drinking water to 500,000 people. Typically, when pollution is too high in one river, workers draw from the other.
"This year, unfortunately the nitrate levels in both rivers were so high that it created an impossibility for us," said Bill Stowe, the utility's general manager.
For three months this summer, huge purifiers churned around the clock to meet demand for safe, clean water.
Obama's support for ethanol dates to his time as a senator from Illinois, the nation's second-largest corn producer.
"If we're going to get serious about investing in our energy future, we must give our family farmers and local ethanol producers a fair shot at success," Obama said in 2007.
From the beginning of his presidential administration, however, Obama's environmental team saw corn ethanol as a dubious policy. Corn demands fertilizer, which is made using natural gas. What's worse, ethanol factories typically burn coal or gas, both of which release carbon dioxide.
Then there's the land conversion, the most controversial and difficult-to-predict outcome.
Digging up grassland releases greenhouse gases, so environmentalists are skeptical of anything that encourages planting more corn.
"I don't remember anybody having great passion for this," said Bob Sussman, who served on Obama's transition team and recently retired as the Environmental Protection Agency's senior policy counsel. "I don't have a lot of personal enthusiasm for the program."
There was plenty enthusiasm at the White House and at the Department of Agriculture, where officials argued to the EPA that ethanol was cleaner than it thought. The EPA ultimately agreed.
The policy hinged on assumptions that corn prices would not go too high and farms would get more efficient. That way, there wouldn't be much incentive to plow untouched areas and destroy conservation land.
But corn prices climbed to more than $7 a bushel, about twice the administration's long-term prediction. Suddenly, setting aside land for conservation was bad economics for many farmers.
"I'm coming to the point where financially, it's not feasible," said Leroy Perkins, a farmer in Wayne County who set aside 91 acres years ago and let it grow into high grass.
Losing millions of conservation acres was bad. Plowing over untouched prairies was worse.
Using satellite data — the best tool available — The Associated Press identified at least 1.2 million acres of virgin land in Nebraska and the Dakotas that have been converted to corn and soybean fields since 2006.
"The last five years, we've become financially solvent," said Robert Malsam, a farmer in Edmunds County, S.D., who like others in the Dakotas has plowed wild grassland to expand his corn crop.
The government could change the mandate or demand more safeguards. But that would pick a fight with agricultural lobbyists and would put the administration on the side of oil companies, which despise the ethanol requirement.
Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol lobbying group, said there's no reason to change anything. Ethanol is still cleaner than oil, he said.
These days, when administration officials discuss ethanol, they often frame it as an economic program for rural America, not an environmental policy.
When Obama gave a major speech in June on reducing greenhouse gas, biofuels received only a passing reference.
With the government's predictions so far off from reality, scientists say it's hard to argue for ethanol as global warming policy.
"I'd have to think really hard to come up with a scenario where it's a net positive," said Silvia Secchi, a Southern Illinois University agriculture economist.
She paused, then added: "I'm stumped
CORYDON, Iowa (AP) — The hills of southern Iowa bear the scars of America's push for green energy: The brown gashes where rain has washed away the soil. The polluted streams that dump fertilizer into the water supply.
Even the cemetery that disappeared like an apparition into a cornfield.
It wasn't supposed to be this way.
With the Iowa political caucuses on the horizon in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama made homegrown corn a centerpiece of his plan to slow global warming. When President George W. Bush signed a law that year requiring oil companies to add billions of gallons of ethanol to their gasoline each year, Bush predicted it would make the country "stronger, cleaner and more secure."
But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.
As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and contaminated water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.
Five million acres of land set aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined — have been converted on Obama's watch.
Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.
Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, polluted rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can't survive.
In Indiana, for instance, farmers planted 750,000 more acres of corn last year than they did the year before the ethanol mandate was passed. More than 28,000 acres of conservation land were lost.
The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative consequences.
All energy comes at a cost. The environmental consequences of drilling for oil and natural gas are well documented and severe. But in the president's push to reduce greenhouse gases and curtail global warming, his administration has allowed so-called green energy to do not-so-green things.
In some cases, such as the decision to allow wind farms that sometimes kill eagles, the administration accepts environmental costs because they pale in comparison to the havoc global warming could ultimately cause.
In the case of ethanol, the administration believes it must encourage the development of next-generation biofuels that will someday be cleaner and greener than today's.
"That is what you give up if you don't recognize that renewable fuels have some place here," EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said. "All renewable fuels are not corn ethanol."
But next-generation biofuels haven't been living up to expectations. And the government's predictions on ethanol have proven so inaccurate that independent scientists question whether it will ever achieve its central environmental goal: reducing greenhouse gases.
That makes the hidden costs even more significant.
"They're raping the land," said Bill Alley, a Democratic member of the board of supervisors in Wayne County, Iowa, which now bears little resemblance to the rolling cow pastures shown in postcards sold at a Corydon town pharmacy.
The numbers behind the ethanol mandate have become so unworkable that, for the first time, the EPA is soon expected to reduce the amount of ethanol required to be added to the gasoline supply. An unusual coalition of big oil companies, environmental groups and food companies is pushing the government to go even further and reconsider the entire ethanol program.
But the Obama administration stands by the mandate and rarely acknowledges that green energy requires any trade-offs.
"There is no question air quality, water quality is benefiting from this industry," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told ethanol lobbyists recently.
But the administration has never conducted studies to determine whether that's true.
Fertilizer, for instance, can make drinking water toxic. Children are especially susceptible to nitrate poisoning, which causes "blue baby" syndrome and can be deadly.
Between 2005 and 2010, corn farmers increased their use of nitrogen fertilizer by more than a billion pounds. More recent data isn't available from the Agriculture Department, but conservative projections suggest another billion-pound increase since then.
In the Midwest, where corn is the dominant crop, some are sounding alarms.
The Des Moines Water Works has faced high nitrate levels for many years in the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers, which supply drinking water to 500,000 people. Typically, when pollution is too high in one river, workers draw from the other.
"This year, unfortunately the nitrate levels in both rivers were so high that it created an impossibility for us," said Bill Stowe, the utility's general manager.
For three months this summer, huge purifiers churned around the clock to meet demand for safe, clean water.
Obama's support for ethanol dates to his time as a senator from Illinois, the nation's second-largest corn producer.
"If we're going to get serious about investing in our energy future, we must give our family farmers and local ethanol producers a fair shot at success," Obama said in 2007.
From the beginning of his presidential administration, however, Obama's environmental team saw corn ethanol as a dubious policy. Corn demands fertilizer, which is made using natural gas. What's worse, ethanol factories typically burn coal or gas, both of which release carbon dioxide.
Then there's the land conversion, the most controversial and difficult-to-predict outcome.
Digging up grassland releases greenhouse gases, so environmentalists are skeptical of anything that encourages planting more corn.
"I don't remember anybody having great passion for this," said Bob Sussman, who served on Obama's transition team and recently retired as the Environmental Protection Agency's senior policy counsel. "I don't have a lot of personal enthusiasm for the program."
There was plenty enthusiasm at the White House and at the Department of Agriculture, where officials argued to the EPA that ethanol was cleaner than it thought. The EPA ultimately agreed.
The policy hinged on assumptions that corn prices would not go too high and farms would get more efficient. That way, there wouldn't be much incentive to plow untouched areas and destroy conservation land.
But corn prices climbed to more than $7 a bushel, about twice the administration's long-term prediction. Suddenly, setting aside land for conservation was bad economics for many farmers.
"I'm coming to the point where financially, it's not feasible," said Leroy Perkins, a farmer in Wayne County who set aside 91 acres years ago and let it grow into high grass.
Losing millions of conservation acres was bad. Plowing over untouched prairies was worse.
Using satellite data — the best tool available — The Associated Press identified at least 1.2 million acres of virgin land in Nebraska and the Dakotas that have been converted to corn and soybean fields since 2006.
"The last five years, we've become financially solvent," said Robert Malsam, a farmer in Edmunds County, S.D., who like others in the Dakotas has plowed wild grassland to expand his corn crop.
The government could change the mandate or demand more safeguards. But that would pick a fight with agricultural lobbyists and would put the administration on the side of oil companies, which despise the ethanol requirement.
Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol lobbying group, said there's no reason to change anything. Ethanol is still cleaner than oil, he said.
These days, when administration officials discuss ethanol, they often frame it as an economic program for rural America, not an environmental policy.
When Obama gave a major speech in June on reducing greenhouse gas, biofuels received only a passing reference.
With the government's predictions so far off from reality, scientists say it's hard to argue for ethanol as global warming policy.
"I'd have to think really hard to come up with a scenario where it's a net positive," said Silvia Secchi, a Southern Illinois University agriculture economist.
She paused, then added: "I'm stumped
Devilin AblueDress!
New member
I cant see it just going away. I read a similar article last winter (memory may be a little foggy) and what I remember the "mandates" to use U.S. Ethanol (corn) is due to expire prior to the mandates to use ethanol. The author had concerns that fuel producers would turn to south American ethanol due to it being so much cheaper....AND DIRTIER!
Florida is getting away from it. Hopefully more will follow.
http://green.autoblog.com/2013/06/05/florida-repeals-law-requiring-10-ethanol-blend-in-gasoline/
http://green.autoblog.com/2013/06/05/florida-repeals-law-requiring-10-ethanol-blend-in-gasoline/
horkn
New member
You can make more ethanol cheaper with other crops than corn. Switch grass, algae, sugar cane, and other things will make ethanol more affordable. Corn was used to make ethanol as a way to pro up corn use for a few years. Really, corn is a horrible food source. Cows are feed it, but they can't really digest it, same with salmon. Corn is feed to salmon at farms, but it just make a lot of fat salmon that poop a lot. Maybe pigs can actually digest corn, humans definitely can't.
Last edited:
I have some relitives which are farmers. around a 1000 acres are being tilled. Yes, they are very wealth, but also are getting an unreal amount of subsidies from the Government for growing corn instead of wheat. I call BS! They are also the ones who complain about anybody else getting government assistance. I make sure to bring up at family gathererings of what they may have bought with their subsidy checks, new motorhomes, new boats, Florida homes, ect.
I can provide a little insight as to what I've heard on this topic as a farmer myself. I personally do not grow corn, the area I am in doesn't have a long enough growing season for us personally. Neighbors do grow it but have big bin setups with driers, etc.
Ethanol can't just go away, in fact it will get worse before it gets better. From what I know the government set a path saying the use of gasoline will continue to keep growing and mandated the use of all this ethanol. Well the gasoline use has stayed steady but the requirement of ethanol by the government is still trending up. Thus you will start to see more ethanol mixed with higher octane gas to still allow us to have regular gas and use up the requirement amounts.
The gas prices are also high because of something called Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs). These from what I understand are purchased to help follow the making/blending of fuels, costing the company more money to produce our gasoline. Guess what, those costs just get passed on to us. This article explains the use of renewable fuels (ethanol), RINs, etc.
http://www.agmrc.org/renewable_ener...ns-and-government-biofuels-blending-mandates/
This site also explains it further: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/us-ethanol-credits-vitol-insight-idUSBRE9A606R20131107
"RIN credits are simply a means of enforcing government blending mandates.
Every gallon of ethanol manufactured in or imported into the U.S. receives a 38-digit RIN that tracks its progress throughout the fuel chain. Once a refiner buys the gallon and blends it with gasoline, the RIN can be separated from the gallon and presented to the Environmental Protection Agency as proof of compliance with the mandate - akin to clipping a coupon from a cereal box to show proof of purchase.
The RINs also allow companies such as wholesalers who predominantly blend fuel but don't import or refine any gasoline to sell excess RINs to companies that need them in order to meet EPA obligations."
Another good site with info: http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/3245/making-sense-of-rins
Anyways there is a lot of reading everybody can do on that topic. Then there is also the Corn Growers with plenty of money to have some good political pull in Washington to keep corn in the mix of ethanol and the ethanol requirement in our fuel.
Bet you didn't know that is all involved with the ethanol in our fuels. And somebody got rich when RINs were invented. Buy them all up when they were started and sell them all when they became a demand. Don't you just love the US Government?
Ethanol can't just go away, in fact it will get worse before it gets better. From what I know the government set a path saying the use of gasoline will continue to keep growing and mandated the use of all this ethanol. Well the gasoline use has stayed steady but the requirement of ethanol by the government is still trending up. Thus you will start to see more ethanol mixed with higher octane gas to still allow us to have regular gas and use up the requirement amounts.
The gas prices are also high because of something called Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs). These from what I understand are purchased to help follow the making/blending of fuels, costing the company more money to produce our gasoline. Guess what, those costs just get passed on to us. This article explains the use of renewable fuels (ethanol), RINs, etc.
http://www.agmrc.org/renewable_ener...ns-and-government-biofuels-blending-mandates/
This site also explains it further: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/us-ethanol-credits-vitol-insight-idUSBRE9A606R20131107
"RIN credits are simply a means of enforcing government blending mandates.
Every gallon of ethanol manufactured in or imported into the U.S. receives a 38-digit RIN that tracks its progress throughout the fuel chain. Once a refiner buys the gallon and blends it with gasoline, the RIN can be separated from the gallon and presented to the Environmental Protection Agency as proof of compliance with the mandate - akin to clipping a coupon from a cereal box to show proof of purchase.
The RINs also allow companies such as wholesalers who predominantly blend fuel but don't import or refine any gasoline to sell excess RINs to companies that need them in order to meet EPA obligations."
Another good site with info: http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/3245/making-sense-of-rins
Anyways there is a lot of reading everybody can do on that topic. Then there is also the Corn Growers with plenty of money to have some good political pull in Washington to keep corn in the mix of ethanol and the ethanol requirement in our fuel.
Bet you didn't know that is all involved with the ethanol in our fuels. And somebody got rich when RINs were invented. Buy them all up when they were started and sell them all when they became a demand. Don't you just love the US Government?
Last edited:
bluemonster1
LIFE MEMBER ONLY ONCE!!!
and besides the obvious..my cousin put corn in next to my property.What a mess he left in my yard while harvesting the corn.With the wind from the North I got so much corn leaf and stock on my property after doing my Fall yard cleanup.He piss's me off to no end,next time I will burn that corn crop down first..lol
Devilin AblueDress!
New member
And if he is a big enough out fit he will get a subsidy check as well as insurance check. A buddy off mine works for the state of Michigan. His job is to go to damaged crop fields. Depending on the crop he uses different size rings (like hoola hoops) Randomly tosses ring out into fields in different areas to figure out "crop density" Then figures out the extent of damage to figure what farmer gets paid.
horkn
New member
That's crazy. But not shocking.
tripplec
New member
I like corn!! On the cob and pop corn. Yum yum...
horkn
New member
Don't get me wrong, I like all those too. But its largely indigestible.
tripplec
New member
Roughage for our backside then. LOL
Better then seeing the butt Doctor for a tour-de-intestine as I had recently. They're suppose to me out. They did not put me out. Changed their tune when I was on their table. Well I'll eat more corn. I can handle it with oil and salt. Yum yum My my but is a one way highway. OUTBOUND only. Intruders are not allowed no matter what.
Better then seeing the butt Doctor for a tour-de-intestine as I had recently. They're suppose to me out. They did not put me out. Changed their tune when I was on their table. Well I'll eat more corn. I can handle it with oil and salt. Yum yum My my but is a one way highway. OUTBOUND only. Intruders are not allowed no matter what.
staggs65
Moderator
well this thread has taken a sharp left turn somewhere along the way.
bluemonster1
LIFE MEMBER ONLY ONCE!!!
lower sharp left turn that is..funny!!! one way out.........
tripplec
New member
Ha ha, yeah I guess it did.
If the Politian stay out of it. I am sure it will go away. There is more -ve green effect creating ethanol from food stocks than refining fuel which we have to do anyway. Lower millage and damage to many older engines.
I hope it goes away and stays away. Lets use food stock for feeding people or animals not wasted on ethanol which is an extremely poor engine fuel.
If the Politian stay out of it. I am sure it will go away. There is more -ve green effect creating ethanol from food stocks than refining fuel which we have to do anyway. Lower millage and damage to many older engines.
I hope it goes away and stays away. Lets use food stock for feeding people or animals not wasted on ethanol which is an extremely poor engine fuel.
MarkAttack
New member
My 2006 Attack runs so rich that I normally add 2 gallons of E-85 to every fill up.. Would you rather follow a sled that smells like an old car with automatic choke stuck on or one that has the sweet smell of alcohol ?
Ethanol is an octane booster.. They can use a lower grade of gasoline and add 10% ethanol to it to increase the octane.. This allows them to get more gallons of gasoline out of a barrel of oil. Ethanol stretched the Petroleum to the point of making gasoline 40 cents per gallon cheaper than straight gasoline would be.
We have a problem now.. The Globalists that want a one World Government want to destroy the Economy of Iran and Venezuela the two of the most oil Rich Countries in the World besides Libya.. Thus the corrupt Deep State Globalists have put sanctions on Iran and Venezuela that will make gasoline prices go up ..
Also there have been several major refinery fires in the USA.. Refineries have to shut down this time of year in order to change over to make more expensive summer gas.. The Midwest is flooded out .. Some Ethanol plants were flooded out was were some corn storage bins flooded out .
Where else can you purchase 100 Octane E-85 for $1.00 per gallon less than 87 Octane E-10 ?
Ethanol is an octane booster.. They can use a lower grade of gasoline and add 10% ethanol to it to increase the octane.. This allows them to get more gallons of gasoline out of a barrel of oil. Ethanol stretched the Petroleum to the point of making gasoline 40 cents per gallon cheaper than straight gasoline would be.
We have a problem now.. The Globalists that want a one World Government want to destroy the Economy of Iran and Venezuela the two of the most oil Rich Countries in the World besides Libya.. Thus the corrupt Deep State Globalists have put sanctions on Iran and Venezuela that will make gasoline prices go up ..
Also there have been several major refinery fires in the USA.. Refineries have to shut down this time of year in order to change over to make more expensive summer gas.. The Midwest is flooded out .. Some Ethanol plants were flooded out was were some corn storage bins flooded out .
Where else can you purchase 100 Octane E-85 for $1.00 per gallon less than 87 Octane E-10 ?
tripplec
New member
Zero ethanol is best. Better for the engine and related parts. Most engine just tollerate 10% but stipulate no 85 levels. Older builds deteriorate with any ethanol. Boats and other seasonal vehicle or engine that have been around for many decades can't handle it.
There is a surplu of oil now and no need for ethanol(converting good crops and food sources into a rotting pile for ethanol). Maddening is it. I like corn, popcorn and used to buy Corn oil as well. No more.
Not long ago our gas hit a bottom 90 cents a Litre and now its jump to $1.29 or higher. 40 cent more.
It's EXTORSION !!!! Plan and simple plants switched gas blends for summer and winter for many decades but now they regularly use it as an excuse to jack up the price of gas.
There is a surplu of oil now and no need for ethanol(converting good crops and food sources into a rotting pile for ethanol). Maddening is it. I like corn, popcorn and used to buy Corn oil as well. No more.
Not long ago our gas hit a bottom 90 cents a Litre and now its jump to $1.29 or higher. 40 cent more.
It's EXTORSION !!!! Plan and simple plants switched gas blends for summer and winter for many decades but now they regularly use it as an excuse to jack up the price of gas.