redbaron

Comment Stream » AVR

Comment Stream
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:
  • Two Ethanol Plays: Pros and Cons
    Proposed ethanol plants on the Mississippi River in West Central IL have been unable to get enough natural gas to get beyond the proposed stage of development. Why not just burn the corn and natural gas, and save on the processing and transportation?
    Aug 25 08:07 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Is the Ethanol Mandate Likely to be Repealed?
    I have been involved in research on feed and grain products since 1964, and I give your review of the topic a 'B' on overall content and fairness (the article is not biased, IMHO).

    Where you fall short is buying into the concept of cellulosic ethanol, as that technology has not been developed, and may never be developed. If you had gone back to the 1970's, and looked at this subject then, you would have seen similar research projects on-going to convert rejected crop residue to ethanol, and those projects were not successful either, and eventually dropped. Developing the bugs to do the conversion, failed.

    I predict a similar outcome this time, and like you said, even if it can be developed, the costs are going to be huge. The crop residue from corn is one feedstock being proposed, as it currently is being just left in the field (another is switch grass). How much can one expend in the way of fuels and time in collecting and hauling these very nearly wothless 'crops'? For instance, could one spend days collecting these so-called crops, then hauling them hundreds of miles to a processing plant? The economics simply do not work out, and that is if the process can be developed. I would add, if it could have been developed, after decades of work, it would have already be available. And that does not address your point of the lesser energy output from ethanol, which is a major problem.

    Why not just take the subsidy off ethanol and see what happens? If it such a great idea, it will fly on it's own. At the same time, take off the tarriff on imported ethanol, and let Brazilian ethanol come into this country without the 51 cent tax, which would allow it to compete as well. One wouldn't have to completely repeal the original mandate, just take those two steps and give it a chance to survive on it's own. If it works, leave it in. We are going to need all the energy we can get. And if it doesn't work, it will die a silent death, and no one will even notice.
    Aug 03 08:57 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • It's Now 'Official': Ethanol Is a Scam
    While it is true that the grain ingredient cost of a box of cereal is just a tiny portion of the purchase price, this argument ignores the effect of the increase in transportation costs, that subsidizing ethanol has helped produce. By hanging our hat on the ethanol hook, we have gone in the wrong direction, and contributed hugely to the increase in transportation costs.......just as we did in the 1970-80's. We tried this dance once, and it didn't work then. Why were we not intelligent enough to realize that unless there was some significant new technology to contribute to lowering overall costs, this was doomed to failure again? The first commentor, 'pk de cville', said it all, and best. It is now time to use 'intelligence based' initiative to start to solve this problem.
    Apr 10 08:46 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article

redbaron's Comments Stream Stats

  • 174 Comments, 46 , 24
  • Total Comment Stream rating - = 22