Corn Ehtanol real cost

[stillen]

Leaked World Bank Report

AFP

Biofuels have caused world food prices to increase by 75 percent, according to the findings of an unpublished World Bank report published in The Guardian newspaper on Friday. The daily said the report was finished in April but was not published to avoid embarrassing the US government, which has claimed plant-derived fuels have pushed up prices by only three percent. Biofuels, which supporters claim are a “greener” alternative to using fossil fuel and cut greenhouse gas emissions, and rising food prices will be on the agenda when G8 leaders meet in Japan next week for their annual summit.

The report’s author, a senior World Bank economist, assessed that contrary to claims by US President George W. Bush, increased demand from India and China has not been the cause of rising food prices. “Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases,” the report said. Droughts in Australia have also not had a significant impact, it added. Instead, European and US drives for greater use of biofuels has had the biggest effect. “The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140 percent between 2002 and this February,” The Guardian said. “The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15 percent, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75 percent jump over that period.” Read more

As the recent and tragic flood in the Midwest shows we cannot put our fuel needs to be exposed to something like the weather. There are better alternatives than Corn it needs to be a FOOD Source only.

We can all join and pray for these Family's lives as they procedd out of this flood.

[PurdueGuy]

a) ethanol does need to come from more diverse feedstocks

b) it's a free market, don't dictate what we do with corn. It's not the US' job to make cheap corn for the world while farmers have a hard time paying their bills.

[CSpec]

Wow, thanks for posting this.

[loki]

don't forget about all the pollution that comes from washed away fertilizer (which corn needs lots of). we've had a dead zone in the gulf of mexico, south of Louisiana for quite a while. increased need for fertilizer, more oil need, making both prices higher too.

again, ethanol from corn, makes no sense. especially the subsidies we pay...increasing to $3 billion a year by 2012.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

1) Ethanol should be made from BETTER materials such as switch grass... I really don't understand why the government, the media and the citizens can't wrap their minds around that.

2) Thanks to all of the negativity coming from the media about CORN ethanol, mark my words, people will be too IGNORANT to discern what's good and what's not and thus will kill the entire industry. That will be a shame.

GM invested in Coskata and started the Live Green, Go Yellow campaign, and 'surprise, surprise' the media started latching on to the Ethanol smear campaign that is building momentum daily.

[loki]

GM invested in Coskata and started the Live Green, Go Yellow campaign, and 'surprise, surprise' the media started latching on to the Ethanol smear campaign that is building momentum daily.

yes, but GM also showed all those fields of corn... if the would have shown they're trying to switch to a nonfood feedstock, that would be very helpful. I have nothing against ethanol, it doesn't work in my 99 MC, as long as I don't have to subsidize it to make it economical until cellulosic is widespread.

that's tax waste, when we so don't need to be wasting everyone's tax dollars.

[PurdueGuy]

The use of other feedstocks for ethanol doesn't completely sidestep the complaints about running the price of corn up. If another plant is used, then that may decrease the amount of corn being planted, to replace it with another stock. The exception being stocks that can be grown in areas that don't grow corn well.

[Sixty8panther]

Leaked World Bank Report

AFP

Biofuels have caused world food prices to increase by 75 percent,

BULL$HIT.

FACT:

High enegry prices hurt the cost of food,

the cost of production and delivery to

market in 3rd world countries, as a result

the outrageous gas prices are what is

making more people in poor countries

starve! Don't tell Al Gore that though,

he's too busy rejoicing about all the SUVs

being traded in on Yarises & Prius-eses.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

yes, but GM also showed all those fields of corn... if the would have shown they're trying to switch to a nonfood feedstock, that would be very helpful. I have nothing against ethanol, it doesn't work in my 99 MC, as long as I don't have to subsidize it to make it economical until cellulosic is widespread.

that's tax waste, when we so don't need to be wasting everyone's tax dollars.

I have a REAL hard time caring about "subsidizing ethanol" when so much of our money is going to subsidize the rebuilding of a useless country embroiled in a useless war.

[loki]

I have a REAL hard time caring about "subsidizing ethanol" when so much of our money is going to subsidize the rebuilding of a useless country embroiled in a useless war.

I agree... but it's all about taking responsibility vs options.

i posted a link in facebook "Baghdad: 5 years on" no wonder their economy is suffering because of what we what we are doing there. but there are compromises and there are ideals. we need more ideals in policy, less compromises.

[Drew Dowdell]

I wrote this in another forum where I'm a "filthy liberal". If you're worried about subsidizing Ethanol, why aren't you worried about subsidizing oil via the Iraq war?

Bush/Cheney's idea of a "sensible energy policy" is starting wars with oil rich nations that don't like us and letting Exxon/Mobil write the drilling contracts. Thanks, I'll stick with my Wind turbine/Pebble bed breeder reactor/algae ethanol/plug in electric vehicle idea. It will cost the less than Iraq war in dollars, and it'll cost about 30,000 less in dead and wounded troops.

We spend $341 million per day on the Iraq war. A typical wind turbine will power about 1,000 homes. A typical wind turbine costs about $500,000 to build and install. So the money spent on a single day of the Iraq war would power 682,000 homes. Just for energy smoothing, we'd keep all the coal, nuke, and hydro plants running to fill in any gaps with wind on the grid.

$75 million dollars builds an algae ethanol refinery capable of producing 137,000 gallons/day. We use 385 million gallons/day. We would need to build 2,830 refineries <assuming none of the existing ones were built> to match consumption. That would cost us about $212 billion... or less than half the current cost of the Iraq war.

Of course, all of the above assumes the government would pick up the entire tab, which we know wouldn't happen. The revenues generated from the fuel and energy these sources provide would pay for most of the cost.

Wind power for every household in the US would be equal to 159 days of Iraq war.

So, as a "filthy liberal", I've just spent $212 billion on home grown fuel production and $55 billion on wind power for every household in the U.S. I've still spent less than half the cost of the Iraq war and no one got killed. Replace those government expenditures with revenues from the power production and the government's cost becomes a fraction of that.

[Intrepidation]

That is brilliant Oldsmoboi...too bad the government will never see it like that.

[stillen]

Wond Power don't think so not bya long shot.

First we have no way to store the energy from it right now

Second wind energy is non dependable the wind well not sustainable energy consistent wise.

We have to string the wire from the windfarms to people that will cost money alot of it.

Europeans are finding this out and getting away from it.

> for the truth about Global Warming go to [ Icecaps.us ]

[Intrepidation]

Wond Power don't think so not bya long shot.

First we have no way to store the energy from it right now

Second wind energy is non dependable the wind well not sustainable energy consistent wise.

We have to string the wire from the windfarms to people that will cost money alot of it.

Europeans are finding this out and getting away from it.

> for the truth about Global Warming go to [ Icecaps.us ]

Dude, and I thought I made a lot of typos.

I'm pretty sure if you have a wind infrastructure set up in various places across the country it's going to be windy SOMEWHERE. As Olsmoboi said, you have the other systems like Nuclear and Hydro to pick up the slack if needed.

The "truth" about global warming is that much of it is a load of crap spun up by crackhead scientists, but more importantly is now part of a multi-national pollitical game.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Dodgefan

[Drew Dowdell]

Wond Power don't think so not bya long shot.

First we have no way to store the energy from it right now

Second wind energy is non dependable the wind well not sustainable energy consistent wise.

We have to string the wire from the windfarms to people that will cost money alot of it.

Europeans are finding this out and getting away from it.

> for the truth about Global Warming go to [ Icecaps.us ]

man, I work in the electricity generation and wholesale business with a focus on green energy.... really want to go to the mat with me on this one?

[Drew Dowdell]

Wond Power don't think so not bya long shot.

First we have no way to store the energy from it right now

Second wind energy is non dependable the wind well not sustainable energy consistent wise.

We have to string the wire from the windfarms to people that will cost money alot of it.

Europeans are finding this out and getting away from it.

> for the truth about Global Warming go to [ Icecaps.us ]

It's not about global warming at all. It's about sustainable energy. The Saudis are lying about the size of their reserves oil are being depleted faster than we're being told.

Here is a map of the wind generation potential of the US.

All off the area in blue is prime wind generation area and we have something called a grid that allows us to move electricity all over the US... so even if the wind isn't blowing in Detroit, the lights are kept on by wind power in Texas.

[Intrepidation]

pwnt

[loki]

olds... i like your perfect world idea, pertaining to wind, but you do make it more realistic with your other options listed.

comparing a "for their good" war to "for our good" energy policy is still very wasteful, limits options, and steals from tax payers...not to mention "lives ruined"

edit:

All off the area in blue is prime wind generation area and we have something called a grid that allows us to move electricity all over the US... so even if the wind isn't blowing in Detroit, the lights are kept on by wind power in Texas.

yes, but by that statement you're leaving out how wasteful that would be with our infrastructure as is.

Edited August 6, 2008 by loki

[PurdueGuy]

wind should not be the main source of power for the US, nuclear should. Wind is a nice supplemental power source, and is for me a welcome addition to a diverse source of powers for the grid, but it is too costly to be a main power source.

[Drew Dowdell]

*sigh*

This is going to be a long thread.

Wind power is only about 2 cents per kwh more expensive than coal currently, but the price for wind generators is coming down as economies of scale start to kick in.

Nuclear is cheap only if you're not counting building and disposal costs.

[PurdueGuy]

Nuclear is cheap only if you're not counting building and disposal costs.

Better quote a source on that. The gov't isn't helping power companies with nuclear plants with much of anything, yet nuclear is 2nd cheapest only to hydro. You trying to tell me that the utility companies aren't passing their construction and disposal costs on to the customer? Such generosity!

[loki]

1.This is going to be a long thread.

2.Wind power is only about 2 cents per kwh more expensive than coal currently, but the price for wind generators is coming down as economies of scale start to kick in.

3.Nuclear is cheap only if you're not counting building and disposal costs.

#1. yes, cause gov't intervention only hurts the best/emerging technologies. cause subsidies are like crack, once you start, why would you want it to quit?

#2. look at #3 ...oh and it would be stupendous if we could even say a coal plant was being shut down every year, personal opinion.

#3. so economies of scale don't apply to nuclear? not to mention the reprocess industry that would emerge from the need to deal with the waste...just like recycling centers to all the paper/metal/glass we through away.

Edited August 7, 2008 by loki

[79VetteZ06]

*sigh*

This is going to be a long thread.

Wind power is only about 2 cents per kwh more expensive than coal currently, but the price for wind generators is coming down as economies of scale start to kick in.

Nuclear is cheap only if you're not counting building and disposal costs.

I disagree! I am working as a consultant for an energy provider that is planning to build a Nuke plant and already has two coal fired and one to be installed gas powered plants. Initial estimate is that the Nuke plant will cost in an order of $5 billion dollars compared to an equivalent 650MW gas plant which costs about $1.2B dollars. With the carbon foot print outcry going on with the Green groups, there has been a lot of reservations on coal powered plants as well as gas powered plants. Seminole Electric in Tampa, FL has been fighting over the approval of an expansion of Coal Powered plant and if approved it perhaps may be the last coal powered plant US may see brand new unless a modified design is used in scrubber modules or carbon burnout is introduced which will involve lot of costs. In long term (50 years +) all three plants (Coal, Gas and Nuke) will be almost same in cost for build and operation. I will go a step further and say nuke shall be cheaper. The reason why power companies are reluctant to build nukes is because of the huge capital required upfront. The coal and pet-coke prices have been outrageous and so have been the gas prices over the past couple of years, therefore in long term nuke plants will be a viable alternative. Plus the nuke fuel may last for at least 1,000 years if not more, if United States is to convert all its electric plants to nuke. Uranium is much more abundant than people are made to think of. Phosphate rock, which is used to make fertilizers is abundant in uranium. This rock can be easily processed by centrifugal method to obtain uranium. In addition, no carbon footprint outcry will be forced on Nuke power plants.

[Drew Dowdell]

Spend $2.5 billion on wind and have higher peak output as your 650mw nuke plant AND have redundancy built in.

[Intrepidation]

Plus, with wind generators you don't have to worry about a meltdown, not that that's ever happened before.

[PurdueGuy]

Plus, with wind generators you don't have to worry about a meltdown, not that that's ever happened before.

Yay, let's point at chernobyl for an anti-nuclear stance! Nevermind that

a) it was a retarded plant design, and US plants are designed SO much safer that if they were to manage to fail, the radiation would be contained, and while people would still probably be stupid and freak out, no one would be hurt (see three mile island).

b) it was a plant that was in terrible disrepair

c) even that craptacular plant still required a long series of human mis-action to get the thing to melt down.

The reason why power companies are reluctant to build nukes is because of the huge capital required upfront.

That is one of the reasons, but the main is a regulatory nightmare that stems from political reasons. For a long time, the permit to build a nuclear plant, and the permit to operate one were two separate permits acquired at separate times. About 30 years ago, a number of power companies got royally screwed over when they got permits to build, spent gobs on construction, then were denied operating permits for political reasons. After that happened a number of times, power companies started to not bother trying. However, the NRC has been working to combine the processes for the two permits into one, so you either get them or you don't, and there are about a hundred nuclear plants in the works because of this.

Power companies aren't lining up to build nuclear plants because they're popular, or neat - they're lining up because once the plant is built, it's DIRT CHEAP to operate.

Interestingly enough - the same type of situation that has been preventing new plant construction has been keeping nuclear fuel recycling from having a chance at developing. Companies can't tell if they'll be given operating permits from one administration to the next, and it becomes too risky of a venture, so they don't bother. There is also the issue of the overall process with recycling costing about 10% more (including all costs from production to storage of "waste").

Oldsmoboi - what's the lifespan on those wind generators? That's the other thing with a nuclear plant - not only is it dirt cheap to operate once it's built, but it keeps going, and going, and going, and going... I'm not saying wind doesn't have a place, but I don't see it as a lone, primary giver of power. Because of the fluctuation in output, we would have to build an infrastructure to probably three times our needed peak capacity, an awfully wasteful practice, and one that would tear up a lot of countryside.

[Drew Dowdell]

Oldsmoboi - what's the lifespan on those wind generators? That's the other thing with a nuclear plant - not only is it dirt cheap to operate once it's built, but it keeps going, and going, and going, and going... I'm not saying wind doesn't have a place, but I don't see it as a lone, primary giver of power. Because of the fluctuation in output, we would have to build an infrastructure to probably three times our needed peak capacity, an awfully wasteful practice, and one that would tear up a lot of countryside.

Typical lifespan is set at 25 years at which time the tower would remain in place but the generator assembly would be replaced and the blades refurbished at a much lower cost than initial installation.

I'm not saying no nukes. In fact, I'd prefer nukes as a way to smooth the power delivery from wind. However, I still see wind as the primary source.

With nukes however, I want to see new reactor design. I much prefer the compact, and likely safer, pebble bed breeder reactor design over the huge monstrosities we currently have.

[Sixty8panther]

If wind power is not a "sustainable" energy than I must be in f***ing bizzaroworld!

Hello = goodbye?

[stillen]

If wind power is not a "sustainable" energy than I must be in f***ing bizzaroworld!

Hello = goodbye?

wind power is is to say the least breezy; not a good power source the Europenas are finding this out who have tried to develop wind energy to me its just liek corn ethanol in that its the new "eco" thing to do.

Some of the biomass algae etc... are the way to go .

Coal to oil, natural gas to oil this is where its at and will contiue to be where its at.