Ethanol Power

[FarmRanger]

Dianne Francis had an interesting article in the National post at:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/francis/archive/2008/04/04/obama-energy-policy-is-best-of-three.aspx

She quotes a book by NASA scientist/engineer Dr. Robert Zubrin called "Energy Victory”, which debunks energy myths and makes a scientific case in favour of ethanol.

An interesting excerpt from the article:
"he maintains the subsidies are also mythology by lobbyists. Last year, for instance, he said the U.S. produced eight billion gallons of ethanol and the 50-cent subsidy cost taxpayers US$4 billion. But the eight billion gallons replaced the need to import US$20 billion worth of crude oil. By including all figures, the subsidy becomes an investment in saving billions."

[wd9]

Anyone taken the time to determine if canola is a zero net contributor of ghg based on the fact of its 3.5 to 1 payback on enviro load? Could be a great slogan to sell it to the world and raise its profile for even ngo's of the environment. Should actually be kinda close with reasonable inputs.

Gone, but not dead.... WD9

[Fransisco]

If it was such a great "investment" government wouldn't need to subsidize it. The wall street crowd would have beat them to it a long time ago.

There also would be no need to force people to put it in their fuel tanks, folks would willingly buy the product.

[Hopperbin]

Someone at the local coffee shop mentioned about ethanol being bad for the enviroment and the cost to consumers. I put him straight by mentioning the amount of ethanol consumed in the USA and if the ethanol plants all just decided to stop producing then we would have 200 dollar oil within a week. Guys we are now addicted to ethanol, we cannot do without it.

[Hopperbin]

In my opinion if ethanol is holding the price of oil to where it is then us consumers are benefiting from any subsidies.

[TOM4CWB]

Hopperbin...

On top of all of this... the amount spent on subsidies on grains vs. ethanol cost to get production up... is less than half the cost to the taxpayer of the previous Grain subsidy programs.

And that is just in the US.

Canada gains huge on this policy... as our grains come up in value... with out any cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

Globally... every farmer.... in some 3rd world economies that are 70-80% Ag based... their growers are huge winners now as they don't have to compete with subsidised grain from the US and EU.

[cchurch]

Biodiesel yields about 10 litres (2.2 Imperial Gallons) per bushel.

So if you have $15 canola, the price per litre is $1.50, and you still haven't refined it yet, which could add atleast another $.30/litre

[kryger]

What is Canola meal worth. There is at least 50% meal left after crushing.

[Fransisco]

It always amazes me how the most free market guys in the world change their tune once they are the ones benefiting from the government intervention and subsidies.

Suddenly they can come up with the most amazing rationale's for more central planning.

The CWB is going to be around along time a long time if that's the attitude.

[FarmRanger]

Biodiesel even at 2% levels increases lubricity of diesel dramatically, allowing the total removal of harmful sulphur from fuel. Using your figures cchurch, 2% of 30 cents per litre is 6 tenths of a cent per litre added cost.
Less than a penny per litre to be able to remove sulphur from diesel. Even if we totally discount the reduced dependence of petro-diesel, biodiesel still looks like a good idea from an environmental standpoint.

[FarmRanger]

Fransisco, if Dr. Zubrin is right, then there is an economic argument for ethanol too.
The benefits of biofuels to agriculture are obvious, but if there is a societal economic benefit to be factored in as well, is there a problem with encouraging these industries?

[mustardman]

I have always said that the future in ethanol lies not in using grain but in using cellulose for conversion.

As grain prices rise this makes even more sense.
Amd if global warming slows our ability to grow crops , it will make more sense to use straw,wood chips,swithgrass whatever, better for the environment and better for the bottom line of ethanol plant.

[agstar77]

The latest is going to gasoline directy, rather than makng ethanol. Produced from cellulose, this would be a more sensible approach than using grain.

[Fransisco]

Riddle me this Farmranger, if the economic argument were there, why would the government need to "invest" (I say subsidize) in any of this?

Why wouldn't the free market be all over it?

And why should taxpayers and motorists not have final say on where their money is spent and what goes in their tanks?

These are all rhetorical questions, they answer themselves.

To the average motorist ethanol costs more and nets them less miles per gallon. If someone can convince them there is some kind of 'environmental'or other benefit to this then fine, let them try. But don't force it on people.

I have the same view of organic apples, I personally don't see the benefit, and they cost more. I'm not going to buy them but I have no problem if other people want to.

It should not be the governments job to force things like organic apples, ethanol or the CWB on people that don't want it. That is what is known as a win, lose scenario.

Either one agrees with this principle or one doesn't, there is no agreeing with it in some cases and disagreeing with it in others.

Consistency matters.

Grain farmers like ethanol because they win on that one. They don't like the CWB because in that case they lose. That's the motivation for trying to suck and blow here all at the same time.

Here is a newsflash, it's not just all about 'grain-farmers'. Its about how we all decide we are going to get along with and do business with each other. I am more interested in doing business on the basis of a handshake than at the end of a gun. Because even though I might get the government gun from time to time there are going to be far more instances when it is pointing at me.

I realize we have been on the wrong end of far too many government actions in the past and it feels real good to finally have one working in our favour. But until we honestly realize that it is much better to do business on a voluntary rather than a compulsory basis, no matter what side of the equation we're on, history is going to keep repeating itself.

[Fransisco]

The question I am not sure about is why the lefties are against all of this?

I suspect the answer is because its "corporate" welfare. That its the ADM's of the world who are the ones getting the cheques.