Making ethanol from corn is the least efficient use of farmland

[Hamloc]

None of this justifies that 30% of corn acres in the US that are used for ethanol.

How many acres of canola are destined for bio-diesel?

If the mantra of farmers must feed the world is to be believed then biofuels are not the solution.

From an energy and water usage perspective US corn is black hole.

As the author pointed out the corn and biofuels industry have been the beneficiaries of generous subsidies and incentives that have helped prop up grain prices.

How posters can opposes support for much more efficient renewable energy, but then support subsidies and incentives for very inefficient bio-fuels makes no sense.

Let me think about this. Corn is grown in the U.S.A. Ethanol processed in the U.S.A. Distillers grain a by product of the process is fed to livestock in the U.S.A. 80% of the solar panels manufactured in the world are made in China. China supports Russia.Need I say more.

[Guest]

That’s an inconvenient truth , lol

[Hamloc]

Let’s make this even simpler, does growing corn on the land and then processing it into ethanol create more American jobs from the land and more wealth for American farmers and workers or would covering this corn producing land with solar panels? Why would you put solar panels on good productive farmland when there are so many acres of non productive wasteland in the U.S. Driving through California or Arizona as an example if it isn’t irrigated there isn’t much growing.

[chuckChuck]

Hamloc, China dominates all types of manufacturing. Most of your farm equipment will have many components made in China. So are you going to stop using all their products? Solar panel production can be done anywhere where plants want to build. Many of the solar panels produced are being used in China.

So are you suggesting that we subsidize and choose inefficient options just because they temporarily create more jobs. Wouldn't it make more sense to choose the most efficient and economic option?
Without government mandates and subsidies ethanol would not likely be a a big part of energy supplies.

So it looks like you are in favour of ethanol subsidies and government mandates. I thought you were in favour of less government intervention, not more! LOL

And I agree putting solar panels on the best land does not make sense. But there still lots of places to put solar panels.

[Hamloc]

Hamloc, China dominates all types of manufacturing. Most of your farm equipment will have many components made in China. So are you going to stop using all their products? Solar panel production can be done anywhere where plants want to build. Many of the solar panels produced are being used in China.

So are you suggesting that we subsidize and choose inefficient options just because they temporarily create more jobs. Wouldn't it make more sense to choose the most efficient and economic option?
Without government mandates and subsidies ethanol would not likely be a a big part of energy supplies.

So it looks like you are in favour of ethanol subsidies and government mandates. I thought you were in favour of less government intervention, not more! LOL

Why would you put solar panels on productive farmland?

[chuckChuck]

Why would you put solar panels on productive farmland?

Dont need to. You can put them on roofs and marginal land. But the point of this article is that from an energy point of view ethanol is not a good choice and solar panels are a much better choice. Plus some types of agriculture can be integrated with solar panels.

[Hamloc]

Environmentalists want us to quit eating meat and they now want us to quit making ethanol. So if there are no cattle to eat the corn, no distillers to buy the corn who will farmers sell the corn too? What will farmers make a living at in your future world Chuck2? If the demand for corn is cut in half, so is the price, this will push down the price of all grains. Is farming just temporary employment Chuck2?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So are you suggesting that we subsidize and choose inefficient options just because they temporarily create more jobs. Wouldn't it make more sense to choose the most efficient and economic option?
Without government mandates and subsidies ethanol would not likely be a a big part of energy supplies.

I agree. Measuring the success of any initiative by the number of jobs "created" is assinine. The only measure needs to be productivity per hour worked. We as a society have long since lost sight of that metric.

Do you remember a couple of years ago ( maybe more), when you posted some preposterous article claiming that renewable energy was already employing some ridiculours number of people, multiple times more than oil and gas, in spite of it producing a small fraction of the energy that oil and gas does? And I responded by pointing out that this would indicate that renewables were on the order of 100 times less productive per job, than oil and gas are, and consequently 100 times more expensive? And as usual, you ignored it and refused to respond?

Well, it is good to see that you have finally come around to accepting that productivity is actually important. This is a good starting point for having a constructive dialogue.

[Hamloc]

Dont need to. You can put them on roofs and marginal land. But the point of this article is that from an energy point of view ethanol is not a good choice and solar panels are a much better choice. Plus some types of agriculture can be integrated with solar panels.

“One of the biggest mistakes the west has done on green policies to cut C02 emissions is that the transition to renewable energy puts the west at the mercy of China” says David Zaikan, an energy industry consultant and founder of Key Elements Group in London.

[chuckChuck]

Hamloc, I thought most conservatives were against subsidizing industries that are not efficient or competitive? I guess not.

[chuckChuck]

There is going to be a lot of investment and jobs in transitioning to a low carbon cleaner economy.

Canada juts announced investments yesterday in EV battery production and hybrid EVs.

We will still need fossil fuel for a while but those jobs are declining as the oil industry sheds workers because of automation and productivity gains.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

There is going to be a lot of investment and jobs in transitioning to a low carbon cleaner economy.

Canada juts announced investments yesterday in EV battery production and hybrid EVs.

We will still need fossil fuel for a while but those jobs are declining as the oil industry sheds workers because of automation and productivity gains.

Did they also announce investments in mining and processing the raw materials to make those batteries? And the associated relaxing of environmental, safety and labour laws to allow those industries to exist here?
Or are we still going to make sure that is done using child labour and processed in countries where environmental regulations are non existent?

[shtferbrains]

I don't understand your arguments here Chuck?
Why would these companies build all these plants if it wasn't the right thing to do?
Would Scott Moe or Jason Kenny approve them if they wern't good for everyone.
Fuel from food crops is good for the environment.
California is going to have most Fosil Fuels eliminated buy 2030.
They can't be wrong. It's all been studied or they wouldn't be doing it.

Those 2030 and 2050 targets must be met or we all melt.
We all have to do our part.
You shouldn't be questioning the mandates.
They have been approved.

Don't be trying to make logical arguments. Your not an environmental scientist.

[chuckChuck]

Did they also announce investments in mining and processing the raw materials to make those batteries? And the associated relaxing of environmental, safety and labour laws to allow those industries to exist here?
Or are we still going to make sure that is done using child labour and processed in countries where environmental regulations are non existent?

So we should lower our standards to those equivalent of the worst just to compete?

We have a lot of the resources and materials needed in Canada and the mining industry will want to take advantage of all those opportunities.

Of course they want less regulation because it increases their profit. That's a given.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I don't understand your arguments here Chuck?
Why would these companies build all these plants if it wasn't the right thing to do?
Would Scott Moe or Jason Kenny approve them if they wern't good for everyone.
Fuel from food crops is good for the environment.
California is going to have most Fosil Fuels eliminated buy 2030.
They can't be wrong. It's all been studied or they wouldn't be doing it.

Those 2030 and 2050 targets must be met or we all melt.
We all have to do our part.
You shouldn't be questioning the mandates.
They have been approved.

Don't be trying to make logical arguments. Your not an environmental scientist.

I vote this post for Make Chuck look like a hypocrite of the Year award.
Well played sir.