If you are anti-ethanol, please read the following VERY carefully

[HoosierRon]

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 1995 US corn production stood at 7.2 billion bushels, or 192 million metric tonnes. An estimated 14.7 million tonnes were used to make ethanol, based on the Department of Energy ethanol production figures for 1995, and allowing for a conversion rate of 2.8 gallons per bushel. 4.9 million tons of dried distillers grains, based on a 33 percent conversion rate, would have been returned from ethanol producers to the grain markets. This left 182 million tonnes available for US consumption and export.

In 2007, US corn production rose to 13.1 billion bushels, or 349 million tonnes. An estimated 62 million tonnes were used to produce ethanol, based on DOE ethanol production figures and a conversion rate of 2.8 gallons per bushel. 21 million tons of dried distillers grains, based on a 33 percent conversion rate, would have been returned from ethanol producers to the grain markets. This left 308 million tonnes available for US consumption and export.

The total production of corn available for domestic, non-ethanol consumption and/or export, increased 126 million metric tonnes from 1995 to 2007. Ethanol consumption increased during this period by 31 million metric tonnes. Overall production increased by 82 percent, and overall non-ethanol production available for domestic consumption and export rose by 69 percent.

With US production increasing by 157 million tonnes, after 31 million net metric tonnes are subtracted for the change in ethanol consumption, and 25 million tonnes are subtracted for a 14 percent increase for other domestic uses and export (to keep pace with population change), the US produced 101 million metric tonnes more corn in 2007 than required for its 1995 pattern of domestic production, export, and for ethanol.

...

Eliminating all other factors, including the potential for increases in domestic production in the US and China and changes in corn demand from other sources, US grain reserves would be depleted by rising Chinese demand as soon as fall 2013, even if the entire US corn ethanol industry were eliminated overnight and all corn was made available for export to China to meet rising demand for livestock feed.
...
Comparing the rise in corn, oil, wheat and rice prices since 2000, using the World Resource Institute and DOE price tables, it can clearly be seen that corn prices, while escalating rapidly, are rising slower than any of the three other food and fuel commodities. In fact, the intensity of price increases is in inverse proportion to the conversion rate into ethanol. Corn, which is used the most among the four commodities as a biofuel, has the lowest price increase. Rice and crude oil, which are not used to make ethanol, have experienced the fastest price increases.

source

There is absolutely no way you can blame ethanol for the price of corn. Please remember these facts the next time you want to repeat the "conventional wisdom" of the mainstream media.

[TheGeneral]

Yeah china's biggest problem is their population.

[SuperSS27]

Originally Posted by TheGeneral

Yeah china's biggest problem is their population.

Problem or strength?

[E-Flex]

The point about ethanol is not what happens on farms in the US, where very few farmers could easily feed the whole nation.

The point is that it is tempting to have badly paid farmers in third world countries produce cheap ethanol for highly developed countries instead of food for their fellow countrymen. Since third world countries usually lack the money to import their food from abroad, this will lead to people famishing for the sake of cheap fuel.

If you can produce all the ethanol you need in the US, and if you are ready to pay for it, please go ahead. But importing it for cheap money from third world countries will lead to a complete disaster.

[johnstarnes]

This report overlooks the vast amount of water and fertilizer consumed by this hungry crop, and the subsequent massive "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico caused by fertilizer runoff spewed by the Mississippi. I favor cellulosic made from plant waste instead.

[HoosierRon]

Originally Posted by johnstarnes

This report overlooks the vast amount of water and fertilizer consumed by this hungry crop, and the subsequent massive "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico caused by fertilizer runoff spewed by the Mississippi. I favor cellulosic made from plant waste instead.

Everyone favors cellulosic ethanol, but that is not the point of the article.

Everyone knows that corn is a very land and fertilizer intensive crop. But that is not the point of the article.

The point of the article is this: People who claim ethanol is causing a shortage of corn for food are wrong. America has more corn for food than ever before, and it is exporting more than ever before -- even after the ethanol industry takes its share. This is true even if it would be better to make ethanol from cellulose, and it also is true even if we should grow less corn.

Regardless of woulda-coulda-shoulda, ethanol is not causing a shortage of corn for food and export.

The U.S. imports very little ethanol.

[Ed Arcuri]

Originally Posted by E-Flex

The point about ethanol is not what happens on farms in the US, where very few farmers could easily feed the whole nation.

The point is that it is tempting to have badly paid farmers in third world countries produce cheap ethanol for highly developed countries instead of food for their fellow countrymen. Since third world countries usually lack the money to import their food from abroad, this will lead to people famishing for the sake of cheap fuel.

If you can produce all the ethanol you need in the US, and if you are ready to pay for it, please go ahead. But importing it for cheap money from third world countries will lead to a complete disaster.

Perhaps, but all the evidence is to the contrary. We import a lot of goods from China, Japan, Korea, Germany,the rest of Europe, Canada, Mexico . . . stop me when I get to a country that has gotten poorer as a result of trade.

If we were to import ethanol or feedstocks from elsewhere, the price of those commodities would rise in proportion to the increased demand. Thus, those supplying the commodities would receive a higher price and have more to spend. Hey, if we burn enough of the stuff maybe some fellow in Bangladesh could feed his family Kobe beef from Japan!

Before World War 2, the prosperous part of Korea was the North, the prosperous part of Germany was the East, Taiwan was less prosperous than the Chinese mainland. After World War 2 all of that changed as South Korea, West Germany and Taiwan all chose freedom and trade.

Trade and freedom are the things that will lift the Third World into the First. Tyranny and economic meddling will undo these things: vide Zimbabwe.

Cheers,
Ed Arcuri

[ByTheLake]

I'm surprised that there is even a corn-vs-ethanol debate. Corn tastes much better. I mean, have you ever tried that ethanol stuff?

[Clownzilla]

Originally Posted by ByTheLake

I'm surprised that there is even a corn-vs-ethanol debate. Corn tastes much better. I mean, have you ever tried that ethanol stuff?

So true! Also, ethanol doesn't come in cool ranch or nacho flavor.

[HoosierRon]

Originally Posted by ByTheLake

I'm surprised that there is even a corn-vs-ethanol debate. Corn tastes much better. I mean, have you ever tried that ethanol stuff?

Are you familiar with the bluegrass song "Rocky Top":

Corn won't grow on Rocky Top
Dirt's too rocky by far
That's why the folks on Rocky Top
Get their corn from a jar.

[Highlander]

While I still firmly believe ethanol is no solution and is way too ineffecient, this article is correct that ethanol is not the cause of any sort of corn shortage and subsequent price increase. The price increase is not driven by the demand for ethanol (other than perhaps by speculation and mis-information).

[Jimbus]

But what you are not considering is that corn is a commodity traded in a market. Statistics and truth really have nothing to do with prices. My brother-in-law, who farms in nw PA, contracted preseason at just under $2.5 a bushel. He got over $4 a bushel post contract and the people he sold it to said it was because of the rush for ethanol.

It doesn't matter that ethanol uses a fraction of the corn production, prices are all about speculation. Oil prices are through the roof right now for no other reason than speculation. Keep this in mind, too, there was an article about some third world country making tens of thousands or millions of acres available to grow bio-fuel crops... this is probably code for clear cutting rain forest.

[HoosierRon]

Originally Posted by Jimbus

But what you are not considering is that corn is a commodity traded in a market. Statistics and truth really have nothing to do with prices. My brother-in-law, who farms in nw PA, contracted preseason at just under $2.5 a bushel. He got over $4 a bushel post contract and the people he sold it to said it was because of the rush for ethanol.

It doesn't matter that ethanol uses a fraction of the corn production, prices are all about speculation. Oil prices are through the roof right now for no other reason than speculation. Keep this in mind, too, there was an article about some third world country making tens of thousands or millions of acres available to grow bio-fuel crops... this is probably code for clear cutting rain forest.

Perhaps you missed the announcement, so let me repeat it: The spot price of corn has dropped 25% in the past month, and it has nothing to do with ethanol. Speculators drove the price up in the spring because they thought there would be a shortage due to the Midwestern floods. A recent USDA survey revealed this not to be the case, so the speculators have gone away, and the price is falling.

Be sure to pass this on to your brother-in-law and his people: Ethanol production increased 10% in May. In June corn prices dropped 25%. This month, E85 prices have dropped 65 cents per gallon.

[HotCarNut]

Originally Posted by E-Flex

The point about ethanol is not what happens on farms in the US, where very few farmers could easily feed the whole nation.

The point is that it is tempting to have badly paid farmers in third world countries produce cheap ethanol for highly developed countries instead of food for their fellow countrymen. Since third world countries usually lack the money to import their food from abroad, this will lead to people famishing for the sake of cheap fuel.

If you can produce all the ethanol you need in the US, and if you are ready to pay for it, please go ahead. But importing it for cheap money from third world countries will lead to a complete disaster.

The US is one of the largest exporters of corn worldwide. Why would we bother importing ethanol when we can simply keep the corn here and convert it? We have the most capacity for ethanol production from corn (Brazil's is almost entirely sugar-cane based) and it drastically lowers the cost since we aren't paying out the @ss to ship it. If you want to complain about something, gripe that we won't be giving freebies to half the ****ing world. Maybe Germany should spend less on socialist programs at home and contribute more the the world food bank. That seems to be what you're suggesting the US do.

[T-Keith]

It doesn't take much of an increase in demand for prices to rise, this article doesn't prove anything. Corn production is at an all time high because the price, but mostly at the expense of other crops, decreasing their demand and raising their price.

I can't believe such a loaded rant/article makes the front page of this site.