<DrumBeat: August 16, 2008 The Oil Drum Georgia Conflict - Open Thread #4>

57 comments on Fermenting the Food Supply - Revisited

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

kdolliso on August 16, 2008 - 12:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Ahh, Predictions are tough. Especially when, as Yogi said, "They're about the future."

Today, we're producing about 650,000 barrels/day of corn ethanol. We exported about 16% more corn this year than last; and, we have 14% more corn in stock than this time last year.

Corn is selling at market for about $0.10/pound (up about a nickel from two years, ago, and grain prices are plunging all around the globe.

We're going to top out at a little over 900,000 barrels/day it looks like, and then we move on to cellulosic. The first/biggest move, there appears to be municipal waste to ethanol. The one dollar to one and a half dollar a gallon range seems to be where we'll get the next 1 1/2 to 2 million barrels/day.

Sometime after that we'll be moving on the "Ceres" enhanced cellulosic crops. With a Billion acres of abandoned/unused land lying fallow in the world we should be able to see between 500 Billion, and a Trillion Gallons/year from energy crops. That's before Ceres Gen II.

BTW, to get the "True" number of acres of corn used you have to take the yield (use 450 gal/acre - it's, actually, now a little more) and divide by .60 (you get 40% of your weight gaining ability back from the distillers grains.)

Yep, predictions are tough - esp. when they're about the future.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kdolliso on August 16, 2008 - 12:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Also, keep in mind: Something like 70% of the world's hungriest people are subsistence farmers. The greatest thing imaginable for them would be Five, or Six Dollar Corn. At that price the Urban Poor would still be able to afford it; and, the poor farmer would be able to afford to raise it.

As for our friends in Mexico: Whatever happened down there with their White Sweet Corn (we grow Yellow Field Corn for Cattle Feed, and Ethanol) it had nothing to do with what we were doing up here. At the time, Mexico had high tariffs on our corn. Actually, it was only after the tariffs expired in Jan 1 of this year that the whole thing went away.

Now, of course, the Mexican farmers are protesting the cheap U.S. corn. Cain't win.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GreyZone on August 16, 2008 - 1:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Same old kdolliso, same old ethanol propaganda. Your ethanol lies have been repeatedly refuted yet you continue to spew it as if doing so will make them "true". You come in here and attack Stuart's massive work with a few lines of trash commentary, zero data, and refuted "facts".

Many of us are tired of your propaganda, kdolliso. Also, you may want to reconsider what you are doing, because if this turns into a massive human tragedy, you may be one of the many who will be held at fault.

By the way, the "plunge" in grain prices is a correction from recent highs. Current prices are still vastly higher than previously, which even you note. Do you enjoy contradicting yourself repeatedly?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kdolliso on August 16, 2008 - 2:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Instead of slinging ad hominems, why not just point out where I'm wrong?

I'll check back a little later.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GreyZone on August 16, 2008 - 6:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Point out again? Why bother? Robert Rapier and many others have debunked you again and again and again. Yet you show up in the next ethanol related thread claiming the same old tired horse manure and then demand that it be debunked AGAIN.

There's zero need for anyone here to continue debunking you yet again. All they need to know is that you've been debunked so many times in the past that this is becoming tiresome.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kdolliso on August 16, 2008 - 9:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Cain't remember, huh?

Well, maybe someone a little more knowledgeable will show up to tell me where I'm wrong. Meantime, you really shouldn't call someone a liar, unless you can Prove it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
rainsong on August 17, 2008 - 4:33am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The USDA forecast is for a lower corn harvest this year than last. Last year there was a record corn harvest at the expense of planting fewer soybean acres. By taking soybean acreage out of production and putting corn into production one did not solve the problem of higher food prices, and increased malnutrition of the poor. The nation is nowhere near satisfying Federal ethanol mandates and more corn is needed.

Not only does the United States have aspirations to make more ethanol in the future, Canada has a mandatory ethanol law that may require much more corn consumption for ethanol production by 2010. There were EU directives resulting in both ethanol and biodiesel production. There are U.S. state laws requiring biofuels production including mandatory biodiesel production. Soybeans were consumed in order to make biodiesel. There are additional biofuels programs in India, China, Brazil, to name a few. One of Stuart's charts shows the escalation in ethanol capacity bieng built. This year may not be like last year. Already there have been losses in ethanol production facilities at a time when the nation needs corporate profits and the jobs created by such.

A United Nations report blamed biofuels production for most of the rise in food prices since 2000. When George Bush claimed cellulosic ethanol to be the way to energy independence, the cost of cellulosic ethanol was as high as no company or individual could produce cellosic ethanol without losing money. Cellulosic ethanol is a very expensive and inefficient energy loop that has not been proven economically viable in any nation on earth and if carryed out may lead to record high fuel prices and voter dissatisfaction over government waste and inefficiency.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Rethin on August 16, 2008 - 7:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

BTW, to get the "True" number of acres of corn used you have to take the yield (use 450 gal/acre - it's, actually, now a little more) and divide by .60 (you get 40% of your weight gaining ability back from the distillers grains.)

Feeding your grain to cattle does not increase your yield.

Why you insist on repeating this utter falsehood time and time again is beyond me. Its not like it hasn't been pointed out to you each and every time.

The first couple of dozen time you've done this I guess I could dismiss it as plain stupidity. But the fact you continue to do so shows nothing but the plain desire to deceive.

You are a liar, a fraud and and all round pain in the butt. Please go away.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kdolliso on August 16, 2008 - 8:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

That's what field corn is, R, Cattle feed.

It consists of starch, and protein. To make ethanol you remove the 1/3 that's starch, and retain the approx one third that's protein. The approx 1/3 that's CO2 is either vented, or, increasingly, used for dry ice, soft drink carbonation, or oil field flooding.

There's also a little over a pound of corn oil in there (that, actually, is bad for the livestock) that's increasingly being removed to be used for either biodiesel, or cooking oil.

As you have, no doubt, noticed: No one, yet, has disputed any of the particulars of what I've had to say. I'm sorry knowledge offends you so. You might try the funny papers, tomorrow. They're entertaining, and will not upset you with truths you don't want to hear.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Rethin on August 17, 2008 - 12:57am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It doesn't matter what you do to the DDG. You still have x gallons of ethanol from the fermentation.

You are trying to attribute whatever energy credit you can get from the ddg to the ethanol itself.

I don't care how fat your cows are getting. Unless they start pissing ethanol ddg's do not increase ethanol yield.

This is a lie. Stop repeating it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kdolliso on August 17, 2008 - 6:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

One last time:

I've got an acre of cattle feed (corn.) I use 2/3 of it to produce ethanol. I get 450 gallons of ethanol. What is my yield/acre.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Rethin on August 17, 2008 - 8:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Your yield is 450 gallons.

It matters nothing what you do with the DDGs. Feed them to your cow, burn them for heat, throw them back on the field as fertilizer etc. You still only get 450 gallons

You can't divide 450 by .6 like you repeatably claim.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

57 comments on Fermenting the Food Supply - Revisited

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version