Comments on: Ecornomics: America’s Favorite Crop

By: tj

tj — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:42:29 +0000

According what I have read this is non-starter as far as far as a source of energy. It does not matter how much government subsidizes the corn industry – it’s the net energy that is produced.

Net energy = Energy Out/ Energy in.

So if it takes more than gallon of energy to produce a gallon of equivalent ethanol than it’s not a started – I think we need Net Energy of atleast around 10 to be a good source of energy, Ethanol clearly is not.

As someone else suggested, corn on the cob…umhhhhhhhh.

By: taxpayer

taxpayer — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 01:39:33 +0000

If there were no crop subsidies,farmers would produce just as much (tho not necessarily the same crops) because they need to earn a living. However, the price of land would fall. In Illinois, most cropland is tenant-farmed, so it is mainly absentee investors who would object. Unfortunately they also have inordinate influence on legislatures.

By: paul

paul — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:15:29 +0000

Agreed, what a cornucopia of interesting information.

By: paul

paul — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:45:28 +0000

With the amount of corn being used in processed foods, no wonder Americans are husky

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:32:48 +0000

Ethanol may be at EROI 1.4:1, but cellulosic ethanol is between 4:1 to 10:1 and is currently being produced by a few plants.

Don’t trash the concept for replacement of foreign oil until you know about all of the technologies just around the corner.

By: JP Kab

JP Kab — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:55:15 +0000

BNielsen,

While I agree with some of your conclusions regarding the amount of fossil fuels needed to create a gallon of ethanol, you are incorrect in assuming that ethanol has to pay for itself. Corn is a highly subsidized commodity, and the majority of farmers would not be able to grow it profitably without taxpayer money being given to them for every acre they grow.
However, since the electricity used to create ethanol from corn is generated from coal, it does reduce oil dependence. But we have to remember that the corn itself uses petroleum based fertilizer and is farmed with machinery powered by diesel fuel, so there is an amount of fossil fuel being used to grow it.

By: e cigarette

e cigarette — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:35:33 +0000

Dude that is amazing. I love corn!

By: BNielsen

BNielsen — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:25:43 +0000

Creating corn ethanol does not consume more energy than it produces. There have been studies that struggle to suggest this however just looking at costs and profits its obvious the researches need to start over.

Today ethanol futures ended at about $2.01/gallon, gasoline at $1.99/gallon, and diesel at $2.06/gallon. Neeley Biofuels is currently posting a net profit of 37.5 cents per gallon of ethanol.

If it takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel to create a gallon of ethanol then the cost of the fossil fuel will be in the price of the ethanol. Add in all the other overhead costs and a gallon of ethanol should be priced well above the per gallon cost of fossil fuels, but that is not the case. The reason, the studies are bogus.

The problem with corn is that it is not the most efficient means of creating ethanol. I can only assume its what we use because we have lots of corn production already in place.

By: Zanduar

Zanduar — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:14:07 +0000

Devon beat me to it. It is actually more expensive to make Ethanol.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:41:24 +0000

Most studies have shown a slight energy gain from producing corn ethanol (1.15/1), but that’s only if you count the co-products like distiller’s grains that are left over.

Some of those fossil fuels that go into ethanol production are natural gas (for fertilizer) and coal (for electricity at ethanol plants), so in that sense we’re using local fossil fuels rather than imported oil. But the actual benefit is quite small.