Monday, February 06, 2006

More Friends of Corn-A-Hole

If you think that the Corn-A-Hole fight is over, think again.

Look for the Bank lobbyists to jump into the fray--on the side of Corn-A-Hole. There's a lot of borrowed money out there, building ethanol plants...


RRfan said...

Still opposed to ethanol??

I guess once you make a stand you stick to it. Ethanol costs less to produce and is cleaner. Waste materials can be used to fuel the conversion and the byproduct is animal feed.

The only real industry opposition is big oil companies who I am sure are glad to kick money to WMC. We have millions of cars that can run on 85% ethanol fuel and virtually nowhere to buy the fuel. Big oil's only defense it is not their product.

Let's say we let big oil decide on what it is they offer the consumer. What then is the solution to getting E85 fuel into the marketplace? I don't like mandates either but certainly the oil companies will work hard to restrict the consumer's access to ethanol.

The ethanol debate just shows that talk radio can distort any issue with a one-sided analysis.

Dad29 said...

Ethanol produces more NOx, which will cause problems with EPA/DNR. Waste materials CANNOT be used to transport CornAHole.

Costs less than WHAT to produce, RR? It delivers 70% of the energy content of gasoline for 130% of the energy input required.

And, by the way, where it is sold now, in Milwaukee, it costs the consumer a nickel/gallon MORE than straight gasoline.

If the farmers and ADM are all that convinced, they can use their own land to build "Corn-A-Hole" fueling stations. People will undoubtedly drive hundreds of miles out of their way for the "bargain" they're selling, right?

My stand is on principle--the science supports it, as does the WisManufacturer's/Commerce group. For good reason, by the way.

Your "principle" is to jam the stuff up our, ah, gastanks. Sorry, I can't buy that "principle."

Headless Blogger said...

I do a good deal of driving between Hudson and Pewaukee, so I can choose which type of fuel I use for at least half of my fill-ups. I have nothing in particular against the 10% blend gasoline and I am an advocate of RRFAN’s homegrown argument. Frankly, I would prefer to use the 10% blend if it were priced competitively.

Since the start of December I have achieved something less than 94% of my gasoline fuel economy when using 10% ethanol adulterated gas. With gas currently at $2.29, the 10% blend should be priced somewhere around 14 cents less to be competitive in my particular case. It is not, so I avoid using it.

I have seen E85 at only one Madison retailer and it was priced about 15 cents less than the 10% blend. A comparison of the physical properties of the two fuels shows that E85 contains 25% less energy per gallon than 10% blend. It should be priced more than 50 cents less to be economically competitive.

Still RRFAN argues that “Ethanol costs less to produce.” What does that have to do with me buying the stuff? I can sometimes find the ethanol blend priced 10 cents less per gallon in Hudson, but in Madison there is no difference in price. Why won’t Big Ethanol pass those production savings along to me? I am ready to buy their product if they would.

Sorry RRFAN, it is not Big Oil that is restricting sales of ethanol adulterated gas. It is Big Ethanol overpricing their economically inferior product.

RRfan said...

Ethanol is not lower in price at the pump because of the inconvenience of making, shipping and selling specialty/boutique fuels. We all pay more than we should for E10 and E85 because both are specialty fuels. If E10 became the federal requirement (which I expect it to become soon), then the price would stabilize at the market price. Price at the pump as little to do with cost and more with supply/demand Econ101. As for the science, dad29 clearly lacks any scientific training and relies on old faulty reports trotted out by the anti-ethanol forces financed by big oil. (which included WMC). Once again talk radio has infected dad29's mind to the point where in knows he is right and everyone else is wrong. I want to buy E85 at my local gas station but because of people like dad29 and talk radio, that does not seem likely. The NOx data propogated by big oil does not account for the modern fuel mix technology available today and currently 7 million vehicles are on the road today that can use E85. If the feds demanded big oil sell only 3 gas mixes: reg grade, E85 and Premium grade then I would be satisfied. But big oil knows that if there is an E85 option, within a few years no one would want to buy reg grade.

Dad29 said...

RRFan claims that ethanol's price in Wisconsin is high "because of the fuel..." cost. He conveniently ignores the fact that ethanol will NEVER be pipelined because it will evaporate. Thus, the cost of transporting ethanol will remain exactly what it is now: very high.

Further, RRFan completely ignores the massive Federal direct and tax subsidies now given to ethnanol producers--a nice trick indeed, because he assumes we are stupid enough not to add up the numbers.
What he proposes is that our Federal taxes should go UP so that our fuel costs go down.

It's obvious that RRFan disdains the intellectual capacity of this blogger, which is fine. But this blogger can figure out a tax-scam which benefits only a few parties, and can deduce that ethanol-scammers will prosper at the expense of all other taxpayers.

RRFan does not propose to change EPA/WisDNR regs to accomodate NOx increases.

He does not address the documented decrease in fuel economy.

He chooses to characterize "other people's studies" as bought-and-paid-for by a Boogeyman: Big Oil.

Then, hiding behind a "moral posture" of giving the consumer a choice which he KNOWS will never happen, he expects us to admire his virtue.

Looks to me like self-serving posturing--sort of like the posturing of Ted Kennedy.

RRfan said...


Nothing evaporates inside of a pipeline. Your logic would mean we could not use Natural Gas.

As for the subsidy - eliminate the subsidy. It is completely unneccesary once market access is provided.

As for NOx - once again you demand to use completely inaccurate old data.

As for the fuel economy issue, I thought headless blogger addressed that for E10 but on E85 please explain how we consumer more gasoline with the mixture is 85% Ethanol?

As for you intellect, I think you are very bright just very misguided and stubborn on this issue. This would happen less often if you did not rely on the likes of Belling and Sykes for your information.

Dad29 said...

RR--sorry about that. The problem with pipelining ethanol is this:

But ethanol absorbs water.Therefore, ethanol cannot be shipped by regular petroleum pipelines. Instead, it must be shipped separately and mixed on-site.

Oh--did I mention that ethanol production plants emit a lot of crap into the air AND into other waste-streams?

Did I mention that the stuff evaporates rapidly? You can't keep an E10/oil 2-cycle mix over the winter, as the ethanol evaporates--thus, the 2-cycle engine runs rough.

The "Outdated Study" was conducted in 2001. Not last week, as YOUR studies undoubtedly are...

Did I mention the volatility problems of ethanol (especially in summer) which will cause MORE asthmatic and lung-related problems for children and the elderly?

Neither did you, RR.

Peddle your ADM fertilizer elsewhere. Perhaps Sykes, Belling, DNR, and WMC are correct and YOU are marching a bit out of step, eh?

RRfan said...


Ethanol can be pipeline transported just like any other liquid or gas. (water is not a factor here).

The same pipelines that are used to transport gasoline can also transport E10. However, have you noticed any pipelines coming into your local PDQ? Delivery is not the issue.

As for the 2001 study, it ignored:
- new carbuerator technology (killing NOx)
- genetically modified corn
- 2006 oil prices
- no till farming
- new ethanol production methods
- generating Hydrogen from Ethanol
- E85 vs E10
- Byproducts produced and used
So you are stuck on a 2001 study that used 1990's data and we are in 2006. Sad that you are so stubborn. I buy opposing mandates but everything else is bogus in your arguement. Including the fuel storage. If the ethanol evaporates then you have oil and gasoline. I never use old gasoline in my 2 stroke devices. In fact are not 2 stroke engines also being banned for emissions by the environmental crowd. Apparently you like being brainwashed.

Dad29 said...

Yup. I'm a mind-numbed robot.

I intend to use my 2-cycle until it dies a natural death. Of course, the Legislature could make that illegal, forcing another decision or armed rebellion...

Just like forcing us mind-numbed robots to buy ADM's next profit-inducing scheme.

You have a study which demonstrates that the NOx problems will evaporate (just like ethanol?) I'm sure it takes into account the fact that more than 50% of autos/trucks on the road today will NOT have "advanced carburaetor technology,"--(by the way, we use fuel injectors, not carburaetors these days...) So publish it on your blogsite!

Why is hydrogen-production so important? Is this a breakthrough?

I sure HOPE that Corn-A-Hole's "advanced production methods" are not represented by the picture on Boots and Sabers today. Looks like 1890's London smokestacks to me...

And don't forget that your study will have to tell us that the "Byproducts produced/used" are not the "Byproducts" which muck up groundwater systems and sewer systems.

My antipathy to ADM runs back to the Federal convictions of its principals. But stick with them. They can buy a lot with their new Corn-A-Hole fortune.

RRfan said...

ethanol is probably a hidden plot to kill all 2 cylce engines.

ADM is evil. To that I have two words: Exxon Valdez

Dad29 said...

Yeah, that's a really intelligent comparo for someone who claims to be scientifically advanced (you know, someone who doesn't know a fuel injector from a carburaetor.)

The Valdez was not a criminal fraud problem. Exxon built a very good ship. Their captain was a drunk.

That's not self-enriching criminal fraud, although it IS stupidity, assuming that Exxon KNEW he was a drunk.

Keep the discussion on the issues: you claim to have valid, peer-reviewed studies which make ethanol the hands-down choice for consumers.

Show your hand.

RRfan said...

I always try to stay on the issues. ADM or Exxon is not the issue here.

I just thought a little humor was better than rehashing prior arguements. AND yes - fuel injectors are more correct. I erronously used carburetor - sorry. I was just having trouble with the right word to describe the microprocessor controlled combustion advances that result in more efficient burning of ethanol in an internal combustion engine than stated in the 2001 study you cite. Not that big of an error compared to your pipeline boo-boos but maybe the same dumb error to a non-biased observer.

As for a "peer-reviewed" study, any study is immediately dated. If the price of oil should drop significantly then ethanol would clearly finish second. You can research the Wall Street Journal and a recent article clearly stated the global production cost for ethanol is currently 30% cheaper than the global production cost for oil.

RRfan said...

per Dad29 request

the document gives other links as well. The E85 link is better yet.

and Yes - I agree there is no need for a subsidy and it should be eliminated.

RRfan said...

a better hand

Dad29 said...


"Consumer Federation of America" does not list the members of its Board on the website. OK--not a big deal by itself, but interesting.

Then we get text like this:

"The closure of fifty refineries and the failure to build new ones in the
past decade and a half reinforce this strategy." in reference to the Plot to Destroy Gasoline Consumers (obviously, a brilliant marketing stroke by the Oil Companies...)

Look, RR, refineries are not built because Congress and the various State legislatures have made it damn near impossible to build them with their regulatory fervor. You know that. I know that. Where do these rummies come off with this tripe?

Or this one:

"The 13 oil
companies that account for over 84 percent of US refinery runs in 2004 increased their income
on US refining and marketing operations in 2004 by more than 130% over 2003 – from $6.6
billion to $15.3 billion. In other words, as oil companies charged consumers an average of
nearly 29 cents a gallon more in 2004 than in 2003 for their gasoline, major oil companies
were reaping windfall profits"

Yup. Of course, the profits represent about 10% of their gross sales--not even HALF the % taken by Banks and insurance companies. And there ARE such things as "oil company losses, too." The chart following is pure legerdemain and spin.

Not to fear. I printed the "Properties of Fuels" chart from the DoE site and will do some marking up in the near future.

Maybe this chart will support your mad passionate love of ADM.

RRfan said...

nice comments but off the point. I dont know what your work experience is but having been in the multi-national big business work force, I can assure you that I have done everything I can not to see alternative technologies succeed. It is what I call competition which can adversely affect my income. Big Oil is no different than ADM. They both try to maximize profits by increasing demand, controlling supply, and holding back competitors. Again off subject. I am more interested in the scientific merit of alternative fuels. Ethanol is a fuel that holds great promise and since we live in Dairyland and have plenty of trees, we should not turn a blind eye to the opportunity. Anyway - we can always be followers pick up the scraps left behind by those who choose to lead. (ie check out the economic growth of high tax Minnesota versus high tax Wisconsin) Again off subject sorry