I wonder if the politicians in Mississippi know how to read or listen, as the news of the hundreds of millions wasted on so-called renewable energy by the Obama administration doesn't seemed to have reached the deep south, with Mississippi throwing around $75 million in low interest loans for the building of cellulosic biofuels plant in the state.
They also have offered up $155 million in tax incentives to get the boondoggle going. What a criminal waste of the taxpayer's money. And yes it is taxpayers money because they're the ones that will have to pay for it when it crashes and burns.
The company confisgating the state loan is named Virdia, which just changed its name from HCL Cleantech. They take natural matter such as woodchips and other plant matter and convert it into sugar, which is then converted into ethanol.
Virdia CEO Philippe Lavielle admits the amount of money offered by the state, along with $10 million in venture debt and another $20 million in venture capital equity isn't enough to build a viable plant that can successfully operate at a commercial level and compete against corn-based ethanol. He confessed concerning the money that "it takes more than that. It takes a chemical firm that will want to build it to have access to sugars for their own conversion processes."
According to Lavielle, the costs of building a commerical plant which would produce about 500,000 tons of sugar on an annual basis is $380 million. That could supply a 25-million-gallon ethanol plant, according to the CEO.
Another negative factor and complication to the success of such a plant would be the need for it to be located close to a chemical plant or a paper mill so it could be able to tap into the power infrastructure serving those businesses, and in the case of the paper mill, to be able to use the existing equipment for handling wood. Lavielle says it'll take up to three years for a plant like that to be built.
Historically capital requirements and projections are almost without exception much higher and take a lot longer to reach the expected goals.
To be able to compete with the scammy and damaging corn-based ethanol, Lavielle says corn would have to remain at a price of over $4 a bushel. While corn prices in the United States are higher now because of droughts in Argentina and Brazil which are expected to generate more exports for U.S. corn, that's a temporary situation, and corn could easily plummet below the $4 mark very rapidly.
Add to this the cost factors associated with cellulosic, which includes the requirement of having a wood production facility very close or the cost of shipping wood and plant matter to the facility soars.
Looking at the overall picture, ethanol, no matter what the form, is a waste of valuable time and money.
New discoveries of oil and gas shale, along with the technology to extract it from the rock, has changed the entire energy game in the United States, which now has enough energy to last possibly for centuries.
The known reserves already are estimated to last for well over a century in the United States, and there are many areas where it is unknown as to how much there actually is in America, let alone across the world. That's the future of American energy independence, not these idiotic and irresponsible projects that are truly nothing more than a scam. Ethanol, whether produced by corn, wood chips or plant material, is nothing more than that.
The people of Mississippi should be outraged over this travesty, but they're surely drinking the kool aide of jobs being created, even though not too long afterwards when the company declares bankruptcy, they'll all be lost.
Showing posts with label Corn Based Ethanol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corn Based Ethanol. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Bill Clinton Says Ethanol Could Spark Riots
Former President Clinton added his voice to those with concerns about U.S. corn usage for ethanol production. In a major speech this morning to USDA’s Outlook Forum, Clinton warned that competition for food stock could impact food prices and spark food riots in developing countries.
Clinton, who now works on international development issues through his New York-based foundation, said that U.S. farmers need to be aware of the developing countries food needs as well as the domestic ethanol market. He acknowledged, however, the role of ethanol in reducing the U.S. dependence on imported fuels.
Clinton’s remarks drew immediate reaction from U.S. ethanol and corn production organizations. A statement from Growth Energy, a trade organization representing biofuel companies, noted, “We appreciate that President Clinton understands the important role American ethanol plays in reducing our dependence on foreign oil and strengthening our national security.
Full Story
Clinton, who now works on international development issues through his New York-based foundation, said that U.S. farmers need to be aware of the developing countries food needs as well as the domestic ethanol market. He acknowledged, however, the role of ethanol in reducing the U.S. dependence on imported fuels.
Clinton’s remarks drew immediate reaction from U.S. ethanol and corn production organizations. A statement from Growth Energy, a trade organization representing biofuel companies, noted, “We appreciate that President Clinton understands the important role American ethanol plays in reducing our dependence on foreign oil and strengthening our national security.
Full Story
Get Rid of Ethanol, To Consume 36 Percent of US Crop in 2011
Ethanol production is outstripping levels mandated by the government, increasing pressure on corn supplies, according to the Agriculture Department.
USDA’s chief economist, Joseph Glauber, said that that ethanol production is currently running at at more than 13.5 billion gallons on an annualized basis, well over the 12.6 billion gallons required this year by the federal renewable fuel standard. “Production margins for ethanol producers remain positive as many plants appear to have forward-priced their corn requirements below the recent market highs,” Glauber said at the USDA’s annual agricultural outlook conference.
Ethanol is likely to consume 5 billion bushels, or 36 percent, of this year’s crop.
Despite soaring corn prices and thin reserves, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told the conference there was “no reason for us to take the foot off the gas” when it comes to biofuels. “This is a great opportunity, because we can do it all. Those who suggest we cannot just simply are not betting on the American farmer and rancher.” He also pledged to aggressively push to increase U.S. ag exports.
Full Story
USDA’s chief economist, Joseph Glauber, said that that ethanol production is currently running at at more than 13.5 billion gallons on an annualized basis, well over the 12.6 billion gallons required this year by the federal renewable fuel standard. “Production margins for ethanol producers remain positive as many plants appear to have forward-priced their corn requirements below the recent market highs,” Glauber said at the USDA’s annual agricultural outlook conference.
Ethanol is likely to consume 5 billion bushels, or 36 percent, of this year’s crop.
Despite soaring corn prices and thin reserves, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told the conference there was “no reason for us to take the foot off the gas” when it comes to biofuels. “This is a great opportunity, because we can do it all. Those who suggest we cannot just simply are not betting on the American farmer and rancher.” He also pledged to aggressively push to increase U.S. ag exports.
Full Story
Friday, February 6, 2009
Ethanol | Worse than Gasoline
... says a study from the University of Minnesota on corn-based ethanol
Ethanol continues to get hammered as another study, this time from the University of Minnesota, says the costs are much higher than originally anticipated, and is higher than gasoline when taking into account all factors.
Health, environmental factors make conventional ethanol costly, but the market for alternative fuels is tanking
As noted in The New York Times yesterday, researchers from the University of Minnesota compared the cost of corn-based ethanol to the cost of gasoline and found that ethanol costs more when environmental and health factors are included.
The process of making ethanol is energy-intensive, and the most expensive ethanol is made with corn in facilities that burn cheap but polluting coal.
According to the study, “Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasoline,” the numbers are grim.
“For each billion ethanol-equivalent gallons of fuel produced and combusted in the U.S., the combined climate-change and health costs are $469 million for gasoline, $472–952 million for corn ethanol … but only $123–208 million for cellulosic ethanol [ethanol derived from prairie biomass, corn stalks, switchgrass or other sources],” the study says.
The huge range of cost for corn ethanol is due to the different methods used to produce the fuel. The $952 million number is for ethanol made using coal, a method that’s being used in an increasing number of ethanol facilities.
As Grist noted back in 2006, “More and more ethanol manufacturers are looking to power their plants with cheap coal instead of its cleaner and increasingly expensive competitor, natural gas, thereby potentially limiting ethanol’s environmental benefits.”
The University of Minnesota study includes charts and maps, including one that shows a big, dark red blotch — next to New Mexico — that indicates where corn ethanol is made with coal.
Without those handy state border lines it’s a little hard to tell what’s what in those pictures above. But here’s another map that puts it in better perspective:
The map is a little old; there are now three plants in operation in Texas and seven more planned.
That green dot in New Mexico is the Abengoa Bioenergy plant in Portales. Built in 1985, it was producing 30 million gallons of ethanol before a temporary shutdown in October due to fluctuations in both the grain and oil markets.
Most of the city of Portales gets its power from Xcel Energy, which sells power generated New Mexico and Texas, including two coal fired power plants in West Texas. About half of Xcel’s power — 52 percent — comes from coal; 41 percent comes from natural gas and 7 percent comes from wind and other renewables.
“The coal plants run about 24-7 because its the least expensive and the most efficient,” says Wes Reeves of Xcel.
More than 70 percent of New Mexico’s power is generated at two coal-fired plants near Farmington (pdf). Carbon dioxide emissions from coal make up more than half of the emissions from power plants in New Mexico.
Because producing ethanol is so energy intensive, many ethanol plants don’t buy electricity; they either buy natural gas or they have their own power plants, which burn coal or other fuel, such as cow poop.
When the Abengoa plant is running, it uses the cleaner, but more expensive, natural gas. Abengoa, which is headquartered in Spain, does not have any coal-fired ethanol plants, says Vice President Christopher Stanley.
The Portales ethanol plant had to close temporarily because the high price of grain sorghum and milo — the raw ingredients it uses to make ethanol — is relatively high, while the price of gasoline, which largely determines the price of ethanol, is low.
“It’s all market-driven,” Stanley says. “It’s our intention to resume production as soon as the market improves.”
And the market is not good. As the Times noted earlier this week, the crummy economy and the credit crisis have put a serious dent in the market for alternative energy. Companies that make wind turbines and solar panels have all laid off workers; biomass and geothermal groups have also seen a slowdown. Meanwhile, the falling price of oil has put a kink in alternative fuels’ chain.
One ethanol plant in Hereford, Texas, which broke ground in 2005, planned to use manure from nearby dairy farms rather than natural gas or coal for power. But less than two weeks ago, the company, Hereford Biofuels, filed for bankruptcy and announced it was putting the still-unfinished plant up for sale.
Algae-derived biodiesel is attractive in part because conventional biodiesel is made from soybeans, and like corn-based ethanol, is subject to the “food or fuel” debate. And demand for biodiesel is increasing; in 2007, the New Mexcio Legislature passed the Biodiesel Standards Act, which will require 5 percent biodiesel in state vehicles by 2010 and for all vehicles by 2012. The state is also offering tax credits to facilities that install blending equipment.
The Center of Excellence for Hazardous Materials Management, working in partnership with Los Alamos National Laboratory and New Mexico State University, has developed an algae biodiesel test project near Carlsbad.
“In Carlsbad we’re hoping to take microalgae to market. The project has the potential to make biodiesel that wouldn’t use a field crop but would take advantage of some wide open spaces and brine water,” says Fernando Martinez, director of the Energy Conservation and Management Division of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department.
But is algae biodiesel economically viable? Last year, Doug Lynn, the center’s executive director, said he was cautiously optimistic that biodiesel could be produced from algae for $80 per barrel. That’s a lot better than last year’s $150 per barrel prices for oil, but not compared to the $40 we’re paying right now.
In the aftermath of yet another study critical of corn-based ethanol, ethanol backers are expressing frustration with what they consider faulty research.
Dr. Martha Schlicher is the former head of the National Corn to Ethanol Research Center and now vice president of Illinois River Energy. She says the recent University of Minnesota study, like others in the past, fails to recognize dramatic technology improvements occurring in corn ethanol production.
“Science grows and develops and gets perfected with time,” Schlicher says. “We have a willingness to accept that in the medical field—I think brain surgery and heart surgery have probably improved dramatically. Antibiotics have improved dramatically.”
In the Minnesota study, for example, Sclicher says researchers failed to mention that natural gas and electricity could eventually be eliminated from the ethanol production process, which would greatly alter its emission profile.
While negative to corn ethanol, the Minnesota study was very positive to cellulosic ethanol. However, Schlicher thinks it “over-promises” on the potential of cellulosics.
“If we think for a minute that cellulosic-based ethanol, or an advanced biofuel, is going to be perfect when it gets to market, we’ve got another think coming,” Schlicher says, “and then we’re right back to the same old starting point and we’ll never have an alternative to gasoline.”
Schlicher says cellulosic ethanol is an important part of our renewable future. But while it is being developed, she says America should optimize the base of production that it has today in corn ethanol.
Even with these continuous misguided and dishonest calls for ethanol as a biofuel, and even looking to the more expensive cellulosic ethanol as a future alternative to corn-based ethanol, it looks like its backers are looking at it as a form of environmental religion, as they continue to ignore the disaster that ethanol in whatever form it takes is.
Ethanol continues to get hammered as another study, this time from the University of Minnesota, says the costs are much higher than originally anticipated, and is higher than gasoline when taking into account all factors.
Health, environmental factors make conventional ethanol costly, but the market for alternative fuels is tanking
As noted in The New York Times yesterday, researchers from the University of Minnesota compared the cost of corn-based ethanol to the cost of gasoline and found that ethanol costs more when environmental and health factors are included.
The process of making ethanol is energy-intensive, and the most expensive ethanol is made with corn in facilities that burn cheap but polluting coal.
According to the study, “Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasoline,” the numbers are grim.
“For each billion ethanol-equivalent gallons of fuel produced and combusted in the U.S., the combined climate-change and health costs are $469 million for gasoline, $472–952 million for corn ethanol … but only $123–208 million for cellulosic ethanol [ethanol derived from prairie biomass, corn stalks, switchgrass or other sources],” the study says.
The huge range of cost for corn ethanol is due to the different methods used to produce the fuel. The $952 million number is for ethanol made using coal, a method that’s being used in an increasing number of ethanol facilities.
As Grist noted back in 2006, “More and more ethanol manufacturers are looking to power their plants with cheap coal instead of its cleaner and increasingly expensive competitor, natural gas, thereby potentially limiting ethanol’s environmental benefits.”
The University of Minnesota study includes charts and maps, including one that shows a big, dark red blotch — next to New Mexico — that indicates where corn ethanol is made with coal.
Without those handy state border lines it’s a little hard to tell what’s what in those pictures above. But here’s another map that puts it in better perspective:
The map is a little old; there are now three plants in operation in Texas and seven more planned.
That green dot in New Mexico is the Abengoa Bioenergy plant in Portales. Built in 1985, it was producing 30 million gallons of ethanol before a temporary shutdown in October due to fluctuations in both the grain and oil markets.
Most of the city of Portales gets its power from Xcel Energy, which sells power generated New Mexico and Texas, including two coal fired power plants in West Texas. About half of Xcel’s power — 52 percent — comes from coal; 41 percent comes from natural gas and 7 percent comes from wind and other renewables.
“The coal plants run about 24-7 because its the least expensive and the most efficient,” says Wes Reeves of Xcel.
More than 70 percent of New Mexico’s power is generated at two coal-fired plants near Farmington (pdf). Carbon dioxide emissions from coal make up more than half of the emissions from power plants in New Mexico.
Because producing ethanol is so energy intensive, many ethanol plants don’t buy electricity; they either buy natural gas or they have their own power plants, which burn coal or other fuel, such as cow poop.
When the Abengoa plant is running, it uses the cleaner, but more expensive, natural gas. Abengoa, which is headquartered in Spain, does not have any coal-fired ethanol plants, says Vice President Christopher Stanley.
The Portales ethanol plant had to close temporarily because the high price of grain sorghum and milo — the raw ingredients it uses to make ethanol — is relatively high, while the price of gasoline, which largely determines the price of ethanol, is low.
“It’s all market-driven,” Stanley says. “It’s our intention to resume production as soon as the market improves.”
And the market is not good. As the Times noted earlier this week, the crummy economy and the credit crisis have put a serious dent in the market for alternative energy. Companies that make wind turbines and solar panels have all laid off workers; biomass and geothermal groups have also seen a slowdown. Meanwhile, the falling price of oil has put a kink in alternative fuels’ chain.
One ethanol plant in Hereford, Texas, which broke ground in 2005, planned to use manure from nearby dairy farms rather than natural gas or coal for power. But less than two weeks ago, the company, Hereford Biofuels, filed for bankruptcy and announced it was putting the still-unfinished plant up for sale.
Algae-derived biodiesel is attractive in part because conventional biodiesel is made from soybeans, and like corn-based ethanol, is subject to the “food or fuel” debate. And demand for biodiesel is increasing; in 2007, the New Mexcio Legislature passed the Biodiesel Standards Act, which will require 5 percent biodiesel in state vehicles by 2010 and for all vehicles by 2012. The state is also offering tax credits to facilities that install blending equipment.
The Center of Excellence for Hazardous Materials Management, working in partnership with Los Alamos National Laboratory and New Mexico State University, has developed an algae biodiesel test project near Carlsbad.
“In Carlsbad we’re hoping to take microalgae to market. The project has the potential to make biodiesel that wouldn’t use a field crop but would take advantage of some wide open spaces and brine water,” says Fernando Martinez, director of the Energy Conservation and Management Division of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department.
But is algae biodiesel economically viable? Last year, Doug Lynn, the center’s executive director, said he was cautiously optimistic that biodiesel could be produced from algae for $80 per barrel. That’s a lot better than last year’s $150 per barrel prices for oil, but not compared to the $40 we’re paying right now.
In the aftermath of yet another study critical of corn-based ethanol, ethanol backers are expressing frustration with what they consider faulty research.
Dr. Martha Schlicher is the former head of the National Corn to Ethanol Research Center and now vice president of Illinois River Energy. She says the recent University of Minnesota study, like others in the past, fails to recognize dramatic technology improvements occurring in corn ethanol production.
“Science grows and develops and gets perfected with time,” Schlicher says. “We have a willingness to accept that in the medical field—I think brain surgery and heart surgery have probably improved dramatically. Antibiotics have improved dramatically.”
In the Minnesota study, for example, Sclicher says researchers failed to mention that natural gas and electricity could eventually be eliminated from the ethanol production process, which would greatly alter its emission profile.
While negative to corn ethanol, the Minnesota study was very positive to cellulosic ethanol. However, Schlicher thinks it “over-promises” on the potential of cellulosics.
“If we think for a minute that cellulosic-based ethanol, or an advanced biofuel, is going to be perfect when it gets to market, we’ve got another think coming,” Schlicher says, “and then we’re right back to the same old starting point and we’ll never have an alternative to gasoline.”
Schlicher says cellulosic ethanol is an important part of our renewable future. But while it is being developed, she says America should optimize the base of production that it has today in corn ethanol.
Even with these continuous misguided and dishonest calls for ethanol as a biofuel, and even looking to the more expensive cellulosic ethanol as a future alternative to corn-based ethanol, it looks like its backers are looking at it as a form of environmental religion, as they continue to ignore the disaster that ethanol in whatever form it takes is.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Obama's Pick of Tom Vilsack for Agriculture Secretary Grim News for Nation
Obama hasn't shown a lot of wisdom in his cabinet choices so far, and is evidenced in relationship to ethanol, as he picked ethanol subsidy proponent Tom Vilsack, former Iowa governor, to lead the Department of Agriculture.
The conflict of interest is too obvious to have to comment on, in that Iowa has been the largest recipient of taxpayer dollars, receiving the largest portion of the over $25 billion wasted on ethanol subsidies so far.
Not only that, but Vilsack is even more radical in pushing for larger subsidies for the failing biofuel strategy.
It's hard to understand how Obama on one side of his mouth asks for a cap on subsidies for wealthy farmers, citing the excessive power the special interest group wields, and then on the other side of his mouth places someone like Vilsack in charge of the Department of Agriculture. It's a grim, complete disaster.
"The president-elect’s own history is difficult to square with his recent farm-reform talk. Obama ardently backed ethanol subsidies while in the Senate — his home state of Illinois trails only Iowa in corn production — and one of his closest confidants, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, is as responsible as any politician for the explosion in these subsidies."
Not only does corn-based ethanol require more inputs than other crops, but the usual unintended consequences have emerged, and as usual hurt the little people the most, as processed food prices soared in response to the artificial propping up of the prices of corn, driven only by Federal subsidies.
It looks like a lot more pain will have to be inflicted on people before politicians and environmentalist admit the failure of this venture, which was instigated by the unholy agreement between the two.
Now that the obvious results of the disaster are becoming known, green groups are trying to distance themselves from the debacle, as they're made to look like the fools they are.
All of us are still waiting to see where the reform promised by Obama is going to implemented. So far it's business as usual in Washington. And in the case of ethanol, it's an increasing disaster no one is willing to admit to and just drop off the subsidy list.
The conflict of interest is too obvious to have to comment on, in that Iowa has been the largest recipient of taxpayer dollars, receiving the largest portion of the over $25 billion wasted on ethanol subsidies so far.
Not only that, but Vilsack is even more radical in pushing for larger subsidies for the failing biofuel strategy.
It's hard to understand how Obama on one side of his mouth asks for a cap on subsidies for wealthy farmers, citing the excessive power the special interest group wields, and then on the other side of his mouth places someone like Vilsack in charge of the Department of Agriculture. It's a grim, complete disaster.
"The president-elect’s own history is difficult to square with his recent farm-reform talk. Obama ardently backed ethanol subsidies while in the Senate — his home state of Illinois trails only Iowa in corn production — and one of his closest confidants, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, is as responsible as any politician for the explosion in these subsidies."
Not only does corn-based ethanol require more inputs than other crops, but the usual unintended consequences have emerged, and as usual hurt the little people the most, as processed food prices soared in response to the artificial propping up of the prices of corn, driven only by Federal subsidies.
It looks like a lot more pain will have to be inflicted on people before politicians and environmentalist admit the failure of this venture, which was instigated by the unholy agreement between the two.
Now that the obvious results of the disaster are becoming known, green groups are trying to distance themselves from the debacle, as they're made to look like the fools they are.
All of us are still waiting to see where the reform promised by Obama is going to implemented. So far it's business as usual in Washington. And in the case of ethanol, it's an increasing disaster no one is willing to admit to and just drop off the subsidy list.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
So much for change! Obama to follow same failed ethanol policy as Bush
We now see the first step in change Obama will perform in his new administration, he will keep the failed ethanol policy of President Bush in place. Wait! Change? What's this?
It's politics as usual in Washington, and things aren't going to change in spite of this being the most "important" election in decades.
Obama has already confirmed this through his announcement via his campaign senior energy adviser Heather Zichal, who recently said concerning Obama's policy for ethanol: "Obama recognizes how important the renewable and biofuels industry is to creating jobs and meeting our goal of reducing dependence on foreign oil. He's fully committed to it and sees tremendous value in the renewable fuels standard and continuing down this path."
Yawn. I guess the food riots will continue around the world, and feed prices rise as we continue along this disastrous path.
Even though the idea of cellulosic ethanol was offered up as the eventual future of the biofuel, the truth about it at this time is it costs about twice as much to produce as corn-based ethanol, and it's many years away from being ready for use, if it ever is.
When subsidies and tariffs can't even make an industry succeed, it's far past time to change directions and admit mistakes. To continue to pour billions down this rabbit hole is irresponsible at best.
One major reason for Obama is his home state of Illinois is the second-largest producer of ethanol, and he also was rewarded by Iowa on his presidential run. He wouldn't dare to the right thing by ending this travesty, as he would pay for it in four years.
Business as usual in Washington.
It's politics as usual in Washington, and things aren't going to change in spite of this being the most "important" election in decades.
Obama has already confirmed this through his announcement via his campaign senior energy adviser Heather Zichal, who recently said concerning Obama's policy for ethanol: "Obama recognizes how important the renewable and biofuels industry is to creating jobs and meeting our goal of reducing dependence on foreign oil. He's fully committed to it and sees tremendous value in the renewable fuels standard and continuing down this path."
Yawn. I guess the food riots will continue around the world, and feed prices rise as we continue along this disastrous path.
Even though the idea of cellulosic ethanol was offered up as the eventual future of the biofuel, the truth about it at this time is it costs about twice as much to produce as corn-based ethanol, and it's many years away from being ready for use, if it ever is.
When subsidies and tariffs can't even make an industry succeed, it's far past time to change directions and admit mistakes. To continue to pour billions down this rabbit hole is irresponsible at best.
One major reason for Obama is his home state of Illinois is the second-largest producer of ethanol, and he also was rewarded by Iowa on his presidential run. He wouldn't dare to the right thing by ending this travesty, as he would pay for it in four years.
Business as usual in Washington.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
U.S. Ethanol Subsidies to Keep Food Prices High Everywhere
The outrageous subsidy for corn-based ethanol in the U.S. continues to batter consumers across the world, as even though other commodities have been dropping, food prices are expected to stay the same, and in a number of cases - rise.
For retail food prices in the U.S., they have been growing at a 6 percent rate this year, in contrast to the regular inflation rate at about 2 percent.
With irresponsible politicians and ongoing ignoring of stories like this by the mainstream media, the cost of food items related to corn price increases like chicken, beef and pork are projected to continue rising for the immediate future. The majority of that related to the misguided and terrible idea of subsidizing big corporate corn farmers so it can look like the government is doing something related to energy.
The disaster will continue until the story is continually reported on and the reality of the consequences understood by the public.
The next meat to be affected will be chicken, which so far producers haven't passed on the higher feed costs to consumers, but Bill Roenigk, senior vice president of the National Chicken Council said that's all about to change.
"From a consumer standpoint, more and more of these feed costs are going to be passed on and that means higher prices at the supermarket," said Roenigk.
All this because of the usual pressure from special interest groups with an agenda, as well as a government that continues to pass themselves off as the big daddy of the universe. Until this attitude is reined in, Americans and people around the world will continue to suffer from the continual rise in food prices.
Just like we need to drill for the billions of barrels of oil on American soil or it's coastlines, so we need to stop this outrageous subsidy that is helping no one but the huge corporate corn farmers in America, as well as some landowners cashing in on rising farmland prices.
For retail food prices in the U.S., they have been growing at a 6 percent rate this year, in contrast to the regular inflation rate at about 2 percent.
With irresponsible politicians and ongoing ignoring of stories like this by the mainstream media, the cost of food items related to corn price increases like chicken, beef and pork are projected to continue rising for the immediate future. The majority of that related to the misguided and terrible idea of subsidizing big corporate corn farmers so it can look like the government is doing something related to energy.
The disaster will continue until the story is continually reported on and the reality of the consequences understood by the public.
The next meat to be affected will be chicken, which so far producers haven't passed on the higher feed costs to consumers, but Bill Roenigk, senior vice president of the National Chicken Council said that's all about to change.
"From a consumer standpoint, more and more of these feed costs are going to be passed on and that means higher prices at the supermarket," said Roenigk.
All this because of the usual pressure from special interest groups with an agenda, as well as a government that continues to pass themselves off as the big daddy of the universe. Until this attitude is reined in, Americans and people around the world will continue to suffer from the continual rise in food prices.
Just like we need to drill for the billions of barrels of oil on American soil or it's coastlines, so we need to stop this outrageous subsidy that is helping no one but the huge corporate corn farmers in America, as well as some landowners cashing in on rising farmland prices.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Battle over Ethanol Continues: Resistance Grows
Cellulosic Ethanol turning into fight
Is Ethanol a Boon or Drain on Our Economy?
Big Horn Basin Ethanol puts brakes on new plant
Minus microphones, ethanol critics still have their say
Texas Gov Calls Ethanol Mandate a 'Scam'
Ethanol blend petrol not much healthier
Ethanol producers say they didn't cause spike
What are the future of biofuels?
Is Ethanol a Boon or Drain on Our Economy?
Big Horn Basin Ethanol puts brakes on new plant
Minus microphones, ethanol critics still have their say
Texas Gov Calls Ethanol Mandate a 'Scam'
Ethanol blend petrol not much healthier
Ethanol producers say they didn't cause spike
What are the future of biofuels?
Monday, August 11, 2008
More Reasons to Drop the Ethanol Nonsense
As Kenneth P. Green wrote in a recent article concerning ethanol, we need to adapt a new slogan: "Ethanol: Drink It, Don't Drive It."
He offers a number of reasons increasingly understood as to why we need to drop this disastrous policy and taxpayer subsidy for corn-based, or any other type of ethanol, encouraged for the dubious reason of being energy independent, creating jobs, lowering gasoline prices and reducing the non-existent global warming.
The truth is, other than the corn industry, nobody is really prospering from this misguided government policy set up to make it look like something's being done. I guess people deserve it for making big government their god.
Other possibilities like making use of switch grass or other cellulosic crops to produce ethanol would "increase greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent compared to using regular gasoline."
Whether or not increasing greenhouse gas emissions is really bad for the planet, using the standards of those promoting ethanol as the answer, it is a negative.
Anyway, go here to get a number of reasons this needs to be stopped ASAP.
He offers a number of reasons increasingly understood as to why we need to drop this disastrous policy and taxpayer subsidy for corn-based, or any other type of ethanol, encouraged for the dubious reason of being energy independent, creating jobs, lowering gasoline prices and reducing the non-existent global warming.
The truth is, other than the corn industry, nobody is really prospering from this misguided government policy set up to make it look like something's being done. I guess people deserve it for making big government their god.
Other possibilities like making use of switch grass or other cellulosic crops to produce ethanol would "increase greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent compared to using regular gasoline."
Whether or not increasing greenhouse gas emissions is really bad for the planet, using the standards of those promoting ethanol as the answer, it is a negative.
Anyway, go here to get a number of reasons this needs to be stopped ASAP.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Archer Daniels Midland Co. Acknowledges Slowdown in Agricultural Products, Especially Ethanol-related
Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is the third-largest ethanol producer in the U.S., and the slowing demand for corn-based ethanol has had a significant impact on the company's performance for the quarter. A number of producers have stopped or closed expansion plans in response to the falling demand. Corn prices have also responded accordingly, falling to four-month low of $5.3625 a bushel today.
John Rice, executive vice-president commercial and production, attempting to shore up the company's stock said he believes the price and demand pressures are largely limited to North America, citing Asian sales are continuing to grow; although he was thinking in terms of meat there rather than ethanol-related consumption.
But he also acknowledged the drop in demand for palm oil was also having a significant effect on the margins of the company.
Rice added concerning the growing push to offer waivers for the ethanol mandate as something he's not too worried about. "We're already blending over the mandate right now, so even if there is a waiver (from the federal mandate) we don't see ethanol demand slowing down," said Rice.
If this was only connected to waivers, I may agree with Rice, but there is a growing resistance to the subsidizing and encouragement of corn-based ethanol, and if it continues to grow, like it seems it will, we could see some significant changes in direction for that commodity. That could have adverse effects on ADM. Ethanol Fix of course hopes that happens, as it's doing much more harm than good.
As far as the share price of ADM, it has plummeted by 40 percent since May, as commodity price concerns continue to hammer the profits and growth of the company.
Profits in the fourth quarter fell by 61 percent for the company, as market demand for their products continued to fall.
Share price also missed analysts' expectations by a large margin, reaching only 58 cents a share, while analysts were looking for 67 cents a share. Net income came in at $372 million for the quarter ending June 30.
Revenue for the quarter did rise by $21.8 billion, with about 90 percent of that attributed to higher commodity prices and increased volumes.
John Rice, executive vice-president commercial and production, attempting to shore up the company's stock said he believes the price and demand pressures are largely limited to North America, citing Asian sales are continuing to grow; although he was thinking in terms of meat there rather than ethanol-related consumption.
But he also acknowledged the drop in demand for palm oil was also having a significant effect on the margins of the company.
Rice added concerning the growing push to offer waivers for the ethanol mandate as something he's not too worried about. "We're already blending over the mandate right now, so even if there is a waiver (from the federal mandate) we don't see ethanol demand slowing down," said Rice.
If this was only connected to waivers, I may agree with Rice, but there is a growing resistance to the subsidizing and encouragement of corn-based ethanol, and if it continues to grow, like it seems it will, we could see some significant changes in direction for that commodity. That could have adverse effects on ADM. Ethanol Fix of course hopes that happens, as it's doing much more harm than good.
As far as the share price of ADM, it has plummeted by 40 percent since May, as commodity price concerns continue to hammer the profits and growth of the company.
Profits in the fourth quarter fell by 61 percent for the company, as market demand for their products continued to fall.
Share price also missed analysts' expectations by a large margin, reaching only 58 cents a share, while analysts were looking for 67 cents a share. Net income came in at $372 million for the quarter ending June 30.
Revenue for the quarter did rise by $21.8 billion, with about 90 percent of that attributed to higher commodity prices and increased volumes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)