Posted by Jack Wrangler on April 27, 2008 at 12:02:20 from (75.104.44.252):
IaGary previously said:
Who is buying votes with ethanol?
They are running under the same policies that were set back in the early 80's.
Every penny you and I spent in taxes to support ethanol is saved at the gas pump in cheaper gas.
Now here are my figures to produce one hector of corn as fuel related. I sent these figures to Dr Pimental at Cornell and he had no disbute with these figures. I had to put my figures per hector not acres cause that is the unit of measure he was using. And he is from the US where we use acres.
I have no way to break out the fuel costs for electricity,seed, fertilizer,and pesticides, so I will include the total cost as all fuel related.
Fert. $250
Seed $180
Pest. $134
Fuel used to tend to the corn $45
Drying costs and electricity. $52
Fuel to deliver corn to the plant 50 miles away. $18
Total to get the corn to the ethanol plant. $679 per hector.
Now if you take that figure and divide it by $3.00 ( cost of fuel for me in December when I put these figures together) you get 227 gallons of fuel to produce one hector.
My corn average yield for the last 3 years is 437 bushels per hector.
The national average is 375 per hector. So we will use the national figure.
That 375 bushel will make 1012 gallons of ethanol. And 10 gallons of corn oil that can be refined into biodiesel.
I used 227 gallons to produce 1022 gallons. Leaving 735 for heating and refining.
The cost to cook and refine those 735 gallons is $320. At $3.00 a gallon that leaves with about 625 gallons to sell.
Trucking 500 miles to the gas station, from ethanol plant about 8 gallon per hector. So we have a net return of 617 gallons per hector.
Well Gary I applaud your attempt which is wayyyyyy more than the rest of the touchy feely posters here with their empty rhetoric and emotionally driven leg jerk reaction posts. Using math like you did to get to your final result has been used before, I believe the accountants at Enron used methods similar to yours to arrive at a pre-determined number through the back door. Let's Ignore that for the time being and jump to your final result shall we?
-Your end result was "So it took 405 gallons of energy to produce 1022."
Actually it took 405 gallons of DIESEL to create 1022 gallons of ETHANOL that has only roughly 2/3 the energy of diesel fuel so right there you're down to 405 gallons used to make only 681 gallons. (1022 X 2/3 = 681)
You also didn't take into consideration that the same $3.00 would buy 20-30 percent more fuel on the front half of your equation if tax was taken out. You're backwards figuring a taxed fuel to create a fuel amount pre-tax. Your math is already debunked here. Using your own padded numbers were already down to 6 of one half dozen of the other in a mere two short sentences. You have given us your numbers here that actually prove corn ethanol takes as much energy to produce as it gives in return so what's your point again?
Instead of debunking your fuzzy math and junk science I could instead use some very straightforward facts as you kindly requested such as:
-Why isn't ethanol used to make ethanol in the ethanol plants? They usually use natural gas.
-Why isn't ethanol used in the tilling, planting and harvesting in the fields? Diesel is used as it's much more efficient.
-Why isn't ethanol used in the transportation of the corn to the distillery and to ship the finished product to the stations afterwards? Once again, diesel is used because it's much more efficient.
-Why is it subsidized at $1.38 per gallon?
-You could feed one person for an entire year on roughly the amount of corn used to fill the average SUV's fuel tank.
-Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of our gasoline consumption yet it consumes 20 percent of our entire corn crop.
-To replace all our current oil consumption with ethanol would require we plant 51% of the entire land area of the 50 states in corn. NOT 51% of our current tillable land, 51% of our ENTIRE land area, obviously impossible. Also take into account the fact that the 51% number is still derived using oil to till, plant, harvest, produce and transport the corn/fuel as making corn ethanol with corn ethanol simply can't be done. It's the equivalent of having to collect 1.2 gallons of pi$$ to make 1 gallon of fresh drinking water, does my crude analogy bring it into perspective now?
I also find it strange that you used the name Dr. Pimental at Cornell University as though you showed him up and he couldn't dispute your numbers. Just because he threw your bogus numbers in the trash and didn't take the time to respond to you didn't mean you won the debate? After all, he has said in the past:
"That is totally false about more energy to produce than what is produced."
"I debated that professor who started that idea and he could not prove me wrong."
"I proved a 55% increase of energy and all he did was state his figures from a study done 8 years ago."
You debated him? Is it on YouTube so we can all watch? Or.... is it more along the lines that he threw your numbers in the garbage where they belong and never responded to you and you claim victory?
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]
Today's Featured Article - Listening to Your Tractor - by Curtis Von Fange. Years ago there was a TV show about a talking car. Unless you are from another planet, physically or otherwise, I don’t think our internal combustion buddies will talk and tell us their problems. But, on the other hand, there is a secret language that our mechanical companions readily do speak. It is an interesting form of communication that involves all the senses of the listener. In this series we are going to investigate and learn the basic rudimentary skills of understanding this lingo.
... [Read Article]
Latest Ad:
2022 John Deere 5045E, 4wd, front end loader and 3rd function with grapple. 120 hrs, 55k new, must sell
[More Ads]
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
