> Bob Eld wrote:
>> That is simply not true, it's old data pushed by David Pimental and others.
>> A more modern number shows a net positive energy balance of 167%. This
>> includes all inputs and outputs including transportation, fertilizer,
>> farming, distilation, etc. It results in a net energy INCREASE for corn
>> ethanol of approxametely 33,000 BTU's per gallon. Source: Hosein, USDA,
> Markets weigh in on this debate, for which the Universities such as
> Iowa State, Univ of Nebraska and all the other aggie schools have been
> A bushel of corn yields about 2 gallons of ethanol. The price of a
> gallon of diesel/gasoline is about $3.00 a gallon.
> So, if Pimental is correct that we lose energy by petrol-farming to
> make ethanol then the price of a bushel of corn would be about $2.50 a
According to the "2006 Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa" , cost is
expected to *cost* $3.40/bushel to produce.
> On the other hand, if Hosein is correct, then since in his estimation
> of 167% that the price of a bushel of corn on today's commodity market
> would be that of 2 X $3.00 which equals $6.00 per bushel. It has been a
> very long time since I saw corn at 6 dollars a bushel.
> Now some may say the markets have not eliminated the corn excess of
> years past and will take time for the ethanol plants to be built. I say
> this is baloney hacky wacky. We have lived with ethanol ramped
> production for 5 years now, first as a MTBE octane booster replacement
> and now as a full competitor to petrol fuel.
> The reason the Markets have not seen a spike in the price of a bushel
> of corn or any other grains that could produce ethanol, is because,
> fundamentally, the costs of diesel and gasoline to operate farms is
> greater than the energy in ethanol fuel.
> The Commodity Markets around the world have voted as to whether
> Archimedes Plutonium, Pimental, a Rutgers University professor are
> correct. Or whether Mr. Hosein and other ethanol advocates are correct.
> And the answer is a resounding support for the Plutonium, Pimental &
> Rutgers group.
> Another clear evidence is China. China has alot of land and little
> petrol resources. So what is China to do? If Hosein was correct, then
> China would be building ethanol plants left and right and have its
> Amish style farming supply those ethanol plants. In other words, if
> Hosein was correct, China would be transforming itself into a energy
> independent nation where nearly all of its energy needs are met by
> But because Plutonium,Pimental, Rutgers professor are more to the
> truth, that China needs its land for food production more than the
> ethanol content of its crops.
> For the past 6 years as I have repeatedly posted this thread, and I
> have recieved something like 100 anti replies for every 1 reply in
> support of the Plutonium, Pimental, Rutgers position. So I say to all
> those anti-ists, why is your beloved ethanol corn worth only $2.50 per
> bushel, when if your beloved ethanol would make corn worth at least
> $6.00 a bushel. Is it because you forever are too ignorant to realize
> that petrol farming costs more in the diesel and gasoline.
> Archimedes Plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies