Watching the news this morning was a story of how congress is getting ready to vote 7% of our corn crops to alternative fuels. While i can see a need for alternatives to oil, is the answer to take our food crops which support many nations and turn it into ethanol? The discovery channel did a special on crop/fuel conversion, it stated we are using 1 gallon of fossil fuel to produce 1 and a half gallons back of ethnol, a half gallon return this to me does not make any sense. We have wind, solar, and thermal energy sources that can be developed further, and the forecast price raises due to corn byproduct shortage will hurt us all when we go shopping across the board. This is not a sustainable energy source, and what happens when crops fail...can't eat ethanol...better stop these clowns before we all starve for the oil industries greed.

The only people that this is good for is corn farmers because it will raise prices for corn. Maybe that would make it a good time to cut those subsidies.

Subsidized corn futures are already up, driving up feed prices for consumer beef, pork and poultry. The 'alternative fuel' plants, encouraged by generous tax breaks, consume more energy than they produce, increasing imported oil dependence. As usual, special interests have paid their politicians for legislation that returns handsome short-term profits with no future consideration. Not as profitable as war, but give it time.

There's nothing to worry about here:

1) If corn demand goes up, so will corn supply....Many farmers plant a mixture of crops. If corn is in more demand, farmers will simply plant less beans and more corn... or less wheat and more corn.

2) U.S. corn is mostly used to feed livestock... people are not going to starve here. Especially because the supply can increase to meet a larger demand if there is one.

3) Ethanol is better not a silver bullet, but it does reduce dependency on foreign oil.... It is a good thing.. not a bad thing.

4) 14% of the domestic corn crop is already used for alternative fuels.. so I'm not sure what congress is doing and I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

Source: USDA, industry statistics.

2005-2006 U.S. Corn Use By Segment
(bushels)

Feed/Residual 6.1 billion (54.5%)
Exports 2.1 billion (18.8%)
Ethanol (fuel) 1.6 billion (14.3%)
High Fructose Corn Syrup 530 million (4.7%)
Corn Starch 275 million (2.5%)
Corn Sweeteners 225 million (2.0%)
Cereal/Other 190 million (1.7%)
Beverage Alcohol 135 million (1.2%)

14% of the corn crop is already being used for alternative fuels....

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

Supply and demand

The average price for #2 yellow corn in Iowa is now $3.77/bushel delivered to the grain elevator. In 2005 it was $1.58. That's a 58% increase in two years, primarily attributed to increased demand for corn being processed into ethanol. The ethanol industry estimates corn can go to $4.60/bushel before it becomes unprofitable to produce ethanol.

A 58% cost increase in corn is already being reflected in higher food costs with no reduction in imported oil costs, which have increased 40% since 2005.

Since those numbers aren't calculated in official US core inflation, 'good' Americans are unconcerned.

If farmers plant more corn then they will plant less of other things with limited farm land which means other food prices will go up.

Biodiesel production is already way down due to soybean prices going through the roof.

Which is good but subsidies and legislation could distort things with negative consequences.

That's almost a guarantee. Texas has the highest biodiesel production but all their soybeans are supplied by other states. Lobbyists are probably cranking out checks to politicians for legislation on deep subsidies as I write this post.

And we pay the taxes and poor farmers in third world countries pay the price as well without subsidies of their own. Pathetic.

That's the current US definition of free trade and a major contributor to violence in public demonstrations at international trade conferences attended by the US president. Looking at the fossil energy it takes to produce ethanol and hearing the cries of it helping achieve energy independence is what's really pathetic.

I agree. Brazil got it right with their sugar based ethanol. But since we can't import it because it would hurt our sugar farmers that causes that to be a problem. Pisses me off.

The resources that go into producing ethanol from corn just do not justify its use. It amounts to nothing more then an agricultural subsidy. I also think that the consumers are at least as much to blame as the oil companies are. People regularly make decisions that lead to high consumption of oil even when suitable alternatives exist.

It would be nice if a presidential candidate used national focus to take a stance against these. But then we have Iowa as the first state to go to the polls.

Don't forget the oil baron clout in that scenario. The fossil fuel requirements to produce corn based ethanol make them very happy. Tough to successfully grow enough superior sugarcane in corn producing states to produce ethanol as it takes twice the landmass to grow corn as it does sugarcane to produce the same amount of ethanol and climate isn't a factor. American taxpayers today pay twice for ethanol: once in crop subsidies to corn farmers and again in a 51-cent subsidy for every gallon of ethanol. Smart we ain't.