David Jackson The Green Investor

Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, February 21, 2008, 4:20PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

I'm going to respond to a few of the pro-ethanol morons that have commented. 1. Ethanol only appears to be cost effective, because there is a 50 cent per gallon subsidy. Yet ethanol futures are only 40 cents cheaper than gas futures. Oh, let's NOT compare gallons to gallons, because that gallon of ethanol doesn't contain nearly as much energy. ETHANOL COSTS A LOT MORE, and every time you buy a gallon, you just taxed yourself 50 cents. 2. It is not even close to carbon neutral. There are massive energy inputs at every phase of production: fertilizer water pumps diesel farm equipment harvesting shipping for processing the processing itself delivery to refineries blending delivery to stations Wake up MORONS. Why do you think that per BTU, this stuff still costs a lot more than gasoline, even with a subsidy? Because it takes a lot of oil to make ethanol. When this garbage really does become cost effective, the farmers will use it themselves. They don't for a reason... there would be none left over, and they'd be broke.

Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, February 21, 2008, 1:53PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

This article was wrong on way too many points. Get your facts straight before writing another article. First, glucose makes up corn starch, not sucrose. The Canadian company is Iogen, not Logen. And, corn ethanol is cost competitive. You wouldn't have companies and individuals spending $200 million dollars to build a plant if it wasn't cost competitive. Corn based ethanol costs about $1.30 to 1.60 per gallon to produce. Sugar cane ethanol costs about $1 to 1.20 per gallon to produce. Also, the 54 cent tariff is on Brazilian ethanol because they have a 50% tariff on goods that we try to export to their country.

RobertK - Thursday, February 21, 2008, 12:42PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

This is about the most bone-headed outdated article I've seen on ethanol in a while. Almost everything he said was WRONG. 1. Ethanol IS stable - the transporting problem is because the current pipelines are built for more hydrophobic liquids - new pipelines could easly be built with the infrastructure. 2. Ethanol evaporation is a safety hazard? Are you kidding me? Compared to what, gasoline? You can drink ethanol but not gasoline, so you really think it is less safe? 3. Deforestation would not occur in the US - it happened in Brazil because Brazil is mostly forest. Most of the US is composed of treeless plains. 4. Cellulosic ethanol isn't "proven". That is baloney. The Coskata method has been proven by Argonne National Laboratory to produce not 5X but almost 8X more energy than consumed in the process: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1315643820080113?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews 5. Estimated costs are higher for cellulosic ethanol - same article as above - Coskata can make it for less than $1 a gallon. Is that expensive??? There are so many other things that you said that is wrong. Do your research or don't write and article about something you obviously know very little about.

am - Thursday, February 21, 2008, 10:52AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

Jeff Y: I'm pretty sure he doesn't mention anything even close to what you are saying. Perhaps you should read the article instead of just pulling out random words and numbers and putting them together, bible code style. As for the article, it's nice to see someone look at an environmental issue objectively, well done.

Jeff - Thursday, February 21, 2008, 9:19AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

okay.. obviously this moron did not do his research well.. he indicates that we only save 30% on carbon dioxide... that's a LIE. we save 100%.. why? because corn absorb carbon dioxide and releases it back when it burns as ethanol.. so it is a recycle.. while oil is a 100% add to the atmosphere.. LEARN your SCIENCE before spatting lies..

Sean Harrison - Wednesday, February 20, 2008, 7:19PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

Waste to ethanol...I found the company...BlueFire Ethanol - BFRE.OB Their cellulose to ethanol process works! They've had a small plant producing for 4 years now. Company has been awarded DOE grant for $40M to build 1st cellulose to ethanol plant in California.

Arthur S - Wednesday, February 20, 2008, 2:08PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

Though we don't have the overall climate, to grow the sugar cane that Brazil does, we cane grow sugar beets. States like Ohio have a large sugar beet production and it is a portable resource that can be taken by truck for processing. Here in Illinois many of the farmers are holding their corn so they can get the higher dollar being generated by the ethanol hype. Farming is the only industry where you can set on your product and still get paid by the government every year with subsidies. A study was done that shows ethanol production uses not only more energy to produce but aslo uses about three gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. How GREEN can that be?

PEZGUN - Wednesday, February 20, 2008, 2:08PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 3/5

It's good that there is another voice in the chorus even if there may be some issue with the words of the song. Why not 5 Stars? First: There is only one "kind" of ethanol and the author has chosen to combine the end product of the process with the process apparently as a way of expressing the cost of production and energy yield from those cost in neat package. If you get that, then good, but otherwise it's confusing the word Ethanol itself only ever describes a single chemical compound. Next: Brazil is a good example of an economy reshaped by a chronic energy problem - like we are starting to encounter now. It could be good model for us to do a pilot program of our own solution. Next: Where Are Sugar Beets? Nearest to sugar cane in sugar yield per acre, they can also be grown in the non-temporate areas where sugar cane does not do well - (Brasil gets more crops a year in cane than we do.) We should grow both. Finally: While it may be that adjustments in agriculture may result in a short term net increase in emissions of carbon using biofuels, this is carbon that was in a short term cycle or "near the surface" anyway - definitely not naturally sequestered thousands of feet underground like petroleum and coal may be. All petroleum and coal sources are pre-historicly naturally sequestered carbon compounds. While biofuel may temporarily unbalance the short term cycle we live in by using carbon from short-term sequestration (sinks), petrofuel permanently does so by removing carbon from long term sequestration and returning it to eventually all parts of the active cycle, and it is the total load this short term cycle handles which is said to be the climate determing factor (climate changes is one way it is apparently handled). It is not natural for our current climate to have to deal with that amount of carbon in the system, so change should be expected if we increase the load. The trouble is, last time there were sufficient carbon sinks to absorb this amount, dinosaurs roamed the earth. Our imperitive must be to eventually get off petroleum completely. Anything that does less harm than good and moves us in that direction is a potential candidate. Ethanol is not a panacea, but it does represent an opportunity. Our tradional petroleum centered technology may not be the best choice for utilizing it, but it's where we have to start. There is much room for improvement with that application. On this everyone seems to agree.

Muslim - Wednesday, February 20, 2008, 1:39PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

It is obvious you are not what you say you are. Your bias for oil is apparent. Your lack of reference to ethanol and Bio Diesel enhancing companies like Greenshift show your narrow perspective on this issue. The cost of blood for oil far exceeds the benefits of growing and infrastructure of ethanol in the United States where all monies spent on ethnol production, sale, transportation and profits stay in the United States no longer building empires and castles for countries that use oil as a leverage to impoverish America. The wealth of ethanol stays in the United States. The security of energy sources stays in the United States. Not one ounce of blood is lost. Farmers gain and consumers gain and the work force gains.

Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, February 20, 2008, 9:40AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

David should probably do some better research. Starch in corn in converted to glucose (a six carbon sugar) not sucrose (a twelve carbon sugar) because sucrose not fermentable by S. cerevisiae, the yeast organism used in ethanol production. Iogen, not Logen is the Canadian company producing cellulosic ethanol. The Iogen plant is a small scale demonstration facility. The logistical issues pertaining to providing feedstocks to cellulosic ethanol plants have yet to be addressed in a realistic manner. While increase demand from ethanol producers has contributed to higher corn prices this article fails to recognize the effect of the falling dollar and worldwide wheat crop failures on the price of corn. I really question someone's ability analyze an issue when they miss the most basic facts

Tom - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 8:48PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

"The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumac out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust -- almost anything," said Henry Ford. "There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented. There's enough alcohol in one year's yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for a hundred years." Hemp was seen by Ford and others as one of the primary sources of ethanol for motor vehicles, while some of the composites and textiles from same plant would go into the vehicle manufacture. But ethanol was displaced by gasoline through stiff alcohol taxes and subsidization of the petroleum industry because of lobbying efforts by the likes of J. D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Moreover, William Randolph Hearst's paper manufacturing operation, which owned vast acreages of woodlands, would have been out-competed by hemp-paper manufacturers; and Dupont, which patented various synthetic materials from petrochemicals, was also threatened by innovations in hemp usage. These financial powerhouses used propaganda and yellow journalism to incite fear into the American people about "marijuana", which the people didn't even know was hemp, an ancient and traditional medicine and textile source. Films like 1936's "Reefer Madness" incited fear into the masses, claiming that marijuana made users extremely violent and dangerous and would cause incurable insanity. And in 1937, Dupont-supporter Congressman Doughton pushed through Congress a marijuana prohibition law, against the advice of the American Medical Association, and in defiance of the Constitution, which would have required an Amendment ratified by the States. And thus, one of the most useful plants known to man was outlawed illegally and illicitly to protect the empires of the moneyed elite. Ethanol does not take more energy to create than it produces when burning. That is a myth. Pacific Ethanol reports that they are 60% efficient. But even if it did, that does not make it a bad fuel. I'd wager that gasoline takes more energy to extract, transport, and refine than is produced when it is burned, but that doesn't disqualify it as a useful fuel either. For certain, electrical generating plants (no matter what fuel they use) waste tons more energy than they produce in electricity, but it is still useful to have electricity as a form of energy. And hyrdrogen can take twice as much energy to produce as can be consumed from burning it or running it through a fuel cell. Ethanol is no different. If you can convert the energy of non-portable fuels (e.g. solar, wood, biomass, or coal) into a liquid fuel capable of being burned in an internal combustion engine, then it is worth it, even if you get only marginal efficiencies, because being portable is valuable. Saying that producing ethanol requires more energy than is produced in burning it is a red herring and totally misses the point. The point is, can you profitably produce ethanol from raw materials and energy sources to produce an inexpensive, high-energy-density, portable motor fuel? The answer is yes, inarguably. The only reason why ethanol would need subsidies is because every other energy source is subsidized. Better would be to eliminate all subsidies, especially those on oil (and fallow farmland!). Whether or not it can compete with gasoline if all subsidies and regulations and tariffs are removed from both is another question and will quite likely depend on the application, the location, the time of year, and global events, among other things. Most likely, the two can be used together and interchangeably in many circumstances. Ethanol may have less energy density than gasoline, but it has higher octane. Using them as a mixture is probably the best application of both, and will remain so, perhaps only the ratio changing with the times and events. But this is something for the free market to determine, not bureaucrats.

GP - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 7:21PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

Corn-based Ethanol is a terrible concept. It is completely dependent on government subsidies, does not reduce carbon emissions and barely reduces oil imports if at all. In addition, it has contributed to the dramatic rise in food prices. Waste Ethanol might be workable. The issue is that there is little comprehensive measurements on the complete impact of all fuels including oil, coal, various Ethanols, wind, solar and so forth. All of them have some negative impacts. The US (and other companies) need to first state goals in alternative energy. I would suggest that we focus on a few primary goals - reducing carbon emissions, reducing foreign dependency, reducing real costs -- all direct and indirect costs including pollution, military and other costs -- and gaining long term sustainability (so a future generation isn't screwed). By far the best option is to eliminate all subsidies (including farm and alternative energy subsidies) and to replace at least part of the income tax with a combination of carbon taxes (to reduce carbon emissions), import taxes (to reduce dependencies and to offset the lack of carbon taxes in other countries) and fossil fuel taxes (to improve sustainability). Done well, this will automatically create incentives for businesses to create real solutions. In addtion, it will reduce the burdens of income taxes. Few things are worse than a tax on a "good" behavior. Instead, we need to tax things that society would like us to avoid (smoking, drinking, filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and the like). Of course, politicians lack the backbone to do what is right for the country, so this will be hard to make happen without a strong leader who understands economics.

Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 7:19PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

Good objective article. No one really knows the viability of ethanol... yet. As the technology develops, the capitalist system will decide who's the winner and who's the loser. As for now, like the author said, the jury is out. As for the person who rated this article poorly due to the author not telling you what to do. He shouldn't have to. He presented the facts, now it's your job to figure out what's best for you. That's part of the problem with our whole society today. A majority of people want someone to hold their hand and tell them what to do. That's not the way things work, at least if you want to be successful. If someone presents you the facts and sorts through the the garbage for you, you should be thankful they're telling you the truth and draw your own conclusions as to what to do with the information.

ernest - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 6:23PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Someone should ask the lowest income people in Mexio how the price of corn has increased so that it has affected the staple food supply of their families. e

Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 5:51PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 2/5

He is probably right about corn ethanol. However, why does his conclusion give no insight on how to exploit this information if one believes it. I couldn't find a course of action. Next time tell me what to do if I agree with you to profit from that belief.

Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 5:35PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Excellent overall view on an emotional subject as some of the comments attest. Best to shed objective light on a subject that has many facets to it. Corn based ethanol looks like it got way ahead of itself, and there has to be a better biofuel but the politics of supporting "the farmer" lent itself to a ground swell of support by Congress and the administration before all the facts are in as to its desirability.

Feddere - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 5:25PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Finally! Something worth reading on this green forum...

Johnny T - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 5:00PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

I agree that this is a good objective view of the subject. Keep in mind we do not have the climate in North America to grow sugar cane that is why corn is our best option geographically speaking. Second, many including the agricultural industry do not taut ethanol as any kind of energy "savior." Last, IMO it is better that my hard earned money is in the hands of an American farmer and and American business than in the hands of our enimies in the Middle East! The ethanol and biofuels debate is one that will hopefully lead us to energy independance. You are a fool if you believe anyone right now in the market that claims that they have "THE" answer to our problems. Celulosic plain and simply isn't there yet in volume and most importabtly is not to the point of being an economically viable option. Don't loose hope, we are inovative people we'll find the answer, but we have to be willing to take a risk and start somewhere. American farmers are some of the biggest risk takers in our modern day economy. They are involved in a a dangerous business that puts their assets on the lines each day at the mercy of mother nature. I would bet that many of you out here have the kind of guts that it takes to hedge your fortune on tomorrow's weather forcast! American farmers are doing the work that none of us are willing to do becasue we are too busy taking advantage of all of the resources that agriculture provides for us to live our busy lives. If you want to help find a solution, learn about the people who are doing the back breaking work in your local ag community and help them find a better way. Our energy problem is an everybody problem that is going to require an everybody solution. JFK said it best in his words of having us all ask what we cna do for our country. And Coach Woody Hayes inspired action by saying you can never pay back, but you can always pay it forward. Working right now to find an energy solution should be our way of paying it forward to generations to come.

Sir Stanks a-lot - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 4:55PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

Great article. There was an indirect case made here for investing in soft commodities. Uusing food for fuel, (decreasing supply), Rapid industrialization in underdeveloped countries ( increase demand) = high prices. The more I research corn based ethanol the more I realize that it the long run it is completely impratical and will result in more negative effects on the economy if it is pursued.

Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 4:46PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 2/5

Last year I was lucky enough to buy into a farmer owned Ethanol Plant. For anyone looking to invest in Ethanol this is the way to go. I've owned this investment less than a year and already received $375/share in dividends. Don't listen to the talking heads complain about ethanol. They apparently are not getting the huge returns ethanol is already producing. It may not be the end all for renewable energy but its a very good start.

Kevin F - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 4:33PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 2/5

The article had a few nuggets of useful information, but was not very informative on many points such as: 1) Food vs. Fuel? The production of ethanol does not reduce the food value of corn, but uses inedible parts of the kernels. What could be better than two useful products for the price of one? 2) What is the current cost of corn-produced ethanol? At $1.80 per gallon (the latest numbers I have seen), it is clearly, very positive on the energy yeild (because the farmer must use gas to grow the crop). While govt. subsidies might be dropping this somewhat, there are clearly gov.t subsidies for petroleum industry as well. 3) In fact the greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol is very low compared to fossil fuels and any study stating otherwise is nonsense. All the CO2 going out the tailpipes of cars were once atmospheric CO2 absorbed by the corn plant. While some energy is used to convert the corn into ethanol, it doesn't compare to the energy used to refine petroleum. And if we were very concerned, we could burn ethanol to generate the power needed for the production of more ethanol...net CO2 = ZERO!

wonhunlo - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 4:24PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Very good article. Readers appreciate quality.

Paul - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 3:59PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Everyone is touting Brazil for being independent, what is missed is that Brazil is chopping down the rain forest at a ridiculous rate to keep up with the demand for Ethonal, and there is a little fact of 1998 when Brazil's ethonal pumps ran dry because of a bad harvest. So instead of terrorism raising the price of Ethonal, you would have Insect attacks, or poor weather, which will drive the price up... And again there is a moral issue here, we are using our food supply to feed our cars, when there are people starving to death, it make no sense. The price of tortillas have skyrocketed over the last few years, almost to the point where Mexicans can barely afford to eat. There is enough Crude oil(if we would go drill for it) to last almost 1000 at current usage levels, here in the US, not counting the oil available all over the world... If ethonal was truly economically viable Exxon would be owning as much farmland as possible and they would start producing it. Exxon is in the business to make money, same goes for all the other energy companies, it doesn;t matter how they produce the energy as long as they do..

G - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 3:52PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

The most objective short article I've seen on the subject. An additional factor to be considered is the availability of good old water...the production of corn ethanol requires a great deal of water, often more than the water requirements of the entire city in which the plant is located. I believe the successful ethanol ventures will be those with a) proximity to market b) high availability of cheap raw materials, ie cellulose and water, and c) ability to weather political and market jitters. Find me this company, and I'll pony up.

El Viejo - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 3:41PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

Yes this is true ... growing crops for fuel is not what it appeared to be. Cut your losses and go with solar, wind, or other alternative.

Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 3:30PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 3/5

Ethanol production from cellulosic makes a sense however, economics needs a through check by independent companies. Transportation of cellulosics, conversion of cellulosics to gases, purification of gases, and production of ethanol at very large capacity (up to several million gallon) and high separation cost will not make the production cost below other alternatives such as sugarcane. The recent reports published in Europe on such technology suggests a price of $ 2 to $ 3/ gallon for synthesis gas conversion to ethanol. Ethanol must be produced above 60 to 80 gram/liter to accomplish the economic viability which may need at least two three year of genetic engineering to accomplish. It is important to note that previous cellulosic technology based on sugar production has high cost. Likewise this technology needs a through economic review before large investments are made. Mass transfer is another challenge for this gas conversion technology and contributes a lot to economics.

ElaineR - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 3:25PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

A well balanced view of the potential and pitfalls of biofuels. One additional fact about Brazil's success: In its drive in the 1980's to remain self sufficient, the government began to mandate the addition of sugar based ethanol to gasoline. As the world price of sugar went up, the percentage of mandated ethanol required in gasoline was reduced and in lean sugar pricing times the percentage of ethanol was raised. This ensured maximum usage of the sugar produced either way. Typical useage percentages are in the 22-25% range of ethanol in gasoline - considerably higher than the U.S. standard of 15%. The economy is enhanced either way and efficient use of a Brazilian product is assured. We could learn something.

Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 3:21PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

An informative article. This is an example of government instead of the market trying to determine the success or failure of a particular product. Never a good idea.

Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 3:05PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

An informative article. We need more like it to inspire new ideas to save us from our dependency on oil. If we decided on a specific Ethanol for usage and pumped constructive money into it we could get our economy going again like in Brazil.

qu1ck80 - Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 2:33PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

Good article, but you forgot to mention how growing all this extra corn requires lots of extra fertilizer, some of which runs off and pollutes our water systems. You can conclude that the jury is still out on ethanol, but corn-based ethanol has "boondoggle" written all over it! I wonder if all the election primaries were held on the same day (ie., Iowa doesn't go first all the time), would we even be talking about corn-based ethanol??