40% of US corn crop used to produce Ethanol.
One bushel of corn produces under 3 gallons od gas.
Amount of corn used to fill one 25 gal. tank can feed one person for a year.
Biofuel made with corn does not qualify as a renewable fuel.
Corn Ethanol require more energy to produce than it delivers.
Ethanol is now more expensive than gasoline even with gov. subsidies.
In short corn should not be used to produce gas. It pollutes more and cost more than gasoline.
Board members...while it is obvious that lakeed is trying to pick a a fight with me (because everybody knows that I am a farmer and I grow corn) there are two things I would like to state...first. we only have about 1% excess refinery capacity in the U.S. and ethanol is 'well over 10%' of of our fuel...second, the Keystone Pipeline is not a good deal for the U.S. (it is good for Canadian oil companies)....the refineries in the U.S. cannot meet the requirements to produce more fuel and this any other change 'will increase the cost of all fuel' a lot...! This is a fact, and not an opinion and I will not debate it further...! Good luck to all and 'never believe false data'...! $tagg...!
That Canada sludge will get to the market one way or another. I hope they don't send the sludge to the Gulf.
It's funny, they could process it in Canada, but they don't want their environment destroyed.
They could also build a pipeline , to the Pacific, but that's not going to happen.
As for corn, it's good to fatten out cattle, but corn syrup is not good in our food and distilling corn to make anything, but whiskey, is foolish.
Stagg,unlike you, I grow a number of other crops and also feed out cattle.
I just reported what was on the news today, so you need to get that corn chip off your shoulder.
I agree... this country does not need the Keystone pipeline so that Canada can export crude oil via US ports on the Gulf of Mexico.
I do think the 1% excess refinery capacity number is suspect. US refineries have been averaging about 90% utilization of operable capacity for some time and there are any number of refinery upgrades going on around the country. Demand for fuels in the US is increasing again, but slowly. One difference now may be related to the emphasis on the production of fuels, chemicals and natural gas liquids for export.
Not related to the previous post, but there is an article appearing today that undercuts the claim that the use of corn residue (stover) is carbon positive. A rather lengthy study says it's a 7% negative in terms of its near term life cycle carbon footprint. To the extent that this applies to other crop feedstocks for ethanol plants, it takes away from the argument that biofuel production helps reduce global warming. That, of course, detracts from arguments that biofuels should be subsidized by the government.