Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis | Environment | The Guardian

 

Hmmm, the fact that anhydrous ammonia went up over 200%, seed cost went up, fuel costs for the machinery is up have nothing to do with it?

 

Did you actually read the whole thing?

This of course doesn't show much of the effect of the current run-up in oil prices since the report goes until this February.

 

I find that to be a bit deceiving, since they don't disclose how they get their numbers. By what it reads as, it means that the price is way high due to only the biofuels, but I see the numbers on this side that say otherwise. Farmers are still barely making a profit, so if the input costs aren't the problem, then how is it that grain is still just a break-even crop, and not a major profit maker? If the truth is that biofuels are driving the prices, then the farmers should be raking in the cash. Not so, so it would seem this report is skewed...

 

Do you read "75%" as "only"?! (as in: "that the price is way high due to only the biofuels")
OK, I apologize for not bolding or highlighting that number in my previous post....

As for who's making a profit: Farm suppliers' profits bloom as commodity prices jump - USATODAY.com

 

75% is a major part, so only is a general reference.. I can believe suppliers are cranking up costs, but then it comes back to suppliers, not biofuels. At this time, most fertilizer comes from petroleum, so that has to be considered a factor, and drought in Brazil and Australia has figured into the commodity prices before, why not now? Pretty convenient if you ask me. Besides, in this day and age, true supply and demand in the commodities no longer exists, it is driven by speculation, not actual demand. If the markets were truly driven by demand, then the price changes would not be so volatile. That means that perception, not actual demand, drives the price, and that reports that state the price is expected to reach x-dollars can be achieved by simply saying it is true and making it look good. Experts say, so the people believe, and it becomes truth. Doesn't matter if the report was wrong in the first place.

 

Not exactly. First, that would be methane, not petroleum. And it's only used to generate hydrogen that's needed to make ammonia for the nitrogen fertilizers. Potassium (K) and phosphorus (P) fertilizers don't need hydrogen for production.

Speculation mostly apply to oil, and specifically, for future contracts. For the everyday price, it's still mostly supply and demand. One big problem for the US is the steadily declining dollar that exacerbates the price increase. (around 50% of the increase is due to that) But the fundamental problem is that we have a limited supply of crude.

Both wrong and irrelevant with respect to food prices.

 

So the Chicago Board of trade is not speculative contracts for future delivery? Sorry, corn wheat and all grains are traded the same way as oil. Many people make money on the grain contracts that never touch one kernel. Anhydrous ammonia is one of the main fertilizers bought out here, as well as lime. Not as mush potassium and potash as should be perhaps. But the fact remains, it is a global market, and as little is used for biofuels at this time in comparison to other uses, it can't drive that much of the market. Another thing that isn't seeming to be mentioned is that biofuels are not the only product of the process, as it seems to be portrayed. ADM was already doing well with corn sweeteners, which is in most foods any more it seems. They were looking for ways to make use of some of their other products initially. Distiller's grain still gets fed to livestock, which are the world's largest consumers of grain. I don't buy into that report, because much of it doesn't make sense from this side of the fence. Maybe out your way it might, but I drive by a cornfield to just get to the road, and have a feel for what it is like in the producing area, and it sure doesn't look like they protray it to be. But I'm sure you will find ways to continue to argue, as you seem to thrive on it, so it's someone else's turn, I'm tired of talking to the wall.

 

IMO food problems won't endanger the US, and are great for damaging our cultural enemies in the Third World. As long as advanced countries have sufficient food that is all that matters. The less food our enemies have the less they can compete.

 

I know how you feel fellro86, you can explain something to someone till you're blue in the face, present all the facts ect... and still they don't get. I have presented my personal experiences with e85 and they don't believe it. At least people who know me personally have seen all of the pros and cons of e85. As I said before, and for the last time-I have a truck NOT SPECIFICALLY designed for e85 and the only mods I have made is a 3way Diablo chip. I experience about 15% less milage, but 10-15% increase in power, mostly in the low and mid ranges. I have ran it in the truck since 2004, when it had about 30,000 miles on it-it now is over 82,000 with no problems, no self destruct, normal service intervals ect... I don't treat my truck lightly either-it works hard-it isn't a show truck. I am an ASE master tech and with documented help have done experiments on corrosion ect... and all had positive results. I hated gasohol in the late 70's and 80's because it ate up old fuel systems, but todays fuel systems are designed to handle additives that you can't even imagine what they put in. I,m telling the truth about my experiences wiyh e85-I have no reason to lie, I'm not a spokesman or do I profit from being a supporter. Anti e85 people think we get ethanol, then we throw away the restthey are misled by the media and I'm not going to re-explain all the points we have tried to make here. Fellro86, this is why I stopped posting on this thread too. Apparently, personal experience and facts are trumped by a few mislead opinions. Thanks for helping me try to expain to these individuals. Gonna go drive my Ford Truck now and relax!!!

 

By the way... Gas prices in our area-about $4.05 a gallon. E85 is $2.99 at all Family Express stores. Gross savings per gallon 26%. Minus 15% average mileage loss(on my vehicles-yours may vary due to tuning-again, my own personal experiences) for an 11% net gain in price, and about 10-15% in power. This will be my final post on this thread, and I thank you for reading and possibly keeping an open mind. Read factual information from good sources like farmers, and the ethanol plants and see what by products also come from ethanol production like corn oil, cheap aminal feed ect... Don't go by some guy on the web just because his mid 70's fuel system got ate up!!! If I still relied on my gasohol hatred I had in the 80's without doing modern tests, then I would be just like them-**** retentive.

 

The problem here is that the "Pro-BioFuel" crowd is convinced that what they tell the others is nothing but the truth. That if the nay sayers don't believe it, then they are closed minded and have ulterior motives. Yet, when someone posts information against Bio-Fuel, the Pro-BioFuel crowd isn't closed minded if the reject it.

Somehow in all this debate, the Pro-BioFuel crowd somehow received ALL the credible web postings, statistics, research, etc... while those who are against Bio-Fuel; believe that is has a loss in power; just as, if not more harmful to the environment; doesn't create a significant net gain in power compared to producing it; plus isn't convinced anyway of the whole CO2 global warming myth;;; somehow automatically received nothing but false information. That it's not possible for anything that is anti-BioFuel to be correct.

My suggestion Shadow, and for others, is to also keep an open mind. Just because Bio-Fuel is "Politically Correct"; even though the politicians are even now trying to back off of it; that doesn't mean it is the great saviour of the ecology and economy. If you are going to dispute a finding, statement, research, etc...; then do so with facts. Don't do it because you don't like the results and therefor just dismiss it as closed minded rhetoric. Because that is what you are saying. Because you disagree totally with Aurgathor and the findings he brought out; and you happen to aggree with Fellro; the Aurgathor must be closed minded, naive, is conned into believing B.S. that "The Man" wants him/her to believe, etc... While Fellro, you, and some others are the only ones privy to the actualy truth. That somehow, the truth is being kept from us and that we should embrace your comments and thank you with all our hearts because we would never know the truth without you. Please, if you are going to ask someone to be open minded, at least be so yourself.

Sorry, but based on what "I" have read and studied; I do not believe that man-kind is causing a major climate problem; global warming, climate change; or whatever you want to call it this week; based on CO2 emissions. I also believe that the United States has plenty of Oil reserves to take care of our immediate needs. Unfortunately, certain people in politics, don't want us to drill our own. Exxon; the USA largest Oil Company, is ONLY the 17th largest in the world, and they IMPORT almost 90% of the oil that they refine for you and I to purchase from. Bio-Fuel is primarily an automobile fuel. I would rather see MORE nuclear power plants. The 20% of electricity we produce isn't enough. I want to see us producing 50% via nuclear in the next 5 years. 75% in the next 10 years. The cheap cost of electricity will motivate more electric type automobiles. That will reduce your CO2 concerns; should I happen to be wrong. Power generation and factories contribute approximately 60% of the CO2 mankind produces. Fix that problem and the rest will take care of itself. What's really sad, is that we have the technology, via nuclear, to take care of the problem immediately. Unfortunately, the bunny huggers will have fit.

Anyway, by all means keep an open mind. Just do me a favor and let that work both ways.

 

Mike, anyone who knows me personally will attest that I am the most politcally incorrect, anti tree hugger out there. I know we have more untapped oil than anyone, but we can't drill for it because it will kill a spotted owl or something else stupid like that. Also our crude contains way more sulpher and other particulates than the light sweet crude we import. With the 50 ppm max low sulpher diesel we now use and the EGR and particulate trap/regeneration systems that I have to deal with on a daily basis, it's enough to drive a mechanic crazy. It's the California crazys that have done this to us. It's nice to have cleaner air as a result, but now they want it all. It's political I know, and now there are commercials out there pulling for more domestic drilling, but for what-so we can export it. If not, it would have to go through an extra refining step to take out extra sulpher and particulates that it has-which takes more energy. I have seen many an injector pump on older vehicles self destruct due to lack of lube- the sulpher is actually a lubricant-and then we have to put in an extra lubricicty agent to protect our injection systems. I deal with these problems on a daily basis-both gas and diesel. It's politcal-I'll say it again. We give them an inch and well, you know the rest. Like I have said Mike, I love fossil fuels, but not to the point where it's gonna break our economy or infringe on our standard of living. Our country has fought long and hard to stay free and have the best standard of living in the world to have it ruined by a few futures traders, oil countries, and politicians. So I say drill, drill, drill, but until that day comes, ethanol and other biofuels have reduced our crude use by about 10%. I'm sorry if you get crappy mileage on e10, but the base gasoline you are dealing with in these products is ultra low emission based, and when you take out extra sulphers ect... out of base fuels to make them burn cleaner, you also remove some of thier power contibution. I get worse mileage from Chicago gas vs. Plymouth, In gas because of this. They have mandated ultra clean burning gas and we aren't required to use it. China, India, Mexico and other countries that are just beginning to industialize like we did in the 40's are sucking up 40% more energy than just 5 yrs. ago. The reason is because we want cheap goods, and by golly we're getting them, but at what costs. Our jobs are going overseas because people aren't going to work for $16.00 an hr-they want a $30.00 an hr union job, and then are lazy about it and make crap. There are many factors raising oil prices, and these are some of them. If we Americans can come up with alternitive fuels to help take some of the weight off our shoulders then so be it. I know biofuels are probably a short term fix till we can get more domestic oil production rolling, and I will support them with pride them until we can elect people with some ***** to do what they are supposted to do-see what the majority of thier constituants want and then vote that way. And instead of corn ethanol, make sugar cane or beet ethanol which is more of an efficient way of production. I'm open to all options-anything that will go into my tank and make my Ford go!!!!!! P.S. The only bunnies I've hugged are stuffed ones when I was a little boy and a Playboy Bunny once at a party!!!! And both were fun at the time.

ROCK ON!!!!!!

 

Awright, since many people seem to be claiming to have the "facts", I read through the whole thread to see how many original research papers, or any other article from a believable source get referenced. Not a single one (aside from thinly veiled propaganda from sites associated with growers or ethanol producers) on the side of the 'corn boys'. And some of the big posters did never cite any reference -- almost like blowing hot air continuously.

The market dynamics of oil and food are very different. First, food is renewable, most countries grow quite a bit of it, and it is something that can be improved over time, but production can be effected by weather. Oil is non-renewable, production mostly mostly depends on what's in the ground (or seabed) and instead of weather, it can be effected by wars, or by some other geopolitical difficulties.

Of course, we all seem to be inundated with a very persuasive campaign of misinformation. To illustrate just how widespread and elaborate the propaganda campaign is, when searching for "energy balance, ethanol, production" on google -- all but one hit on the 1st page are all sites that are somehow related to ethanol and only offer their side of the story. The single exception is: Ethanol fuel energy balance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for holes in logic, some big enough to drive an 18 wheeler through:
Just what kind of factual information could come from someone who has a direct financial interest in ethanol production?!?

 

"http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com/node/533"

ROFL! Making money from credulous chumps while bootysmooching corn producers can be an even bigger gas. Send this man your money. Now. All of it.