Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
with all this good news, why is this thing still going down? is this going to turn out to be another "Nothing" PR from this company? or is it that people are not biting on this PR because of all the bad/deceiving PR's in the past?
I just don't get it. maybe I'm expecting too much.
WOOHOO! This is great news. this is a real contract/sale, right?
What's the good word guys? I have been away from a computer for a few days. we hit two bucks yet?
ia am with TD and I don't see anything that says they are restricted. the funds show up in my portfolio. however, my free XLPI shares still show restricted. i heard that if I cal TD they will unrestrict them for a fee. it's only 15,000 shares. so I don't think I will pay to get them unrestricted at this time.
I'm with ya. I got mine back in 04 or 05 sometime. been some bad time with this one and XLPI but would like to see something happen one day. looks like it may be started. it's kind of fun to watch.
yea, but they are some sweet flip-flops. never the less, I got these stocks for free years ago from XLPI shares. maybe one day it will pay for the loss in XLPI stock. if not, flip flops it is.
no $15.00. and can it get there soon. I got my eye on a new pair of shoes
3 dollars a share. Hell yea! make that happen so I can quit working.
Thanks
makes sense. when will we know how many units they are purchasing?
Don't know. what happens to that when a FlexFuel vehicle is using e85. GM's system utilizes a sensor in the fuel line to test the resistance of the fuel to determine if normal gas or E85 (or any mixture of them) is being used. it then adjusts the air intake, fuel injector firing time, and will advance the timing acording to the mixture in the fuel tank. this can all be accomplished by a simple reprogram of the cars ECM. however, unless you add a sensor to the fuel line to sample whats in the tank you need to switch between gas and E85 manually. So, my orginal question was, why would Thailand want to install FlexTex to new vehicles when they could just make some slight modifications to the ECM to run E85 during the manufacturing process. I was not trying to be a smart ass. I realy did not understand.
http://www.rune85.com/
Longterm6 wrote "I would think if you only had to modify the chip, no one would need conversion kits period."
that IS all that really needs to be done to run E85 is to modify the programming of the cars computer EEPROM chip. companies are doing it right now and more and more are coming on-line. That is why I asked my question.
this is a link to just one of the companies doing just that
http://www.diablosport.com/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=112
Hey guys I don't understand this Thai thing fully. is it new cars that Thailand is producing or is it cars that they inport? what type of car does Thailand produce? or is this cars already on the road? I guess my other question is, if it's on new cars that they produce, would it not be cheaper to just modify the EEPROM chip in thier cars computer on the assembly line instead of purchasing something and adding it to the car after the fact? I think I need to know more about all this. who can clear this up.
I don't belive that the pending patents were searched. I will go back and see if thats possible.
did a patent search on the USA Patent office and could not come up with anything for Digi Flex. but did find this
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22flex+fuel%22&OS="flex+fuel"&RS="flex+fuel"
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=12&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22flex+fuel%22&OS="flex+fuel"&RS="flex+fuel"
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=17&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22flex+fuel%22&OS="flex+fuel"&RS="flex+fuel"
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=23&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22flex+fuel%22&OS="flex+fuel"&RS="flex+fuel"
but this is just a quick search. the patents could be anywhere. and they my not even have the "digi Flex" wording.
Im sure that if XcelPlus says they have patents they can produce them.
Don't be copying me. that "cut and paste" is my gig.
great info. kind of like the Mr. Fusion on Back to the Future
I guess we are all screwed. oh well I loved the spirited debate this last day. I have learned a few things. I hope nobody wants to kill me. in the end I just want my two year old to have a great country to grow up in. do you guys think this Honda fuel cell car will continue or die off?
In my defense, I don't think I said or posted anything about the pipelines myth. on this point you will get no argument from me.
that being said, if congress would let a US company build a refinery we would not need to import gas. we have not built a new refinery in almost 30 years. when your own government artificially creates a oil shortage by not allowing us to capture our own oli, something is wrong. when you cant build a refinery so we need to import gasoline, something is wrong. just wait to the enviromnetalist change their focus to the Ethanol/Biodiesel. we will need to import that next.
LOL! Now thats funny
(good stuff)
ehtanol is soooooooo Great!
another Cut and Paste (i guess that means its not true)
Brazil is staking its claim as a great emerging power thanks to the leadership it maintains in biofuel production. The price of this ambition is paid by the environment and by the cane cutters, who are the invisible characters in this story.
"When the airplane passed, pouring out that bath of poison, my father was soaked. He fell ill because of the toxins that are sprayed over the cane. This is the end for many young people here, " says a female cane cutter from the region of Ribeirao Preto, in São Paulo state.
"The people work and they give them a slip of paper to shop with in the supermarket. The people don't see money, just the bill of what they owe," confirms a worker from the same region, where seven of every 10 cane cutters did not finish primary school.1
Other cutters explain that they are cheated by the scales that the bosses control—they calculate that they have to carry 110 kilograms for the scale to reach 100. Almost all of them were lured from Brazil's poorer Northeast by promises that they would earn very high salaries. Many moderate analysts see working conditions as reminiscent of slavery. But the president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, said before the G-8 Summit that biofuels have "enormous potential to generate jobs and income" and that "they offer a real option for sustainable development."2
Behind the "politically correct" jargon lurks a reality poised to destroy the Amazon, a reality that destroys millions of young bodies and promises lucrative business to investors. The very name biofuels seems to be destined to foment the confusion. João Pedro Stédile, head of the Brazilian Landless Workers' Movement (MST), points out that the defenders of ethanol "use the prefix bio to make it seem like it's a good thing," and that because of this its opponents prefer to call it like it is and use the term "agrofuels" because the term refers to agriculturally produced energy.3
Backtracking Four Centuries
According to the ex-governor of São Paulo state, Claudio Lembo, agrofuels will spread monoculture farming across the whole country. Although he is a conservative politician and member of the Liberal Front Party (now the Democratic Party), he thinks that Brazil "backtracked 500 years to the same place" as it was as a Portuguese colony. In his opinion, agricultural land will be lost when used for sugarcane and the history of those four centuries will be repeated, when "thousands were expelled from their communities by the leviathan of monoculture, which creates concentrated wealth."4
Looking closer at the cane cutters' working conditions, a terrifying world appears—a world that should give people who are enthused by the idea of substituting fossil fuels with agrofuels something to think about. According to various reports, around a million people work in the industry, of which 500,000 are in the agricultural sector. Close to 80% of cane harvesting is manual. The workers only get paid if they reach the output set by the bosses, which in the Ribeirao Preto region is some 12 tons a day, double the 1980 target. If they don't reach it, they aren't paid at all.5
To reach this output target they must work some 10 or 12 hours a day, but sometimes 14, many of these under the burning sun. Many parents bring their small children to help them reach the production goal. Although the numbers of working children have declined, in 1993 one in every four cane cutters in the state of Pernambuco was between seven and 17 years old, and many did not receive any salary. In the last two harvests, 14 people died as a result of excess work. The cutters are recruited in other regions and have to live in the same hacienda, in mattress-less cabins, with neither water nor a kitchen; they have to cook in tins over little bonfires and buy their groceries in the same hacienda at prices exceeding market values.
The cane is cut after being burned, which facilitates harvesting but gravely endangers the environment and produces serious respiratory complaints.
In the Piracicaba municipality, in São Paulo, hospitalizations of children with respiratory problems increase 21% during periods of cane burning. For every 10 tons, the cutter must make 72,000 machete blows and flex their legs 36,000 times. They lose around 10 liters of water per day and walk 10 km a day while they complete their job. The monthly salary ranges from US$150-200 a month. According to the sociologist Francisco de Oliveira, the cutters' average lifespan is less than that of colonial slaves.6
The minister of Work, Carlos Lupi, admitted before the International Labor Conference in Geneva that part of the production of cane in Brazil is done with degrading work in awful conditions: "They work without protection and even lose fingers."7 Maria Aparecida de Moraes Silva, who has studied the work on sugarcane plantations for 30 years now, affirms that 45% of the cutters come from the Northeast. The migrants are preferred by employers because while far from their families they tolerate the abuses unquestioningly, and after the seven-month-long harvest they return to their villages, making it difficult for them to organize unions.8
They Call This Progress
Little by little harvesting machines are being introduced that do the work of a hundred people. As a result, the plantation owners have raised the cutters' productivity targets. They order them to cut the cane closer to the ground, as the machines do. The result is that they now choose younger and younger workers who receive one dollar per ton.
The economic journal Jornal do Valor explains how people fall into servitude: "There is a manpower middleman who covers the poorer states, especially in the North and the Northeast. He chooses the youngest ones. When they get on the bus to go to the city where they are contracted, the cutters get in to their first debt, for the transportation. The middleman earns 60 reales (US$30) for every worker that he takes. It is not unusual for him also to be responsible for the sale of the first goods that the workers need. He becomes the 'owner' of this manpower through the accumulation of debt."9
The expansion of cane cultivation destroys the social fabric. In the region of the small city of Delta, in Minas Gerais state, 300,000 hectares have been planted in the last four years. The city has 5,000 inhabitants that swell to 10,000 during the harvest. According to a report by the newspaper Correio Braziliense the small city has begun to register homicide rates that were unimaginable before the multiplication of the cane farms. Many female children and young people are kidnapped to boost prostitution in the region, where 20,000 cutters arrive a year. The cutters overflow at the edges of small cities where alcoholism and the consumption of crack proliferate.
The expansion and modernization of the cane industry inundates towns and municipalities. José Eustaquio da Silva, mayor of Delta, has recognized that "the municipality is close to collapse. The health facilities, hospitals, and schools are packed, and the worst thing is that along with the workers come all sorts of people and bandits." In Delta there isn't a single hotel but there are 27 brothels. Journalists have discovered that various public figures of the county are involved in the trafficking of minors and in cases of pedophilia with the children of cane-cutters. The middlemen (who are nicknamed "gatos" or cats) carry arms and impose their rules.
Stédile always uses the same example to illustrate the social problems generated by mono-crop farming. "The municipality of Ribeirao Preto in the center of São Paulo is considered the 'Brazilian California' due to its high level of technological development in the cane industry. Thirty years ago, this city produced all its food, had a peasantry in the interior and, in fact, it was a rich region with equitable income distribution. Now it is an immense sugar plantation, with some 30 sugar mills controlling all the land. In the city, 100,000 people live in slums (out of the 540,000 inhabitants of the municipality). The prison population is at 3,813 people—counting only the adults—while the population living from and working in agriculture is just 2,412 people, including the children. This is the cane monoculture model of society. There are more people in jail than there are dedicated to agriculture!"10
In the 2007 sugar harvest another technological "advance" will come about: for the first time, genetically modified cane will be harvested. It is lighter and holds less water, meaning it will bring large profits to the investors. But the workers will have to cut three times as much to reach 10 tons.
In this region, the owners lay off a large number of workers at frequent intervals, in order to keep the best. These are the so-called "productivity champions" who can cut up to 20 tons a day, with a monthly average of 12 to 17 tons a day.11 With the workers suffering from seizures, cramps, spinal pain, and tendonitis on top of frequent cuts, the owners found a "technical solution." The sugar mills distribute a free electrolyte and vitamin supplement, intended for athletes or workers with intense physical activity. At many mills the cutters drink this product before starting work. "Physical pain disappears, the cramps die down, and productivity increases," says Pereira Novaes. The problem is that they need to increase the dose every month.
"With supplements and medicines you can keep up the high productivity demanded by the cane. The strongest survive, like in a process of 'natural selection.' But the question is: how and for how long do they survive? Solutions and medicines can be seen as an expression of the paradox of a certain type of modernization and expansion of cane cultivation; it consumes the labor force that makes it flourish," insists Pereira Novaes. There are no official figures but it is certain that there are many young workers who retire due to disability, and dozens of deaths due to exhaustion in the "Brazilian California."
The Big Winners
In Brazil, cane production began in 1550, but has expanded greatly since 1970, fueled by the rise in oil prices. The forest of the Atlantic coast was halved, the area most affected by this expansion, but now the cane fields advance toward the center and West, where it is predicted that the rich ecosystem of the Cerrados will disappear by 2030 at the hands of monoculture. In the next seven years Brazil will double its production of ethanol and may produce almost 50% more sugar cane, which means building another 100 mills by 2010.
It doesn't stop there. The Brazilian National Economic and Social Development Bank (BNDES) aims for Brazil to control 50% of the global ethanol market. This implies increasing the current 17 billion to 110 billion liters a year, for which it will be necessary to plant some 80 million hectares. That is, destroy the Amazon. The government has adopted this sector as its principal development strategy. BNDES, which has more resources than any other regional bank including the Inter-American Development Bank, estimates that it will invest six billion dollars in sugar mills and cane plantations.
But Brazil wants to expand agrofuels across the whole region. The immediate plans consist of taking production to countries in Central America and the Caribbean that already signed free trade agreements with the United States (such as CAFTA), to avoid Washington's import tariffs. "The objective is to export the nearly completed product to those countries," says the magazine Peripecias, "finish the process in those nations, and from there enter the U.S. market." The Brazilian bank finances the investments in those countries, but is also negotiating a share of up to 30% of stocks in the Central American projects.
In Stédile's opinion, three big sectors come together in the ethanol project: "The oil companies (who want to reduce dependence on oil), the agro-businesses (like Bunge, Cargill, and Monsanto) who want to keep their monopoly in the global agricultural products markets," and now the transnational capital that makes "an alliance with the proprietors of land in the South, and especially in Brazil, to use large areas of land for the production of agrofuels."12
The future is not encouraging. Instead of pressure to modify the patterns of consumption and the energy matrix especially in transportation, the big investors like George Soros and corporations like Cargill are positioning themselves in the Brazilian production of ethanol to increase their profits. Neither global warming nor the cane cutters' working conditions cross their minds.
End Notes
Testimonies collected by the Comisión Pastoral da Terra and reproduced by Núcleo Amigos da Terra Brasil, p. 15.
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, ob. cit.
Carlos Vicente, ob. cit.
Estado de São Paulo, 13 March 2007, on www.estadao.com.br.
All figures from a study by Núcleo de Amigos da Terra Brasil.
Francisco de Oliveira, in Folha de São Paulo, 27 May 2007.
O Estado de São Paulo, 11 June 2007.
Maria Aparecida de Moraes Silva, interview in Instituto Humanitas Unisinos magazine on www.unisinos.br.
Jornal do Valor, Sao Paulo, 17 May 2007.
Carlos Vicente, ob. cit.
José Roberto Pereira Novaes, ob. cit
Yes I agree but my point is.....Ethanol, from corn, right now, may not be the right answer. I live in virginia. e85 is not being sold anywhere. even if it were, how much would it be sold for? most vehicles will not burn it properly without a FlexTec type of upgrade. people are lazy and don't want to spend money or time on anything. I would say that E85 would have to be at least .50 cents cheaper per Gal. for most people to make the investment in thier car to burn it. I would say that even then most people would not. so then what?, do you mandate that they have to? what if they don't have the money? more government subsidies? and even if we got most vehicles on it what about things like boats (Im a boater), large trucks, equipment. what about older cars. do we make people sell them? and even with that, we don't have enough e85 or the land to grow it on to support that. it will take a combination of things. Get off the OPEC tit now. this will take willpower on our part. it will also take Drilling.
its funny, people say that we can't drill our way out of this. those same people want us to ask OPEC to increase production. So we cant drill our way out of this but OPEC can?
I don't have all the answers but I don't want to tear down our forests to grow corn. also, our waterways are being poluted by run-off already. we don't need more.
Makecents,
OK here ya go
1. Dill, Drill, Drill. no mater what we say or do or think. we need oil. even if we got every vehicle running on something other than oil righ now we still need oil for other things like Plastics, Chemicals, power plants and so on. until we are able in some way to no longer use oil for anything, lets get our own and not buy it from OPEC.
2. take all corn subsidies and apply it to fuell cell vehicle reasearch. Honda already has a all fuel cell (no gas) vehicle. the are using them and testing them in Califorina. why is Honda doing this and not GM in the USA.
3. build more nuclear power plants. France is getting 80% of thier power from Nuclear Power. What the heck is wrong with US.
4. more reasearch into BioDiesel from Algae. seams very promising.
Corn ethanol's downsides:
high food prices, more pollution
More on this Story
By Renee Schoof | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — The nation's new energy law means that corn is likely to rule the U.S. ethanol industry for years, but soaring food prices and questions about whether corn-for-fuel can reduce global warming have sparked a debate about whether the United States is going down the wrong road in the search for alternatives to fossil fuels.
Venture capitalists, oil and ethanol companies and the Department of Energy have pumped billions of dollars into efforts to make ethanol from cellulose, a material found in all plants, in a quest to find an alternative fuel that has less impact on food supplies and on the environment.
So far, its commercial prospects are years off.
The Brazilian government and some American analysts suggest that until there are breakthroughs on the advanced ethanol front, the United States should import more Brazilian ethanol, which is made from sugarcane, because it outperforms corn in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. trade and agricultural policies, however, limit the use of sugarcane to make fuel here.
Roger A. Sedjo, an economist and senior fellow at Resources for the Future, said "the jury's still out" on whether biofuels will reduce emissions when land use changes are taken into account.
"I think there's good reason to believe they're betting on the wrong horse here with corn ethanol," Sedjo said. "It's even a question in my mind whether we're going to go the biofuel route. But right now we're used to liquid transport fuel in the form of oil, and the closest substitute would be biofuels."
The 2007 energy bill allowed for a doubling of corn ethanol production, most of it with no requirement for overall greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The bill set a ceiling of 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol, up from the 6.5 billion gallons produced last year. It also calls for 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2022, including 16 billion gallons of ethanol from other plant fiber.
Critics have complained that the growing U.S. use of corn for fuel is driving up food prices worldwide. Corn, mostly for livestock feed, supplies more than 65 percent of world exports.
Earlier this month, the heads of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Bank said that soaring world food prices in recent months were due in part to increased demand for biofuels. They noted that other factors were also at work, including higher energy prices and higher consumption of meat and dairy products in countries such as China.
Alexander Karsner, the assistant secretary in charge of renewable energy and efficiency at the Department of Energy, said his office is working on encouraging ethanol from plant cellulose with the goal of spreading the technology around the world to slow or even reverse global warming.
Karsner's office spent $1 billion on biofuels development last year, all of it on using non-edible plants and plant wastes instead of corn. Ethanol is distilled from sugar — whether it's pressed out of sugarcane, derived from the starch of corn kernels or, in the case of cellulosic ethanol, produced when enzymes break down plant material.
A study by Tim Searchinger, a visiting scholar at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, and other scientists found that most biofuels are likely to produce more greenhouse gases than the gasoline they replace because carbon dioxide will be released when farmers plow and burn forest or grassland to grow the fuels or to grow food to replace crops that were eliminated by the demand for ethanol.
Karsner said the study was flawed and that other examinations of land use changes would be needed.
"It's not the time to panic at the outset of a new era that displaces carbon-based fossil fuels," he said.
Michael Wang, who's been comparing pollution emissions from biofuels with those from gasoline for more than a decade at the Argonne National Laboratory, recently began a new study of corn ethanol.
Wang originally found that corn ethanol from the United States reduced greenhouse gas emissions about 20 percent compared with gasoline, when the full "life cycle" of the fuel — from growing it (or, in the comparison case of oil, extracting it) to producing the fuel and burning it — is taken into account. Sugarcane ethanol reduces emissions by 56 percent compared with gasoline. Ethanol from cellulose promises reductions of more than 80 percent.
Wang now says that the 20 percent reduction only holds for U.S. ethanol production so far. In 2007, the United States produced 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol using 18 percent of its corn crop. The size of the crop set a record, and exports of U.S. corn didn't decline. U.S. ethanol also produces animal feed as a byproduct.
But the Department of Agriculture expects that corn exports will decline over the next few years as ethanol consumes more of the crop.
Wang's new study will look at what it'll mean to ramp up corn ethanol production to 15 billion gallons, looking at domestic and international land use changes. Wang said his previous study didn't take into account indirect land use changes in other countries. He expects preliminary results by summer.
The energy law that went into effect in December said biofuels must reduce emissions by at least 20 percent, but the requirement applies only to ethanol plants whose construction started after the law was passed.
New plants won't be allowed to use coal as an energy source. But most of the 15 billion gallons of ethanol from corn allowed under the law will be from plants that already were built or under construction at the time. The use of coal to make electricity to run ethanol plants is one of the ways that ethanol production contributes to global warming.
Agricultural policy, however, has helped ensure that corn reigns supreme in American ethanol production.
The government controls how sugarcane can be grown for sugar and guarantees growers a higher price than the world price. Growers in the four sugarcane states — Florida, Louisiana, Texas and Hawaii — have found it more profitable to grow sugarcane for sugar instead of ethanol, although companies in Hawaii and Louisiana have plans to use some surplus sugarcane for ethanol.
The U.S. ethanol industry expects to produce 8.5 billion gallons this year, almost all of it from corn. The U.S. uses less than 150 billion gallons of gasoline per year. Replacing it would require more than 200 billion gallons of ethanol, because ethanol provides less energy per gallon.
The world's ethanol today is mainly from U.S. corn or Brazilian sugarcane.
Searchinger reported that even when land use changes were taken into account, sugarcane, if grown under the right conditions, could reduce emissions.
Lester B. Lave and Michael Griffin of the Carnegie Mellon Green Design Initiative have argued that the United States should import more Brazilian ethanol.
"We could use all the ethanol we can get — probably in the future as well," Lave said.
But it's doubtful the world's biomass could supplant gasoline, he said. "If the price of liquid fuels gets to be high enough, it will crowd out food. The rich will have sufficient food — it's the poor who will not be able to afford food. All that leads to more fuel-economic vehicles and other ways of curtailing the demand for liquid fuels."
Karsner said Brazil doesn't have a big surplus to export.
But Brazil plans to expand. Under current conditions, including the 54 cents per gallon U.S. tariff, the Brazilian ethanol industry and government project that Brazil's production will grow to 17 billion gallons by 2020 and Brazil will use 13 billion gallons, leaving 4 billion gallons for export.
Brazil's government is pressing for eliminating the tariff, a move it says would help boost exports. In a recent vote, the U.S. Senate soundly defeated the idea.
ETHANOL AT A GLANCE
Ethanol is blended now in 60 percent of the country's gasoline, mostly in a mix of 10 percent ethanol to 90 percent gasoline. The Energy Information Administration's 2008 outlook report projects that biofuels will make up about 11 percent of total demand for motor vehicle fuel nationwide in 2030.
The Department of Energy's goal is to help drive down costs so that cellulosic ethanol is competitive with gasoline in 2012.
(Jack Chang in Brazil and Kevin G. Hall in Washington contributed to this report.)
Big Oil BS Propaganda?
So thats how you respond to facts? thats the best you got? I have just posted the facts by some of the best scientists. what? I guess they are all "BIG OIL"
whatever, Im growing tired of your activism.
Agriculture is one of the most interfered-with industries on earth. Across the world, government subsidies wreak havoc with farm economies. Though we haven’t made much progress in eliminating the payments, this concept is increasingly understood by Americans. What’s less appreciated is that subsidies also cause environmental problems. By encouraging the cultivation of unneeded marginal land, overuse of scarce environmental resources, and increased use of chemicals, farm subsidies harm the ecosystem as well as consumers and even farmers.
Thanks to U.S. price supports, agricultural economist Del Gardner notes, “land has been cultivated . . . that would have remained in rangeland and forests, especially in the southern region and in the semi-arid and arid regions of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains.” “Aided by government farm programs,” writes John Hosemann, retired chief economist of the American Farm Bureau, “farmers clearcut and drained large tracts of forestland, particularly in the Mississippi River delta region but also in the mid-Atlantic states.” In the Florida Everglades, over half a million acres of swamplands have been conver-ted to sugar fields to take advantage of government subsidies.
Subsidies also lead to increased use of chemical inputs. In a study of six farming states, Jonathan Tolman found that eliminating subsidies would reduce fertilizer use by 29 percent. In the North Carolina coastal plain, elimination of subsidies could reduce water
pollution from nitrogen leaching by 46 percent, according to re-searchers Kathleen Painter and Douglas Young.
Even when subsidies are tailored for supposed environmental benefits, they often end up doing more ecological harm than good. Consider two of the main “Green” endeavors paid for by the U.S. government--ethanol production and the Conservation Reserve Program. Both demonstrate how the unintended consequences of market manipulations can do damage despite the best of intentions.
Ethanol
One of the most egregious agricultural subsidies in the U.S. today underwrites the production of ethanol--a gasoline substitute made from corn. While purporting to help the environment, it actually has the opposite effect.
The ethanol program provides a bonanza for corn-producing states such as Iowa and South Dakota. Powerful senators and Iowa’s importance to Presidential nominations have garnered these regions a subsidy equivalent to 54 cents per gallon of ethanol produced. The vast majority of the money goes to one agribusiness: Archer Daniels Midland, which produces 60 percent of the nation’s ethanol and receives in excess of $400 million per year from the federal treasury in doing so.
One might overlook these costs if ethanol actually did what its proponents claim (reducing air pollution while providing domestically produced energy). But ethanol is no boon. Cornell research-ers David and Marcia Pimentel report that ethanol is actually an environmental nuisance when all aspects of its production are taken into account: “Ethanol produced from corn causes environmental degra-dation from increased soil erosion and aquifer mining, from soil, water, and air pollution, and from increased emissions of global-warming gases.” But according to the General Accounting Office, “little change in air quality or global environmental quality” would result if ethanol subsidies were ended.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board made similar claims after conducting studies on a possible exemption for California from 1990 Clean Air Act requirements that oxygenates be added to gasoline in regions that failed to meet the federal air quality standards for smog. (Ethanol had become the only oxygenate choice after groundwater was polluted from use of its lone competitor, MTBE. But other researchers found that ethanol actually increases the evaporation rate of gasoline, which leads to pollutants that increase smog. And 14 of the EPA’s 18 own most realistic models showed smog would decline if California was freed from the ethanol requirement. Smog and its components, the EPA has reported, pose a greater threat to humans than the one thing ethanol does reduce: carbon monoxide. Though quite dangerous without ventilation, carbon monoxide is relatively benign outdoors.
The most perverse aspect of subsidized ethanol production was uncovered by David Pimentel. He calculates that it actually consumes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the ethanol itself provides. While a 2002 report from the Department of Agriculture claims that increased corn yields have converted ethanol from a net energy waste to a net energy gain, Pimentel’s 2003 study maintains that ethanol uses 29 percent more energy than it creates due to tractor fuel, irrigation pumps, and other inputs. According to Pimentel, 99,119 BTUs of energy are expended to create the 77,000 BTUs in a gallon of ethanol. In other words, the government is keeping farmers busy by paying them to waste energy.
The ethanol support program was started with good intentions. It does reduce carbon monoxide emissions, and the problems with evaporation were not known when the country first started ethanol subsidies in the late 1970s. But with our current knowledge, it would be best if the program went the way of the dodo.
The Conservation Reserve Program
The CRP is another agricultural subsidy that both wastes money and creates environmental harm. Implemented in 1985, the CRP pays farmers to take cropland out of production. The primary goal was to protect lands prone to erosion by setting them aside and not plowing them. Additional goals--improved water quality, better wildlife habitat, and the return of native grasses--were later added to build support for the program among environmentalists and hunters.
CRP payments are made on a per-acre basis. In 1996, farmers were paid about $50 per acre not to farm. Total payments that year reached $1.8 billion, and 36 million acres were removed from production, an area the size of Michigan. Annual costs have held at about that level since then.
The problem with CRP is that it does not accomplish anything. Farmers have kept food production at about the same level as before the program. They’ve done this in two ways:
First, previously uncropped land is brought into production to counterbalance the retired acres. A University of Minnesota geographer conducted a five-year study on CRP’s progress in removing land from production on the Great Plains during the early 1990s and found that while farmers received payments to remove 17 million acres from production, total cultivated land in the region fell by only 2 million acres. The geographer concluded that “for every eroding acre a farmer idles, another farmer--or sometimes the same one--simply plows up nearly as much additional erosion-prone land.”
Second, farming is intensified on the lands already in production. Additional fertilizer and pesticides are heaped upon crops to get a higher yield to make up for the land lost to CRP. Whether the net result is more or less overall chemical use is hard to say, but it is clear that the concentration of chemicals increases on land remaining in production, which is probably a greater threat to human and animal health.
A popular argument in defense of farm subsidies is that they make agricultural products more affordable for consumers. But do they? Keep in mind that if subsidies were eliminated, the average consumer would have more money in his or her pocket with which to buy food in the first place. In the year 2000, taxpayers made $20 billion in direct payments to farmers; that’s $80 for every man, woman, and child in the country. It’s hardly evident that prices would rise by more than that without subsidies.
In the short run, a removal of subsidies would cause producers to produce less, and prices would rise. But, over the longer term, there are several reasons to think prices would return to current levels rather rapidly. For one thing, subsidies are often implemented in the form of price floors. The government buys up excess output to keep prices for certain products from falling below agreed levels. By definition, these particular subsidies prevent lower prices.
Second, today’s agricultural subsidies create an entry barrier for new farmers or ranchers who might be able to do the job better. Most subsidies go only to those who are already in the farming game, because they are based on previous years’ production. By keeping newcomers out, and less efficient producers limping along, subsidies prevent competition. In addition, the future value of subsidy flows gets “capitalized” in higher land prices. The General Accounting Office reports that younger people wishing to enter agriculture today are frequently discouraged by high prices for farmland due to subsidies.
Finally, agricultural subsidies are a major obstacle to reducing trade barriers (the trimming of which could lower a plethora of agricultural prices). U.S. subsidies lead other countries to close their doors to our exports, and to keep their own inefficient producers in business in a subsidized state. This increases food prices not only for U.S. consumers but also for consumers in other countries. Worse, because farm protectionism opens the door to protectionism generally, countless other goods become more expensive as well.
Farm subsidies thus turn out to be something rather perverse: not good for the environment, not good for farmers, and not good for consumers.
Adapted from J. Bishop Grewell’s new book Ecological Agrarian, cowritten with Clay Landry. It was researched at PERC, the Center for Free Market Environmentalism.
CU scientist terms corn-based ethanol 'subsidized food burning'
By Roger Segelken
Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what one Cornell agricultural scientist calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces.
At a time when ethanol-gasoline mixtures (gasohol) are touted as the American answer to fossil fuel shortages by corn producers, food processors and some lawmakers, Cornell's David Pimentel takes a longer range view.
"Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning," said the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Pimentel, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy panel that investigated the energetics, economics and environmental aspects of ethanol production several years ago, subsequently conducted a detailed analysis of the corn-to-car fuel process. His findings will be published next month in the forthcoming Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology.
Among his findings:
An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.
The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline.
Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 Btu are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 Btu. "Put another way," Pimentel said, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 Btu."
Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel said. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price."
Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. "Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol," Pimentel said.
The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States. Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel said, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace."
Nickels and dimes aside, some drivers still would rather see their cars fueled by farms in the Midwest than by oil wells in the Middle East, Pimentel acknowledges, so he calculated the amount of corn needed to power an automobile:
The average U.S. automobile, traveling 10,000 miles a year on pure ethanol (not a gasoline-ethanol mix), would need about 852 gallons of the corn-based fuel. This would take 11 acres to grow, based on net ethanol production. This is the same amount of cropland required to feed seven Americans.
If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States.
The Taxpayers League of Minnesota strongly OPPOSES ethanol mandates and subsidies on the following grounds:
• Not Cost-Effective. Ethanol is not cost-effective and requires large government subsidies and mandates. A gallon of ethanol costs $2.24 to produce compared to 63 cents per gallon for gasoline. $1.4 billion in government subsidies and mandates are needed to fill this gap.
• Uses More Energy Than It Generates. Research by Cornell University scientist David Pimentel shows that 29 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is contained in ethanol. For each gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 22,000 BTU (British Thermal Units).
• Negligible Environmental Impacts. Ethanol has a host of negative environmental impacts that wipe out any positive impacts. Studies by the California Air Resources Board show that blending ethanol with gasoline increases nitrogen oxide (NOx) and other smog-forming emissions.
• Voids Car Warranties. New car warranties won’t cover engine problems that result from using fuel blended with more than 10% ethanol.
• Lowers Gas Mileage. Ethanol-blended gasoline decreases gas mileage by 3 to 5 percent at 10 percent ethanol blend and 6 to 10 percent less with a 20 percent ethanol blend – increasing costs to consumers.
• Hurts Livestock & Poultry Farmers. A study by the GAO concluded that higher corn prices generated by ethanol hurts livestock and poultry producers because the cost of feed stock increases (70% of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the U.S.). The National Center for Policy Analysis estimates that ethanol production adds $1 billion annually to the cost of beef production.
• Increases Food Prices. By increasing the cost of feed stock for livestock and poultry producers, ethanol production increases the price to consumers for meat, milk and eggs.
• Doesn’t Create Net New Jobs. The employment effects of ethanol are a wash because, as shown by economist Ralph Brown , ethanol production lowers gas tax receipts – reducing jobs in highway construction and maintenance and in sectors adversely affected by higher corn prices. Ethanol doesn’t create net new employment, it simply shifts employment from one sector to another.
• Won’t Improve Energy Security. The notion that more ethanol use will promote energy independence and security is a fantasy. Ethanol can never realistically become a large enough share of our energy to make a difference. Even if we increased ethanol production by 1000 percent it would only account for one percent of total energy consumption in the U.S. according to University of South Dakota agricultural economist Ralph Brown. If all cars in the U.S. were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, corn production would cover 97 percent of U.S. land area. In addition, reducing our oil imports will not reduce our vulnerability to oil price swings because oil prices are set in the world market, not domestically.
And the list goes on and on. The more you read about ethanol, the more you can agree with the statement by the president of the Agribusiness Council, Nicholas Hollis, that “Ethanol is the largest scam in our nation’s history.”
David Pimentel, “Ethanol Fuels: Energy Balance, Economics, and Environmental Impacts are Negative,” Natural Resources Research (June 2003)
ibid
State of California Air Resources Board, “Comparison of the Effects on a Fully-Complying Gasoline Blend on Exhaust and Evaporative Emissions” (November 1998)
General Accounting Office, “Effects of the Alcohol Fuels Tax Incentives,” Report to the Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives (March 1997): http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/gg97041.pdf
Woa, everybody, I think you guys have me all wrong. I love alternative fuels. I think the best thing that is going on now is that biodiesel made with algae. I also follow fuel cell tech very carefully (i'm an engineer)and maybe thats why I posted what I did. all I was trying to say is that e85 is not that great. 700 bil dollars that we send over seas is for a product. we don;t just give it away. government subsidies is my tax dollars and I don't want them used for something that can't support itself and drive up the price of food without some good return. why is everone so quick to rule out drilling for our own darn oil? our need for oil will not go away overnight. we need it for our country to work. e85 may be able to run some cars but what about everything else. how about hemp? i am not the bad guy just want to be an engineer.
I love you all
Mis-information? where? what? I am willing to put my good money on the line to (prove) me wrong with anything I wrote. Go ahead challange me on anything I wrote and put up some money. I will prove it all...and then some. E85 is the answer to nothing.
Despite the scarcity of E85, the Big Three domestic auto manufacturers have built more than 5 million FFVs since the late ‘90s, and that number will increase by about 1 million this year.
A strong motivation for that is that the government credits FFVs that burn E85 with about two-thirds more fuel economy than they actually get using gasoline, even though the vast majority may never run on E85. This allows automakers to build more large, gas-guzzling vehicles than they otherwise could under Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules. As a result, these credits have increased annual U.S. gasoline consumption by about 1 percent, or 1.2 billion gallons, according to a 2005 study by the Union for Concerned Scientists.
strange things these facts. if you have anything but your banter go ahead...post away. I will show the whole board how wrong you are
Whats the point. maybe I'm missing something. first, e-85 if adjusted to the MPG/BTU price is not cheaper. second, the cost of the conversion kit. third, the potential dammange that can happen to an engine running this crap (don't believe me? look it up for yourself. I know of two boatowner that needed serious engine work) and lastly! take away the government subsidies and it could not be viable! not to mention what its doing to the price of corn and other food. so I say again
What's the point? oh and did I mention that it is no cleaner burning than gas.
if it cant stand alone......its not worth anything.
Regular Mid Premium Diesel E85 **E85 MPG/BTU adjusted price
Current Avg. $3.730 $3.890 $4.008 $4.373 $3.041 $4.001
Yesterday Avg. $3.741 $3.902 $4.019 $4.387 $3.051 $4.014
Month Ago Avg. $4.077 $4.329 $4.486 $4.828 $3.307 $4.352
Year Ago Avg. $2.768 $2.938 $3.045 $2.925 NA NA
Is this stock and board dead? whats the deal? are my shares still alive? anybody?
is this thing still working?
all good points. below is a link for good read from John Stossel. I saw the orginal on 20/20/. not bad.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/05/23/the_many_myths_of_ethanol
Ethanol is not the answer to anything unless you are trying to replace gasoline. If that is your only goal then ethanol may be OK.
1. ethanol takes way more energy to produce per gallon than does gasoline.
2. ethanol, in its production, produces more pollution than does gasoline. (this is assuming that you add all the vehicles required to plant and harvest the corn)
3. without government subsidies, ethanol will cost more than a gallon of gasoline.
4. ethanol can not be distributed via pipe lines, it must be trucked in. Thus, creating more pollution and raising the price. The price increase will not allow it to be competitive with gasoline. That is why we do not see any ethanol stations on the east coast.
5. right now the government does not tax ethanol at the same rate it does gasoline. When it does, the cost per gallon will be more than gasoline.
Just my 2 cents.
I agree. and dont get me wrong, I would never invest any money on a pink sheet if I could not stand to loose it. that being said, one does expect some truth in reporting from the company. I belive that any company that has to lie to get people to invest is unethical and should be looked into. I guess all I ever expected was some honesty.
Every time I see something like this I just sit back an ask....how could I have been so stupid.
I wish they would just close the doors and put this stock out of its misery. at least then I could quit waisting time looking at this stupid thing.
Who wants ice cream?