something something yadda yadda obtaining ethanol from sugarcane is supposed to be a much more efficient process. though i don't know how it stands on water consumption.
But really, with the idea of better biofuels but the Corn lobby holding it down...
Are we talking something like if we converted to grass crops for fuel we'd see the profit 5 years down the line over corn biofuel or if we converted to grass crops for fuel in 500 years we'd see the profit over corn biofuel? Ultimately, yes going with the better solution for economy and environment is best, but if we're going towards a net loss over the next 499 years 'till it catches the theory of better isn't necessarily the "Best" solution. Much like keeping fossil fuels still works because changing the fuel isn't immediately economically feasible.
why would corn be that much more profitable than anything else we could grow? the hypothetical situation you've presented makes no sense
If we already have Corn crops being grown like crazy I can't imagine we could just switch over for free... the sunk costs of changing crops would need to be considered if we're going to put forwards better crops.
I mean, what's the corn lobby fighting for even if it's more profitable, and better for the environment to grow other things as fuel, as long as enough farmers grow corn for the HFCS demand?
why would corn be that much more profitable than anything else we could grow? the hypothetical situation you've presented makes no sense
If we already have Corn crops being grown like crazy I can't imagine we could just switch over for free... the sunk costs of changing crops would need to be considered if we're going to put forwards better crops.
I mean, what's the corn lobby fighting for even if it's more profitable, and better for the environment to grow other things as fuel, as long as enough farmers grow corn for the HFCS demand?
what? are you fucking high?
that makes no goddamn sense
sure, different crops have different requirements but you're just being absurd here acting like there's some massive corn infrastructure that would need to be torn up to allow farmers to grow something else
you do realize that many farmers change crops from time to time, right?
saves the nutrients in the soil so it doesn't get shitty (there's a technical term here involving a high iron count that i learned about but i forgot it)
laterite?
laterization?
or is that when shit gets deforested
both i guess
Dead Legend on
diablo III - beardsnbeer#1508 Mechwarrior Online - Rusty Bock
also I was wrong earlier when I said we get ethanol from the cellulose, it's from the sugar stored in the corn
which brings up the fact that sugar cane is easier to raise, and easier to extract sugar from for producing ethanol than corn is
corn is estimated (and it's considered a generous estimate, many claim it's under 1.0) that the energy returned on energy invested is only 1.34 for corn, but 8 for sugar cane (in other words, best case corn returns 34% more energy when used to produce ethanol, sugar cane produces 700% more)
Brazil also produces a large amount of ethanol for mixing into their gasoline, only they grow sugar cane for their ethanol because they don't have a bloated corn lobby protecting their interests
Druhim on
0
Options
Lost Salientblink twiceif you'd like me to mercy kill youRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
What on earth is a corn cozy?
Lost Salient on
"Sandra has a good solid anti-murderer vibe. My skin felt very secure and sufficiently attached to my body when I met her. Also my organs." HAIL SATAN
0
Options
BusterKNegativity is Boring Cynicism is Cowardice Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
There's also the problem of food shortages from using so much of our food and fertile land for fuel
also I was wrong earlier when I said we get ethanol from the cellulose, it's from the sugar stored in the corn
which brings up the fact that sugar cane is easier to raise, and easier to extract sugar from for producing ethanol than corn is
corn is estimated (and it's considered a generous estimate, many claim it's under 1.0) that the energy returned on energy invested is only 1.34 for corn, but 8 for sugar cane (in other words, best case corn returns 34% more energy when used to produce ethanol, sugar cane produces 700% more)
Brazil also produces a large amount of ethanol for mixing into their gasoline, only they grow sugar cane for their ethanol because they don't have a bloated corn lobby protecting their interests
why would corn be that much more profitable than anything else we could grow? the hypothetical situation you've presented makes no sense
If we already have Corn crops being grown like crazy I can't imagine we could just switch over for free... the sunk costs of changing crops would need to be considered if we're going to put forwards better crops.
I mean, what's the corn lobby fighting for even if it's more profitable, and better for the environment to grow other things as fuel, as long as enough farmers grow corn for the HFCS demand?
what? are you fucking high?
that makes no goddamn sense
sure, different crops have different requirements but you're just being absurd here acting like there's some massive corn infrastructure that would need to be torn up to allow farmers to grow something else
you do realize that many farmers change crops from time to time, right?
So it wouldn't be a problem?
There's a way to just answer the question... Yeah, I don't understand anything about farming.
I'm wondering if it would be a problem. I guess there wouldn't be. So what is the corn lobby's argument against alternate crops? I'm just trying to understand the situation here. If there are better solution, why aren't we subsidizing them? If there's a problem switching to them... that'd make sense.
I understand the idea of lobbyists going for causes that may not be in the best interest of everyone and the country because they have their own personal agenda, but I'm just trying to understand the situation here.
why would corn be that much more profitable than anything else we could grow? the hypothetical situation you've presented makes no sense
If we already have Corn crops being grown like crazy I can't imagine we could just switch over for free... the sunk costs of changing crops would need to be considered if we're going to put forwards better crops.
I mean, what's the corn lobby fighting for even if it's more profitable, and better for the environment to grow other things as fuel, as long as enough farmers grow corn for the HFCS demand?
what? are you fucking high?
that makes no goddamn sense
sure, different crops have different requirements but you're just being absurd here acting like there's some massive corn infrastructure that would need to be torn up to allow farmers to grow something else
you do realize that many farmers change crops from time to time, right?
So it wouldn't be a problem?
There's a way to just answer the question... Yeah, I don't understand anything about farming.
I'm wondering if it would be a problem. I guess there wouldn't be. So what is the corn lobby's argument against alternate crops? I'm just trying to understand the situation here. If there are better solution, why aren't we subsidizing them? If there's a problem switching to them... that'd make sense.
I understand the idea of lobbyists going for causes that may not be in the best interest of everyone and the country because they have their own personal agenda, but I'm just trying to understand the situation here.
BECAUSE OTHER CROPS AREN'T CORN AND DON'T LINE THEIR POCKETS WITH SOLID GOLD COCAINE
duh
Druhim on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
why would corn be that much more profitable than anything else we could grow? the hypothetical situation you've presented makes no sense
If we already have Corn crops being grown like crazy I can't imagine we could just switch over for free... the sunk costs of changing crops would need to be considered if we're going to put forwards better crops.
I mean, what's the corn lobby fighting for even if it's more profitable, and better for the environment to grow other things as fuel, as long as enough farmers grow corn for the HFCS demand?
what? are you fucking high?
that makes no goddamn sense
sure, different crops have different requirements but you're just being absurd here acting like there's some massive corn infrastructure that would need to be torn up to allow farmers to grow something else
you do realize that many farmers change crops from time to time, right?
So it wouldn't be a problem?
There's a way to just answer the question... Yeah, I don't understand anything about farming.
I'm wondering if it would be a problem. I guess there wouldn't be. So what is the corn lobby's argument against alternate crops? I'm just trying to understand the situation here. If there are better solution, why aren't we subsidizing them? If there's a problem switching to them... that'd make sense.
I understand the idea of lobbyists going for causes that may not be in the best interest of everyone and the country because they have their own personal agenda, but I'm just trying to understand the situation here.
We use HFCS in soda in America because it we are the only place in the world where it is cheaper to grow corn than sugar.
Switching to a new crop and maintaining profitability would mean ditching your corn subsidies and getting congress to make new ones for another plant, which is difficult and risky, not to mention there are some places where you just plain can't grow the sugar and the people who own that land aren't giving up the subsidies no matter what.
why would corn be that much more profitable than anything else we could grow? the hypothetical situation you've presented makes no sense
If we already have Corn crops being grown like crazy I can't imagine we could just switch over for free... the sunk costs of changing crops would need to be considered if we're going to put forwards better crops.
I mean, what's the corn lobby fighting for even if it's more profitable, and better for the environment to grow other things as fuel, as long as enough farmers grow corn for the HFCS demand?
what? are you fucking high?
that makes no goddamn sense
sure, different crops have different requirements but you're just being absurd here acting like there's some massive corn infrastructure that would need to be torn up to allow farmers to grow something else
you do realize that many farmers change crops from time to time, right?
So it wouldn't be a problem?
There's a way to just answer the question... Yeah, I don't understand anything about farming.
I'm wondering if it would be a problem. I guess there wouldn't be. So what is the corn lobby's argument against alternate crops? I'm just trying to understand the situation here. If there are better solution, why aren't we subsidizing them? If there's a problem switching to them... that'd make sense.
I understand the idea of lobbyists going for causes that may not be in the best interest of everyone and the country because they have their own personal agenda, but I'm just trying to understand the situation here.
We use HFCS in soda in America because it we are the only place in the world where it is cheaper to grow corn than sugar.
Switching to a new crop and maintaining profitability would mean ditching your corn subsidies and getting congress to make new ones for another plant, which is difficult and risky, not to mention there are some places where you just plain can't grow the sugar and the people who own that land aren't giving up the subsidies no matter what.
Plus it's makin us all fatties
So, and correct me if I've got it wrong, but we subsidize corn because we already subsidize corn, despite the fact that there are biofuels that could be better served with another crop, and many corn farmers could switch over to sugar instead of HFCS's stupid monopoly on being in everything, but we would *gasp* need to pass something through congress to fix the retarded situation?
The fuck is wrong with everyone.
Khavall on
0
Options
BusterKNegativity is Boring Cynicism is Cowardice Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
Also everyone is getting paid mad dollar bills to make a lot of useless corn
Except that proves that it wasn't a random "glitch" like Amazon claimed and instead a specific and deliberate removal of LGBT books... it's just that the responsible agency was misplaced.
Khavall on
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
i wish we used actual sugar in more products in the US.
Metzger Meister on
0
Options
BusterKNegativity is Boring Cynicism is Cowardice Registered Userregular
what's bizarre to me is that Coca Cola still doesn't make Coke with sucrose in the states, even though plenty of it is being imported from Mexico. You'd think that would be an incentive to produce and sell it in the states for more than the hfcs versions, but less than the Mexican Coke
Posts
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
better idea: go through school and graduate with a degree, then work for the military as a contractor
bookoo dollahs
STEAM!
it's all about the powerful corn lobby
How long-term would be we talking about probably before it starts paying off?
Yeah the corn part is biggest problem I have with Ethanol
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
really, you just need the cellulose and corn is a grass
just one that was heavily hybridized thousands of years ago
Ever see a car get 40 mpg
On weeeeed?
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
(miles per toke lol)
Are we talking something like if we converted to grass crops for fuel we'd see the profit 5 years down the line over corn biofuel or if we converted to grass crops for fuel in 500 years we'd see the profit over corn biofuel? Ultimately, yes going with the better solution for economy and environment is best, but if we're going towards a net loss over the next 499 years 'till it catches the theory of better isn't necessarily the "Best" solution. Much like keeping fossil fuels still works because changing the fuel isn't immediately economically feasible.
(druhim's real reason to stop the corn lobby)
If we already have Corn crops being grown like crazy I can't imagine we could just switch over for free... the sunk costs of changing crops would need to be considered if we're going to put forwards better crops.
I mean, what's the corn lobby fighting for even if it's more profitable, and better for the environment to grow other things as fuel, as long as enough farmers grow corn for the HFCS demand?
that makes no goddamn sense
sure, different crops have different requirements but you're just being absurd here acting like there's some massive corn infrastructure that would need to be torn up to allow farmers to grow something else
you do realize that many farmers change crops from time to time, right?
doesn't burn out the soil
saves the nutrients in the soil so it doesn't get shitty (there's a technical term here involving a high iron count that i learned about but i forgot it)
laterite?
laterization?
or is that when shit gets deforested
both i guess
which brings up the fact that sugar cane is easier to raise, and easier to extract sugar from for producing ethanol than corn is
corn is estimated (and it's considered a generous estimate, many claim it's under 1.0) that the energy returned on energy invested is only 1.34 for corn, but 8 for sugar cane (in other words, best case corn returns 34% more energy when used to produce ethanol, sugar cane produces 700% more)
Brazil also produces a large amount of ethanol for mixing into their gasoline, only they grow sugar cane for their ethanol because they don't have a bloated corn lobby protecting their interests
"Sandra has a good solid anti-murderer vibe. My skin felt very secure and sufficiently attached to my body when I met her. Also my organs." HAIL SATAN
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
So it wouldn't be a problem?
There's a way to just answer the question... Yeah, I don't understand anything about farming.
I'm wondering if it would be a problem. I guess there wouldn't be. So what is the corn lobby's argument against alternate crops? I'm just trying to understand the situation here. If there are better solution, why aren't we subsidizing them? If there's a problem switching to them... that'd make sense.
I understand the idea of lobbyists going for causes that may not be in the best interest of everyone and the country because they have their own personal agenda, but I'm just trying to understand the situation here.
duh
We use HFCS in soda in America because it we are the only place in the world where it is cheaper to grow corn than sugar.
Switching to a new crop and maintaining profitability would mean ditching your corn subsidies and getting congress to make new ones for another plant, which is difficult and risky, not to mention there are some places where you just plain can't grow the sugar and the people who own that land aren't giving up the subsidies no matter what.
Plus it's makin us all fatties
"Sandra has a good solid anti-murderer vibe. My skin felt very secure and sufficiently attached to my body when I met her. Also my organs." HAIL SATAN
So, and correct me if I've got it wrong, but we subsidize corn because we already subsidize corn, despite the fact that there are biofuels that could be better served with another crop, and many corn farmers could switch over to sugar instead of HFCS's stupid monopoly on being in everything, but we would *gasp* need to pass something through congress to fix the retarded situation?
The fuck is wrong with everyone.
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
Hey Monroe
You know why everyone jumped down your throat for this post?
Because leaping to an outlandish conclusion based on little to no evidence is the exact opposite of science.
See?
There are some cane sugar sodas in the U.S.
Hanson's for one
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1