Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Why Does Milk Cost More Than Gas?

By Nicholas von Hoffman, The Nation. Posted July 20, 2007.


Our unabated appetite for gas-guzzling cars and the wrongheaded belief that ethanol is the answer means pricey milk for everyone.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Nicholas von Hoffman

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The other day milk was selling in a New England supermarket at $4.79 a gallon. Down the street, regular gasoline was going for about $3.04 a gallon.

One of the factors driving up the cost of milk is the ethanol stampede. Ethanol, as we all have been taught to believe by now, will bring us "energy independence" and lessen global warming with no change in the way we live -- unless we happen to be a small child in a household with a limited budget.

Children from low-income families are either going to have to accustom themselves to drinking gasoline or learn to sing "No Milk Today."

American ethanol is made from corn, and the more corn we use to feed our cars, the more expensive is the corn left over for our livestock. Ergo, "No Milk Today."

If ethanol we must have, we could import it from Brazil, where they can make it cheaper from sugar cane than Americans can make it from corn. But Brazilian ethanol, thanks to the agribusiness lobby and a 54-cent-per-gallon import tariff, is kept out of the country.

Politicians of both parties, mad for winning elections in corn-growing Iowa, do not mention the cheaper Brazilian stuff. Their silence on lesser-cost alternative ethanol sources may help them please Midwestern agribusiness interests and just about nobody else.

But nobody else seems to know that, although it is not for lack of available information. The ethanol fraud has been exposed on mainstream TV on programs like ABC's 20/20.

If ethanol is a failure as a practical short-term gasoline substitute, it is a political success. It will be years before ethanol has even a minor beneficial effect, which matters not to American politicians intent on slow-poking on climate warming, pollution and our ever-constricting energy sources. Kid the voters into thinking something is being done when it is not.

The energy bill gradually making its way through Congress contains a section upping the fuel-economy standards on gasoline-powered vehicles to take full effect when? In the year 2020. As of now cars in Europe and Japan get many more miles to the gallon than cars in America.

The last time the government imposed fuel-efficiency standards on cars was thirty-two years ago. In the intervening generation, car makers have learned to make more energy-efficient engines, but their technical progress has been defeated by making ever-larger automobiles. The Wall Street Journal reports that "models that started out as subcompacts have grown to become more like midsize models. Honda Motor Co.'s Civic CRX, a mid-1980s two-seater of 20 years ago, was 12 feet long and weighed about 1,700 pounds. Today's Civic sedan is nearly three feet longer and weighs about 900 pounds more. Even the smaller Honda Fit, considered almost impossibly small today, is larger than the mid-1980s Civic CRX."

The world is many years away from inventing and deploying oil substitutes. The present American policy of doing nothing until that day comes is short-sighted, idiotic and, ultimately, costly. Instead of making windy speeches about our "oil addiction," our politicians should be at work making sure we use less of the stuff now.

Two measures of immediate effect could be put in place now. The first is to reduce speed limits on roads built with federal dollars. The second is a tax on the horsepower and weight of new cars. This should be an annual tax, not a one-time levy so that only the very rich will find that they can afford to drive overweight gas guzzlers.

Why should the rich get to guzzle gas when the rest of us cannot? Because, as someone once said, the rich are different. But we can also place a ruinous tax on their private airplanes. That ought to make the rest of us feel better even as, at long last, we take effective measures to deal with climate and energy.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gas, biofuel, milk

Nicholas Von Hoffman is a columnist for the New York Observer and is the author, most recently, of "Hoax" (Nation Books, 2004).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Corn Prices Have Little to Do With Rising Food Prices
Posted by: foodandfuelamerica on Jul 20, 2007 2:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please do not fall into the trap of blaming corn, American farmers and ethanol for rising food costs. Energy costs have been shown to be the cost driver.

The amount of corn in most products is minimal and the incremental cost for higher corn costs is even less. In most cases, it's a few pennies per service, per pound or per gallon. And that's only if the cost has been passed along to the consumer.

As for milk, increased demand and limited worldwide supply are to blame. Not the feed costs. In fact, dried distillers grains, a co-product of ethanol, is used to feed livestock. Finally, farmers are pricer takers, not price makers at the market.

Learn more at www.foodandfuelamerica.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Things I find wrong with this article...
Posted by: PirateJesus on Jul 20, 2007 2:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A) I realize milk was meant to be illustrative, but seriously? Milk's subsidized out the wazoo, just like our gas. Not to mention ethanol production and milk production are both rather inefficient (they both require more energy to make than they produce), and we would have more food to feed the hungry if we didn't produce either.

B) Globalization is not the answer here, no matter how much cheaper corn is in Brazil. Many of us are trying to steer away from it right now with the local foods movement. Wasting gas to make more gas is stupid.

C) The writer's solutions to the problem seem vindictive. Farmers that sell at the farmer's market, for instance, can't deal with any more strains on their budgets, generally, and they definately use fairly big vehicles to haul their food around.

Perhaps a tax on jet fuel and the like would be a good idea, as I doubt it would have a regressive effect like a vehicle or gas tax would.

PS I've heard a lot of disinformation both ways, can someone point out some studies as to the actual effects of speed vs gas?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Milk has always cost more than gas Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
4
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jul 20, 2007 3:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rich will always get away with everything. Besides, they're only a small percentage of the population.

The tax on horespower could affect farmers and tradespeople who use big trucks to do their job, so you probably need an exemption for utility/commercial uses.

I'd try to go after the yuppies, rednecks, and soccer moms who are driving those big SUVs, monster trucks, luxury cars, and Hummers. There are a lot of them, and they're burning a lot of gas for no reason. They'll probably whine, stomp, and cry about individual rights, which might be a good time to bring up all the fascist bumper stickers on their gas-guzzlers.

Whatever the case, try to avoid sticking it to the ordinary wage slave again, as they did with emissions gadgets. Now our cars cost more to fix, and we can't fix them ourselves because they're too complicated, not to mention all the inspections and emissions-related repairs we have to pay for to be in compliance...I mean, if you want to be progressive, be progressive.

As for the speed limit, good luck with that. Nobody follows it. And if there were more enforcement to make people follow it, that would mean more cops guzzling gas, and more Big Brother.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» In defense of the rednecks... Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: In defense of the rednecks... Posted by: Illiteratilumen
The truth starts to emerge
Posted by: Derek Maddox on Jul 20, 2007 3:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At first, the environmental movement was crazy for ethanol and other bio-fuels. Going all the way back to the first oil crisis, in the 70's, there were pushes to get ethanol blended fuels into our cars. In fact, many auto manufacturers changed the fuel systems in their cars to accommodate the corrosive effect of ethanol on rubber components. Now that we're seeing increased use of ethanol in our fuel, the arguments start to change.

The last couple of paragraphs of this article reveal the true goal of the environmental movement. They want to use the power of government to force people to live the way environmentalists think they should. In other words, remove the peoples' freedom to choose for themselves.

Any time you have to turn government to force your ideas on folks, you've lost the intellectual argument and have resorted to violence. Which reveals a deep truth about progressives in America. They preach love and peace and freedom, when in actuality they seek only to remove freedom from others under threat of violence, jail, or other onerous penalty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What is 'government'? Posted by: peachmcd
» RE: What is 'government'? Posted by: american
» RE: What is 'government'? Posted by: Derek Maddox
» RE: The truth starts to emerge Posted by: american
» RE: The truth starts to emerge Posted by: goeswithness
Milk is better to drink.
Posted by: Cruella on Jul 20, 2007 4:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why should gas be cheaper than milk? Gas has to be mined, it's extraction destroys environments, it's use pollutes the atmosphere and causes global warming. Milk on the other hand comes from cows and is good to drink. Governments should be taxing gas and subsidising milk (and in the UK they are - sort of).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Milk is NOT good to drink . . . Posted by: socialpsych
» Let's not forget the animals Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: Let's not forget the animals Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: Milk is NOT good to drink . . . Posted by: kellysgarden
Big isn't better
Posted by: packofwolves on Jul 20, 2007 5:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These huge gas guzzling vehicles should be banned. If this country really wanted to do something about the environment and our ever increasing dependence on oil, we'd accept the fact that smaller cars that run more efficiently is a necessity. The automobile companies can make efficient cars that get a lot more miles to the gallon than we get here in the U.S. Even though the electric car had its own problems, they were much more efficient than what we drive now. Do you ever wonder why the electric cars disappeared so suddenly? You can bet it had something to do with greed by large corporations. Greed is the cancer of this earth and it will destroy us. The next time you climb into that huge vehicle of yours, rich or poor, you should think about what your choice is doing to our world. The bigger vehicle doesn't make you any bigger and I frankly don't care if you can afford it, it's a huge waste and that's all I see when you drive by...a greedy pig who wants to show off and at the same time willing to sacrifice the health of our planet to satisfy their own greed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Big isn't better Posted by: kellysgarden
Logic, anyone?...
Posted by: Leman on Jul 20, 2007 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, what was that?!
Let's play a game: go and randomly change "ethanol" to "gays", "liberals" and "welfare queens". Does it suddenly sound like Coulter and O'Reily? Well, maybe I am exaggerating with this comparison a bit, but still - the ratio of propagandist twist to logical reasoning comes pretty close.

Milk is not more expensive because of ethanol - or because of corn, for that matter. It is more expensive because there are not as many cows as needed. And that has more to do with various disease scares than with what those cows eat. The wholesale price of dairy went up sharply in 2003, although the end consumer did not feel it as much for awhile. I did, since back then I invested in a company making dairy products: profit margins disappeared quite abruptly. Now, it finally trickles down to the consumer, that's all.

And what kind of twisted comparison was it, anyway? I do remember time when gasoline was $1 a gallon, while milk was $2. Does anybody remember any point in time (except maybe 1979) when gasoline was more expensive than milk? Why set yourself up for ridicule with such a comparison then?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It already costs more that gas!
Posted by: american on Jul 20, 2007 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been saying this a long time to my freinds. You want to compalin about something, complain about the price of domestically-produced goods. You can get a fine Asian-made DVD player for around $50. It'll last five years. Maybe ten. Good quality American-produced disposable shaving razors are $2 to $3 a piece - in the neighborhood of $1000 a year. That's $5000 in five years, or two orders of magnitude greater than the DVD player. A gallon of gas costs $3. It is non-renewable with a capital "N", comes from miles under the ground, and is shipped half way around the world and it is still only somewhere around $3. Milk is eminently renewable, produced locally on the surface of the earth, not miles under it. For the non-GMO, ethical to sell milk I buy (yet worse than the kind EVERYONE used to get as a birthright in this land) the cost is around $6.50 per gallon. Over twice as much!

Where are the new companies that all of the Bush tax cuts were supposed to create that were to increase employment and lower prices?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It already costs more that gas! Posted by: eddie torres
Farmers
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 20, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I notice that nobody bothered to ask how much the farmers
are getting for the milk. Is it up to a dime a gallon yet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ethanol is the -- New Hydrogen
Posted by: wmGreybeard on Jul 20, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
General Motors has claimed for thirty years or more that the hydrogen economy was just around the corner...... There are so many serious problems with hydrogen that any competent scientist should know that it will never be a practical fuel for transportation.

Both fuels require more energy to produce than they deliver;; this fact alone should end their consideration for use as transportation fuel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Looking for a quick fix
Posted by: Mamarianne on Jul 20, 2007 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The dream of fueling cars from crops fades in the light of reality. That is why the milk to gasoline comparison is so useful. I believe that the government's role in saving fuel should not be in supplementing fuel-quick schemes or in imposing rules on automakers (that's what the free market is for). The government's role should be in supporting and improving mass transportation-- making it much more possible for people to get to work without driving cars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

b fearn
Posted by: fearn on Jul 20, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the comments indicate that the cost of gasoline in America is around $3 a gallon. It is actually about $15 a gallon.
http://www.icta.org/press/release.cfm?news_id=12
You can't reasonably discuss something if your basic facts are way off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who cares?
Posted by: Boomerang on Jul 20, 2007 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't buy 15 gallons of milk per week, and neither does any American family. In a given week, I use one, sometimes 1.5 gallons of milk. Cereal, oatmeal, and sometimes a glass before bed. This is a stupid issue to even be raising. It's utterly unimportant. Someone who can't afford a gallon or two of milk per week probably has a lot bigger problems than a calcium deficit. If you're seriously having your finances strained by the cost of milk, your problem isn't milk, it's that you're working for next to nothing.

This is just whining over a tiny, nonexistent problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who cares? Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Dangers of government intervention in business and agriculture.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jul 20, 2007 8:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read the story in the Washington Post of Hein Hettiga who found a "loop hole" in the government/milk-monopoly regulations and price-fixing that is costing the American people dearly (over-priced milk, genetically modified milk, over homogenised milk, etc.) Even with the over-regulation of American businesses (usually to serve the corporations and not to protect the consumers) people try to find a way to make a living.....
linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Two key quotes Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Two key quotes Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Dangers of government intervention in business and agriculture.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jul 20, 2007 8:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read the story in the Washington Post of Hein Hettiga who found a "loop hole" in the government/milk-monopoly regulations and price-fixing that is costing the American people dearly (over-priced milk, genetically modified milk, over homogenised milk, etc.) Even with the over-regulation of American businesses (usually to serve the corporations and not to protect the consumers) people try to find a way to make a living.....
linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dangers of government intervention in business and agriculture.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jul 20, 2007 8:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read the story in the Washington Post of Hein Hettiga who found a "loop hole" in the government/milk-monopoly regulations and price-fixing that is costing the American people dearly (over-priced milk, genetically modified milk, over homogenised milk, etc.) Even with the over-regulation of American businesses (usually to serve the corporations and not to protect the consumers) people try to find a way to make a living.....
linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dairy farmers in crisis
Posted by: Farm Bill Girl on Jul 20, 2007 9:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is so wrong headed and I'm embarrassed it would be posted by someone who is a supposed progressive but is spouting off talking points from the American Meat Institute.

Family farmers everywhere are suffering. They're virtually extinct. And why? because of low commodity prices that never meet their costs of production. Now that corn farmers are finally getting a somewhat fairer price ($4 as opposed to $2--the price of corn in the 1970s!), the factory farms and food processors bitch about costs going up. Consumers, unaware of who really holds the pricing power in this country (it's not the farmer), have bought into this.

Dairy farmers are in a total crisis in the US, particularly in New England. Last year, they received $13 per hundredweight of milk when their costs had spiraled more around $23 cwt. many have gone out of business, taking with them their beautiful landscape and barns, and in their place, replaced by McMansions/Sprawl/development. Meanwhile, Factory farm CAFOs, with their rGBH-hormone ridden cows, have taken the place of diversified family farmers.

The low prices farmers receive stems in large part due to the corporate consolidation of the dairy industry, which is dominated by Dean Foods (processor) and Dairy Farmers of America (a coopt that's support to represent producers, but is bascially operates like a corporation and screws it's members). they control much of the milk market. the corruption in the dairy industry is akin to Enron.

So please, put the blame where it belongs: not on high corn prices, ethanol, or dairy farmers, but on agribusiness and their control of the markets.

and for consumers complaining about the high costs, maybe when we're all drinking milk from China and India, and all our rural landscapes do not exist anymore and all our water has been polluted by factory dairy farms, $5 milk won't seem like too big a price to pay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Give up on ethanol
Posted by: pre-emptive impeachment on Jul 20, 2007 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, as for milk I remember a few years ago the price regulations were lifted on dairy production, ever since then milk prices have shot up. If I remember right it's been on the order of $1 a gallon here.

Thermal solar (not photovoltaic) and wind tied to an 'electric economy' will solve almost all of the energy problems. Research on electric cars show they are a reality now. One company out of phoenix will be releasing an electric SUV- 250 mile range, capable of full recharge in 15 minutes, and acceptable performance of 0-60 in 8-10 seconds and max speed of 110mph. Price tag of $45,000, but with mass production a significant cost reduction can be achieved. If people, but more so the government (since they don't seem to give a shit what the people want), really wanted this they could subsidize it, further reducing prices, however I'm pretty sure big oil won't let it happen.

In general most, but not all, machines can run on electricity- cars, furnaces, stoves, trains, and so on. By using wind and solar, we have a virtually unlimited, clean supply of power to meet the theoretical heightened demands.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corn for our livestock
Posted by: quahog on Jul 20, 2007 10:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article reads "the more corn we use to feed our cars, the more expensive is the corn left over to feed our livestock." While true, why don't we just feed our cows GRASS, which is what they are supposed to eat, not corn?! Cows that eat corn-based diets aren't healthy. I agree that the ethanol "solution" isn't a solution. It is myopic to think that running our cars on corn will solve our problems; what about the increasing acreage of monocrop corn? This is not environmentally sustainable and is, therefore, just a different problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Corn for our livestock Posted by: Jarmadi
grotesque
Posted by: A. James on Jul 20, 2007 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i wonder if our author has any self-awareness as he writes this piece. he complains bitterly about the effect of corn ethanol on the food chain here...and then implies that this effect could be mitigated by shifting the burden elsewhere. it's brilliant! who cares if the brazilians don't have enough acreage left over to manage subsistance farming, or if sugar cane eats up new jersey-sized chunks of the rainforest in the blink of an eye? WE GET OUR ETHANOL CHEAPER!!!
can we please shift the dialogue to address the real culprit, namely our own consumption? everything else is window dressing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bigger isn't always better--unless everyone is driving a tank and you have a kiddie car.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 20, 2007 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During the Renaissance, cities in Europe competed in building the tallest church steeple. It was a time of ostentation. Compared to our times, such conspicuousness is paltry.

In England as I recall, the gothic style of church masonry finally let go, and the tallest crumbled into pieces.

We continue to push the envelope. Our bible is the Guinness Book of Records. We wait for tragedy to show us that we have too little respect for limits. Our conspicuous consumption of oversized vehicles witnesses to the childishness of our species.

However, the alternative for “taking it to the limit” is to trust experts and government regulators—if you can stop their arguing long enough to get them to listen. LOL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Bush Parcel of Lies
Posted by: vkobaya on Jul 20, 2007 11:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right! Right! Right! After all cows die if fed wheat, oats, barley, rye, or grass. Those are, of course, deadly poison to cows. Cows must eat corn or they suffer agonizing deaths. Cows evolved thousands and thousands of years ago in Africa to eat corn and nothing else. Cows must have corn. No corn, no cows. After all, the Bush administration never, never, never lies to us.

Then, also there are the massive factory farms in California that produce so much milk (subsidized) that it isn't even surplus, the milk is dumped in the ocean, down drains or into cesspools of rotting milk. So much milk is dumped that it is a major polution problem. There is no shortage of milk or dairy cows.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Biofuels are Hooeey
Posted by: vkobaya on Jul 20, 2007 11:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Biofuels are a fraud. First off, takes as much more more energy to grow biofuels as the energy that is produced. Most caluclations show it breaks even, but fail to take into account thermodynamics which says that energy transactions are less than 33% efficient. That is, it takes 3 times as much energy as it produces.

Second, to get the equivalent amount of energy, you must burn the equivalent amount of biofuel and produce the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide. It is just as damaging to the atmosphere as burning petroleum products.

Third, Bush is a fratboy punk and would never, never, never promote anything that was good for the nation. Why doesn't he promote wood alcohol, or ethanol fermented from other grains, wheat, rye, rice, oats, etc. Because corn is the most expensive of all the grains, most costly to produce, etc. Thus alcohol is the biggest screwover he can come up with. Other grains ferment as easily as corn to produce alcohol and are far less costly to grow per equivalent amount of alcohol. As Brazil has shown, ethanol can be produced from sugar cane, so why not sugar beets which grow in this nation. Potatoes can also be fermented. But, of course, Bush will not allow anything but corn to be used to produce ethanol because corn is the most expenisve of our starchy produce.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get a Goat.
Posted by: WitchyNy on Jul 20, 2007 12:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She will eat your weeds, and give you fresh milk that has never touched plastic. You can make Goat milk cheese, goat milk soap, manure for your vegetable garden. You only need to breed a home pet goat every two years or less.

Or you can get a Jersey cow. They are small and gentle.
You will not have to worry about where you milk came from or how fresh it is. You will know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Get a Goat. Posted by: Sushi
» Sushi- Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Get a Goat. Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Get a Goat. Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Re:: Corn for our livestock_-- Beef cows are a cancer on the land
Posted by: wmGreybeard on Jul 20, 2007 12:19 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The American Bison should replace beef cows on all the prairie lands. Let our Native Americans have first choice in tending for them. Buffalo meat is much healthy than beef. And the American Bison can survive winters that would kill any domestic cow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bye Bye Chief Posted by: edith
» Shame on you edith. Posted by: WitchyNy
BIO-FUELS
Posted by: cubfan1937 on Jul 20, 2007 12:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Folks you've missed the point. The qustion is what fuel to use. The answer is: None of the above. If we intend to solve the problem, we need to stop burning anything for our enegy needs, and stop squandering al our resources on the MIC and concentrate on direct solar conversion for all of our electricity. When we achieve a cost effective system we can make current in situ and close all the power plants and salvage the distribution materials and electric meters will be moot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brazilian corn/ethenol isn't the answer
Posted by: vangogh69 on Jul 20, 2007 2:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With global warming a huge issue now (arguably the most important issue facing humanity right now), I fail to see how getting Brazil to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by producing corn/ethenol to feed the whims of the first world (US) is anything but shortsighted. Maybe if the price of milk continues to go up, people will drink less of it, which may be a GOOD THING!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rinky-Dink States Helped as Governement Props Up the Price of Milk
Posted by: sofla100 on Jul 20, 2007 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Government price supports and regulations prop up the price of milk:

http://www.freetrade.org/node/702

Although I generally do not support so-called "free trade," it is evident that big agribusiness mostly benefits from government intervention in the market when it comes to milk prices. Therefore, to decrease the price of milk, return milk prices to the same "market forces" that the USA so often seems to speak "so reverently" about.

Unfortunately, political power in the USA is too narrowly concentrated in the so-called "farm states." That being because the US Constitution gives 2 Senators to every state, no matter what the population. So, when it's an industry concentrated in a few large states, like automobiles in Michigan or computers in California, their ax will get gored when it comes to "free trade." However, when it's something like milk which mostly comes from rinky-dink (by population) states, they end up being protected. That is, it is the wealthy agri-business companies in the small states that put these sames Senators in power that are protected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Because Milk gives you gas.......
Posted by: MSharp on Jul 20, 2007 7:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.......hard to digest for us lactose-intolerant folks.
Hard for me because I'm a breast man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's some info posted elsewhere...not verified by me....
Posted by: gellero on Jul 20, 2007 11:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One tonne of dry biomass on an energy basis is about the same as two barrels of oil. Another pithy fact is that one needs to be able to brew beer at $2.50 per keg in order to compete on an energy basis with gasoline. The last factoid is easy to see. A keg is about 60 liters and at 5% this is three (3) liters of ethanol. Ethanol has about 2/3 the energy of gasoline.

We seldom see these issues described in a compact form. I keep seeing terms like "Ethanol is an oxygenated fuel". In fact it is a partially oxidized fuel which is why it carries considerably less energy than say gasoline or diesel. Liquid motor fuels are for the most part Alkanes and have a chemical formula of CnH(2n+2). Ethanol is an alcohol which has an OH tacked on to an alkane. Ethanol is C2H5OH which is a partially oxidized propane. The oxygen makes it liquid hence relatively safe and easy to transport. Methanol is partially oxidized methane: CH3OH.

Hence it is immediately clear that if we had a large supply of propane then the shortest chemical route to produce ethanol would be from the gas - not from sugar or starch and certainly not from cellulose or other plant matter... except for one thing. The biologic source is renewable. The geological source as best we know is not renewable.

Now the thing that is not emphasized in these discussions is that every gallon of ethanol produced from starch will come out of someone's mouth. It might not be your mouth or mine - it might be a pig's mouth or a chicken's mouth but it will be someone or something currently in the food chain who will have to give up their source of food in order for us to feed our cars.

This is obvious. We do not have a HUGE amount of excess agricultural capacity and we also do not have huge piles of unused grain hanging around. Hence it is clear that we eat what we produce and there is little long term surplus.

The world consumes about 82-84 million barrels of oil per day. This can be found in the BP statistical oil review - there are other sources but this is a very good one. North America consumes about 24-25 million barrels per day if you include Canada.

I share the opinions of those who say we are probably at the world peak of oil production. We will probably stay near this peak for a couple years more. On the news two days ago was an EIA forecast that world consumption is forecast to grow by another 2 million barrels per day next year and that OPEC is expected to step up to the plate. I laughed. I expect that OPEC production will be flat and that the forecast demand will simply drive the price up until the demand is destroyed. Mathew Simmons says it could take over $300 per barrel to destroy the demand. I don't know if I believe what Simmons says will happen before 2015 but I do have a great deal of respect for him. He could very well be right.

Now the issue of cellulostic ethanol. Probably this makes some sense. But you still need to collect and transport a tonne of organic matter to the ethanol plant in order to create the equivalent on an energy bassis of two (2) barrels of oil. Then this material has to be converted at 100% efficiency into ethanol and at zero (0%) cost.... and it has to be 100% convertable into ethanol.

Other alternatives are coal liquifaction and coal gasification to create a hydrogen source for the development of synthetic crude.

As I see it - the ONLY way that make sense is synthetic crude.

We are doing this in Alberta at the tar sands. We are expecting to ramp up production into the 3.3 million barrel per day level by 2015. The problem is that by 2015 if world oil peaks between now and 2010 for instance then we can lose conventional production at a rate of 10% per year on a production base of say 84 million barrels at peak - and this compounds annually... it is an exponential function.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More
Posted by: gellero on Jul 20, 2007 11:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without nuclear power to create a source of hydrogen we either have to discard literally 1/2 of the carbon we mine or we have to use a chemical process such as Fischer Tropche to obtain the hydrogen from water. This releases about 1/6 of the mined carbon as Carbon dioxide which means that by the time Alberta produces liquid motor fuels at a rate approaching say 5 million barrels per day then we will be producing a stream of liquid CO2 measured in the millions of barrels per day. If we can capture this then we can use it for miscable floods and gain new life in some of our declining oil fields. Note these numbers include zero allowance for the energy required to mine and process anything.

However - I still think the answer is to use nuclear energy to create the hydrogen source because with hydrogen we don't need to create any CO2. In order to do this we will need to build at least 75 nuclear reactors in the GIGAWATT range. Even doing this we make only a drop of a difference in the energy crisis I see coming in the next few years.

Ethanol from starch is certainly NOT the answer. Farmers like it because it will drive up corn prices. I do NOT like it because it has to come out of someone or somethings mouth and the mouth might be owned by a small child in the 3rd world. I rather expect this is the case in fact.

Ethanol from cellulose is a little tricker. Yes - it can be a good source. But we still have the pentosans and lignans which the present micology (Trichoderma verdi) does not digest. What we do not know is what happens to the land as we divert the plant material that is normally returned to the land. IE for instance: What happens to the soil structure if we only take and take and take.

My background is agricultural first. I know about soil maintanance and I do know that we have been mining the soil for decades now and as a result much of our agricultural land is in rather bad shape. I suspect that if we try to produce all of our liquid fuels from dry plant matter that this will have a very negative impact on our land. However we can minimize this through crops like Hemp.

I think HEMP -> ethanol should be considered first and forget corn and stover.


World corn production is about 475 million tonnes of which the USA produces about 200 million.

You can get about 10 liters max of ethanol from the starch in a bushel of corn which weighs 56 lbs. 2000/56 = 35 bushes * 10 = 350 liters per tonne.

Ethanol has about 17,000 btu per gallon verses gasoline at 27,000. This is about 2/3.

There are about 158 liters in a petroleum barrel. So the ethanol barrel equivalent of the starch in the the world's corn crop is:

475*350/158*17/27 = 662 million barrels.

For the USA... they burn about 22 million barrels of oil per day.

200*350/158*17/27 = 279 million barrels.

279 / 22 = 12.7 days. If the USA gives up 100% of its corn crop they can feed their cars for 2 weeks.

Offsetting this we get the brewers grains which are high in protein but lack the starches since we converted them.

Since this is only 4% approximately and I have not even considered the energy required to run these plants and haul the stuff around - I think it is rather foolish to give up potentially 100% of the corn crop for 4% of the fuel required. This simply not even within the ballpark of making sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More Posted by: Leadbyexample