RE: Message from D. Pimentel
Well, that settles it. The voice of God has spoken and settled the matter for us. His 2003 study claims that Brazil dropped subsidies because ethanol production was ineffective. Yet, ethanol has expanded there, along with ethanol exports doubling recently. Apparently, they found ways to become more efficient. Ain't science wonderful? Also strange? He's associated with Cornell , close to wine country - yet, the notion of increasing ethanol production efficiency by an ice wine technique In a New England climate doesn't occur to him. H. Now, what would be more impressive would be to compare market costs of gasoline BTUs and ethanol BTUs , after subtracting all subsidies for both. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 6:04 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Message from D. Pimentel I wrote to Prof. P.: It must be terribly frustrating for you to hear Bush talk about ethanol in the State of the Union speech. You have my sympathy! He responded: Thanks for your note. It is frustrating and all this is undermining our nation. Darn right. - Jed
RE: Message from D. Pimentel
Zell, Chris wrote: [Pimentel's] 2003 study claims that Brazil dropped subsidies because ethanol production was ineffective. Yet, ethanol has expanded there, along with ethanol exports doubling recently. Yes. As I pointed out last month this industry is built on the backs of slave labor, child labor, terror and stealing productive cropland from peasants. In South America, where millions of people suffer from malnutrition, this industry converts food into fuel, and young people into a pile of broken bodies and corpses. Also they are ravaging the land and the ecology. Apparently, they found ways to become more efficient. Ain't science wonderful? No they do not. They just found a way to trade human lives for fuel. Also strange? He's associated with Cornell , close to wine country - yet, the notion of increasing ethanol production efficiency by an ice wine technique In a New England climate doesn't occur to him. H. Pimentel's co-authors are in California Iowa and elsewhere. His research was performed in the corn growing states. And as I pointed out, even the numbers quoted by industry flacks are dismal. This comment is petulant and sophomoric. You should read his papers carefully and then if you find a technical error, let us know. - Jed
RE: Message from D. Pimentel
-Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 10:32 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Message from D. Pimentel . This comment is petulant and sophomoric. You should read his papers carefully and then if you find a technical error, let us know. His error is his utter lack of imagination, as I point out with the ice wine idea to concentrate alcohol. Countless professors at Cornell can drive past endless miles of unfarmed lands around Ithaca and all of New England - and then publish nonsense about eating up all of Americas farm land and letting the poor starve (which currently seems to be the latest NIMBY argument against biofuel). As for Brazil and the rest - so now ethanol is a human rights issue? You're getting desperate. The difference in ethanol price between Brazil and the US is not so great that it can't reasonably be overcome by further efficiencies that don't involve slave labor ( which usually isn't very productive, anyway).
RE: Message from D. Pimentel
Zell, Chris wrote: As for Brazil and the rest - so now ethanol is a human rights issue? You're getting desperate. Not me; the peasants and children of Brazil are desperate. This has been a human rights issue from the beginning. See: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_food.html (I pointed this out previously in Vortex. Please review the archives.) slave labor ( which usually isn't very productive, anyway). That is true, but it does not matter how productive it is. The people doing this don't give a fig many people they kill in unsafe fieldwork and factories, or starve to death after their cropland is stolen. They want cheap fuel for their Mercedes-Benz cars, and if they could make it from the blood of peasant children, they would. If you doubt that, consider the fact that Americans are perfectly happy to pay billions of dollars for oil to countries like Saudi Arabia, that send hundreds of millions to Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Our gasoline money is being used to slaughter our young men and women in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which we are losing. Given what we are doing, why do you suppose rich people in Brazil would have any qualms about slaughtering peasants for fuel? - Jed
RE: Message from D. Pimentel
-Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 11:48 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Message from D. Pimentel Zell, Chris wrote: As for Brazil and the rest - so now ethanol is a human rights issue? You're getting desperate. Not me; the peasants and children of Brazil are desperate. This has been a human rights issue from the beginning. See: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_food.html Indeed - and the cited reference above seems to soundly disprove the notion that ethanol is responsible. (!!!??) I think US farmers can handle this without a return to slavery.
RE: Message from D. Pimentel
Zell, Chris wrote: I think US farmers can handle this without a return to slavery. Absolutely! They do this by replacing human labor with machinery, energy intense production methods, fertilizer and pesticides. That is why U.S. agriculture is the most efficient in the world, measured in output per man-hour. That is also why it takes them 1.7 units of input energy to produce 1.0 units of ethanol fuel energy. (Or, if you believe the industry flacks, 0.6 to 1.0, which is almost as bad from a practical point of view.) - Jed
RE: Message from D. Pimentel
-Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 3:21 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Message from D. Pimentel Zell, Chris wrote: I think US farmers can handle this without a return to slavery. Absolutely! They do this by replacing human labor with machinery, energy intense production methods, fertilizer and pesticides. All that matters is the price per BTU, without subsidy for either gasoline or ethanol. That is the valid determinant, not the pessimism of prejudiced academics. As to efficiency, studies done of Amish farming showed good profitability during the '70s, when farm failures were commonly reported - despite little use of pesticides or energy intensive methods. Nor does the growth of cellulose necessarily need lots of fertilizer or pesticides compared to other products. - and tractors can run on ethanol, too.
RE: Message from D. Pimentel
Zell, Chris wrote: All that matters is the price per BTU, without subsidy for either gasoline or ethanol. Ah. Well, if we apply that standard the ethanol industry will disappear overnight. It is heavily subsidized directly and indirectly. That is say, farmers are subsidized for growing corn, and then the ethanol industry is subsidized for making the fuel. Back when gasoline cost $0.60 per gallon, ethanol was subsidized directly at $0.87 per gallon. Adjusting for the difference in energy content, and adding in the cost of the horrendous and totally uncontrolled pollution caused by ethanol production, and the cost worked out to be roughly $2.55/gallon. God only knows what it would be now. Basically, ethanol can be viewed as a scheme to rob the taxpayers and wire transfer the money to Saudi Arabia. That is the valid determinant, not the pessimism of prejudiced academics. The academics in this case are the only objective people whose analysis make any sense. If ethanol production made economic sense the government would not have to be subsidizing it for billions of years for decades. (Of course they subsidize all forms of fuel, and they give the most to coal and oil, so without some subsidy it would not survive, but not 75% of the cost!) As to efficiency, studies done of Amish farming showed good profitability during the '70s, when farm failures were commonly reported - despite little use of pesticides or energy intensive methods. That would be economic efficiency. That is a different story. I said that US farmers have the best efficiency measured in man-hours versus output, because they use mechanization and so on. That does not mean they make a profit. On the contrary, if they were not heavily subsidized by the Feds most of them would go out of business. Nor does the growth of cellulose necessarily need lots of fertilizer or pesticides compared to other products. - and tractors can run on ethanol, too. Sure, but no one in the ethanol business runs any of their machines on the stuff. They are not fools. They sell it to the government for four times what is worth, instead. As Pimentel pointed out, if ethanol production made any sense, obviously ethanol factories and tractors would run on the stuff. The fact that they do not tells you all you need to know. Perhaps in the future a breakthrough in something like bioengineering will allow much more efficient production of ethanol. If that is what we are aiming for, we should stop subsidizing present-day production of ethanol with existing methods, and redirect the money to basic research instead. Paying billions to farmers and the owners of obsolete factories today contributes nothing to progress. Those farmers and factory workers are not going to make any breakthroughs in bioengineering. If they could have increased the efficiency with conventional methods they would have done so years ago. - Jed
