Switch to our mobile site

Top Stories

Open letter to readers: Today and tomorrow

By Lynda Waddington | 11.17.11

Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.

ACS lockout continues; plan emerges to repeal sugar protections

crystal_sugar_80
By Virginia Chamlee | 11.15.11

A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.

Cain campaign: Farmers know more about regulations than EPA

hermancain_80x80
By Andrew Duffelmeyer | 11.15.11

The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.

Mathis wins, Democrats maintain Senate control

Liz Mathis
By Lynda Waddington | 11.08.11

The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.

Press Release

PR: Nation should work to address veterans’ challenges

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

BRUCE BRALEY RELEASE — As US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan ends, it’s more important than ever that our nation works to address the challenges faced by the men and women who fought there.

PR: Honoring veterans, help in hiring

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

CHUCK GRASSLEY RELEASE — A difficult job market is challenging the soldiers, sailors and airmen who have protected America’s interests by serving in the Armed Forces.

PR: In honor of America’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

TOM LATHAM RELEASE — No one has done more to secure the freedom enjoyed by every single American than our veterans and those currently serving in the armed services.

PR: Honoring and supporting our nation’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

DAVE LOEBSACK RELEASE — Veterans Day is an opportunity to reflect on the service of generations of veterans and to honor the sacrifices they and their families have made so that we may live in peace and freedom here at home.

Harkin: Food-Fuel Debate Presents False Choice

By Douglas Burns | 05.09.08 | 12:12 pm

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has weighed in on the debate swirling around the economic and moral aspects of using commodities such as corn for fuel when food prices are skyrocketing and millions of people are starving or “food insecure.”Harkin, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said the debate presents a false choice, a myth, as the rise of ethanol facilities is not the culprit with higher food prices and hunger.

“It’s not what we don’t know, it’s what we know that ain’t so,” Harkin said, quoting the humorist Will Rogers, in a conference call with Iowa Independent and other media.

Harkin said input costs for food production such as fertilizer, fuel and distribution are conspiring with higher demand from China and India, as well as the relatively low dollar, to hike prices for consumers.

“You add all those up, that’s what’s causing the high food prices,” Harkin said.

He noted that there is much protein left in corn after it used for ethanol production so it has use with livestock and that the type of corn is different for food products and fuels.

“You really aren’t losing much at all when you make ethanol,” Harkin said.

Comments

  • gotfood?

    ethanol for breakfast, lunch and dinner so if Iowa’s corn vote whores
    oops I mean senators Grassley and Harkin say ethanol is fine then it must be a real winner…

    Why don’t we put all our corn into this stuff?

    that’d show China, India and all the other starvers.

  • gotfood?

    ethanol for breakfast, lunch and dinner so if Iowa's corn vote whores

    oops I mean senators Grassley and Harkin say ethanol is fine then it must be a real winner…

    Why don't we put all our corn into this stuff?

    that'd show China, India and all the other starvers.

  • truthiness

    where did the ethanol hate come from? The United States Congress passed a law that says we can use the agricultural capacity of the mid-west to produce 15 billion gallons of fuel ethanol from corn (about 10% of the 142 billion gallons of gasoline used in the country per year).  Farmers, industry, scientists and entrepenuers have responded and are working to make that happen.

    Produced in the USA.  Renewable.  Ethyl-alcohol, the same as in whiskey except cleaner and pure.  Clean burning.  Ethanol itself is carbon-neutral.  An equivalent amount of carbon will be pulled from the atmosphere by the growing crop as is released from car tail-pipes burning ethanol.  Distillers grains (what's left from corn after making ethanol; 40-45% by weight) is adding to protien available to livestock and ultimately humanity.  Much of this would not be grown in the first place without ethanol demand.

    What's wrong with this picture?  …15 billion gallons at $3.00 per gallon give or take on the retail price.  That's over $45 billion dollars per year farmers and entrepenuers are taking out of Big Oil's pockets.  It's got their attention and “their senators” don't like it.  Stick to your guns Tom and Chuck.

    I got a pretty good idea what it shows Big Oil, but I don't know what it shows the starvers.  If the US government wants to grow crops for the starving masses of the world, we can do that with subsudities and incentives, but that's a completely seperate debate from fuel ethanol.

  • truthLess?

    ethanol hate? it comes from reality The use of food for fuel is because federal laws passed in 2005 and 2007 mandate increased use of ethanol and a 51-cent a gallon federal subsidy to make that use affordable.

    Ethanol is a misguided way for us to consume natural gas, diesel oil, and coal (not to mention a huge volume of water and vast acreage of cropland) to make motor fuels.

    It's not sustainable. Most of the energy content in current biofuels is provided by an ancient biofuel, hidden upstream in the process.

    We do not currently know how to make fresh biofuels without using significant quantities of ancient biofuels.

    <img id=”Yield” style=”left; MARGIN: 10px 10px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand” alt=”" src=”http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/ethanolyield.jpg” border=”0″></img>

    Truthi- admit it, you work for the corn or ethanol lobby? Which is it?

  • truthiness

    No hype – just facts please The phrasing of food and subsidy in the first sentence is propaganda.  The use of corn for fuel ethanol has increased due to 2005 and 2007 laws that mandate increasing use of renewable fuels in the United States.  Call me naive, but I think that's a good idea.  Somehow we've got to level the economic playing field for renewables to compete with fossil fuels.  There are hidden society costs to fossil fuels that aren't being addressed.  I'd perfer a btu tax on fossil fuels, but Congress has chosen a tax credit to renewable blenders.

    Regarding the 2nd and 3rd sentences.  The chemical energy of an ethanol molecule (or biodiesel molecule) is provided by sunlight hitting growing plants(photosynthesis).  If you need a fact check try your 5th grade science textbook.  To process and purify that solar energy into a usable form for transportation fuel, thermal and electrical energy is needed.  An ethanol processing facility does not care where the thermal and electrical energy comes from.  The processing plants' efficienies are increasing precisely because we've got mandates and incentives for people to work on it.  Again, if we had a btu tax on fossil fuels that would entice ethanol facility operators to look beyond coal and natural gas for thermal and electrical energy needs.

    Your graph does not give corn the credit it's due.  It makes less gallons per acre because so much of the corn plant is not currently utilized for ethanol.  It's being used for livestock feed (back to the food discussion).  Using sugarcane, they extract all the fermentables and burn the rest for processing facility thermal energy.  I do not work for the corn loby and I don't care what plant species provides the renewable fuel.  However, I do understand the economics and corn currently returns more total dollars per acre (food & fuel) than anything else.  If Tom and Chuck can keep the naysayers at bay long enough we'll get switchgrass (cellulosic) to work on a large scale.

  • tell us!

    which lobby do u work for? so did you answer the last sentence wherein I asked:

    is it the corn or ethanol lobby that you work for?

  • truthiness

    What's your dog in the discussion? Do you have a stake in this discussion or just someone that feels like repeating sound-bites against renewable fuel?

    I don't work for the corn growers, ethanol, or any lobbyist organization.  Just a concerned mid-westerner that is tired of hearing all the half-truths and innuendo.

    I base my conclusion that renewable fuel is a positive thing on 3 basic assumptions.  If you beleive these assumptions, then everything else is details towards the same goals.

    1.  Fossil fuel is finite and bad for the environment.

    2.  Modern society will require liquid hydrocarbons from renewable resources in ever increasing quantities to maintain living standards.

    3.  We have only scratched the surface of technology in crop genetics, farming technology, and processing technology to address items 1 & 2.  I am optimistic about science.

  • whole Truths only

    Ethanol production continues to increase America's energy consumption You: “1.  Fossil fuel is finite and bad for the environment.”

    But you can't show where ethanol has either reduced dependence on foreign oil nor helped to reduce pollution because it requires more fossil energy to produce than it actually contains, and provides less energy than gasoline.

    Does making “renewable” fuel from grain or plant waste really create any new energy?

    If you can, cite your proof please.

    In other words, I'm saying that more ethanol production will continue to increase America's total energy consumption, not decrease it.

    Let's go back to your position: “1.  Fossil fuel is finite and bad for the environment.”

    But aren't “crop genetics, farming technology, processing technology,” or, for that matter, “science” ALSO finite?

    Or is the infinite supply of energy and crop growth just around the corner?

    Again, if you can, cite your proof please.

    I hope you have an infinite supply of scientific optimism to go with all that– good luck!

    Signed,

    Another Concerned Midwesterner

    (and a realistic one at that)

  • truthiness

    let's both work on the details Still quoting lines from energy studies conducted on overgrown whisky stills from the 1970s rather than modern ethanol production facilities, but I'll dig for the lastest energy balance numbers.  I don't have time today.  If you have time, please check into it and post.

    In general, ethanol and biodiesel have positive energy balances.  The “new” energy is the solar energy absorbed by the growing crop.  Ethanol and biodiesel are the usable storage of that energy.  The “finite” number is the amount of solar radiation that hits a given acre.  Why the renewable fuels standards are so important is pushing science to maximize delivery of that energy to consumers.

    We can work on it now, or pass the buck to future generations.

  • both

    these are the numbers man this is what I find, I'm asking you to disprove the negative impact of ethanol

    I can only find the poor performances of ethanol

    you parry everything but there is no thrust to your arguments

    sorry, I/we don't have the time anymore

  • truthiness

    Thrust http://cta.ornl.gov/…

    http://www.ethanol-g…

    Here's links to a concise 2001 USDA spreadsheet and detailed 2003 USDA report showing the energy balance both with and without co-products.  The answer with co-products was an industry average of 1.67 btu ethanol per btu of corn production and processing.  The industry averages are much better today.

    Renewable fuel production will have large impacts some positive and some negative.  It's a paradigm shift from what the world has known for a hundred years of petroleum.  Perhaps it's not as fun to really look at the data, some legitimate negative impacts, or consider the need, but Congress did and it's called the 2007 Renewable Feuls Standard.

    “…petroleum oil will likely be dominant in my life time, but eventually large engines will be powered with vegetable oil.”  Rudolf Diesel – 1912.

  • whole Truths only

    Ethanol production continues to increase America’s energy consumption You: “1.  Fossil fuel is finite and bad for the environment.”

    But you can’t show where ethanol has either reduced dependence on foreign oil nor helped to reduce pollution because it requires more fossil energy to produce than it actually contains, and provides less energy than gasoline.

    Does making “renewable” fuel from grain or plant waste really create any new energy?

    If you can, cite your proof please.

    In other words, I’m saying that more ethanol production will continue to increase America’s total energy consumption, not decrease it.

    Let’s go back to your position: “1.  Fossil fuel is finite and bad for the environment.”

    But aren’t “crop genetics, farming technology, processing technology,” or, for that matter, “science” ALSO finite?

    Or is the infinite supply of energy and crop growth just around the corner?
    Again, if you can, cite your proof please.


    I hope you have an infinite supply of scientific optimism to go with all that– good luck!

    Signed,

    Another Concerned Midwesterner
    (and a realistic one at that)

  • truthiness

    let’s both work on the details Still quoting lines from energy studies conducted on overgrown whisky stills from the 1970s rather than modern ethanol production facilities, but I’ll dig for the lastest energy balance numbers.  I don’t have time today.  If you have time, please check into it and post.

    In general, ethanol and biodiesel have positive energy balances.  The “new” energy is the solar energy absorbed by the growing crop.  Ethanol and biodiesel are the usable storage of that energy.  The “finite” number is the amount of solar radiation that hits a given acre.  Why the renewable fuels standards are so important is pushing science to maximize delivery of that energy to consumers.

    We can work on it now, or pass the buck to future generations.

  • both

    these are the numbers man this is what I find, I’m asking you to disprove the negative impact of ethanol

    I can only find the poor performances of ethanol

    you parry everything but there is no thrust to your arguments

    sorry, I/we don’t have the time anymore

  • truthiness

    Thrust http://cta.ornl.gov/…

    http://www.ethanol-g…

    Here’s links to a concise 2001 USDA spreadsheet and detailed 2003 USDA report showing the energy balance both with and without co-products.  The answer with co-products was an industry average of 1.67 btu ethanol per btu of corn production and processing.  The industry averages are much better today.

    Renewable fuel production will have large impacts some positive and some negative.  It’s a paradigm shift from what the world has known for a hundred years of petroleum.  Perhaps it’s not as fun to really look at the data, some legitimate negative impacts, or consider the need, but Congress did and it’s called the 2007 Renewable Feuls Standard.

    “…petroleum oil will likely be dominant in my life time, but eventually large engines will be powered with vegetable oil.”  Rudolf Diesel – 1912.

  • truthiness

    where did the ethanol hate come from? The United States Congress passed a law that says we can use the agricultural capacity of the mid-west to produce 15 billion gallons of fuel ethanol from corn (about 10% of the 142 billion gallons of gasoline used in the country per year).  Farmers, industry, scientists and entrepenuers have responded and are working to make that happen.

    Produced in the USA.  Renewable.  Ethyl-alcohol, the same as in whiskey except cleaner and pure.  Clean burning.  Ethanol itself is carbon-neutral.  An equivalent amount of carbon will be pulled from the atmosphere by the growing crop as is released from car tail-pipes burning ethanol.  Distillers grains (what’s left from corn after making ethanol; 40-45% by weight) is adding to protien available to livestock and ultimately humanity.  Much of this would not be grown in the first place without ethanol demand.

    What’s wrong with this picture?  …15 billion gallons at $3.00 per gallon give or take on the retail price.  That’s over $45 billion dollars per year farmers and entrepenuers are taking out of Big Oil’s pockets.  It’s got their attention and “their senators” don’t like it.  Stick to your guns Tom and Chuck.

    I got a pretty good idea what it shows Big Oil, but I don’t know what it shows the starvers.  If the US government wants to grow crops for the starving masses of the world, we can do that with subsudities and incentives, but that’s a completely seperate debate from fuel ethanol.

  • truthLess?

    ethanol hate? it comes from reality The use of food for fuel is because federal laws passed in 2005 and 2007 mandate increased use of ethanol and a 51-cent a gallon federal subsidy to make that use affordable.

    Ethanol is a misguided way for us to consume natural gas, diesel oil, and coal (not to mention a huge volume of water and vast acreage of cropland) to make motor fuels.

    It’s not sustainable. Most of the energy content in current biofuels is provided by an ancient biofuel, hidden upstream in the process.

    We do not currently know how to make fresh biofuels without using significant quantities of ancient biofuels.

    Truthi- admit it, you work for the corn or ethanol lobby? Which is it?

  • truthiness

    No hype – just facts please The phrasing of food and subsidy in the first sentence is propaganda.  The use of corn for fuel ethanol has increased due to 2005 and 2007 laws that mandate increasing use of renewable fuels in the United States.  Call me naive, but I think that’s a good idea.  Somehow we’ve got to level the economic playing field for renewables to compete with fossil fuels.  There are hidden society costs to fossil fuels that aren’t being addressed.  I’d perfer a btu tax on fossil fuels, but Congress has chosen a tax credit to renewable blenders.

    Regarding the 2nd and 3rd sentences.  The chemical energy of an ethanol molecule (or biodiesel molecule) is provided by sunlight hitting growing plants(photosynthesis).  If you need a fact check try your 5th grade science textbook.  To process and purify that solar energy into a usable form for transportation fuel, thermal and electrical energy is needed.  An ethanol processing facility does not care where the thermal and electrical energy comes from.  The processing plants’ efficienies are increasing precisely because we’ve got mandates and incentives for people to work on it.  Again, if we had a btu tax on fossil fuels that would entice ethanol facility operators to look beyond coal and natural gas for thermal and electrical energy needs.

    Your graph does not give corn the credit it’s due.  It makes less gallons per acre because so much of the corn plant is not currently utilized for ethanol.  It’s being used for livestock feed (back to the food discussion).  Using sugarcane, they extract all the fermentables and burn the rest for processing facility thermal energy.  I do not work for the corn loby and I don’t care what plant species provides the renewable fuel.  However, I do understand the economics and corn currently returns more total dollars per acre (food & fuel) than anything else.  If Tom and Chuck can keep the naysayers at bay long enough we’ll get switchgrass (cellulosic) to work on a large scale.

  • tell us!

    which lobby do u work for? so did you answer the last sentence wherein I asked:
    is it the corn or ethanol lobby that you work for?

  • truthiness

    What’s your dog in the discussion? Do you have a stake in this discussion or just someone that feels like repeating sound-bites against renewable fuel?

    I don’t work for the corn growers, ethanol, or any lobbyist organization.  Just a concerned mid-westerner that is tired of hearing all the half-truths and innuendo.

    I base my conclusion that renewable fuel is a positive thing on 3 basic assumptions.  If you beleive these assumptions, then everything else is details towards the same goals.

    1.  Fossil fuel is finite and bad for the environment.
    2.  Modern society will require liquid hydrocarbons from renewable resources in ever increasing quantities to maintain living standards.
    3.  We have only scratched the surface of technology in crop genetics, farming technology, and processing technology to address items 1 & 2.  I am optimistic about science.

Categories & Tags: Agriculture| | | | |

Switch to our mobile site