Now
Fair
79°
High
86°
Low
65°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Ethanol skeptic sees painful realities ahead

Comments 42 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY ART HOVEY / Lincoln Journal Star

Thursday, Nov 30, 2006 - 12:07:16 am CST

What he can’t see coming from his seventh-floor office window in downtown Lincoln, Doug Carper can usually piece together on the four, super-sized computer screens at his desk.

Having pored over all the charts and graphics, and having weighed the numbers against his many years as an agricultural commodities broker, the 56-year-old Carper sees trouble coming for Nebraska’s ethanol industry.

He sees more of the same for much of the agricultural economy that supports ethanol.

Story Photo
Douglas Carper, president of commodity trading company DEC Capital inc., thinks ethanol doesn't offer the benefits purported. (William Lauer)

“I’m not posturing. I have no agenda,” Carper said in a Tuesday interview in his office. “I see trouble looming here in the American heartland and a lot of good, well-intentioned people facing some terrible and ruinous losses.”

His sense of trepidation may seem completely at odds with recent reality.

Expansion in the ethanol industry in Nebraska is proceeding at an unprecedented pace. Corn prices are rising. Congress seems poised to expand its mandate of renewable fuels.

But circumstances that lead others to conclude there’s money to be made by aggressive investment have Carper thumping his desk so hard pens leap in the air.

“For what constructive purpose are we disrupting agriculture in this manner?” he asked. “For what constructive purpose have we embarked on this dangerous public policy initiative?”

As far as Carper is concerned, there is no constructive purpose to putting so much emphasis on ethanol as an answer to shrinking energy resources.

Even if every bushel of corn in the United States were turned into ethanol, it wouldn’t make much of a dent in overseas oil dependence, he said.

“It’s a delusion that somehow we are solving the country’s energy needs when, in fact, at the extreme, ethanol could never be a substantial solution to the nation’s energy requirement. It’s patently wrong and absurd to think we can.”

Beyond that, he sees so much emphasis on ethanol leading to higher food prices. He sees what he called a tremendous negative effect on the state’s cattle feeders, possible disruption in the food distribution system and some substantial portion of new ethanol plants failing to make a go of it as profit margins inevitably narrow.

How sure is he he’s right about that last point?

“As sure as I can be that poorly capitalized, shakily managed companies almost always have a fairly high fatality rate.”

With politicians of every political stripe singing ethanol’s praises, Carper knows how hard it is to make criticism heard. Maybe that’s why his voice tends to rise in volume as he refers to what he describes as “the realization phase” and replies to questions that call for some detail.

“We’re going to need the largest year-to-year increase in corn production,” he said.

“We’ve never shifted more than 3 million acres in history. And we’re going to need 6 or 7 million, if not 10 million acres, this (next) year.”

Furthermore, counting so heavily on ethanol as an energy answer leaves no room for a poor crop, he said.

“You can only imagine that the job next year becomes even more difficult, because we continue to ramp up. ... We’re simply raising the bar and raising it every year.”

Nebraska will pay a price in increased irrigation consumption, in removal of erodible acres from the Conservation Reserve Program, and in less obvious ways, he said.

“Farmers are good stewards of the land,” he said, “but money talks.”

At distant points that count on the United States for corn exports, hunger will be a result of what he describes as a food or fuel fight.

“You won’t go hungry. I won’t go hungry. But somebody will go hungry.”

Don Hutchens, executive director of the Nebraska Corn Board, sees no reason, so far, to worry about ethanol causing corn producers to fall behind in efforts to keep up with the state’s corn demand.

“If we look into what we know is under construction in Nebraska today and at the picture as it might look in three years, I’m not very nervous about that aspect,” Hutchens said.

Nebraska exports about 420 million bushels of corn per year, he said. More ethanol means more value added to a product that stays at home.

“I think, economically, we become much better off than to load it on a rail car to the international marketplace or to another domestic location.”

What about hunger in far-off places? Hutchens answered with another question: “Is it the responsibility of the Nebraska corn farmer to keep prices as low as he possibly can so no one in the world has food availability issues?”

Back at Carper’s office, a much more skeptical ethanol watcher cites “the most bullet-proof scheme that any lobbying group ever devised in such a short period of time.”

And he said he’s not vulnerable to accusations of occupational ax grinding.

For whatever influence ethanol may have on grain trading, he’s out of that business now and into managing other people’s money.

But his previous occupation, which he took up at age 22, gives him some historical frame of reference on remarkable and uncertain times for the nation’s ethanol-energy connection.

“We’re really embarking on uncharted territory,” he said. “In all the years I’ve been trading, I’ve never seen anything like it.”

Reach Art Hovey at (402) 523-4949 or ahovey@alltel.net.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
amen wrote on November 30, 2006 5:38 am:
" It's about time someone spoke the truth. Ethanol was a joke at cheap corn prices, now with prices doubled it is beyond ludicrous. We mandate it, we subsidize it, and Archers Daniel's and the Corn Growers Asso. champions it. Farmers are not the stewards anymore, they will sellout their own children and grandchildren for a few more dollars. "

 Changing times wrote on November 30, 2006 6:01 am:
" My Grandfather had one of the very first automobiles in Furnas County a little over 100 years ago. Most folks told him he was crazy, foolhardy and was likely to kill himself and everyone around him. He didn't kill himself, or anyone else either. There are a few more cars there now. Maybe Mr. Carper is right. There is, however, only one way to find out. When opportunity knocks, only a fool doesn't open the door. This country has to find a way to get away from foreign oil and we have to start somewhere, don't we? "

 jerome wrote on November 30, 2006 6:37 am:
" What he fails to mention is the amount of groundwater a ethanol plant takes. I have read each ethanol plant uses 800-2000 gals per minute. Without lots of rain how is this going to be replaced. Have the government and the stewards of the land thought about that. If the plants don't make it, the aquafier still will be low. "

 amazed wrote on November 30, 2006 7:09 am:
" Isn't it interesting that those who work closely with something like ethonal see the benefits and those that work with grain see problems, while the farmer still has the bottom line to consider. Uncharted territory is what this country is all about. So should the farmers settle for low prices and gov't. supports or should they seek out avenues in capatialism that makes them money? It seems reasonable that most if not all are in anything for a profit. As to whether or not ethanol will make a dent in foreign oil or not, this has yet to be seen. We could have a large oil find in the United States off shore, or we could find another way to produce ethonal from other elements utilizing the same equipment we have today. Naturally commodity brokers will be concerned as the old ways of doing business are becoming more and more difficult and trading is starting to take on real meaning and diversity, and in my opinion anyone utilizing diversity or should I say finding different ways of increasing their income is only smart business. I see no real problem with it anyway, as even if it doesn't work to have ethonal, auto makers and energy producers will need to find better and more efficient ways to create products that will benefit populations of people. We really need to get atomic energy back on the table and electic cars should be studied more and created because some of the energy from movement of an automobile could be and should be channeled into producing its own energy. Just as wind energy has potential. The article seems to be rather peculiar as it really doesn't say what the answer to this senerio should be. "

 WCG wrote on November 30, 2006 7:10 am:
" The "benefits" of ethanol have nothing to do with energy security or the environment. Few ethanol backers care about those things - and certainly no Nebraska politicians. Ethanol is just a scheme to make money - a scheme by corn-growers and everyone else who's jumping on the ethanol bandwagon - and government subsidies are the only reason even that is feasible. In the short-term, some people will make money from ethanol. In the long-term,... well, who cares about the long-term, right? Just remember that booms can bust. In fact, booms inevitably end in a bust, so many people will end up hurt (not to mention the lack of real policies for energy security and environmental protection, or the waste of our taxes). "

 Ricky wrote on November 30, 2006 7:34 am:
" Its amamzing how the media has to go out of their way to always find SOMEONE who finds a problem with any solution. Brazil seems to be doing OK with their energy program. But of course, let the evil USA try something similar and the press will trot out someone to give us visions of doomsday. It would be nice if the media would report on a REALISTIC AND VIABLE solution to anything rather than constantly telling us how bad things are. "

 hempster wrote on November 30, 2006 7:39 am:
" solution; like every other industrial nation earth we should be looking at industrial hemp. Iogen in canada has nothing but praise with its capacity to produce 10 times the net energy / acre as corn. We need a giant scalple to remove that ear of corn that seems to be taking the place of the gray matter between our polititions ears. Another victim of the drug war-energy independence. Corn farmers push on with the total nitrification of our drinking water. It didn't have to be. "

 Mike in DC wrote on November 30, 2006 7:55 am:
" Very good points that need to be heeded. But, I think there is a place for ethanol production in the cadre of fuels, as it can be blended and used for many purposes. However, I do think its foolish to rely on corn long term, when Nebraska scientist talk about how other crops, noting switchgrass, can produce more ethanol per acre than corn--and the kicker? It DOESN'T have to be irrigated. So its BEYOND my understanding why there isn't more interest from the NRDs and agricultural interest (i.e. farmers, coops, ethanol plants) in this in areas where we are already fighting over water in a very serious way. A single farmer is beholden to the demand side (currently corn, from the ethanol plant management), while a consortium can CREATE the demand (for the raw material). "

 Finally wrote on November 30, 2006 8:35 am:
" Finally someone is speaking some truth about ethanol. It is not a sustainable solution to our oil dependence, nor does it do anything to actually protect our land and water resources. Obviously Don Hutchens cannot see the connection between increases in corn production and significant decreases in groundwater and river levels. "

 R Bruce wrote on November 30, 2006 8:35 am:
" No question corn ethanol can't ease the fuel burden alone - but how about planting a hybrid sugar beet on some or all of the millions of tobacco acres - don't talk about what can't be done until you can provide a convincing argument about how Brazil's solution is flawed. Warning that the sky is falling because the corn industry will see some impacts just doesn't cover the nut. "

 Gas buyer wrote on November 30, 2006 8:56 am:
" Why can't we start growing a hybrid sugar beet such as Brazil did to supply a product for their fuel ethanol. A Country like Brazil can come up with this idea for a fuel source. Why can't our great country with the technology and advancement in science do the same? Oh is it that our big oil companies have gotten to our politicians? It's time to get away fro foreign oil dependence and start being more independent. "

 Ben Thar wrote on November 30, 2006 9:13 am:
" I agree with the gentleman, this is like the rush to plant wheat on every acre possible back in the 1920's. It brought about massive soil errosion and a glut of wheat on the market, that drove the prices down to nothing. It became dry and the top soil blew away by tons in the resulting dust storms. Ethanol can not survive in the market place without a major subsidy for each gallon produced from the government. Can we afford to write out additional millions in subsidies from the tax payers? Everyone complains about taxes, are they willing to shell out additional millions for another feel good project of dubious value? The get rich quick boys want to get in early and make a pot full of money at your expense before the inevitable crash, when the real costs come to light. I don't worry about starving people in Africa, there is a food glut in the world right now, and those poor flolks are starving durring this time of plenty. Why you ask? Simple, the gangsters with the guns sell the food that caring people supply. Can't be, impossible you say. The UN is there you say. It is to laugh. Let me ask one question. How does a country or countries, that have no economy for the last 10 or more years, purchase arms in a cash and carry market, and arm itself to the teeth with modern weapons, to wage war on its neighbors and its citizens? It takes very little logic to ascertain the answer to that one. The real loser in the ethonal scheme is you, the tax payer! The US government gets its funds for subsidies from "YOU!" "

 Curt wrote on November 30, 2006 9:14 am:
" It is good to read mostly reasonable responses to a serious, actual news story. Mr. Hovey has done a good, thoughtful job reporting facts not imagined speculation. "

 Manny wrote on November 30, 2006 9:16 am:
" Our shrinking energy resources are because of guys like Carper. While it is good to see businessmen talking about the downside of ethanol, and I think he is right, what is his solution? I checked out his house on the Lancaster Co. Assessor...a $600,000 plus home with his SUV sitting in the driveway. Nice. "

 Ted wrote on November 30, 2006 9:21 am:
" WOW!! Change is BAD. The sky is falling. This guy is "nebraskan" through and through. Maybe he will join in the race for Lincoln's new mayor. "

 SJH wrote on November 30, 2006 9:26 am:
" Mr. Carper raises important questions, especially regarding the longterm sustainability of irrigation on the Great Plains. Very likely switchgrass will pencil out better, one day, as a source of celluose. Some observers are now suggesting that the ethanol industry may in fact be over-building and will suffer stranded costs for their trouble. Nevertheless, biofuels WILL be a part of the mix as we seek a sane energy policy. And in the present, ethanol blends improve air quality and offer ag producers modest premiums on farm gate prices, helping to sustain rural economies across this region. Former commodity trader Mr. Carper seems predictably intent on maintaining overproduction of corn, and he mistakenly says that ethanol production means increased hunger in the world. The truth is virtually NO US corn is used to feed people at risk of hunger--most goes to livestock production and corn sweeteners. Porkchops and hamburger do NOT go down in price when corn is cheap--the processors (and their investors, whose money Mr. Carper manages) benefit, but farmers and consumers do not. Likewise, the modest price gains created by ethanol usage of the corn crop should have very little effect on retail food price, if markets were transparent or fair and processors did not take ALL the profit. "

 Remember wrote on November 30, 2006 9:29 am:
" Congratulations on finding a person who has the courage to talk about the dark side of the ethanol craze. Not many are old enough to remember the controversy called the "military/industrial complex", where the defense department was in bed with the industries that produced materials needed by the defense department? There was a huge outcry about the deception that took place,and probably still does. For want of a better term, I will call the modern day equivalent in the energy area the "government/ethanol industry complex". A complex that does everything it can to blindly promote ethanol while keeping the real and long term issues of ethanol use and production under the table. How long will it be before every little town in Nebraska has a huge ethanol plant subsidized by the taxpayer? Will there be one at Sweetwater some day? Why not. "

 Chris wrote on November 30, 2006 9:29 am:
" Brazil's ethanol scheme works because they live in a tropical climate. Tropical climates produce more biomass/acre compared to here. "

 Fuzzy WazHe wrote on November 30, 2006 9:35 am:
" Switch grass, sugar beets...other genetically engineered botanics offer relief from corn mania...the governor just isn't leading, he is following and caught up in a fantasy. "

 Dm wrote on November 30, 2006 9:37 am:
" uncharted territory, Others before us have gone into the unknown. Thankfully the world wasn't square.... "

 Right on wrote on November 30, 2006 9:44 am:
" Only in Nebraska do they put all their eggs in one basket - - CORN. They refuse to build industry, yet want and do live in luxuary, over spending, while the homeless and poor only get poorer. I agree with the article. Already bakeries in other states are raising their prices for bread 5% and corn sweetner. It will continue, as corn is sold to ethonal plants for bigger and better prices, making the food industry suffer. More corn production means more fuel to produce, and more water, one thing Nebraska doesn't have. Heineman is waving his yippee flag for, see what I've done, and he has no clue. Once the cost of food goes up it never comes down, which means more and more hungry people, something Nebraska and Lincoln seem to already have too many of for its size. But again Lincoln is "designed" for the college educated and rich, at least those few who stay in the state after graduation. "

 Monroe 56 wrote on November 30, 2006 9:58 am:
" IMO Ethanol production is pure wasted effort and energy. 15% water in shell corn contains 7000 btu's of energy per pound, and 15% shell corn weighs 56 Lbs per bushel. That is 392,000 Btu's per Bushel. Now according to the USDA a bushel of 15% corn should yield 2.68 gallons of ethanol, and ethanol contains 14,000 Btu's per pound and weighs 6.59 Lbs per gallon. That means that a bushel of corn will yield 247,000 Btu’s of ethanol. Why not simply burn the corn in a corn burner for home heating in place of NG or propane, and you can also save the NG used in the ethanol distillation process. The 392,000 Btu’s of home heating energy used in place of NG + the NG used for processing could in turn be used as transportation fuel. Switch grass, cornstalks, wood chips, corncobs, could all be palletized and burned in corn burners, Why try to convert all that stuff to ethanol? Just use the propane and NG it saves as motor fuel. In the mean time we should be developing solar electricity sources. They must replace the propane and NG used for transport before the fossils run out. After all the sun “is” the sole source of energy. "

 Change of Thinking wrote on November 30, 2006 10:01 am:
" The U.S. needs to start raising the CAFE standards and get Detroit to start raising the MPG of their fleets. Slowing the rate of energy consumption in this country must be the ultimate goal. Ethanol costs (subsidies and environmental impacts) outweigh its feasibility. Somebody is profitting greatly from tax breaks today, and we will still be paying 20 years from now. "

 Russ Brown wrote on November 30, 2006 10:07 am:
" We are currently using 141.6 billion gallons of gasoline per year. 216 billion gallons of ethanol would have to be produced to provide equivalent energy. That would require about 480 million acres of crop land (e.g., corn). However, if all the fossil hydrocarbon energy inputs were included in the energy balance, the gross ethanol production would have to be increased to ~3650 billion gallons, thus requiring about 8 billion acres. If all the current corn acreage were converted to a corn-ethanol economy, the best we could do is support 1% of our current fuel energy demand. Of course, the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production-related oxidation of diesel, gasoline, LPG, NG, and coal would have to be added to that produced by the burning of ethanol fuel. I'm not sure that the sum would represent an improvement. None of this information changes what we will probably do. But we need to understand that ethanol will do nothing for our energy independence, and very little, if anything, for our long-term environmental problems. Consider the challenge of operating any biomass-related energy system without all the aforementioned fossil hydrocarbons as inputs. By the end of this century, our per capita petroleum supply could be 5-15% of the current levels. We are consuming the world's petroleum reserves at a million times the rate at which they were created from the phytoplankton and zooplankton of the primordial oceans and seas. That defines our future. "

 Rod Stover wrote on November 30, 2006 10:39 am:
" Ah, relief from the rah, rah of the agribusiness lemming cheerleaders ! What is so incredible is that articles about ethanol and water conservation can be side by side with no mention of a direct relationship. One hundred bushels of corn requires at least one-half acre-foot of water to grow, let alone process. Higher prices seem fair, but will put even more pressure on resources and habitat. I hate to think that some of that "water" is draining into the Platte or leeching back into the aquifer. I could quit while I'm behind, as the following may seem really off the wall, but here goes: A recent AP story "Alaska beekeepers..." indicates that honey bees had to be imported for the first time since 1922, due to two species of blood sucking mites. That's alarming. I'm betting that someone will soon find a direct relationship between intense agriculture and the demise of bees and those pesky resistant mites. Oh, well. Who needs bees, anyway? "

 B wrote on November 30, 2006 10:41 am:
" I see a couple problems in some of your comments. 1. Besides milo/sorghum, corn uses the least amount of water of any major crop grown in the state. Soybeans use about 6-8" more of water per year and alfalfa is the king of water use. 2. New Technology is being implemented in crops all the time. There is a new drought resistant trait coming out in the next year or two. It will use even less water. There are new hybrids that have better physical traits for ethanol production. Our production levels will continue to increase because of our new technology! "

 if wrote on November 30, 2006 10:49 am:
" If ethanol is so great, why do we subsidize it? If ethanol is so great, why do we mandate it? If ethanol is so great, why don't the ethanol plants run on it instead of natural gas or electricity? A great scheme and scam by a relative few with our politicians leading the way. The taxpayers will ultimately pay for this debacle, again. As will our aquifer. "

 Listen to Ernie! wrote on November 30, 2006 11:03 am:
" Ernie Chambers has been saying this for many years even tagging it a Boondoggle of taxpayer money! "

 sour grapes??? wrote on November 30, 2006 11:22 am:
" I read this story as a farmer and it sounds like doug needs a lesson in economics and not to short the corn market when all reasonable and foward thinking brokers were telling there clients to hold all cash grain for sales late into 2006 and not to hedge anything period.... ethanol is the farmers chance to market a much higer level of prices and not have to depend on taxpayers every year to bail out the farmers with ldp and feedlots cheap grain mentality that has been around for years.... now theres a new user in town called ethanol and you better get use to it because we will not go back ......... "

 whatever wrote on November 30, 2006 11:33 am:
" This ethanol thing just doesn't seem to be sustainable. It's true corn prices will rise to levels we have never seen, but how long will it last? Also, can we grow enough corn, can these plants process something other than corn? Another concern, many of these companies building ethanol plants are small companies, if there is a shortage of product will their pockets be deep enough to keep their plants operating? The ADMs and Cargills of the world can pay premium prices for corn for a prolonged period of time to keep their plants going, I don't think most of the companies that are building now can even hope to compete in the long run. Watch Big Agribusiness force these companies out of business. What do we do with these large ethanol plants just sitting around producing nothing? We need to do something to reduce our oil dependence, but we are moving way too fast with these ethanol plants to even remotely hope they can all be kept open. "

 farmer in mccook wrote on November 30, 2006 11:45 am:
" Why a commodity broker is bad mouthing the best thing thats happened to the grain farmer in many years is amazing. Why does't doug carper buy corn or calls or futures to protect the upside for his users that he seems to be protecting in this article. Big oil or feedlots are writting this guys paycheck and i am surprised you newspaper does not see it... "

 Islander wrote on November 30, 2006 1:30 pm:
" If you Google "ethanol" and "corn," the most common words that come up are "boondoggle" and "scam." Corn ethanol is much like high-fructose corn syrup -- gifts for the corn lobby. I learned long ago not to believe anything that comes out of the mouths of the Corn Board, Ethanol Board and like-minded lobbies. Those folks are already thinking of ways we can plant more corn on the Moon and Mars. "

 windfall wrote on November 30, 2006 1:41 pm:
" A couple of things that were get rich ideas comes to mind. The chinchilla business of the 60's and the ostrich boom in the 90's. Ethonal plants won't be so easy to get rid of. It looks like a great deal for big companies like ADM and Cargill. They will end up with all the broke ethonal facilities. "

 Aaron wrote on November 30, 2006 1:54 pm:
" If you forsake the aquafier, the aquafier will forsake you. Water is the most serious issue facing Nebraska, but all the farmers seem to be money-blind. Corn is for eating, not burning. Grow your corn. Lease your field for windmills. Give up this pipe-dream before its too late. "

 Thantos wrote on November 30, 2006 1:59 pm:
" Follow the money to see why switch grass and hemp aren’t being considered. They have no lobby pushing for subsidies and tax breaks. Meanwhile we exhaust the one natural resource Nebraska once had in abundance, water! We would be farther ahead to take the 200 or so gallons of water it takes to produce a gallon of ethanol and sell that. I’m all for the farmers making a profit but that could have been done by abandoning the “cheap food” policy of the fed and letting commodities find their own price level. When this bubble bursts the ones holding the bag will be the taxpayers and the small towns that hitched their wagons to the ethanol horse. "

 Mike wrote on November 30, 2006 2:20 pm:
" I think we should devote one cent of our gas tax to the research and development of alternative fuels - Nebraska should be the leader in alternative fuels development and not just rely on corn ethanol. "

 russ wrote on November 30, 2006 2:28 pm:
" We are currently using 141.6 billion gallons of gasoline per year. 216 billion gallons of ethanol would have to be produced to provide equivalent energy. That would require about 480 million acres of crop land (e.g., corn). However, if all the fossil hydrocarbon energy inputs were included in the energy balance, the gross ethanol production would increase to ~3650 billion gallons, thus requiring about 8 billion acres. If all current corn acreage (80 million acres) were converted to a corn-ethanol economy, the best we could do is support 1% of our current fuel energy demand. Of course, the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production-related oxidation of diesel, gasoline, LPG, NG, and coal would have to be added to that produced by the burning of ethanol fuel. I'm not sure that the sum would represent an improvement. None of this information changes what we will probably do. But we need to understand that ethanol will do nothing for our energy independence, and very little, if anything, for our long-term environmental problems. Consider the challenge of operating any biomass-related energy system without all the aforementioned fossil hydrocarbons as inputs. By the end of this century, our per capita petroleum supply could be 5-15% of the current levels. We are consuming the world's petroleum reserves at a million times the rate at which they were created from the phytoplankton and zooplankton of the primordial oceans and seas. That defines our future. "

 Hemet wrote on November 30, 2006 3:06 pm:
" What this fellow is not counting in his thinking is the progress of biotechnical science. the upward curve of corn crops can be developed in such a way as to use very little water to grow, in a very small space and not meant to eat, but to give the greatest ethanol benefit. If 10% of all gasoline must be ethanol used in the US by 2012 that would make a big dent in the use of foriegn oil. Some people just can't handle change. I know my grandfather thought that moving the outhouse into the house was not sanitary and thought it was an idea that would never take. "

 Steve wrote on November 30, 2006 3:40 pm:
" Our inability to makes changes while the economy is good has always come back to kick us. Let's take a look at the last 10 years and see what has come out of the Big 3 in Detroit. Large SUV on average getting 16 mpg. Zero vechiles that are completely electric. How many cars on the road today get above 40 mpg? Answer: Doesn't matter it's about the BIG OIL $$$ Only when we have problems do we look at solutions. Check out http://www.teslamotors.com/ (100% electric car) plus the newest venture capital investments in Silicon Valley are almost alternative energies. If Ethanol is a Band-Aid to our problems, then I for one, find it worth the try. Anything to keep my money at home and away from wack jobs in the Middle East. "

 Sylvia wrote on November 30, 2006 4:16 pm:
" Brazil's ethanol scheme ALSO works because they live in a tropical climate. It just rains more there. We are in the middle of a drought. Switch to switchgrass already, and don't put all of your eggs all in one grainbin. "

 David Germer wrote on November 30, 2006 9:28 pm:
" Who is this guy? Nebraska Farmers are busy trying to stop hunger across the world and themselves are starving on $1.80 p.b graing prices. Finally, supply and demand = $3+ p.b. corn prices. I'm sure he's not making as much money sitting in his office, but that's okay with me. Give it to the guy who actually breaks a sweat. "

 Mike wrote on December 10, 2006 3:54 am:
" Like so many arguments I hear against biofuels, Mr. Carper's arguments aren't well thought out. -Furthermore, counting so heavily on ethanol as an energy answer leaves no room for a poor crop, he said. Is oil not still going to available to take up the slack if there is a bad year in corn production? -"As sure as I can be that poorly capitalized, shakily managed companies almost always have a fairly high fatality rate." Can't that be said for companies in any indrusty? -He sees what he called a tremendous negative effect on the state's cattle feeders I think this is his real concern. He probably isn't taking into account the fact that after ethanol has been produced the reamaining mass can be dried as feed. Although the amount is reduced to about a 1/3 as much than if the corn had just gone to feed. Still not bad that 2 products can be made from the same process. Ethanol isn't the solution to our energy needs, but it is a part of it. "

Ads by Yahoo!

More Stories In Local