The world we live in...

What's really turning this thing on it's head is now that farmers are so fvckin wealthy and have so much cash, they've figured out they have enough money to start co-ops and they go at it privately instead of needing a biggie like POET or Valero to front the funding and run it. The same people selling the grain to the ethanol co-ops are the ones making money off the ethanol. It's genius. I think it's a great idea, because it forces the conglomerates to toe the line and get competitive. I know several people who hate the huge producers so much that they'll haul grain way out of their way to sell it at a co-op rather than sell to POET. They pay more money in fuel and get no dividends because they aren't in the territory and don't own shares, but they ain't gonna give it to some company that says it's based in Sioux Falls but really run by a lobbyist in DC who's never seen a dirt road in his life.

We have a ton of em crammed into our 4 county area. All of these are within a 30 minute drive...

Ashton - POET
Hartley - Valero-owned, growers can buy shares, I'm sure their watered-down.
Marcus - Little Sioux Corn Processors (grower-owned coop)
Merrill - Lakeview Plymouth Energy (grower-owned coop)
Sioux Center - Siouxland Energy Cooperative (grower-owned coop)

Emmetsburg is about an hour away and they have a POET plant there.
As a farm manager I have to follow the landowner wishes and do accordingly. Don't know any farmers that won't sell to ethanol including poet if the make more. None.
 
Last edited:
Iowa farmers alone get on average about $1.5 billion a year.

That doesn't count the federal ethanol subsidies paid to fuels producers (farmers will tell you it's not a subsidy, but it's a HUGE tax credit per gallon, potato/po-TAH-to). Also, the largest group (by number) of shareholders in ethanol plants are growers. If that isn't subsidizing them, I don't know what is. I can't complain because I work in the ag industry, but I call it what it is.

Ethanol costs WAY more to produce than what they sell it for. If they did away with the tax credit every plant would shut down within a week, and now it's a big enough industry that fuel markets would explode, so it's never going away until some nerd at a research university figures out how to make some other source of energy to replace it. And even then I wouldn't count on it, because...money.
Thus Iowa is a tax benefit inflow state. Illinois which Iowans want to bemoan as liberal is tax outflow.
 
Do these guys still receive government handouts in the form of farm subsidies? I honestly don't know the status of subsidies these days, but you seem to describe a lot of millionaires hoarding cash and land. Hope they aren't on the dole.
It was getting squeezed and then the trade war and COVID payments happened. What is funny that if you were an intelligent marketer....USDA punished you. The programs encourage lazy management.
 
As a farm manager I have to follow the landowner wishes and do accordingly. Don't know any farmers tha won't sell to ethanol including poet if the make more. None.
1. Sorry you don't know any. Not sure what that means.

2. Your state has 13 ethanol plants. Iowa has 45 in a state of the exact same land area, almost all of them crammed in an area of Iowa that is split diagonally from Cresco to Council Bluffs. Your farmers have no choice because there aren't competitors close by. What's really weird about your statement is that because Illinois' ethanol plants are so geographically separated, unless they were dead centered around Peoria a grower would never even consider price competition because there isn't any. Of course a farmer in Illinois wouldn't haul over twice as far away. That would be ridiculous to even think about. Within a 40 mile radius of me there are 7 plants. That's over half of Illinois total facilities which are all 50+ miles apart except for a very tiny portion of north central Illinois. This makes me think you made that up to try and be contrarian to the argument.

Look at a map of facilities beforehand next time so you can get your story straight.
 
It was getting squeezed and then the trade war and COVID payments happened. What is funny that if you were an intelligent marketer....USDA punished you. The programs encourage lazy management.
Nope. Wrong again.

From 2014 through 2019 subsidy payments went up every year except one, and from 2003 to 2013 it was dead steady Eddy. Source, USDA

2003: $18,115,850,355
2004: $15,336,816,515
2005: $24,302,159,382
2006: $17,035,148,151
2007: $14,430,765,820
2008: $17,042,373,333
2009: $16,322,087,655
2010: $15,365,183,881
2011: $15,655,350,817
2012: $14,904,709,872
2013: $15,936,854,643
2014: $13,757,138,737
2015: $14,996,640,316
2016: $17,212,772,994
2017: $16,186,802,625
2018: $18,042,470,952
2019: $26,925,615,822

Check your stuff before you post misinformation. I suppose you'll try to qualify what you said again with some, "yeah but, yeah but, I meant such and such..."
 
1. Sorry you don't know any. Not sure what that means.

2. Your state has 13 ethanol plants. Iowa has 45 in a state of the exact same land area, almost all of them crammed in an area of Iowa that is split diagonally from Cresco to Council Bluffs. Your farmers have no choice because there aren't competitors close by. What's really weird about your statement is that because Illinois' ethanol plants are so geographically separated, unless they were dead centered around Peoria a grower would never even consider price competition because there isn't any. Of course a farmer in Illinois wouldn't haul over twice as far away. That would be ridiculous to even think about. Within a 40 mile radius of me there are 7 plants. That's over half of Illinois total facilities which are all 50+ miles apart except for a very tiny portion of north central Illinois. This makes me think you made that up to try and be contrarian to the argument.

Look at a map of facilities beforehand next time so you can get your story straight.
OK decent argument. But I do manage farms near plants.

Contrarian...no. you made a good point. But I do have farms close...to several.
 
Last edited:
Nope. Wrong again.

From 2014 through 2019 subsidy payments went up every year except one, and from 2003 to 2013 it was dead steady Eddy. Source, USDA

2003: $18,115,850,355
2004: $15,336,816,515
2005: $24,302,159,382
2006: $17,035,148,151
2007: $14,430,765,820
2008: $17,042,373,333
2009: $16,322,087,655
2010: $15,365,183,881
2011: $15,655,350,817
2012: $14,904,709,872
2013: $15,936,854,643
2014: $13,757,138,737
2015: $14,996,640,316
2016: $17,212,772,994
2017: $16,186,802,625
2018: $18,042,470,952
2019: $26,925,615,822

Check your stuff before you post misinformation. I suppose you'll try to qualify what you said again with some, "yeah but, yeah but, I meant such and such..."
You proved my point.

You still maintained NW Iowa farmers are more profitable due to production and its not true compared to other places. In reality the best US farmground is in the Red River Valley of ND and the Delta region. Kentucky has some darn nice dround near the Ohio

Mis info? Glad to see u came back with something.

Farmers as a general group are quite wealthy due to USDA including crop insurance. NW does have nice production.

What is funny I served as an advisor to a start up ethanol coop plant 20 years ago....not quite. Advised to use only risk capital. I looked stupid as the made wads of money and then went bankrupt.
 
Last edited:
The best part is if I want to buy clean gasoline that hasn't been adulterated with ethanol it costs 50 cents a gallon more. I run a few tanks of that a year mainly to support a local gas station that only sells ethanol free gas.

I think we're on the second wave of the ethanol facilities. They had a huge building boom, the original investors got wiped out, then the new money (with a huge tailwind by farmers) came in and bought the assets free and clear of the original debt financing and now they print money.

I saw that Chevron bought REGI fairly recently. I know Valero owns a bunch of ethanol plants. I don't think the other oil majors have a big stake in it, though. Valero was basically forced into buying the plants (they even own the one by Fort Dodge) because the government in California was on their nuts so hard about "green energy" so they bought 10 ethanol plants and told them to STFU. California's economy would crumble in a week if it weren't for Valero, yet they get nothing but hate and vitriol from the politburo.
Clean gasoline. Love it. Can't make that shit up!
 
Clean gasoline. Love it. Can't make that shit up!
The carbon footprint of ethanol is monstrous. And it yields less efficiency than gasoline. It shouldn't be blended into the fuel supply.
Electric vehicles are just as dirty and inefficient, with just as big of a carbon footprint, only the dirt and inefficiency happens before the car gets delivered to the ”financially independent” vegan in California who flies 27 times a year on commercial airlines burning kerosene by the literal ton at 38,000 feet.

But at least their man buns are held in place with recycled denim hair ties and that shirt they bought at Coachella was made with sweat-shop-free-certified labor in Malaysia.

EVs are the greatest marketing bullshit scam of the last 3 centuries. Except for chiropractic.
 
Nope. Wrong again.

From 2014 through 2019 subsidy payments went up every year except one, and from 2003 to 2013 it was dead steady Eddy. Source, USDA

2003: $18,115,850,355
2004: $15,336,816,515
2005: $24,302,159,382
2006: $17,035,148,151
2007: $14,430,765,820
2008: $17,042,373,333
2009: $16,322,087,655
2010: $15,365,183,881
2011: $15,655,350,817
2012: $14,904,709,872
2013: $15,936,854,643
2014: $13,757,138,737
2015: $14,996,640,316
2016: $17,212,772,994
2017: $16,186,802,625
2018: $18,042,470,952
2019: $26,925,615,822

Check your stuff before you post misinformation. I suppose you'll try to qualify what you said again with some, "yeah but, yeah but, I meant such and such..."
OK, now I get you. In that amount are payments for CRP which is an erosion control program taking erodible land out of production. That didn't change and really isn't a subsidy.

What did change was the elimination of DCP which WAS a DIRECT GUARANTEED SUBSIDY. They kept in place an additional program called ACRE which acts more like free insurance coverage based on revenue.

Farmers no longer has the for sure payments. That didn't last very long as Trump instituted the MFP program for his trade war with China and the COVID Marketing program. They are not subsidy guarantees and more like the payments we all received (only on steroids) for COVID.

Federal Crop Insurance which is heavily subsidized still is in place.

Per ethanol plants, Iowa farmers especially NW and NC deal with a very weak basis and ethanol makes some of that up. IL basis is much stronger. Iowa has an economic advantage of IL based on....basis.

Farmers also embibed in PPP loans.
 
Last edited:
The carbon footprint of ethanol is monstrous. And it yields less efficiency than gasoline. It shouldn't be blended into the fuel supply.
I avoid ethanol like the plague at the pump. I will pay more for non-eth unless is astronomically higher. I think my car runs better and I think I get much better gas mileage with non-eth. Hate that shit.
 
Electric vehicles are just as dirty and inefficient, with just as big of a carbon footprint, only the dirt and inefficiency happens before the car gets delivered to the ”financially independent” vegan in California who flies 27 times a year on commercial airlines burning kerosene by the literal ton at 38,000 feet.

But at least their man buns are held in place with recycled denim hair ties and that shirt they bought at Coachella was made with sweat-shop-free-certified labor in Malaysia.

EVs are the greatest marketing bullshit scam of the last 3 centuries. Except for chiropracty.

Lol. That's golden.

And did any of the greenies ever think about what the hell they are going to do with all the used lithium batteries when done? They can't just be thrown away.
 
Electric vehicles are just as dirty and inefficient, with just as big of a carbon footprint, only the dirt and inefficiency happens before the car gets delivered to the ”financially independent” vegan in California who flies 27 times a year on commercial airlines burning kerosene by the literal ton at 38,000 feet.

But at least their man buns are held in place with recycled denim hair ties and that shirt they bought at Coachella was made with sweat-shop-free-certified labor in Malaysia.

EVs are the greatest marketing bullshit scam of the last 3 centuries. Except for chiropracty.

I don't understand how the process of going straight electric came to be. The PHEV would be infinitely better for optimizing energy usage. Let everyone plug in at night when the grid demand is low, charge to get 50-100 miles, backup power from internal combustion. Pure electric makes virtually no sense at this point unless you live in a city and never need to drive too far. And it is counterproductive for people who live in areas serviced by coal or nat gas powered electricity.

Nothing warms my heart quite like seeing diesel generators hooked up to Tesla charging stations.
 
I don't understand how the process of going straight electric came to be. The PHEV would be infinitely better for optimizing energy usage. Let everyone plug in at night when the grid demand is low, charge to get 50-100 miles, backup power from internal combustion. Pure electric makes virtually no sense at this point unless you live in a city and never need to drive too far. And it is counterproductive for people who live in areas serviced by coal or nat gas powered electricity.

Nothing warms my heart quite like seeing diesel generators hooked up to Tesla charging stations.
Until the country/world goes to nuclear power the carbon footprint (which is a stupid, euphemistic term) of an electric vehicle is the exact same. So climate change is in no way going to be affected by EVs like people claim. They are not green. It takes the same amount of energy to move a 2,000 lb car one mile whether it's by electricity or gas/diesel. One might say...yes, but 49% of electricity in the US comes from "renewable" sources...

They may be technically correct, but those people stop there because stopping there suits their arguments. They don't look at the MASSIVE "carbon footprint" of lithium production, or the net negative of windmill and solar construction. It takes way more energy and emissions to design, manufacture, install, and operate a windmill than it will ever generate in it's lifetime. But it makes the vegan squad happy so the lie just keeps on going.

Climate change is real. But as a society we've been duped by both sides of the argument into thinking it's more complex than it is. The scientists need to feel validated about their smartness and need to get retweets on the news, and make climate change an enigma that can never really be pinned down. Like ancient bishops who made religion confusing to keep the peasants tuned in, they do the same with whatever topic is at hand. Right now it's climate change

The other side denies climate change so they can get interviews and votes from the bearded AR-15, Dodge Ram community. Two sides of the exact same coin.

Climate change is fucking simple. Being able to fix it...my opinion is that we're too far gone and we're going to land somewhere between a miracle solution and Mad Max. I won't be alive to see how it turns out. Here's what you need to do to stop making the problem worse.

1) Nuclear power. It's the only way. The formula is solved, we know how to generate nuclear power but the vegan squad doesn't like it, and even if they did we can't put plants up fast enough to help so no one even tries. We screwed the pooch.

2) Upgrade the country's electrical capacity. Not feasible. Would take several decades and cost trillions, and we don't have several decades or trillions. The hemp heroes spent too much time getting their masters in Creative Studies instead of taking engineering courses, so they don't understand that our electrical grid, infrastructure, and generation capacity are still the same as they were in the 40s and 50s. And this isn't a problem of generating more electricity. It's about getting it to your garage outlet. You need more power plants (of the nuclear variety that no one wants to build), more transmission lines, bigger substations, heavier distribution lines, bigger transformers outside your house, and different wiring in every single house or business. Now imagine the millions of miles of electrical poles and wires in every back alley and country road and suburban neighborhood in America, and you can see we're screwed. I'm waiting gleefully for the day when Greta Thunberg gets her wish and all the hippies try to plug their cars in at once. HOW DARE YOU!

3) Solve the methane problem. This is the only one I think we can do. There's a ton of money to be made and plenty of nerds...they just need something to kickstart them. The whole, "we need to stop raising livestock" is stupid., First of all people won't go for it no matter how much you persuade them. Second, there aren't enough food and protein sources to feed everyone. Even if you found enough food and protein, people ain't gonna quit eating animals so you're just pissing up a rope.

So there you go, folks. Solve three problems and we'd have a fighter's chance. Me personally, I ain't got a shred of faith in a population where people are rioting in the streets because they can't buy a $22,000 Taylor Swift ticket. Sorry 'bout your luck with those hurricanes coming soon to you folks in Florida.
 
Climate change is real. But as a society we've been duped by both sides of the argument into thinking it's more complex than it is. The scientists need to feel validated about their smartness and need to get retweets on the news, and make climate change an enigma that can never really be pinned down. Like ancient bishops who made religion confusing to keep the peasants tuned in, they do the same with whatever topic is at hand. Right now it's climate change

The other side denies climate change so they can get interviews and votes from the bearded AR-15, Dodge Ram community. Two sides of the exact same coin.

What do you mean when you say climate change is real? The climate is influenced by a multitude of factors, most of which are well outside the control of humans. We likely do not even know every variable that goes into a climate model.

One example of a massive climatological event was that huge volcanic eruption in the Philippines back in 1991. Threw off an immense amount of greenhouse gases. The particulate matter made the upper atmosphere catch a bunch of the sun's energy and cooled the surface immensely in 1992. Then, in 1993 the South got hit with one of the worst winter storms the region had ever seen. By summer of '93 the Mississippi River basin had areas that were getting heavy rains several days per week and we got hammered with a 500 year flood.

Reducing the climate to a two variable model of temperature and CO2 serves no purpose other than to allow central planners to obtain consent of the governed to undertake drastic measures that have the potential to substantially diminish the standard of living in the West. The media has created a perfect Pavlovian response in much of the population. Virtually any natural disaster other than volcanoes and earthquakes/tsunamis can be blamed on "climate change." It's the same grift as it's always been - "we have sinned and the gods are angry with us."

And of course because there is a "scientific consensus" (because that is how "the science" works now) no one can even challenge the underlying assumptions in data models and say "hey this is bullshit." We haven't evolved much since Galileo got sentenced to house arrest for heresy after arguing that the Earth revolved around the sun.
 
What do you mean when you say climate change is real? The climate is influenced by a multitude of factors, most of which are well outside the control of humans. We likely do not even know every variable that goes into a climate model.

One example of a massive climatological event was that huge volcanic eruption in the Philippines back in 1991. Threw off an immense amount of greenhouse gases. The particulate matter made the upper atmosphere catch a bunch of the sun's energy and cooled the surface immensely in 1992. Then, in 1993 the South got hit with one of the worst winter storms the region had ever seen. By summer of '93 the Mississippi River basin had areas that were getting heavy rains several days per week and we got hammered with a 500 year flood.

Reducing the climate to a two variable model of temperature and CO2 serves no purpose other than to allow central planners to obtain consent of the governed to undertake drastic measures that have the potential to substantially diminish the standard of living in the West. The media has created a perfect Pavlovian response in much of the population. Virtually any natural disaster other than volcanoes and earthquakes/tsunamis can be blamed on "climate change." It's the same grift as it's always been - "we have sinned and the gods are angry with us."

And of course because there is a "scientific consensus" (because that is how "the science" works now) no one can even challenge the underlying assumptions in data models and say "hey this is bullshit." We haven't evolved much since Galileo got sentenced to house arrest for heresy after arguing that the Earth revolved around the sun.
For the most part carbon credit is about oil companies paying a small penance to pollute and make money. For most farmers the payout is hardly worth the time. At most breakeven. Best case is they learn to use cover crops which can be a good thing.
 
What do you mean when you say climate change is real? The climate is influenced by a multitude of factors, most of which are well outside the control of humans. We likely do not even know every variable that goes into a climate model.

One example of a massive climatological event was that huge volcanic eruption in the Philippines back in 1991. Threw off an immense amount of greenhouse gases. The particulate matter made the upper atmosphere catch a bunch of the sun's energy and cooled the surface immensely in 1992. Then, in 1993 the South got hit with one of the worst winter storms the region had ever seen. By summer of '93 the Mississippi River basin had areas that were getting heavy rains several days per week and we got hammered with a 500 year flood.

Reducing the climate to a two variable model of temperature and CO2 serves no purpose other than to allow central planners to obtain consent of the governed to undertake drastic measures that have the potential to substantially diminish the standard of living in the West. The media has created a perfect Pavlovian response in much of the population. Virtually any natural disaster other than volcanoes and earthquakes/tsunamis can be blamed on "climate change." It's the same grift as it's always been - "we have sinned and the gods are angry with us."

And of course because there is a "scientific consensus" (because that is how "the science" works now) no one can even challenge the underlying assumptions in data models and say "hey this is bullshit." We haven't evolved much since Galileo got sentenced to house arrest for heresy after arguing that the Earth revolved around the sun.
Here's what I think. From the mind of the smartest human being to ever roam the planet, George Carlin. I cannot describe the way I feel about the planet and the future of humans any better than the following.

See, I’m not one of these people who’s worried about everything. You got people like this around you? Countries full of them now: people walking around all day long, every minute of the day, worried… about everything! Worried about the air; worried about the water; worried about the soil; worried about insecticides, pesticides, food additives, carcinogens; worried about radon gas; worried about asbestos; worried about saving endangered species.

Let me tell you about endangered species all right? Saving endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control nature. It’s arrogant meddling; it’s what got us in trouble in the first place. Doesn’t anybody understand that? Interfering with nature. Over 90% – over, way over – 90% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet, ever lived, are gone! They’re extinct! We didn’t kill them all; they just disappeared. That’s what nature does. They disappear these days at the rate of 25 a day; and I mean regardless of our behavior. Irrespective of how we act on this planet, 25 species that were here today will be gone tomorrow. Let them go gracefully. Leave nature alone. Haven’t we done enough?

We’re so self-important, so self-important. Everybody’s gonna save something now: “Save the trees! Save the bees! Save the whales! Save those snails!” And the greatest arrogance of all: “Save the planet!” What?! Are these fucking people kidding me?! Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet! We haven’t learned how to care for one another and we’re gonna save the fucking planet?! I’m getting tired of that shit! I’m getting tired of that shit!

I’m tired of fucking Earth Day! I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists; these White, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for their Volvo’s! Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. They don’t care about the planet; not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live; their own habitat. They’re worried that someday in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet, nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine; the people are fucked! Difference! The planet is fine! Compared to the people, The planet is doing great: been here four and a half billion years! Do you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here what? 100,000? Maybe 200,000? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over 200 years. 200 years versus four and a half billion. And we have the conceit to think that somehow, we’re a threat? That somehow, we’re going to put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a-floatin’ around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us: been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drifts, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages... and we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference?

The planet isn’t going anywhere; we are! We’re going away! Pack your shit, folks! We’re going away and we won’t leave much of a trace either, thank God for that. Maybe a little Styrofoam, maybe. Little Styrofoam. The planet will be here, we’ll be long gone; just another failed mutation; just another closed-end biological mistake; an evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas, a surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet’s doing? Ask those people in Pompeii who are frozen into position from volcanic ash how the planet’s doing. Wanna know if the planet’s all right? Ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. How about those people in Kilauea, Hawaii who build their homes right next to an active volcano and then wonder why they have lava in the living room?

The planet will be here for a long, long, long time after we’re gone and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the Earth plus Plastic. The Earth doesn’t share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the Earth; the Earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the Earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place: it wanted plastic for itself, didn’t know how to make it, needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question: “Why are we here?” Plastic, assholes!

So the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that’s really started already, don’t you? I mean, to be fair, the planet probably sees us as a mild threat; something to be dealt with, and I’m sure the planet will defend itself in the manner of a large organism. Like a beehive or an ant colony can muster a defense, I’m sure the planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet trying to defend against this pesky, troublesome species? Let’s see, what might... hmm... viruses! Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And viruses are tricky; always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps this first virus could be one that-that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along and maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

Well, that’s a poetic note. And it’s a start and I can dream can I? See, I don’t worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we’re part of a greater wisdom that we won’t ever understand, a higher order. Call it what you want. You know what I call it? The big electron, the big electron. [Imitates electronic hum] It doesn’t punish, it doesn’t reward, it doesn’t judge at all. It just is and so are we... for a little while.
 

Latest posts

Top