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.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.
Thus Iowa is a tax benefit inflow state. Illinois which Iowans want to bemoan as liberal is tax outflow.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.
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.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.
1. Sorry you don't know any. Not sure what that means.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.
Nope. Wrong again.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.
OK decent argument. But I do manage farms near plants.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.
You proved my point.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..."
Clean gasoline. Love it. Can't make that shit up!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!
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.The carbon footprint of ethanol is monstrous. And it yields less efficiency than gasoline. It shouldn't be blended into the fuel supply.
Just noting the obvious humor of the term, that's all, bro.The carbon footprint of ethanol is monstrous. And it yields less efficiency than gasoline. It shouldn't be blended into the fuel supply.
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.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..."
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.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 chiropracty.
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.
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...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.
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.
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.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.