DuckSouth.com

Ok. I know that there are some oil industry guys on here, and I have a question. With all of this hoopla about ethanol production to create a renewable alternative to petroleum, why aren't we using sugar instead of grains? I don't want to sound stupid, but isn't sugar cheaper than grains - even when you take into account the shipping costs from the mills to our table? I know that it is mostly grown in 3rd world countries where the manual labor is super cheap and the child labor laws are mostly nonexistant. If we use sugar for the basis of biofuels, wouldn't that be more cost effective than grains? and/or increase the value of sugar? thus increasing the amount of money these 3rd world countries can get to buy grains, guns, and other products that we can sell - and sell pretty cheaply now that our US$ is so weak.

What are your thoughts?

Hmm. Have I stumped everybody? or is this just a dumb economics/MBA question?

there is more lobbyist in washington being paid to push "grain" instead of sugar

Dunno. It might have to do with the desire to be more self-sufficient. Don't really know, though.

JMCMILLIN wrote:there is more lobbyist in washington being paid to push "grain" instead of sugar

From what I've read and heard on talk shows that the lobbyist groups that are pushing for grain ethenal are primarily from the "bread basket" of America (mid west)..... where the majority of our grains are grown.
It would be cheaper for us to import ethanol made from cane sugar waste from S. America than for us to produce it here, but until these lobbyist groups slack off, won't happen.

switchgrass.. .Good for ethanoly good for ducks..

donia wrote:It would be cheaper for us to import ethanol made from cane sugar waste from S. America than for us to produce it here, but until these lobbyist groups slack off, won't happen.

Interesting. Of course, if we used sugar to produce the ethanol here in the US, that would increase the demand for sugar - thus increasing the price of sugar sold by the producer. This, in turn, would make foreign countries more able to purchase our grain, which increases the demand for our foodstuffs. This, in turn makes more money for our producers. All while keeping production costs lower. It isn't 'supply side economics', it is demand driven AND everyone wins.

But then, if we used sugar from Puerto Rico, then we win all the way around.

Ahh, ain't government grand. Now, where are my rose colored glasses?

I think sugar needs a warmer climate than we have. Fla and La couldn't produce enough. Need to get a coonass on the project and they would figure it out. Prolly use kudzu or that stuff that grows in the canals in South La. and make Kudzinol.

Bankermane wrote:I think sugar needs a warmer climate than we have. Fla and La couldn't produce enough. Need to get a coonass on the project and they would figure it out. Prolly use kudzu or that stuff that grows in the canals in South La. and make Kudzinol.

Now there's an enterprising idea for fuel from biomass..... and it replenishes itself quickly and with fervor!! It is everywhere! May even transform the fert./chem. plant in Yazoo to produce it - that was the first place I ever saw kudzu, on the way to Jxsn from the Delta. Only thing is if the program gets nixed, how do we control the acres and acres of it planted just for that use??

cwinkler wrote:switchgrass.. .Good for ethanoly good for ducks..

I watched a show on it. Pretty cool what COULD be done. The Hydrogen motor is here and ready to go but what do you hear about that?
Nothing and Big Oil wants to keep it that way. If we are going to keep burning the stuff we need to Drill, Drill, Drill on US Soil/Water which will boost our economy/jobs AND quit financing terrorists. Sorry for the rant.

Jacksbuddy,

The reason is simple. It's the same reason we consider ethanol at all. It's the same reason we sweeten our pop with corn instead of sugar.

The corn growers have vast influence with Congress. This isn't "farmers" having influence; it's CORN farmers.

If they had made ethanol a "revenue neutral" activity for corn growers; that is if they cut a dollar worth of other corn funding for each dollar benefit the corn producer received two things would have happened; corn farmers would have been hurt (or helped) and the ethanol would have never happened.

NIPP wrote:I watched a show on it. Pretty cool what COULD be done. The Hydrogen motor is here and ready to go but what do you hear about that?
Nothing and Big Oil wants to keep it that way. If we are going to keep burning the stuff we need to Drill, Drill, Drill on US Soil/Water which will boost our economy/jobs AND quit financing terrorists. Sorry for the rant.

I don't buy into the big oil conspiracy.

I'm sure that if the Detroit automakers thought they could instantly start selling these types of auto's to the masses, they would be. The biggest problem is the lack of hydrogen filling stations. I'm sure the big chemical companies are chomping at the bit to start building hydrogen filling stations.

I do agree with the FACT that we should quit financing terrorists and hope I live long enough to see the day when we can thumb our nose up at these countries.

This could be help the roll out:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/04/gm-d ... g-station/