Talk:Corn ethanol

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 25 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wmiller306.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arimeris3. Peer reviewers: Cjenkins67.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

NO to merging with Ethanol
This article is needed as a source of information about the processing of corn into ethanol--an important issue politically and economically. I searched for it to glean more info about the industrial process. In fact, there was very little. More is needed. There is not one word about the process in the ethanol article, which only peripherally concerns corn. Furthermore, it's big puffy article and one has to search tediously through it to find information on the processing of corn into ethanol. This needs FURTHER specialization. Not less. PS: can someone gives more information about the process? NaySay 18:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the specialization is justified from technical, social, and political perspectives. Ethanol based on traditional food production techniques (corn and sugar) are resource intensive and is produced from conversion of directly accessible sugars whereas cellulosic sources by design require less agricultural resources for production  but require advanced techniques to convert to ethanol.  There is substantial controversy regarding the net energy value of corn ethanol.  Cellulosic sources have an entirely different cost benefit signature: they generally do not require food production acreage, intensive use of fertilizers or water and the net energy produced promises to be far higher than from non cellulosic sources.   Politically they are substantially distinct, since an entrenched farm subsidy lobby is in support of corn ethanol but not cellulosic. Mak (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti Ethanol Bias?
I think this artical is seriously biased or using very outdated information, a google search's first page provides pages with several studies that refute the artical's anti-ethanol stance:

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/hof/HofJuly07.html

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/How_Much_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.215.251 (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My God! That last link is from 1995! I think things have changed a bit since that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.155.7 (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is clearly a biased article. Another point that is plainly wrong is the statement "Demand for biofuels is raising the price of crops which may adversely affect food supplies. In June 2008, corn was selling at an all time high of well over $7.36/bushel (compared with the recent norm of around $2/bushel)." Go to USDA databases and look at the data. Wheat was also at all time highs, as was rice. They don't make ethanol. Planted acres for wheat and rice are increasing, so corn is not taking land away from them in the US. If you measure the value of corn against the value of gold, you will find that the price of corn is actually LOWER now than it was 8 years ago. ALL commodities cost more (including oil) when the dollar is weak, and there is zero data supporting that ethanol has affected the price of corn, wheat or rice in global markets. Let's add that gold was trading at $890/ounce in June 2008, compared to recent norms of $400 per ounce, and oil was at $140 per barrel in June 2008 compared to recent norms of $60. Is ethanol driving the price of gold now too? Also, note in the USDA databases that farm prices for corn are a very small portion of food costs - labor and transportation account for far more of our increased food bill, even in things made from corn. Farm prices are less than 20% of food costs, and corn is a small portion of that. You will further note there that the cost of inputs for corn (fertlizer, land, etc.) are much higher, so why can't the same logic about corn prices driving up food prices apply to fertilizer (linked to oil and natural gas prices) driving up the cost of corn? Taken to its logical conclusion, wouldn't cheaper/subsidized ethanol actually be helping to hold down the cost of food by replacing at least some demand for oil and lowering transportation costs? Hullflyer (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"The cost of building 100 million gallon ethanol plants is $140 million; the cost of natural gas to operate these plants is estimated at $15–$25 million per year, while the amount of water required in the production of ethanol is roughly 2 million gallons per day(about 1700 gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol)."

1,700 gallons? Really? The math works out to 7.3 gallons and doesn't account for the co-product value of the water in the feed nor the fact that much of the "consumed" water is actually recycled water from previous production runs.

"Since corn is one of the most water-intensive crops to grow,[2] the volume of water involved in production makes it imperative that the water used be treated sewage water, rather than the Ogallala aquifer beneath the great plains, which is being drawn down at rates exceeding 100 times replacement rate.[3]"

Who says it's imperative? And where are the sewage treatment plants located? Anywhere near those 1,000 acre corn fields out in the middle of nowhere? And very little field corn is irrigated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.105.90 (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't revert my [citation needed] tag. Add a citation instead, or explain why it doesn't need one.
"The question of sustainability arises when we consider that ethanol from corn can't possibly be grown forever because growing corn depletes the soil even if sustainable farming methods such as crop rotation are used. Some researchers argue that ethanol production from corn could wear out the soil within 30 years. Although farmers in the midwest have been growning corn on the same land for the past 200 years and are getting a larger crop today then they did 30 years ago."

The last sentence is the one I added the {fact} tag to. Ignoring the fact that it's not very good English, it's exactly the type of vague assertion that needs a citation. Does this refer to all Midwest farmers, most Midwest farmers, a few Midwest farmers? Maybe it's talking about average yields? Thast sentence is just sloppy and has nothing backing it up. What does it mean, exactly, and what's the source? --84.3.78.11 (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Rain Forest vs Midwest
Does the repeated complaint about cutting down rain forests to grow corn bother anyone else? I would think that in such tropical climates they would use sugar cane to produce ethanol not corn, so it's irrelevant to the corn ethanol topic. Is there any evidence that anyone has slashed and burned rain forests to grow corn for ethanol when they could grow much more productive sugar cane instead? It really doesn’t make very much sense, although a similar subject might belong in the cane ethanol article about cutting down rain forests to grow sugar cane, if there were a separate article anyway. In fact the problem bio-fuel for rain forests described in the nearest citation is palm oil derived bio-diesel, corn is never mentioned in connection with rain forest destruction.

I think the following section should be removed:

“There is also controversy over the production of corn in many equatorial regions with rain forests, and South Africa. Farmers and agriculture businesses are burning down rain forests (which are natural CO2 sequesters already). While CO2 studies assume no co2 sequestration if the corn is not planted. Scientists say that this will mean that ethanol will end up contributing to global warming more than if we used oil, where rainforests are destroyed to produce it. This is also an issue in other biofuels such as biodiesel. [2]” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.86.213 (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Another viewpoint on this topic:

CORN ETHANOL ENCOURAGES TROPICAL DEFORESTATION

According to a new report from the World Bank, the production of corn-based ethanol is pushing up corn prices. This conclusion is confirmed by the Union of Concerned Scientists in their September 2008 newsletter in which they remarked that the World Bank analysis "contradicts U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schaffer's assertion that biofuels account for only a small percentage of rising food prices."

Interviews with local peasants in southeast Ecuador provide strong anecdotal evidence that the high price of corn is encouraging the burning of tropical forests and supports the conclusions of multiple Science magazine reports published in 2007 and 2008 that corn ethanol is actually increasing global warming.

References explicitly displayed:

[ World Bank Report: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/07/28/000020439_20080728103002/Rendered/PDF/WP4682.pdf ]

[ Union of Concerned Scientists September 2008 newsletter: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/feed/feed-september-2008.html ]

[ Ecuador interview with local peasants: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0sxhX8XZB0 ]

[ Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change, Searchinger et al, Science, 29 February 2008: 1238-1240 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/319/5867/1238.pdf ]

[ Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt, Joseph Fargione et al, Science, 29 February 2008, Vol. 319. no. 5867, pp. 1235 - 1238: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/319/5867/1235.pdf ]

[ Carbon Mitigation by Biofuels or by Saving and Restoring Forests?, Righelato and Spracklen, Science, 17 August 2007 317: 902: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/317/5840/902.pdf ]

SteveAllen635 (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)SteveAllen635

The previous section under "Environmental ans social issues" that also made claims about deforestation linked to a article that didn't relate to the topic. I edited it to reflect what the link actually discussed, the carbon impact of fertilizers vs distillers grains. 132.170.51.65 (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Environmental Efficiency" section should be removed
The first section titled "Environmental Efficiency" should be removed. It, along with many other parts of the entire article, is in violation of WP:SOAP, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE. The source referenced is no more unbiased than Glenn Beck. It's just biased the other way. Kwagoner (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Name should be changed entirely
This article title is kind of a problem. "Corn ethanol" also means Bourbon whiskey, or any corn liquor. Suggest a name change to "Corn-based Ethanol Fuel", or "Corn Ethanol Biomass" 70.249.248.12 (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Need a section on the actual cost of al
Need a section on the actual cost of ethanol vs. gasoline, in $'s per BTU for each. Everyone knows there are subsidies for ethanol, and that it wouldn't be economically viable without them, but HOW MUCH more expensive is it? There isn't anything in the article about subsidies at all, or about actual costs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.239.72 (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Total Effect on Food Supply
I am no expert on this which is why I am asking for clarification. I understand that historically 80-90% of US corn production has gone into animal feed. Recently a significant percent is going to Ethanol production. This seems a competing use for the corn however I understand that the by-product of ethanol production is brewers grain which is a "highly sought animal feed". I've also read that in many ways brewers grain provides better feed because the fermentation process makes more sugars and proteins available to the animals. So this seems like a win-win, ethanol for energy and feed for animals means we get both. However, if it was that simple then there wouldn't be the big fight over ethanol so I must be missing something. Therefore I am asking for scientific clarification, does a tonne of brewers grain provide the same amount of animal feed as a tonne of corn of is it 70% or 40% or am I completely missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfenske13 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculously biased
The tone of the article is so obviously biased about corn ethanol that it should be classed as an editorial. The "references" cited are entirely one-side in what is a highly controversial field. Corn ethanol unquestionably has its drawbacks and areas of concern requiring further study, but this pathetic excuse for scholarship is nothing more than an Op-Ed, probably from the API or one of its lackeys.

(To be clear, the article shouldn't be written by the RFA, either. That would just sweep all of the problems under the rug. But neither extreme has any place in what claims to be an encyclopedia!)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Corn ethanol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080819214631/http://www.oxfam.org/files/bp114-inconvenient-truth-biofuels-0806.pdf to http://www.oxfam.org/files/bp114-inconvenient-truth-biofuels-0806.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corn ethanol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.future-science.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/bfs.09.20
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215041537/http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/ethanol_myths_facts.html to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/ethanol_myths_facts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Corn ethanol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100529225323/http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0901220.shtml to http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0901220.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114051806/http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2010/01_12_2010.asp to http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2010/01_12_2010.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Redundant data in the “Production process” section
The Contents of the article have several flaws, specifically in the “Production process” section where there is a lot of quantitative data about the processes, yet no sources sited what so ever to support various claims. The phrase “wet milling and dry milling” is used unnecessarily at the beginning and end of the section as well as information being redundantly repeated regarding the subject. There is also some information that is not relevant to the article that was added at the end of the Environmental issues section where information about other biofuels is quoted without any relevant connection to corn ethanol biomass. Arimeris3 (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Arie

Additions to Bibliography
Kendall, Alissa, and Brenda Chang. “Estimating Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Corn–Ethanol: a Critical Review of Current U.S. Practices.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 17, no. 13, 2009, pp. 1175–1182., doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.03.003.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652609000778

Wang, Michael, et al. “Well-to-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Ethanol From Corn, Sugarcane, and Cellulosic Biomass for US Use: Well-to-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Ethanol From Corn, Sugarcane, and Cellulosic Biomass for US Use.” Efficiency and Sustainability in Biofuel Production, Aug. 2015, pp. 249–279., doi:10.1201/b18466-13.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045905/meta

Bothast, R. J., and M. A. Schlicher. “Biotechnological Processes for Conversion of Corn into Ethanol.” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 67, no. 1, 2004, pp. 19–25., doi:10.1007/s00253-004-1819-8.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00253-004-1819-8

Tyner, Wallace E., and Farzad Taheripour. “Land-Use Changes and CO2 Emissions Due to US Corn Ethanol Production.” Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 2013, pp. 539–554., doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-384719-5.00362-2.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.348.4012&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Wang, Michael, et al. “Life-Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Different Corn Ethanol Plant Types.” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 2, no. 2, 2007, p. 024001., doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024001.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024001/fulltext/

Bothast, R. J., and M. A. Schlicher. “Biotechnological Processes for Conversion of Corn into Ethanol.” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 67, no. 1, 2004, pp. 19–25., doi:10.1007/s00253-004-1819-8.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00253-004-1819-8.pdf

Arimeris3 (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Arie

Nothing about energy return on investment?
One of the main problems with corn ethanol may be that it has one of the worst if not the worst EROI, even in best-case scenarios:
 * [...] Corn ethanol: There have been heated arguments over what the EROI is for corn ethanol, such as a 2006 exchange in Science. But all seem to agree that its EROI is less than 2—which puts it at the bottom of the heap for liquid fuels. I drew on a meta-analysis that averaged six different estimates, giving an EROI of 1.4. Hammerschlag, “Ethanol’s Energy Return on Investment: A Survey of the Literature 1990–Present,” Environmental Science & Technology (2006) (link). [...]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eroi-behind-numbers-energy-return-investment/ https://www.desmogblog.com/gore-admits-corn-ethanol-mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.234.132.86 (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Consider revising "trains" in use section
"Vehicles such as cars, trains, and flex fuel vehicles use gasoline and ethanol mixtures." I do not know of any railroad locomotives using gasoline, or flex-fuel engines except one UP experimental unit which is not used for pulling freight. The locomotives used in the USA, Australia, Europe, and Asia are all diesel electric units. - 20+ year railroad brakeman.
 * Done. Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 20:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)