Green New Deal-corn ethanol-fertilizer
20 responses | 0 likes
Started by metmike - Aug. 31, 2019, 2:54 p.m.


I would appreciate your opinion on this.........thanks.

The democrats and their Green New Deal features 100% electric cars.

Corn ethanol grown for fuel would go bye, bye................all of it, 100%!

How any farmer can support that position vs being furious at Trump because the EPA is mandating 17,000,000,000 gallons of ethanol being blended vs 18,000,000,000 in fuels(because of the small refiners exclusion) is nuts.

The democrats plan is to blend 00,000,000,000 gallons of ethanol!!!!

This mean sub $2 corn again and $5 beans.

2020 Democrats embrace Green New Deal at their peril in Iowa, land of ethanol

The Green New Deal, as written, would "replace every combustion engine vehicle," with something carbon neutral as part of "overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector." That is, no more biofuels. 


"Out here in Iowa, we have retired widowed farmers who depend on the farms of their deceased spouses," Johnson said, expressing concern about the economic impact if Iowa is suddenly faced with a 40-45 percent surplus of corn. 


Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is currently vying for first place in polls against former Vice President Joe Biden, has given the plan a full-throated endorsement. 


"You cannot go too far on climate change. The future of the planet is at stake," Sanders said in March. 

The truth revealed about Bernie Sanders:

                Sanders Touts $16 Trillion Climate Plan            

                            Started by metmike - Aug. 22, 2019, 6:37 p.m.    

By metmike - Sept. 2, 2019, 1 p.m.
Like Reply

The Green New Deal means that corn prices will be less than $2 most of the time, outside of drought years, which only happen every 30 years now because of the climate optimum.

Beans will be back down to $5.

Feedgrains Sector at a Glance

                            This chart contains information on U.S. corn price received by farms and production

                            This chart contains information on U.S. domestic corn use

Another reality of the REAL world vs the made up world being sold to us by one side right now. 

By wglassfo - Sept. 2, 2019, 2:51 p.m.
Like Reply

Hi Mike

I have been thinking about that green Deal/Electic cars thing

I suppose if a Dem was elected they could mandate 100% electiric cars

Now to dig a bit deeper

I suppose electric would clean up the smog issue in cities

But the flip side

I have a hard time seeing other methods of transportation going electric, such as trucks, trains, ships, air planes, military transport

That is a lot of fossil fuel but not much ethanol

However, I think you did a post some time back where you showed it would be virtually impossible to supply the needed electricity, and the grid infrastructure or was it just the energy required from wind, solar etc from other than fossil fuel as the energy source

How many dollars would have to be spent on wind and solar, where would all those panels and towers be located at what cost. How many power lines across the countryside. And the cost???

Nobody wants a nuclear plant within 100 miles of their home and in fact nobody much wants nuclear plants period. It seems  Russia is trying to devise a nuclear propellant for their missiles, which has failed, every time. The USA gave up on that idea long time ago

Japan and russsia both had nuclear reactors fail which just adds to the people not wanting nuclear power.

Canadian Candu technology is becoming dated, so strike that source.

The country has infrastructure for fossil fueld built up over many yrs

Sanders can say all he wants, but can he deliver an energy source for electric cars

I very much doubt it

Maybe he will burn ethanol to generate electric energy, but something tells me that isn't in anybodies plans.

2.00 corn will mean those who can produce for 2.00 will and everybody else  goes BK trying. I doubt very many can grow 2.00 corn, but that is 2.50 approx CAD Just about the cost of our inputs, so inputs have to come down. Methink s a lot of people will not be working and the rest will be BK

Sanders won't be able to make it work, with out BK the whole country

Just a speech to those dummies who believe anything they are told as long as Trump is defeated.

I bet you any hard questions put to Sanders would be ignored at one of his rallies

So: Sanders can't keep his promise to supply green energy, as MM pointed out some time ago and Trump can't build his wall

I think the wall would do more good if I had to pick one or the other.

By metmike - Sept. 2, 2019, 3:01 p.m.
Like Reply


You are exactly right. The Green New Deal is 100%.............................impossible.

It's based on made up science, energy and economics.

But every democratic candidate for president is selling it to save the planet and as if it will be good for the economy and country.

So you have a choice.

Believe in it, which if you do then, if you are also a farmer, how do you justify it since it guarantee's $2 corn.

Or know that its a bunch of charlatans selling a fraud, then how do you justify voting for a charlatan?

By madmechanic - Sept. 2, 2019, 4:20 p.m.
Like Reply

You mention you have a hard time seeing other sectors of transportation going electric, and in general I agree with your perspective here.

What is interesting to note is that the Greens/Dems were the first group to push the Toyota Prius (a hybrid), well, Diesel-electric locomotives have been around for decades. All of your yellow Union-Pacific locomotives are diesel electric. The nice thing there is that electric motors can give amazing torque output at very low speed, which is ideal for a train application. Electric trains are already very prevalent within cities, not so much outside of them over long distances because you have to have high-tension electric cables to provide the power. So overall your perspective stands, trans will have issues.

By metmike - Sept. 2, 2019, 5:18 p.m.
Like Reply


Thanks for bringing this up.

I knew nothing about electric locomotives.  Fascinating.

Electric locomotive


The Siemens ES64U4, is the current confirmed holder as the fastest electric locomotive at 357 km/h (222 mph) in 2006.

"Electric locomotives benefit from the high efficiency of electric motors, often above 90% (not including the inefficiency of generating the electricity). Additional efficiency can be gained from regenerative braking, which allows kinetic energy to be recovered during braking to put power back on the line. Newer electric locomotives use AC motor-inverter drive systems that provide for regenerative braking. Electric locomotives are quiet compared to diesel locomotives since there is no engine and exhaust noise and less mechanical noise. The lack of reciprocating parts means electric locomotives are easier on the track, reducing track maintenance. Power plant capacity is far greater than any individual locomotive uses, so electric locomotives can have a higher power output than diesel locomotives and they can produce even higher short-term surge power for fast acceleration. Electric locomotives are ideal for commuter rail service with frequent stops. Electric locomotives are used on freight routes with consistently high traffic volumes, or in areas with advanced rail networks. Power plants, even if they burn fossil fuels, are far cleaner than mobile sources such as locomotive engines. The power can also come from clean or renewable sources, including geothermal power, hydroelectric power, nuclear power, solar power and wind turbines"

By metmike - Sept. 2, 2019, 5:45 p.m.
Like Reply

I DO think that we should develop renewable, clean energy sources and this one looks like a wonderful option.

Related to this is high speed rail.

Amazing how fast the speeds are with this mode of transportation.

Looks like China leads the world and they have some that go 200+ mph.

By wglassfo - Sept. 2, 2019, 8:40 p.m.
Like Reply

If anybody is thinking high speed electric over long distance you need a new track laid. These rails are not meant for high speed plus they need a straight stretch to maximize the speed. Frequent stops and starts would work efficiently I think, and could use the existing rail bed

When in china we road on their 200 MPH train It was a prototype at that time as it wen far enough to achieve 200 MPH and then came to the end of the line, Then it reversed and we road back to the beginning. It was very smooth and golly did the houses wizz past. The rail was new and for the most part was above the city.

Another way to power an electric train is to run the power thru the rails

I think it was France, Italy ??? [but don't hold me to that] they had a centre rail plus the two rails normally seen for the wheels. I think they were using some kind of electric power, but I could be wrong.  That 3rd rail made me think electric.. They had a terminal with at least 5 trains nosed up to a sort of indoor dock with walk ways to board your train. They sure did not want you down in the rail bed. The train we were on travelled quit some distance

Does N.Y city use electric rails for commuter trains I dunno, but seems I read some thing

Electric may be more efficient but so far we still need a source of energy and then get the energy in some form to what ever needs to move over a distance.

What will the source of energy be, in the future

Electric still needs an energy source.???

Many factories use electric fork lifts but they all line up for a re charge at the end of the shift. Those are not your house hold light weight extension cords. They are very heavy duty cords

Sanders has not told us how a realistic plan will work

I bet Sanders never even heard of electric trains or he would be talking about that, a whole lot

Or does he talk electric trains??? I dunno

By cliff-e - Sept. 2, 2019, 9:57 p.m.
Like Reply

Imo all electric cars will never take over due to logistics (power grid issues and battery capacity mainly). I think we could see more hybrid vehicles but  we still need to fuel the existing fleet of internal combustion engines.

As for the way a politician talks...actions speak louder than words. 45 has executive orders flying off his desk left and right for various special and personal interests but he gives rural America lip service (aka pure bs) when it comes to ethanol policy and his failed and devastating foreign trade policy. Foreign markets for our commodities (including ethanol) are very hard to gain and now we've had the slats knocked out from under us by the 45's failed tariff/trade war.

By metmike - Sept. 2, 2019, 11:22 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks for responding cliff.

So you are in denial and want to believe that all the super duper anti ethanol, anti agriculture policies of your party are not really what they are because you want to only believe in stuff that makes Trump the anti agriculture villain.

On the Green New Deal. I agree that it would be impossible for all transportation to be powered by electric by 2030 like they are promising. However:

1. The democrats are running on that objective, which is the most blatant anti ethanol platform that could exist. One of the ways for them to accomplish this being proposed would be to MANDATE electric vehicles on the market  and have the government force the market to convert away from fossil fuels and corn ethanol. So maybe they only get 50% or 30% or whatever number is possible from a ruinous government policy forced on the means, MUCH, MUCH less demand for ethanol and billions of bushels of extra corn supplies and record high corn stocks and prices back down to $2 for your corn.  There is just no other way to interpret that based on the laws of supply and demand.

2.They are also anti livestock industry because they claim that this also contributes to green house gases.  They claim that 30% of greenhouse gases come from agriculture. This is the other place that demand for your corn comes from.........animal feed. Their position is one that promotes substituting meat in the diet of Americans. Elect a democrat or let them control the government and say good bye to a huge chunk of corn and soymeal demand to feed animals...........say hello to corn prices that start with a 1 after the dollar sign during harvest and  record stocks.

I'm not making this up, it's your parties position. You are backing the exact wrong horse in this race cliff-e!

The Green New Deal Progressives Really Are Coming for Your Beef

"President Donald Trump says progressives want to take away your burger. He’s not exactly wrong.

While the Green New Deal and its proponents don’t call for mass cow culls, their goal to reach zero emissions by 2030 includes dealing with factory farms. Agriculture is responsible for one-quarter of global greenhouse gas pollution -- with burping and flatulent cattle creating a big chunk. If they want to keep eating meat, the New Dealers say Americans will have to rethink how it gets on their plate and what it costs."

What effect do you expect the Green New Deal to have for electric cars?









2020 Democrats embrace Green New Deal at their peril in Iowa, land of ethanol

"The Green New Deal would be devastating to rural America. The negative impact of what the Green Deal says would have a negative impact on the entire agricultural supply chain, from farmers to cattle owners, to drivers to ethanol refineries," Quad County Corn Processors CEO Delayne Johnson. 


The Green New Deal, as written, would "replace every combustion engine vehicle," with something carbon neutral as part of "overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector." That is, no more biofuels. 

           "Out here in Iowa, we have retired widowed farmers who depend on the farms of their deceased spouses," Johnson said, expressing concern about the economic impact if Iowa is suddenly faced with a 40-45 percent surplus of corn. 

           Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is currently vying for first place in polls against former Vice President Joe Biden, has given the plan a full-throated endorsement. 

           "You cannot go too far on climate change. The future of the planet is at stake," Sanders said in March. 

           Massachusetts. Sen. Elizabeth Warren cosponsored the bill and tweeted out support for it, claiming that Americans "have no time to waste to address [climate change] head on." New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said the plan was a necessary "moonshot" and "a measure of our innovation and effectiveness." 

           Al Giese, a former agricultural corporate executive who now works in biofuels, and also as a farmer, shared similar concerns. He also told the Washington Examiner that he wasn't sure what he was supposed to with all his corn if a Democratic administration suddenly made beef products illegal, a reference to an FAQ on the Green New Deal that mentioned getting rid of  "farting cows." 

           "Farmers are very concerned over potential environmental regulations," harming their livelihood, Giese said. "The 2020 Democrats don't seem to show any interest in liquid fuel." 

By metmike - Sept. 2, 2019, 11:41 p.m.
Like Reply


I'm not sure how much more time that you are planning to farm but if its for another decade, after the dems take over governmental policy, you will be wishing for the good old days back when Trump was president and you were complaining because he had a policy that caused only 15,000,000,000 gallons of ethanol to be blended into the gas from the mandate instead of 16,000,000,000(or whatever the exact number is).

The totally absurd thing here, is that I am actually making the case for the pro ethanol guy/party and you are trying to spin it against him and why you are for the most anti agricultural/ethanol platform in the history of our country.

I'm the environmentalist and you are the farmer...............go figure (-:

By metmike - Sept. 2, 2019, 11:54 p.m.
Like Reply

Maybe you didn't realize that the Climate Accord(that Trump pulled out of) is also extremely anti agriculture, with most of the same objectives.

By metmike - Sept. 17, 2019, 9:21 p.m.
Like Reply

Let's discuss the realities of  this Green New Deal and ethanol even more:

Producers certainly remember the supply/stocks glut of the mid 1980's when corn prices dipped below $2.  Prices as seen below actually remained very cheap.............until corn grown for ethanol started increasing demand by many, many billions of bushels. You can see below what that did to prices in green(for money in the farmers pockets).

Switching to electric vehicles will drastically cut this demand because electric cars will not use gasoline fossil fuel and that means no blending of ethanol(which can blend at rates up to 15% in the gas). Even if only 50% of vehicles go electric, ending stocks will balloon to levels similar to and possibly exceeding those of the 1980's(considering that yields will continue to soar higher thanks to the climate optimum and beneficial CO2).

This is the recipe for corn prices at or below $2. Droughts, like 1983 and 1988, however will be less likely because of the new improved climate for growing crops and with less bad weather to rescue the glut in supplies.

By metmike - Sept. 17, 2019, 9:29 p.m.
Like Reply

So the bars on the graph below, that represent ethanol production,  under a democratic president will plunge for the first time in history. Under the impossible Green New Deal, the bar will be near ZERO in the year 2030. Corn ethanol will no longer be used in vehicles according to them.

This is not metmike speculating on what might happen, it's metmike stating a fact based on what the democrats are telling us MUST happen with their plan.(The plan is made up of course and it's impossible to happen because of the laws of physics/energy/chemistry but even a partial implementation of it to cut back on fossil fuels WILL, crush the price of corn well below the current price. With corn acres going to other crops and pressuring those prices too, especially soybeans.

U.S. fuel ethanol production capacity continues to increase

                                          U.S. fuel ethanol production capacity by region 

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Fuel Ethanol Plant Production Capacity

 Fuel ethanol production capacity in the United States reached more than 16 billion gallons per year, or 1.06 million barrels per day (b/d), at the beginning of 2018, according to EIA's most recent U.S. Fuel Ethanol Plant Production Capacity report. Total listed, or nameplate capacity, of operable ethanol plants increased by 5%—more than 700 million gallons per year—between January 2017 and January 2018.  

By metmike - Sept. 17, 2019, 10:53 p.m.
Like Reply

In addition, eliminating fossil fuels means................eliminating massive amount of cheap fertilizers made with natural gas!

There's another thing they never tell you about! Crop yields and world food production would likely drop more than 50% under that scenario, corn yields by much more than that:

                Another secret about fossil fuels            

                           Started by metmike - Sept. 17, 2019, 10:55 p.m.    

By metmike - Sept. 17, 2019, 11:04 p.m.
Like Reply

Haber process

Cause of population explosion

Due to its dramatic impact on the human ability to grow food, the Haber process served as the "detonator of the population explosion", enabling the global population to increase from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 7.7 billion by November 2018.[23] About 1–2% of the world energy consumption and 5% of the natural gas consumption is currently used for the Haber process.

Since nitrogen use efficiency is typically less than 50%,[20] farm runoff from heavy use of fixed industrial nitrogen disrupts biological habitats.[4][21]

Nearly 50% of the nitrogen found in human tissues originated from the Haber–Bosch process

By metmike - Sept. 17, 2019, 11:11 p.m.
Like Reply

Fertilizer History: The Haber-Bosch Process(using natural gas)     

Nitrogen is the single most important plant nutrient in today’s commercial fertilizers. It’s essential for making sure plants are healthy as they grow and nutritious to eat after they’re harvested. But today in agriculture, we take for granted N’s ready availability.

These advances in ammonia production have significantly increased yields of food and feed grain crops. In just 70 years, there’s been a six-fold increase in U.S. corn yields, thanks to the abundance of available nitrogen.

The world simply cannot do without N fertilizer, and the contributions made by Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch. Through fertilizer, we have the means to ensure that each growing season’s crops have the nutrients necessary to yield nutritious, bountiful foods for an increasing global population.

Lean more about fertilizer’s contribution to feeding the global population, the three essential elements that make up commercial fertilizers and fertilizer’s role in increasing U.S. corn yields.

By metmike - Sept. 17, 2019, 11:16 p.m.
Like Reply

With Corn, you can see what this process did to yields on the graph below. The  introduction of nitrogen fertilizer caused corn yields to triple real fast and not as much to do with CO2 or weather during that initial tripling. However, recent decades have featured a steady increase, along with a steady increase in CO2 and beneficial growing weather.

By metmike - Sept. 18, 2019, 8:25 p.m.
Like Reply

The good news is that the Democrats are just making stuff up with their Green New Deal and there is a 0% of it happening anywhere close to what their platforms present as facts and we are having a climate optimum for life and growing crops.

The bad news is that they all present anti science, anti agriculture and completely fraudulent physics,  energy and economic schemes which tells us that either they are extraordinarily ignorant or extraordinarily these realms.

It's bad news because the intentions are to aggressively impose whatever influence they can have in these realms using completely counterproductive measures because of their lack of understanding of the real world. As a result, it WILL hurt. The degree of the hurt will be proportional to their ability to accomplish their objectives. 

By cliff-e - Sept. 18, 2019, 8:46 p.m.
Like Reply

The Haber Process using wind energy was being experimented with  at the U of M in Morris Mn.

By metmike - Sept. 18, 2019, 11:28 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks cliff!

That sounds great if it worked/is viable. So far, it's all been theories (with regards to maximizing the results) and massive grant money.  Sadly, grant money has become a  corrupt fact of life in most fields of science:

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

I honestly can't say whether this process will work or not, with no expertise in this field.  So let's look at this process and group that is operating on grants to develop this process. This was the first announcement:

Wind to Fertilizer Construction Begins

June 15, 2010

"The University of Minnesota Renewable Energy Center at Morris Minnesota has designed a $3.75 million carbon-free system that uses wind power from a towering turbine to produce anhydrous ammonia, NH3, a the most common and widely used nitrogen fertilizer and a component of most other nitrogen fertilizers. Construction started on the Morris plant the week of June 7, 2010, and it should produce fertilizer by the end of the year.

The NH3 plant will use the surplus energy generated onsite by a 1.65-megawatt wind turbine that already helps power the nearby campus."

metmike: So that was 9 years ago and it was supposed to be producing fertilizer 8 years ago based on the article(and theory).

I couldn't find anywhere any useful production results since then but did find this from them:

Small-Scale Ammonia Synthesis Using Stranded Wind Energy

  • Sponsor:  U.S. Department of Energy ARPA-E REFUEL Program
  • Award Amount:  $2.9 Million
  • Principle Investigator:  Alon McCormick, U of MN Dept. of Chemical Engineering and Material Science
  • Co-PI:  Ed Cussler, Prodromos Daoutidis, and Paul Dauenhauer (U of MN Dept. of Chemical Engineering and Material Science), Larry Micek (U of MN Office of Technology Commercialization), Michael Reese (U of MN WCROC), Mary Biddy and Michael Resch (National Renewable Energy Lab), Kathy Ayers (Proton OnSite)
  • Start / End Date:  July 10, 2017 through July 9, 2019

So they are still getting millions in grant money to develop the process.

Will it pay off eventually........finally?

I am no expert in this field.

This is the latest report:

Maybe they just need another $3 million and 2 more years?