Please with your account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
  • TheWB Dec 5, 2007

    Joe- the point is that they converted. They had the foresight to do so and now they are reaping the benefits, while we pay through the nose to states that support terrorism. Yes they utilized cane to do it, so what, we can grow cane, we can grow other various grains and grasses that can be converted too. The problem now is, instead of having an ongoing process for the past several years that would have allowed raw materials and the infrastructure to be built up wisely, we are now in a rush mode to make it happen quickly and corn is the only vast commodity available to do it.

  • Joe Schmoe Dec 5, 2007

    " can you explain Brazil, they have totally switched and have very cheap energy without depending on any outside source?"

    Easily: sugar cane grows there. Look it up to find out the relative energy cost-to-produce and yield of different biofuels. Sugar cane is viable; corn is not.

  • TheWB Dec 5, 2007

    The problem, as I see it, is that we are 20-30 years too late converting to ethanol. We should have started back in the dark, dismal gas embargo days followed by the Jimmy Carter years, when fuel was through the roof and gas lines formed. That was when I first heard of ethanol and it seemed like a great idea, at that time corn, wheat, and cane were relatively cheap with abundant quantities available. Had we started converting then, we would by now, have supplies and the infrastructure necessary to sustain energy independence. Farmers would have gradually switched some of there crops to ethanol producing ones, hence, to a certain degree, they would have "subsidized" themselves along the way. For those who think it can't or shouldn't be done might be right in today's world, but how can you explain Brazil, they have totally switched and have very cheap energy without depending on any outside source?

  • rnsjr Dec 5, 2007

    Well let us all boo hoo about this plant being built. I talked to the guy that is going to be in charge of that job and I will be there in Feb. to help build it. I can't wait.

  • whosonfirst Dec 4, 2007

    Ethanol production keeps getting refined as more research is done. Gulf Ethanol Inc. and other companies are fast approaching production of ethanol from the corn stalk and not the corn. Corn stalks are just left in the fields (I know there is environmental value in doing so too). This technology also can use dried grass, possibly leaves, etc.

  • Joe Schmoe Dec 4, 2007

    LOL. I typed it as I speak it. ANWR, that is.

  • Joe Schmoe Dec 4, 2007

    "The only proviso is I want my fuel to come from America..."

    Then support drilling in ANWAR. It's insane national energy policy not to exploit that fuel source.

  • jackadoo Dec 4, 2007

    Right on Joe. Ethanol is a huge scam. We will subsidize it, and pay more for food because of it, and the environment will suffer.
    NC imports 400 MILLION bushels of corn currently, by rail, mostly from the midwest. When I lived in Beaufort they tried to put one on Radio Island, and we ran them and the local economic developer out of town. Without the govt subsidies and special tax treatments, there would be no ethanol industry. This county is prostituting themselves for maybe 30-40 cheesy jobs.

  • drnc Dec 4, 2007

    I don't really care if ethanol is economical. I'm willing to pay more for fuel, in fact, I'm willing to pay a lot more for fuel. The only proviso is I want my fuel to come from America. I'm sick and tired of sending my hard-earned dollars to the Middle East. I buy my gas from Hess for now. Do a little research and you'll see why.

  • hi_i_am_wade Dec 4, 2007


    Ethanol is LESS efficient than gasoline, raises prices of cow products (beef, milk, etc), and is WORSE for the environment than gas. In short, ethanol is lose-lose.

    Ethanol is ONLY a good idea when it doesn't affect the price of anything else.

  • Joe Schmoe Dec 4, 2007

    Ethanol is a huge scam, perpetuated by politcians to buy votes from corn-state farmers. It is inefficient and expensive, and would not be even as viable as it is now (which is not very at all) if not for massive federal subsidies. Bend over, folks. A lot of your tax money is headed down this rathole. As long as the voting public believes that ethanol is "green," the scam will continue.

  • jackadoo Dec 4, 2007

    I raised opposition to the Fay plant last year. Largely because of the hunger these plants have for corn, and environmental issues. Corn is double the price it was two years ago. Dont eat much corn huh...well about every piece of meat you eat was fed by corn. A combustion process like ethanol releases many thousands of tons of the CO2 greenhouse gasses, and other nasty stuff. They stink and will hurt property values. The additional energy used to grow the corn, harvest the corn, ship it by rail, burn it to make ethanol, uses more energy (oil) than it replaces. Your cars are not designed to run on ethanol, which is a form of alcohol, and can damage or reduce the life of hoses, gaskets, anything the fuel comes in contact with. Since most of the plant qualifies as recycling, it is exempt from most property taxes. Just like the yokals with the Randy Parton fiasco, these poor people have been suckered for a few crummy jobs.

  • jse830fcnawa030klgmvnnaw+ Dec 4, 2007

    Corn should be for food first, not fuel...

  • saturn5 Dec 4, 2007

    Biodiesel, not ethanol!
    Ethanol uses far too much of our corn crops for the fuel we get. Without federal subsidies, it costs more than gasoline. Biodiesel can be made from waste products. We just need more modern diesels here, like they have in Europe. Better mileage than a hybrid, and cheaper.

  • davidgnews Dec 4, 2007

    Why don't they build it BESIDE the corn field? Seems like they'd have more corn.

  • Chiphauler Dec 4, 2007


  • oldschool Dec 4, 2007

    Millions of people starving in the world and we are going to take our food and BURN it just to make the libs feel better about themselves.

    It's sick.

  • oldrebel Dec 4, 2007

    I used to live in Red Springs years ago. LOL...lot of good ole boys and gals were making "ethanol" back then. But it didn't have real great mileage. Usually a mason jar could get you to the crick and back for some catfishing...if you walked fast, or drank slow. ;)

  • whatelseisnew Dec 4, 2007

    In addition to the rising food costs this brings, I understand that the byproducts of burning ethanol are worse than what is exhausted through the burning of gasoline. If that is true, it makes no sense to pursue this as an alternative fuel.

  • fbell Dec 4, 2007

    Congradulations to Clean Burn Fuels and the economic impact it will have on Hoke County, and the rest of North Carolina.

    NC Viking

  • goutytoe Dec 4, 2007

    Just more pork in the federal budget - this will, in the long run, not be a viable fuel source. Very bad planning indeed.

  • OpinionOnEverything Dec 4, 2007

    It is just immoral to make fuel from food. Even if that corn is used to feed livestock, it will cause food prices to go up. This is just another farm subsidy.

  • tybstar Dec 4, 2007

    More information about ethanol:

  • Leonardo Dec 4, 2007

    There's something inherently immoral in using corn in our cars when people around the world are dying of malnutrition. And thanks to heavy sugar tariffs, corn syrup is used in almost all of our food. This is just going to make all our food more expensive. However, I wouldn't mind if they turned the stalks into ethanol, or used switchgrass (which gives you a much greater yield of ethanol per acre). But the technology for those are not quite ready yet.

Oldest First