Excerpts from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113434413248219685.html

Roughly 30,000 people snapped up corn stoves and corn furnaces this
year, twice last year's total.

The furnace is made to hook into the distribution ducts of a heating
system and heat the whole house, while the stove is free-standing,
designed to radiate heat in a single room.

The exhaust from both is clean and cool, requiring only a small duct
to the outside, rather than a chimney.

Dried corn doesn't burn easily. The process in modern stoves and
furnaces is controlled by computer chips and temperature probes.

Owners don't continually shovel corn into the furnace. Corn-filled
hoppers on top of the stove do the work.

To make a million British thermal units of heat it takes $22.64 of
heating oil, $33.80 of propane, or $16.47 of natural gas. Burning corn
can do the job for $8.75.

Sales of wood pellet stoves have begun to falter, partly because the
industry can't make wood pellets fast enough., so US Stove Company is
selling a multi-fuel stove. It burns corn, cherry and olive pits, and
alfalfa pellets. Customers report that it also heats up pretty well
when stoked with certain brands of cheap, dried dog food.



--

Even he, to whom most things that most people
would think were pretty smart were pretty dumb,
thought it was pretty smart.

....Douglas Adams

Steve wrote

Excerpts from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113434413248219685.html

Roughly 30,000 people snapped up corn stoves
and corn furnaces this year, twice last year's total.

Talk about a complete and utter obscenity...

No surprise tho from the biggest collection
of environmental rapists in the entire world...

The furnace is made to hook into the distribution ducts of
a heating system and heat the whole house, while the stove
is free-standing, designed to radiate heat in a single room.

The exhaust from both is clean and cool, requiring
only a small duct to the outside, rather than a chimney.

Dried corn doesn't burn easily. The process in modern stoves and
furnaces is controlled by computer chips and temperature probes.

Owners don't continually shovel corn into the furnace.
Corn-filled hoppers on top of the stove do the work.

To make a million British thermal units of heat it takes
$22.64 of heating oil, $33.80 of propane, or $16.47
of natural gas. Burning corn can do the job for $8.75.

Only due to the terminal stupidity of agricultural subsidys.

Sales of wood pellet stoves have begun to falter, partly because
the industry can't make wood pellets fast enough., so US Stove
Company is selling a multi-fuel stove. It burns corn, cherry and
olive pits, and alfalfa pellets. Customers report that it also heats up
pretty well when stoked with certain brands of cheap, dried dog food.

Wota packa terminal ****wits.

Sales of 30,000 units is peanuts compared to the other type sold. Corn
stoves are being promoted in my area also. They are not cheap either.
Do you have a reliable future source of cheap corn? People thought
they would save on diesel engines too until the price of fuel went way
above gasoline and the cost of diesel repairs took the glimmer off.
Pioneers take the arrows. I suggest going with mainstream technology. A
conventional wood stove is not so bad if you live in the forest.

To make a million British thermal units of heat it takes
$22.64 of heating oil, $33.80 of propane, or $16.47
of natural gas. Burning corn can do the job for $8.75.

Only due to the terminal stupidity of agricultural subsidys.

Complete and utter pig ignorant drivel. Or do you have that phrase
trademarked?



Sales of wood pellet stoves have begun to falter, partly because
the industry can't make wood pellets fast enough., so US Stove
Company is selling a multi-fuel stove. It burns corn, cherry and
olive pits, and alfalfa pellets. Customers report that it also heats up
pretty well when stoked with certain brands of cheap, dried dog food.

Wota packa terminal ****wits.

Complete and utter pig ignorant drivel.

Oh dear.
Now we have RS and JW, in a drivel battle. An infernal germinal
terminal war.
Insults complete, replete and repeat.

wrote:
Oh dear.
Now we have RS and JW, in a drivel battle. An infernal germinal
terminal war.
Insults complete, replete and repeat.
Not really. This guy annoys me. Which I am sure is his intention. I
just felt a little fiesty and thought I would reply with some of his
own "superior" language.
Seems he doesn't really care, and if he should choose to respond
intelligent (or likely not), I won't perpetuate this little farce.

FWIW: I think heating with corn is an excellent idea. It is a
renewable resource. It would help correct the screwed up supply and
demand curve for US ag products. It has a high energy content, with
minimal resulting waste product. etc etc.

JW

jw wrote

FWIW: I think heating with corn is an excellent idea.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
what a terminal ****wit you have always been.

It is a renewable resource.

Plenty of other much more viable renewable heating fuels, ****wit.

It would help correct the screwed up supply
and demand curve for US ag products.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
what a terminal ****wit you have always been.

It has a high energy content, with
minimal resulting waste product. etc etc.

Pity about the environmental effects of using
such a tiny part of the corn crop, ****wit.

Just be sure to add those unpopped popcorn kernels to the fuel, they
are VERY dry and the cooking oil ramps up their heat value
substantially.

Rod Speed wrote:
jw wrote

FWIW: I think heating with corn is an excellent idea.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
what a terminal ****wit you have always been.

It is a renewable resource.

Plenty of other much more viable renewable heating fuels, ****wit.

It would help correct the screwed up supply
and demand curve for US ag products.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
what a terminal ****wit you have always been.

It has a high energy content, with
minimal resulting waste product. etc etc.

Pity about the environmental effects of using
such a tiny part of the corn crop, ****wit.

Rod's worried that using corn for heat will somehow have an adverse
affect on his favorite activity, cornholing.

jw wrote:

Not really. This guy annoys me. Which I am sure is his intention.


FWIW: I think heating with corn is an excellent idea. It is a
renewable resource. It would help correct the screwed up supply and
demand curve for US ag products. It has a high energy content, with
minimal resulting waste product. etc etc.

JW
RS replied. Not intelligently. Not suprisingly.

FWIW; I tend to disagree about the corn. It is renewable, but
generally only with the expense of a large amount of non-renewable
resources. Corn takes oil to cultivate and plow, fertilize and apply
pesticides (generally they are petroleum-based as well). I sstrongly
suspect that there is a net energy loss in the use of corn as a fuel.
Archer-Daniels-Midland seems to be the biggest pusher of corn for
non-food uses; but that's the business they are in. Very heavily
subsidized.

RS replied. Not intelligently. Not suprisingly.

FWIW; I tend to disagree about the corn. It is renewable, but
generally only with the expense of a large amount of non-renewable
resources. Corn takes oil to cultivate and plow,

Yes it does. I calculated it out. From last years numbers (personal),
it took me a whopping 0.14 gallons of diesel per bushel. Add to that
0.04 gallons of LP. Hardly significant. That accounts for ~27000 BTUs
of the potential ~392,000 in a bushel. Leaves 365000 BTU per bushel
net. A gallon of fuel is only 140,000 BTU. That means we have around
the equivalent of 2.5 gallons of diesel fuel left yet.

fertilize and apply
pesticides (generally they are petroleum-based as well). I sstrongly
Fertilizer is generally petroleum based. Pesticides are not. I don't
know the exact chemistry and conversion process so I can't say how much
net fuel would have been yielded otherwise. FWIW - net cost of
fertilizer is ~$0.345/bu.

suspect that there is a net energy loss in the use of corn as a fuel.
Not really. It is primarily a conversion of the energy captured from
the sun in a highly dense format. Like I said, I dont' know how much
fuel could have been generated in lieu of fertilizer, but I doubt it
would account for the balance mentioned previously.

Archer-Daniels-Midland seems to be the biggest pusher of corn for
non-food uses; but that's the business they are in. Very heavily
subsidized.
The reports of how heavily subsidized agriculture is, are generally
overblown. I won't dispute that certain segments do recieve
disproportionate subsidies. However, most reports are so ridiculously
erroneous/deceptive they could just as well have been printed in the
Enquirer/Star/etc. Last year, the local printed the list of the
highest reciepients of the LDP checks. The #1 on the list was ADM.
While true, this was very misleading. The reason ADM is the highest is
that they had acted as a clearing house for many producers and handled
all of the volume certifications and paperwork. The producers recieved
the check indirectly through ADM. ADM did not actually keep the
checks.

FWIW - net costs to produce a bushel of corn(for me) are ~$1.38/bu.
This is just production cost(including land cost). Not taking into
account interest/capital expense/etc.

Now granted I may be somewhat biased, but burning corn seems like a
reasonable alternative to liquid/gas fuels. Biodiesel would certainly
be an alternative as well. Rapeseed would be a good source for that.
Soybeans are not. The oil capacity is just not really there. Another
alternative might be ethanol from sugarcane. These are all dependent
on the local infrastructure.

JW

jw wrote:

FWIW; I tend to disagree about the corn. It is renewable,
but generally only with the expense of a large amount of
non-renewable resources. Corn takes oil to cultivate and plow,

Yes it does. I calculated it out. From last years numbers (personal),
it took me a whopping 0.14 gallons of diesel per bushel. Add to that
0.04 gallons of LP. Hardly significant. That accounts for ~27000
BTUs of the potential ~392,000 in a bushel. Leaves 365000 BTU
per bushel net. A gallon of fuel is only 140,000 BTU. That means
we have around the equivalent of 2.5 gallons of diesel fuel left yet.

What matters is what is used to grow other renewable heating fuels.

fertilize and apply pesticides (generally
they are petroleum-based as well).

Fertilizer is generally petroleum based. Pesticides are not.

Wrong.

I don't know the exact chemistry and conversion process

That's obvious. Where do you claim the pesticide starting materials come from ?

so I can't say how much net fuel would have been yielded
otherwise. FWIW - net cost of fertilizer is ~$0.345/bu.

And is a lot lower than that with other renewable heating fuels.

I sstrongly suspect that there is a net energy loss in the use of corn as a
fuel.

Not really. It is primarily a conversion of the energy
captured from the sun in a highly dense format.

Yes, and corn is a particularly poor renewable heating fuel.

Essentially because there is so much wasted green matter discarded.

Like I said, I dont' know how much fuel could have
been generated in lieu of fertilizer, but I doubt it
would account for the balance mentioned previously.

Archer-Daniels-Midland seems to be the biggest
pusher of corn for non-food uses; but that's the
business they are in. Very heavily subsidized.

The reports of how heavily subsidized
agriculture is, are generally overblown.

Nope.

I won't dispute that certain segments do recieve disproportionate
subsidies. However, most reports are so ridiculously erroneous
/deceptive they could just as well have been printed in the
Enquirer/Star/etc. Last year, the local printed the list of the
highest reciepients of the LDP checks. The #1 on the list was ADM.
While true, this was very misleading. The reason ADM is the highest
is that they had acted as a clearing house for many producers and
handled all of the volume certifications and paperwork. The
producers recieved the check indirectly through ADM. ADM did not
actually keep the checks.

Doesnt alter the fact that corn production is heavily subsidised.

FWIW - net costs to produce a bushel of corn(for me)
are ~$1.38/bu. This is just production cost(including land
cost). Not taking into account interest/capital expense/etc.

Now granted I may be somewhat biased, but burning corn
seems like a reasonable alternative to liquid/gas fuels.

What matters is the other grown heating fuels.

Biodiesel would certainly be an alternative as well. Rapeseed would
be a good source for that. Soybeans are not. The oil capacity is just
not really there. Another alternative might be ethanol from sugarcane.
These are all dependent on the local infrastructure.

And there is the tiny matter of wood.

Perfectly feasible to chip it to make it as easy to handle as corn too.

The use of corn as a heating fuel is a complete and utter environmental
obscenity.

Thanks for the datapoint.
I'm curious. Are you a small farmer (own use only) or selling on the
market? Other examples I've read come out the other way. But I'm not
in that farming industry so I don't have any way of sorting out the
nonsense from the special interests.

I'm still not at all supportive of the subsidies. Paying money to keep
the price high just doesn't work. And whatever the tax mechanism, tax
money is going in there somewhere.

Based on what I read on labels, most pesticides I believe are
petroleum-sourced. Organic controls will be different.

Depending on where you grow the corn, irrigation and its water/energy
costs will factor in.

wrote:
Thanks for the datapoint.
I'm curious. Are you a small farmer (own use only) or selling on the
market? Other examples I've read come out the other way. But I'm not
in that farming industry so I don't have any way of sorting out the
nonsense from the special interests.
Matter of relativity, but I am considered a small farmer by most. I
run 280 acres of cash crop(mix of field corn, soybeans, sweet corn,
sweet peas).


I'm still not at all supportive of the subsidies. Paying money to keep
the price high just doesn't work. And whatever the tax mechanism, tax
money is going in there somewhere.
I don't want to turn this into a big debate about subsidies and
everything they represent. Most of it is a perpetuation of
misconceptions and half-truths by the media. I recieve very little to
none from the government. Most years I recieve nothing from the
government. Some years I get a little. Certain portions of the
industry do recieve large subsidies. Corn is not one of them. FWIW, I
am against subsidies for the most part. I understand why they were
implemented and support the intention behind them. However, like most
government programs it has been corrupted by cronyism and pork
barrelling.


Based on what I read on labels, most pesticides I believe are
petroleum-sourced. Organic controls will be different.
Most are some derivitive of an amino acid complex. Where this amino
acid base comes from varies. Some are naturally derived, some are
sythesized from various sources. Like I said previously, I don't know
the exact chemical process and root stock used for each pesticide.

I do know that Anhydrous Ammonia is a direct product of natural gas.
It is manufactured by injecting steam into natural gas and then refined
from there. I finally took the time to look it up. This doesn't
really account for very much. Using the average of 33.5M BTU natural
gas to produce 1 ton of NH3, this is only another 14k BTU per bushel of
corn. From my previous post, that still leaves 351k BTU net gain per
bushel.


Depending on where you grow the corn, irrigation and its water/energy
costs will factor in.
Not a factor for me. Not far away from me it is. On the sandy ground
irrigation is the only way to grow a crop. Where I am at, we can
attain 200+ bu/acre w/o it.

jw wrote
wrote

I'm curious. Are you a small farmer (own use only) or selling
on the market? Other examples I've read come out the other
way. But I'm not in that farming industry so I don't have any
way of sorting out the nonsense from the special interests.

Matter of relativity, but I am considered a small farmer by most. I run
280 acres of cash crop(mix of field corn, soybeans, sweet corn, sweet peas).

I'm still not at all supportive of the subsidies. Paying money
to keep the price high just doesn't work. And whatever the
tax mechanism, tax money is going in there somewhere.

I don't want to turn this into a big debate about subsidies
and everything they represent. Most of it is a perpetuation
of misconceptions and half-truths by the media.

Irrelevant to the fact that subsidys exist.

I recieve very little to none from the government.

Wrong when the protectionism involved with imports are included.

Most years I recieve nothing from the government.

Wrong when the protectionism involved with imports are included.

Some years I get a little. Certain portions of the industry
do recieve large subsidies. Corn is not one of them.

Wrong again with the totality of subsidys.

FWIW, I am against subsidies for the most part. I understand
why they were implemented and support the intention behind
them. However, like most government programs it has been
corrupted by cronyism and pork barrelling.

Based on what I read on labels, most pesticides I believe
are petroleum-sourced. Organic controls will be different.

Most are some derivitive of an amino acid complex.
Where this amino acid base comes from varies.

Not with bulk ag pesticides.

Some are naturally derived,

Not with bulk ag pesticides.

some are sythesized from various sources.

Almost all of which do basically come from oil.

Like I said previously, I don't know the exact chemical
process and root stock used for each pesticide.

That's always been obvious.

Depending on where you grow the corn, irrigation
and its water/energy costs will factor in.

Not a factor for me.

You are completely irrelevant. What matters is what is
done with the bulk of corn that is used as a heating fuel.

Not far away from me it is. On the sandy ground
irrigation is the only way to grow a crop. Where
I am at, we can attain 200+ bu/acre w/o it.

See above.

Novel way of cleaning the soot from the inside of the stove....