Ethanol's Dirty Little Secret
By Vladimir Posted in Energy | Environment | Ethanol — Comments (78) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Even hard-core environmentalists are starting to acknowledge that there's nothing green about ethanol.
This is the folly of the so-called "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007", which mandates 36 billion gallons of ethanol as a gasoline additive in 15 years (vs. 4.7 billion gallons in 2007). Pardon me for asking, but if our environment is already reeling from the impact of ethanol production, what happens when we make nearly eight times as much?
Ethanol Not Green or Clean, Some Charge
9 States Deemed Biggest Dead Zone Contributors
More overleaf...
From the Chronicles "Not Green or Clean" article:
"It's just damning of the notion of ethanol as a clean fuel," said Mark Kresowik, a Sierra Club organizer based in Iowa. "If we need to burn coal to create a clean burning fuel, we're not creating a clean burning fuel. It rips the shiny green veneer right off of ethanol."[snip]
All sides agree that it takes lots of electricity to produce ethanol. Utilities note a typical plant eats up as much energy as 1,600 farms.
The divide comes over where that electricity should come from. Environmental activists believe greener means, such as natural gas, should be used. Power companies argue that coal is the only cost-efficient solution.
In Iowa, the nation's top producer of corn and ethanol, dozens of plants are producing the fuel and more are being built. That's prompted a push for two coal-fired electricity plants, in Marshalltown and near Waterloo.
Both projects explicitly pitch ethanol as a reason for their construction.
Then we have this, from the Times-Picayune's "9 States" article:
The U.S. Geological Survey report examined factors contributing to excessive levels of nutrients in the Mississippi River that create areas of hypoxia -- low oxygen levels -- resulting in the large dead zone that forms off Louisiana's coast every summer. The zone kills bottom-dwelling organisms in the Gulf.According to the report, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Ohio, Kentucky and Mississippi make up only one-third of the 31-state Mississippi River drainage area, but contribute more than three-quarters of the nitrogen and phosphorus in the Gulf.
The use of nitrogen-based fertilizers to support corn and soybean crops contributes the most to the nutrient runoff, the report said. But waste from unconfined animals produces higher levels of phosphorus than previously known, according to the report.
Benjamin Grumbles, the Environmental Protection Agency's assistant administrator for water, said the study shows that farms are "overfeeding the Gulf" with nutrients. He said that federal and state regulators must develop plans to provide the Gulf with a "more balanced diet."
[snip]
There was a voluntary agreement in 2001 to reduce runoff, but Tuesday's report indicates shortcomings with that approach. Calls for mandatory reductions, however, likely will be opposed by the farm lobby.
Earlier this month, Iowa State University estimated it would cost $613 million a year to cut farm-field phosphorus runoff by 40 percent and nitrates by 25 percent, reflecting levels recommended in earlier EPA proposals.
[em-pha'-sis added throughout]
...as previously seen, ethanol would tie up a bunch of economic activity, while killing off our environment, depleting water sources, etc.
It would make a lot more sense to make nukes and domestic oil and gas the centerpieces of a rational energy security plan (note: not energy "independence"), while aggressively researching new technologies that have a lot higher potential pay-off than ethanol.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Ethanol is a bad joke and it is just an excuse to further subsidize huge corporate farms. It ethanol were a good idea, the subsidies would not be needed.
The answer is nukes and lots of them. There are probably better ways to meet our need for a mobile liquid fuel like gasoline, but with nice clean nukes you can turn hydrogen and carbon, both of which are present in our everyday air supply, into gasoline. And, it would have the further (dubious in my opinion) benefit of removing the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas from the air.
1. We have plenty of our OWN oil, if only the producers could drill for it.
2. Most of our oil comes from Mexico & Canada, not the Middle East.
#1 is not correct. We don't have enough current production or proven reserves to supply what we need on our own.
#2 is absolutely correct. I think Venezuela is #3, so as soon as the loony Chavez is gone, we will have a good deal of supply from reliable partners.
Re #1: We don't have enough current production or proven reserves to supply what we need on our own.
We don't have enough current production --- Well, that's the whole problem, so how do we boost current production?
--- or proven reserves --- this is a technical matter. The "potential resources" we have are not "proven reserves" (a precise engineering definition) for the very reason that they have not been explored and drilled.
If we had the will and a national plan, we'd open up drilling in the Alaskan frontier regions and on the Outer Continental Shelf offshore, and some of those potential resources could be called "proved reserves" in the not-too-distant future.
And, yes, there's enough potential out there to make a difference.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
I keep hearing that they're scrambling to build refineries that can handle Venezuelan crude. And of course the loony dictator has been happily accepting their capital investments.
There's an awful lot of oil left in the world, and much of it is conventional oil. The great danger with pursuing energy "independence" is that we'll end up overpaying for energy compared to our global competitors.
You might think that developing expensive alternatives now will put us in a better position when the oil starts to run out. But that's decades or more in the future. That's more than enough time to go into permanent second-class status as an economic power if we just left everyone else use the cheap oil.
Of course, this analysis flies out the window if someone somewhere comes up with a petroleum alternative that actually is less costly on a unit-energy basis. Nuclear is not that alternative.
As to #2, it doesn't realy matter where we get the oil from, if Venezuela and the Middle East decide to cut production, it raises world oil prices, including the prices from Canada and Mexico.
__________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
If oil that was going to the US, goes to China, oil that was going to China can go to the US. If there is some concerted effort to cut production by some producer(s), there will be a concerted effort by others to grab that piece of the market share. Oil is cartel like, but it really isn's a wholly effective cartel: they don't control all production and there is always somebody willing to cheat.
In Vino Veritas
we could never substitute it for more than 10% of our gasoline consumption (even if we planted corn on every arable acre in the US). Besides, it is a lousy fuel. It has only about 60% of the energy content od gasoline. If we want a substitute for foreign oil, instead of burning coal to make ethanol, it makes more sense to convert the coal to diesel directly. We have enough coal to supply all of our fuel needs (even though it probably isn't practical). Also, substituting coal for oil doesn't increase the price of food.
.
Note: I am not advocating against drilling for more domestic oil and gas, in fat I think we need to do both. This is just contrasting coal t diesel to etahnol.
to achieving an energy source that is economically viable. It is typically assumed that ethanol reduces foreign oil dependence and is therefore a more economically viable option. That is not the case considering ethanol is 34% less fuel efficient than gasoline. So not only is ethanol not green, it's not saving us any money. Call ethanol what it is: a political bone to the farm industry just like everything else that gets accomplished in Washington.
And, I am happy to point out, so does my candidate. He's been quite clear that he opposed ethanol subsidies and wants more nuclear energy.
captures the bulk of information about its impact to everything ?
Fossil fuels have a remarkable concentration of energy and are incredibly cheap. Nothing else (excepting nuclear) comes even close. Thats why we use them. If there was something better we would be using that.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
And government subsidies for ethanol don't make it cheaper, they just divert the expense to the taxpayer and away from the consumer.
Something like state-run medical care.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
science education. People are so ignorant, that the don't know what they don't know.
Have you seen any cable TV network put report on an economic issue in any way beyond "some say A, some say B"
Subsidies for an ineffecient fuel. Drive up costs, as corn is an input for so many different products, and growing the quantity of corn removes lots of land from alternative uses.
Combine that reality with the first in line Iowa caucus---and you a recipe that guarantees bad outcomes.
Synthetics dominate the market, but tend to be more expensive and not as efficient in newer engines. Is crude-based motor oil sill in use? If so, why isn't this part of the conversation? All this talk of hydrogen or electric cars always makes me wonder what we will use to lubricate the engines.
R.J.
Some of those synthetics are made from crude oil that has been repeatedly processed. That may not sound very synthetic, but the Supreme Court decided it is. Other synthetics are produced from other fossil fuels. Fossil fuels provide the raw material in any case.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
For the reason that synthetics improve mileage. Also, synthetics are pretty much made from dino oil thats been chopped up and rebuilt - like Steve Austin - to be better. Oil is a pretty complex mixture of hydrocarbons, alcohols and other impurities. Once you have reduced it to very short hydrocarbon chains, you can reassemble them in any length you want to make any 'oil' product.
at least in a cold climate. You can't change over in an old engine though; won't stay in it. It was about five below this morning. My and my wife's cars have Mobil 1 synthetic in them and started effortlessly. My truck has dino oil in it (bought it used and it's always had dino oil), and sat there grinding the starter for a good ten seconds before it would spin up enough to fire.
In Vino Veritas
I also use it in a few of my vehicles, mostly so I don't have to change my oil in my driveway when its -15 in the middle of winter.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
at least not on purpose. Especially in winter, the engines never really warm up enough to burn off all the contaminants, so I try to change the oil scrupulously at 3K. If you do a bunch of freeway driving and long distances, it probably isn't a consideration, but in winter the furtherest I ever go is the thirteen miles to town and it's rare that I'll get over 50. Some days you won't get over 20!
I drove my 2wd pickup to Home Depot this morning. About 5 above and snowing pretty good, real light, powdery stuff over polished ice the whole way. Boy was that an adventure!
In Vino Veritas
I drive over 100 miles a day so getting up to temp isn't much of a problem. Snow over ice is the worst... luckily we dump a crazy amount of MgCl and CaCl on the roads so they are completely clear of ice and snow 95% of the time. Especially since chains and studded tires are illegal in this state.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
when the temps are in the singles and sub-zero, where we've been for the last several days. Whole town is like a sking rink. Studs are legal here, but unless they're the "lightweight" ones, they're taxed pretty heavily. I have some old-fashioned ones on the truck; makes it semi-controllable. Have Bridgestone Blizzak studless snow tires on the cars; they get around pretty good so long as the snow isn't so deep you're plowing it. Then I just stay home!
In Vino Veritas
and tie it to higher food prices for the poor!
beat the dems to it, quick
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Will just be more welfare checks -- oops -- I mean income tax rebates to people who didn't pay any income tax.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
like general revenues from Federal taxes, aren't FICA taxes just like that proverbial rose that smells as sweet?
Don't get me wrong, I know that the best stimulus are permanent tax rate cuts, but I usually do welcome any tax cut any time, ie even these.
And I wish Bush had insisted that the rate cuts be made permanent, and I recognize that this kind of temporary act also has the danger of teaching the econ-illiterate public the wrong lesson.
But as to my first question, what say Z'?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Depending on how many children they have, some people getting these checks pay no payroll taxes either (an incidentally, they are same same guys getting the biggest checks).
The only reason to call them tax rebate checks is a political one. You cannot rebate what you the guy didn't pay in the first place. But if they called them anything else, the initiative would generate a lot of popular opposition.
If they wanted to do this right, they would cut taxes permanently. If they wanted to do this less wrong, they would have rebated some portion of the income tax we paid last year They could even cap it if they don't want "the rich" to get any benefit from it... but it should be based on taxes paid, not on how many kids you have.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
like fed taxes, hence anyone that gets a check has paid money into gen revs.
like I said
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
And these checks would be big enough to more than wipe out a lot of the remaining people's FICA tabs.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
to those that don't pay is falase
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
I never said that nobody who gets these checks pays any taxes. That would be ridiculous.
A real rebate is based on how much you paid in, and won't exceed that amount. These are not real tax rebates. They are public assistance. A one time welfare payment to everybody who makes less than a certain amount a year.
It would be just as logical to call these things ATV rebate checks, since I am sure some of these guys getting have purchased new 4 wheelers recently.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Our income and deductions are such that we don't always pay Federal income taxes, but FICA taxes always kill us. And EITC doesn't even begin to cover it, even when we drop down low enough to qualify.
And yes, there are the extremely low income people who get the full EITC which more than covers their FICA, but it is certainly not everyone.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Even if EITC doesn't cover all of their FICA, there's a very good chance $1200 will cover all of it and then some. If you work 10 hours a week, only making $3000 and have three kids, you'll still get a $1200 check from the government. And that's on top of the EITC you would qualify for. And on top of all the public assistance you would qualify for at that income level. I think it is absurd to call these things tax rebates.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Some Dems have already picked up on this. By and large, the Ethanol boondogle is propped up by midwestern politicos of both parties since they think this benefits large corporate farms and firms like ADM, Conagra and Monsanto.
Have been doing that in a big way since the 1930s. I don't see it changing any time soon. Ethanol is just the latest in a long line.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Here's a diary I "wrote" about it. And if you look at a sampling of Dkos diaries you'll see the general trend is anti-ethanol. Generally I don't care too much about it, except that it puts pressure on food supplies for the world's poorest, and that seems like a non-starter as far as the sort of major, long-term solution we need.
of my main themes since leaving the dems after 18 years in 2000 for the GOP is to pint out that conservatism is better for the poor and lower income families than dem lib policies.
The GOP simply do not make the easy case. David Horowitz addresses this in his "How to beat Democrats" chapter in his book, Left Illusions.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"How to Beat the Democrats?" Should be required reading for any R activist, candidate, or officeholder.
In Vino Veritas
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
I'm glad to see an issue blog on here every once in a while. I sure will be much happier when the mud slinging over this primary season is over.
When someone preaches disunity, tries to pit us against each other through class warfare, race hatred or religious intolerance, that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives. And, we know what to do about it...Working together to produce an ever greater abundance of material and spiritual values for all. That is the secret of American prosperity. Make mine freedom!
is to develop our own oil reserves, while we fast track large scale development of nuke power.
However, that doesn't mean that we can sit back and wait until oil runs out either. We will need a sustainable, renewable source of fuel, and ethanol was only a starter molecule. Much better options are in development. Check out:
http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=65290§ion=Opin...
(free subscription required)
"Ethanol, as an additive for gasoline, is rapidly approaching obsolescence. In five to 10 years, it will begin to be replaced, not by another inefficient additive but by a substitute for gasoline.
Gasoline substitutes are being developed by a number of companies that are well-funded and making projections for marketing fuel for cars, trucks and airplanes.
...
Here are a few companies Herald readers can check out on the Internet: Amyris Biotechnologies, Synthetic Genomics, Gevo and 1s9. There are many brilliant scientists working in these companies, and some have projections for marketing many billions of gallons of gasoline substitute within six years. Contrast this with ethanol production, which is merely an additive that dates back to the stone age."
I guess what I was trying to say was, don't give up on biofuels just because ethanol is not the answer.
The left has fallen out of love with EtOH because it can pay its own way now. Back in the 70s and 80s the technology wasn't there to make it economically. From the mid90s to today, that has changed. Today's cost per gallon (apart from the corn) is about 90 cents and falling. In the 70s it was north of three bucks. The left loves to subsidize that kind of economics. But this isn't the 70s so now they hate it.
As for farm subsidies, supposedly "everyone" loves sub-two dollar corn. Makes food cheap, no matter a detailed econ analysis doesn't support that claim. (If corn were steady at five dollars, the raw cost of corn in a 10oz bag of Frittos corn chips is less than five cents.) But what the "everyone" also gets with their love is government subsidy (i.e., taxpayer supported) of corn up to about the three dollar mark. Now that corn is going for north of three dollars, the subsidy formula is way down. Down to zero in most cases on corn. Since subsidies are way down on corn, the nanny state left hates that, and thus hates EtOH.
This is another side effect of Iowa's inflated importance in our primary system. In the runup to the 2012 primaries they will probobly decide that corn has potential as a cure for cancer.
Without getting into the merits of ethanol as a fuel, corn as a source for it is just stupid. It takes more energy to make than you get back out of it. Switchgrass is more efficient but it doesn't have much of a lobby.
I think there's a good chance for the left and right to really come together and oppose this for the simple fact that it's driving up beer prices at a time when the economy is on its way into the crapper. That's just wrong.
If subsidies are to be used as an incentive at all, they should not be tied to a particular technology, but to promote various technologies, so that the best one comes out on top. Such as switchgrass over corn, or higher chain alcohols and hydrocarbons over ethanol. When we dictate where the solution must come from, we don't always come up with the best one.
You can get the tax credit however you want to generate ethanol for use as a motor vehicle fuel. The source material does not matter. There are lots of reasons you don't see switch grass being used at this point, but lack of subsidies isn't one of them.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
But are there any for targets besides ethanol, such as higher chain alcohols and hydrocarbons? Ethanol has many other problems beyond feedstock that make it unattractive as a fuel. As I have been told ,(and I have not done the research myself) these other targets are not subsidized the way ethanol is.
As far as other alcohols go, I only know of ethanol and methanol being used as motor vehicle fuels. There's a lot wrong with methanol... the fact that it eats aluminum and is extremely poisonous being the main things. They use it as a fuel in some motor sports like drag racing. If you are going to rebuild your engine every 10 miles or so anyway, the corrosive effects aren't such a big deal.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Do you know about ultra low sulphur diesel? There have been many discussions in our house about this. My mileage has dropped from 17-18 down to 14 since the switch. Hubby's has dropped from 19-20 down to 14-15. We are both running Cummins.
Some of his customers have dropped down to 4-5 in Peterbilts that used to get 7-8.
Is it the ultra low sulphur? If so, how do they figure it will reduce emissions when fuel consumption is increasing by 20%? (actually I just did the math: It's a 35.7% increase in fuel on hubby's truck, and his is a 2007, supposedly engineered for ultra low. Lord only knows how bad it's been for the tractors.)
I looked at the Washington State Dept. of Ecology website and they said we could expect to "get slightly less fuel mileage than it did with low sulfur diesel" but this is not "slightly" in my book.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
And I don't think there's any basis for one... the main objection to this ultra low sulfur diesel was the massive costs involved in switching over, cleaning pipelines and tanks, and keeping them clean so they don't get fined by the EPA. That and some concern about the lack of sulfur ruining injector pumps. Supposedly it is just fine, but I guess we will find out for sure in a few years.
You are likely to be running #1 or Kero-Diesel mix now instead of the straight #2 you'd run in summer, and you will get much worse mileage from either of those fuels. Those fuels simply don't have as much energy in them as straight #2. But people use them in winter because they don't gel up in normal winter temps like #2 will.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Corn-based ethanol production barely makes a net positive return on the energy required to produce it. While it does take a lot of power to run the distilleries, it also takes a lot of hydrocarbons from oil and natural gas to make the fetilizer and run the machinery to grow the corn. Fuel mileage drops in the vehicles that burn it and the diversion of corn from the food stream drives up all food prices. Buy a steak lately? Today's industrialized food production is based almost entirely on corn.
It would be much wiser to build syn-fuel plants to turn the coal into synthetic fuels. The world needs hydrocarbon fuels and will for the foreseeable future. Even if we don't need to burn hydrocarbon fuels, we will still need lube oil. The best way to get Big Oil to build syn-fuel plants is with tax subsidies.
Of course, the bulk of our electricity should be generated by nukes. The good news is that there are more permit applications in place today and even expansions planned and in process. Using nukes to generate electricity reduces that silly Co2 'footprint' (as if it matters) and more importantly frees up the use of coal and natural gas to, um make hydrocarbon fuels.
When alcohol can be produced by switchgrass or pine bark or soimething like that, then it might be OK, but if anything this fiasco should illustrate exactly why it is very very bad for government to tell the market how much of anything they must produce - even if for the noblest intentions.
Ethanol's limitations must continue to be exposed.
I am particularly concerned that government subsidies for ethanol have created a demand for turning vast amounts of farmland into sources for Ethanol which leads to less foodstuffs being grown which leads to higher process.
Ethanol is nothing more than a bad idea that will not contribute to energy independence but will upset the markets.
As a nation we must get over our fear of nuclear and start using it far and wide. And of course we have enough coal to make us energy independent.
Ethanol is the very same alcohol we find in our favourite adult beverages. As such, it is taxed. In order to avoid the tax, ethanol (to be used as a fuel) is poisoned with such lovely things as naphtha and methanol. In this way the government is able to poison tax evaders. Think about that before you go filling up your vodka bottle at the gas station.
Of course once it gets to the gas pump it is at least 15% gasoline (or you wouldn't be able to start your car on a cold day), so you probably wouldn't want to drink it even if it wasn't poisoned at the ethanol plant.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
It's time we educate the public that ethanol is the culprit for soaring food prices that hurt the budget of every family in America, especially those least able to afford the higher prices.
When government subsidies pay billions to move grain out of the food market and into ethanol, then supply-and-demand dictate that food costs will climb.
Want the details? Read about it here:
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed120307c.cfm
Unfortunately, the new "energy bill" is going to make this problem dramatically worse!
It's only part of "The High Cost of Congress", and you'll find more useful information here:
http://congressman-jack-kingston.redstate.com/blogs/ernest_istook/2008/j...
I'll continue to write about this from my perch at The Heritage Foundation.
I hope that Mr. Istook favors airing both sides of the debate.
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/facts/food/
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/facts/food/documents/Informa_Renew_Fu...
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I have a lot of respect for Heritage Foundation. I've used their material in my own campaign. But there are two sides to the debate. And Heritage does get a bit of financial support from big oil. Can't say whether that matters or not on Heritage's position, but big oil's money is on Heritage's table is worth a note.
I'll note that Heritage receives some funding from the oil companies, and I'll still take their opinion v. RFA.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Most of RFA's funding comes from the fuel-EtOH industry. Which was my basic point. Read the positions, follow the money and make an educated decision. Both sides are speaking from vested interest.
The food issue is one thing.
I don't see where RFA takes a position on the environmental calamity that corn-based ethanol is causing.
"Big Oil" is such a convenient bogeyman, eh, what?
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Mr. Vladimir, am I correct to assume from your comment that I have some ax to grind with big oil? Or as you put it, "Big Oil"?
Energy is incredibly important to a technically advanced, industrialized society. Liquid fuels such as oil and ethanol are very valuable to those of us who appreciate modern transportation and climate controlled homes and business. I have no problem with companies that manufacture and distribute vitally important materials and make a profit for their efforts. Unlike our current crop of candidates for president, I don't believe "profit" is a dirty word. (Possible exception to Mr. Romney.)
But I do have some other concerns about big oil. One is that, apart from the Left (see my post 45 above), whenever some negative study comes out on ethanol, it seems that often there is big oil money behind the study. (And yes, the EtOH industry does defend itself, why shouldn't it? Should I just be quiet because somebody said something mean about me? Especially if I don't believe it is true?) Second, a lot of big oil's raw material comes from nations hostile to ours. Again, I believe that energy is extremely important to our nation and so I find it quite disturbing that our nation is so dependent on our mortal enemies for maintaining our standard of living. Third, and connected to my second point, our nation spends an enormous amount of our tax dollars and the blood of some of our finest fellow citizens maintaining some level of civilized order in regions hostile to us but critical to our energy needs. Do we shed blood for oil? Yes, but energy is not an insignificant side luxury that we can do without; it is vitally important to our industry, technology, and lifestyle. Producing more energy here at home pulls some of that very expensive dependence away from our enemies. Fourth, do we really want to be sending USDs out of our country, to nations hostile to us, instead of producing an economically viable alternatives here at home, domestically? I spent thirty bucks filling my truck's tank last night; I'd much rather that money stayed here in the US rather than headed off to Hugo Chavez's bank account (or worse).
As anyone who has ever posted on this site.
First let me recommend this book. Read it and then tell me how increasing the demand for a commodity with an inelastic supply and by giving an artificial subsidy won't drive up the price. Or just explain how the RFA has managed to repeal the law of supply and demand to have things work out their way.
Second Ethanol is not much of a net positive on the energy equation. While its energy requirements aren't totally met by oil its around 50+% the rest is coming from coal, natural gas, and a tiny bit of nuclear. So you have raised the price of food, polluted the water, and put out more CO2 just to take 10 cents a gallon out of Chavez's pocket. Oh and it cost you a 50 cent a gallon in addition to do it.
Brilliant simply mind numbingly brilliant.
OH btw there is a reason we use oil. ITS FREAKING DAMN WELL USEFUL. You can make it into just about anything, its the best transportation fuel ever found. It transports well. Finally its benign compared to anything else that can do one tenth of what it can.
P.S. If you want to spend less filling up your vehicle don't drive a truck.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I am astounded at your post. Pretty much every claim you made is wrong but I'm not going to take the time to clean up the mess you made. Besides, you've made it clear that you like the mess and don't want it cleaned up. I'll leave you to your happiness.
However, your final comment is certainly telling. As a conservative stuck in the far back corner of the GOP big tent, I've been thoroughly puzzled by the GOP racing to anoint a Democrat as our front-runner for the presidency. But here you are telling me what vehicle I should drive?!!? That sounds like something straight out of Al Gore's talking points. If you represent the mainstream GOP, and you've snuggled into the embrace of the Left's totalitarian talking points, then the nomination of a John McCain makes frightening sense.
On the other hand, I have backed up every statement I have made here and other places.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It seems the simplest explanation for your position.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
There is this really cool thing invented awhile back. It is called Google. Learn about it. Use it. Don't make assumptions when thirty seconds of research (work, I know, dirty word for the Left) will find your answer.
But then again you seem to be running on dead reckoning.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
There are quotes there from the Sierra Club and the USGS, none from ExxonMobil or the API.
The only people that like corn ethanol are corn farmers and politicians.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Sorry, I'm right of center. I don't take my talking points from the lefty Sierra Club. And I already explained why the Left hates EtOH in post 49. Now that fuel-EtOH can be produced in an economically viable fashion AND is bringing up the free market value of corn to the point that farmers don't need to suck on the taxpayer's teat to survive, the Left will hate the industry. If something is productive, self-sustaining, and doesn't need to steal money from the people via the brute force of the government, the Left will do all it can to slam it down.
...with a 52 cent a gallon federal tax credit and tariffs to protect against imports.
And that is why the Left hates it, huh?
You still haven't addressed the environmental cost of corn ethanol, which is the subject of this thread.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Here's the rub - ethanol's issues noted here do not detract from its "independence" value. Right now we use lots of gasoline, made from oil, imported from unstable countries. Ethanol will replace gasoline, reducing our need for foreign oil. So far so good - reducing the need for foreign oil is one of the basic reasons for "energy independence."
But you need energy to produce ethanol. This piece seems to indicate that power generators are looking to coal as the source. Now, unless I missed something, we produce lots and lots of coal right here in the U.S. Likely more than enough to handle the increased demand and so we would not need to import coal to power these plants.
So it seems we are trading higher coal usage for lower gas usage. That sounds good from the perspective of reducing the dependece on foreign oil as it substitutes a domestic resource for a foreign one. Certainly not so good for the enviro-socialists who were originally pushing the stuff - but, then, their issue isn't really "energy independence" at all, it's all about forcing energy scarcity that would open the door to government regulation and control over the distribution of scarce resources (back door socialism).