Home › Opinion › Opinion
The Holy Grail of ethanol losing its appeal
STORY TOOLS
More from Opinion
This is a lesson for the civics books. Five months ago, ethanol derived from corn was the new miracle green fuel. By using corn to power our cars, we could tell the sheiks to go pound their sand.
It all sounded so simple. It also ignored the basic laws and limitations of economics, geography, chemistry and electoral politics. If we learned anything from the 1970s, we, apparently, forgot it. Then it was synfuels. Now it's biofuels, equally expensive and impractical.
The thing about oil is that there's a lot of it. True, a lot of it is in unfortunate parts of the globe but we get most of our oil from our neighbors — in fact, Hillary and Barack should be very careful what they say about NAFTA because Canada is our largest supplier.
And we're no slouches ourselves. We're the world's third-largest producer and we could produce a lot more except we have this thing about beaches, including the shore of the Beaufort Sea that only a relative handful of Americans has ever seen.
Periodically, we get distracted by the idea of battery or fuel-cell-powered cars but these seem to be in that same infinitely receding technological never-never land as the personal helicopters that gee-whiz magazines have been promising us since the 1930s will soon be parked in our driveways.
Oil is distributed through a complex, sophisticated system of refineries, tank farms, pipelines and gas stations. It is a puzzle of human nature that someone could look at this efficient network and think: "corn."
But the politicians did and five months ago decreed that we would be using 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022. Ethanol would cut our dependence of foreign oil and, in a mystery never really explained, cut greenhouse-gas emissions.
Instead, using corn for ethanol takes more energy than it creates, drives up food prices here and worldwide, uses vast amounts of land and water, increases greenhouse emissions, distorts our agricultural priorities and requires protective tariffs that drive up prices and a 51-cent a gallon subsidy that you, the taxpayer, pay. And even if we used our entire corn crop for ethanol it would still make only a token dent in oil consumption.
Other than that, it's not a bad concept.
Congress, having rushed into this, is having second thoughts. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., was quoted by The Associated Press as saying: "Corn ethanol was presented as almost a Holy Grail solution. But I believe its negatives far outweigh its benefits. We need to revisit this and back away from the food to fuel policy." Good luck.
More than one-fourth of the Senate has petitioned the Environmental Protection Administration to scrap the future mandates for use of ethanol and some lawmakers want to cut the mandate back to 2005 levels. And some would like to just give up the whole ethanol business as bad job.
But as soon as Congress enacted the subsidy and guaranteed demand, it created a powerful lobby of agribiz, farm state lawmakers and their hired special pleaders who will move heaven and earth to hang on to that subsidy. A federal program, once created, is close to eternal.
You will hear about the manifold benefits of ethanol in glossy, high- production TV ads on the Sunday morning talk shows. Meanwhile, ethanol backers are preparing a rearguard action. Corn ethanol, said one farm state lawmaker, "is a bridge to cellulosic ethanol."
Cellulosic ethanol is derived from plant waste — switchgrass, wood chips, lawn clippings, tree debris, maybe even all that corn stubble we're left with.
The problem is that no one really knows how to do this in any kind of economical way, but if your faith is in cellulosic ethanol, please check your driveway. Maybe your personal helicopter has arrived.
— Dale McFeatters writes for Scripps Howard News Service.
Posted by jw1000 on May 10, 2008 at 6:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
IBWhite: Something tells me you drive an unpatriotic gas guzzler. As do most of the nuts who get their "information from watching Faux News.
Posted by lthrnek on May 10, 2008 at 6:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just about everything we try to replace fossil fuel will have to be harvested or dug out of the earth and the amount of heat (BTUs per pound) will determine it's efficiency. The cost of harvesting it or digging it up or pumping it will have to be subtracted from the savings to determine it's economy. Not a complex problem but it seems difficult to our leaders. Every fuel will come with a cost including uranium for nuclear plants. What's the problem??
Posted by jw1000 on May 10, 2008 at 6:54 a.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by mikeb6804 on May 10, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We have oil to drill and we have uranium for nuclear power. Anyone who refuses to use it after a more than 30% population increase in the last 30 years is just plain stupid. Letting oil producing countries keep our rear ends over a barrel is just plain stupid. jw --- if the shoe fits....
Posted by cslaurie on May 10, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Burning food cereals for fuel is a crime against nature.
Posted by mohadib on May 10, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
IB. You're being a little strong on our capitalist challenged friends. They live in a make believe world where real economics doesn't count. The issue is a Supply-Side issue. We can turn to and develop alternatives to petroleum, but as we are discovering with biofuel, it's not always the answer we are looking for. Biofuel and electric cars all use more energy to produce than the benefit received. Understand I'm not against hybrid or improved gas mileage or use and development of alternative energies. But for now, our country needs petroleum. To handle this Supply-Side issue this country needs to increase oil production by drilling in those places we know we have it; off or own shore and in ANWR. And we need to fast track the building of new refineries; which we haven't done for 35 years. In fact one of the last refineries built was our very own USA Petrochem refinery which was forced out of business by our local environmentalist in the mid-80's.
What we need is a comprehensive approach to energy that includes both developing alternatives and developing our own petroleum resources.
Posted by harlan on May 10, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why hasn't anyone mentioned hydrogen? You make it out of water. It turns back into water after you burn it. It doesn't take any more energy to make it than it does to produce oil. There are a lot fewer drawbacks to obtaining and purifying (desalinating) it. It is, in general, just less of a mess to create, distribute, and use than any kind of currently used hydrocarbon fuel. If it isn't burned directly, it can be used in fuel cells. China and Great Britain are currently testing public buses powered by fuel cells. Fuel cells are used to provide some of the power used by today's space vehicles, including our own Space Shuttles. Big Oil doesn't lke the idea of hydrogen, yet they're the ones who would be furthest ahead in the race to become the ones making the most money off of its production, storage, and distribution. They have the capital; they have the property; they have the scientists, and they even have some of the equipment already. What's wrong with pushing ahead with hydrogen production? You can go ahead and drive the biggest possible car equipped with the biggest power plant imaginable, and the only thing Prius drivers will have to complain about is that you can beat them off of the line and that they can't see around you.
Posted by Jacksprat on May 10, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is what happens when the ones who don't know any thing get involved in an technical problem. It happens all the time. We have the lawyers sit in Washington writing bill about technical stuff, where they are wrong. In the beginning with the Ethanol stuff if some one I think that they did looked at the whole thing they would have know it was wrong. But some saw the way to make big money on corn grown on fields that normally would not support a corp. so they load it with stuff to make the corn grow. Now we have a big problem with our food supply. When will they ever learn.
Our biggest supply of oil is Canada, there are oil field up there that are bigger than any in the mid east. So what is the problem, NIMBY. That is the problem, we don't have the refineries to process the oil. They have tried to up date those we have but every time some one wants to build a new one the same thing happens. NOT IN MY BACK YARD. No one wants a refinery close by but they all want cheap gas.
By the way gas in Canada cost over $5.00 a gallon and they have more oil up there than any one place in the earth. Oil does not make your car go, it is gasoline and you need a refinery to change the oil into gas. So it will only get worse ethanol will not help until we build some refineries.
Posted by cassandra on May 10, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
First, there is no techno fix in the offing. Everything we have takes more energy than it provides, except solar, wind and perhaps tides.
The proposed new drilling sites will only increase environmental degradation and provide miniscule and temporary relief.
One needs to get away from the industry shills and corporate media to find any reliable information. I note that the industry is now reporting supply in terms of liquid fuels instead of sweet crude, no doubt to hide the fact that we are at peak right now and they have been lying to us.
Vis-a-vis the corporate media--anyone checking in with the indies in the last few years would have been aware that ethanol was inefficient, destructive of the environment and likely to cause food shortages particularly in impoverished parts of the world.
Allegedly "free trade" is a big part of the problem. NAFTA sucks.
We are not ready for this and the results will be catastrophic to many.
An excellent energy starter policy plan has recently been put forth by a senator from Michigan. CNN just featured it. Check it out.
We need reliable cheap public transport. We need severe conservation. We need to return our railroads to at least third world quality. We need to return our economy to the most local level feasible. We need to have done this years ago.
I love how those who denied there was a problem for so long are blaming others when the predicted problems emerge.
Gentlemen, pounding your chests and berating each others' manhood does nothing to improve your thinking or your information.
Posted by cassandra on May 10, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The senator's name is Stabenow.
A little real information--http://www.pww.org/artic...
Posted by cassandra on May 10, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
technical glitch.
http://www.pww.org/article/view/12998/
Posted by cassandra on May 10, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
technical glitch.
http://www.pww.org/article/view/12998/
Posted by lthrnek on May 10, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps our governments apparent desire to hoard our remaining oil is part of a classified National Security Strategy that would allow us to be one of the last countries to run out of oil?
Also. . . The solar, wind and tide enthusiasts need to consider how much energy it takes to manufacture solar panels, wind machines and the large tidal generators needed. Energy is measured in British Thermal Units (BTUs) and it's always going to cost something to get them. A national 55 mph speed limit, a limit on engine horseower and vehicle weight might be in order in the near term to conserve the remaining oil we have but our macho population will insist on continuing to kill some 50,000 people a year in big, powerful cars. . . Stupid. . .
Given our money oriented system with big money controlling our politicians, I see no easy answer. We'll have an oil war followed by a water war sure as shooting. . .
Our only salvation will be an honest President with vision, backed by a strong military.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on May 10, 2008 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I do agree with the basic premise that bio-fuels sound great on paper, but just don't work in practice in the real world.
On the other hand, oil is a finite resource, and whatever may be said about how much there is or is not out there, it will run out. If there are more efficient ways to use hydrocarbon resources it makes sense to do so. We do need more refinery capacity, and maybe a few areas could be drilled that are "sensitive" though I do think some should not be with current technology.
Nuclear power should be an option on the table. We do need to figure out where the waste goes (where do the French put theirs??), and security is an increasingly important issue. Fusion power would be better, but may be years, even decades, away if it ever happens.
I do think electric cars could be a very viable option, and in the very near future. There would be less localized pollution and more efficient use of hydrocarbon energy. Given that the cars are smaller, there might be more places to park! LOL!
One very promising candidate is the "Th!nk" car being built and developed in, of all places, Norway. It is a small, short hop commuter vehicle, that the say has a range of about 120 miles, and top speeds of 100km/ph which should be about 60mph. Take a look for yourself, I've read that models may be imported as soon as 2009, but they would cost better than $25k. American inventor Dean Kamen, inventor of the Segway is working on an improved battery pack to increase speed and endurance. Take a look for yourself at:
http://www.think.no/
The "pretty darn quick" award goes to the new Tesla roadster. It's electric and VERY quick..does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. Quick enough? Supposed to have a 200+ mile range, but the pricetag I've heard is like $110K....not for the average commuter. It is for sale NOW. Here's the site:
http://www.teslamotors.com/
The Norwegian "Th!nk" care is the more practical one, and the concept car coming to production to watch I think. Many people have short distance commutes to work and this car could be ideal for that.
I'd buy one to use for 90% of my driving. My Chevy truck I could park and use for the infrequent times I need to haul something heavy or big.
Posted by mikeb6804 on May 10, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cassie---as usual, you're mostly out to lunch. Conservation will not make up for 30+ years of doing nothing. Some other people above have made some very good comments.
Posted by cassandra on May 10, 2008 at 5:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have taken into account, or rather the people I read have taken into account the cost and energy cost of manufacturing solar panels. I've even priced them for my house, two or three times. When my bill went under $20 a month, I sort of gave up, although sorely tempted to make the sacrifice for the good karma. (I am not in a good wind area even in election season.)
However there have been recent improvements in efficiency of manufacturing the suckers, and I haven't ruled out making this change. And figuring they will last some thirty years, it seems like a good place to invest while the dollar has some value.
Other technical innovations mentioned above have promise. The problem is the emergency is upon us and we are not prepared. It is distressing that so few of the comments above grasp the concept of less. Our sacred life style doesn't have viability anymore. Of course conservation will not make up for 30 years of doing nothing. The thing is nothing will and LESS is a first place to start.
Speaking of macho populations that insist on killing large numbers of people, the military is in all our biggest consumer of petroleum. Do we need a strong defense. Yes, we do. Do we need to invest a couple of trillion taking control of Iraqi oil in a blundering resource war? No. Peace is the perhaps the most effective step we could take to conserve oil.
You people are by and large not getting good information. Try Klare, Heinberg, Kuntstler, Roscoe Bartlett, Colin Campbell (probably the most respected expert in the field not employed by the industry and scores of others that have been working on peak oil for well over a decade. I don't appreciate being told I'm out to lunch by people who have not done nearly the research and are getting information fed to them by the corporate media and the petroleum industry. Both lie.
Posted by lthrnek on May 10, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Strange that all the authors that Cassandra reads and quotes all seem to agree with her. Hmmmmmmm. . . .
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.