Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Ethanol is a scam alternative fuel...
it takes 29 percent more energy to make ethanol from corn than is contained in the ethanol itself.
Ethanol production is a scam, not real alternative
Kevin Hassett
2006-02-15 Beijing Time
In his State of the Union address, George W Bush called for an intense effort to develop more efficient alternative fuel sources.
"We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips and stalks or switch grass," the United States' president said. "Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years."
Bush should have known better. In a capital city that is full of shameless political scams, ethanol is perhaps the most egregious.
There has probably never been a specific topic around which so much disinformation is spread.
Ethanol lowers our reliance on fossil fuels! Ethanol helps clean the environment! Ethanol will save the family farm!
Such sound bites work wonders when it comes to raising money. And the amount involved is mind-boggling.
The US federal government subsidizes ethanol producers with a tax credit of 51 cents per gallon of fuel ethanol; those subsidies will total about US$1.4 billion this year.
If you look at the facts, the spending makes no sense whatsoever.
Consider how ethanol is produced.
Corn is grown, harvested, and delivered to an ethanol plant. There the corn is finely ground and mixed with water. After fermentation, a mixture that is about 8 percent ethanol must be repeatedly distilled until it is 99.5 percent pure ethanol.
Growing and harvesting the corn, and heating and reheating the fermented corn to produce ethanol of a high enough quality to replace some of the gasoline in your car requires an enormous amount of energy.
A recent careful study by Cornell University's David Pimentel and the University of California at Berkeley's Tad Patzek added up all the energy consumption that goes into ethanol production.
They took account of the energy it takes to build and run tractors. They added in the energy embodied in the other inputs and irrigation.
Putting it all together, they found that it takes 29 percent more energy to make ethanol from corn than is contained in the ethanol itself.
It's not that corn is a bad source for ethanol. The other sources mentioned by the president look even worse.
Ethanol is just a highly uneconomical product.
Some other authors have disputed these findings, but they invariably come up with more favorable calculations by excluding some of the costs.
It's an illusion
Indeed, no matter how expensive fossil fuels become, ethanol will never be economical because it takes so much fossil fuel to produce.
It might be possible that someday technological processes will emerge that make production of ethanol less reliant on fossil fuels, but the billions in subsidies to this point have left us with a process that is still a disgrace and an absurd waste of energy and taxpayers' money.
At least ethanol reduces pollution, right? Maybe the subsidies are worthwhile because they will buy us a cleaner environment.
Guess again. First, corn production, according to Pimentel and Patzek, "uses more herbicides and insecticides than any other crop produced in the US."
And the US Environmental Protection Agency has cited ethanol plants themselves for air pollution.
Ethanol itself contributes to air pollution. Cars emit more air pollution when they run on gasoline containing ethanol than they do when running on gasoline alone.
The arguments against ethanol are so persuasive you have to ask yourself: Why does US Congress keep throwing money at it?
The answer appears to be that elected officials from corn-growing states such as Iowa and Illinois see it as a cash cow for their constituents.
The ethanol business is a pretty good source of cash for the lawmakers too.
The political action committee of Archer Daniels Midland Co, the world's largest producer of corn-based ethanol fuel, gave US$69,000 to US federal candidates for the 2004 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
In 2002, before such unlimited "soft money" donations were outlawed, ADM gave US$1.8 million to political parties.
Let's summarize the economics this way. Exxon Mobil Corp had US$36 billion in net income last year.
If an alternative fuel source could be developed that would compete for that business, the potential rewards would be enormous.
There would be a race to get there first, and firms would be lining up to do ethanol research.
We wouldn't need a subsidy.
But even with decades of federal subsidies, private companies still haven't developed an economical ethanol, and public sector progress is minimal.
Bush's speech holds out hope that finally, after all those wasted billions, we are just six years away from a quality product.
But it seems unlikely that the magic formula will soon be discovered.
(The author is director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. The views expressed are his own.)
To visit :
Addicted to Fake Energy Alternative Research
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AddictedToF_E_A_R/
The Hydrogen Economy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterHydrogenEconomy/
Water Asequia Paradigm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterAsequiaParadigm/
Aztlan Stewardship
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AztlanStewardship/
To SUBSCRIBE for free: go to
Addicted to Fake Energy Alternative Research
AddictedToF_E_A_R-subscribe [at] yahoogroups.com
The Hydrogen Economy
WaterHydrogenEconomy-subscribe [at] yahoogroups.com
Water Asequia Paradigm
WaterAsequiaParadigm-subscribe [at] yahoogroups.com
Aztlan Stewardship
AztlanStewardship-subscribe [at] yahoogroups.com
or
Hydrogen Economy
Subscribe to WaterHydrogenEconomy [input] [input] Powered by groups.yahoo.com
Water Asequia Paradim
Subscribe to WaterAsequiaParadigm [input] [input] Powered by groups.yahoo.com Aztlan Stewardship
Subscribe to AztlanStewardship [input] [input] Powered by groups.yahoo.com
Buy Hydrogen/Hybrid (1,000+mpg) or a Hydrogen fueled only (100+mpg) or Hybrid only Vehicles (45-50mpg), not a Hummers ( 4 - 9 mpg). The government and the NEWS should reflect, not determine, the desires of the people.The cable news is a melodrama of constant trivia. Government is always corrupt, civil liberties only protect us from them. The people must lead to survive corrupt governments. Read the constitution. (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this includes information for research and educational purposes.) Al Soto (c) 2006
Kevin Hassett
2006-02-15 Beijing Time
In his State of the Union address, George W Bush called for an intense effort to develop more efficient alternative fuel sources.
"We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips and stalks or switch grass," the United States' president said. "Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years."
Bush should have known better. In a capital city that is full of shameless political scams, ethanol is perhaps the most egregious.
There has probably never been a specific topic around which so much disinformation is spread.
Ethanol lowers our reliance on fossil fuels! Ethanol helps clean the environment! Ethanol will save the family farm!
Such sound bites work wonders when it comes to raising money. And the amount involved is mind-boggling.
The US federal government subsidizes ethanol producers with a tax credit of 51 cents per gallon of fuel ethanol; those subsidies will total about US$1.4 billion this year.
If you look at the facts, the spending makes no sense whatsoever.
Consider how ethanol is produced.
Corn is grown, harvested, and delivered to an ethanol plant. There the corn is finely ground and mixed with water. After fermentation, a mixture that is about 8 percent ethanol must be repeatedly distilled until it is 99.5 percent pure ethanol.
Growing and harvesting the corn, and heating and reheating the fermented corn to produce ethanol of a high enough quality to replace some of the gasoline in your car requires an enormous amount of energy.
A recent careful study by Cornell University's David Pimentel and the University of California at Berkeley's Tad Patzek added up all the energy consumption that goes into ethanol production.
They took account of the energy it takes to build and run tractors. They added in the energy embodied in the other inputs and irrigation.
Putting it all together, they found that it takes 29 percent more energy to make ethanol from corn than is contained in the ethanol itself.
It's not that corn is a bad source for ethanol. The other sources mentioned by the president look even worse.
Ethanol is just a highly uneconomical product.
Some other authors have disputed these findings, but they invariably come up with more favorable calculations by excluding some of the costs.
It's an illusion
Indeed, no matter how expensive fossil fuels become, ethanol will never be economical because it takes so much fossil fuel to produce.
It might be possible that someday technological processes will emerge that make production of ethanol less reliant on fossil fuels, but the billions in subsidies to this point have left us with a process that is still a disgrace and an absurd waste of energy and taxpayers' money.
At least ethanol reduces pollution, right? Maybe the subsidies are worthwhile because they will buy us a cleaner environment.
Guess again. First, corn production, according to Pimentel and Patzek, "uses more herbicides and insecticides than any other crop produced in the US."
And the US Environmental Protection Agency has cited ethanol plants themselves for air pollution.
Ethanol itself contributes to air pollution. Cars emit more air pollution when they run on gasoline containing ethanol than they do when running on gasoline alone.
The arguments against ethanol are so persuasive you have to ask yourself: Why does US Congress keep throwing money at it?
The answer appears to be that elected officials from corn-growing states such as Iowa and Illinois see it as a cash cow for their constituents.
The ethanol business is a pretty good source of cash for the lawmakers too.
The political action committee of Archer Daniels Midland Co, the world's largest producer of corn-based ethanol fuel, gave US$69,000 to US federal candidates for the 2004 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
In 2002, before such unlimited "soft money" donations were outlawed, ADM gave US$1.8 million to political parties.
Let's summarize the economics this way. Exxon Mobil Corp had US$36 billion in net income last year.
If an alternative fuel source could be developed that would compete for that business, the potential rewards would be enormous.
There would be a race to get there first, and firms would be lining up to do ethanol research.
We wouldn't need a subsidy.
But even with decades of federal subsidies, private companies still haven't developed an economical ethanol, and public sector progress is minimal.
Bush's speech holds out hope that finally, after all those wasted billions, we are just six years away from a quality product.
But it seems unlikely that the magic formula will soon be discovered.
(The author is director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. The views expressed are his own.)
To visit :
Addicted to Fake Energy Alternative Research
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AddictedToF_E_A_R/
The Hydrogen Economy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterHydrogenEconomy/
Water Asequia Paradigm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterAsequiaParadigm/
Aztlan Stewardship
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AztlanStewardship/
To SUBSCRIBE for free: go to
Addicted to Fake Energy Alternative Research
AddictedToF_E_A_R-subscribe [at] yahoogroups.com
The Hydrogen Economy
WaterHydrogenEconomy-subscribe [at] yahoogroups.com
Water Asequia Paradigm
WaterAsequiaParadigm-subscribe [at] yahoogroups.com
Aztlan Stewardship
AztlanStewardship-subscribe [at] yahoogroups.com
or
Hydrogen Economy
Subscribe to WaterHydrogenEconomy [input] [input] Powered by groups.yahoo.com
Water Asequia Paradim
Subscribe to WaterAsequiaParadigm [input] [input] Powered by groups.yahoo.com Aztlan Stewardship
Subscribe to AztlanStewardship [input] [input] Powered by groups.yahoo.com
Buy Hydrogen/Hybrid (1,000+mpg) or a Hydrogen fueled only (100+mpg) or Hybrid only Vehicles (45-50mpg), not a Hummers ( 4 - 9 mpg). The government and the NEWS should reflect, not determine, the desires of the people.The cable news is a melodrama of constant trivia. Government is always corrupt, civil liberties only protect us from them. The people must lead to survive corrupt governments. Read the constitution. (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this includes information for research and educational purposes.) Al Soto (c) 2006
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
But even if we make it from corn by the inefficient methods described above, it's still a better deal than gasoline because most of the cost of gasoline is not seen at the pump, but on April 15, when we finance the bloated military that makes cheap gasoline possible.
No, seriously, I'm sick of hearing these articles. I'm really, really sick of hearing the continuous "oh my God, we're DOOMED" naysayers rattle on and on like purblind fools.
Of course it isn't economically viable. Things like biodiesel, ethanol, wind/solar power...they'll never match the energy density of nuclear or petroleum sources. Fusion's great...and we don't have it yet. But either OFFER SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE or don't expect me to give you the time of day.
I.E., tell ya what...if you're feeling doomed, well,...go and be doomed then. I don't share your willing acceptance of the "inevitable", any more than I'm willing to accept that BushCo and cronies are going to remain the dominant world power for the rest of my life. Go be depressed; lead as many as are willing to follow you off to whatever dark corner of primitivism you choose to hide yourself in.
And if I'm not there in twenty years, hell, start without me.
It'll be that much easier for us engineering types to get the work done with all the naysayers living in caves and dressing in bear skins -- in other words, conveniently 'out of the way'.
I'm aware that BushCo is just trying to generate a whole bunch of hype. They look bad right now, and they'll jump to any politic cause to strengthen their platform. But I'm also aware that articles like the above, that talk a whole lot but don't really provide any useful analysis or insights or solutions -- i.e., THIS IS ALL DEAD OBVIOUS -- are also just a bunch of hype from the folks on the other side of the tracks, who would stand to garner a whole lot of attention or profit or power from society tearing itself down.
The first two guys are frauds, and the journalist falls prey to their theses due to his preconceived notions. Such a shame.