View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Alan Caruba |
January 22nd, 2007
There are many reasons why ethanol is not the answer to our need for gasoline to fuel our automobiles.
Hating so-called “fossil fuels,” coal, oil, and natural gas, with a passion, the environmentalists have perpetrated every deception possible, and among them is the notion that Americans can avoid destroying the Earth if they just fill up the tanks of their automobiles with ethanol.
As I have pointed out in the past, the world is not running out of oil and, here in the United States, we have enough reserves of coal to provide electricity and other needs for centuries to come. So who has the new Democrat majority in Congress declared persona non grata? The oil industry. Their proposed “answer” to our transportation energy needs is ethanol.
Instead of pandering to the environmentalist’s obsession over fossil fuels, Congress should be making areas in and around the United States more accessible to exploration and extraction of known oil and natural gas supplies. That is the true definition of “energy independence.”
This has not occurred because most of America’s onshore energy is in the West and Alaska where more than half the land is under federal control. We are talking about estimates, according to the U.S. Interior Department, of 187 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 21 billion barrels of oil, representing 76 percent of onshore federal oil and gas resources.
That’s enough natural gas to supply all of America’s households for the next 39 years. In terms of oil, it is comparable to more than 30 years of current imports from Saudi Arabia. Currently, Congress permits access to just three percent of onshore federal oil and three percent of onshore federal gas under standard lease terms.
While the Democrats in Congress proceed toward anointing ethanol as the “answer” to our transportation energy needs, 51 percent of the oil and 27 percent of the natural gas known reserves are completely off-limits to use.
On January 10, the Senate Agriculture Committee convened to discuss two proposed bills, the “American Fuels Act” and the “BioFuels Security Act.” They are aimed at creating artificial markets for ethanol and biodiesel. Their advocates will tout them as providing “energy independence.” What they won’t tell you is that they will wreak havoc on the economy, needlessly raising the cost of food.
One of the great ironies of the ethanol bandwagon is that a leading environmentalist, Lester R. Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, understands better than most how bad an idea it is. Brown recently called for a moratorium on the building of ethanol plants in the United States “so we can catch our breath and determine how much we want to harvest our corn for ethanol.”
Brown finds himself sharing the same pew as Tom Tanton, vice president of the Institute for Energy Research and host of www.factsonEnergy.org. There are many reasons why ethanol is not the answer to our need for gasoline to fuel our automobiles. Here are just a few:
Ethanol provides about 34 percent less energy output than gasoline. Thus the miles traveled per gallon on ethanol are greatly reduced.
Ethanol increases the price per gallon by 20 to 80 cents and, at the same time, requires more stops to refuel.
Ethanol is so corrosive it must be transported by truck or rail because it will damage pipelines. The January 29 issue of Business Week reports, “Auto fuel that contains more than 10% ethanol is too corrosive to use in existing gas station pumps.” Imagine what it does to the engine of your automobile?
Ethanol, when transportation, refining, and farming costs are factored into its production for fuel, provides negligible energy gains.
Ethanol receives a fifty-one-cent-per-gallon tax credit and mandates for its use have driven the price of corn to 10-year-highs. This increases the cost to feedlot owners who feed corn to cattle and pigs, forcing the cost of these food stocks to rise.
Ethanol production has doubled from 2001 to 2005 and could double again by the 2008 harvest season, providing fifteen billion gallons or approximately six percent of U.S. auto fuel needs. Let me repeat that, six percent! And all the time this is occurring, the price of everything else that involves corn production goes up with no appreciable increase in energy value.
Finally, as Brown points out, since U.S. corn accounts for one-fourth of all grain exports, a rise in the price “could create food riots in low-income areas around the world.”
There is, based solely on these facts, no good reason to build a single new plant for the production of ethanol, nor for any further Congressional mandates to force every driver to fill their tank with a mixture of ethanol and gasoline.
It is an energy debacle of enormous proportions and it exists because global warming doomsayers in Congress have imposed the worst possible “answer” on everyone and are likely to compound that mistake knowing that most Americans haven’t a clue about the true facts.
ACaruba@aol.com
Visit their website at: http://www.anxietycenter.com/
Responses to "The Ethanol Debacle"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The fact is, ethanol produces NEGATIVE gains in energy efficiency, because it takes more energy to refine it from corn than it saves in using it as a fuel. And we can't import ethanol from anywhere outside the U.S., like Brazil for example, where it is made much more easily and efficiently using sugar cane because of the astronomical federal ethanol subsidy. Short answer: Ethanol sucks! I can hardly wait until the environmental nuts have their way, and we rely solely on wind and solar power that's still too insufficient to charge our electric cars that only go 30 miles per charge (that we pay more for than conventional vehicles, nonetheless).
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 22, 2007
I'm a pioneer in the field of renewables; making energy from Maine's renewable native resources–hydro, tidal and cellulose(wood).
Maine has no proven gas or oil reserves; we import everything. A few have tried to convert to alcohol based fuels and didn't get the support they needed. Some followed the lead of Henry Ford who designed his Model T to run on alcohol made from wood; and was crushed by the Rockefellers and Standard oil, and America's lust for powerful cars.
America's oil reserves are dwindling; and it is getting more and more expensive to drill deeper and deeper or squeeze out more gas/oil from depleted fields.
It is politically stupid to castigate conservatives as people who prefer wars–the first IRAQI war was over Slant drilling into their oil reserves by a Bush controlled production company operating with the blessing of the Kuwaiti monarchy; and not people who have the skills and inventiveness to create motor fuels from renewable resources.
My bio-refineries will convert wood into bio-gas and hydrogen can be extracted to run fuel cells…a bit far out, but people are running fuel cell propelled cars & trucks. The gas can be further refined into methanol and ethanol.
I am not ready to convert wood into ethanol using one of the double enzyme processes or into bio-oil using a pyrolysis-like technique; but if the pace of current research is any example, we will have regional commercial refineries available within a few years that can make fuels that are cost effective with fossil fuels.
GROW YOUR OWN FUEL, and break your dependence on big oil and the need to control the world's oil fields!
Obviously, I don't believe ground level emissions of CO2 are the cause of global warming; but I do believe that aircraft emissions of water vapour are a leading cause.
Designing a new generation of Low Emission's Aircraft(LEA's) running jet bio-fuels will make a major impact on the diural temperatures, allowing the earth to once again ' cool off' in the night.
Curbing America's unhealthy appetite for Hummers' and SUV's is not a bad thing…we pay a fortune for this excess. Obesity & SUV's go hand in hand.
Comment by fjh | January 22, 2007
Do try and keep up with the fast moving world of EV's. Sub. to http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=news&newsid=13961 and read how electric cars beat Porsches from the stop light or get several hundred miles per charge or can be wind/solar charged or can be run by fuel cells or….
Get the point…your 'golf car' mindset is obsolete.
Comment by fjh | January 22, 2007
"My bio-refineries will convert wood into bio-gas and hydrogen can be extracted to run fuel cells…a bit far out, but people are running fuel cell propelled cars & trucks. The gas can be further refined into methanol and ethanol."
And all of this will be done in power-intensive manufacturing plants run on what? Electricity, right? Electricity produced from what? Fossil fuels, right? So great, we'll build a billion new plants to perform the incredibly complex task of converting wood and corn into bio-gas and ethanol, and run them off of coal-fired electricity. We'll consolidate the emissions of millions of cars into a few hundred factories - that'll fix it! What's our solution then? Build some nuclear power plants? THE HELL YOU SAY!!! We haven't done so in half a century almost, and with Democrats and go-along Republicans holding the House and Senate, we won't be doing so for many long years. Maybe we can just cover the entire middle east in solar panels and harvest the energy that way. Saying that it doesn't detract from the natural beauty or endanger and microscopic organisms, that is.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 22, 2007
"Do try and keep up with the fast moving world of EV’s. Sub. to http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=news&newsid=13961 and read how electric cars beat Porsches from the stop light or get several hundred miles per charge or can be wind/solar charged or can be run by fuel cells or…."
Do try to retrieve some non-theoretical information (i.e., avoid articles with words like "near-future", "within 3-5 years", "in a short time", "soon", etc) from an organization that isn't in the business of endorsing and promoting the very technology that they are touting. And even at 100 miles per charge, at some indefinite time in the "near future", that doesn't do much good for people in cities like L.A. or even Las Vegas where I live, where people commute that far and much farther in a single day. My 5 litre V8 in my Mercury Mountaineer SUV sports better numbers than that - to the tune of 4 times as many miles per "charge" - and it sucks gas faster than you can say "cow flatulence". And then we get back to the issue of where the electricity to power these future-cars comes from. Or do they charge on energy produced by a wine turbine in my backyard that barely produces enough electricity per year to power a flashlight? Or the solar panels on my roof that can't even get my pool temperature up to 75 degrees in the middle of summer in the Las Vegas desert? Fuel cells would be fun. But those are just mobile nuclear explosions waiting to happen, so we can't build those for the same reasons we can't build nuclear power plants. The environmentalists said so. So where does that leave us? Oh, that's right, energy-independent, and free from global warming. I nearly forgot.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 22, 2007
Rather than attempt to argue with a media stereotype of a Limbaugh-conservative; I'll stick with some facts:
My bio-refineries use only a fraction of the power that it takes to, say extract oil from shale or ship LNG half way around the world or make that high octane full of additives fuel for your guzzler.
You might want to educate yourself before making a total idiot of yourself in front of a more knowledgable audience:
try–http://www.forestprod.org/smallwood04walt.pdf or
http://www.biomassgasifier.com/brief.htm
The first cars made were electric….Thomas Davenport's 1834 car, Thomas Edison's 1899 car, and the winner of the first auto race…the Electrobat in 1895.
G.M. introduced their Zero Emission roadster in 1996 to meet the new California emission's standards.The car's range using then present battery technology was between 60- 120 miles, easily within range of nearly every Californian commuter. The cost cost 3 cents per gallon to operate, based on a range of 100 miles and a charge of 8 cents per kilowatt-hour. Off-peak, solar or wind charging would drop recharging costs even more. Maintenance, based on end-user reports was nearly non-existant; requiring no gas, no oil changes, no mufflers, and a rare brake maintenance; typical maintenance was replenishing the windshield washer fluid and tire rotation.
The Tesla Roadster is 100% electric, does 0-60 in about 4 secs; goes 250 miles per charge–usually done overnight as a garage plug in, and costs the equivilent of 1 cent per mile.
The Cree AG(Swiss) SAM is an advanced design 3 wheeler, all electric, with a top speed of 85 KM/h and 0-50 km/h acceleration of 7 sec. with 2 passengers.
the WrightSpeed X1 prototyped is a futuristist sports car that does 0-100 mph in 6.87 sec. 1 gear takes you to 112 mph.seehttp://www.wrightspeed.com/images/X1-front-34-high.jpg
Tomberlin.net makes powerful electric ATV's
The Dymac Vehicle group makes small trucks and utility vehicles for 'campuses'…airports, universities, retirement communities, etc.
Renting "WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR" would give you a bit more of an understanding of the amazing performance of this sports car that many have named the perfect car for S. California commuting. It did outperform Porsches.
The 'HUMMER" of electric vehicles is the hill climbing GORILLA…http://www.gorillavehicles.com/mountainiman3_small.jpg.
Back to the thread….ethanol is not a substitute fuel but an oxygenate, used to cleanse emissions. Maine is stuck on MBTE a toxic substance.
Burning straight ethanol does require fuel lines and gaskets which are impervious to alcohols and because E-85 is a blend, a sep. pump blending dispenser is needed at the fuel station.
It is possible to make ethanol and many other products out of cellulose…go google 'fractionation' and see just what a bio-chemist can do with wood!
If you want to educate yourself on this hot field, try an industry site like http://www.bio.org/ind/biofuel/
When I pass your hog, I'll beep my horn!
Comment by fjh | January 22, 2007
As long as petroleum exporters will take little green pieces of paper in exchange for oil, I say, let's keep buying it till their reserves run out & save our own!
Comment by gz9gjg | January 22, 2007
The promotion of ethanol is being promoted by multi-millionaire, soon-to-be billionaire corn growers looking for an in, into the California energy market and beyond. I have to problems with ethanol as a whole, first and foremost is that it is an agricultural stable. One problem with this, is that it is susceptible to disease, bad yields, pests, pesticides, market fluctuations in it's cost. The second problem I have with this and I believe it's more fundamental is that this crop will be a target for bio-terror. What better way than for a terrorist or group of terrorists to spoil our nations energy supply that will become reliable on ethanol then to bio-engineer a weapon to eradicate it which will cause two things; the lack of fuel and the lack of a foodstuff that goes into feeding the world and creating other foods from.
No! I do not want my fuel coming to me with such an albatross around my neck and around the neck of my country.
Comment by Name withheld by Editor | January 22, 2007
The NorthEast forest bio-mass is doing rather well, thanks to global warming and all that CO2 pollution, err, plant food.
Harvest that and leave the corn for feeding the masses.
Despite years of cropdusting CUBA with all kinds of horrible stuff; the U.S. didn't make a dent in their agricultural production…although you do have apoint on bio-terrorism…I prefer water supplies and pizza crusts as targets of opportunity.
A real conservative leaves the land in better shape than it was when he or she got it…this is a principal AMISH farmers have prospered under for many generations.
Comment by fjh | January 23, 2007
"Rather than attempt to argue with a media stereotype of a Limbaugh-conservative; I’ll stick with some facts:"
I think what you meant to say is: "Rather than address any of the very legitimate concerns and complaints brought against ethanol and electric powered vehicles, I'll just ignore them and post more useless information about "future cars" that are years away from being manufactured, and still subject to all of the aforementioned constraints. I live in Maine, I don't need to travel more than 50 miles a day in my vehicle, I want my air clean and clear, and I'm thoroughly convinced that Co2 emissions are going to ruin my beautiful winters via global warming. If you disagree with me, you are a backwards oil-monger who probably takes bribes from Haliburton, and you're clearly too simple to understand the complex information I've provided from unbiased, science-based sources like "The Ethanol Vehicle Coalition". "
Give me a break. Post back when there is an actual, physical, working, non-hypothetical, non-prototype vehicle that runs on something other than gasoline, gets at least 400 miles per "charge", has similar horespower as a gasoline powered vehicle, and runs from a fuel source that is not derived from fossil fuels (keep in mind, that means electricity doesn't count unless it's generated by solar, wind, or nuclear power plants). I'll give you one hint: it won't be run on ethanol.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 23, 2007
Ethanol offers choice. Let the local markets decide if they like having an alternative to oil.
Ethanol offers real growth. Any time a resource is converted to a consumable product it benefits the economy.
Ethanol offers competition. If there are better more efficient ways to compete in the energy market, let them come foreward. There is no need for state intervention.
Ethanol offers liberty. Make your own if you want. Get the state off our backs.
Comment by g8r hed | January 25, 2007
Its a sad day when some one resorts to setting impossible conditions…like getting "400 miles per 'charge'"–how 'bout being able to fly 5' in the air, eliminating the need for paved roads?; or switching the speed advantage I've easily proven to the irrelevant one of "similar hores(sic)power; or must be run 'from a fuel source that is not derived from fossil fuels"…duh, renewable bio-fuels don't count or are they beyond your grasp despite my educational links.
I can make ethanol from waste wood from the landfill without using any electricity. Try beating that claim!
Comment by fjh | January 26, 2007