I've long railed against ethanol and the ridiculous amounts of money that we throw at farmers in the heartland to advance this questionable "technological breakthrough." There is little evidence that it's cleaner, it may actually cost more to produce than the energy it saves, and it is used as an excuse to line of the pockets of farmers that are already fairly wealthy. Why? Well, we can blame our primary season for one.

I was listening to a campaign speech by Hillary Clinton the other day and laughed when she mentioned that she was in favor for more ethanol production and raising the subsidies that the billion-dollar-ethanol industry currently gets. I remembered awhile back when she came out against most forms of ethanol subsidies for previous energy bills and couldn't understand the change of "heart." Then I remembered where she was -- Iowa.

Just yesterday I read a great opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune about ethanol and what it truly represents. In short, it's a fraud. It's costly, not energy efficient, and outright counterproductive for an open-market system (subsidies for increased corn growth for ethanol leads to protectionist policies). The article is also an indictment of the utter ridiculously of the staggered primaries/caucuses we currently hold instead of just having them all on the same day.

Here is article:

I'm not going to pretend I know much about ethanol, but I'd entertain the possibility of paying more for ethanol mixed gasoline in order to slowly ween this country off of oil (if thats ever even possible). Why pay more? Why not just use gasoline? Because I anticipate the price of gasoline to constantly increase and with the supply of oil beginning to flatline, I don't think the price of ethanol will look too bad in the next two decades. Sticking with gasoline and not opening up any alternatives is the worst possible plan.

Great thread, Chris. I agree largely with ethanol being a massive red herring.



The problem is that it still takes energy (read: petroleum) to grow all the crops necessary to make the ethanol. As the article states, the energy used versus gained is at best a wash. It's just transferring the consumption from the cities to the farms. Just also think of all the undeveloped land that needs to be used to provide enough ethanol for this country, as well.

Here's a more technical op-ed from Popular Mechanics:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 37539.html

The Ethanol Fallacy: Op-Ed
America needs smart alternative to oil, but the just-passed energy bill puts too much emphasis on the wrong alternative, PM's editor-in-chief says.

The idea is so appealing: We can reduce our dependence on oil—stop sending U.S. dollars to corrupt petro-dictators, stop spewing megatons of carbon into the atmosphere—by replacing it with clean, home-grown, all-American corn. It sounds too good to be true.

Sadly, it is.

Of course we need alternatives to oil. The world uses a cubic mile of petroleum each year, and demand keeps rising as the global economy booms. At first glance, corn seems like a heaven-sent substitute. American corn farmers are the most productive in the world, growing far more of the grain than we can possibly eat, and exporting mountains of the stuff to other countries. And the corn kernel is a marvel of energy storage. Converting that compact bundle of starches into alcohol is a relatively simple trick known to generations of moonshiners. So why not build corn liquor stills on an industrial scale and use the output to power our cars and trucks?

That’s exactly what this country has been doing for the past several years. Some 134 ethanol plants are now in operation, consuming close to 1.6 billion bushels of grain, about 15 percent of our total corn production. To feed the ethanol machine, farmers planted almost 93 million acres of corn in 2007, a 19 percent increase over the previous year, and the highest figure since 1944 (when yields per acre were far lower).

The result is that the country is now experiencing an ethanol glut. Prices are sagging—as are plans to build ethanol refineries from sea to shining sea. Yet many in Washington seem determined to force still more ethanol into the system. The just-passed Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which President Bush has said he will sign, mandates corn ethanol usage of 15 billion gal. a year (more than three times today’s consumption) by 2015. And presidential candidates have outdone each other with vows to flood the nation with ever-increasing rivers of ethanol for at least a generation.

It’s great that our politicians have discovered the need for new energy technologies. But it appears that Washington is determined to put its money—our money—on the wrong horse. Right now, researchers are studying a host of energy solutions, including hydrogen, high-mileage diesel, plug-in hybrids, radical reductions in vehicle weight and cellulosic ethanol (made from cornstalks, switchgrass or other nonfood crops). It is far too soon to say which of these holds the most promise. But, instead of promoting experimentation and competition to find the best solutions, politicians seem ready to declare ethanol the winner. As a result, our nation could wind up with the worst of both worlds: an “alternative” energy that is enormously expensive yet barely saves a gallon of oil.

Let’s start with the math. Corn doesn’t grow like a weed. Modern corn farming involves heavy inputs of nitrogen fertilizer (made with natural gas), applications of herbicides and other chemicals (made mostly from oil), heavy machinery (which runs on diesel) and transportation (diesel again). Converting the corn into fuel requires still more energy. The ratio of how much energy is used to make ethanol versus how much it delivers is known as the energy balance, and calculating it is surprisingly complex.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that, “Today, 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.” Even that modest payback may be overstated. Skeptics cite the research of Cornell University professor David Pimentel, who estimates that it takes approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol.

If the benefits are in doubt, the costs are not. It would take 450 pounds of corn to yield enough ethanol to fill the tank of an SUV. Producing enough ethanol to replace America’s imported oil alone would require putting nearly 900 million acres under cultivation—or roughly 95 percent of the active farmland in the country. Once we’ve turned our farms into filling stations, where will the food come from?

There’s a simple reason that ethanol is popular with politicians: money. Substituting corn ethanol for a large fraction of the gasoline we burn will mean sluicing gushers of cash from more populated states to politically powerful farm states. And a lot of that cash will wind up in the pockets of the big agribusinesses, like Archer Daniels Midland, that dominate ethanol processing—and whose fat checkbooks wield enormous influence in Washington.

In fact, governments generally have a bad track record when it comes to picking technologies. In the midst of an earlier oil crunch, President Jimmy Carter seized on “synfuels”—refined from oil shale deposits—as a panacea. Oops. Synfuels turned out to be woefully uneconomic, environmentally disastrous and feasible only with massive government subsidies. It took years to kill the program off—and the last of the multibillion-dollar tax credits just expired in 2007.

The corn ethanol boondoggle threatens to be far, far worse. If enacted, current proposals will amount to a huge hidden tax on consumers, with benefits flowing to the politically connected. Once set in motion, such a program would be all but impossible to stop—even if other alternatives, like cellulosic ethanol, turn out to be vastly superior. And every dollar spent on corn ethanol is a dollar not spent on those other, more promising approaches.

So what should the government do? First off: no harm. Instead of trying to mandate specific technologies—and risk locking us into using the wrong one—Washington should create incentives to help the market choose the best approaches. One step would be to reward consumers for conservation: There are vast opportunities to make our homes, businesses and vehicles more efficient, and to make our economy stronger in the process.

Perhaps someday corn ethanol will prove itself a viable part of our energy mix. But corn liquor is powerful stuff, and it can make people do strange things. Let’s keep it out of Washington’s hands.

I gotta agree with Green here. Ethanol just does not seem like a good replacement of gasoline. I cant sit here and tell you that i know what the proper replacement is, but Ethanol just doesn't seem to be that much better then what we're dealing with now

Ahh, I've totally forgotten about that. What alternative fuel would do you see as a viable replacement?

None, really--at least in the short term. The only way you're going to cut down oil consumption in this country is if people drive less/drive differently.

Still doesn't solve any problems.

The Corn-Ethanol* Fraud And Its Politics

Ethanol from corn is a fraud. It is so inefficient and reduced mpg.

Ethanol from sugar, however is much more efficient (i don't have a source but I thought I remember it being many-fold increase). Unfortunately the US can't grow a lot of it

Hey, who was touting this crap?

It's been the left all along. It's your set that's gotten us into this mess...

Just IMAGINE if we would have opened up 2000 acres in ANWR to development in 2000.

bush loves him some corn ethanol

See, this is why these politicians are nothing but corrupt hypocrites. They talk up alternative energy and free trade, but they'll let the lobbyists push through tariffs on an alternative energy, thereby preventing free trade. This ridiculous ethanol thing is the single worst side effect of the Iowa caucus... None of these spineless politicians (except Paul, and apparently McCain) will dare to stand up to something that is clearly ridiculous.

Screw corn farmers and screw these corrupt politicians.

I'm imagining we'd be in the same position we are now.

It may be more efficent on the production side, but it's not going to be 'many-folds' more efficent on the energy-generated-from-combustion side. Either way, ethanol as fuel for transportation is a bad idea in industrialized nations. The US has the technology to convert over to electric cars within two decades, we simply lack the political balls to do so.

Yes it is much more efficient on the production side. Brazil has had some success with it. Some industrialized countries can profit (i don't mean financially, but energy-wise), but certainly the larger thirstier states need other alternatives.

Actually, there's an interesting article in Newsweek from last week about the new GM Volt (sort of modeled after the sports car Tesla that can run with Ferraris) that is due out by 2010. The man pushing the lead on this car? Why it's our good friend from the film "Who Killed the Electric Car?", Lutz if memory serves me correctly.

No we wouldn't. Because we wouldn't need ethanol. And we wouldn't need middle eastern oil.

A 2004 study by the Energy Information Administration states that if ANWR oil production began in 2013 the 2025 oil import dependence would drop from 70% to 66% (7-12 years is the estimated time frame from passing legislation to producing oil). In 2025 ANWR oil production would be 0.5 - 1.3% of world oil consumption.

corn*

I just read an article in...I want to say Money magazine?....while my stepson filled out forms at the insurance place yesterday that referenced this and another study. I couldn't find anything referring to the other one though. Anyway, it was talking about how ethanol production technology is still so young and has been progressing at remarkable speeds, as well as the fact that it's expected to triple its efficiency in terms of production and effectiveness in the next decade. My impression of ethanol has always been that it was something that was marketable well before it was perfected, and of course the market rules. In the short and long term, however, the marketability really depends on said improvements.


Ethanol More Energy Efficient Than Thought, Study Says

Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
January 26, 2006

Amid growing concerns about unstable oil supplies and the impact of fossil fuels on global warming, biofuels are receiving increased attention.

A new study now suggests that the most important biofuel—ethanol, which is made from corn in the United States—is more energy efficient than previously thought.

Some prior studies have suggested that ethanol production may consume more energy—from nonrenewable sources—than is available in the resulting fuel.

But a reexamination of those studies show that current corn-ethanol production technologies are far less petroleum-intensive than gasoline, though both fuels have similar greenhouse gas emissions.

"The doomsdayers are wrong," said Alexander Farrell, the lead study author and an assistant professor in the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley. "We show that the net energy is in fact positive for corn ethanol."

He later added that to "really evaluate this fuel we need to look at other indicators like petroleum and greenhouse gas emission."

Farrell and other scientists say that new technology could dramatically boost the environmental performance of ethanol.

The research is reported tomorrow in the journal Science.

Fuel Mix

Ethanol is used as a motor fuel additive. It is a renewable energy source, unlike petroleum and coal.

In the United States, ethanol accounts for about 2 percent of total transportation fuel. In Brazil, where ethanol is produced from sugarcane, the fuel powers the majority of the country's road transport.

About 5 percent of the road fuels used in the United States and the European Union are expected to be bio-derived within the next five years. The U.S. Department of Energy aims to replace 30 percent of the liquid petroleum transportation fuel with biofuels by 2025.

"Two concerns drive the world's energy scene right now," said Steven Koonin, chief scientist for British Petroleum in London, England. "One is security of supply, primarily oil and gas. The second is concerns over [carbon dioxide] emissions and effects they could have on the climate system."

"Ideally, one would like to find technologies that address both problems," said Koonin, who wrote an accompanying editorial in Science. "For transportation, biofuels are perhaps uniquely suited to do that … with plausible evolutions of technology."

Studies show that with such technology developments, biofuels could supply some 30 percent of global fuel demand in an environmentally responsible manner, according to Koonin.

Boosting Performance

At least two previous ethanol studies concluded that the production of ethanol required more energy, including petroleum energy, than the energy stored in the ethanol.

But Farrell and his colleagues found that those previous studies were flawed. They used outdated information on production methods and failed to account for the many energy benefits of ethanol byproducts, including things like animal feed.

By correcting for those factors, the scientists found that corn ethanol actually reduces petroleum use by about 95 percent per gallon of fuel, though it only reduces greenhouse gas emissions by about 13 percent.

"These claims that ethanol is no good, period, do not stand up," Farrell said.

Many things can and should be done to boost ethanol's environmental performance, he says, including improving agricultural practices that require fewer energy inputs, such as less use of tractors, and lessen environmental impacts like soil erosion.

However, large-scale use of ethanol for fuel will almost certainly require so-called cellulosic technology, Farrell says. This involves applying new chemical techniques to break down and convert the raw material of a biofuel resource.

In the future, ethanol may be derived from energy crops, which require a lot less energy than food crops to cultivate. (Energy crops are plants cultivated not for food but for environmentally friendly fuels.)

"The big advantage then is that you don't have to grow food to make ethanol," Farrell said. "You can grow willow trees or you can grow prairie grass to make ethanol."

Driving Habits

Scientists say greater ethanol use would not significantly change our current vehicles or the way we buy fuel.

"The average driver in some U.S. states already uses [2 percent] ethanol in the gasoline he buys," Farrell said.

"Our study suggests that in the future, consumers may have a better chance not only to buy ethanol domestically, but to buy ethanol that is better for the environment than the ethanol that we buy today."