Posted on 03/19/2008 10:16:36 PM PDT by neverdem
One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. During his 2006 State of the Union Address, President Bush said, “America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.” Let’s look at some of the “wonders” of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline.
Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines.
Ethanol is 20-30% less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That’s enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel—oil and natural gas—to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers—all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10-12%.
Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn’t make it in a free market. That’s why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there’s a double tax—one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005.
There’s something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.
Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact that the U.S. is the world’s largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.
It’s easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm-state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn’t support subsidized ethanol production. That’s the stick. Campaign contributions are the carrot.
The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there’s a large benefit for them. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. After all, who do you think a politician will invite into his office to have a heart-to-heart—you or an ethanol executive?
Yup
We’re doomed. What insanity!
Yup. You expect this kind of ignorance and incompetence from Democrats, but the bozos ‘leading’ the Republican party are just as guilty, if not more so.
Yup. You expect this kind of ignorance and incompetence from Democrats, but the bozos ‘leading’ the Republican party are just as guilty, if not more so.
Every time they screw with the market, we get screwed.
FR also has it's share of Ethonuts, as well as Gorebal warming kooks.
Happy to say that I don't buy either one.
When man starts burning food and wasting land for fuel, he has gone over the deep end.
Yup. Get the government out of the way. Leave the private sector alone. Haven't even the common folks learned from the Carter Years?
Economics courses should be required in high school and college.
Nah, that couldn't be...
Who eats 450# of feed-corn per year? The sky is falling! Ethanol will kill us all!
Brazil is magic, we can't do what they have done. The highly profitable ethanol plants only run on government dollars. Why invest in alternative fuels now when we can keep giving Oil barons our money and trust them to wean us off of their product. The status quo cannot be improved in my lifetime, I'll fight progress away from petroleum till I die. Make my kids drink MTBE, anything but natural safe renewable bio-fuel.
Crazy, but plausible theory:
1. This consumes our exportable corn, other grains don’t get planted. Other exporting countries do the same.
2. Food becomes more expensive by design. Americans can stand to pay more/eat less (this may actually do some good in the big scheme of things-go to a discount store and you will instantly feel 20 pounds lighter and five years younger).
3. Food prices go up worldwide and surpluses disappear.
4. Almost no middle eastern country can feed itself and we and other exporting countries hold the power on controlling food prices, or even its availability.
Google “grain shortages” and you will see some interesting evidence for this, particularly the fifth one. Water is pretty scarce there, too...
Elementary School. Teach it while they're still smart enough to understand it.
And Hillary and Barack want to put our healthcare in those hands...
Very interesting - thanks for your post.
Ethanol is hydroscopic and, even if one could temporarily remove all water, it absorbs water from the surrounding atmosphere.
Subsidized, corn derived ethanol doesn't make much sense, IMHO. I want energy independence. I have no problem with fuel from biomass, waste, switchgrass, etc.
The word you want is hygroscopic, from Greek meaning it absorbs moisture.
Right. Hygroscopic, new glasses and more coffee. Thanks.
Williams appears to be off by a factor of several hundred on this figure alone:
"In general, the production of ethanol consumes roughly four gallons of water for every one gallon of ethanol produced, although the figure ranges from 3.5 to 6 in Minnesota ethanol plants. This figure varies from plant to plant depending on the processes that each plant uses to produce the fuel. In general, newer plants have been growing more efficient with their water use." - link
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.