Posted on 04/28/2008 9:53:50 PM PDT by paltz
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. President Bush said, during his 2006 State of the Union address, "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 to 30 percent 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 or 12 percent.
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 alone.
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, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals.
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. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. 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 play the role of 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 — higher wages and profits. 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 congressional or White House office to have a heart-to-heart — you or an Archer Daniels Midlands executive?
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Ethanol ping.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Bush was only doing what he was told to do.
I was one of the people who were wrong about ethanol. It had been my thought that we had enough surplus corn that it wouldn’t impact the economy negatively to go that route. Just focusing on corn, that wasn’t the case.
Then I saw a report on one of the science channels, and the amount of biofuels we can create by conventional methods are not just a drop in the bucket, but a drop in the barrel.
Ethanol has been tried, and it’s been a flop.
My only hope for biofuels at this point it the guy that claims to have come up with a way for any celulose products to be converted. If that were to pan out, I do think we could make a dent in our oil requirements.
Ethanol is the stuff Mythanol is made of when the hype, bs and bad data is blended in.
Mythanol is one of the biggest and most expensive hoaxes of the Green EcoTerrorists.
The farm lobby has too much power. Helping small farmers is fine, I could go for that, unfortunatly the corporate farm companys are the fly in the ointment. Attack them and the small farmers jump on the bandwagon and the fur hits the fan and do the work for them, “you’re against the farmer” the polititions will pander to the little guy and the big guy, ADM or whoever, gets really rich. All on the premise of helping the little guy, that may need the help. University of Minnesota gets soil bank money for not planting on University owned land, it’s a school with their hand out. That’s just plain wrong.
I am wondering how, in the face of flying food prices tied to corn (as noted in this article), this could not have been the intended outcome of this ethanol thing in the first place.
Corn and soybeans, to name 2, are about twice as expensive as they were 2 years ago. This is a huge move in staple food items.
U.S. residents use about 10-15% of disposable income on food. ChiComs, probably 50-80%.
We played this game with the Rooskies and broke them. We ran oil down to about $12/bbl, their only source of hard currency.
So we run up food prices and break the ChiComs.
yitbos
The Walter Williams does not know what he is talking about concerning ethanol. He should not pontificate on ethanol without understanding the process and including the energy balance and mass balance. Fuel-ethanol is 100% ethanol and is achieved by using molecular sieves to removed the last 5% of the water (An industry standard!) This is because of the azeotropic relationship of the water and ethanol.
What he also does not realize is that the farmer is no longer getting a subsidy for growing the corn which our taxes paid for at best getting $.25 on the dollar for every dollar the government takes in. Also, ethanol is not mixed with gas then pipelined, it is mixed at the end of the pipeline.
This is a process like any process that is extremely dynamic and many innovations are ongoing. To address the ethanol or biofuels as if they static is to be unbelievably myopic. The next step is either butanol or ester-fuels both will be able to use the pipeline mitigating cost greatly. Don’t forget the money is going to American farmers not violent extremist and this money rolls 7 to 9 times in OUR economy.
you are absolutely wrong. The simple fact is that without taxpayer subsidies Ethanol would never come into existence. Ethanol is a cruel hoax paid for by the consumers. I am an engineer and no matter what b/s you spew, the simple fact remains that Ethanol is solely a creation of government subsidies. There is enough known oil reserves to fuel the needs of humans for 100's of years. The enviro nuts and most in government love to create "crises" so they can expand control over us. Ethanol is a cruel hoax.
bookmark
Our next "Solution" to the energy crisis may well be "Soylent Green" energy!
While the population may be repulsed at eating expired humans..., burning them as fuel may prove perfectly acceptable???
I don’t want to help corporate farms or “the little guy”. Either way, it comes down to theft of property. Why should one American have the right to demand the property of another American? Some people call it subsidies, I call it stealing.
I am not an engineer but I am skeptical of the idea that one can take food and turn it into fuel for your SUV without there being gross inefficiencies. Anytime the socialists (environmentalists) and big business agree on something that, oh by the way, requires taxpayer subsidies, it is a sign to BOHICA (Bend Over, Here It Comes Again). What do you think of Brazil’s approach to ethanol? Is that something that could work in other countries? I don’t know if Brazil’s ethanol production is market-driven enough to be practical or if it is just another expensive gimmick.
ethanol would not even see the light of day if Iowa did not hold the first presidential primary.
wouldn’t it be nice to see a candidate who has the ***** to tell farmers to take a hike?
oh right, that was Guiliani...
Ethanol is a reality now, Dave. It’s not a hoax, it’s an alternate fuel experiment and we’re the guinea pigs.
I don’t like dumping on the farmers like that.
Look, who was driving this mess, the farmers or the ‘stupid is the new Green’ dingos? Sure the farmers took advantage of a new market. I don’t blame them if the government was going to mandate ethanol.
I think the Greens more than the farmers pushed this at the state and federal levels to ease their guilt over the destruction of the planet.
Out here in California it wasn’t the farmers who pushed MTBE as an additive for a decade, a known carcinogen that the state refused to remove as a required additive.
I am so sick of watching non-stop propaganda on the green bull ——. There are literally tens of PSAs on every evening talking about some green BS or another. The networks have signed on to it hook line and sinker, and corporations are placing commericals that emphasise their green stances.
Gag me with a fricken pitch-fork.
Well to add to the Green.......Most of this was created by Al Gore and his tribe as evidence to support his global warming BS. So if you do some research you find that.....all this Green; all this global warming, all this ethanol craze ties into his CARBON THEORY. Getting the picture?
Carbon foot print.....Carbon Credits....Machines in the airports now that the guilty feed money into to purchase carbon credits....
So, just WTF is this Carbon Credit jazz all about? It is a cleverly designed fraud, perpetrated by Al Gore. How does this Carbon Credit theory work? You buy Carbon Credits to offset your guilt for having used non green methods and petroleum and contributing to Global Warming. You put your money in the airport machine, or you poke your credit card into your computer and purchase Carbon Credits. From whom? Ahhhhhh, now we get to the meat. There is only one place in the world that is “Certified” to sell carbon credits. And, Guess what? It is founded and owned by Al Gore and his nut case buddy. What a fraud—Lock, Stock, and Barrel.
Go Green, because your dollars go in Gores pocket. Combat global warming because your dollars go into Gores pocket. And best of all, buy Carbon Credits to ease your guilt, and every penny of it goes into Gores pocket. I’m not Catholic, but if I ever feel that guilty, I’ll go to Confession and leave my money with the Church. At least it might get spent for something that would benefit the communtity.
Google up Carbon Credits and read for a while. Its all on the front page.
interesting theory.
bump to read later
The subsidy was not eliminated. There was a vote the other day to reduce it slightly. I don’t recall the details. Someone can fill us in on that, I hope.
ADM is the real evil corporation.
Typical anti-ethanol propaganda. Yes, when ethanol is distilled, it "does" reach a point where there is a constant-boiling mixture of ethanol and water (95% ethanol, 5% water) which distillation cannot break (called an azeotrope", which is why a small amount of benzene is added---to break the azeotrope and allow that water to be removed. There are many ways to break azeotropes and produce pure products.
After processing, any water than gets into the ethanol is a result of absorbing it from the air;, NOT failure to remove it during processing.
Shame on Walter Williams for lying by telling only part of the truth
Printer Friendly Format
Oil Companies Reap Huge Profits While Blaming Grain Prices
Compiled By Staff
April 24, 2008
While the oil industry has been quick to blame corn ethanol and grain prices for high food costs, they fail to recognize the profits of their own companies are the bigger culprit of high food costs, according to the Nebraska Corn Board.
“Farmers have been taking it on the chin while oil companies are raking in record profits,” says Don Hutchens, executive director of the Nebraska Corn Board.
Exxon alone had profits of $40.7 billion last year, while the five leading oil companies had a combined profit of $123 billion. Ironically, the entire U.S. corn crop for 2006-07 had a gross value of $32 billion, and only 20% of that crop was used to produce ethanol.
“When you compare the profit of one oil company last year to the total gross value of an entire year’s U.S. corn crop, you can quickly understand why Congress is asking oil company executives to explain why their profits are hitting record levels while the American consumer pays for those profits at the pump and supermarket,” says Hutchens. “The oil companies are also fighting to keep $18 billion in tax breaks over the next decade.”
According to the National Corn Growers Association, a more logical explanation for this year’s food inflation can be found in examining energy pricing trends. Retail diesel and gasoline prices are up nearly 40% since January 2007. And fuel contributes to costs at every step in the supply chain. A recent analysis by economist John Urbanchuk of LEGC found: “By a factor of two to one, energy prices are the chief factor determining what American families pay at the grocery store.”
Rep. Edward Markey (D.-Mass.), during an early April Congressional hearing, asked oil executives how their five leading oil companies can share $123 billion profits in one year while the American taxpayer is paying record gas prices. Markey is chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
According to Hutchens, “Our perspective is that they have not shown much support and have in fact tried to shift the blame of subsidies and high food costs to the American farmer. In reality, the American farmer has worked hard for the last 30 years to show the benefits of a renewable energy source like ethanol.”
The ethanol used as fuel is at least 95 percent pure. Gasoline also draws water. The difference is, water and gas don't mix. Ethanol dissolves in water and vice versa. So the corrosion argument is insipid.
And every dime of corn-based ethanol is one dime of non-arab oil. I'd rather see an American farmer get rich than some camel-driving bedouin who is going to use the money to poison our water.
Just another excuse to be a welfare mama off the backs of the taxpayer. Remove the ethanol subsidy, if it's so much better than oil.
That is silly economic reasoning.
but ... but ... #5 ... why bother??? Ethanol is just a short term solution at best. And it takes more crude oil (overall) to make biofuels than gasoline. The arabs love the biofuel idea!
I am firmly in the nuclear camp. Pumping electricity into cars, trucks, etc that use mostly electric-based propulsion systems is the answer. a host of sources for electricity (nuclear power plants, soler & wind energy, etc) can be brought online to feed the needs of a single power type.
I know that fossil fuels will not completely go away; it is too efficient. But it’s use can be curtailed to the point that it is not a national security or major economic issue. And it can be done in just a few decades.
Coal to liquid fuel. If only the the Gov and the environmentalists would agree.
* Cease all ethanol production. It requires more energy to make than it yields and the unintended consequence is higher food costs. Corn production shifted from feed-corn to subsidized corn for ethanol. Just say "no" to ethanol!
* Immediately create only ONE "blend" of gasoline and cease regional blends which are stupid, costly, and meaningless. Even if this is the "cleanest" blend, just make it ONE and be done with it. Trucking custom blends around the country is wasteful.
* Drill for oil in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, and other sites in the CONUS as a matter of national security.
* Construct state-of-the-art refineries and/or retrofit current and dormant ones and crank up production.
* Make all “carbon credit” scams unlawful.
* Construct SEVERAL, regional Pebble-Bed Reactors (or other similar designs) that are not considered "breeders", are rechargeable, and cleaner than any current nuclear generator design.
* Use the residual heat from the reactor above to process motor fuel from coal and/or shale. Even though Clinton "stole" some of the best coal reserves, we still have a lot to use.
* Have Iraq pay for its freedom, and maybe even pay us back for their freedom. We'll still need their oil.
* Bust up the cartels or at least be independent enough to make the cartels inconsequential.
* Convince local taxing bodies to lift or fix the sales tax on gasoline so that as gas prices go up, the local tax collectors don’t see a windfall revenue jump at the expense of the consumer.
We DO import ethanol from Brazil. They are the largest importer into the US.
to post 12.
Lies.
it takes one-tenth of a gallon of oil,
to get back that energy (of a gallon of oil)
as ethanol.
I did not say I was in favor of ethanol but I do not believe putting out misleading information does not provide solutions. Once again, you have been subsidizing the farmer on the price of corn (beans, tobacco, wheat, etc.) for years, it was buried in your taxes and much of the subsidy has abated. The farmer was trying to establish a way of getting off of the government dole and its control and hoped ethanol was a start, I do not believe it is the solution unless we can make biofuels viable by standalone economics
Anyone with the ability to add 2+2 knows that ethanol is not going to replace oil. But, I know for a fact that innovations are coming that will dramatically change biofuels production and it may not include ethanol or corn. If you are an engineer you know that whatever we do we must run the total energy and mass balance as well as the cost benefit ratio which includes oil.
There is much that needs to be analyzed by people who are not predisposed to a point of view on both sides of this issue and misinformation will not get us there.
ExxonMobil 2007
Revenue $404.6 Billion
Profit $40.6 Billion (10.0%)
Taxes $102.5 Billion (25.3%)
Sales-Based taxes $31.728B
Other taxes and duties $40.953B
Income taxes $29.864B
2007 Financial & Operating Review
http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/news_pub_fo_2007.pdf
Page 16
Fascinating read....
No! It's a GANG-GREEN horror brought to us by a tie breaking vote in the Senate when Algore was President of that contemptuous body and living in Dick Cheney's house!!!
“No! It’s a GANG-GREEN horror brought to us by a tie breaking vote in the Senate when Algore was President of that contemptuous body and living in Dick Cheney’s house!!! “
Wonder when Pelosi and Reid will investigate the profits of the corn for fuel thugs?
I hadn’t realized Gore was connected to the Carbon Credit scam. LOL, wouldn’t you know it. Thanks.
I fully agree. Nuclear is the way to go, for a number of reasons. It’s also useful for water desalinization and hydrogen production. Electric is the way to go IMO.
http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf
a study by Argonne national lab.
look at the right part of top graph
on page 2.
A whole lotta their buddies are in on the corn-porn rake. There will never be an investigation of that disaster!!
If some sort of grass or whatever were to be able to converted into fuel, don't you think that farmers would start growing it instead of foodstuffs? Wouldn't they fertilize it, harvest it, get the right seeds, etc? That would reduce the amount of corn and soy produced...
There is just one hitch in that problem, and that is that they do not have a way to produce the enzymes necessary to break down the switch grass and other cellulose products yet. There is a new plant going in that is supposed to be soley research oriented just for that purpose and they predict that they will be able to produce the enzymes necessary for converting cellulose to enzyme efficiently in the next year.
The university research that I am reading is saying that ethanol produces 134% the amount of energy necessary to grow the corn and distill the alcohol. Translated, that means that it takes 3/4 the amount of energy available from a gallon of alcohol to produce it. I dont where the gallon and a half of oil is necessary to produce a gallon of ethanol is coming from.
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.