“The ethanol mandates that have been foisted on American taxpayers are not just fiscal insanity, they are immoral. Congress has created a system of subsidies and mandates that requires the U.S. to burn food to make motor fuel, at a time when there is a global shortage of food and no global shortage of motor fuel.”
....and drumroll please.....
(snip of above below)
“So, where did the claim that ethanol is more energy efficient originate? I believe it originates with researchers from Argonne National Laboratory, who developed a model (GREET) that is used to determine the energy inputs to turn crude oil into products (4). Since it will take some amount of energy to refine a barrel of crude oil, by definition the efficiency is less than 100% in the way they measured it. For example, if I have 1 BTU of energy, but it took .2 BTUs to turn it into a useable form, then the efficiency is 80%. This is the kind of calculation people use to show that the gasoline efficiency is less than 100%. However, ethanol is not measured in the same way. Look again at the example from the USDA paper, and lets do the equivalent calculation for ethanol. In that case, we got 98,333 BTUs out of the process, but we had to input 77,228 to get it out. In this case, comparing apples to apples, the efficiency of producing ethanol is just 21%. Again, gasoline is about 4 times higher.
OK, so Argonne originated the calculation. But are they really at fault here? Yes, they are. Not only did they promote the efficiency calculation for petroleum products with their GREET model, but they have proceeded to make apples and oranges comparisons in order to show ethanol in a positive light. They have themselves muddied the waters. Michael Wang, from Argonne, (and author of the GREET model) made a remarkable claim last September at The 15th Annual Symposium on Alcohol Fuels in San Diego (5). On his 4th slide , he claimed that it takes 0.74 MMBTU to make 1 MMBTU of ethanol, but 1.23 MMBTU to make 1 MMBTU of gasoline. That simply can’t be correct, as the calculations in the preceding paragraphs have shown.
Not only is his claim incorrect, but it is terribly irresponsible for someone from a government agency to make such a claim. I don’t know whether he is being intentionally misleading, but it certainly looks that way. Wang is also the co-author of the earlier USDA studies that I have critiqued and shown to be full of errors and misleading arguments. These people are publishing articles that bypass the peer review process designed to ferret out these kinds of blatant errors. I suspect a politically driven agenda in which they are putting out intentionally misleading information.
One of the reasons I haven’t written this up already, is that 2 weeks ago I sent an e-mail to Wang bringing this error to his attention. I immediately got an auto-reply saying that he was out of the office until March 31st. I have given him a week to reply and explain himself, but he has not done so. Therefore, at this time I must conclude that he knows the calculation is in error, but does not wish to address it. In the interim, ethanol proponents everywhere are pushing this false information in an effort to boost support for ethanol.
Look at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture claim again: "the energy yield of ethanol is (1.34/0.74) or 81 percent greater than the comparable yield for gasoline". If the energy balance was really this good for ethanol and that bad for gasoline, why would anyone ever make gasoline? Where would the economics be? Why would ethanol need subsidies to compete? It should be clear that the proponents in this case are promoting false information.”
The last time I posted this I got lambasted by pro-Cornballs, so here it goes again! (Donning FLAK jacket and helmet....)
Article is crap—First off farmers get no subsidies,
or price supports, Big Oil get a tax credit, but it is
a small fraction of the credits that they get for all their
oil operations here and abroad.
There is no corn shortage, as farmers have increased production the last 10 years a third for food and feed,
plus the amount going toward ethanol/high protein feed
production. And that high protein feed by the way makes
over 15 billion lbs of meat. It is more valuable than
the ethanol, which in practical terms is the by-product.
Now there is a higher corn price due to improperly
regulated speculation in the farm commodities markets,
and that is what is causing high prices. And in oil
also which has driven up farmers costs to raise anything
by twice as much as two years ago......But action is
going to be taken to try to rein in speculators
as following news excerpt mentions——
“Citing people who have been briefed about the agency’s plans, the Times said that the new measures would be announced by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees exchanges central to the establishment of prices for commodities ranging from corn to crude oil worldwide.
Facing mounting political pressure and farm industry demands, the CFTC is expected to outline measures to address the role played by new financial investors in the futures markets, the Times said, in particular those who invest through commodity index funds, which have grown from a $13 billion stake in 2003 to some $250 billion this year, it said.
Index funds differ from traditional commodity investors in that they do not sell commodity futures, but only buy them, the Times said. Critics say this has helped drive up commodity prices artificially.””
All farmers around here want the wild speculation
that they know has cased the problems, to be reined in
as they don’t want starving people, and they also know
that when speculated price gets too high that there will
be be a crash back down to prices lower than a third the
cost to raise crops. Then there won’t be any of them left
to raise any.....Ed Hubel