Posted on 11/03/2006 5:00:49 PM PST by saganite
The many of the alternative energy sources are being misrepresented to the public. Often our elected officials are involved with the misrepresentations for the obvious political purposes. Too many Americans do not understand the engineering activities behind the light switches or behind the gas pumps. As an example, after a speech I made on energy a woman from the audience commented, “Well, it is not much of a problem. If I ever run short of electricity, I’ll just install more outlets.”
One of the latest future energy options has been “biofuels”, especially the “successful” Brazilian experience with ethanol. We are told that thanks to the wide use of ethanol Brazil is independent from foreign oil imports and now is energy independent. The truth has been oozing out from Brazil and it’s not exactly what the advocates have been saying. We have not been told the truth and more importantly, the advocates are repeatedly misrepresenting energy events in Brazil.
In the October 27 issue of Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) past President Bill Clinton shilled for the ethanol promoters and said “If Brazil can do it, so can we.” (http://tinyurl.com/ya5dkv). Clinton is not alone is this Brazilian fantasy.
Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania said “No longer is investing in alternative fuels a fringe idea.... Brazil is perhaps the world's greatest success story. Due to 30 years of hard work, research and investment, Brazil will not need one drop of imported oil this time next year”. (http://tinyurl.com/8qlsq).
The misrepresentations cut across party lines. Arizona Congressman Rick Renzi a Republican states: “Brazil will be independent of foreign oil next year because it forced farmers to plant sugar cane for ethanol”. (http://tinyurl.com/r7cp8).
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush made headlines October 9th when he advocated the importing of Brazilian ethanol duty-free.
We are told repeatedly how Brazil has achieved energy independence by the expansion of ethanol in their national energy mix. We are told repeatedly that we should do the same. The truth is hugely different as information comes out of Brazil such as the IBD article above (http://tinyurl.com/ya5dkv).
First some basics. Ethanol, gallon for gallon contains only 2/3 of the energy found in a gallon of gasoline. This is why the mileage noticeably drops when using ethanol in the mix. Obviously, the more ethanol in the fuel mixture the lower the mileage. Second, it takes a huge amount of energy to make the gallon of ethanol (often more energy than is in that gallon of ethanol). Third, since the energy per gallon is so low, it takes huge amounts of land to grow the corn (US) or the sugar cane (Brazil) to be of any significance. Fourth, it takes huge amounts of water in the distilleries in the ethanol making processes. This is often 4 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol produced. That’s a lot. But the Brazilian energy situation is much different from what we’ve been told even by our National and Hawaiian elected officials.
Contrary to what we’ve been told, ethanol in Brazil is not a major source of fuel for cars, and is not the prime reason why Brazil need not import oil any more. By going all out in ethanol production in 2005 Brazil produced 282,000 barrel/day of ethanol, most of it from sugar cane, not corn. That is, except for a few states which can raise sugar cane this solution is not applicable to the US.
However, Brazil gets most of is car fuel from onshore and offshore oil in Brazil, not ethanol. Its oil production of about 1.9 million barrels per day far outpaces its ethanol production. This oil production capacity is slightly larger than what Brazil consumes per day. That is, there is no need for oil imports. Several more oil rigs are scheduled to go into production before the end of the year (http://tinyurl.com/ybwfh4). In fact if the numbers are correct, there really is no domestic need for the ethanol either. What’s more, we learn that 80% of the CO2 emissions in Brazil come from deforestation, much of which went into the farming of sugar cane (http://tinyurl.com/w5swf).
As pointed out in the IBD article above, former Brazilian president Lula de Silva did not celebrate this new energy independence milestone in a sugar cane field. He did so by smashing a champagne bottle on the huge Brazilian oil rig in the Albacora Leste field off shore in the Atlantic Ocean. To repeat, that’s offshore. Brazil’s oil independence had little to do with ethanol. It had everything to do with oil drilling onshore and offshore.
The Brazilians are taking their energy problems seriously and have even greater plans. They have announced the construction of 7 new nuclear power plants to be completed by 2025 to ensure energy sufficiency with economic efficiency (http://tinyurl.com/y5wlsp). Brazil currently has two operating reactors Angra 1 and 2 near Rio de Janeiro. Angra 3 will be completed by 2010. This is a large nuclear power of German design, and at 1275 MW(e) would provide nearly all of the electrical needs of Oahu.
President Clinton’s claim that “If Brazil can do it, so can we”, is true in a way he never imagined. The US should be drilling more offshore, and building more new generation nuclear power plants. The Brazilians are doing it. Why aren’t we?
It’s regrettable that the ethanol advocates distorted the Brazilian energy situation. They have omitted about 90% of the energy picture there. It gives false hopes to those believing that ethanol is an energy cure-all. It is not. Advocacy should never be permitted to trump the science and engineering realities of energy.
Ping!
You're pinging the guy who posted the article? That's a novel idea.
Wow, that is not only very funny, it is very sad.
It saves fuel.
It saves fuel.
Mixture's not rich enough. That's what causes unnecessary pinging.
You are absolutely correct. We are the USA. We could do it. But, neither party currently wants this.
It is sort of like the talk of abolishing the current tax code in favor of a flat tax. Neither party will go for it, at least with the current members. It is a great campaign issue for both sides.
Well, same with energy independence. A really big campaign issue, a really big issue that each party can bang the other party on the head with.
We must remember, the current crop of politicians love subjects that divide the country. They believe it keeps people interested, keeps people sending money, keeps them in fat city, keeps them in power. A bipartisan approach to energy independence? Ain't gonna happen in the foreseeable future. Sad, but true.
Well at least they are making an effort to get away from foriegn oil. Its better than what we are doing in the US.
LOL at author's name
Yep, they've drilled their way to energy independence.
Finally, some truth is coming out about this government boondoggle.....
LOL!
Ping!
Does it tickle when someone does that?
--not surprising , in a country where probably seventy percent of people can't tell you how the light gets to the bulb, the water to the faucet or where it goes when they flush--
"If I ever run short of electricity, I’ll just install more outlets."
Green party member, it appears.
I even avoid the 10% ethanol most of the time. Probably not a bad idea to fill up now and then in the winter. Take care of any water in the fuel lines.
Fascinating!
We use 22 million barrels of oil a day. Look at the
facts before you jump....if we had to build Nuc's to supply are energy needs, we'd need to build one a week for the next 10 years... Never going to happen.
I'll settle for one a year for the next ten years (but hope for 10 a year). Not building nukes is criminal.
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.