Sins of Emission(Ethanol Boondoggle:Obama found one that is Bush's fault, but he'll continue anyway)

wall st journal ^ | 10/29/09

[bestintxas]

Donning FDR's cape, Eisenhower's stripes and JFK's boat shoes, President Obama observed in Florida on Tuesday that his "clean energy economy" will require "mobilization" on the order of fighting World War II, building the interstate highway system and going to the moon. Of course, the only "mobilization" going on at the moment is on behalf of ethanol, whose many political dispensations the biofuels lobby is finding new ways to preserve even as the evidence of its destructiveness piles up.

The latest embarrassment arrives via the peer-reviewed journal Science, not known for its right-wing inclinations. A new paper calls attention to what the authors (led by Princeton's Tim Searchinger) call "a critical accounting error" in the way carbon emissions from biofuels are measured in climate-change programs world-wide. Bernie Madoff had a few critical accounting errors too.

Though you won't hear it from the biofuels lobby, ethanol actually generates the same amount of greenhouse gas as fossil fuels, or more, per unit of energy. But this was still supposed to be better than coal or oil because ethanol's CO2 is "recycled." Since plants absorb and store carbon that is already in the atmosphere, burning them as fuel would create no new emissions, whereas fossil fuels release CO2 that has been buried for millions of years.

[bestintxas]

Now ay will he not continue the ridiculous subsidizing of the indecent expenditures for a failed experiment with liberalism - (Thanks a lot, George)

[Wonder Warthog]

"The Science study argues that this is a false economy, because it doesn't consider changes in land use. If mature forests are cleared to make room for biofuel-growing farms, then the carbon that would otherwise accumulate in those forests ought to be counted on ethanol's balance sheet as well."

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the premise of the Science "study" is so much bullshit. NO "mature forests" have been cleared to produce ethanol in the US. This "might" be a legitimate criticism in Brazil, but not here. Another problem is that "mature forests" don't fix much carbon---it is "new growth" forests that are the "big fixers" in the CO2 world.

[Hoodat]

Burning ethanol for fuel emits over twice the CO2 as does it’s gasoline equivalent.

[bestintxas]

“NO “mature forests” have been cleared to produce ethanol in the US. “

The recently passed mandates to increase the proportional usage of biofuels including ethanol must mean that more agricultural land must go to growing for fuel; otherwise, there will indeed be a mandate for taking non-farm acreage and utilizing it for growing biofuel feedstock.

Could this be forest land? you betcha.

[Mr. Lucky]

Your mistake is several fold. First, corn used for ethanol feed stock is still available for use as livestock feed (in fact, distillers dried grains are more easily digested than the unprocessed corn was to begin with). Second, there are approximately 32 million “conservation reserve” acres in the US which consists of arable land the federal government presently pays the owners not to farm. Third, corn yields are steadily increasing each year and will continue to do so. Fourth, there is a very transparent pricing system for corn, and other farm commodities, in the US. New crop corn prices in the US are lower than they were last year, indicating that corn buyers are having no trouble meeting their demands.

[jnsun]

So if Malaysians burn down a rain forest to grow palm oil that ends up in German biodiesel, Malaysia doesn't count the land-use emissions and Germany doesn't count the tail-pipe emissions.

There are a couple of points in this article which may be overplayed and we should refer to the original in Science. At the Suntrade Institute we are not strong advocates for an ethanol future for a number of reasons, certainly not for the anthropogenic CO₂ fear, which is totally unproven.

But the carbon neutrality argument for ethanol, pro or con, is somewhat more involved than this article repeats, and Mr Searchinger of Princeton better have some very good numbers to validate the "accounting" error. That is:

(1) He is absolutely right in incorporating land use across the planet into the argument. Not to do so is the ignorant agenda-ridden leftist bigotry we are seeing across all governments (much of that because politicians are those who flunked math and science).

(2) However much of the forest across the planet, particularly those in the tropics, Amazon, SE Asia, etc. are not quite the carbon reservoirs that are implied here, at least in the dynamic storage sense. Indeed there is very little carbon at all in tropical soils, it is all quickly oxidized and returned to the atmosphere. That is why tropical soils are so poor.

(3) Thus once the "Malaysian rain forest" has been burned, and that of course is a torrent of CO₂ into the atmosphere, the subsequent land use of ethanol production is about the same carbon neutrality of the rain-forest proceeding it. That is to say, after the initial combustive loss of the rain-forest, the dynamic carbon balance of rain-forest versus ethanol forb, occupying the same plot of land, is approximately a wash. It's just that one (ethanol production) happens in a more rapid cycle than the other (rain-forest).

(4) That being the case, the question becomes really how much, in real quantitative numbers, of the forest across the planet will indeed be sacrificed to ethanol production, and thus the land use question. Having flown over all continents repeatedly we suspect not as much conversion as would make severe "accounting errors." Why? Because most of the world's arable land mass is already intensively cultivated (whether ethanol production or otherwise), and that which is not, you better believe, is husbanded adamantly by the environmental faction perpetually, i.e. rain-forests, protected reserves, etc. (which we support incidentally for this very reason).

The perspective which is lost here, perhaps even by the scientific "experts" publishing or editing in Science, is that the arable world is already highly, intensively, exploitively, developed. And if one wants to argue with that then one better incorporate some hard numbers on land use, planet wide.

And thus we have the ignorance of politics, backed by the uncertainty of science.

Johnny Suntrade

The Suntrade Institute

[bestintxas]

Well let’s see now on this:

1. First, corn used for ethanol feed stock is still available for use as livestock feed (in fact, distillers dried grains are more easily digested than the unprocessed corn was to begin with).

May be now, but my point is will it be in future? See http://www.texaspolicy.com/commentaries_single.php?report_id=2189

Quote: Far worse is yet to come, as this year’s ethanol mandate of 9 billion gallons expands to 12 billion in 2010 and to a whopping 36 billion in 2022 – an amount that would consume more than today’s entire U.S. corn crop.

2. Second, there are approximately 32 million “conservation reserve” acres in the US which consists of arable land the federal government presently pays the owners not to farm.

This may also be, but I wonder if the issues like water usage and other items will allow all of this land to be returned to farming? I also wonder if the crops best suited for making ethanol can be grown on these lands? Lastly, I wonder if one can make money in today’s environment(see #4 below)?

3. Third, corn yields are steadily increasing each year and will continue to do so.

No argument here, but I don’t think they will exponentially increase yields as required under 1. above.

4. Fourth, there is a very transparent pricing system for corn, and other farm commodities, in the US. New crop corn prices in the US are lower than they were last year, indicating that corn buyers are having no trouble meeting their demands.

I happen to go to church with an individual who has been tasked with finding a buyer for a defunct ethanol plant that was built a short 5 years ago. So far, he has found no buyers and has told me ethanol production economics sucks, even with the government subsidies. If the corn prices were so great and attractive, I wonder why he is finding such a tough time to find a buyer?

I am not against farmers, but see no reason to expand a failed program touted to “Save the environment” when it doesn’t and “Make us independent of foreign oil” when it doesn’t do that either as it uses more energy than it produces.

I am for making responsible economic sense of our resources, and turning corn into ethanol does not pass the sniff test.

That’s why Bush needs to be blamed for expansion of energy idiocy.

[jimt]

I am for making responsible economic sense of our resources, and turning corn into ethanol does not pass the sniff test.

Dittos.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The recently passed mandates to increase the proportional usage of biofuels including ethanol must mean that more agricultural land must go to growing for fuel; otherwise, there will indeed be a mandate for taking non-farm acreage and utilizing it for growing biofuel feedstock."

"Could this be forest land? you betcha."

Not. You obviously have NO clue as to how much agricultural land has been "fallowed" as farm productivity has gone up. The liklihood of clearing any forest land to grow biofuel in the US is nil. I grew up farming, and my brother farmed soybeans and corn up until about five years ago, so I "do" know what has gone on in the "ag biz".

[Wonder Warthog]

"I am not against farmers, but see no reason to expand a failed program touted to “Save the environment” when it doesn’t and “Make us independent of foreign oil” when it doesn’t do that either as it uses more energy than it produces."

Completely wrong. I get tired of debunking this bullshit, but there seems to always be another idiot that will repeat it. The fact is that producing corn ethanol DOES have a positive energy balance. Multiple peer-reviewed studies prove that. I've posted those facts over and over again. But I'm willing to do so again if necessary.

[bestintxas]

You are not someone that likes discourse or anyone should discourse with.

Good day to you and your foul mouth.

[Mr. Lucky]

I don’t mean to sound smug, but you’ll notice that the doom and gloom economic predictions made in the article your reply was based upon were made in September, 2008.

While near term corn prices traded in the $5 to $6 range in September ‘08, and your author predicted they would skyrocket higher, near term corn prices are now trading in the $3 to $4 range, having closed yesterday on the CME at $3.762.

36 Billion bushels of corn, by the way, would be sufficient to produce over 100 billion gallons of fuel grade ethanol. The US only uses a total of about 64 Billion gallons of gasoline in a year.

[bestintxas]

Not smug, but at least you have some facts to support your argument rather than just debasing someone like the other guy did.

I refer you to this document, particularly pages 23-27.
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=484
The George Marshall Institute is highly regarded and on a factual basis is hard to argue with. Their assessments do not paint a bright future for ethanol unless radical changes in technology occur or if we debase the forests as well as fields.

There are other potentially interesting articles within regarding the technology and politics of ethanol.

[Mr. Lucky]

Excuse me? The price of corn on the Chicago Merc is not "argument". December corn last traded at $3.692 per bushel; that's a fact. Your year and a half old article predicting continuous skyrocketing of corn prices was wrong.

The 2006 article you now link to is more interesting and it certainly doesn't support any of the nonsense predicted by the first article.

[bestintxas]

Yes, argument. I am not talking about current corn prices which you appear to be fixated on. Perhaps we need to once again state what the ethanol consideration is all about, as at least I perceive it to be:

1. Is ethanol commercially exploitable? Could be with technology, but not now as it uses up way too much energy at too high a price compared to alternatives such as oil and gas. And it needs federal tax subsidies and mandates to survive.

2. Does it lead to energy security? Yes, but so does drilling domestically for more oil and gas and developing nuclear and coal, all of which are preferable due to 1. above.

3. Should technology significantly improve such that it can compete commercially with alternatives, is it something that we can feasibly use in increasing amounts for substitution of gasoline and other transporation fuels?
I hope so, as you stated much farmland is fallow and it may serve productivity of a sector in this country that could use it. My doubts remain, however, whether ramped up land usage would be allowed by all the environmental idiots who have gotten into our regulatory bodies(the farmers in California’s San Joaquin Valley who can actually make money farming are not allowed now due to protecting a small fish).

I have no problem throwing more money at ethanol research to see if it can have some type of technology breakthrough, but I really think it can go only so far.

Besides all of that, it will still need the tax credits to survive at all.

4. Is it environmentally-friendly compared to alternatives? Coal- yes unless you clean up the smokestacks at high cost. Nuclear - definitely, as long as you take care of the spent rods. Oil - it may be close, but the articles I have read give me doubt. Gas - clearly no.

A very subjective expression I might add is that I have a problem in taking a foodstock that can actually keep people from dying around the world and use it as a fuel when there are plenty of alternative fuels around to use. Perhaps that is too closed-minded, but if we export less now than we did a few years ago, it is likely happening on some poor country who could use it.

I see ethanol adding some but not all that much to this country’s energy future. What has been done to date appears to me a wishful thinking coupled with playing political games.