Posted on 05/13/2006 1:44:42 AM PDT by neverdem
The U.S. should emulate Brazil's "energy independence miracle" declared headlines, editorialists, environmentalists and policymakers all throughout the first half of 2006. The Brazilian "miracle" was achieved in part by substituting ethanol (produced by fermenting sugar cane) for gasoline (made from imported oil).
Let's look at the elements of the Brazilian miracle and see if it is possible for the United States to replicate it. First, Brazil's economy is one-tenth the size of ours, and Brazil's motor fleet is about 100 vehicles per 1,000 people. Brazil's cars and trucks consume about 15 billion gallons of motor fuels annually. Also, Brazil produces 1.7 million barrels of oil per day, enough to fulfill about 90 percent of the country's daily requirements. Finally, Brazil produces 4.5 billion gallons of ethanol from sugar cane and blends it with gasoline in a 20 percent ethanol/80 percent gasoline mixture to burn in flex fuel automobiles.
In contrast, there are 765 vehicles per 1000 people in the U.S. consuming about 150 billion gallons of gasoline per year. The United States already produces about 4.5 billion gallons of ethanol (about the same as Brazil) which meets only about 3 percent of U.S. transport fuel needs. The U.S. pumps about 5 million barrels of oil per day domestically and imports another 15 million barrels daily.
Replacing one-third of our gasoline consumption with ethanol, as Brazil has done, would reduce oil imports—but "energy independence" would remain a mirage. One bushel of corn yields about three gallons of ethanol. In 2004 U.S. farmers harvested 11.8 billion bushels of corn. In other words it would take the country's entire corn crop to produce 35 billion gallons of ethanol, an amount equal to about one-fifth of the gasoline Americans currently burn each year. This would also leave no corn for food and some residues for feed. Burning food for fuel raises some interesting moral questions in world in which 800 million people are still malnourished.
Assuming that it would be undesirable to turn our entire corn crop into fuel and feed residues, growing another 12 billion bushels of corn for ethanol production would require plowing up an additional area double the size of the entire state of Illinois. So ethanol produced from corn is not the answer to drastically lowering U.S. oil imports. However, biotechnologists are hard at work on creating processes that will break down cellulose, the complex carbohydrates that make up a good part of the stems and leaves of plants, into sugars that can be fermented into ethanol. In his 2006 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush suggested that switch grass might be a good source of cellulosic biomass to produce ethanol.
Last year, the U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture estimated that it would take one billion tons of dry biomass to produce enough ethanol to replace one-third of current U.S. demand for transport fuels. Assuming a high yield of 10 tons per acre of switch grass would mean harvesting 100 million acres of land for fuel each year—an area about the size of California. In 2005, the USDA reckoned that there were 39 million acres idle in the conservation reserve program and 67 million acres of cropland being used as pasture, so dedicating that much land to grow fuel crops is not impossible. But planting idle cropland and pasture with fuel crops could have some deleterious effects on the natural environment and wildlife and possibly spark a fight between the naturalist and energy wings of the environmentalist movement.
Strangely, the Fed's billion-ton biomass vision doesn't factor in the amount of energy needed to make ethanol. Just how much energy it takes to churn out ethanol is hotly contested, but for simplicity's sake let's assume that the process produces twice as much energy as it uses. That means that with even the most optimistic calculation, in which one billion tons of biomass are converted into ethanol, the amount produced could ultimately replace one-sixth of annual U.S. oil imports. That's not nothing, but it's not "energy independence"—and it's not much of a "miracle," either. Finally, it has to be asked, if producing ethanol is such a profitable idea, why does it need federal subsidies?
Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent.
This article seems to imply that American can't do it.
Seems like the Anti-American mantra of the left has been usurped by the trembling oil companies. I wonder if this guy got a grant from Exxon.
Saying America is incapable of finding a solution to its energy problems is to have no faith in America. Thos who consider themselves "realists" in this regard are in the pockets of those who stand to lose, are traitors, or both.
Between Reason and the NY Times, how did you reach that conclusion?
Sheesh. Get everyone in the US to bag their mowed lawns and sell them weekly for the celulose content.. Problem solved. How many billions of acres of lawns are there in America..
I have no doubt that America could do it.
If significantly economically motivated with the proper incentives in place, we could achieve anything.
As far as the Brasilian model, how many of these writers have spent any amount of time in Brasil driving with Brasilians?
It sucks, period. They have tiny cars and they drive like imbeciles for the most part. Brasilians earn close to what works out to be $100 US a week on the average. Gas is exceptionally expensive and most people I knew were middle/upper class. My other friends never expected to own a car in their lives, although things have improved greatly and now that opportunity is available to more and more people. However, if more people owned cars, particularly at the proportional level as in the US, does anyone think they'd be able to be self sufficient?
The "Brasilian Model" is misleading.
Do it right and come up with an "American Model" that could actually sustain our nation and not an emerging 3rd world country.
Look, I love Brasil except for their @#$% commies, but let's get real. This isn't something we as Americans want to imitate. There are salvageable points in their approach, but it's no where near realistic for our nation.
When did it become American bashing to say America can't violate the laws of physics?
I don't work for Exxon, and I'll tell you that ethanol as a primary fuel source for automobiles is a pipe dream. We can make biofuels work (biodiesel is very promising) but there just isn't enough corn out there for ethanol to replace gas.
The problem with ethanol is that it is an unconcentrated form of energy, i.e. it takes too much feedstock to create a unit of energy compared to oil, nuke, etc. Efficiency and economics favors using the most concentrated forms of energy. Nuclear and hydrogen are better bets than ethanol in the long-run.
We can start with the simpletons in the Senate Republican majority by insisting that they stop the bill on behalf of the hypocritical Kennedys that would halt the windmills off Hyannis Port. Stop being a "club" and start ruling this country on behalf of its citizens, not your corrupt cronies.
I keep whining about ethanol and gasoline blends reducing Miles Per Gallon, but no one listens. This is the real reason it's a big fraud. All oxygenates have a lower energy content than hydrocarbons.
I always record fuel economy every tank because it is an easy way to keep track of the car's condition. Prior to 10% EtOH additions, I got 30 MPG...I drive all highway. I now get 27. Where are the savings? Even if the 10% EtOH were cheaper, I would be buying more to go the same distance.
The is the dirty little secret.
First, Brazil's economy is one-tenth the size of ours, and Brazil's motor fleet is about 100 vehicles per 1,000 people. Brazil's cars and trucks consume about 15 billion gallons of motor fuels annually....
In contrast, there are 765 vehicles per 1000 people in the U.S. consuming about 150 billion gallons of gasoline per year.
I've seen some moonshine mirages before, and let me tell you, they were quite realistic and terrifying. Phew.
Kennedy may oppose windmills, but there's a private pipeline to his house from the nearest ethanol factory.
/sarc on
I would ask the same thing while middle american congress people are seemingly ga ga over ethanol because ethanol plants and corn planting are big business in SD ND NE etc.
commodity price for corn is about $2.50 per bushel.
yiels is 2.5 to 3 gallons per bushel.
only the starch is used, leaving behind some animal feed.
do the math, production could go up.
people are brrewing this stuff on their own.
note, ethanol has two-thirds the energy
content of gasoline.
It is no secret. it has just been media'd into extinction. It has been a racing fuel for years, and even there fuel economy plays a huge role in a teams ability to win races. I suspect the difference between economy with ethanol vs gasoline, would allow a team regardless of standing, to win every race given the advantage of gas in the tank over ethanol.
another thought,
the US is exporting fuel corn for a stupidly low price,
better would be for lots more to be converted to fuel,
which would have the beneficial effect of having
the price of US export go up.
WTF are you talking about?
the issue is miles per dollar, who cares if
a car's fuel tank needs to be 30% bigger.
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.