Advanced biofuels: Ethanol, schmethanol

The Economist ^ | September 27, 2007 | The Economist

[Hydroshock]

I hope the jeep keeps and expands the number of diesels they put in.

[Red Badger]

WHen Chrysler was sold to Cerebus, did they get Jeep or did Daimler keep it?..............

[RightWhale]

The purpose of alternative fuels is to eliminate the dependence on ME oil. Maybe Venezuelan oil, too. This Green, etc. requirement is flak.

[Uncledave]

Renewable Energy Ping

Please Freep Mail me if you'd like on/off

[Will88]

“The purpose of alternative fuels is to eliminate the dependence on ME oil. Maybe Venezuelan oil, too. This Green, etc. requirement is flak.”

But it might not seem worth it to most Americans with what it’s already done to meat prices, and things might be even more expensive in the future.

We definitely need a lot more than ethanol to reduce our dependence on imported oil.

[Squawk 8888]

Rather than using valuable cropland to produce fuel, we’d be far better off tapping into the mineral wealth that is already there. The tarsands and oil shale are a good start but the holy grail is probably finding a cheap, clean way to turn coal into liquid fuel.

[Wuli]

The important political point to make on any “bio” fuel or other ‘alternate’ energy prospects is to keep politics out of them - 100%.

Politicians should not be picking and choosing among them and trying to direct R&D funding or any kind of direct subsidies from government to any of them.

If we really want new sources of “energy” then companies working on the development or production of ANY form of energy, without distinction -

(a simple group of scientists in the US Energy department answers a simple question, without qualification: is this company working on a product or process to domestically produce or distribute a source of energy - yes/no)

, should be able to take 100% of capital investment/capital expenses immediately as tax credits (not simply deductions from gross income).

That would place most energy companies of any kind in a mode where they likely have zero taxes to pay for possibly a decade.

The leftists will scream about all the “lost revenue” and that such allowances will apply to “old” energy sources as well.

But,

(1)all the new energy capital investment will create taxable revenue in other companies that will be the suppliers, contractors and consultants to the energy companies,

(2)and the taxes on that revenue will exceed the direct taxes not collected from the energy companies,

and

(3) if energy independence and not the phony CO2 scam is our real initial energy goal then those huge tax credits will get us there sooner and do so letting technology, economics and markets determine the best course, not politicians.

[AlexW]

“Rather than using valuable cropland to produce fuel, we’d be far better off tapping into the mineral wealth that is already there. The tarsands and oil shale are a good start but the holy grail is probably finding a cheap, clean way to turn coal into liquid fuel.”

I agree with you, but it is best we start with ANWAR, and
drilling offshore, before the Cubans beat us to it.

[Mr. Lucky]

Live cattle closed today on the CME @$.96 per pound; a year ago, the price was $.90. If the price of your steak has gone up more than $.06 per pound in the last year, blame someone other than farmers.

[preacher]

[thackney]

The tarsands and oil shale are a good start but the holy grail is probably finding a cheap, clean way to turn coal into liquid fuel.

US oil shale reserves contains about twice the BTU's as US coal reserves.

[RightWhale]

• what it’s already done to meat prices

  Alternatives will cost more. It can hardly be otherwise.

[Squawk 8888]

I did not know that. I say develop both and may the best technology win in the marketplace :-)

[thackney]

The big brass ring for US energy is Methane Hydrates. The US is estimated to hold 320,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas trapped in methane hydrates. This is approximately 60 times the energy contained in US coal reserves.

[Wonder Warthog]

Your cartoon is a lie. The best numbers show exactly the inverse relationship. The equivalent of 1 gallon of energy in (and most of THAT energy is not petroleum derived) yields ~1.3 gallons of ethanol out (from corn). The numbers for switchgrass are much better—but the switchgrass route isn’t fully perfected yet.

[TChris]

Rather than using valuable cropland to produce fuel, we’d be far better off tapping into the mineral wealth that is already there. The tarsands and oil shale are a good start but the holy grail is probably finding a cheap, clean way to turn coal into liquid fuel.

Exactly.

It surprises me how many seemingly intelligent scientists are either ignorant of or apathetic toward the economic realities of their proposals.

The most basic principle in economics is the law of supply and demand. If biofuel production buys up crops, then there is a lower supply for food. When there is a lower supply, there is a higher price.

Enviros, greenies, tree-huggers and bioscientists, lend me your ear! There are unavoidable, inherent and frequently negative consequences to many of the beliefs and policies you hold dear. Especially when you cause major changes to major marketplaces, there will be effects, and probably of the damaging kind.

Basic economics: It's not just a good idea; it's the law.

[crazyshrink]

less ethanol....cheaper meat & higher fuel cost
more ethanol....cheaper fuel cost & higher meat cost

In actuality tho, the by-product of ethanol production is cattle feed, and lots of it. Ethanol production should not raise meat prices by itself.

One good thing about ethanol is that it does lower our need for ME oil. Better solutions are needed however.

[pabianice]

There are, however, 10 billion gallons of rendered chicken fat produced in the US every year. And people will keep eating chicken.

[ASOC]

I guess I’ll be the first to say

SUGER! It’s the new oil! (Man I hate teevee)