Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 04/18/2010 5:23:12 AM PDT by thackney
Is corn-based ethanol fuel the wave of the future, creating domestic jobs and vital to the nation's energy supply? Or is it a taxpayer boondoggle responsible for higher food prices?
For some in Washington, the answers to those questions have changed.
For years, ethanol fuel derived from corn was almost politically untouchable, thanks to powerful advocates on Capitol Hill. The ethanol industry has consequently exploded over the last decade, thanks to government subsidies and incentives.
But skepticism about ethanol is rising, prompted by fluctuating food prices and an organized campaign by anti-ethanol advocates to discredit the industry.
“The old saying is that if you aren't at the table, you're on the menu,” says Tom Buis, lobbyist and CEO of Growth Energy, a new ethanol industry group formed in 2008 as some ethanol companies grew worried that their political clout was waning.
Tax credits at stake At stake are billions of dollars in tax credits for ethanol companies that expire at the end of the year and a pending action at the Environmental Protection Agency that could raise the amount of ethanol in every driver's fuel tank.
Once a slam-dunk, Buis says the industry now has to work harder to convince an increasingly skeptical public and Congress that ethanol continues to deserve government money.
There's evidence that Congress is weary of giving money to an industry that critics say should be able to stand on its own after getting its start in the 1980s with congressional advocates like Sens. Bob Dole of Kansas and Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
...
‘Food vs. fuel'
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
That is all ethanol is. If it is so "good" then it would need our subsidies, just like conventional gasoline does not.
Only a moron would think that growing food and then burning it is a good idea.
Here in my neighborhood we have gas station that offers 90 octane free of any ethanol, it cost more but sales are through the roof.
Here in my neighborhood all gas is required to have at least 10% ethanol.
Here in MO, ethanol was *mandated* by law to be sold at every gas station, you could NOT find non-ethanol up here. It seemed as though our gas mileage went down with the change, but we didn’t keep detailed records. This madness apparently ended, and gas stations are starting to sell non-ethanol products again.
My husband buys a lot of gasoline, he delivers rural mail. Given the choice, he no longer buys ethanol. He is using a little more than 1 gallon *less* per day on the route. That adds up on a 5 day per week route!
That regulation would never pass down here too many boats.
I live in Florida, I bet you don’t have more boats than we do.
Other than the fact that it costs more, burns food and produces about 2x the CO2 as straight gasoline(according to CARB) whats not to like for this magical renewable fuel?
Not bad for something that was discarded a hundred years ago for too expensive, which is now still too expensive. Not to worry, crap and tax will get those fuel costs up for you RSN, so it will then look cheap.
Obama-commie, costs more does less.
Oh yeah, one more thing, the land footprint to grow enough makes for an interesting problem.
Those that promote ethanol are thieves, liars and destroyers.
LLS
When we have volcanoes having the potential to spew ash into the atmosphere for the next 2 years...yeah, let’s burn our food supply.
Everyon I know with a boat is complaining, but also small motors that arent used everyday are effected. As for fuel mileage? Yes it kils that too , but then the government gets more tax money and then they complain we use too much.
I think it is madness to burn food when you can burn something that cannot be eaten. And it is entirely unnecessary when we have vast areas of the US that have known reserves of hydrocarbons that we refuse to extract.
I am anti-ethanol but perhaps someone can answer this—
The pro-ethanol people say the leftover biomass is used for animal feed. Corn has always been used for hog feed. So now you just use the leftover part of the corn for hog feed. Therefore corn is not wasted.
You have to use natural gas or oil for the ethanol distillation process so ethanol is probably still a net loss
Good point.
My 1990 Honda Civic used to get 44mpg on pure gas. When I had to start burning alcohol tainted stuff, I immediately dropped to 40 MPG.
On my route, I drive my Explorer just about 128 miles per day, alcohol tainted gas used an average of 10 gallons per day. Last week I ran pure gas and used an average of 8.5 gallons per day, but I am going to continue for another week or two to get a really good average number.
That’s the bottom line for me. Why burn food in my gas tank and have it cost me much more money? Just to keep lobbyists in the money?
Biofuels aren't the only potential solution, but they are the nearest at hand. In the long run, hydrogen fuel cells or dramatically improved batteries may transition us from oil entirely, but those technologies are still over the horizon. Oil shales, tar sands, and CTL have potential, but they are also expensive and face severe opposition from the green lobby.
Biofuels have their own share of issues, but we are currently getting more of our fuel supply from ethanol than from Saudi Arabia, Mexico, or Venezuela. We have done this through increased yields while still serving our traditional food, feed, and export markets. Looking ahead, the growth potential for corn ethanol depends on further yield increases; some credible projections anticipate a near doubling of yields over the next 20 years (primarily through better genetics), so the potential is substantial. Cellulosic ethanol will multiply the potential several times over, provided the costs can be brought down. And third generation feedstocks are a bonanza waiting to happen; if I had to bet today, I'd bet on algae, which is very high yield and scaleable in industrial quantities.
Cost is the issue. The sooner the Saudis lose pricing power, the better. I want the jihadis to revert to sticks and stones because they can't afford bullets and bombs. I want the hate-madrassahs to shut down for lack of funds. I want the fat little sheiks to sell off the gold plated Rolls Royces and start earning an honest living. Towards these ends, I am willing to tell the automakers that they need to build flex fuel rated engines (the added cost is usually estimated at $100 per engine). The small engine folks can do the same.
As for food vs. fuel: American consumers right now are probably saving more at the fuel pump due to the impact of ethanol on gasoline prices than they are paying at the grocery store in higher food costs. If you look at the typical American market basket, the farm gate price of commodities is only about 20% of the price we pay at the grocery store, and corn (mostly consumed as animal feed) is only a fraction of that 20%. Two years ago, the ethanol critics were blaming biofuels for soaring grocery prices. Oil and ethanol prices then collapsed under the impact of the recession; did anyone notice food prices falling as a result? I sure didn't.
>>It seemed as though our gas mileage went down with the change, but we didn’t keep detailed records.
Thermodynamics 101 says it almost certainly did. Lower energy density makes that a given. Ethanol has only about 2/3rds the energy density of gasoline.
“That is all ethanol is. If it is so “good” then it would need our subsidies, just like conventional gasoline does not.
Only a moron would think that growing food and then burning it is a good idea.”
Presidential Order Number moja: Logical thought is not allowed.
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.