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.
Before I jump??
What is that in reference to?? What 'facts' are you talking about? What did you think my post implied??
I am very interested to hear your answers.
There is no free lunch.
EtOH has less energy content than does gasoline. Last year I noticed that my Highway mileage dropped from 30 to 27 MPG, but I am paying the same, or more.
It's feel-good scam at present.
I recently read an article where automotive companies get credits for flexible fuel vehicles. Apparently, automakers have to meet a CAFE standard which mandates an average MPG for all vehicles produced.
A loophole is that flexible fuel vehicles are assumed to be running on 90% ethanol full time
The way the math worked, a Hummer gets 35 MPG (on gasoline).
Mind you, I do support alternatnative fuel/ power sources; only if they meet real objectives and goals.
BTTT
"The many of the alternative energy sources are being misrepresented to the public."
As hard as I tried, I couldn't get past this first sentence as a guarantee that the author had anything to say that I might likely believe.
Yeah, I had a problem with that too but the rest of the article made sense so I chalked it up to a minor error, either by the author or the proofreader.
We are running out of energy and it's going to bite us in the a__ , um, buttocks....
No problem OregonRancher, I have done the same.
Sad isn't it? Our politicians, both sides, would rather keep this problem around indefinitely merely for political gain, rather than releasing the technological muscle of the USA and ridding us of foreign energy supplies. Very sad.
Can you imagine our country energy independent, or at the least cutting the current imports by 50%? Wow, I cannot even imagine the benefits.
Interesting article...A few months ago I was in northern Argentina in a town right on the border with Brazil. On a sleepy, hot Sunday I asked the cabbie why there were so many cars lined up at the local petrol stations? He told me they were all Brazilians who come over the border to fill up tanks and cans with gasoline. He said Argie "combustible" was a lot cheaper than the Brazilian ethanol blend. Never hear about this stuff.
Interesting anecdote.
BTTT
Bump for later...
They are trying to build one of those stupid ethanol plants literally in my back yard. The village is only interested in the property tax dollars. The ethanol bubble will burst soon.
I am not a strong proponent of ethanol, but I doubt it will be over soon.
"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."
If BRAZIL can do it, why can't we?
"If we could start an American Manhattan Project for energy independance we could acieve freedom in less than 10 years.
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. "
Disagree ... only ONE party is for the flat tax, and that is GOP. If we had a big majority, like 280 members, we could get a FAIR tax or FLAT tax past the RINOs and Dems.
Likewise on energy independence, the only serious party on this is the Republicans. Serious on nuclear energy, on drilling, on alternatives like hybrids too. However, there is a lack of leadership.
"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. "
True. For Democrats, this is just a way to advocate for fossil fuel taxes and make people feel guilty about driving SUVs. For Republicans, it the drilling etc.
Here is a full solution for energy independence:
key point - we import 15 million barrels of oil a day.
To get those imports to 0, we'd have to double production
and halve consumption...
1. Build 400 nuclear power plants, using it to replace coal plants (reduce greenhouse gas emissions) and supply electricity for transportation (see #2)
2. Get people using hybrid plug-in cars; by making electricity cheaper than oil (see #4 and #5) people will migrate to using plug-ins and hybrids over time
3. Drill offshore, ANWR, and govt lands
4. put a $30 oil import fee on oil
5. put a 50 cent gas tax to discourage oil consumption, but leave it off for natgas CNG, ethanol and home-grown alternatives.
6. exploit the 1 trillion barrels of shale oil deposits in the rockies. If we can get to 2 million barrels a day from that, we can boost our supplies 40%. another 2 million barrels from offshore and 1 million from ANWR and we've met our "double production goal".
7. Manhattan project to focus on batteries and technologies for electric-based and hybrid cars/transports etc.
Transportation uses 10 million barrels a day; make a goal to reduce it to 5 million barrels a day, via alternative fuels (plugins, ethanol, etc), efficiency, alternative transport, etc.
The taxes on gas and oil are the only way to really cut consumption, and even then it might need to be higher.
Still, that can help fund the programs and get rebated as a tax rebate for workers.
I do also, very much. (see profile).
It is just that, as in the 1970's, every time energy prices soar ("Crisis"), all kinds of quack ideas proliferate.
Every week, we see many examples of "News Stories" that are really just IPO solicitations. Many show up here, and when appropriate, they are (heh) discussed.
I remember the '70's "crisis" very well, and was working in Solar Enery at the time. Maybe a lot of people were not around then or do not remember the some of the scams. Actually, MANY of the silliest were floated by sincere idealist tinkerers who did not understand thing such as the difference between "temperature" and "Heat". Thye became conviced that Big Oil was killing their invention, when in fact, it was Thermodynamics.
One comic tragedy was the "Frenette Furnace". Someone filled a washing machine tub with oil, put it on "Spin", and observed that the oil got hot from hydroviscous shear, just as in an automotive torque converter.
Since the oil was not consumed, the inventor was positive there was "Free Energy". So conviced he was, it was not possible to get him to watch his electric meter.
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.