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.
Unfortunately, it's not a bubble. It's a deliberate plundering of taxpayers by a powerful political interest group. An ethanol plant is a good investment from an individual investor's point of view because of the massive subsidies our government hands out. If not for the subsidies, the whole ethanol industry would collapse overnight. Unfortunately, those subsidies are not going away because of the political power of the corn lobby.
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).
Every taxpaying voter in California needs to read this article before Tuesday, November 7, 2006.
The First Rapist and others have been on the TV endlessly telling us flat out lies about the "wonders" of ethanol in Brazil.
Creating a multi-billion$ bureaucracy (welfare for the lower-low middle class) to solve any problem has not worked, not once, in the history of any country on earth.
Socialism sucks. Stealth socialism is the worst of the worse. Socializing energy will make it not only more expensive, but will create a shortage of unimaginable proportions. Just ask the (late) Soviet Union...
Ask the Cubans who use horse-drawn automobile hulks for transportation.
Are you guessing or do you know?
In regard to the info on petroleum, this is based upon
expert analysis of the production factors for petroleum
products as opposed to the energy inputs required to produce alternative energy. The statement on solar is based
upon my own personal experience.(I have solar)
How do you do that? It's 10% Fool's Errand all over the place here.
Thought you might be interested in this article. It sounds like ethanol, with all the corn and water used, is a total wash at this point in time.
I think it's going to be a combination of technologies. If nuclear is ignored, we won't come close.
And Brazil is particulary well suited to ethanol production, having the right climate for producing a superior feedstock (compared to corn), sugar cane, that can be produced cheaply on vast swaths of slash and burn former rainforest (ie, at great cost to the environment in the long term). And it still isn't really an economical proposition. I remain highly skeptical of the value of ethanol as a fuel, at least with any currently-known production methods. Otherwise they wouldn't need subsidized corn and subsidies for ethanol production to encourage it.
Algae is probably the best.
"It will be quite a challenge to get our production cost down below $.10 per kilo. But the industry has already driven the cost down from as high as $300 to as low as $.75 - we just need to keep going."
Once we get to that point of production, oil will be none competitive from $55-60 dollars a barrel. Probably even less, if the general public finds interest in being off the middle east pipe.
I believe a little dabbing into biotech, and we could make petro a less interesting source of energy. Personally I'm for a multifaceted way of gaining indepedence,...but truely some of the people's method^^^^ aren't viable economically.
Nickels and dimes.
True, but with 500 years of coal, and what, 30 to 50 of KNOWN oil (estimates are that the world has 250 years, but of course that just really a guesstamate) we have a lot of time.
Just turn the clock back (mentally of course) 100 years to see how far we've come.
Relax, when true economic pressure begins to exert itself, science will come through.
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.