Republicans Drunk on Ethanol

National Review Online ^ | October 12, 2007 | The Editors

[neverdem]

October 12, 2007, 8:45 a.m.

Republicans Drunk on Ethanol

By The Editors

It’s a depressing ritual. Every four years, as Iowans prepare to cast the first votes in the presidential-primary season, candidates descend on the corn-covered state and discover the miraculous properties of ethanol. The latest convert is Fred Thompson, who voted against ethanol subsidies when he was a U.S. senator but now says that ethanol is “a matter . . . of national security.” What he means is that he supports increasing federal assistance for ethanol production, on the grounds that this will reduce American dependence on oil from the Middle East. But, like most arguments for ethanol subsidies, this one is spurious.

First, even the biggest of proposed ethanol supports — an increase in mandated ethanol consumption from 7.5 billion gallons a year to 15 billion gallons a year, as called for in the energy bill Congress is currently debating — would barely dent America’s oil consumption, which is approximately 150 billion gallons annually. We could plant corn from New York to California and still not produce an equivalent amount of ethanol.

Second, only around 5 million automobiles in America are “flexible-fuel vehicles” — cars that are equipped to run on a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline (known as E85). That’s out of 135 million registered passenger cars in the United States. Moreover, as the Dallas Morning News reported last year, the owners of almost all of these flex-fuel vehicles tend to fill them up with regular gas, owing to a scarcity of gas stations that sell E85. Simply mandating greater ethanol consumption won’t change that. A more drastic intervention — for example, requiring gas stations to sell E85 — would also be necessary. Some liberal groups have called for just that. Does Thompson agree with them? Conservative voters should hope not.

Thompson has cited high oil prices to defend his about-face on ethanol: “When I was in the Senate, I think oil was at $23 a barrel,” he told the Associated Press. But this is another red herring. Petroleum is a major input in the manufacture of ethanol — it is required not just to make ethanol, but to transport it to points of sale. In fact, there’s good evidence that making ethanol requires more petroleum than making gasoline does. So if high oil prices should make us want to use less oil, that’s an argument for diminishing our ethanol consumption right now, not boosting it.

None of this is to deny that there’s a legitimate market for ethanol. All gasoline is required to contain additives known as “oxygenates,” and ethanol is one of them. Gasoline blenders have turned increasingly to it since MBTE — another additive — was found to contaminate groundwater.

But the momentum behind federal support for ethanol militates toward production of far more than the market can absorb. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which enacted the initial ethanol mandate of 7.5 billion gallons a year, encouraged the ethanol industry to increase production dramatically. Now, reports of an ethanol glut suggest that the industry has overproduced — something that tends to happen when companies make production decisions based on government mandates rather than market signals.

The ethanol glut is inefficient, but it’s bad in other ways too. The diversion of corn from use as food to ethanol production has led to higher food prices — a side-effect that has finally gotten Congress’s attention. As farmers grow more corn in hopes of selling it to ethanol makers, they also threaten to disrupt the water supply in some regions. That’s because farmers are both planting new corn on formerly uncultivated soil, and converting acres already under cultivation toward corn and away from other, less water-intensive food crops. To put the current expansion of corn production into perspective, consider that we have more corn growing on American soil right now than at any time since World War II, when the farms of Europe had been devastated by war and America was feeding two continents.

There is no excuse for Congress to bail out the ethanol industry again by doubling a mandate that should not exist in the first place. If any major 2008 presidential candidate aside from John McCain opposes this heavy-handed dirigisme, he or she has yet to say so. McCain, for his part, deserves credit for taking a clear-eyed view of ethanol subsidies — even as he jokes that he drinks “a glass of ethanol every morning.” That position on ethanol is quite possibly the most sober in Washington.

[neverdem]

Fred drank the ethanol koolaid. Drat

[TomGuy]

Looks like he did.

We did the ethanol thing in the 70s. It didn’t work. Vehicles using ethanol frequently stalled out.

[South40]

Republicans Drunk on Ethanol

I may be on my third rum and coke, but I'm far from drunk. ((hic))

[sinanju]

I remember, twas called “gasohol” at the time.

I recall the tongue-in-cheek “Sixty Minutes” episode. Much comical footage of cars stalling out.

I’m sure Mike Wallace would now furiously deny ever having been so irreverent towards anything that supposedly could save the planet.

[sinanju]

Of all the unintended consequences of our Ethanol subsidy is the blow to our hard-working moonshiners.

According to the History Channel ep on the history of moonshine current ‘shiners are finding corn has become too expensive because too much of it is being used... To... Make... Ethanol?

[FreeInWV]

‘says that ethanol is “a matter . . . of national security.” ‘

But coastal and ANWR drilling isn’t??

[Leisler]

Republican Party Pork Bump!

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"None of this is to deny that there’s a legitimate market for ethanol. All gasoline is required to contain additives known as “oxygenates,” and ethanol is one of them."

My understanding is that adding ethanol to gasoline actually INCREASES pollution which is the opposite of the intention of oxygenating gasoline.

So maybe there is even less need for ethanol than even the author supposes.

[Enduring Freedom]

I support the ethanol initiative, but for reasons more of my own:

1. Ethanol derived from corn is a long-term poor candidate for energy independence, but may be sufficiently justifiable to help generate momentum and create the infrastructure of an ethanol fuel distribution system;

2. Ethanol is renewable;

3. Ethanol is importable now from from countless friendly nations;

4. Ethanol in the longer-term will be fully domestic;

5. Ethanol is theoretically unlimited;

6. Ethanol works in current-technology internal combustion engines (with only slight modification), and does not require its wholesale abandonment;

7. The fantasy of a hydrogen economy by comparison, or consumer acceptance of any other radical change in automotive technology and fuel source in the near-term is simply ludicrous;

8. Energy independence is more important than military hardware in the War on Terror. Defunding the Middle East enemy, eliminating our foreign oil dependency and the ominous, always present threat of economic blackmail, will allow us to destroy the enemy now with extreme prejudice;

9. American ingenuity has always taught an important lesson - never underestimate it.

[Digger]

The Dumb & Dumber parties. Yes, the corrupt “Two-Party Cartel”. Any person that votes for any of these morons is a moron themselves. Do you really want to give any relevancy to this bag of gassholes in this “Cartel”? They a really proving themselves of just what a cartels do - lower the competitive bar each year.

[Squantos]

Now I am just asking so don’t get defensive er anything on me but ............

Doesn’t it take like a gazillion gallons of water to produce pretty much one gallon of ethanol ?

I have heard rumors of this but don’t know so I am asking folks who don’t vs just opinions.

Yeah I can go google it but again .....ya seem to know and I’d like a answer vs a myth from a pro or con site.

If ya have the time......:o)

[pointsal]

use something other than corn...
the nation’s heartland is being pumped dry on this deal.

[4Liberty]

RINOs.
CAGW, call your office.

Here’s the Cornell U. study, showing Ethanol fuel requires MORE energy to produce than the ethanol energy yields BACK!

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

[ChildOfThe60s]

Of all the unintended consequences of our Ethanol subsidy is the blow to our hard-working moonshiners.

Living in the "Bourbon Capital of the World", I must consider the whole ethanol business to be grossly unpatriotic. The gas tank is certainly NOT where this goes.

[Babsig]

Exactly, something else, maybe say - sugarcane? I read awhile back here that Brazil uses ethanol based on sugarcane, and that we could grow enough here in the US in Mississippi and Louisiana for the whole country. But that the sugar industry wouldn't allow it.

[Enduring Freedom]

No, water is not a limiting factor.

By far and away, the biggest complaint about ethanol in America is deriving it from corn. Corn is a very poor source as compared to sugar cane, for example.

Corn-based ethanol also raises demand for the corn commodity such that it competes with food demand and thereby increases food costs.

Excellent points, but they are static issues and only relevant in the very near term. We have to look a little down the road to see the light.

Fortunately, just on the horizon, are promising research on switchgrass and other cellulosic sources of ethanol that will grow abundantly in our climate and provide a great ethanol source.

Here’s the point:

A minor change in our existing automobile engine technology (typically around $200) will allow vehicles of today to use ethanol.

We simply need to start the momentum that will create the distribution network of ethanol.

Gasoline will be a fully usable transition fuel so no one needs to be stranded if ethanol stations don’t currently exist in all areas.

Remember also that ethanol can be imported from friendly nations if need be. In fact, we currently charge a duty of $0.50 per gallon to discourage such importation - that can be repealed.

Brazil has achieved energy independence using sugar cane as an ethanol source, and now most vehicles on their roads have converted to E85 flex-fuel engines.

Brazil are now a net exporter of energy. How exciting would that be?

I think that defunding the Middle East at all cost should be the equivalent of the Manhattan Project.

[Nathan Zachary]

"First, even the biggest of proposed ethanol supports — an increase in mandated ethanol consumption from 7.5 billion gallons a year to 15 billion gallons a year, as called for in the energy bill Congress is currently debating — would barely dent America’s oil consumption, which is approximately 150 billion gallons annually."

But, how much of that 150 billion gallons of oil is used for gasoline? A BIG hunk of that is used for industry, power generation, diesel/jet fuel, not automobile gas. So a increase of ethanol blended gas WOULD make a big dent in fuel consuption, and reduction of smog.

"Second, only around 5 million automobiles in America are “flexible-fuel vehicles” — cars that are equipped to run on a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline (known as E85). That’s out of 135 million registered passenger cars in the United States. Moreover, as the Dallas Morning News reported last year, the owners of almost all of these flex-fuel vehicles tend to fill them up with regular gas, owing to a scarcity of gas stations that sell E85. Simply mandating greater ethanol consumption won’t change that."

But using blends of 10-20- and up to 30% ethanol require no modification at all, so 100% of all cars can take advantage of cleaner burning, better performing ethanol blended fuels, which would still reduce smog as well.

Petroleum is a major input in the manufacture of ethanol — it is required not just to make ethanol, but to transport it to points of sale. In fact, there’s good evidence that making ethanol requires more petroleum than making gasoline does.

Nothing like throwing a little pure hogwash in as well. There is no reason to use petroleum fuel to haul away ethanol from the ethanol plant. In fact in a model etrhanol plant, all fuels used can be alternative fuels such as bio-diesel. And just what is this "good evidence" that making ethanol requires petrolium fuel? Nothing like crying red herring while using red herrings at the same time.

"None of this is to deny that there’s a legitimate market for ethanol. All gasoline is required to contain additives known as “oxygenates,” and ethanol is one of them. Gasoline blenders have turned increasingly to it since MBTE — another additive — was found to contaminate groundwater."

Ethanol solves that problem quite effectively- and cleanly.

"The diversion of corn from use as food to ethanol production has led to higher food prices "

B.S. This claim has be shot down so many times, I'm amazed media still tries to use it.

As farmers grow more corn in hopes of selling it to ethanol makers, they also threaten to disrupt the water supply in some regions.

Corn uses no more water than peas, soy beans, carrots potatoes, lettuce, etc etc.

That’s because farmers are both planting new corn on formerly uncultivated soil,

That soil would have about the same moisture content, not a lower one. Most corn crops are watered by rain, not irrigated. There is no evidence of land being broken to plant corn. In fact, land in which farmers were paid income subsidies not to grow ANYTHING can now be put into production, which can put an end to farm subsidies. The trend for land being put back into natural hay continues along with the decline of farmers in general. Over all LESS land is under cultivation, not more.

and converting acres already under cultivation toward corn and away from other, less water-intensive food crops.

There's that "less water intensive BS again. Corn crops are simply added to a crop rotation. nothing is really "lost". In fact, with land previously left unseeded can now be put back into production, reducing the need for high farm subsidies. and for the first time in decades, farmers can actually support themselves.

To put the current expansion of corn production into perspective, consider that we have more corn growing on American soil right now than at any time since World War II, when the farms of Europe had been devastated by war and America was feeding two continents.

So? That's a good thing. It also contradicts the claim of ethanol corn causing food shortages.

Ethanol for fuels is a good thing, it's both beneficial to farmers, which in turn is good for equipment manufacturers, creates jobs in ethanol production, helps reduce reliance on oil, burns cleaner and reduces smog. It can be blended with regular gasoline in a wide variety of blends suitable for ALL vehicles, and that is done right at the refinery and delivered just as gasoline is delivered now to the pumps using existing infrastructure.

Fred is right in supporting expansion and development of ethanol production. In the long run, it will benefit us all.

2 years ago everyone was wishing the price of gas doubled so that alternative fuels would become a viable. Now that they are, everyone is whining about it. What changed?

Fred is running for POTUS, now suddenly oil dependancy isn't so bad after all...

[BurbankKarl]

Pass a law to take out the poison in Ethanol and you will see sales skyrocket

[Enduring Freedom]

Brazil gets eight times the yield from sugar cane based product than from corn based ethanol.

America does grow sugar cane in Florida, Louisiana, Texas and Hawaii and sugar beets are grown in Minnesota and Montana.

Not sure why we don’t grow more, but like everything else, you can bet that politics and protectionism are at play.

Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, folks - ethanol is the key to near-term independence from Middle East oil.

[quantim]

Ethanol may have some merits in some areas but hopefully will die along with Algore's global warming nonsense.

Seen dairy prices rising sharply lately?

Is this going to cause greater deforestation around the nation and the globe?  

The reason the libs like it so much is that it creates a zillion news layers to tax.  From permits, to transportation, to services, to any aspect of commerce that they can usurp money and continue a drive towards collectivizing the nation.

We cannot corn our way out of energy demands!