Republicans Drunk on Ethanol

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

[neverdem]

"but now says that ethanol is 'a matter . . . of national security.'”

it would be if we lost middle eastern oil

In 2000, the United States imported about 24 percent of its oil from the Middle East.

The United States currently imports 12 percent of its oil from the Middle East -- 2.5 million barrels per day.

I couldn't find a date for the last estimate, but a pic tells you when it's after. My guess is that Middle East oil imports is somewhere in between from the latest reports that I've heard. Whatever it is, I think we would be better off if we had energy independence, IMHO. I think it would collapse the oil market. That would defund so many SOBs that their heads would spin. I just don't think subsidized, corn based ethanol is the way to go.

IMHO, we need energy independence more badly than going to the Moon or Mars. We have a National Academy of Sciences and a Department of Energy. What the heck have they been doing?

Tell Al to go jump in a lake. I'm not saying what I really think, but I try to be polite.

Say hello to Fred for me. I hope he wins.

[thackney]

Suppose we imported 10 million bpd in order to refine the needed gasoline AND the other products. Suppose we cut our gasoline need by 20%. Now that does not translate into a 20% reduction in crude oil needs because we still need the 10 million barrels to get the volume of other products we refine and need from each barrel.

You have a well thought reasoning but part of basis is incorrect. In the US, because we use so much gasoline, we do not stop at simple distillation to separate gasoline components from the crude oil.

We also reprocess the heavier fractions into lighter products to maximize the output of the most desirable products, mainly gasoline. In general, these processes are designed to take heavy, low-valued feedstock -- often itself the output from an earlier process -- and change it into lighter, higher-valued output. A catalytic cracker, for instance, uses the gasoil (heavy distillate) output from crude distillation as its feedstock and produces additional finished distillates (heating oil and diesel) and gasoline. A reforming unit produces higher octane components for gasoline from lower octane feedstock that was recovered in the distillation process. A coker uses the heaviest output of distillation, the residue or residuum, to produce a lighter feedstock for further processing, as well as petroleum coke.

Because of these additional process, we take crude oil with basic components like these:

And convert them to a ratio of components like this:

For more information, I suggest starting with:

Oil Market Basics, Refining
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/refining_text.htm

[thackney]

In 2000, the United States imported about 24 percent of its oil from the Middle East.

The United States currently imports 12 percent of its oil from the Middle East -- 2.5 million barrels per day.

I believe their information is not correct. The percentage of oil imported from the OPEC or from the Persian Gulf has not changed that much.

U.S. Petroleum Imports by Country of Origin
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

[GregoryFul]

Lots of critics say that ethanol requires more energy input than is ultimately obtained from it. That is the cultivation, growing, harvesting, refining, transporting of the product consumes more energy than is contained in the product. A loosing proposition somewhat masked by the illegitimate, unconstitutional taxpayer suffered subsidies tossed to the growers by ignorant and/or crooked politicians.

[ChildOfThe60s]

I see your point. So ethanol replacing gasoline could reduce the volume of required crude oil.

But, though my postulation in that regard is incorrect, I still contend that other factors preclude ethanol from having the potential to seriously impact crude oil imports.

I still feel that ethanol is not a net gain in the energy equation. It’s a lot cheaper and more efficient to simply drill & pump.
And my belief stands that the loons that constitute the Democratic Party don’t give a crap what goes into the gas tank - they will try to derail it. Energy “independence” is an excuse, a smokescreen. If ethanol became the true panacea, they’d go after it with some manufactured reason.

That’s what this GW hooey is all about. When it became apparent that we weren’t really going to run out of fossil fuels anytime soon, which was their original reason for fuel efficiency, et al, they then moved to GW and carbon “emissions” as the new reason you need to return to the middle ages. When [man made] GW is well and truly buried they will move to some new crisis to take your auto and your lifestyle.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Ethanol yields 25% more energy than the energy invested in its production, whereas biodiesel yields 93% more."

An inaccurate statement. "CORN" ethanol, with CURRENT technology has that yield (but at least you're not selling the "ethanol has a negative energy balance" BS). Other crops (switchgrass) will have about the same relative energy yield as biodiesel. And it isn't an either/or situation, because a corn/soybean crop rotation is just about the ideal long-term way to maintain soil fertility. So the ideal scenario is ethanol AND biodiesel.

Like I said---bogus arguments, over and over and over.

[curiosity]

Fred drank the ethanol koolaid. Drat

Yup. That's what happens when we give one backwater state (Iowa) such a disproportionately large say in the presidential nomination process.