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.

[Enduring Freedom]

Well done.

I was an early critic of Global Warming, and an early promoter of an ethanol economy.

I guarantee I will be 2 for 2.

[Enduring Freedom]

My point is that corn is the majority of the complaint about ethanol.

Ethanol is innocent of such charges, but corn is guilty!

With an ethanol economy, we will achieve energy independence in the foreseeable future.

Switchgrass, cane, and other sources of ethanol are orders of magnitude more efficient at extraction.

If we start, American ingenuity will continue to improve our ethanol sources with almost no near-term pain, since gasoline can run our cars in the interim where distribution and supply are scarce.

No one will ever be stranded in a flex-fuel vehicle. Compare that to electric- or hydrogen-based cars.

Let’s get started and change the world.

[preacher]

[Squantos]

I agree about closing down the ME.... in fact I have more on that later.

Can ya comment for me on this as well if ya have time. I know I’m asking a lot but this is the water issue I was speaking of.....

http://science.howstuffworks.com/ac-fox.htm

[Enduring Freedom]

Such studies are bogus, and are funded by the guys in the white sheets with beards.

The oil industry wants you to unwittingly do their bidding by undermining alternative fuel sources.

Don’t be suckered in.

While corn is a poor source of ethanol, the ethanol economy is a viable, realistic opportunity for a vast and fertile country like America.

We simply need to start making flex-fuel engine transition to ethanol compatibility, eliminate trade barriers that discourage importation of ethanol, and continue to fund research to find increasingly efficient ethanol sources and processes.

[Nathan Zachary]

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

Better find a better understanding. That one is wrong.

Ethanol is clean burning.

If ethanol was so bad, why do you think all high performance race car enthusiasts use it? ( nascar/ formula/drag racng)

The only downfall to ethanol is that it requires a higher fual/air ratio to burn at the same temperature as gasoline.

It's less efficient in that respect,(less MPG) however it burns very clean and produces good power.

[Alberta's Child]

. . . ethanol is the key to near-term independence from Middle East oil.

The notion that the U.S. is somehow "dependent" on Middle East oil is a complete myth, so your basic premise here is completely flawed even though you've presented a lot of good information in your posts.

[Halgr]

And food prices are skyrocketing....???

[holyscroller]

Can’t we just feed our Republican wimps a healthy slug of testosterone, have them act like real men and stand up to the envirowackos and VOTE TO DRILL ANWR!

[holyscroller]

Can’t we just feed our Republican wimps a healthy slug of testosterone, have them act like real men and stand up to the envirowackos and VOTE TO DRILL ANWR!

[quantim]

Although the impetus of the 'tax' aspect was ignored, trust that they'll go after switchgrass, sugar beets, whatever.

The solution to this must be more grandiose on the order of magnitudes, we are not going to accomplish anything in solving energy needs using an alcohol, the calories are just not there. 

It's that grandiosity that America is best at, too bad our hands are tied by the left.

[Finny]

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

I didn't know that. One of my brothers, who's a pretty good mechanic, has gone off on ethanol to try to explain it to me a couple times, but it's over my fluffy head.

[metalcor]

http://www.valcent.net/s/Ecotech.asp?ReportID=182039

I find this possible source of renewable fuel very interesting. Doesn’t use food resources, doesn’t use farm able land, uses a fraction of the water. Algae appear to be very efficient fuel cells and this system may fix the problems with water usage and area required.

[quantim]

Some things are worth repeating, lol!

[Nathan Zachary]

That cartoon is totaly misleading. but media knows Americans don't think, so it's believed without question.

One bushel of corn makes 2.5 gallons of ethanol. Average corn yield per acre is 120 bussels. that's 300 gallons of ethanol.

If that combine is burning 300 gals of fuel per acre, the farmer should buy a new one.

A large combine burns about 13.5 gallons of diesel per hour, and travels at about 3.5 miles an hour. It can harvest about 20 acres in that time, or about 6000 gallons of ethanol.

Before you argue that it takes energy to distill ethanol, remember it also takes energy to crack oil as well. And to drill it, transport it, refine it, distribute it.

[neverdem]

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

I'd like to defund the Middle East and have energy independence as much as the next guy, but ethanol distilled from corn is problematic as it comes off as an azeotropic mixture with 5% water. Any ethanol blended with gasoline for internal combustion engines has to be 100% ethanol.

[Wonder Warthog]

"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. "

Not true. FOSSIL energy, yes, but not large amounts of petroleum energy. "The Editors" need to learn the difference. The biggest fraction of FOSSIL energy comes from coal and natural gas, and can be replaced by nuclear.

[hadaclueonce]

“Republicans Drunk on Ethanol” I agree. There are four famers left that raise corn and ConAgra.

ConAgra buys off everyone.

[Nathan Zachary]

Do the math. You'll find that all these claims aren't very feasable. The bottom line is always cost per gallon and envirmental footprint. that algae stuff would cost about $500 a gallon and the area required to produce enough energy for a town would be larger than the town. There are all sorts of that kind of stuff listed here:

Main Page - PESWiki Oil is by far the cheapest and most efficient energy source known to man. that's why it's so difficult to replace.

[Wonder Warthog]

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

Not true. The Cornell U. study by Pimentel has been debunked thoroughly--it is so far out of line with MANY other studies that Pimentel is obviously some kind of nutball with an ax to grind.