Posted on 03/19/2008 10:16:36 PM PDT by neverdem
One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. During his 2006 State of the Union Address, President Bush said, “America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.” Let’s look at some of the “wonders” of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline.
Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines.
Ethanol is 20-30% less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That’s enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel—oil and natural gas—to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers—all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10-12%.
Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn’t make it in a free market. That’s why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there’s a double tax—one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005.
There’s something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.
Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact that the U.S. is the world’s largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.
It’s easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm-state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn’t support subsidized ethanol production. That’s the stick. Campaign contributions are the carrot.
The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there’s a large benefit for them. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. After all, who do you think a politician will invite into his office to have a heart-to-heart—you or an ethanol executive?
I don't know the source, but it has been quoted enough. Subsidized, corn derived ethanol doesn't appear to make much sense, IMHO.
self-ping and bttt
I believe he was refering to the amount of water that it takes to grow the plant also. That would have to be taken into accouint as well.
Apparently you didn’t read the article.
He was making an analogy. Of course nobody eats only corn.
IF we were drilling our own oil and refining it the prices of oil and gas would be far lower and your so called oil barrons would not be making the billions they are now.
If your agenda was not in the way you would see that ethanol is not the replacement for oil.
The ethanol plants don't use that much water. The statistic apparently comes from counting the water used to grow the corn.
Subsidized, corn derived ethanol doesn't appear to make much sense, IMHO.
I agree.
See #26. I hadn’t read your post yet.
It’s a sin to burn food. This is where I start at.
We need to be digging up our clean Western coal reserves. Make it into electricity and run more electric cars
hygroscopic
19
yep :)
Given the choice I definitely prefer Brazilian ethanol. (:^o)
As long as they teach the right kind of economics....
I live in WA state where half the vehicles on the road are trucks or SUV's...every had an accident with something like that while driving that "truck"?
Right, or you can use Tropsch-Fischer and convert that coal to diesel. You can power a car with a 3 minute, two dollar, charge of compressed air and travel around 125 miles.
Ethanol is the bastard child of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hoax, good intentions and abject stupidity. Take the government out of the equation and it would quickly become evident just how viable an alternative fuel it is. There are many viable options, Nuclear power being another, yet we are still paying exorbitant fuel prices and kissing the a$$e$ of OPEC and related countries for the privilege. It’s one big hoax and the sheeple seem more than content to go along for the ride; even if the ride costs three, creeping towards four dollars/gal. Not to mention making our enemies wealthy who would gladly see us (Western Civilization) destroyed.
|
I just can't get any more disappointed in Bush.
Why he has gravitated to the dark side on the Globull Warming issue is beyong me--other than there was some back room deal with members of Congress and large Ethanol producers.
As far as I'm concerned he has talked the talk about exploring and developing our own known oil reserves, but has not walked the walked under any circumstances.
If I could adjust my foil hat a little, I might go so far as to suggest that he does NOT want to really drill for oil because that would upset his good "Buds" the Saudis and other oil producing countries in the Middle East--either as a favor or as a result of threats from the Moozie-led countries to withdraw their support for the WOT, as if they ever really have.
Look for LARGE contributions from Arab States (ala Clintoon) to his Library.
Those F'n, scumbag, goat-fornicating, Saudi camel jockeys, has way too much influence as lobbyist in Washington.
“Elementary School. Teach it while they’re still smart enough to understand it.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Excellent!
Kudzu is the answer, it is immortal and unstoppable, it provides protein for animals and incredible biomass. It will grow anywhere it is not wanted.
Proof that ethanol is viable.
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.