Posted on 04/28/2008 9:53:50 PM PDT by paltz
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. President Bush said, during his 2006 State of the Union address, "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 to 30 percent 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 or 12 percent.
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 alone.
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, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals.
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. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. 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 play the role of 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 — higher wages and profits. 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 congressional or White House office to have a heart-to-heart — you or an Archer Daniels Midlands executive?
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Ethanol ping.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Bush was only doing what he was told to do.
I was one of the people who were wrong about ethanol. It had been my thought that we had enough surplus corn that it wouldn’t impact the economy negatively to go that route. Just focusing on corn, that wasn’t the case.
Then I saw a report on one of the science channels, and the amount of biofuels we can create by conventional methods are not just a drop in the bucket, but a drop in the barrel.
Ethanol has been tried, and it’s been a flop.
My only hope for biofuels at this point it the guy that claims to have come up with a way for any celulose products to be converted. If that were to pan out, I do think we could make a dent in our oil requirements.
Ethanol is the stuff Mythanol is made of when the hype, bs and bad data is blended in.
Mythanol is one of the biggest and most expensive hoaxes of the Green EcoTerrorists.
The farm lobby has too much power. Helping small farmers is fine, I could go for that, unfortunatly the corporate farm companys are the fly in the ointment. Attack them and the small farmers jump on the bandwagon and the fur hits the fan and do the work for them, “you’re against the farmer” the polititions will pander to the little guy and the big guy, ADM or whoever, gets really rich. All on the premise of helping the little guy, that may need the help. University of Minnesota gets soil bank money for not planting on University owned land, it’s a school with their hand out. That’s just plain wrong.
I am wondering how, in the face of flying food prices tied to corn (as noted in this article), this could not have been the intended outcome of this ethanol thing in the first place.
Corn and soybeans, to name 2, are about twice as expensive as they were 2 years ago. This is a huge move in staple food items.
U.S. residents use about 10-15% of disposable income on food. ChiComs, probably 50-80%.
We played this game with the Rooskies and broke them. We ran oil down to about $12/bbl, their only source of hard currency.
So we run up food prices and break the ChiComs.
yitbos
The Walter Williams does not know what he is talking about concerning ethanol. He should not pontificate on ethanol without understanding the process and including the energy balance and mass balance. Fuel-ethanol is 100% ethanol and is achieved by using molecular sieves to removed the last 5% of the water (An industry standard!) This is because of the azeotropic relationship of the water and ethanol.
What he also does not realize is that the farmer is no longer getting a subsidy for growing the corn which our taxes paid for at best getting $.25 on the dollar for every dollar the government takes in. Also, ethanol is not mixed with gas then pipelined, it is mixed at the end of the pipeline.
This is a process like any process that is extremely dynamic and many innovations are ongoing. To address the ethanol or biofuels as if they static is to be unbelievably myopic. The next step is either butanol or ester-fuels both will be able to use the pipeline mitigating cost greatly. Don’t forget the money is going to American farmers not violent extremist and this money rolls 7 to 9 times in OUR economy.
you are absolutely wrong. The simple fact is that without taxpayer subsidies Ethanol would never come into existence. Ethanol is a cruel hoax paid for by the consumers. I am an engineer and no matter what b/s you spew, the simple fact remains that Ethanol is solely a creation of government subsidies. There is enough known oil reserves to fuel the needs of humans for 100's of years. The enviro nuts and most in government love to create "crises" so they can expand control over us. Ethanol is a cruel hoax.
bookmark
Our next "Solution" to the energy crisis may well be "Soylent Green" energy!
While the population may be repulsed at eating expired humans..., burning them as fuel may prove perfectly acceptable???
I don’t want to help corporate farms or “the little guy”. Either way, it comes down to theft of property. Why should one American have the right to demand the property of another American? Some people call it subsidies, I call it stealing.
I am not an engineer but I am skeptical of the idea that one can take food and turn it into fuel for your SUV without there being gross inefficiencies. Anytime the socialists (environmentalists) and big business agree on something that, oh by the way, requires taxpayer subsidies, it is a sign to BOHICA (Bend Over, Here It Comes Again). What do you think of Brazil’s approach to ethanol? Is that something that could work in other countries? I don’t know if Brazil’s ethanol production is market-driven enough to be practical or if it is just another expensive gimmick.
ethanol would not even see the light of day if Iowa did not hold the first presidential primary.
wouldn’t it be nice to see a candidate who has the ***** to tell farmers to take a hike?
oh right, that was Guiliani...
Ethanol is a reality now, Dave. It’s not a hoax, it’s an alternate fuel experiment and we’re the guinea pigs.
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.