Ethanol
05-23-2007, 07:22 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: State of Confusion
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ethanol
The Many Myths of Ethanol
By John Stossel
No doubt about it, if there were a Miss Energy Pageant, Miss Ethanol would win hands down. Everyone loves ethanol.
"Ramp up the availability of ethanol," says Hillary Clinton.
"Ethanol makes a lot of sense," says John McCain.
"The economics of ethanol make more and more sense," says Mitt Romney.
"We've got to get serious about ethanol," says Rudolph Giuliani.
And the media love ethanol. "60 Minutes" called it "the solution."
Clinton, Romney, Barack Obama and John Edwards not only believe ethanol is the elixir that will give us cheap energy, end our dependence on Middle East oil sheiks, and reverse global warming, they also want you and me -- as taxpayers -- to subsidize it.
When everyone in politics jumps on a bandwagon like ethanol, I start to wonder if there's something wrong with it. And there is. Except for that fact that ethanol comes from corn, nothing you're told about it is true. As the Cato Institute's energy expert Jerry Taylor said on a recent "Myths" edition of "20/20," the case for ethanol is based on a baker's dozen myths.
A simple question first. If ethanol's so good, why does it need government subsidies? Shouldn't producers be eager to make it, knowing that thrilled consumers will reward them with profits?
But consumers won't reward them, because without subsidies, ethanol would cost much more than gasoline.
The claim that using ethanol will save energy is another myth. Studies show that the amount of energy ethanol produces and the amount needed to make it are roughly the same. "It takes a lot of fossil fuels to make the fertilizer, to run the tractor, to build the silo, to get that corn to a processing plant, to run the processing plant," Taylor says.
And because ethanol degrades, it can't be moved in pipelines the way that gasoline is. So many more big, polluting trucks will be needed to haul it.
More bad news: The increased push for ethanol has already led to a sharp increase in corn growing -- which means much more land must be plowed. That means much more fertilizer, more water used on farms and more pesticides.
This makes ethanol the "solution"?
But won't it at least get us unhooked from Middle East oil? Wouldn't that be worth the other costs? Another myth. A University of Minnesota study [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/30/11206] shows that even turning all of America's corn into ethanol would meet only 12 percent of our gasoline demand. As Taylor told an energy conference last March, "For corn ethanol to completely displace gasoline consumption in this country, we would need to appropriate all cropland in the United States, turn it completely over to corn-ethanol production, and then find 20 percent more land on top of that for cultivation."
OK, but it will cut down on air pollution, right? Wrong again. Studies indicate that the standard mixture of 90 percent ethanol and 10 percent gasoline pollutes worse than gasoline.
Well, then, the ethanol champs must be right when they say it will reduce greenhouse gases and reverse global warming.
Nope. "Virtually all studies show that the greenhouse gases associated with ethanol are about the same as those associated with conventional gasoline once we examine the entire life cycle of the two fuels," Taylor says.
Surely, ethanol must be good for something. And here we finally have a fact. It is good for something -- or at least someone: corn farmers and processors of ethanol, such as Archer Daniels Midland, the big food processor known for its savvy at getting subsidies out of the taxpayers.
And it's good for vote-hungry presidential hopefuls. Iowa is a key state in the presidential-nomination sweepstakes, and we all know what they grow in Iowa [http://www.iowacorn.org/]. Sen. Clinton voted against ethanol 17 times until she started running for president. Coincidence?
"It's no mystery that people who want to be president support the corn ethanol program," Taylor says. "If you're not willing to sacrifice children to the corn god, you will not get out of the Iowa primary with more than one percent of the vote, Right now the closest thing we have to a state religion in the United States isn't Christianity. It's corn."
By John Stossel
No doubt about it, if there were a Miss Energy Pageant, Miss Ethanol would win hands down. Everyone loves ethanol.
"Ramp up the availability of ethanol," says Hillary Clinton.
"Ethanol makes a lot of sense," says John McCain.
"The economics of ethanol make more and more sense," says Mitt Romney.
"We've got to get serious about ethanol," says Rudolph Giuliani.
And the media love ethanol. "60 Minutes" called it "the solution."
Clinton, Romney, Barack Obama and John Edwards not only believe ethanol is the elixir that will give us cheap energy, end our dependence on Middle East oil sheiks, and reverse global warming, they also want you and me -- as taxpayers -- to subsidize it.
When everyone in politics jumps on a bandwagon like ethanol, I start to wonder if there's something wrong with it. And there is. Except for that fact that ethanol comes from corn, nothing you're told about it is true. As the Cato Institute's energy expert Jerry Taylor said on a recent "Myths" edition of "20/20," the case for ethanol is based on a baker's dozen myths.
A simple question first. If ethanol's so good, why does it need government subsidies? Shouldn't producers be eager to make it, knowing that thrilled consumers will reward them with profits?
But consumers won't reward them, because without subsidies, ethanol would cost much more than gasoline.
The claim that using ethanol will save energy is another myth. Studies show that the amount of energy ethanol produces and the amount needed to make it are roughly the same. "It takes a lot of fossil fuels to make the fertilizer, to run the tractor, to build the silo, to get that corn to a processing plant, to run the processing plant," Taylor says.
And because ethanol degrades, it can't be moved in pipelines the way that gasoline is. So many more big, polluting trucks will be needed to haul it.
More bad news: The increased push for ethanol has already led to a sharp increase in corn growing -- which means much more land must be plowed. That means much more fertilizer, more water used on farms and more pesticides.
This makes ethanol the "solution"?
But won't it at least get us unhooked from Middle East oil? Wouldn't that be worth the other costs? Another myth. A University of Minnesota study [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/30/11206] shows that even turning all of America's corn into ethanol would meet only 12 percent of our gasoline demand. As Taylor told an energy conference last March, "For corn ethanol to completely displace gasoline consumption in this country, we would need to appropriate all cropland in the United States, turn it completely over to corn-ethanol production, and then find 20 percent more land on top of that for cultivation."
OK, but it will cut down on air pollution, right? Wrong again. Studies indicate that the standard mixture of 90 percent ethanol and 10 percent gasoline pollutes worse than gasoline.
Well, then, the ethanol champs must be right when they say it will reduce greenhouse gases and reverse global warming.
Nope. "Virtually all studies show that the greenhouse gases associated with ethanol are about the same as those associated with conventional gasoline once we examine the entire life cycle of the two fuels," Taylor says.
Surely, ethanol must be good for something. And here we finally have a fact. It is good for something -- or at least someone: corn farmers and processors of ethanol, such as Archer Daniels Midland, the big food processor known for its savvy at getting subsidies out of the taxpayers.
And it's good for vote-hungry presidential hopefuls. Iowa is a key state in the presidential-nomination sweepstakes, and we all know what they grow in Iowa [http://www.iowacorn.org/]. Sen. Clinton voted against ethanol 17 times until she started running for president. Coincidence?
"It's no mystery that people who want to be president support the corn ethanol program," Taylor says. "If you're not willing to sacrifice children to the corn god, you will not get out of the Iowa primary with more than one percent of the vote, Right now the closest thing we have to a state religion in the United States isn't Christianity. It's corn."
05-23-2007, 09:32 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW!!!!!
Your post is so full of misleading information you must be working for an oil company.
I could put down your self-proclaimed facts one by one but it would take to much time.
However, to put it simply...
Fueling your engine from a plant is MUCH better than fueling from petroleum.
If you can't figure that out, I can't help you.
Its common sense.. the only problem is that it's not that common in todays world.
Your post is so full of misleading information you must be working for an oil company.
I could put down your self-proclaimed facts one by one but it would take to much time.
However, to put it simply...
Fueling your engine from a plant is MUCH better than fueling from petroleum.
If you can't figure that out, I can't help you.
Its common sense.. the only problem is that it's not that common in todays world.
05-23-2007, 10:27 PM
#3
Registered User
WOW!!!!!
Your post is so full of misleading information you must be working for an oil company.
I could put down your self-proclaimed facts one by one but it would take to much time.
However, to put it simply...
Fueling your engine from a plant is MUCH better than fueling from petroleum.
If you can't figure that out, I can't help you.
Its common sense.. the only problem is that it's not that common in todays world.
Your post is so full of misleading information you must be working for an oil company.
I could put down your self-proclaimed facts one by one but it would take to much time.
However, to put it simply...
Fueling your engine from a plant is MUCH better than fueling from petroleum.
If you can't figure that out, I can't help you.
Its common sense.. the only problem is that it's not that common in todays world.
Just saying something is obvious doesn't make it so. These are just weasel words.
Look here for some actual facts.
Edwin
05-23-2007, 11:08 PM
#4
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: State of Confusion
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW!!!!!
Your post is so full of misleading information you must be working for an oil company.
I could put down your self-proclaimed facts one by one but it would take to much time.
However, to put it simply...
Fueling your engine from a plant is MUCH better than fueling from petroleum.
If you can't figure that out, I can't help you.
Its common sense.. the only problem is that it's not that common in todays world.
Your post is so full of misleading information you must be working for an oil company.
I could put down your self-proclaimed facts one by one but it would take to much time.
However, to put it simply...
Fueling your engine from a plant is MUCH better than fueling from petroleum.
If you can't figure that out, I can't help you.
Its common sense.. the only problem is that it's not that common in todays world.
One, I did not write the article. It was written By John Stossel. (If you watch TV programs like 20/20, you have may have seen him)
Two, I did not not say if I agreed with any of it or not.
Three, I do not now, nor have I ever worked for an oil company.
Four, Perhaps it is you, and not I that has an ax to grind. (Are you by chance a farmer?)
Five, I'm in no hurry. I have plenty of time if you would like to "put down all my self-proclaimed facts one by one"
Last but not least, I LOVE BIO-DIESEL
05-23-2007, 11:13 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's it? That's your whole argument? How about a few facts?
Just saying something is obvious doesn't make it so. These are just weasel words.
Look here for some actual facts.
Edwin
Just saying something is obvious doesn't make it so. These are just weasel words.
Look here for some actual facts.
Edwin
weasel words eh? that's funny..
Do some reading about Brazil.. There's some good info there and its "real world" information.
05-23-2007, 11:42 PM
#6
Registered User
OK, I found this Wiki article. It seems that the ethanol is produced from sugarcane which requires much less energy input for cultivation but otherwise the government pushes it to reduce their fossil fuel need and increase employment. Pollution wise it seems worse since the fields are burned before the cane is harvested which produces a lot of smoke.
Do you have any more favorable citations? How about a link or two?
Edwin
05-24-2007, 12:17 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can burn an entire forest or crop field and it does not pollute the environment.
It all boils down to one thing.. We are bringing up stuff from deep underground and releasing it into the air.
When a tree burns, it is carbon neutral.. The only C02 emitted into the atmosphere is that which the tree soaked up in the first place.. Hence, its "carbon neutral"
Bringing up carbon from below the ground and having it end up in our air is what is causing the problem.
The rest of it is just picking at silly things to make the idea of a bio-fueled economy look bad for the oil tycoons.
Do you really need a link? I'm not sure I could provide one.. Its an education that takes way more than a single link to prove the point..
Just think about it..
I heard someplace that a single wood stove emits 50,000 times the amount of pollution that a natural gas furnace does..
Its true.. sort of.. Its a twist on words. While a wood stove does emit a much greater volume of particulate matter and other stuff, it came from a tree and it goes back to a tree... In fact, they are learning that large forest fires are actually GOOD for the environment because all that ash becomes great fertilizer and the land renews itself. Forest fires are a naturally occuring event..
Bio fuel does not beat petroleum fuel in every category but it always beats petro in the categories that count..
It doesn't take a PhD to figure it..
It all boils down to one thing.. We are bringing up stuff from deep underground and releasing it into the air.
When a tree burns, it is carbon neutral.. The only C02 emitted into the atmosphere is that which the tree soaked up in the first place.. Hence, its "carbon neutral"
Bringing up carbon from below the ground and having it end up in our air is what is causing the problem.
The rest of it is just picking at silly things to make the idea of a bio-fueled economy look bad for the oil tycoons.
Do you really need a link? I'm not sure I could provide one.. Its an education that takes way more than a single link to prove the point..
Just think about it..
I heard someplace that a single wood stove emits 50,000 times the amount of pollution that a natural gas furnace does..
Its true.. sort of.. Its a twist on words. While a wood stove does emit a much greater volume of particulate matter and other stuff, it came from a tree and it goes back to a tree... In fact, they are learning that large forest fires are actually GOOD for the environment because all that ash becomes great fertilizer and the land renews itself. Forest fires are a naturally occuring event..
Bio fuel does not beat petroleum fuel in every category but it always beats petro in the categories that count..
It doesn't take a PhD to figure it..
Trending Topics
05-24-2007, 12:55 AM
#8
Registered User
Everything you said is true as far as it goes. What the evidence shows however is that the production of ethanol from corn is far from "carbon neutral" it's much closer to even in that nearly as much fossil fuel is consumed to produce the equivalent energy of the ethanol thus produced. This isn't saying that ALL ethanol production is a loser, only that ethanol from corn is not a good use of resources.
Also not taken into account is that the resources spent on producing ethanol for corn are not able to be used elsewhere more efficiently. Corn prices are rising while corn is now in short supply. This means more people are starving to satisfy a short sighted government subsidized program to the benefit of corn farmers and the detriment of everyone else.
I am all for biofuels, especially biodiesel, which is highly carbon neutral and could be completely carbon neutral if natural fertilizers were used and the planting and harvesting equipment were fueled with biodiesel.
Ethanol from corn is simply a loser according to all of the unbiased (meaning non-government non-corn lobbyist) sources.
Unfortunately at current levels of cultivation we cannot produce enough biodiesel to meet our needs but as fossil petroleum fuels continue to become scarcer the economics of biofuels will become more favorable.
However other fossil fuels such as coal, which can be converted to liquid fuel (Fischer-Tropsch process) and gas (Syngas) will probably become much more competitive sooner as well as crude oil from tar sands and oil shale of which there is a lot. Also there is a truly huge amount of natural gas locked up in subsea ice which could become economical if a cheap method could be found for bringing the ice to the surface.
Believe it or not, our energy future isn't all that bad. Most of the price increase in fossil fuels is probably due to inflation which is much higher than the governments would have us believe.
Edwin
Also not taken into account is that the resources spent on producing ethanol for corn are not able to be used elsewhere more efficiently. Corn prices are rising while corn is now in short supply. This means more people are starving to satisfy a short sighted government subsidized program to the benefit of corn farmers and the detriment of everyone else.
I am all for biofuels, especially biodiesel, which is highly carbon neutral and could be completely carbon neutral if natural fertilizers were used and the planting and harvesting equipment were fueled with biodiesel.
Ethanol from corn is simply a loser according to all of the unbiased (meaning non-government non-corn lobbyist) sources.
Unfortunately at current levels of cultivation we cannot produce enough biodiesel to meet our needs but as fossil petroleum fuels continue to become scarcer the economics of biofuels will become more favorable.
However other fossil fuels such as coal, which can be converted to liquid fuel (Fischer-Tropsch process) and gas (Syngas) will probably become much more competitive sooner as well as crude oil from tar sands and oil shale of which there is a lot. Also there is a truly huge amount of natural gas locked up in subsea ice which could become economical if a cheap method could be found for bringing the ice to the surface.
Believe it or not, our energy future isn't all that bad. Most of the price increase in fossil fuels is probably due to inflation which is much higher than the governments would have us believe.
Edwin
05-24-2007, 01:09 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree.. Now we are on the same page together..
I don't think growing corn to make ethanol is going to solve our energy problems either but when the governement is paying farmers NOT to grow corn, it begs some new math on the subject.
Trying to grow corn to solve our problem is a no brainer losing proposition.. But to say that growing corn for ethanol is a bad idea is also stupid.
Our energy problem wont be solved with a single bullet.. It has to be a combination of things and corn based ethanol could probably take out a solid 5%-10% of our problem.. That's a big bullet.. Biodiesel could take another 10%, electric cars another 10%.. and I'd bet my numbers are very conservative..
Most of the population within major cities drive less than 20 miles per day.. That can all be done with a plug in car.. Why has that not happened?
If they offered a plug in car with a 20 to 30 mile range before it had to turn on its gas engine, they would sell so many they wouldnt be able to keep up with demand. I'd buy one...
I don't think growing corn to make ethanol is going to solve our energy problems either but when the governement is paying farmers NOT to grow corn, it begs some new math on the subject.
Trying to grow corn to solve our problem is a no brainer losing proposition.. But to say that growing corn for ethanol is a bad idea is also stupid.
Our energy problem wont be solved with a single bullet.. It has to be a combination of things and corn based ethanol could probably take out a solid 5%-10% of our problem.. That's a big bullet.. Biodiesel could take another 10%, electric cars another 10%.. and I'd bet my numbers are very conservative..
Most of the population within major cities drive less than 20 miles per day.. That can all be done with a plug in car.. Why has that not happened?
If they offered a plug in car with a 20 to 30 mile range before it had to turn on its gas engine, they would sell so many they wouldnt be able to keep up with demand. I'd buy one...
05-24-2007, 01:43 AM
#10
Registered User
This chart from the National Academy of Sciences shows that the NEB (Net Energy Balance) for ethanol from corn is 1.25 to 1 or 1.25 units of energy from ethanol requires 1 unit of energy to produce.
Doesn't seem very efficient to me.
Edwin
Doesn't seem very efficient to me.
Edwin
05-24-2007, 04:01 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indianapolis, Indianna
Posts: 701
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How bout we push for decent mass transit systems . . .
save vast quantities of fuel & polution while we make life easier for everyone . . including those can't / dont wish to drive????
save vast quantities of fuel & polution while we make life easier for everyone . . including those can't / dont wish to drive????
05-24-2007, 06:05 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Shelby NC
Posts: 583
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the population within major cities drive less than 20 miles per day.. That can all be done with a plug in car.. Why has that not happened?
If they offered a plug in car with a 20 to 30 mile range before it had to turn on its gas engine, they would sell so many they wouldnt be able to keep up with demand. I'd buy one...
05-24-2007, 10:00 AM
#14
Administrator
The claim that using ethanol will save energy is another myth. Studies show that the amount of energy ethanol produces and the amount needed to make it are roughly the same. "It takes a lot of fossil fuels to make the fertilizer, to run the tractor, to build the silo, to get that corn to a processing plant, to run the processing plant," Taylor says.
And because ethanol degrades, it can't be moved in pipelines the way that gasoline is. So many more big, polluting trucks will be needed to haul it.
More bad news: The increased push for ethanol has already led to a sharp increase in corn growing -- which means much more land must be plowed. That means much more fertilizer, more water used on farms and more pesticides.
Other than CRP ground, there just isn't any more ground being made in this country, in fact, with Suburbia there is less farm ground in production than ever before! Farmers, at least around here, are adopting low or no-till en mass, and whoever told Stossel that you irrigate Corn must be from New York City! ( Best Pace Picante advertisement voice )
This makes ethanol the "solution"?
A University of Minnesota study [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/30/11206] shows that even turning all of America's corn into ethanol would meet only 12 percent of our gasoline demand.
A University of Minnesota study [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/30/11206] shows that even turning all of America's corn into ethanol would meet only 12 percent of our gasoline demand.
OK, but it will cut down on air pollution, right? Wrong again. Studies indicate that the standard mixture of 90 percent ethanol and 10 percent gasoline pollutes worse than gasoline.
Nope. "Virtually all studies show that the greenhouse gases associated with ethanol are about the same as those associated with conventional gasoline once we examine the entire life cycle of the two fuels," Taylor says.
Surely, ethanol must be good for something. And here we finally have a fact. It (SET ITAL) is (END ITAL) good for something -- or at least someone: corn farmers and processors of ethanol, such as Archer Daniels Midland, the big food processor known for its savvy at getting subsidies out of the taxpayers.
I don't want to get confrontational here, but we cannot afford to overlook ANY source of energy at this juncture, that is not to say Ethanol produced from Corn is a long term magic bullet, just happens to be Mr. right now.......until we do find Mr. right.
05-24-2007, 10:02 AM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember when they outlawed lead in gasoline. At that time there was a big debate between using ethanol or MTBE as a replacement. The proper money was paid, and MTBE was used. 20 years later, MTBE has been found to be bad in many ways, including a carcinogen.
I work around industrial pumps, everything that came into contact with MTBE that used an elastomer to seal, had to be changed to telfon or Kalrez, because MTBE chemically attacked all common rubber compounds. Those of us that were aware of this problem knew that MTBE was not the right answer, but the chemical companies that made MTBE were owned by (SURPRISE) oil companies. Because of that, the ethanol industry (in the U.S.)was not developing any new technologies to produce ethanol from anything but corn. Currently I know of 3 different processes and raw materials being developed that have promise of solving the dependence on corn as the only base stock.
I work around industrial pumps, everything that came into contact with MTBE that used an elastomer to seal, had to be changed to telfon or Kalrez, because MTBE chemically attacked all common rubber compounds. Those of us that were aware of this problem knew that MTBE was not the right answer, but the chemical companies that made MTBE were owned by (SURPRISE) oil companies. Because of that, the ethanol industry (in the U.S.)was not developing any new technologies to produce ethanol from anything but corn. Currently I know of 3 different processes and raw materials being developed that have promise of solving the dependence on corn as the only base stock.