Slow down the ethanol juggernaut
Rocky Mountain News
Published July 24, 2008 at 6:07 p.m.
Washington's command-and-control approach to the promotion of ethanol and other biofuels has unleashed a host of unintended consequences.
The main culprit: the federal mandate forcing 9 billion gallons of ethanol to be produced this year. Satisfying the mandate has diverted roughly 30 percent of U.S. corn production to biofuels. And while the ethanol requirement is not the only factor roiling global food markets -- the falling dollar and rising energy prices have also hiked costs -- if the mandate did not exist, more corn would be available to feed people and livestock.
Unless Washington provides some relief, the pressure to shift corn from food to fuel will only worsen. The ethanol requirement escalates to 15 billion gallons in 2015 and 36 billion gallons in 2022. By then, roughly one of every four gallons of motor fuels would be made from renewables -- a staggering transition under any circumstances.
At the moment, corn is the main source for ethanol in the U.S., although cellulosic ethanol made from plant waste such as feedstock, wood chips, corn stalks or lawn clippings is apparently on the horizon. But if scientists can't bring the price of cellulosic ethanol down so that it's affordable, half of the corn raised in this country could wind up in fuel tanks. That's crazy.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to slash the mandate in half for 2008 and 2009. Moreover, two dozen senators and 51 House members -- all Republicans -- have sent a letter to the EPA asking for relief.
The EPA won't make its decision until August, after officials consult with the secretaries of energy and agriculture. But there's little doubt that the mandate has helped to rattle the global economy.
We're not prepared to write off ethanol altogether. If cellulosic ethanol becomes commercially viable, which is possible, it would make the product far more attractive. So while we favor easing the ethanol mandate, we also hope lawmakers take a serious look at the Open Fuel Standard Act, a bill launched last week by Sens. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Colorado's own Ken Salazar.
The legislation would require automakers to produce a greater share of flex-fueled vehicles over time. By 2012, half the new cars sold in America, of domestic and foreign origin, would have to run on both gasoline or a "renewable" fuel such as E85 (which is 85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline)or biodiesel. By 2015, 80 percent of new cars would have to be equipped to handle either type of fuel.
The bill would not compel car owners to buy gasoline or E85; it would let them select the fuel they prefer, based in part upon price signals. And flex-fuel technology can reportedly be added when cars are built for about $100, or less than 0.4 percent of the average new car's price.
If adopted in its current form, the bill would put motorists in the driver's seat when pumping fuel. It might also provide a hedge against disruptions in fuel supplies, as E85 could replace gasoline should supplies go down in the event of a price hike from unfriendly regimes, a terrorist attack or a natural disaster like Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.
Washington would be genuinely expanding consumer choices, not compelling individuals to purchase something they may not want.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Chiefs.
-
Broncos Video
Get the latest from Dove Valley as the Broncos prepare for Sunday's matchup.
-
Calendar wallpaper
Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
Read the Rocky's coverage of Colorado's cannibal, Alfred Packer, in 1886.
July 25, 2008
3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
ChrisThomson writes:
Right now there is more support for less polluting alternative energy sources than ever before and there’s no reason more shouldn’t be done to push for action. Everyone wants to reduce our dependence on oil and that can be the same thing as making air and cars cleaner - in fact, I saw over on one of the American Lung Association websites that clean fuels like E85 ethanol can ridiculously reduce the amounts of pollutants. I’ve worked with the Renewable Fuels Association and I know there is absolutely no reason we can’t kill two birds with one stone on this issue and help fix our fuel problems while making things greener too.
July 25, 2008
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
Corn ethanol does not reduce the consumption of fossil fuels at all. That is because it takes more fuel to grow and ferment the corn than the fuel it generates.
Corn ethanol:
1. Drives up the cost of food
2. Drives up the cost of fuel
3. Is bad for the environment
4. Increases the US's dependence on foreign fuel
What a scam! We'd be better off just dropping bales of money on the corn states.
July 25, 2008
8:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mike846 writes:
In addition to the four facts noted above, ethanol can't be used to produce the myriad of products other than fuel that require fossil fuel oils and derivatives. Since most American farms today are in the hands of big business, driving the prices up on their products will only affect their bottom line positively and mine negatively. We have the resources right here offshore, in our rocks under our very feet. As to pollutants, the incentives should be for reduction through better technology. Coal residue scrubbers found on modern power plants are a classic example. When you see that white cloud rising out of a coal-fired plant, would you believe its cleaner than the air its rising into if the plant is in an urban area? You could look it up. Lets get sensible. Why reinvent the wheel with one that costs more, doesn't roll right and slows down progress? Mike
July 26, 2008
6:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
Chris, only 545 reasons it won't work, and they are the folks in the senate and congress, they can mess up anything. If they had mandated the cars get better mileage years ago, instead of caving to the lobbyists, we wouldn't be in this quagmire. The food industry lobbied against the FDA making food more traceable in case of salmonella, and now it has bit them in the rear, because they lost millions by not being able to sell tomatoes. Now if we can get those 545 people off their duffs, maybe something can be done, and I don't care who is President, they control the country.
July 26, 2008
7:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
If it takes a federal tax subsidy to make the product compete in the marketplace, it's a bad idea.
July 26, 2008
7:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
arby writes:
I don't very often agree with all the posts. But I think everyone above is on target.
July 26, 2008
8:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
I can hardly believe it, but Froward69 is somewhat right.
Corn ethanol is bad and should be eliminated, but cellulose ethanol is very promising for the 6 reasons he stated. Unfortunately, there is not yet a commercially viable fermentation process for cellulose ethanol. However, unlike wind and solar, the research is very promising and there will probably be a solution to make this technology competitive with fossil fuels.
He does show his stripes with his distaste for 'corporations.' It's not the fault of corporations, trial lawyers, unions, and other groups for lobbying for free money from the government. It's the people's fault for not educating themselves to stop it.
Politicians like Bill Bradley and Hillary Clinton opposed corn ethanol, until they ran for president. Then they loved it, because pandering to pork fiends like the farm lobby is the only way to get elected. That is the problem in a nut shell.
P.S. One of the first politicians to tout switch grass ethanol and propose federal research funding for it was none other than G.W. Bush.
July 26, 2008
8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
CO_Native_CO writes:
Great idea... Take our food and turn it into fuel... Genius... NOT!!!
July 26, 2008
9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Since I'm not an expert or pretend to be my comment will be in the form of a question. Did I see on a special about a month ago that countries like Holland make their ethanol out of trash and garbage that we just blow under ground?
July 26, 2008
1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
randrews36 writes:
If I may I am an expert on Ethanol and you are wrong we actually save 65 billion a year in this country alone on these bio- fuels. Why do you think Brazil has one of the best economies in the world? They have invested in this resource and have been using it since the 70's and gas is less than a dollar over there.
Corn ethanol:
1. Drives up the cost of food-False! The rising price of food is attributed to the rising price of oil. This is evident like when Carter and Ronald were presidents.
2. Drives up the cost of fuel-False You probably didn't know that E85 is a domestic product so the more of its use the less the cost. The reason why we have rising food cost is we import a lot of food due to the rising rate of globalization we do not domestically make a lot of food here anymore that is why we have scares with salmonella. I know you remember the floods in Iowa and all the corn was lost. If it drives of the prices why didn't the prices raise on the gas or on corn?
3. Is bad for the environment. Wrong again it is the best fuel to use for the environment it is the only fuel endorsed by the American Lung Association and it also lowers green house gases by 20%.
4. Increases the US's dependence on foreign fuel! Still off the mark with this one it actually empowers America creating 20 million green jobs as of last year and lowers gas why do you think the gas is cheaper.
It is the only fuel made in this great nation and empowers our country do your research before you talk about something please if your such an American stop funding the war by putting gas in your car and keep our money right here in our American wallets. Its not up to the next president or congress or even politicians it is up to us as Americans to rebuild our economy.
July 26, 2008
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
daRock writes:
Roger, small point but there are 435 in the house and 100 in the senate. Total 535, not 545.
July 26, 2008
5:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Not one mention of the fact that ethanol produces far more NOX and ozone than gasoline produces CO2...
July 26, 2008
8:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Darwin writes:
randrews36, please address the points regarding sugarcane and switchgrass.
My brother is a farmer in Indiana and he and the other farmers have reduced the soybean acreage and increased that of corn. At harvest, the corn goes directly to the ethanol plant 3 miles away rather than the grain elevator to be shipped to Cargill to be used for food production. Of course there is still a large amount of corn going for food processing because of long-term contracts but as those contracts expire, less farmers are committing to new contracts. It is short-sighted to say that the increase in food prices is due only to increase in fuel cost, it is also due to ethanol production.
"Its not up to the next president or congress or even politicians it is up to us as Americans to rebuild our economy." Some truth in that statement but we still allow the government to bail out mis-managed brokerages, homebuilders, lenders, and home buyers who should have known that "the deal was too good to be true". We even were given incentive checks. Have you ever tried to compete with a special interest group and Congressman who were on a mission to buy the vote? I have written to them many times, to no avail. We need to rebuild the economy by getting rid of the incumbents and all political want-to-bes. Term limits, no political retirement, and they have to live under the same laws they pass for us "little people".
July 27, 2008
2:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
capa writes:
25% of motor fuel will be ethanol by 2022 you say? Around 15% of every gallon at the pump is already ethanol so I can't really consider a 10% increase to be "a staggering transition under any circumstances". It's not staggering; it's not really even significant. Sadly that's as far as I could force myself to read. I do so hate dramatized disinformation.
And for bxwatso's benefit:
1. No. We have MUCH more than we can use. We may have to cut back slightly on our foreign aid though.
2. Yes. It currently takes more energy (fuels, etc.) to produce ethanol than we get from it. That means more money to pay for the extra fuel.
3. No. Gasoline is a hydrocarbon - it's made of hydrogen and carbon. This reacts with oxygen to produce all sorts of interesting byproducts, but in a perfect world the only byproducts would be carbon-dioxide and water. Ethanol, however, is a carbohydrate - it's made of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen. This reacts with itself (and quite a bit more oxygen from air) to produce the exact same byproducts. The only way in which it's worse for the environment is in the production of byproducts from the extra fuel it takes to produce. That, though, would be tempered if people would get out of their car and walk.
4. No. Just no. That doesn't even make sense.
Stop jerking your knees and saying doom.
July 27, 2008
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
randrews: I challenge your status as "expert"
Where did you get your degree? How long have you been working in the field?
Or do you just sell it?
July 27, 2008
8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
To randrews36: Every ethanol-is-the-answer-to-everything idiot... er "expert"... always points at Brazil, "Look, they can do it, why can't we!" You just added yourself to that category. Congratulations!
Brazil makes ethanol out of sugar cane, which has a much higher yield than corn. It's also something they can grow a lot more of than we can. And because the average person in Brazil lives appalling squalor and is more concerned about finding enough to eat than buying a car, the Brazilian demand for motor fuels is minuscule compared to what US demand is.
These are all basic facts, and wouldn't have to be pointed out to an intelligent person.
But an intelligent person wouldn't argue that ethanol is the number one fuel produced in this country when we still produce almost half of our gasoline domestically (and could increase that percentage if we could drill for more).
And an intelligent person wouldn't claim that ethanol production produced 20 million "green" jobs last year either. Because you obviously aren't an intelligent person let me explain the math to you.
If 20 million people had jobs producing 9 billion gallons of ethanol last year, and if those jobs paid minimum wage (hey, the left is now in favor of creating McJobs!), then the labor cost alone of producing ethanol would have been $26 per gallon.
20 million people x $5.85 per hour x 2000 hours per year=$234 billion
$234 billion / 9 billion gallons = $26 per gallon
Next time you want to throw out an "expert" opinion, you might want to do some basic fact checking so you won't look like a complete partisan hack.
July 27, 2008
9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
Ethanol emits acetaldehyde, a probable carcinogen and something that standard emissions-testing equipment is not designed to measure. E85 has about 27% less energy per gallon than gasoline.
So, if regular unleaded is $4.00/gallon, you would expect to pay $2.82/gallon for E85.
The taxpayer subsidy for fuel ethanol is $1.45/gallon, or $1.23 per gallon of E85. This puts the REAL cost of E85 at $4.05/gallon, but remember that $1.23/gallon is paid by the TAXPAYER, not the user.
E85 is corporate welfare. I won't even bother to address the fallacy that taking land out of food production does not drive up food costs.
July 27, 2008
9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
BuffDriver writes:
Using food for fuel...especially if it takes more energy to produce that fuel than is derived from it...is ludicrous. However,using cellulose makes sense here in Colorado--beetles are in the process of turning 90% of our forests to gray sticks. Of course, the enviro-whackos will try to block the harvesting of this fuel source.
July 27, 2008
11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
I have been told not to use the ethanol with gas in my ford taurus. It is not good for the engine and gets 1/2 the gas mileage.
Could someone tell me if this is true?
July 27, 2008
12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
me2:
If you have an older taurus, it is possible that the first time you introduce ethanol into the tank, it may foul your fuel filter. That is not too likely,however.
Ethanol contains less energy per gallon than gas, so your mileage will go down, but nowhere near 1/2. If you ran 85% ethanol, you would get 20% less mileage.
capa:
I don't even know what you are responding to, as your comments don't match mine at all. Good news: cannabis is carbon neutral.
July 27, 2008
3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
Methanol, also known as methyl alcohol, carbinol, wood alcohol, wood naphtha or wood spirits, is a chemical compound with chemical formula CH3OH (often abbreviated MeOH). It is the simplest alcohol, and is a light, volatile, colourless, flammable, poisonous liquid with a distinctive odor that is somewhat milder and sweeter than ethanol (ethyl alcohol). At room temperature it is a polar liquid and is used as an antifreeze, solvent, fuel, and as a denaturant for ethyl alcohol. It is also used for producing biodiesel via transesterification reaction.
Ok, everyone...I agree with you. Corn should not be used. How about we use wood?? I repeat my idea here again. We do two things in one. Free up more water on our rivers and make wood alcohol at the same time. We do it by going to the border of Nebraska and start cutting the trees away from the South Platte River and work up stream. We use the wood for the alcohol process to replace corn based ethanol. Plus doing away with the water soaking up trees, will give us more water in the river to use.
It is a win, win, solution to two problems in one.
Now here it comes....no you can not cut down the trees...wrong. If you research you will find there were very few trees a long the Platte when settlers came out West. Anyway, only cut 95% of them. By the time we would cut trees and make it to Denver, more than enough trees would grow back and we could start the process over again. Hmmm renewable engery and more water!!
Nuff Said!
July 27, 2008
4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
What is wrong with hydrogen fuel cell technology? I believe this would solve most of the pollution problem. I don't know a lot about the technology though. Honda has a car already in So Cal, does anyone know the negatives to this idea?
July 27, 2008
7:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Cannibus is carbon neutral. Good one, lol Thanks for the info.
July 27, 2008
8:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
Brian:
Hydrogen is not exactly an energy source. It is better described as an energy storage and transport medium. Hydrogen can be generated in a couple of ways: 1. pass a DC current through water with a bit of acid in it, or 2. break down natural gas to remove the hydrogen from the molecules. H2 does not exist as a natural resource, however, like oil or natural gas.
Currently, method 2 is the lower cost way to go, but it releases about the same amount of CO2 into the air as if you just ran the car on natural gas in the first place.
If you had a method of generating lots of DC power without polluting (nuclear is a good choice), then option 1 is a pollution free way to go.
There is actually an interesting model for a new energy grid whereby only H2 is piped to homes to provide H2 for their cars, run a household fuel cell for electricity, and also burn H2 for home heat. That would replace the electric grid and the natural gas network with a single system.
July 27, 2008
10:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
SteveM writes:
Ironically, most of the posters are neither chemists or biologists and do not know thing 1 about any of the stuff they post about here. Ethanol (CH3CH2OH) IS that exact, same chemical produced by the fermentation by yeast of sucrose from ANY source be it corn, sugar beets, fruit, etc. It is drinking alcohol. It is the stuff in beer, wine, and spirits that makes one intoxicated. It doesn't have to come from corn any more than drinking alcohol has to come from potatoes (we call it vodka).
The people who say that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than you get out of it are correct, but this is true of any fuel. How much energy does it take to pump oil, ship it on a diesel powered ship from the Middle East to Louisianan, and then refine it which involves fractional distillation in giant cooling columns based on a simple technology where one has to boil a mixture and then separate using the fact that substances tend tot have 1000s of different boiling points. Let me give you a good guess, more energy is spent recovering a gallon of gasoline from oil than you get out of it. We just never hear about this side of things just like we never hear that 80% of the energy released form the gasoline in a combustible goes toward useless heating up of the engine parts.
Third the USA grows enough food each year to provide three square meals a day to feed every Man woman, and child on the face of the earth 3 squard meals a day, but we feed 2/3 of it to cows so we can all have hamburger and steaks.
July 28, 2008
1:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
Well, I'm not a botanist or chemist, and didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I find it quite interesting that the very same people that are willing to turn untold acres of farmland to the production of fuel rather than food, upset the food chain for the speculation of ethanol, are the same ones that have fits over the drilling in ANWR that entails just a few acres. It just seems to me that the mantra against petroleum has far outweighed any common sense that might have been brought to this discussion.
July 28, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Colo writes:
For all of you food for fuel people PLEASE educate yourselves! Here is an actual study done by Purdue just published last week on what is driving food costs up.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industr...
July 28, 2008
10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
davis_x_machina writes:
One wonders if Mike in Hartsel has checked the degree of subsidization of the wingnuts latest sweetheart in the energy debate- nuclear generation. It's subsidized top-to-bottom-beginning-to end and not cheaply either. Furthermore the wingnuts have demanded whole process energy accounting for grain-based ethanol, but I've never seen such a demand for the nuclear industry.The one real necessary consideration for true energy independence, a sea-change in our attitude towards efficiency and consumption I very rarely see discussed.