"As Congress makes final decisions on the energy bill, one of the most important decisions to be made is whether or not to implement a more aggressive national renewable fuels standard (RFS). This is a no-brainer… Opponents of the RFS– and we all know who they are– have decided that the best way to avoid one is to smear corn ethanol… This clever campaign is loaded with half-truths and red herrings. Along with misleading claims that ethanol contributes to global warming, or relies too heavily on public subsidies– subsidies which are a rounding error compared to government subsidization of the oil industry– it is often said that ethanol is not produced in a renewable manner or that it increases food prices… The fact that fossil fuels are required to produce ethanol from these renewable feedstocks is a given, because the production of any source of energy requires energy, and the U.S. energy sector is fossil-fuel based. But ethanol producers are increasingly efficient, and some are beginning to co-fire their plants with biomass. Most importantly to me, the feedstocks for biofuels are domestic. No U.S. soldier will ever die defending a cornfield… Government support for corn ethanol is miniscule compared to the $3 billion U.S. taxpayers spend each week fighting wars in the Middle East… Corn ethanol can take us only so far. I look forward to the day when the next generation of biofuels are commercialized and widely available… But to get to tomorrow we need to make pragmatic choices today. That means a strong renewable fuel standard in this year''s energy bill to ensure that the next generation of biofuels becomes a reality."
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I don’t work for the oil companies but I KNOW ethanol sucks – literally. As I’ve mentioned before, EVERY car I’ve had since 1979 has used from 7% to 20% more fuel when tanked up with E10 (10% ethanol). Only one car was 7%, virtually all of the others were 10% or worse MPG on E10.
Yep, ethanol is a dead end – HOWEVER – if we are going to grow our own fuel, why not use the best possible source (a high sugar content beet) and best possible alternative drop-in gasoline replacement (bio-butanol)?
Now THAT’S a “no brainer” – but unfortunately, one cannot expect our politicians to figure it out. They’re still stick in 1979 with
“Jimmah” alternative fuel technology…..
Times, and technology, have changed.
http://www.butantol.com
“Ah, I love the smell of farm subsidies in the morning!”
Ethanol is a cul-de-sac of the highest order. I’ve previously compared it to pissing in your pants to keep warm in mid-winter. Let me stretch that analogy: it’s comparable to chopping down your house to get a heater going in the garage.
Indonesia and Brazil are being deforested in order to provide our oversized cars with fuel once petroleum reaches a price level where alternatives become profitable.
Note Mr Delahunt’s reference to “the feedstocks for biofuels are domestic.” He might as well say: I’ve got me a mess of farmers who are mighty upset about WTO stopgaps on subsidies to agriculture, and who want us to push biofuels for all it’s worth.”
The solution is smaller, more fuel efficient cars, and a rethinking of transportation solutions and requirements — not “let’s find something else to stuff in our gas tanks now that we’ve about to use up all the oil.”
(As an aside – I’m on a personal crusade to rescue the u in minuscule, and wish Mr Delahunt would do the same.)
No U.S. soldier will ever die defending a cornfield…. Government support for corn ethanol is miniscule compared to the $3 billion U.S. taxpayers spend each week fighting wars in the Middle East– wars that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently conceded are about oil. – MA Rep Delahunt
The ability to drive extravagantly wasteful vehicles is not worth the loss of one U.S., Canadian or British serviceman in the Middle East.
Energy blogger Robert Rapier discusses why the EROEI of ethanol may be as low as 1:1.26 :
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-reliable-are-those-usda-ethanol.html
EROEI: Energy return on energy invested
Do any of our politicians have a basic understanding of high-school level science and chemistry? Apparently not, or they would have realized long ago that making ethanol from corn makes absolutely no sense – it doesn’t help global warming, and doesn’t reduce our dependence on imported oil. Unfortunately, between ADM’s lobbyists and the fact that Iowa has an early primary, it’s unlikely that any politician will have the guts to stand up and tell it like it really is.
Corn ethanol is also a clever way to subsidize agriculture without being brought to task by the trading police.
I’ve previously compared it to pissing in your pants to keep warm in mid-winter.
Your comment nearly made me piss in my pants – well done.
Stein X Leikanger: He might as well say: I’ve got me a mess of farmers who are mighty upset about WTO stopgaps on subsidies to agriculture, and who want us to push biofuels for all it’s worth.”
I’m not going to comment on the energy efficiency of an E10 fuel, nor am I going to comment on the amount of energy needed to produce said fuel. But I will say this, “a mess of farmers”… in MA? Come on now… the only farms left in MA are very small family farms and only a handful at that. Any large farm realized a long time ago that real estate in the Bay State is worth selling, not farming. (And I’m sure the rocky soil and short growing season helped with the decision, too.) He said it because we’re liberals, not farmers.
Either way, I’m all for pushing the American public to small cars and alternative energy any way we can… and getting out of Iraq.
I agree that giving further subsidies to ethanol is a no-brainer.
Only those with no brains cannot see that much corn is grown on irrigated acres, that corn takes a lot of nitrogen, that excess nitrogen forms nitrates in what’s left of the water table that have to be removed by expensive reverse-osmosis to make the water drinkable by humans again.
Only those with no brains cannot see that reservoirs are drying up in Nebraska and other Corn Belt states and that what’s happening in the Southeast with regard to water CAN happen here.
I actually believe that a very small percentage of Congress is that stupid and that most ethanol backers are either whores to the Ethanol Lobby or in fear of them.
No, zenith, I’m sorry to say I think they ARE that stupid. Otherwise, somewhere along the line, the smarter ones would have said “okay, we can’t continue importing 30% / 40% / 50% / 60% of our energy needs – we need to put a tariff on imported oil to encourage alternatives.”
Apart from the fact that such a tax could have essentially REPLACED federal income tax, and encouraged the public and auto companies to make a permanent reversal in gluttony in the 1970’s, 1980’s, 1990’s and/or zero’s.
But we haven’t any politicians with either the brains, OR the stones to be real leaders, and convince us of the folly of continuing down the oil path AND allowing us to collectively come up with solutions (notice- plural) in a logical and sensible manner, largely allowing the market to do it (and only “bending” the market to discourage oil imports – ultimately very bad for the US as I think everyone can now see).
No U.S. soldier will ever die defending a cornfield
Drive food prices up high enough and they will. Corn based ethenol is more rediculous and wasteful than the oil we’re burning now.
If it’s a no brainer then it’s ideal for consideration by the average politician.
Bill Delahunt, like most of his colleagues, can only deal with no-brainers, as he, and they, have no brains.
If oil is nearing depletion and there are feasible alternatives, why should we cut back? The surest way to increase oil prices is to reduce the supply. Why save it, if it is bad, earth killing stuff anyway? Also, once Middle Eastern countries run out of oil how are they going to be a threat to us?
Shabatski,
WE do have farms here in Massachusetts–in fact I live a 5 minute walk from a farm, just 10 miles outside of Boston. But we certainly don’t farm corn here, at least not in any quantity, and I don’t know what is motivating Rep. Delahunt on this. Perhaps he owes one of his Iowa colleagues a favor, or has friends in the corn lobby.
For the record, I panned this idea in an opinion piece in Solar Age Magazine in 1979.
guyincognito,
Another take on that is that if the U.S. and other nations with emissions controls don’t burn it up, then motorists in India, China, etc that are getting lots of cheap cars are going to burn it for us.
Anyone know how those proposed $2500 Nissans do on emissions? How about the 200,000-mile Chevy trucks driving around Africa somewhere. Not to mention all those diesels particulates coming out of the Indian autos on the road now.
First, we’re a long way from oil depletion. At current rates of consumption we’ve got decades worth of oil left. The problem is not depletion, it’s that we are either at or very near peak production, meaning that we can look forward to a perpetually decreasing supply in the face of steady or increasing demand. You don’t need to be an economics major to see what that will do to (and is doing) to the price of black gold. Because the major industrial economies of the world, and specifically the US economy, are built on ready access to cheap fossil fuel energy, the ever increasing cost of oil post-peak will put serious pressure on economic growth. (That is an optimistic prediction. If you want to be depressed, read “The Long Emergency” by J.H. Kunstler). In my opinion, global warming is a red herring. What is really going to fuck us is peak oil. Fortunately the solution is the same (re-tool society to live with less oil, and eventually none) so I don’t mind that GW has a lot of mindshare right now. I just wish people would stop saying “save the planet” because it isn’t going anywhere for a few billion years.
The problem with this congressman’s statement is that it ignores the most fundamental precepts on which we base our country. Congress has NO BUSINESS deciding on which solution will be best. That decision should be made by the market. Congress is just wasting money, distorting markets, and delaying the solution they claim they want so badly.
I won’t say whether ethanol is the solution or not, but I suspect that it is a much better solution for folks in Chicago than it is for folks in Houston. Our country is too big for a single solution, and we need to get Congress out of the business of choosing winners and losers. Whenever a congressman says that the best solution for anything outside of government is X, we can rest assured that there is a reason other than the benefits of X.
Tell your representatives to stop mandating solutions. Their job is to mandate standards. The geniuses needed to find the best solution were not elected to Congress.
David Holzman: Agreed. We have farms (as I stated before), but we don’t have the quantity of large farmers necessary for them to get together and successfully lobby congress.
Maybe if they could make fuel from apples and cranberries we’d really have a farmers lobby group here:)
I hope this guy lives long enough to realize the stupidity of what he is saying. We will not have the luxury of turning our food into fuel once oil is in short supply.
There are a couple ways of dealing with the gasoline crisis. The first is to use less, and the second is to get more. Everybody knows some Americans have a God-given right to drive 10-mpg SUVs, so the first is a non-starter. Let’s look at the second.
Remember Canada, the big frozen country just north of the U.S.A.? It happens Canada is the United States’ single largest foreign energy supplier providing 17-percent of U.S. oil imports. Its 175-billion barrel proven petroleum reserve make it the world’s second-largest after Saudi Arabia. Bonus, its army is smaller than the Mayberry PD and is equipped with clapped-out 1952 Dodge trucks!
Here’s the plan. Dubya will declare Canada has weapons of mass destruction, send in the Marines, overthrow the government, and confiscate their oil. Is that great, or what? Americans will be filling up with buck a gallon gas in a couple of days!!!!
Thank you, Mr. Delahunt, I agree with you very much.
We need to be forward looking and get rid of oil addiction over the next few decades.
As Hillary says: “We need to invent our way out.”
I strongly support cellulosic biofuel made from energy crops. Biofuels should be of the 2nd generation type that look a lot like gasoline. Corn ethanol is not all that great, but can play a role in relatively modest quantities (say 10B gallons/year).
A smart RFS like we have in California can take care of all this (i.e. get us to start with corn ethanol and switch to 2nd gen later).
if they were truly worried about co2 build up in the atmosphere,what soaks up more co2 ,an acre of corn thats there only half the year in temperate climates? or a forest or grass land thats there year round even in the winter? ethanol destroys the natural environment, a 4th grader could figure this out if they were given the facts, not spin.–hey ej, i have to wear clothes to work and when im out in public, does that mean i have a clothing addiction?