In the growing war of words between bio-fuel producers and savvy environmentalists, pro-ethanol supporters often point to Brazil, claiming that the South American country's energy independence offers a template for America's future. Detractors already know that Brazil's booming ethanol production is based on geography (sugar cane rather than corn), takes a heavy toll on the [ideologically sacrosanct] rain forest and has little to do with the country's net energy consumption. And here's a new wrinkle. Energy Business Review says "Brazilian ethanol producers reportedly exported a majority of their fuels to Europe in 2007. Increased exports have saved Brazilian sugarcane producers from going bankrupt as sugarcane prices fell below the cost of production on commodity exchanges." This is a bitch because both the U.K. and Germany have recently "de-incentivized" bio-fuel consumption. And that means… "Brazilian ethanol exporters are pro-actively lobbying with common interest groups in the US, to help create a global market for ethanol." Energy independence be damned; what's the bet America's corn-fed politicians raise the barriers?
Find Reviews by Make:
That loud SCHMACK you just heard was the invisible hand giving a lesson to those who try to make money using government fiat.
As I commented in Food or Fuel, even with peons making ethanol and large oil deposits offshore, Brazil can barely keep the lights on:
“In early November, a prolonged drought affecting strategic parts of the country caused levels of water in hydroelectric dam reservoirs to fall. In order to compensate for the drop in hydropower output, Petrobras was forced to divert natural gas, imported from Bolivia, from the consumer market, to fuel thermoelectric generating stations.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40178
“Energy independence be damned; what’s the bet America’s corn-fed politicians raise the barriers?”
It is a long done deal. There are tariffs in place to stop the importation of ethanol.
bluecon:
It is a long done deal. There are tariffs in place to stop the importation of ethanol.
I meant higher.
We could always drink it. To misquote Lloyd Bridges:
Looks like I picked the wrong day to go on that no-carbs diet.
Good job clearing the “Look at Brazil!” smokescreen, Farago!
Of course the story is much more complicated. Some choice bits:
1. According to Per Capita Oil Consumption and Production, oil consumption in Brazil is 4.2 barrels per person per year. In the U.S., oil consumption is 27 barrels per person per year, 6.4 times as much per person as Brazil’s.
2. Following from #1 But the reason they achieved energy independence is primarily because of their frugal energy usage, not because of ethanol. Of course, we can’t do that. Conservation is a dirty word in Washington DC. Dick Cheny dismissed conservation as a personal virtue. As in, why don’t you greens go try it, while I do some real work?
3. Then there is Brazilian oil production (Oh yeah): Cooperation between state-run Petrobras and private partners has helped Brazil become self-sufficient in [warning dirty word ahead] oil production and make huge oil and gas discoveries.
So Brazil is mainly self sufficient due to using so little oil and drilling for more of it. Ethanol is a nice distraction, giving the politicans something to talk about, while other people solve the problems.
Maybe we should try that. Dumping ethanol on Washinton DC would be a good first step. “Here, W, you try it. Share some with Dick.”
Brazil drills offshore for oil which is mostly not allowed in the USA. And the USA already produces more ethanol than Brazil.
Brazil is a poor third world country and really not something we should strive to duplicate.
Engineer & blue con-
Good points, I have noticed for a while that this is an apples vs guava comparison that bears no fruit.
Cheerio,
Bunter
Brazil drills offshore for oil which is mostly not allowed in the USA.
There has to be a good reason to drill offshore. As I understand it, oil fields usually developed near the mouth of an ancient river where plant matter had been deposited over millions of years. In the vast majority of places, for various reasons, those deposits didn’t become oil, and aren’t worth the drilling.
Your totally wrong about where oil fields develop.
The oil is found where it is trapped by rock formations.
The Cubans are drilling offshore Florida right now while the USA bans drilling offshore of Florida. There are immense known reserves of oil offshore of the USA.
Huge new reserves in the USA
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24057222/
bluecon:Your totally wrong about where oil fields develop.
Then I suggest you update wikipedia and see how far you get.
Most geologists view crude oil and natural gas as the product of compression and heating of ancient organic materials over geological time. Oil is formed from the preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae which have been settled to the sea (or lake) bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum
The largest quantities of plant material are carried into the sea by large rivers, settling around the mouth.
And that stuff in the shale of North Dakota and Montana is not oil.
Oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock, containing significant amounts of kerogen (a solid mixture of organic chemical compounds), from which liquid hydrocarbons can be manufactured. The name oil shale has been described as a promotional misnomer, since the rock is not necessarily a shale and the kerogen in it is not crude oil; it requires more processing than crude oil, which affects the economic viability of shale oil as a crude oil substitute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale
Instead of spending those four years at university studying geology I could have just used Wiki.
The oil fields are where the oil is trapped in the rocks. Ancient rivers have nothing to do with it.
The oil in that shale is oil(what else could it be?). They have already drilled and are producing oil from parts of the formation.
I can tell the following from personal experience visiting brazil 7-8 times since 1999.
1) Most people there do not have a car or computer.
2) There are _VERY_ few 2 car families that I’ve seen.
3) When people fill up with gas, they fill up with enough that they are going to use in the very near future. They don’t just fill the tank (like we do) so we don’t have to stop again for gas soon
4) Gas is $5.50 per gallon there (I was there in March 2008). Alcohol there is $2.50-$3.15/gallon.
5) pretty much everyone drives a VW, chevy, or fiat (I might be forgetting one brand).
6) There are almost no SUV’s and almost no automatic tranny cars.
7) There are almost as many 125-250 motorcycles as there are cars.
Brazil is a WHOLE other ballgame for transportation compared to the US. They are alot more efficient in general. In some ways they are forced to be, with low average income, much higher gasoline prices than the US, and high vechicle prices.
Civic SI is $100k of their money (60k here)…
The oil fields are where the oil is trapped in the rocks. Ancient rivers have nothing to do with it.
Formation of Oil in Mississippi Delta
What Youtube says is that the oil is trapped by the salt domes. People always think the rivers as they exist now have been like that forever. Well the Mississipi hasn’t been where it is now throughout time. There is oil all over the Gulf of Mexico, not just at the mouth of the Mississipi. And then explain the ancient river theory in Texas, Alaska, North Dakota, The Great Lakes(Canada drills for Gas and oil under the Great Lakes and the USA does not allow it), Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Saudi Arabia, The North Sea, off the coast of Florida and Newfoundland, etc.
bluecon:
The Great Lakes(Canada drills for Gas and oil under the Great Lakes and the USA does not allow it)
Yup. And like their hydro and nuke power, they sell it to NIMBY north American easterners at nice markup.
You’re also right about Cuba. In a few years, if Cuba opens up (either slowly via the China model or rapidly via the Romanian hang-the-commies model), there is no way they ignore oil in their waters.
Cuba with the aid of Hugo Chavez is already drilling off the coast of Florida. American oil companies are not allowed to drill in American waters. Wonder why oil costs so much?
What Youtube says is that the oil is trapped by the salt domes.
No, it says the salt domes push upwards through strata of rock, releasing oil from pockets in its path. Pockets created from deposits of sediment at the mouth of the river.
People always think the rivers as they exist now have been like that forever.
No, that’s why I said ancient rivers.
And then explain the ancient river theory in Texas, Alaska, North Dakota, The Great Lakes
Are you saying there were no rivers in those places?
Donal Fagan, I like how you think.
“No, it says the salt domes push upwards through strata of rock, releasing oil from pockets in its path. Pockets created from deposits of sediment at the mouth of the river.”
No. The salt domes trap the oil. If they released it, it wouldn’t be trapped against the salt domes and there obviously would be no oil to find.
And then explain the ancient river theory in Texas, Alaska, North Dakota, The Great Lakes
“Are you saying there were no rivers in those places?”
I give. You obviously know more about geology than geologists. Yes that is how they discover oil. They search for ancient underground rivers and drill there. LOL
And there are huge known deposits offshore of the USA and drilling for them is not allowed.
No. The salt domes trap the oil. If they released it, it wouldn’t be trapped against the salt domes and there obviously would be no oil to find.
From the video: “Salt has a lower density than the overlying rocks. Under pressure, it behaves like a fluid, so it rises up through the rocks. As it pushes upwards, it bends the overlying strata. Oil also tends to flow upwards, so it eventually collects around the salt. If the salt dome can be located, it is relatively easy to find the oil.”
And there are huge known deposits offshore of the USA and drilling for them is not allowed.
Citation? I find it inconceivable that the current administration can invade Iraq, spy on American citizens, seize foreign nationals, torture uncharged prisoners, and funnel millions to the oil and ethanol industries, but in the face of an energy crisis can’t arrange for their oil buddies to drill where they want.
Read some actual scientific geology book about this and it will explain how the salt which is impermeable traps the oil. Why do you think the oil is around the salt dome? If you would pay attention to the Youtube it actually shows how the oil traps. LOL
Not so inconceivable.
Winston Churchill
“A ten minute conversation with the average voter is the best argument against democracy”
These numbers are all from the government.
“America has about 22 billion barrels of “proven” oil reserves, defined as “reasonably certain to be recoverable in future years under existing economic and operating conditions.” In addition, there are an estimated 112 billion barrels that could be recovered with existing drilling and production technology. Make that, with existing drilling and production technology and fewer Democrats like Pelosi who, while promising energy independence, are opposed to any drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and much drilling offshore, where 87 billion of the 112 billion barrels are located, as is much of the estimated 656 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas.”
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will051707.php3
I find it hard to understand where “savvy environmentalists” are going with their ant-ethanol argument. In a post peak oil world, what is going to power the vehicles TTAC spends its efforts on? Electricity? Give me a break. The grid can not support it and most electricity is produced from polluting fossil fuel. TTAC regularly chronicles the difficulties of Tesla for example. Even mighty Toyota struggles with a plug in version of the Prius. And GM? Who knows.
News flash: The United States does not have the climate to produce sugar cane. It can produce corn and will whether is is used for ethanol or not. The other uses for corn are: animal feed which is an energy loser, export which is also an energy loser because corn sells for less the than its energy content compared to oil, and high fructose corn syrup which may be behind the epidemic of diabetes. Relatively little field corn grown in the U.S. is used directly for human food. It is called a coarse grain for that reason.
The argument that ethanol will make the United States energy independent is a straw man argument put up by the anti ethanol crowd. Ethanol will never be more than about 10 percent of liquid fuel in the U.S.. But 10 percent is better than nothing and puts off for a few years the ultimate energy crunch which we are just starting to experience at the moment.
Just like how many angels one can fit on the head of a pin, the imponderable question here is how hydrocarbons can be both undiscovered and assessed as technically recoverable at the same time — discounting, of course, considerations of economic viability. As any “hands on” insider in the oil & natural gas business will tell you, the only way to convert a resource from undiscovered to a proved reserve in this case is to get in a boat, load it with some equipment, go at least 100 miles off some OCS region, drill a test well and see what happens. As if to emphasize my point, this comes on the heels of the discovery that Mexico’s huge 10 Gb (billion barrel) discovery in the Gulf turned out to be a dud once they actually drilled some test wells. Just as politics probably played a role in the Mexican case, it is apparently the same as regards DOER. My apologies for just stating the obvious.
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/7/12/101236/478
I already understand the left is against drilling for oil and will do anything to prevent it. The result of preventing production of this oil is a shortage of oil and high price for gasoline among other things. There is oil being produced from thousands of offshore sites all around the world and it is very proven and successful, so I don’t know if you are making the case there is no oil offshore or it is impossible to extract the oil. Either way you are wrong as shown by the success of the existing fields like the North Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Hibernia, etc.
bluecon & Donal Fagan – You are both overanalyzing this. We need to drill for oil because it is the most efficient way to obtain fuel (and plastics by-the-way). There are many other technologies that are already developed, just not as effecient. It does not make sense for the US to be energy independent using one of the more ineffecient technologies because it will make us less competitive globally.