Environmental Outlook: Declining Political Support for Ethanol
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-10-04/environmental-outlook-declining-political-support-ethanol
America’s ethanol industry is booming. The U.S. is projected to become the world’s biggest ethanol exporter by the end of the year. In the past, Congress has strongly supported the industry. Now it seems to be losing its enthusiasm. The catalyst is not long-standing doubts about its green credentials, or concerns that government intervention is distorting the market. Instead, as farming communities prosper while the rest of the country tries to stave off a recession, subsidies for the industry seem increasingly hard to defend. As part of our Environmental Outlook series we ask whether ethanol can retain the broad political support it has enjoyed for so long.
Guests
Bob Dinneen
president, Renewable Fuels Association
Sheila Karpf
legislative and policy analyst, Environmental Working Group
Chuck Abbott
commodities reporter, Reuters
Program Highlights
The U.S. produces more than half of the world's ethanol, yet the once strong political support for this bio-fuel is, for the first time, showing signs of waning. why does an industry that was once the darling of the renewal energy sector seems to be falling out of favor?
What Could Replace Ehtanol?
With technological and economic problems adding up for ethanol production, our guests discussed what alternatives to ethanol we should be considering. "We need to invest more in public transportation. We need to look at how to reduce gasoline consumption overall and increase energy efficiency. And we've also talked about putting money towards investment and research in truly advanced bio-fuels that reduce greenhouse gases, don't compete with the food supply, etc," said Sheila Karpf from Environmental Working Group.
The Political Climate Surrounding Ethanol
Chuck Abbott, Reuters News: "Probably the most consequential day for ethanol policy this year was June 16. That was the day the senate voted 73 to 27 to cut off the excise tax credit for ethanol. And on the same day the House was voting on the agriculture appropriations bill and it voted 283 to 128 to prohibit the agriculture department from using any of its money to install blender pumps." (Blender pumps are fuel pumps that can dispense mixtures of ethanol and gasoline up to 85 percent ethanol).
Concern About Ethanol Subsidies in an Era of Deficit Problems
The ethanol industry came forward earlier this year to say that they don't feel they need the federal subsidy in the form of tax credits. Bob Dineen, Renewable Fuels Association: "We said, you know, let the tax incentive expire. We do think that there are other things that the government ought to do in terms of encouraging investment in infrastructure and allowing investments in new technologies, new feed stocks to go, allowing the evolution of the industry to continue."
Ethanol and Food Supplies
According to Dineen, the corn that is used to produce ethanol is not suitable for food consumption. "We are only using the starch from that corn. What is left behind is a very high value, high protein feed that is then used to feed cattle, feed poultry, feed hogs and is adding to the feed supply." But Karpf disagreed: "We are currently using 40 percent of our corn crop for ethanol production...here in the U.S. we only spend about 10 percent of our income on food, but in developing countries that can be anywhere from 50 to 70 percent of their income being spent on food. And so even a small price increase for corn, wheat or other crops can make or break whether families are feeding themselves."
You can read the full transcript here.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Thanks in advance for taking a closer look at ethanol. Please see enchantingethanol.blogspot.com for links to articles on the dangers of ethanol.
Judge Grady's Verdict: I get much poorer gas mileage when I use ethanol diluted fuel. The world gets much poorer food mileage when arable land is destroyed to make fuel. Making fuel from food when about one quarter of Earth's population is already starving or chronically hungry is a crime against humanity. (We're running out of water: drill, drill, drill!)
Henry Ford first explored ethanol as a fuel for his vehicles. Why shouldn't we support a locally produced fuel alternative that eliminates the use of a messy, environmentally unfriendly product? If we had increased the production of Ethanol when Henry made the Model T, we wouldn't have experienced the fiascoes of the Exxon Valdez or the Gulf Oil Spills, we wouldn't feel the need to be involved with messy Middle Eastern Politics, and we wouldn't have had the insanity of $4.00 a gallon gasoline! Why is support waning? Follow the money, the world's Multi-National Corporations can't control the flow of corn.
As far as arguments about food versus fuel, most ethanol corn still produces animal feed and other by-products after the distilling process. Researchers at ADM and other corporations are improving and expanding the list of agricultural products that can produce Ethanol. And should worse come to worse- you can drink ethanol- you can't drink gasoline!
Unless you work for Cargill or ADM or live in Iowa, Nebraska or Illinois, you know that use of ethanol for automotive fuel is energetically wasteful. In simple terms, it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the ethanol produces when burned in an engine. Not to mention that ethanol destroys internals of gasoline engines.
Not to mention that we are taking food and burning it in a car.
Let's show the world that we understand both science and economics sufficiently to stop producing ethanol for consumption as a vehicle fuel.
IF we had increased production when Ford made the Model T? But, we didn't! So, engine technology was made to take advantage of the power potential in gasoline. As another has commented, mileage per gallon is lessened. Further, engine damage over time costs in terms of repairs and the lifetime of the engine itself. Your arguments re: the food vs. fuel question are spurious. Animal feed? Other by-products? Drink ethanol? Seriously? The bottom line is that as corn $ go up, farmers switch to growing it where they could otherwise be producing real food products. Never mind what it does to people in developing countries for whom corn is a staple in their diet. If we must use ethanol, why not from switchgrass and other non-food plants, as they do in Brazil?
The energy density of ethanol (BTU/Gallon) is less than qasoline. This results in lower miles per gallon on today's vehicles and will be an obstacle to increasing the MPG of automakers fleets to the level required. Also total costs to get a gallon of ethanol are more than total costs for a gallon of gasoline.
What I find disturbing about ethanol is the effect it has on small motor components, specifically for motorcycles, but also boat engines. The water content in hydrous ethanol causes damage to fuel system components like fuel lines, fuel pumps, and especially the very expensive to replace fuel tanks. Regular gasoline never did any of this...so what is it about ethanol-enhanced gasoline, or some additive to this gasohol, that cuases this damage?
Why r there no sugar cane production industries in the US? Isn't sugar cane easier to convert?
"Even better he(Paul Stamets) believes generating cellulose from mycelium to create a fuel known as ECONOL"
http://fryktinngytende.com/2008/02/29/econol-ted-concept/
I'd support an entire econol industry from start to station.
Some mushrooms weigh pounds but its the mycelium that is harvested, the roots, the hyphae? Can the mushroom be used?
Doesn't it take a gallon of gasoline to produce a gallon of ethanol?
It's simple to my wife and I: Corn based ethanol is a sham, big agribusiness is given tax breaks to market bio-engineered mono-crop corn, ethanol producers are propped up by subsidies, and frankly - the simple fact is that it does not make sense in that it takes as much, or more ENERGY (and CO2 emissions) to make the same amount of energy / fuel. Compare this to soy based bio-diesel or cane based ethanol and it's clearly a bogus technology that seems like another way to waste tax payer money.
Ethanol in fuel has caused huge problems for me in carbonated motorcycles, mowers, chain-saws, snow blowers and generators. Working with these small gas engines I am now using expensive fuel additives, and still having problems. This fuel has cost me over a thousand dollars in repairs in the past year alone. Anybody that says ethanol is not the cause is not operating equipment powered by small gas engines.
Bob,
If ethanol blended with gasoline is such a good idea, then let the market sort it out and see if it survives without billions in subsidies. Ditto for general agricultural subsidies, and for oil companies getting such money from taxpayers.
Pure and simple, the science does not support it.
Next you'll have us subsidizing the reduction of CO2 into gasoline......
I, too, have experienced lower mileage with ethanol. I live in Dallas, TX and year when the "summer" blends are forced upon us for the sake of cleaner air, my mpg drops appx 10%. I drive a Honda CR-V.
you got it man, 100% on target
How can people say ethanol reduces the price for the end user? The prius caller was totally correct- you have in your exhaust an oxygen sensor that tunes your air/fuel ratio to a chemical ideal called stoichiometry. For gasoline that ratio is 14.7/1 meaning for every 14.7 parts of air the computer injects 1 part gasoline. The ideal chemical ratio for ethanol is 9.8/1 so on straight ethanol the computer injects 1 part fuel for only every 9.8 parts of air. You will always get worse gas mileage with ethanol. As they continue to dilute our gas with ethanol(normal gas is now 10% ethanol) we will continue to require more gas whether crude or corn based, and continue to polute more.
Hydrogen fuel cells are the only reasonable way forward. Completely sustainable, 0 emissions, and a huge local job creator both in technology and infrastructure. Honda currently has a hydrogen fuel cell car for sale in california. Why are we not doing this?
I wonder if your guests could comment on the potential to transition from using cereal grains like corn to produce ethanol and to other sources like switch grass, sugar cane, and even algae. This would limit the problem of competition for food and land. Where are we at in moving in this direction?
corn is going to ethanol, with less corn for cattle many cattle farmers are ditching cattle production thus driving up the price of beef, while producing ethanol from sugar cane is easier and more produtive -- using sugar cane for ethanol would be better for the American waist line and the bottom line at the pump
Indiana has it's first ethanol production plant up and running and this plant is having to advertise to get farmers to sell it corn! are we reaching our limit on the amount of corn available for ethanol production?
cattle fed on corn and corn mash are not as healthy for humans as cattle fed on grass, humans fed on sugar cane are not as healthy as humans fed grass fed cattle -- use sugar cane for ethanol!!
I was under the impression that ethanol fuel burned cleaner and was better for engines. Is this true?
I drive a Ford Escape hybrid in Albuquerque. For air pollution reasons, the ethanol content in our gas is mandated to increase every October. Since my vehicle tracks its mpg continuously, I can state that more ethanol in the gas means a LOWER mpg. In low ethanol months, I range 37-40 mpg. In the high ethanol months, my mpg drops to 33-35 mpg. I support a balanced approach: eliminating/phasing out subsidies where the producers no longer need an incentive. This includes especially oil and gas, but also ethanol - especially corn based ethanol.
"Currently the dominant technology for direct production is steam reforming from hydrocarbons. Hydrogen is also produced as a byproduct of other processes and managed with hydrogen pinch.[1] Many other methods are known including electrolysis and thermolysis. The discovery and development of less expensive methods of production of bulk hydrogen is relevant to the establishment of a hydrogen economy.[2]"-wikipedia
Could we use a non-thermal reactor to make hydrogen?
"The non-thermal converters (whose output power is not a function of a temperature difference) extract a fraction of the incident energy as it is being degraded into heat rather than using thermal energy to run electrons in a cycle. Atomic batteries usually have an efficiency of 0.1–5%. High efficiency betavoltaics have 6–8%."
Has anyone discussed Monsanto & how GMO companies are profiting ridiculously from the ethanol scam? And why is a former Monsanto big suit on our FDA board & how that benefits this very evil company? Also, how Monsanto is part of the reason of big ag & the cost of food prices world-wide & the destruction GMO crops is creating in 3rd world countries due to corporate exploitation on Monsanto's part???
Would you prefer dirtier air? How about putting lead back in gasoline to boost the octane? We make trade offs in life and I do not mind paying a little more to reduce air pollution.
All the claims about ethanol adding to energy independence are exaggerated. We should be developing wind and solar technologies and electric cars instead of perpetuating the internal combustion engine.
Fossil fuels are sold in a global marketplace. The domestically produced oil/gas will go wherever the price is better. The U.S. absorbs the pollution and destruction of heavy industrial extraction and production and the fuels will be shipped abroad.
I am always disappointed when PBS airs comments by so-called "experts" who so often ignore extremely CRITICAL data, making the statement very misleading and DECEPTIVE, to the point of being FRAUDULENT.
1) People keep making statements about how ethanol may not "save" carbon, but that is WAY WAY misleading due to the HUGE impact it has on toxic polution that causes so many helath issues. Even 10% ethanol can reduce raw polution generated in a car engine by 50%.
2) people keep making very very misleading statements about energy density of gasoline compared to ethanol. a) The important thing is NOT energy density, but energy output capability. The gasoline engine was designed to use most of the energy density capability for COOLING, not for propulsion. b) the gasoline enginee cannot use its full energy density because the engine would run too hot=> huge polution. c) Today's cars do NOT have engines dessigned to run on ethanol but on gasoline. THAT is the reason for lower gas milage, NOT the energy desity of ethanol. Ethanol can run in a properly designed engine at MUCH loser temperature than Gasoline and still have 100% combustion, with theoretical 0% polution from the process. d) Ethanol engine can use parts mostly made of light weight materials like high temeprature "plastics." This substantial savings is never mentioned.
3) Many statements ignore the facts about corn. a) most corn grown in the US is NOT for human consumption, but for animal feed, an EXTREMELY inefficient process and very high generator of green house gasses. b) the same corn that is used for animal feed can be preprocessed to make alcohol and is then becomes MORE usable for animal feed => NOT wasted or used up. c) When ethanol is made to be used in an ETHANOL ENGINE rather than a gasoline engine then it does NOT have to be processed to 100% alcohol, and become MUCH less expensive to make.
Ethanol is economically fesible if you use the correct input: sugar beets or sugar cane. It's naturally high in sugar. Ever wonder why we're using corn instead? It's not becuase of physics, chemistry or biology.
You are missing the point=> the engine cannot physically operate efficiently on ethanol since it was designed for gasoline=> low compression ratio, very heavy metal parts, extremely inefficient operation in order to avoid burning up the engine. MUCH more than just changing the fuel to air ratio. An engine truly designed for ethanol ( if we can ever get rid of the multi trillion dollar oil industry and it lobbies) would run MUCH more efficiently and at lower cost. ALSO, the hidden costs of oil are things like history of "funding" terrorists => cost of some 2 to 3 TRILLION dollars and thousands of lives...
any 'engine' which wastes over 80 percent of 'energy' via waste(mostly heat)
is assinine
to continue for generations
not sublime
to expect any change
from the same
insane
3 weeks to homeless vet- million dollars in government funds gone to... hades?
WASTE yeap US meant to say waste !
PS US also with 'job's guy... techie, two languages(more if music and IT included), liked internet PRIOR to introduction of legal 'for profit' use... USed to say 'what a waste' when 'afst and rcappy' become more profitable than 'lifetime warranty'.
PPS for people too(WHAT A WASTE)... although US have been killing each other for centuriea(US gotta eat right?)
US hoping biology...
US lift trade embargo Cuba
and SA refugees to harvest FL
s w e e t
OR invade Brazil?
Gwanpa used to make fuel outta
corn too...
BUT the short term return on investment excellent... and legally they responsible to board/ stock owners SO required to
rape NOT sow...
huMANs acting irresponsibly and hiding ill got gains... AND gambling... US shall investigate immediately !