Corn ethanol
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 05-06-2009 - 7:02pm |
Democrats have loved ethanol for years, it is a green fuel. Republicans learned to love the high corn prices corn ethanol assured some constituants. Everyone was happy. Then today, I read the following story. Before posting the entire story, I've decided to post my favorite paragraph first.
"Ethanol is also bad for the environment. Science magazine published an article last year by Timothy Searchinger of Princeton University, among others, that concluded that biofuels cause deforestation, which speeds climate change. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration noted in July 2007 that the ethanol boom rapidly increased the amount of fertilizer polluting the Mississippi River. And this week, University of Minnesota researchers Yi-Wen Chiu, Sangwon Suh and Brian Walseth released a study showing that in California -- a state with a water shortage -- it can take more than 1,000 gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol. They warned that "energy security is being secured at the expense of water security."
The article is at - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000832377530477.html
In September, ethanol giant VeraSun Energy opened a refinery on the outskirts of this eastern Iowa community. Among the largest biofuels facilities in the country, the Dyersville plant could process 39 million bushels of corn and produce 110 million gallons of ethanol annually. VeraSun boasted the plant could run 24 hours a day, seven days a week to meet the demand for home-grown energy.
But the only thing happening 24-7 at the Dyersville plant these days is nothing at all. Its doors are shut and corn deliveries are turned away. Touring the facility recently, I saw dozens of rail cars sitting idle. They've been there through the long, bleak winter. Two months after Dyersville opened, VeraSun filed for bankruptcy, closing many of its 14 plants and laying off hundreds of employees. VeraSun lost $476 million in the third quarter last year.
A town of 4,000, Dyersville is best known as the location of the 1989 film "Field of Dreams." In the film, a voice urges Kevin Costner to create a baseball diamond in a cornfield and the ghosts of baseball past emerge from the ether to play ball. Audiences suspended disbelief as they were charmed by a story that blurred the lines between fantasy and reality.
That's pretty much the story of ethanol. Consumers were asked to suspend disbelief as policy makers blurred the lines between economic reality and a business model built on fantasies of a better environment and energy independence through ethanol. Notwithstanding federal subsidies and mandates that force-feed the biofuel to the driving public, ethanol is proving to be a bust.
In the fourth quarter of 2008, Aventine Renewable Energy, a large ethanol producer, lost $37 million despite selling a company record 278 million gallons of the biofuel. Last week it filed for bankruptcy. California's Pacific Ethanol lost $146 million last year and has defaulted on $250 million in loans. It recently told regulators that it will likely run out of cash by April 30.
How could this be? The federal government gives ethanol producers a generous 51-cent-a-gallon tax credit and mandates that a massive amount of their fuel be blended into the nation's gasoline supplies. And those mandates increase every year. This year the mandate is 11 billion gallons and is on its way to 36 billion gallons in 2022.
To meet this political demand, VeraSun, Pacific Ethanol, Aventine Renewable Energy and others rushed to build ethanol mills. The industry produced just four billion gallons of ethanol in 2005, so it had to add a lot of capacity in a short period of time.
Three years ago, ethanol producers made $2.30 per gallon. But with the global economic slowdown, along with a glut of ethanol on the market, by the end of 2008 ethanol producers were making a mere 25 cents per gallon. That drop forced Dyersville and other facilities to be shuttered. The industry cut more than 20% of its capacity in a few months last year.
What's more, as ethanol producers sucked in a vast amount of corn, prices of milk, eggs and other foods soared. The price of corn shot up, as did the price of products from animals -- chickens and cows -- that eat feed corn.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry reacted by standing with the cattlemen in his state to ask the Environmental Protection Agency last year to suspend part of the ethanol mandates (which it has the power to do under the 2007 energy bill). The EPA turned him down flat. The Consumer Price Index later revealed that retail food prices in 2008 were up 10% over 2006. In Mexico, rising prices led to riots over the cost of tortillas in 2007. The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization and other international organizations issued reports last year criticizing biofuels for a spike in food prices.
Ethanol is also bad for the environment. Science magazine published an article last year by Timothy Searchinger of Princeton University, among others, that concluded that biofuels cause deforestation, which speeds climate change. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration noted in July 2007 that the ethanol boom rapidly increased the amount of fertilizer polluting the Mississippi River. And this week, University of Minnesota researchers Yi-Wen Chiu, Sangwon Suh and Brian Walseth released a study showing that in California -- a state with a water shortage -- it can take more than 1,000 gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol. They warned that "energy security is being secured at the expense of water security."
For all the pain ethanol has caused, it displaced a mere 3% of our oil usage last year. Even if we plowed under all other crops and dedicated the country's 300 million acres of cropland to ethanol, James Jordan and James Powell of the Polytechnic University of New York estimate we would displace just 15% of our oil demand with biofuels.
But President Barack Obama, an ethanol fan, is leaving current policy in place and has set $6 billion aside in his stimulus package for federal loan guarantees for companies developing innovative energy technologies, including biofuels. It's part of his push to create "green jobs." Archer Daniels Midland and oil refiner Valero are already scavenging the husks of shuttered ethanol plants, looking for facilities on the cheap. One such facility may be the plant in Dyersville, which is for sale. Before we're through, we'll likely see another ethanol bubble.

Pages
Corn was never a particularly good source for ethanol.
"
Liberals have loved corn ethanol, truly. Others love the money corn ethanol makes them. Politicians love the power corn ethanol gives them.
Currently the One, is planning to mandate even more corn ethanol production. Ethanol is now on autopilot. We are going to see more and more of it, and more and more environmental degradation, global warming, and overall higher costs as a result.
Liberals started this monster, and I don't think anything is going to stop it.
It just goes to show you that a little bit of knowledge on a subject can be dangerous. Ethanol is HORRIBLE for the environment and also bad for our climate change. It's almost as bad as fossil fuels. But...our government....who always thinks they know best....and is usually ALWAYS wrong (as history has shown) will plow forward with this.
History will show that this will be a huge mistake. So much for saving the Polar Bears.
The backing of ethanol production was more a matter of region. The Corn Belt politicians, regardless of party, knew what side their bread was buttered on. Perry, on the other hand, had a vested interest in fossil fuels as the primary source of energy. Historically, Texas has been a big oil producer. Ditto Oklahoma. And there certainly isn't much corn grown in Alaska! Good idea to look at regional motives before making assumptions based solely on party affiliation.
Jury is still out on the net environmental impact of ethanol production; and whether or not ethanol is a net energy gain. A Cornell study seemed to indicate that ethanol is a net energy LOSS. That is to say, it takes more energy to cultivate an ethanol crop, process it into ethanol, then transport the ethanol to point of use; than is actually generated by burning the ethanol in an engine.
I think it's a daft idea to process and burn a food crop in internal combustion engines. In case nobody noticed, a heckuva lot of our food is corn-based (deliberately so according to Michael Pollan, to address the inflated cost of food and its production in the 1970's). Corn ethanol production is very very likely to drive food costs much higher, though in the long run, we may be better off in terms of physical health!
Moreover, ethanol production requires a significant amount of water. Many scientists and planners think that water supplies are not keeping up with demand, particularly in drought-stricken and arid regions.
Obama should take a second look at the ethanol question. It's not as sound an idea as might appear at first glance.
Jabberwocka
I've yet to read a post negative toward corn ethanol on any forum by a liberal.
I knew this was a boondoggle upon first looking into it.
The One has now taken charge on this issue, and will mandate ever more corn ethanol.
Interesting that you've never read a liberal badmouthing ethanol. I've posted all sorts of reservations and doubts about the stuff, long before Obama was elected. Even got into an argument of sorts with a conservative board leader who had problems grasping the concept of net energy loss/gain. Think this was back in 2004.
It's still early in the game to assume that Obama will succeed in moving biofuel forward when it's already had a checkered past.
Jabberwocka
Wrong. Liberals did NOT "start this monster". There were initiatives to support corn-based ethanol production well before the Democrats had majorities in Congress or a member of their party in the White House.
"St. Louis, MO --After years of waiting, a comprehensive energy bill including a strong renewable fuels standard (RFS) is within reach.
The Senate passed the bill Friday, July 29, by a vote of 74 to 26, which follows the House approval of the bill Thursday by a vote of 275 to 156.
Now, the bill goes onto President George W. Bush, who has said he will sign the legislation.
The bill contains a 7.5 billion gallon RFS, which was nearly the 8 billion gallons many were dreaming of.
"This is one of the most significant votes on national energy policy in over a decade," National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) President,Leon Corzine said.
"Not since 1992 has the United States Congress enacted a comprehensive national energy policy.
"We are delighted that this legislation promotes more diverse and domestically based energy sources and we are particularly happy that this bill will expand the use of domestic renewable fuels," said Corzine.
"Everyone wins with the Energy Policy Act of 2005."
The RFS schedule calls for 4 billion gallons of ethanol being blended into the nation's fuel supply in 2006, increasing to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012."
http://tinyurl.com/dlnww6
Look at the date of the link: July 2005.
And you might want to take a gander at the GOP platform of 2008:
"We must continue to develop alternative fuels, such as biofuels, especially cellulosic ethanol, and hasten their technological advances to next-generation production. As America develops energy technology for the 21st century, policy makers must consider the burden that rising food prices and energy costs create for the poor and developing nations around the world. Because alternative fuels are useless if vehicles cannot use them, we must move quickly to flexible fuel vehicles; we cannot expect necessary investments in alternative fuels if this flexibility does not become standard. We must also produce more vehicles that operate on electricity and natural gas, both to reduce demand for oil and to cut CO2 emissions."
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Energy.htm
Hmmmm.....that sounds rather remarkably like what Obama is backing, does it not?!
Jabberwocka
I know, I know
I know, I know
Pages