Ethanol Conspiracy Theories Ignore Fuel's Legitimate Shortcomings
|
| Posted
:
Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:04:39 GMT |
| Author
:
Institute for Energy Research |
| Category
:
Press Release |
| News
Alerts by Email click
here ) |
|
|
|
News |
Home
|
|
|
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Yesterday, Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dineen issued a statement urging Congress to pump billions of subsidies into ethanol. Dineen's rhetoric begs lawmakers to create an artificial market for ethanol, build the extra infrastructure needed for transport, and condemns anyone who speaks about its shortcomings as part of a "coordinated offensive of mistruths". These statements undermine the effort to have a serious debate about the right way to diversify our energy sources and increase America's energy security. The ethanol industry has been getting super-sized subsidies for more than two decades. Throughout that time, cellulosic ethanol has always been "right around the corner." We should be looking to innovators and entrepreneurs to develop the next great technological breakthroughs in energy -- not to lobbyists seeking more handouts in Washington.
Despite Dineen's accusation of an "insidious campaign" by the fossil fuels industry against biofuels, there are a myriad of legitimate concerns about ethanol. Those concerns include, but are not limited to, ethanol's effect on food prices, its huge water demands, and its overall financial cost. (For more on this see the recent Wall Street Journal editorial, "Ethanol's Water Shortage".)
The Institute for Energy Research supports energy diversity, tapping into the most efficient traditional, alternative, and renewable sources capable of sustaining themselves in a free market, including using ethanol as a gasoline blend. However, propping up less efficient producers with endless subsidies and mandating production of biofuels will not increase our energy security, and will likely produce a host of negative unintended consequences.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration believes that the practical limit for domestic ethanol production is about 13.8 billion gallons by 2030, or about 7 percent of the transportation fuels market (Annual Energy Outlook 2007). Mandating the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022 will require a fleet of flex-fuel vehicles, but currently, less than one percent of retail stations sell E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.
According to IER Adjunct Scholar Jerry Taylor, virtually all studies show that greenhouse gases associated with ethanol are about the same as those associated with conventional gasoline once the entire life cycle of the two fuels are compared. Further, as more land is harnessed for corn production, less fertile soils will be brought into production, requiring more energy intensive inputs into the corn production process, primarily in the form of increased use of fertilizers and irrigation.
"As we re-open previously dormant land to produce corn for ethanol -- we may be unwittingly emitting tons of carbon dioxide with simple land-use changes," warned Amy Kaleita, assistant professor of agriculture and bioengineering at Iowa State University. Such a massive increase in corn production for ethanol poses other serious environmental risks emerging in the so-called "Dead Zones" in the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay.
Dineen claims that we are close to making cellulosic ethanol a reality, but Robert Bryce, a fellow with the Institute for Energy Research, wrote, "cellulosic ethanol is akin to the tooth fairy: it's an entity that many believe in, but no one ever actually sees. There are plenty of believers in cellulosic ethanol, but there's no reason to expect that the industry will be able to grow fast enough." ("The Senate's Ethanol Delusion," Energy Tribune).
These are legitimate concerns that require serious thought before Congress mandates the use of billions of gallons of renewable fuels. The breakthroughs in technology necessary to produce new energy sources will come from entrepreneurs and innovators. Academic energy experts are researching and evaluating the best options to secure a robust supply of energy well into America's future. The free market should pick the next great technology, not the lawmakers and lobbyists on Capitol Hill.
The Institute for Energy Research (IER) (http://www.energyrealism.org/) was founded in 1989 to conduct historical research and evaluate public policies in the oil, gas, coal, and electricity markets. Click here for more information (http://factsonenergy.com/).
Institute for Energy Research
|
Copyright © 2008
PR Newswire. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Flexi-Fuel Cell
By:
Jeff Baker ,
Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:44:12 GMT |
|
Acumentrics - winner of the 2007 New England Innovation Award - has developed a fuel cell that is twice as efficient and runs on natural gas, propane, ethanol, diesel, biogas, and biodiesel.
|
|
BS
By:
Duane ,
Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:26:13 GMT |
|
This is a typical article by the anti-biofuel crowd
|
|
Get the whole picture - not a bias - slanted view
By:
Jeff Baker ,
Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:11:12 GMT |
|
Regarding subsidies, every gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel you buy is heavily subsidized, even while oil companies make record breaking multi-billion dollar profits. The subsidies we pay on OIL BASED fuel is six times higher than what we pay on ethanol and bio-diesel. Sixty percent of our gasoline and diesel fuel is made from imported foreign oil, which we pay for mostly with IOUs. The interest we pay on our 9 Trillion Dollar National Debt, to the privately owned Federal Reserve Corporation (collected by the IRS) is for deficit spending and for our $800 Billion Annual Trade Deficit. This debt is accumulating at a rate we cannot sustain. The U.S. runs a trade deficit with oil producing countries. Since our money is backed by NOTHING, we pay for deficit foreign oil with IOUs, and they trade them for American stocks, real estate, and Government Bonds, which we pay interest on. Americans go into debt to buy foreign oil. When you buy gasoline or diesel fuel, there is a HIDDEN COST. When tax time comes around, you will also pay floating interest on up to 60 percent of the fuel you bought – on the portion that was made from imported oil, paid for with a debt instrument. An increasing proportion of your tax dollars are going toward paying floating interest, as we go deeper and deeper into debt to buy foreign oil with government bonds. Buy E-85, and you are paying only 9 percent or less for floating interest on imported oil. Buy 100 percent domestically produced bio-diesel or pure ethanol, and pay zero interest. Eliminate foreign oil entirely, and you will pay no more floating interest on new fuel. There are some good reasons to support domestic bio-fuels. We would be in a recession if it wasn’t for the money being invested in the thriving bio-fuels industry. Instead of creating debt, subsidizing ethanol and bio-diesel creates jobs, stimulates our economy, and generates County, State, and Federal tax revenue. Money back in your pocket. Do the math. We are now spending roughly $250 Billion a year to protect our oil interests abroad. Add that to the price of gasoline, diesel fuel, and your airline ticket. Would you rather pay a price fixing Cartel and hostile foreign governments for your fuel? Or would you prefer to support the American Farmers who feed you? Nobody expects corn ethanol to be our savior. It’s only a stepping stone to something bigger and better. There are alternative feedstocks being developed that yield 3 to 4 times more fuel per acre than corn, on much less water and fertilizer. Regardless of the temporary shortcomings of corn ethanol, the biofuels industry has a very bright future. With the advanced technology that is coming, we will soon be energy independent.
|
|
|
|
|