Reply
Thu 20 Nov, 2003 05:50 pm
From a comment on another thread I started thinking about ethanol and what it really does. As a alternative fuel and less poluting it was admired by the liberal factions in congress as well as ecological oriented organizations. And now is being pushed by the Bush admin in the current Energy Bill(certainly a boon to the midwest states growing corn, any votes in that?) anyway after doing some googling past the many pages promoting ethanol by growers and marketers, I ran across this:
Quote:Encyclopedia for Physical Sciences and Technology in September, says that producing ethanol is more trouble than it's worth: 131,000 British thermal units of energy are required to produce one gallon of ethanol, but a gallon will only give you about 77,000 Btu of fuel energy.
In other words, producing ethanol results in a net loss of energy.
Quote:The (Energy) bills also include a renewable-fuel standard that requires increasing use of ethanol to 5 billion gallons by either 2012 or 2015, depending on the bill. This year's ethanol use is expected to be 2.7 billion gallons
.
the flip side:
Quote:This increased use of ethanol would cut America's dependence on foreign petroleum by reducing crude oil imports by 1.6 billion barrels over the next decade, according to Monte Shaw, Renewable Fuels' communications director. Shaw said 214,000 jobs would be created to grow the additional corn and process the needed ethanol, and farmers would receive an additional $6 billion in annual revenues
I'm voting for bull. Take away the subsidies, and the juice is just too expensive, and aside from the net loss of energy you cite, the fermentation process produces enormous quantities of carbon dioxide. Archer Daniels Midland has a great lobby, don't they?
I have often wondered if turnips, sugar beets, or potatos would give a greater yield. If so, would they be as well promoted, given the ADM interest in corn crops?
Some gasoline marketers sold it an ethanol/gasoline mix beginning in the late 70's, it was bad because gaskets and other seals in automobile engines weren't designed for the chemical effect the ethanol had on them.
In the 80's it reappeared, ethanol was cheap and Chevron even built a plant to produce it, but the market never caught and they lost big money on that plant.
The late 80's most cars could burn the mix and some marketrers sold it. They got a tax brake form the federal government for selling it, and it was still cheap. Soon the price began to rise and fall as crude oil does, and during the Clinton admin. there was a push to deem it an environmental friendly fuel because it burns cleaner.
For whatever reason, that wasn't approved and the tax break was abolished removing any incentive for it to be marketed.
Brand X, so why is it being mandated by the Bush energy bill?
dys, I have no idea, I haven't paid attention to that stuff in years. I'll do some digging.
I think they're trying to kill two birds with one stone. Reintroducing ethanol is apparently a good replacement for MTBE to control vapors etc. and it burns clean, so clean air is not traded for bad water. Of course it will be a shot in the arm to corn growers, farmers will be happy.
It will be mandated in cities that fall under the attainment rule, which are the high polluting large cities like NY, L.A., Atlanta etc. I'm sure the oil companies do not want to see this because in those areas they will automatically sell less petroleum. It will also reduce our dependance on foriegn oil somewhat.
That's what I got, dys.
thanks, its a puzzlement to me.
According to the Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol industry can currently produce over 2 billion gallons per year. With 34 existing ethanol plants undergoing expansions, eight new plants under construction, and over 40 additional plants scheduled to break ground soon, the ethanol industry expects to have an additional 300 million gallons of production capacity on line by the end of this year. By the end of 2003, U.S. annual ethanol production capacity is expected to increase by 1.5 billion gallons per year to reach 3.5 billion gallons.
Appeasment?
Could it be a little deal with the major agri-biz?
Texas is one of the two states most threatened by the outflow from MTBE pollution.
Here are a couple of MTBE stories. You decide which, if any, is relevant to the current decisions:
Quote:ANALYSIS-U.S. MTBE bans could disrupt Europe gasoline flows
Reuters, 11.18.03, 7:57 AM ET
LONDON, Nov 18 (Reuters) - An impending ban on gasoline blendstock MTBE in some parts of the United States could hamper Europe's ability to supply U.S. gasoline during peak summer demand and drive up U.S. prices next year, traders and industry sources said on Tuesday.
http://www.forbes.com/business/newswire/2003/11/18/rtr1151583.html
Quote:Energy bill would limit lawsuits on pollution against MTBE makers
WASHINGTON -- The South Tahoe water district won $69 million from oil companies this year to settle lawsuits for fouling drinking water with MTBE, but other water districts would lose that right under an energy bill that is poised to clear Congress this week.
http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories2003/state/20031118234142.shtml
Quote:Energy bill would help Texas MTBE producers
SUZANNE GAMBOA
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The energy bill has created a classic face-off between Texas and New York over the gasoline additive MTBE, whose producers are largely based in the Houston area.
The legislation, approved by the House on Tuesday, provides liability protection from lawsuits for MTBE producers. It phases out MTBE use over several years, replacing it with corn-produced ethanol.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7293890.htm
Quote:Filibuster vowed over energy bill's MTBE provision
Senators are angered by immunity against gas-additive suits.
By David Whitney -- Bee Washington Bureau
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Wednesday, November 19, 2003
WASHINGTON -- Senators angered by a sweeping energy package that immunizes manufacturers of the controversial gasoline additive MTBE from defective-product lawsuits are organizing to filibuster the measure, which easily cleared the House Tuesday.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/7812666p-8753552c.html
Tart, I realize the objections re MTBE, what I am curious about is the replacement/mandate of the use of Ethanol, which, from the post I made above, appears to be a non-starter as it takes more energy to produce it then it produces. On the surface at least, it appears to only be good for corn production (read ArcherDanielsMidland).
Re: corn, is it all bull?
dyslexia wrote:Quote:Encyclopedia for Physical Sciences and Technology in September, says that producing ethanol is more trouble than it's worth: 131,000 British thermal units of energy are required to produce one gallon of ethanol, but a gallon will only give you about 77,000 Btu of fuel energy.
In other words, producing ethanol results in a net loss of energy.
[/quote]
Producing most of our energy results in a net loss of energy. Ethanol production results in a net loss of 35%. Gasoline production is currently at a 15% loss.
(I'm not meaning to imply that both are acceptable but only to point out that the last line in the original quote can be misleading. It's the sizeable difference in the loss that they were pointing to as the problem.)
A great deal of ethanol supplemented gasoline is sold in Ohio, and some gas stations now have pumps for the 85% stuff, with special nozzles for use only in engines designed for its use. Iowa, Illinois and Indiana produce more corn than the rest of the world combined. Corn is grown in nearly every state, and in southern Canada. I don't wonder that its got a strong lobby.
Tentatively, I'm going to challange Brand X's assertation that the subsidy has been removed. I quickly found
ethanol subsidies and other sources. It may be that there used to be a subsidy paid directly to producers, which was removed. At present, my understanding is that the blenders, not producers, receive a tax credit of .54 per gallon of ethanol used in the blending process.
The site you linked states that gasohol cost more than gasoline at the pump, if so something definitely happened to the cost of it between now and the late 80's to early 90's when it was marketed very competitively, and often cheaper that gasoline.
That's my recollection as well. Well, I thought the subsidy was still in effect and, to be honest, when my first two hits confirmed my belief, I quit looking.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace