Filed under: Energy — marc moore on May 11, 2008 @ 3:40 pm CEST
The New York Times gets it right:
The time has come for Congress to rethink ethanol, an alternative fuel that has lately fallen from favor. Specifically, it is time to end an outdated tax break for corn ethanol and to call a timeout in the fivefold increase in ethanol production mandated in the 2007 energy bill.
The situation is actually worse than that. It would have been better to say that ethanol has recent found favor, in spite of all logic. At any rate, we need to do far better than grain-based alcohol when it comes to replacing foreign oil.
(via memeorandum)
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
1 daveinboca
May 11, 2008 @ 11:27 pm CESTEspecially corn [or maize] based alcohol. This was a ginormous con by Sen. Dole on behalf of Archer Daniel Midlands & other consortia with a rock-solid base of nearly forty corn-maize growing states.
Even the Brazilian version using cane sugar is hardly efficient, and the ethanol production robs Peter to pay Paul—a transformation of money in an equibalance of energy, as it takes about as much energy to produce ethanol as the product expends in the gas tank.
A classic educational exercise in the law of unintended consequences.
2 Tully
May 12, 2008 @ 12:22 am CESTThe "takes more energy than it gives" line is a myth, and even if true would be irrelevant in most cases, as the claim omits the overall economics of ethanol fuel production in calculating the energy balance. Grain ethanol shows a definite energy balance gain, and an energy production "profit" is still a gain, a boost in fuel usage efficiency. Like trading a dollar bill for six quarters, you win.
Another major point to consider in the energy balance consideration is that the goal here is portable fuel. If it takes three units of stationary energy to produce one unit of portable energy, so what? What is the cost of the stationary energy input? Say the energy involved in production is largely nuclear, wind, or solar, not a single one of which is a portable source and the latter two of which are near-free and non-polluting. What does it matter how much windmill spinning is required to produce a gallon of ethanol, or how many watts a solar still absorbs while distilling it?
All that said, Brazilian sugar cane ethanol makes sense–for Brazil. Completely different cost-efficiency-resource structure. But in general grain ethanol is at best only a partial substitution for America, not a replacement. Cellulosic ethanol show much greater promise as a sustainable alt-fuel. Grain ethanol was indeed foisted ito the political structure as a "desirable" alternate only because of the frm-state and Big Ag politics involved.
3 Patrick Murphy
May 12, 2008 @ 1:06 am CESTAll arguments pro and con in the EtOH arena, has anybody looked at the National Ignition Facility website maintained by Lawrence Livermore Labs? If this thing is real then the future will get really interesting in terms of energy production! Google it (National Ignition Facility,) and have a look.