The facts elaborated on in the following article have been obvious, known, and discussed on this blog and elsewhere since its inception. Maybe, finally, our current worldwide economic depression and enforced belt-tightening is bringing some common sense to our energy policies. Let's hope so. The public ought to be outraged at this waste; are you?
Let's hope this same common sense prevails this coming November and those pushing this "green energy boondoogle" find themselves out of office.
Peter
Green Energy Is a Financial Parasite
source: Casey Research subscribers@caseyresearch.com
Any politician who talks of a green, utopian US - where wind and solar produce most of our energy, electric cars put power back into the grid, green fields of corn produce clean fuels, and millions of Americans work in green technology factories - is creating a fanciful vision so far detached from reality it should really be called a lie. Such tales are designed to encourage a public that is increasingly despondent about the future, but the policy moves that have been made in support of these fantasies have cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Much of it is money that will not be repaid, because a whole whack of the companies and industries that accepted green grants, loan guarantees, and tax credits have turned out to be complete failures. (e.g. Solyndra)
Two green subsidies expired with 2011, and not a moment too soon. In fact, we wish more of the US government's initiatives to support green energy had ended with the stroke of midnight, because the green energy industry has become completely dependent on a steady stream of government money. Protected by this "green gold," green technologies from corn ethanol to solar power have not had to compete against other power sectors based on their merits. If they had, many would have already failed.
Let's a take tour through some of the US's green subsidies and examine just how they have tipped the scales in favor of technologies that generally don't stand the test of economics, are often worse for the environment than conventional methods, and are costing taxpayers dearly.
There's nothing good about corn ethanol fuel
On New Year's Eve the corn ethanol subsidy quietly expired, 30 years after it was implemented. In those three decades ethanol became the US's top recipient of alternative-fuel funding, with corn ethanol in particular becoming the darling of the biofuels craze. As a darling should be, the industry was showered with money: Over the last 30 years the federal government has spent $45 billion supporting corn-ethanol producers. In 2011 alone the feds spent $6 billion on corn ethanol subsidies, equating to 45¢ for every gallon of ethanol. Even with that support, US corn ethanol was not able to compete with Brazilian ethanol, which is made from sugar cane. To rectify that, lawmakers instituted a 54¢-per-gallon tariff against the Brazilian product. Together, the 45¢ subsidy and the 54¢ tariff meant American-made corn ethanol was supported to the tune of almost $1 per gallon.
That would be great were ethanol a good way to reduce greenhouse gases, lower energy costs, or increase US energy independence. Unfortunately, it fails on all of those fronts. A growing left-right coalition has been speaking out against ethanol as a fuel for some time now; the latest voice to join the chorus is none other than the National Academy of Sciences. In October, NAS researchers concluded that grain ethanol "could not compete with fossil fuels in the U.S. marketplace without mandates, subsidies, tax exemptions, and tariffs... This lack of competitiveness raises questions about the use of government resources to support biofuels." The report went on to discuss how biofuels actually increase net carbon emissions: pumping energy-intensive row crops into gas tanks leads to land use changes that increase greenhouse gases.
Continuing down the list of ethanol-as-a-fuel failures, it turns out ethanol is very tough on vehicles - a bill to allow gasoline to contain 15% ethanol (compared to the max 10% now allowed) was shot down after every major automaker said that much ethanol would cause significant engine corrosion. Then there's the fact that corn ethanol subsidies also generated a host of painful side effects. One is literally making us fatter: widespread use of high fructose corn syrup. Starting in the mid-1980s farmers realized that, even when sale prices for corn were low, the government's largess meant it was still worthwhile to grow the stuff. More and more corn was grown, beyond what could be consumed by people or livestock or made into fuel. What were producers to do with the rest of it? Make high fructose corn syrup, a sweetener that is now in hundreds of thousands of products and that contributes thousands of empty calories to the average American diet every week.
So ethanol is uneconomic unless the government spends billions of taxpayer dollars supporting it, worse for the atmosphere than fossil fuels, and really hard on engines, while the support system to encourage corn-based ethanol production is contributing to the US obesity epidemic. Why, then, is ethanol even used in fuel? Because of all those government subsidies and mandates. After major lobbying efforts from the agricultural and biofuels industries, Congress mandated annual increases in use of renewable fuels, including ethanol, starting with 15 billion gallons in 2007 and growing to 36 billion gallons in 2022.
So fuel makers have to include ethanol in their mixtures. Too bad that rule did not also expire.
Electric vehicles: expensive toys that basically burn coal instead of oil
Another lesser-known tax break also expired with 2011: the credit that gave electric car owners up to $1,000 to defray the cost of installing a 220-volt charging device in their homes, or up to $30,000 to install one in a commercial location. A related subsidy that did not end still gives $7,500 in tax credits to purchasers of electric vehicles. For a variety of reasons, like the ethanol subsidy none of these incentives should have existed in the first place.
Electric vehicles have failed on one front after another. To start, they are inordinately expensive - the much-lauded Chevy Volt costs $40,000, while the Karma from Fisker costs a whopping $100,000. This means electric vehicles are only affordable for the wealthy; it's pretty hard to understand why American taxpayers should subsidize cars for the wealthiest members of society. The subsidies go beyond direct tax credits and rebates - government loans and grants in support of the Volt alone total $3 billion, which means each car produced to date has been subsidized to the tune of $250,000. (Volt supporters contest this number, saying subsidies only total $30,000 per vehicle... still not an insignificant amount.)
Then, for all that money, you still can only drive short distances. The Volt's official range is 30 miles, but reports show it can actually travel only 25 miles before needing to either recharge or switch to gasoline. There's also the issue that electric vehicles still need power, and the electricity that charges their batteries comes primarily from the US power grid, to which the largest contributor is coal-fired power plants. As such, a Volt essentially burns coal instead of gasoline, at least for the 25 miles it can drive before switching to gas.
At least coal is a domestic resource, compared to gasoline derived from imported crude oil, right? Well, let's see just how much electric vehicles will reduce US oil consumption. Assuming there are 6 million of them on American roads in ten years, out of 300 million passenger vehicles, and assuming that passenger vehicles continue to account for 40 to 45% of total US oil consumption, in ten years these tens of billions of dollars spent to support electric vehicles will have reduced US oil consumption by less than 1%. When you add in the fact that lithium-ion batteries are pretty toxic items, and that coal- or natural-gas-derived electricity demands will go up with each electric vehicle, the case for electric vehicles becomes pretty darn weak. (weak? pathetic!)
Solar and wind power: a financial sinkhole
Electric vehicles and corn ethanol fuel are not the only green industries that have been producing pitiful returns on government investment: Solar and wind power are just as guilty of eating up huge subsidies and still failing to break even economically.
Let's start with an example - one that was highlighted in a recent New York Times article. NRG Energy is building a 250-MW solar project in San Luis Obispo Country (northwest of Los Angeles), known as California Valley Solar Ranch. The ranch's one million solar panels will provide enough energy for 100,000 homes, but it will cost $1.6 billion to build. Most of those dollars are coming from government subsidies or low-interest loans.
All told, NGR and its partners secured $5.2 billion in federal loan guarantees plus hundreds of millions in other subsidies for four large solar projects. The crazy thing is, the government is giving out these grants and loans despite information from its own researchers that solar power is uneconomic now and will remain so in the future. The US Energy Information Administration predicts that by 2016 the total cost of solar photovoltaic energy will be about $211 per megawatt-hour, compared to $63 for an advanced natural-gas combined-cycle power plant.
Just as with corn ethanol, it's the taxpayer who bears the brunt of this obsession with expensive solar power. The main federal subsidy currently covers 30% of the cost of a residential solar system. When other subsidies are added in, as much as 75% of the cost can be covered. Obama's administration has spent $9.6 billion on solar and wind power through the Section 1603 Treasury grant program over the last few years.
With that kind of support, it's no wonder America is in love with solar power. In 2011, solar installations skyrocketed, with 1,700 MW installed during the year, an 89% increase over 2010. Still, all of the panels now installed across the nation produce only about as much electricity as a single coal-fired plant. And even with demand growing rapidly, the industry is awash in debt and bankruptcy.
US solar manufacturers are being pushed out of the market by low-cost Chinese manufacturers, which get even more support from their government than Obama gives to American producers. In California, for example, Chinese producers held 29% of the market at the beginning of 2011; by the end of the third quarter they had grown their market share to 40%, while US manufacturers saw their share fall from 37% to 29%. And with the Chinese flooding the market with cheap solar panels, prices for solar panels fell by 40% in 2011.
Falling prices for solar panels and dwindling market shares forced three US solar companies into bankruptcy in 2011 and recently necessitated staff cutbacks at another two companies. This is all happening despite billions in loan guarantees to these companies. First Solar, for example, took $3 billion in loan guarantees from the federal government to develop three solar farms in Arizona and California. Now the company is cutting half of its staff, including 60 jobs in California where it received $3 million in state sales tax credits.
Of course, the most notable solar bankruptcy of 2011 was Solyndra, the California-based company that went bankrupt months after receiving a loan guarantee of $535 million from the US government and despite increased demand for solar panels in the country following implementation of state mandates for solar energy.
And things are about to get a lot tougher for struggling solar panel producers in the US, because the 1603 program expired on January 1. When you add up grants, subsidies, loans, and tax credits that have been helping the solar and wind industries along, then add in mandates that require utilities to buy renewable power at set prices from the alternative energy producers for decades, you are left with an industry that is wholly dependent on taxpayers, not on its own technology's capabilities. Forced to go it alone in the power industry, solar and wind producers are not going to survive.
Leveling the playing field
In chasing the green power dream, the US is not alone. In fact, it trails several European countries in the effort. Germany and Denmark have the largest installed bases of alternative energy in Europe and are often held aloft as examples of how to encourage wind and solar power. Proponents usually stay mum on the fact that retail customers in Germany and Denmark pay the highest electricity rates in the European Union.
It is true that progress is never easy and is often expensive. From that pulpit, advocates argue that continued investment in green technologies will drive prices down in the long run. However, this reasoning ignores the other side of the problem: solar and wind can never produce baseload energy. The average wind plant in the United States runs at about one-third of its rated capacity, while solar plants runs at about 25% of their nameplate capacity. Since there is no way to store large amounts of electricity, the variable outputs from solar and wind facilities will only ever be able to replace a modest amount of conventional baseload power.
When you look at green subsidies on an energy production basis, the disparity becomes pretty stunning. Wind's 5.6 cents per kilowatt hour is more than 85 times that of oil and gas. Solar power costs 13 times more than wind, making solar more than a thousand times more expensive than conventional fuels.
Wind and solar power, corn ethanol, and electric vehicles are not infant industries in need of support. They are perennially inferior industries that only still exist in their current forms because of a constant stream of "green gold."
That stream is slowly drying up, thankfully. The only way to achieve the very admirable goal of transforming society into an energy-efficient space is to eliminate all of the subsidies that are currently directed at green energy and clean technology while increasing taxes on the things we are trying to minimize, such as gasoline consumption and plastic bags. That would force everyone to innovate, compete, and win or lose according to merit.
Showing posts with label ethanol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethanol. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Monday, March 16, 2009
Obama's Energy Policy: The Blind Leading The Blind
The picture could not be any more clear than it is. Our dependence on foreign oil can not be eliminated by producing more ethanol, or building more windmills, or installing more solar panels. The magnitude of our energy needs makes these solutions just a literal drop in the bucket. It does not take a PhD. Economist to see this. The numbers are there for everyone to see. I'm afraid I agree with what the following writer (and many others) is saying. The U.S. is setting the stage for higher energy prices, more dependence on foreign energy supplies, and more economic hardship. GP
March 13, 2009
Obama's energy policy will increase dependence on foreign oil
By Seldon B. Graham, Jr. (source)
President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy is on a collision course to a national catastrophe. Yet, the alarms are not sounding and the red lights are not flashing.
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is not warning Obama that his oil policy will increase our dependence on foreign oil.
Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Administration, is not alerting the President that his oil policy will increase carbon dioxide emissions.
National Security Advisor James L. Jones is not cautioning the President that his biofuel and oil policy increases the US vulnerability to a Second Arab Oil Embargo.
Christina Roner of the Council of Economic Advisors is not counseling Obama that his biofuel policy continues a 30-year-old blunder wasting taxpayers multiple billions of dollars annually.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is not warning the President that his biofuel policy is doomed to failure because of the impossibility of providing sufficient bio products.
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar is not advising Obama that his tax on oil will destroy proven US oil reserves.
Why aren’t the alarms sounding and the red lights flashing? It is probably because of the lack of knowledge and experience on these specific subjects by the new appointees. All must be given benefit of any doubt that their duty and loyalty lies with the United States of America instead of their political party or its head.
President Obama’s energy policy is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil imports by eliminating oil and replacing oil with alternative renewable “clean” biofuel. That sounds good in speeches. It is quite impressive to all those who know little about oil or biofuels, which includes the majority of the public. The devil, of course, is in the details which no one seems to have investigated.
Ethanol subsidies began in 1979. Ethanol has had 30 years of taxpayer-assisted experience. Ethanol is the only “feasible” alternative renewable biofuel in the competition. All other biofuels lack the production potential that ethanol has.
According to the latest data from the Renewable Fuels Association, ethanol production is currently averaging 0.60 million barrels per day. At the subsidy of 51¢ per gallon, this amount of ethanol production costs taxpayers over $4 Billion in 2008.
The ethanol future looks much worse. The “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” required maximum ethanol production of 2.35 million barrels per day by 2022. But, this amount of ethanol production will require the entire corn crop in the US, every kernel of corn.
According to Professor Chris Hurt of Purdue, in 2006 the US had about 79 million acres of corn. Professor Richard Meilan of Purdue estimates that one acre of corn will produce 450 gallons which is 10.7 barrels of ethanol. Using all of the corn crop land in the US for ethanol — no movie popcorn, no corn syrup sweetener, no bourbon, no tortillas, no grits, no corn to eat at all — ethanol production can reach only 845 million barrels in 2022, or 2.31 million barrels per day.
Department of Energy data shows that the US is producing 4.95 million barrels of oil per day and importing 9.00 million barrels of foreign oil per day. Including the 0.60 million barrels of ethanol per day, our current oil demand is 14.55 million barrels per day.
US oil production has been declining since 1985. This decline is almost ruler straight. By 2022, it is estimated that US oil production would be approximately 3 million barrels per day. Therefore, in year 2022, ethanol production is expected to be 2.3 million barrels per day and US oil production is expected to be 3.0 million barrels per day, for a combined total of 5.3 million barrels per day. That leaves a shortfall of 9.25 million barrels of oil per day from our current oil demand — to be filled by foreign oil imports. Even assuming there is no increase in demand in the next 13 years, foreign oil imports will be greater in 2022 than they are now. Attention Secretary Chu!
A Department of Energy study made by Decision Analysis Corporation shows that ethanol emits 28.7 grams more carbon dioxide per mile driven than gasoline. Ethanol is not the “clean” biofuel that President Obama thinks it is. The Department of Transportation estimates that 2,656 billion vehicle miles were traveled in the US last year. Ethanol would put millions of tons more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as compared to gasoline. Attention Administrator Jackson!
In 1972, foreign oil imports were 811 million barrels, 19% of demand, the year before the devastating Arab Oil Embargo. Currently, foreign oil imports are at a rate of 3.3 billion barrels annually, 62% of current demand, and are expected to increase in the future. Attention General Jones!
Ethanol subsidies of 51¢ a gallon are $21.42 per barrel. In 2022, when ethanol production is expected to reach its maximum of 845 million barrels annually, the taxpayers would pay over $18 billion dollars for this 15.8% of the current oil demand. Clearly, taxpayers would not be getting a reasonable bang for the buck. Attention Economist Roner!
The United States just has so much crop land. It is a finite number of acres. In 2006, Professor Hurt estimated that it was 79 million acres for corn. Encroachment from development and improvements may have eaten away at some of this. There is an absolute limit on the maximum production of an annual crop such as corn which is determined by acreage. This limit, of course, can be reduced by flood or drought. Removing corn from the food supply by reaching maximum ethanol production is an extremely serious related issue. Attention Secretary Vilsack!
All oil wells decrease in production. Each oil well has an “economic limit” defined as the number of barrels of oil per day which is required to keep the well from losing money. This economic limit determines the life of the well and the proven oil reserves for the well. The equation for the economic limit of an oil well is the daily operating cost divided by one minus the tax times one minus the royalty times the oil price. The economic limit of an oil well is determined by entering the daily operating cost, tax, royalty, and oil price into the equation. A higher tax on oil raises the economic limit, decreasing the life of the well, resulting in decreased proven oil reserves. With an equivalent loss occurring in each of the half million oil wells in the United States, the loss in proven oil reserves to the United States from an increase in tax on oil can be in the billions of barrels. Attention Secretary Salazar and Economist Roner!
Why isn’t there outrage, if not rioting in the street, over this oil and biofuel policy of the Obama administration? Is it because the domestic oil industry -- what little is left after Jimmy Carter -- is cowering in the corner in fear, waiting for the coup de grace?
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the only national organization representing the domestic oil industry. Jack Gerard, the President and CEO, has never worked in the oil industry. He came to the API from the American Chemistry Council last year. He has been in Washington since 1981. The API runs expensive television advertisements telling the public that everything will be fine in the future.
Everything is not going to be fine in the future under President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy. President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy is on a collision course to a national catastrophe. Among a great many other critical problems, it will cause an increase in our dependence on foreign oil.
Seldon B. Graham, Jr. is Associate Editor, US of Energy Tribune. Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obamas_energy_policy_will_incr.html at March 16, 2009 - 11:55:22 AM EDT
Turbo Tax - File for Free
Prepare, Print, & File Taxes Online Easily: TurboTax Free Federal Edition
http://www.TurboTax.com
March 13, 2009
Obama's energy policy will increase dependence on foreign oil
By Seldon B. Graham, Jr. (source)
President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy is on a collision course to a national catastrophe. Yet, the alarms are not sounding and the red lights are not flashing.
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is not warning Obama that his oil policy will increase our dependence on foreign oil.
Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Administration, is not alerting the President that his oil policy will increase carbon dioxide emissions.
National Security Advisor James L. Jones is not cautioning the President that his biofuel and oil policy increases the US vulnerability to a Second Arab Oil Embargo.
Christina Roner of the Council of Economic Advisors is not counseling Obama that his biofuel policy continues a 30-year-old blunder wasting taxpayers multiple billions of dollars annually.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is not warning the President that his biofuel policy is doomed to failure because of the impossibility of providing sufficient bio products.
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar is not advising Obama that his tax on oil will destroy proven US oil reserves.
Why aren’t the alarms sounding and the red lights flashing? It is probably because of the lack of knowledge and experience on these specific subjects by the new appointees. All must be given benefit of any doubt that their duty and loyalty lies with the United States of America instead of their political party or its head.
President Obama’s energy policy is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil imports by eliminating oil and replacing oil with alternative renewable “clean” biofuel. That sounds good in speeches. It is quite impressive to all those who know little about oil or biofuels, which includes the majority of the public. The devil, of course, is in the details which no one seems to have investigated.
Ethanol subsidies began in 1979. Ethanol has had 30 years of taxpayer-assisted experience. Ethanol is the only “feasible” alternative renewable biofuel in the competition. All other biofuels lack the production potential that ethanol has.
According to the latest data from the Renewable Fuels Association, ethanol production is currently averaging 0.60 million barrels per day. At the subsidy of 51¢ per gallon, this amount of ethanol production costs taxpayers over $4 Billion in 2008.
The ethanol future looks much worse. The “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” required maximum ethanol production of 2.35 million barrels per day by 2022. But, this amount of ethanol production will require the entire corn crop in the US, every kernel of corn.
According to Professor Chris Hurt of Purdue, in 2006 the US had about 79 million acres of corn. Professor Richard Meilan of Purdue estimates that one acre of corn will produce 450 gallons which is 10.7 barrels of ethanol. Using all of the corn crop land in the US for ethanol — no movie popcorn, no corn syrup sweetener, no bourbon, no tortillas, no grits, no corn to eat at all — ethanol production can reach only 845 million barrels in 2022, or 2.31 million barrels per day.
Department of Energy data shows that the US is producing 4.95 million barrels of oil per day and importing 9.00 million barrels of foreign oil per day. Including the 0.60 million barrels of ethanol per day, our current oil demand is 14.55 million barrels per day.
US oil production has been declining since 1985. This decline is almost ruler straight. By 2022, it is estimated that US oil production would be approximately 3 million barrels per day. Therefore, in year 2022, ethanol production is expected to be 2.3 million barrels per day and US oil production is expected to be 3.0 million barrels per day, for a combined total of 5.3 million barrels per day. That leaves a shortfall of 9.25 million barrels of oil per day from our current oil demand — to be filled by foreign oil imports. Even assuming there is no increase in demand in the next 13 years, foreign oil imports will be greater in 2022 than they are now. Attention Secretary Chu!
A Department of Energy study made by Decision Analysis Corporation shows that ethanol emits 28.7 grams more carbon dioxide per mile driven than gasoline. Ethanol is not the “clean” biofuel that President Obama thinks it is. The Department of Transportation estimates that 2,656 billion vehicle miles were traveled in the US last year. Ethanol would put millions of tons more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as compared to gasoline. Attention Administrator Jackson!
In 1972, foreign oil imports were 811 million barrels, 19% of demand, the year before the devastating Arab Oil Embargo. Currently, foreign oil imports are at a rate of 3.3 billion barrels annually, 62% of current demand, and are expected to increase in the future. Attention General Jones!
Ethanol subsidies of 51¢ a gallon are $21.42 per barrel. In 2022, when ethanol production is expected to reach its maximum of 845 million barrels annually, the taxpayers would pay over $18 billion dollars for this 15.8% of the current oil demand. Clearly, taxpayers would not be getting a reasonable bang for the buck. Attention Economist Roner!
The United States just has so much crop land. It is a finite number of acres. In 2006, Professor Hurt estimated that it was 79 million acres for corn. Encroachment from development and improvements may have eaten away at some of this. There is an absolute limit on the maximum production of an annual crop such as corn which is determined by acreage. This limit, of course, can be reduced by flood or drought. Removing corn from the food supply by reaching maximum ethanol production is an extremely serious related issue. Attention Secretary Vilsack!
All oil wells decrease in production. Each oil well has an “economic limit” defined as the number of barrels of oil per day which is required to keep the well from losing money. This economic limit determines the life of the well and the proven oil reserves for the well. The equation for the economic limit of an oil well is the daily operating cost divided by one minus the tax times one minus the royalty times the oil price. The economic limit of an oil well is determined by entering the daily operating cost, tax, royalty, and oil price into the equation. A higher tax on oil raises the economic limit, decreasing the life of the well, resulting in decreased proven oil reserves. With an equivalent loss occurring in each of the half million oil wells in the United States, the loss in proven oil reserves to the United States from an increase in tax on oil can be in the billions of barrels. Attention Secretary Salazar and Economist Roner!
Why isn’t there outrage, if not rioting in the street, over this oil and biofuel policy of the Obama administration? Is it because the domestic oil industry -- what little is left after Jimmy Carter -- is cowering in the corner in fear, waiting for the coup de grace?
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the only national organization representing the domestic oil industry. Jack Gerard, the President and CEO, has never worked in the oil industry. He came to the API from the American Chemistry Council last year. He has been in Washington since 1981. The API runs expensive television advertisements telling the public that everything will be fine in the future.
Everything is not going to be fine in the future under President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy. President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy is on a collision course to a national catastrophe. Among a great many other critical problems, it will cause an increase in our dependence on foreign oil.
Seldon B. Graham, Jr. is Associate Editor, US of Energy Tribune. Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obamas_energy_policy_will_incr.html at March 16, 2009 - 11:55:22 AM EDT
Turbo Tax - File for Free
Prepare, Print, & File Taxes Online Easily: TurboTax Free Federal Edition
http://www.TurboTax.com
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax....We're Being Sucker-Punched
The ethanol hoax is a drop in the bucket compared to the magnitude of the great global warming scam. Soon they will be taxing carbon dioxide emissions with "carbon credits" or some kind of cap-and-trade scheme. The scare tactics and hysteria generated by the those believing and promoting the myth of man-caused global warming are already creating a worldwide economic disaster, and there is more to come.
Peter
Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax
By Walter E. Williams CNSNews.com Commentary March 12, 2008
One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. President Bush said, during his 2006 State of the Union address, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." Let's look at some of the "wonders" of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline.
Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines.
Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers -- all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent.
Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax -- one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.
There's something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce. Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact that the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.
It's easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn't support subsidized ethanol production. That's the stick. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot.
The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them -- higher wages and profits. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. After all, who do you think a politician will invite into his congressional or White House office to have a heart-to-heart -- you or an Archer Daniels Midlands executive?
(Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and a member of the Board of Advisors for the Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute. The views expressed are those of the writer.)Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Peter
Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax
By Walter E. Williams CNSNews.com Commentary March 12, 2008
One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. President Bush said, during his 2006 State of the Union address, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." Let's look at some of the "wonders" of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline.
Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines.
Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers -- all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent.
Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax -- one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.
There's something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce. Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact that the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.
It's easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn't support subsidized ethanol production. That's the stick. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot.
The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them -- higher wages and profits. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. After all, who do you think a politician will invite into his congressional or White House office to have a heart-to-heart -- you or an Archer Daniels Midlands executive?
(Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and a member of the Board of Advisors for the Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute. The views expressed are those of the writer.)Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Some Ways To End Our "Dependence" On Foreign Oil
The following article was on MSNBC from Esquire Magazine. It contains ideas for solving America's dependence on gasoline made from foreign oil. The ideas are not new; they involve using biofuels, made from a variety of sources. What is new is how to achieve this transition. Here, Gal Luft, presumably an Israeli, and "energy "expert" proposes government mandates, or what he calls an "energy policy" that is not political. Not "political"? I say "good luck"! Actually, we must take a good hard look at these alternative (to oil) fuels, sooner, or later.
Peter
source:
Four Ways to Solve the Energy Crisis
By Tim Heffernan
You hear it all the time: We've got to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; it's a matter of homeland security. Fine. Nobody's arguing. But the solutions that get offered—drilling in ANWR, mandating better automobile fuel efficiency, pushing ethanol—don't really solve anything. They're politically impossible, or too expensive, or contrary to free-market forces. They're losers.
Energy-independence advocate Gal Luft looks for winners. The former lieutenant colonel in the Israel Defense Forces and counterterrorism expert fervently believes that the only way to make America safe is to make it energy independent. And so as executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security and cofounder of the Set America Free Coalition, he has set out to do just that.
Luft advises Congress and security companies. He briefs industrial and environmental groups. Yet what separates him from other energy specialists are his pragmatic solutions. He doesn't peddle pie-in-the-sky political strategies. He's a realist. He has a single goal: freeing America from the grip of foreign oil. And he wants to do it now. Here are four steps he says we can—and should—take today.
1. Make gasoline-only cars illegal
"Every gas-powered car has an average street life of seventeen years, which means that the minute you leave the lot, you're signing up for two decades of foreign-oil dependence. The easiest way to change this is to mandate that every vehicle sold in the U. S. is flex-fuel compatible so that it can run on just about any blend of hydrocarbon-based fuels—gasoline, ethanol, methanol, etc. The technology already exists, and the process is cheap, about a hundred dollars per vehicle. Detroit will cry about 'government interference,' but in fact the mandate would open a vast new free market in alternative-fuel development."
2. Kill the Iowa caucuses
"Here's the first thing every presidential candidate who visits Iowa is asked: 'Where do you stand on ethanol?' Why is this a problem? Because the ethanol lobby has managed to place huge tariffs on ethanol produced abroad while freezing out the development of other alternative fuels at home. It portrays itself as this sort of savior, the domestic solution to our reliance on foreign oil, but it really just protects a tiny number of Midwestern corn farmers. Anyone who thinks otherwise, bear in mind: Even if every single kernel of corn grown in America were converted to ethanol, it would still only replace about 12 percent of America's gasoline requirement."
3. Think of the world in terms of sugarcane
"America hasn't been very good about making friends in the Middle East lately, but there are still a few countries in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia that like us. And many of them, such as Panama, Kenya, and Thailand, grow sugarcane, from which you can make ethanol at half the cost of making it from corn. We should direct foreign aid throughout the agricultural sector in these countries to increase their efficiency and create jobs. That will make them happy, and it'll improve our national security. They'll be our friends forever. Unlike the OPEC nations."
4. Revolutionize waste
"Sixty-five percent of our garbage is biomass: food, paper, scrap wood. All of it could be converted to methanol. The process has been around for two hundred years. And it's twice as efficient as cellulosic ethanol, supposedly the next big thing in alternative fuels. Then there's coal—America has a quarter of the world's reserve, but we use it mainly to feed power plants, which is a dirty and inefficient use. Instead, coal can be converted to clean-burning methanol for the equivalent of one dollar per gallon. Last, look to recyclables, like black liquor, a toxic by-product of the paper industry. Right now, paper mills inefficiently recycle it themselves. But black liquor can be converted to methanol. Do so and we'd generate nine billion gallons of methanol a year—almost twice the ethanol we now make from corn."
Actually getting this done
"These are only four of many common-sense opportunities throughout the economy, but we're not taking advantage of them, because there isn't a sustainable market for alternative fuels. Yet. Which brings us back to step one: flex-fuel technology. Get that and the other three will take care of themselves. There will be stiff opposition from the oil, corn, and auto lobbies. There always is. But let's hope that Washington can step up for a change. Because once you take politics out of the energy policy, you get very different—and much better—results."
Peter
source:
Four Ways to Solve the Energy Crisis
By Tim Heffernan
You hear it all the time: We've got to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; it's a matter of homeland security. Fine. Nobody's arguing. But the solutions that get offered—drilling in ANWR, mandating better automobile fuel efficiency, pushing ethanol—don't really solve anything. They're politically impossible, or too expensive, or contrary to free-market forces. They're losers.
Energy-independence advocate Gal Luft looks for winners. The former lieutenant colonel in the Israel Defense Forces and counterterrorism expert fervently believes that the only way to make America safe is to make it energy independent. And so as executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security and cofounder of the Set America Free Coalition, he has set out to do just that.
Luft advises Congress and security companies. He briefs industrial and environmental groups. Yet what separates him from other energy specialists are his pragmatic solutions. He doesn't peddle pie-in-the-sky political strategies. He's a realist. He has a single goal: freeing America from the grip of foreign oil. And he wants to do it now. Here are four steps he says we can—and should—take today.
1. Make gasoline-only cars illegal
"Every gas-powered car has an average street life of seventeen years, which means that the minute you leave the lot, you're signing up for two decades of foreign-oil dependence. The easiest way to change this is to mandate that every vehicle sold in the U. S. is flex-fuel compatible so that it can run on just about any blend of hydrocarbon-based fuels—gasoline, ethanol, methanol, etc. The technology already exists, and the process is cheap, about a hundred dollars per vehicle. Detroit will cry about 'government interference,' but in fact the mandate would open a vast new free market in alternative-fuel development."
2. Kill the Iowa caucuses
"Here's the first thing every presidential candidate who visits Iowa is asked: 'Where do you stand on ethanol?' Why is this a problem? Because the ethanol lobby has managed to place huge tariffs on ethanol produced abroad while freezing out the development of other alternative fuels at home. It portrays itself as this sort of savior, the domestic solution to our reliance on foreign oil, but it really just protects a tiny number of Midwestern corn farmers. Anyone who thinks otherwise, bear in mind: Even if every single kernel of corn grown in America were converted to ethanol, it would still only replace about 12 percent of America's gasoline requirement."
3. Think of the world in terms of sugarcane
"America hasn't been very good about making friends in the Middle East lately, but there are still a few countries in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia that like us. And many of them, such as Panama, Kenya, and Thailand, grow sugarcane, from which you can make ethanol at half the cost of making it from corn. We should direct foreign aid throughout the agricultural sector in these countries to increase their efficiency and create jobs. That will make them happy, and it'll improve our national security. They'll be our friends forever. Unlike the OPEC nations."
4. Revolutionize waste
"Sixty-five percent of our garbage is biomass: food, paper, scrap wood. All of it could be converted to methanol. The process has been around for two hundred years. And it's twice as efficient as cellulosic ethanol, supposedly the next big thing in alternative fuels. Then there's coal—America has a quarter of the world's reserve, but we use it mainly to feed power plants, which is a dirty and inefficient use. Instead, coal can be converted to clean-burning methanol for the equivalent of one dollar per gallon. Last, look to recyclables, like black liquor, a toxic by-product of the paper industry. Right now, paper mills inefficiently recycle it themselves. But black liquor can be converted to methanol. Do so and we'd generate nine billion gallons of methanol a year—almost twice the ethanol we now make from corn."
Actually getting this done
"These are only four of many common-sense opportunities throughout the economy, but we're not taking advantage of them, because there isn't a sustainable market for alternative fuels. Yet. Which brings us back to step one: flex-fuel technology. Get that and the other three will take care of themselves. There will be stiff opposition from the oil, corn, and auto lobbies. There always is. But let's hope that Washington can step up for a change. Because once you take politics out of the energy policy, you get very different—and much better—results."
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Ethanol Fuel Not The Answer?
This is a discussion about some alternatives to gasoline for powering vehicles. It presents some useful facts to consider.
Peter
Shuck the ethanol and let solar shine
Solar power and compressed natural gas offer more-efficient energy technologies than planting, fertilizing, harvesting and refining fields of corn into fuel. Investors, take note. Congress, listen.
By Jon Markman
New research by a University of California petroleum engineering professor suggests that worldwide crude oil supplies will start to run so low over the next nine years that resource-blessed countries like Saudi Arabia will begin to hoard them for domestic use instead of exporting -- and states with large reservoirs of natural gas, like Montana, will seek ways to avoid sharing with less-advantaged neighbors like Oregon.
Attempts to forestall the political and economic damage by turning aggressively to agriculture for "renewable" transportation fuel in the form of ethanol will prove futile, according to professor Tad W. Patzek, as new calculations show that the entire surface of the Earth cannot create enough additional biomass to replace more than 10% of current fossil fuel use.
The process of sowing, fertilizing, reaping, distributing and refining corn and grasses for ethanol feedstock uses up nearly as much carbon energy as fuel farmers claim to save, and it generates so much soil degradation and toxic byproducts that widespread use will leave the Earth denuded and hostile to human life within decades, according to the professor's data.
Apocalypse now, again Patzek, in a controversial paper presented last month to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, says military battles over fast-depleting fossil fuels will combine with insufficient replacement strategies and escalating population growth soon to imperil the human race unless coordinated global efforts to curb energy demand are taken quickly. "Change will be made for us unless we make changes," he said in an interview from his UC Berkeley office this week.
Of course, we are accustomed to apocalyptic statements about the environment these days, after recent campaigns to raise awareness of ecological disasters ranging from global warming to the destruction of the rain forest. But we can't really do too much about those beyond changing a few light bulbs and recycling cereal boxes.
Yet a provably insane public policy focused on ethanol production is something we can urge politicians to halt. We can also demand that tax dollars and product development funds be spent on more long-lasting transportation fuel solutions based on solar energy and compressed natural gas. And as investors we can take positions in companies that are likely to benefit from improvements.
Let me explain the problem in the simplest terms. The main thing you need to keep in mind is that all energy on our planet comes from the sun. Through the magic of photosynthesis, shrubs and trees hundreds of millions of years ago grew plentifully worldwide in swamps. They died, were covered by layers of sediment amid tectonic change, and were then baked via geological processes into oil, gas and coal.
Fast-forward to the early 1900s, and petroleum engineers figured out how to discover, exploit and transport this buried treasure on a mass scale. Then followed the greatest explosion of industry, freedom and wealth the Earth had ever known. For 100 years, as long as supplies were abundant and cheap, all was well. Enter the sport-utility vehicle, air conditioning, two-hour commutes to work, $200 cross-country flights and skyscraper cityscapes lit up all night.
The big drain Is this sustainable? At the risk of sounding like an environmentalist crackpot, maybe not.
It's now becoming clear to scientists that half a billion years' worth of natural energy production has been drained in a century. As production has slowed amid intensified demand from emerging nations, prices have risen eightfold to allocate diminishing resource to those with the greatest ability to pay. Now scientists like Patzek say depletion has reached the phase when it will accelerate exponentially with rising needs.
Figure there's maximum another 100 years left, but after only another eight years the difficulty of acquiring it will be felt so dramatically that governments of exporters will feel compelled to stockpile instead of trade.
As importers foresee an impasse -- and observe the painful ineffectiveness of simply grabbing resources, as the United States is accused of doing in Iraq -- new sources are needed or our way of life must plainly end. The solution? That's where it gets interesting.
Sun block The U.S. agriculture lobby is incredibly powerful, and it has somehow managed to convince Congress that our next 100 years of energy should also come from the sun. Not in its most efficient route, directly transformed by the magic of electronics from solar rays into electricity via large and small grids of photovoltaic cells. But in the most inefficient way possible: From the growing of corn and then its refinement into fuel.
How inefficient is the ethanol solution? When you break the "agrofuels" system down scientifically, you can see that 99.9% of the energy in sunlight is lost in the process, with the greatest waste coming in the creation of ammonia-based fertilizer from natural gas, and in the refinery. That is, for every unit of energy that is put into creating agriculture-based fuel, almost three-quarters of it is dissipated before it actually does any work. The greatest amount of energy lost is not in the creation of ammonia-based fertilizer, as many believe, but in the refinery.
Of course, an even bigger problem is that the 6.6 billion people on Earth need all the food they can get, so every acre taken out of wheat, rice and soybean production to feed our 1 billion cars is an acre that won't feed starving kids. As Patzek notes pungently in his paper, after a lot of math to prove the point, "Our planet has zero excess biomass at her disposal."
One better solution is solar energy created at the municipal level by massive photovoltaic cell facilities, at the street level by home-based grids and at the transportation level at lots where electric vehicles' batteries can be charged. Photovoltaic cells lose only about 80% of the sun's energy to dissipation, making them at least 100 times more efficient than ethanol after the fuel cost of growing and refining the biomass feedstack is accounted for.
The sun doesn't have its own lobby or a voting bloc in the presidential primaries, so research and funding has lagged. U.S. and European industrial giants General Electric (GE, news, msgs) and Siemens (SMAWF, news, msgs) are working hard at this solution, as are many intriguing U.S. and Chinese small and midsize companies such as Suntech Power (STP, news, msgs), First Solar (FSLR, news, msgs), Trina Solar (TSL, news, msgs) and MEMC Electronic Materials (WFR, news, msgs).
For transportation, most energy experts agree that compressed natural gas, or CNG, is an ideal long-term choice. It is not only much more plentiful in North America than oil -- negating the need to depend on unstable regimes in Nigeria, Venezuela and Russia -- but also many times more efficient. CNG only loses 5% of its power in the transportation and refinement process, and has two other benefits: Its emissions are much less toxic than gasoline or diesel, and when a CNG tank is hit in a crash it is much less likely to explode than a gasoline tank.
As I wrote back in August, many countries are depending on CNG trucks for their large truck, taxi and bus fleets, so this is not some pie-in-the-sky idea. What's lacking in the United States is a distribution network and convenient filling stations -- though you can actually install equipment at home to fill a CNG car or truck from your current heating gas line.
A pilot project in California, moreover, may pave the way for thousands of heavy-duty trucks to be retrofitted with fuel injectors made by a Canadian company called Westport Innovations (CA:WPT, news, msgs) in conjunction with engine maker Cummins (CMI, news, msgs). The conversion kit allows Peterbilts and Kenworths to run clean-burning CNG instead of filthy diesel.
Stall on ethanolIt's been a hot year for ethanol, but has it been too hot? Two industry executives discuss the problem.
In short, there is nothing we can do about the depletion of the sun's bounty from the bowels of the Earth. But we can stop the politically cynical ethanol scam in its tracks, and try to move the debate and our own consumption toward solar and CNG. Of course, the best solution of all is to cut down on wasteful uses of energy such as long-distance commuting, and shipping off-season fruits and vegetables up from the southern hemisphere, and to encourage cities to step up mass-transit development efforts.
It's easy to just ignore the problem with our usual American bluster, but 30 years from now our grandkids are really going to wonder what the heck we were thinking.
Fine Print To learn more about Patzek, visit his Cal Berkeley Web site. Here is the paper he presented at OECD, titled "How Can We Outlive Our Way Of Life?" (.pdf). It's quite readable every for lay people and explains a lot -- so take some time to go through it. To learn more about Clean Energy Fuels, click here. To learn about Westport Innovations, read here. . . . Learn more about GE solar projects here. . . . To read more about Suntech, click here. . . . Learn about MEMC Electronic Materials here. . . . To learn about First Solar, check its Web site here. . . .
When it's available next year, I'm thinking about trading in my trusty Ducati Monster , which I use for my two-mile commute, for the Enertia electric motorcycle. There's also a hydrogen-powered motorcycle in the works called the ENV. . . . There's a sweet Mercedes-Benz, the 200 NGT, available only in Europe, that runs on CNG. Check it out here. To gas it up at home, check out the Phill by FuelMaker. . . . For more background on the ethanol craze, check out my April 5 column on the corn boom.
Peter
Shuck the ethanol and let solar shine
Solar power and compressed natural gas offer more-efficient energy technologies than planting, fertilizing, harvesting and refining fields of corn into fuel. Investors, take note. Congress, listen.
By Jon Markman
New research by a University of California petroleum engineering professor suggests that worldwide crude oil supplies will start to run so low over the next nine years that resource-blessed countries like Saudi Arabia will begin to hoard them for domestic use instead of exporting -- and states with large reservoirs of natural gas, like Montana, will seek ways to avoid sharing with less-advantaged neighbors like Oregon.
Attempts to forestall the political and economic damage by turning aggressively to agriculture for "renewable" transportation fuel in the form of ethanol will prove futile, according to professor Tad W. Patzek, as new calculations show that the entire surface of the Earth cannot create enough additional biomass to replace more than 10% of current fossil fuel use.
The process of sowing, fertilizing, reaping, distributing and refining corn and grasses for ethanol feedstock uses up nearly as much carbon energy as fuel farmers claim to save, and it generates so much soil degradation and toxic byproducts that widespread use will leave the Earth denuded and hostile to human life within decades, according to the professor's data.
Apocalypse now, again Patzek, in a controversial paper presented last month to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, says military battles over fast-depleting fossil fuels will combine with insufficient replacement strategies and escalating population growth soon to imperil the human race unless coordinated global efforts to curb energy demand are taken quickly. "Change will be made for us unless we make changes," he said in an interview from his UC Berkeley office this week.
Of course, we are accustomed to apocalyptic statements about the environment these days, after recent campaigns to raise awareness of ecological disasters ranging from global warming to the destruction of the rain forest. But we can't really do too much about those beyond changing a few light bulbs and recycling cereal boxes.
Yet a provably insane public policy focused on ethanol production is something we can urge politicians to halt. We can also demand that tax dollars and product development funds be spent on more long-lasting transportation fuel solutions based on solar energy and compressed natural gas. And as investors we can take positions in companies that are likely to benefit from improvements.
Let me explain the problem in the simplest terms. The main thing you need to keep in mind is that all energy on our planet comes from the sun. Through the magic of photosynthesis, shrubs and trees hundreds of millions of years ago grew plentifully worldwide in swamps. They died, were covered by layers of sediment amid tectonic change, and were then baked via geological processes into oil, gas and coal.
Fast-forward to the early 1900s, and petroleum engineers figured out how to discover, exploit and transport this buried treasure on a mass scale. Then followed the greatest explosion of industry, freedom and wealth the Earth had ever known. For 100 years, as long as supplies were abundant and cheap, all was well. Enter the sport-utility vehicle, air conditioning, two-hour commutes to work, $200 cross-country flights and skyscraper cityscapes lit up all night.
The big drain Is this sustainable? At the risk of sounding like an environmentalist crackpot, maybe not.
It's now becoming clear to scientists that half a billion years' worth of natural energy production has been drained in a century. As production has slowed amid intensified demand from emerging nations, prices have risen eightfold to allocate diminishing resource to those with the greatest ability to pay. Now scientists like Patzek say depletion has reached the phase when it will accelerate exponentially with rising needs.
Figure there's maximum another 100 years left, but after only another eight years the difficulty of acquiring it will be felt so dramatically that governments of exporters will feel compelled to stockpile instead of trade.
As importers foresee an impasse -- and observe the painful ineffectiveness of simply grabbing resources, as the United States is accused of doing in Iraq -- new sources are needed or our way of life must plainly end. The solution? That's where it gets interesting.
Sun block The U.S. agriculture lobby is incredibly powerful, and it has somehow managed to convince Congress that our next 100 years of energy should also come from the sun. Not in its most efficient route, directly transformed by the magic of electronics from solar rays into electricity via large and small grids of photovoltaic cells. But in the most inefficient way possible: From the growing of corn and then its refinement into fuel.
How inefficient is the ethanol solution? When you break the "agrofuels" system down scientifically, you can see that 99.9% of the energy in sunlight is lost in the process, with the greatest waste coming in the creation of ammonia-based fertilizer from natural gas, and in the refinery. That is, for every unit of energy that is put into creating agriculture-based fuel, almost three-quarters of it is dissipated before it actually does any work. The greatest amount of energy lost is not in the creation of ammonia-based fertilizer, as many believe, but in the refinery.
Of course, an even bigger problem is that the 6.6 billion people on Earth need all the food they can get, so every acre taken out of wheat, rice and soybean production to feed our 1 billion cars is an acre that won't feed starving kids. As Patzek notes pungently in his paper, after a lot of math to prove the point, "Our planet has zero excess biomass at her disposal."
One better solution is solar energy created at the municipal level by massive photovoltaic cell facilities, at the street level by home-based grids and at the transportation level at lots where electric vehicles' batteries can be charged. Photovoltaic cells lose only about 80% of the sun's energy to dissipation, making them at least 100 times more efficient than ethanol after the fuel cost of growing and refining the biomass feedstack is accounted for.
The sun doesn't have its own lobby or a voting bloc in the presidential primaries, so research and funding has lagged. U.S. and European industrial giants General Electric (GE, news, msgs) and Siemens (SMAWF, news, msgs) are working hard at this solution, as are many intriguing U.S. and Chinese small and midsize companies such as Suntech Power (STP, news, msgs), First Solar (FSLR, news, msgs), Trina Solar (TSL, news, msgs) and MEMC Electronic Materials (WFR, news, msgs).
For transportation, most energy experts agree that compressed natural gas, or CNG, is an ideal long-term choice. It is not only much more plentiful in North America than oil -- negating the need to depend on unstable regimes in Nigeria, Venezuela and Russia -- but also many times more efficient. CNG only loses 5% of its power in the transportation and refinement process, and has two other benefits: Its emissions are much less toxic than gasoline or diesel, and when a CNG tank is hit in a crash it is much less likely to explode than a gasoline tank.
As I wrote back in August, many countries are depending on CNG trucks for their large truck, taxi and bus fleets, so this is not some pie-in-the-sky idea. What's lacking in the United States is a distribution network and convenient filling stations -- though you can actually install equipment at home to fill a CNG car or truck from your current heating gas line.
A pilot project in California, moreover, may pave the way for thousands of heavy-duty trucks to be retrofitted with fuel injectors made by a Canadian company called Westport Innovations (CA:WPT, news, msgs) in conjunction with engine maker Cummins (CMI, news, msgs). The conversion kit allows Peterbilts and Kenworths to run clean-burning CNG instead of filthy diesel.
Stall on ethanolIt's been a hot year for ethanol, but has it been too hot? Two industry executives discuss the problem.
In short, there is nothing we can do about the depletion of the sun's bounty from the bowels of the Earth. But we can stop the politically cynical ethanol scam in its tracks, and try to move the debate and our own consumption toward solar and CNG. Of course, the best solution of all is to cut down on wasteful uses of energy such as long-distance commuting, and shipping off-season fruits and vegetables up from the southern hemisphere, and to encourage cities to step up mass-transit development efforts.
It's easy to just ignore the problem with our usual American bluster, but 30 years from now our grandkids are really going to wonder what the heck we were thinking.
Fine Print To learn more about Patzek, visit his Cal Berkeley Web site. Here is the paper he presented at OECD, titled "How Can We Outlive Our Way Of Life?" (.pdf). It's quite readable every for lay people and explains a lot -- so take some time to go through it. To learn more about Clean Energy Fuels, click here. To learn about Westport Innovations, read here. . . . Learn more about GE solar projects here. . . . To read more about Suntech, click here. . . . Learn about MEMC Electronic Materials here. . . . To learn about First Solar, check its Web site here. . . .
When it's available next year, I'm thinking about trading in my trusty Ducati Monster , which I use for my two-mile commute, for the Enertia electric motorcycle. There's also a hydrogen-powered motorcycle in the works called the ENV. . . . There's a sweet Mercedes-Benz, the 200 NGT, available only in Europe, that runs on CNG. Check it out here. To gas it up at home, check out the Phill by FuelMaker. . . . For more background on the ethanol craze, check out my April 5 column on the corn boom.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Corn And Ethanol: The Insanity Of Using Corn For Fuel
In this article, the author, Alan Caruba, explains what I and others have been saying about the insanity of using corn to create ethanol which is then added to gasoline and used as a fuel in motor vehicles. He says we will soon be using the equivalent of the entire corn crop of the state of Iowa! If you have ever driven through Iowa in August when corn is at its peak, the thought of using all of it for fuel is mind-boggling.
He maintains that using corn in this way has already driven up the price of corn and will increase the price of thousands of other things we depend on. He says this ill-conceived government-mandated manufacture of ethanol will do severe damage to the American economy. Keep in mind that this is being done in the truly ignorant belief that somehow this use of ethanol is going to help control global warming and at the same time, reduce our "dependence on foreign oil. The idea is if we use ethanol, maybe we won't have to fight wars in the Middle East. That is also one of the dumbest concepts I've heard in a long time.
Is it too late to reverse this rush to make ethanol from corn. Is it too late to stop the construction of these ethanol refineries? Is there any way to stop this disaster in the making? Someone is to blame. Does anyone have any ideas?
Peter
Corn Facts, Not Corn Flakes!
By Alan Caruba
CNSNews.com Commentary from the National Anxiety CenterAugust 07, 2007
There's a whole aspect of life in America about which fewer and fewer Americans know anything. It's farming. Some two percent of the population feed the rest of us, who have no idea how what they produce gets to our plate. Responsible for everything we eat, agriculture is also an essential element of our nation's economy.
E. Ralph Hostetter, the publisher of American Farm Publications, is one of the most cogent, sensible voices on issues concerning farming today. Recently he wrote about the impact of biofuels. You might think he would be all for converting corn into ethanol, but Hostetter is not. He sees the insanity of using corn -- a crop used in the manufacture of 3,500 commonly used products during their production or processing -- in this fashion.
"The American public is told by our government the rate of inflation in 2006 was only 2.2 percent," wrote Hostetter. "However, when price increases in food and energy were factored in, the reality was that actual inflation was 4.8 percent, or an increase of 118 percent what the nation was told. "The volatility of food and energy prices is such that the government's Consumer Price Index conveniently ignores them. That doesn't make the problem go away, but it does mislead the public.
"Today, 60 percent of the American corn crop is fed to U.S. livestock," noted Hostetter. "Therefore, as the price of corn is forced up by the demands of ethanol production and many natural causes such as weather, so is the price of meat, poultry, eggs, milk and more than 3,500 products American use every day. "Among the products affected by the rise in the cost of corn are cake mixes, pizza, beer, whisky, candies, cookies, corn flakes, cosmetics, instant coffee, carbonated beverages, fertilizers, vitamins, tires, toothpaste, paper products, pharmaceuticals such as aspirin and more than 85 different types of antibiotics. And that's just a short list.
Across the board, the price of a bushel of corn was up six percent in 2006 because of federal government mandates for the production and use of ethanol. "Corn production for the nearly 7 billion gallons of ethanol production at the present time requires about 16 million acres or 20 percent of the total 80-plus million acres presently in corn production," Hostetter noted. In the effort to cash in on the federal ethanol mandates, production facilities cannot be built fast enough. In Iowa, when 55 ethanol plants become fully operational, they will use virtually the entire corn crop of that State!
Proposals in Congress to increase biofuel production "will require nearly 100 million acres of corn, approximately a 25 percent increase above the present 80-plus million acres," said Hostetter, which means that other crops such as soybeans and cotton will not be planted.
At present, the U.S. "supplies 70 percent of world corn exports of some 55 million tons of corn. It is now estimated that ethanol production in 2006 consumed about 50 million tons." Goodbye world corn exports and the money generated for the U.S. economy. Instead that corn will be added to gasoline in the form of ethanol.
It's not like the world is running out of oil for gasoline. There is no rational or scientific reason to reduce the use of gasoline except for the charge that automobile and truck use generates "greenhouse gases", but 95 percent of all greenhouse gases is water vapor!
Environmentalists and the U.S. Congress want to destroy the U.S. economy by diverting corn from feeding the livestock and other food products that we consume and the thousands of other uses for which it is required.
In 1992, Al Gore's book, "Earth in the Balance", was published. It is his screed about the way everyone is participating in the destruction of the Earth. He wrote, "...it ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say a twenty-five year period." Look under the hood of your car. That's an internal combustion engine.
Driving up the cost of corn is pure genius if you want to inflict financial pain on everyone and destroy the nation's economy.
(Alan Caruba writes "Warning Signs," a weekly column posted at the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center. The views expressed are those of the writer.)Copyright 2007, Alan Caruba
He maintains that using corn in this way has already driven up the price of corn and will increase the price of thousands of other things we depend on. He says this ill-conceived government-mandated manufacture of ethanol will do severe damage to the American economy. Keep in mind that this is being done in the truly ignorant belief that somehow this use of ethanol is going to help control global warming and at the same time, reduce our "dependence on foreign oil. The idea is if we use ethanol, maybe we won't have to fight wars in the Middle East. That is also one of the dumbest concepts I've heard in a long time.
Is it too late to reverse this rush to make ethanol from corn. Is it too late to stop the construction of these ethanol refineries? Is there any way to stop this disaster in the making? Someone is to blame. Does anyone have any ideas?
Peter
Corn Facts, Not Corn Flakes!
By Alan Caruba
CNSNews.com Commentary from the National Anxiety CenterAugust 07, 2007
There's a whole aspect of life in America about which fewer and fewer Americans know anything. It's farming. Some two percent of the population feed the rest of us, who have no idea how what they produce gets to our plate. Responsible for everything we eat, agriculture is also an essential element of our nation's economy.
E. Ralph Hostetter, the publisher of American Farm Publications, is one of the most cogent, sensible voices on issues concerning farming today. Recently he wrote about the impact of biofuels. You might think he would be all for converting corn into ethanol, but Hostetter is not. He sees the insanity of using corn -- a crop used in the manufacture of 3,500 commonly used products during their production or processing -- in this fashion.
"The American public is told by our government the rate of inflation in 2006 was only 2.2 percent," wrote Hostetter. "However, when price increases in food and energy were factored in, the reality was that actual inflation was 4.8 percent, or an increase of 118 percent what the nation was told. "The volatility of food and energy prices is such that the government's Consumer Price Index conveniently ignores them. That doesn't make the problem go away, but it does mislead the public.
"Today, 60 percent of the American corn crop is fed to U.S. livestock," noted Hostetter. "Therefore, as the price of corn is forced up by the demands of ethanol production and many natural causes such as weather, so is the price of meat, poultry, eggs, milk and more than 3,500 products American use every day. "Among the products affected by the rise in the cost of corn are cake mixes, pizza, beer, whisky, candies, cookies, corn flakes, cosmetics, instant coffee, carbonated beverages, fertilizers, vitamins, tires, toothpaste, paper products, pharmaceuticals such as aspirin and more than 85 different types of antibiotics. And that's just a short list.
Across the board, the price of a bushel of corn was up six percent in 2006 because of federal government mandates for the production and use of ethanol. "Corn production for the nearly 7 billion gallons of ethanol production at the present time requires about 16 million acres or 20 percent of the total 80-plus million acres presently in corn production," Hostetter noted. In the effort to cash in on the federal ethanol mandates, production facilities cannot be built fast enough. In Iowa, when 55 ethanol plants become fully operational, they will use virtually the entire corn crop of that State!
Proposals in Congress to increase biofuel production "will require nearly 100 million acres of corn, approximately a 25 percent increase above the present 80-plus million acres," said Hostetter, which means that other crops such as soybeans and cotton will not be planted.
At present, the U.S. "supplies 70 percent of world corn exports of some 55 million tons of corn. It is now estimated that ethanol production in 2006 consumed about 50 million tons." Goodbye world corn exports and the money generated for the U.S. economy. Instead that corn will be added to gasoline in the form of ethanol.
It's not like the world is running out of oil for gasoline. There is no rational or scientific reason to reduce the use of gasoline except for the charge that automobile and truck use generates "greenhouse gases", but 95 percent of all greenhouse gases is water vapor!
Environmentalists and the U.S. Congress want to destroy the U.S. economy by diverting corn from feeding the livestock and other food products that we consume and the thousands of other uses for which it is required.
In 1992, Al Gore's book, "Earth in the Balance", was published. It is his screed about the way everyone is participating in the destruction of the Earth. He wrote, "...it ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say a twenty-five year period." Look under the hood of your car. That's an internal combustion engine.
Driving up the cost of corn is pure genius if you want to inflict financial pain on everyone and destroy the nation's economy.
(Alan Caruba writes "Warning Signs," a weekly column posted at the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center. The views expressed are those of the writer.)Copyright 2007, Alan Caruba
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Ethanol Production: A Very Bad Idea?
This article addresses the issue of ethanol production in the U.S. In my opinion this is another example of government policy gone mad in the name of global warming and our dependence upon "foreign" oil. It seems that subsidizing and encouraging the growing of corn, or any other crops, to then produce ethanol as motor vehicle fuel is a thinly veiled attempt by Congress to pacify environmental groups pushing for change.
Ethanol production is such a completely bad idea that even environmental groups oppose it. The following article explains many of the reasons why. Hopefully, these laws will be appealed. What do you think?
Peter
from: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070719c.html
Study Slams Ethanol, Industry Cries Foul
By Jeff GolimowskiCNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
July 19, 2007Washington (CNSNews.com) -
Ethanol is not the "silver bullet" that will solve America's energy crisis, according to a new report released Wednesday by three liberal environmental groups.In the 77-page report, the groups allege that ethanol production will, in many cases, contribute to significant problems in the United States and the developing world.
But Doug Durante, executive director of Ethanol Across America -- an industry advocacy group -- said the criticisms levied in the report were unfair. He said the industry has never tried to be the answer to every problem associated with fossil fuels and transportation."Look at the numbers: Americans use 150 billion gallons of gasoline [a year] ... we make six billion gallons of ethanol," said Durante. "What rational person could say that next 144 billion gallons is no problem for us? Nobody is saying that."
The report, which cites dozens of studies by scientists and government researchers, looks at several different aspects of the ethanol debate. It alleges the production of ethanol will contribute to additional air and water pollution, even with modern environmental controls. It also alleges that the heavily subsidized industry will help corporate farms at the expense of rural communities.
Wenonah Hauer, executive director of Food and Water Watch, said: "We're already seeing the effects of the hype about ethanol. Ninety-three million acres of corn were planted -- and that's the largest amount of corn to be grown since 1944 -- but that's not enough corn to make America energy independent." "The push to make corn ethanol in mega-refineries is likely to contribute to the over-consolidation of the grain sector," Hauer said. "It won't benefit the smaller farmers and farm cooperatives in the long term."Hauer argued that only large-scale factory-style farms will be able to profit from ethanol production, which she said would accelerate the loss of family farms ."Agribusiness, whose political contributions are fueling the ethanol frenzy, are going to become the winners," she said.
The report also alleges ethanol is contributing to human rights abuses around the world as developing countries alter their agricultural production to focus on "fuel" crops, such as sugar cane, instead of growing food. The study's backers say the message is clear. "Other alternative fuels exist besides corn ethanol ," said Michael Dworkin, director of the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. "Even if corn ethanol did what it was supposed to do, it would only make sense to accept the cost that it has if it were necessary.
"The report makes several policy recommendations and asserts that the use of increased fuel economy standards would go much further in reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil than ethanol. Yet Durante, with Ethanol Across America, said the industry as a whole and the corn ethanol industry in particular are fulfilling their intended mission -- to provide an alternative to foreign-produced oil. "There are lots of reasons to support domestic renewable fuels ... what if we got to 10 percent [of domestic consumption]? That's 15 billion gallons times three bucks [a gallon saved over the price of regular gas]," said Durante. "We're going to spend that here and create roads and schools and jobs.
"As for the report's recommendations, Durante said that the arguments were not fair. Rather than making ethanol production a black-or-white issue, he said, corn ethanol production can be pursued at the same time as lower fuel standards. "Sure we'd like to see us use less fuel, but that is a different issue," he said. "I hate to see that become an either/or. I don't believe those goals are real. "The report does concede that ethanol can find a place in an integrated energy policy but says it should only be considered along with efforts to increase fuel-efficiency standards for U.S. autos and the promotion of other alternative fuels.
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, ethanol's "green" credentials have been called into question, as many refineries have been cited for violations of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
Ethanol production is such a completely bad idea that even environmental groups oppose it. The following article explains many of the reasons why. Hopefully, these laws will be appealed. What do you think?
Peter
from: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070719c.html
Study Slams Ethanol, Industry Cries Foul
By Jeff GolimowskiCNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
July 19, 2007Washington (CNSNews.com) -
Ethanol is not the "silver bullet" that will solve America's energy crisis, according to a new report released Wednesday by three liberal environmental groups.In the 77-page report, the groups allege that ethanol production will, in many cases, contribute to significant problems in the United States and the developing world.
But Doug Durante, executive director of Ethanol Across America -- an industry advocacy group -- said the criticisms levied in the report were unfair. He said the industry has never tried to be the answer to every problem associated with fossil fuels and transportation."Look at the numbers: Americans use 150 billion gallons of gasoline [a year] ... we make six billion gallons of ethanol," said Durante. "What rational person could say that next 144 billion gallons is no problem for us? Nobody is saying that."
The report, which cites dozens of studies by scientists and government researchers, looks at several different aspects of the ethanol debate. It alleges the production of ethanol will contribute to additional air and water pollution, even with modern environmental controls. It also alleges that the heavily subsidized industry will help corporate farms at the expense of rural communities.
Wenonah Hauer, executive director of Food and Water Watch, said: "We're already seeing the effects of the hype about ethanol. Ninety-three million acres of corn were planted -- and that's the largest amount of corn to be grown since 1944 -- but that's not enough corn to make America energy independent." "The push to make corn ethanol in mega-refineries is likely to contribute to the over-consolidation of the grain sector," Hauer said. "It won't benefit the smaller farmers and farm cooperatives in the long term."Hauer argued that only large-scale factory-style farms will be able to profit from ethanol production, which she said would accelerate the loss of family farms ."Agribusiness, whose political contributions are fueling the ethanol frenzy, are going to become the winners," she said.
The report also alleges ethanol is contributing to human rights abuses around the world as developing countries alter their agricultural production to focus on "fuel" crops, such as sugar cane, instead of growing food. The study's backers say the message is clear. "Other alternative fuels exist besides corn ethanol ," said Michael Dworkin, director of the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. "Even if corn ethanol did what it was supposed to do, it would only make sense to accept the cost that it has if it were necessary.
"The report makes several policy recommendations and asserts that the use of increased fuel economy standards would go much further in reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil than ethanol. Yet Durante, with Ethanol Across America, said the industry as a whole and the corn ethanol industry in particular are fulfilling their intended mission -- to provide an alternative to foreign-produced oil. "There are lots of reasons to support domestic renewable fuels ... what if we got to 10 percent [of domestic consumption]? That's 15 billion gallons times three bucks [a gallon saved over the price of regular gas]," said Durante. "We're going to spend that here and create roads and schools and jobs.
"As for the report's recommendations, Durante said that the arguments were not fair. Rather than making ethanol production a black-or-white issue, he said, corn ethanol production can be pursued at the same time as lower fuel standards. "Sure we'd like to see us use less fuel, but that is a different issue," he said. "I hate to see that become an either/or. I don't believe those goals are real. "The report does concede that ethanol can find a place in an integrated energy policy but says it should only be considered along with efforts to increase fuel-efficiency standards for U.S. autos and the promotion of other alternative fuels.
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, ethanol's "green" credentials have been called into question, as many refineries have been cited for violations of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
More Unintended Environmental Consequences
Is going green always good? This article from the Washington Post, (not noted for being paid stooges of the oil industry) points out one of the many negative consequences of taking a knee-jerk, poorly thought-out reaction to global warming.
There is so much pressure to limit carbon dioxide emissions and control global warming, that grave mistakes are bound to happen. Growing corn to produce ethanol, which supposedly produces less "greenhouse gas" than burning gasoline, is a prime example of global warming hysteria gone mad.
This example relates to the Chesapeake Bay, but the same consequences lie in store for every drainage area, river, and lake in areas where more corn is being grown. Of course this applies to almost every State in the lower 48 United States. Some farmers, mostly large corporate farmers are going to benefit, so too are the ethanol producers who already receive an approximate 50 cent per gallon subsidy to make the fuel competitive with gasoline.
Now we have laws, and we're locked in to spending billions on a scientifically and economically unsound attempt to curb global warming and "reduce our dependence" on foreign oil. This one action alone, producing fuel from corn, is going to cost everyone dearly. We have ourselves to blame for listening to the global warming alarmists. The cost in terms of money and damage to the environment will only worsen.
Peter
'Green' Fuel May Damage The Bay
Ethanol Study Has Dire Prediction for The Chesapeake
By David A. Fahrenthold Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, July 17, 2007; Page B01
A surge in the demand for ethanol -- touted as a greener alternative to gasoline -- could have a serious environmental downside for the Chesapeake Bay, because more farmers growing corn could mean more pollution washing off farm fields, a new study warned yesterday.
The study, whose sponsors included the U.S. government and an environmental group, predicted that farmers in the bay watershed will plant 500,000 or more new acres of corn in the next five years. Because fields of corn generally produce more polluted runoff than those of other crops, that's a problem.
"It's going in the opposite direction from where we want to go," said Jim Pease, a professor at Virginia Tech and one of the study's authors.
Ethanol, a fuel made from processed and fermented plant matter, is an old invention with enormous new cachet. Proponents say that it offers an alternative to oil imported from overseas and that it emits fewer greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. In his State of the Union address in January, President Bush called for its use in motor fuels to be increased sevenfold by 2017. Already, 15 ethanol facilities are either planned or under construction in the mid-Atlantic, according to yesterday's report.
But ethanol's boom has also produced a variety of unintended, and unwanted, consequences. Because the primary ingredient at U.S. ethanol plants is corn, the price of that grain has shot up, making everything from tortillas to beef to chocolate more expensive.
In the Chesapeake area, according to the study, the drawback to ethanol's boom is that more farmers have planted cornfields to take advantage of the prices. Corn harvests are expected to increase 12 percent in Maryland this year and 8 percent in Virginia, according to a forecast in March from the U.S. Agriculture Department.
Although the spike is expected to be greater in Mississippi, where forecasters predict a 179 percent jump, across the vast Chesapeake watershed -- extending from southern Virginia to Cooperstown, N.Y. -- smaller shifts can add up. The authors of the study released yesterday forecast that over the next five years, the area of land newly planted with corn could be as much as 1 million acres, four times the size of Fairfax County.
Those shifting to corn production included Craig Giese, a farmer with 600 acres on Virginia's Northern Neck. Giese said in a telephone interview yesterday that he planted 50 new acres of corn after prices climbed from about $2.30 per 56-pound bushel last year to about $3.40 this year.
But Giese said he left many of his acres planted with soybeans to ensure against a disaster if corn prices drop or a drought makes the plants wither.
"If you put in all corn, you could hit a home run, with the prices we have now," said Giese, whose farm is near Lancaster, about 120 miles from Washington. "But . . . you could also go belly up."
More cornfields could be trouble, the study warned, because corn generally requires more fertilizer than such crops as soybeans or hay. When it rains, some of this fertilizer washes downstream, and it brings such pollutants as nitrogen and phosphorus, which feed unnatural algae blooms in the bay. These algae consume the oxygen that fish, crabs and other creatures need to breathe, creating the Chesapeake's infamous dead zones.
Governments around the bay have pledged to cut their output of nitrogen by 110 million pounds by 2010. But the study estimated that an ethanol-driven increase in cornfields could add 8 million to 16 million pounds of pollution.
"We've made it that much harder to meet our bay restoration goals," said Beth McGee, a senior water quality specialist at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, an environmental group based in Annapolis. McGee helped compile the study released yesterday.
The impact could be lessened, McGee said, by measures that trap farm pollution before it can reach a stream. These include forested "buffers" along rivers, where plants can filter runoff, or "cover crops" that soak up fertilizer after the main harvest.
U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has pushed for such measures to get federal funding from the 2007 farm bill, which is scheduled for a markup in a House committee this week. McGee said yesterday's report was timed to show the need for those funds.
There is so much pressure to limit carbon dioxide emissions and control global warming, that grave mistakes are bound to happen. Growing corn to produce ethanol, which supposedly produces less "greenhouse gas" than burning gasoline, is a prime example of global warming hysteria gone mad.
This example relates to the Chesapeake Bay, but the same consequences lie in store for every drainage area, river, and lake in areas where more corn is being grown. Of course this applies to almost every State in the lower 48 United States. Some farmers, mostly large corporate farmers are going to benefit, so too are the ethanol producers who already receive an approximate 50 cent per gallon subsidy to make the fuel competitive with gasoline.
Now we have laws, and we're locked in to spending billions on a scientifically and economically unsound attempt to curb global warming and "reduce our dependence" on foreign oil. This one action alone, producing fuel from corn, is going to cost everyone dearly. We have ourselves to blame for listening to the global warming alarmists. The cost in terms of money and damage to the environment will only worsen.
Peter
'Green' Fuel May Damage The Bay
Ethanol Study Has Dire Prediction for The Chesapeake
By David A. Fahrenthold Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, July 17, 2007; Page B01
A surge in the demand for ethanol -- touted as a greener alternative to gasoline -- could have a serious environmental downside for the Chesapeake Bay, because more farmers growing corn could mean more pollution washing off farm fields, a new study warned yesterday.
The study, whose sponsors included the U.S. government and an environmental group, predicted that farmers in the bay watershed will plant 500,000 or more new acres of corn in the next five years. Because fields of corn generally produce more polluted runoff than those of other crops, that's a problem.
"It's going in the opposite direction from where we want to go," said Jim Pease, a professor at Virginia Tech and one of the study's authors.
Ethanol, a fuel made from processed and fermented plant matter, is an old invention with enormous new cachet. Proponents say that it offers an alternative to oil imported from overseas and that it emits fewer greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. In his State of the Union address in January, President Bush called for its use in motor fuels to be increased sevenfold by 2017. Already, 15 ethanol facilities are either planned or under construction in the mid-Atlantic, according to yesterday's report.
But ethanol's boom has also produced a variety of unintended, and unwanted, consequences. Because the primary ingredient at U.S. ethanol plants is corn, the price of that grain has shot up, making everything from tortillas to beef to chocolate more expensive.
In the Chesapeake area, according to the study, the drawback to ethanol's boom is that more farmers have planted cornfields to take advantage of the prices. Corn harvests are expected to increase 12 percent in Maryland this year and 8 percent in Virginia, according to a forecast in March from the U.S. Agriculture Department.
Although the spike is expected to be greater in Mississippi, where forecasters predict a 179 percent jump, across the vast Chesapeake watershed -- extending from southern Virginia to Cooperstown, N.Y. -- smaller shifts can add up. The authors of the study released yesterday forecast that over the next five years, the area of land newly planted with corn could be as much as 1 million acres, four times the size of Fairfax County.
Those shifting to corn production included Craig Giese, a farmer with 600 acres on Virginia's Northern Neck. Giese said in a telephone interview yesterday that he planted 50 new acres of corn after prices climbed from about $2.30 per 56-pound bushel last year to about $3.40 this year.
But Giese said he left many of his acres planted with soybeans to ensure against a disaster if corn prices drop or a drought makes the plants wither.
"If you put in all corn, you could hit a home run, with the prices we have now," said Giese, whose farm is near Lancaster, about 120 miles from Washington. "But . . . you could also go belly up."
More cornfields could be trouble, the study warned, because corn generally requires more fertilizer than such crops as soybeans or hay. When it rains, some of this fertilizer washes downstream, and it brings such pollutants as nitrogen and phosphorus, which feed unnatural algae blooms in the bay. These algae consume the oxygen that fish, crabs and other creatures need to breathe, creating the Chesapeake's infamous dead zones.
Governments around the bay have pledged to cut their output of nitrogen by 110 million pounds by 2010. But the study estimated that an ethanol-driven increase in cornfields could add 8 million to 16 million pounds of pollution.
"We've made it that much harder to meet our bay restoration goals," said Beth McGee, a senior water quality specialist at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, an environmental group based in Annapolis. McGee helped compile the study released yesterday.
The impact could be lessened, McGee said, by measures that trap farm pollution before it can reach a stream. These include forested "buffers" along rivers, where plants can filter runoff, or "cover crops" that soak up fertilizer after the main harvest.
U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has pushed for such measures to get federal funding from the 2007 farm bill, which is scheduled for a markup in a House committee this week. McGee said yesterday's report was timed to show the need for those funds.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Payback Time: Democrats Plan To Tax Oil and Gas, While Subsidizing Alterntive Energy
This a rather long article and hints at the changes coming in US Energy Policy. The one thing people can be sure of is our energy will cost us more. Does anyone think that new taxes on oil and gas companies will not be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices?
Is it smart for the government to tax the public (which is the ultimate effect of subsidies) to pay for unprofitable alternative energy sources? Will these taxes really significantly reduce our "dependence on foreign oil"? Will this shift in government spending really control "global warming"?
The bills essentially transfer billions of dollars from oil and gas companies to producers of "renewable fuels". This is like "robbing Peter to Pay Paul". Is it any wonder why the large oil and gas companies are investing in solar, wind, ethanol, and coal-to diesel technology. They'll be taxed in one area and rewarded in another, maintaining their profits, while the consumer continues paying more.
Or is all of this political gamesmanship, and as some Democrats are saying, "it's payback time", (no doubt with big grins on their faces)? Does any of this make sense to you? Is there a better way?
Peter
from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/washington/18oil.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th
Democrats Press Plan to Channel Billions in Oil Subsidies to Renewable Fuels
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: June 18, 2007
WASHINGTON, June 16 — Senate Democrats are seeking a major reversal of energy tax policies that would take billions of dollars in tax breaks and other benefits from the oil industry to underwrite renewable fuels.
The tax increases would reverse incentives passed as recently as three years ago to increase domestic exploration and production of oil and gas. The change reflects a shift from the Republican focus on expanding oil production to the Democratic concern about reducing global warming.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee will take up a bill that would raise about $14 billion from oil companies over 10 years and would give about the same amount of money on new incentives for solar power, wind power, cellulosic ethanol and numerous other renewable energy sources. The bill is one of the signature issues this year for Democrats, along with immigration and the war in Iraq, and one in which they hope to clearly distinguish themselves from the Republicans.
But Senate Democrats are expected to go beyond the $14 billion in tax changes in the draft bill. Democratic officials said the committee is all but certain to adopt a proposal by Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico that would raise $10 billion from companies that drill for oil and gas in federal waters but do not currently pay royalties to the government.
“We are cutting back subsidies for the oil and gas industry and using that money to finance the development of new and cleaner sources of energy,” said Mr. Bingaman, who plans to attach the entire tax package to the energy bill on the Senate floor next week.
It is unclear how much President Bush or Republicans in Congress will fight the proposed tax shift. The ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, has already endorsed the $14 billion package.
But the plan could easily founder because of opposition to any one of many hotly disputed provisions in the broader energy bill. Just last week, a threatened filibuster by Republicans forced Democrats to postpone a floor vote on requiring electric utilities to produce 15 percent of their power from renewable fuels. The White House, meanwhile, has threatened to veto the bill if lawmakers do not drop a provision intended to prosecute what Democrats call “unconscionably excessive” gasoline prices.
Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York has proposed that oil companies be prohibited from using an accounting method called “last in, first out” for inventories that saves them as much as $5 billion in taxes a year.
Because Senate Democrats want to offset the cost of any new tax breaks with tax increases elsewhere, many lawmakers are pushing for even more tax raises from oil companies.
Oil executives are protesting loudly, saying that the proposed changes would take money away from exploring and drilling in the United States and increase the nation’s dependence on imported foreign oil.
“They talk about our companies as if they’re owned by space aliens,” said John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association. “They talk about energy security, but these provisions could have the opposite effect in terms of reducing our production here and increasing our imports.”
The oil industry has ample reason to worry. With consumers seething about gasoline prices increasing to more than $3 a gallon and oil profits reaching record highs, oil companies would be short of friends in Congress regardless of the party in power.
Beyond the immediate jockeying, however, lies a bigger question: Is Congress putting taxpayers at risk by funneling billions of dollars in subsidies into alternative fuels that are still a long way from being profitable?
Indeed, industry experts said the Senate bill greatly understated the true cost of incentives for renewable fuels. Most of the incentives are set to expire at the end of 2009 or 2010, but Democrats in both the House and Senate have called for an increase in the production of such fuels by 2022. As a practical matter, the vast majority of “temporary” tax breaks are routinely extended once they are passed for the first time.
In addition to higher taxes for oil companies, House and Senate Democrats are hitting at the oil industry in other ways. The Senate bill would give the federal government more power to prosecute companies that engage in “price gouging” on gasoline prices, which is broadly defined in the bill as charging “unconscionably excessive” prices that reflect “unfair leverage.” A similar measure is moving through the House.
Separately, the House Natural Resources Committee passed a bill last week that would, among other things, crack down on companies that cheat on royalties they pay for oil and gas pumped on publicly owned land.
In effect, the various bills would transfer billions of dollars from oil companies to producers of renewable fuels.
The Senate bill would offer $5.6 billion in tax credits over the next three years for companies that produce electricity from renewable fuels like wind and geothermal power. It would offer tax-free bonds for new power plants with renewable or clean energy. It would offer tax credits totaling about a dollar a gallon to producers of cellulosic ethanol, and even bigger tax credits for “biodiesel” fuel. It would extend and expand tax breaks for plug-in electric cars and other vehicles that use alternative energy sources, and it would provide tax breaks for gas stations that offer renewable fuels.
(Page 2 of 2)
In a nod to the politically powerful coal industry, the bill would also provide $1.5 billion in tax-free “clean coal bonds” for advanced coal-fired electricity plants and $332 million in tax credits for plants that make diesel fuel from coal.
Times Topics: Energy and Power
Democrats in the House are moving with similar legislation. The House passed a bill earlier this year that would raise about $14 billion over 10 years from oil companies, and the House Ways and Means Committee is expected to mark up a new tax bill that would offer rich incentives for alternative fuels and increased efficiency.
The Democratic bill contrasts sharply with the energy bill that the Republican-led Congress passed in 2005. The Senate bill offers less than $1 billion in incentives for coal, no tax breaks for nuclear power and tax hikes for oil. But two years ago, Congress approved $11 billion in additional tax breaks, of which $7 billion went to oil, coal and nuclear power.
“It is a dramatic change in policy, targeted at the big oil companies,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon. “It will show the country the kind of things we can do by taking away subsidies for fossil fuels and putting the money into new sources of energy.”
Privately, some Democrats say it is payback time: the oil industry’s political contributions have overwhelmingly gone to Republican lawmakers and President Bush, and many Democrats say they have little sympathy for the industry now.
It is unclear whether Republicans or Mr. Bush plan to protect the industry.
In stinging criticism earlier this month, the White House Office of Management and Budget said the proposed price-gouging measure amounted to price regulation that would jeopardize investment in oil production and ultimately hurt consumers.
In 2005, Mr. Bush threatened to veto a one-year measure that blocked oil companies from using the “last in, first out” accounting method for inventories. The Bush administration, echoing charges by the oil industry, said the measure amounted to a one-year windfall profits tax that would frighten investors by raising the prospect of further tax raises whenever oil prices jumped sharply.
Mr. Schumer’s proposal is similar to the 2005 proposal, except that his measure would be permanent.
The oil industry still has persuasive clout in Washington. Exxon, Shell and trade groups like the American Petroleum Institute have hired former Democratic lawmakers and Democratic lobbyists to help press their case.
They have carefully positioned themselves, picking their fights on selected issues that attract fairly little popular interest but affect potentially large amounts of money.
The effort is mostly defensive — fending off tax increases — but also has offensive elements. Royal Dutch Shell and other big companies hope to be big players in coal-based liquid fuels. And the industry in general is still pushing for Congress to open up more areas on the outer continental shelf for deepwater drilling.
But industry executives hold out little hope for emerging unscathed.
Is it smart for the government to tax the public (which is the ultimate effect of subsidies) to pay for unprofitable alternative energy sources? Will these taxes really significantly reduce our "dependence on foreign oil"? Will this shift in government spending really control "global warming"?
The bills essentially transfer billions of dollars from oil and gas companies to producers of "renewable fuels". This is like "robbing Peter to Pay Paul". Is it any wonder why the large oil and gas companies are investing in solar, wind, ethanol, and coal-to diesel technology. They'll be taxed in one area and rewarded in another, maintaining their profits, while the consumer continues paying more.
Or is all of this political gamesmanship, and as some Democrats are saying, "it's payback time", (no doubt with big grins on their faces)? Does any of this make sense to you? Is there a better way?
Peter
from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/washington/18oil.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th
Democrats Press Plan to Channel Billions in Oil Subsidies to Renewable Fuels
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: June 18, 2007
WASHINGTON, June 16 — Senate Democrats are seeking a major reversal of energy tax policies that would take billions of dollars in tax breaks and other benefits from the oil industry to underwrite renewable fuels.
The tax increases would reverse incentives passed as recently as three years ago to increase domestic exploration and production of oil and gas. The change reflects a shift from the Republican focus on expanding oil production to the Democratic concern about reducing global warming.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee will take up a bill that would raise about $14 billion from oil companies over 10 years and would give about the same amount of money on new incentives for solar power, wind power, cellulosic ethanol and numerous other renewable energy sources. The bill is one of the signature issues this year for Democrats, along with immigration and the war in Iraq, and one in which they hope to clearly distinguish themselves from the Republicans.
But Senate Democrats are expected to go beyond the $14 billion in tax changes in the draft bill. Democratic officials said the committee is all but certain to adopt a proposal by Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico that would raise $10 billion from companies that drill for oil and gas in federal waters but do not currently pay royalties to the government.
“We are cutting back subsidies for the oil and gas industry and using that money to finance the development of new and cleaner sources of energy,” said Mr. Bingaman, who plans to attach the entire tax package to the energy bill on the Senate floor next week.
It is unclear how much President Bush or Republicans in Congress will fight the proposed tax shift. The ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, has already endorsed the $14 billion package.
But the plan could easily founder because of opposition to any one of many hotly disputed provisions in the broader energy bill. Just last week, a threatened filibuster by Republicans forced Democrats to postpone a floor vote on requiring electric utilities to produce 15 percent of their power from renewable fuels. The White House, meanwhile, has threatened to veto the bill if lawmakers do not drop a provision intended to prosecute what Democrats call “unconscionably excessive” gasoline prices.
Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York has proposed that oil companies be prohibited from using an accounting method called “last in, first out” for inventories that saves them as much as $5 billion in taxes a year.
Because Senate Democrats want to offset the cost of any new tax breaks with tax increases elsewhere, many lawmakers are pushing for even more tax raises from oil companies.
Oil executives are protesting loudly, saying that the proposed changes would take money away from exploring and drilling in the United States and increase the nation’s dependence on imported foreign oil.
“They talk about our companies as if they’re owned by space aliens,” said John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association. “They talk about energy security, but these provisions could have the opposite effect in terms of reducing our production here and increasing our imports.”
The oil industry has ample reason to worry. With consumers seething about gasoline prices increasing to more than $3 a gallon and oil profits reaching record highs, oil companies would be short of friends in Congress regardless of the party in power.
Beyond the immediate jockeying, however, lies a bigger question: Is Congress putting taxpayers at risk by funneling billions of dollars in subsidies into alternative fuels that are still a long way from being profitable?
Indeed, industry experts said the Senate bill greatly understated the true cost of incentives for renewable fuels. Most of the incentives are set to expire at the end of 2009 or 2010, but Democrats in both the House and Senate have called for an increase in the production of such fuels by 2022. As a practical matter, the vast majority of “temporary” tax breaks are routinely extended once they are passed for the first time.
In addition to higher taxes for oil companies, House and Senate Democrats are hitting at the oil industry in other ways. The Senate bill would give the federal government more power to prosecute companies that engage in “price gouging” on gasoline prices, which is broadly defined in the bill as charging “unconscionably excessive” prices that reflect “unfair leverage.” A similar measure is moving through the House.
Separately, the House Natural Resources Committee passed a bill last week that would, among other things, crack down on companies that cheat on royalties they pay for oil and gas pumped on publicly owned land.
In effect, the various bills would transfer billions of dollars from oil companies to producers of renewable fuels.
The Senate bill would offer $5.6 billion in tax credits over the next three years for companies that produce electricity from renewable fuels like wind and geothermal power. It would offer tax-free bonds for new power plants with renewable or clean energy. It would offer tax credits totaling about a dollar a gallon to producers of cellulosic ethanol, and even bigger tax credits for “biodiesel” fuel. It would extend and expand tax breaks for plug-in electric cars and other vehicles that use alternative energy sources, and it would provide tax breaks for gas stations that offer renewable fuels.
(Page 2 of 2)
In a nod to the politically powerful coal industry, the bill would also provide $1.5 billion in tax-free “clean coal bonds” for advanced coal-fired electricity plants and $332 million in tax credits for plants that make diesel fuel from coal.
Times Topics: Energy and Power
Democrats in the House are moving with similar legislation. The House passed a bill earlier this year that would raise about $14 billion over 10 years from oil companies, and the House Ways and Means Committee is expected to mark up a new tax bill that would offer rich incentives for alternative fuels and increased efficiency.
The Democratic bill contrasts sharply with the energy bill that the Republican-led Congress passed in 2005. The Senate bill offers less than $1 billion in incentives for coal, no tax breaks for nuclear power and tax hikes for oil. But two years ago, Congress approved $11 billion in additional tax breaks, of which $7 billion went to oil, coal and nuclear power.
“It is a dramatic change in policy, targeted at the big oil companies,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon. “It will show the country the kind of things we can do by taking away subsidies for fossil fuels and putting the money into new sources of energy.”
Privately, some Democrats say it is payback time: the oil industry’s political contributions have overwhelmingly gone to Republican lawmakers and President Bush, and many Democrats say they have little sympathy for the industry now.
It is unclear whether Republicans or Mr. Bush plan to protect the industry.
In stinging criticism earlier this month, the White House Office of Management and Budget said the proposed price-gouging measure amounted to price regulation that would jeopardize investment in oil production and ultimately hurt consumers.
In 2005, Mr. Bush threatened to veto a one-year measure that blocked oil companies from using the “last in, first out” accounting method for inventories. The Bush administration, echoing charges by the oil industry, said the measure amounted to a one-year windfall profits tax that would frighten investors by raising the prospect of further tax raises whenever oil prices jumped sharply.
Mr. Schumer’s proposal is similar to the 2005 proposal, except that his measure would be permanent.
The oil industry still has persuasive clout in Washington. Exxon, Shell and trade groups like the American Petroleum Institute have hired former Democratic lawmakers and Democratic lobbyists to help press their case.
They have carefully positioned themselves, picking their fights on selected issues that attract fairly little popular interest but affect potentially large amounts of money.
The effort is mostly defensive — fending off tax increases — but also has offensive elements. Royal Dutch Shell and other big companies hope to be big players in coal-based liquid fuels. And the industry in general is still pushing for Congress to open up more areas on the outer continental shelf for deepwater drilling.
But industry executives hold out little hope for emerging unscathed.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
The IPCC Makes A Stupid Statement Again
This from the latest news today, a statement from the United Nations and presumably the IPCC about the increasing usage of "biofuels" like ethanol to reduce pollution and control global warming and climate change. Think of how utterly ridiculous this all is and how little sense it makes. Who is writing this garbage, and most amazing, who is believing it?
Peter
from:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18551000/
U.N.: Not so fast with ethanol, other biofuels
Unchecked growth could see new problems offset climate gains, report says
ROME - Biofuels like ethanol can help reduce global warming and create jobs for the rural poor, but the benefits may be offset by serious environmental problems and increased food prices for the hungry, the United Nations concluded Tuesday in its first major report on bioenergy.
In an agency-wide assessment, the United Nations raised alarms about the potential negative impact of biofuels, just days after a climate conference in Bangkok said the world had both the money and technology to prevent the sharp rise in global temperatures blamed in part on greenhouse gas emissions.
“Unless new policies are enacted to protect threatened lands, secure socially acceptable land use, and steer bioenergy development in a sustainable direction overall, the environmental and social damage could in some cases outweigh the benefits,” the report stated.
There is more to the article, offered by our ever-stupid, politically-motivated, puppet media. If you want a good laugh, read the remainder of it. The problem is, people are buying into this ethanol, biofuels baloney. The farmers in Iowa may love it, as well as the fertilizer-sellers, tractor-sellers, harvester-sellers, and big corporate farmland owners.
Helping the "rural poor"? Someone must be smoking what they are growing to think we'll
believe that. Worst of all, we the taxpayers are subsidizing it! Not only will we pay more for the fuel, the government is going to give the growers and producers tax credits or incentives to produce the stuff.
Like Willie Nelson, needs a helping hand. Biofuel my butt......like ol' Willie says, "On
the road, again........I just can't wait to get on the road again......"
Peter
Peter
from:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18551000/
U.N.: Not so fast with ethanol, other biofuels
Unchecked growth could see new problems offset climate gains, report says
ROME - Biofuels like ethanol can help reduce global warming and create jobs for the rural poor, but the benefits may be offset by serious environmental problems and increased food prices for the hungry, the United Nations concluded Tuesday in its first major report on bioenergy.
In an agency-wide assessment, the United Nations raised alarms about the potential negative impact of biofuels, just days after a climate conference in Bangkok said the world had both the money and technology to prevent the sharp rise in global temperatures blamed in part on greenhouse gas emissions.
“Unless new policies are enacted to protect threatened lands, secure socially acceptable land use, and steer bioenergy development in a sustainable direction overall, the environmental and social damage could in some cases outweigh the benefits,” the report stated.
There is more to the article, offered by our ever-stupid, politically-motivated, puppet media. If you want a good laugh, read the remainder of it. The problem is, people are buying into this ethanol, biofuels baloney. The farmers in Iowa may love it, as well as the fertilizer-sellers, tractor-sellers, harvester-sellers, and big corporate farmland owners.
Helping the "rural poor"? Someone must be smoking what they are growing to think we'll
believe that. Worst of all, we the taxpayers are subsidizing it! Not only will we pay more for the fuel, the government is going to give the growers and producers tax credits or incentives to produce the stuff.
Like Willie Nelson, needs a helping hand. Biofuel my butt......like ol' Willie says, "On
the road, again........I just can't wait to get on the road again......"
Peter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)