Individual and Community

10 Comments

1. Gary Dikkers
   12/03/2005 at 6:14 pm

   “The National Corn Growers Association has a site dealing with ethanol energy use. They cite oil industry corruption as one of the reasons for the slow adoption of ethanol use. They also cite 10 studies that show that ethanol has a positive energy balance.”

   The NCGA is being disingenuous when they say ethanol produces more energy than it consumes. While that is true, that is not the issue.

   ENERGY IS NOT THE SAME AS FUEL. While all fuel is energy, not all energy is a useable fuel, and that is corn ethanol’s downfall because the production of corn ethanol doesn’t return as much fuel as its production uses.

   Corn ethanol production is built on a foundation of fossil fuel consumption, and the energy in the fuel from corn ethanol does not replace the fuel consumed to make it.

   — Farmers must burn diesel fuel to run their tractors and corn pickers.

   — Tire companies must consume fossil fuels to make the millions of tires corn farmers and the truckers who haul ethanol use each year.

   — Ethanol plants burn still more natural gas to mill and distill corn into ethanol.

   — Trucking companies burn still more diesel fuel hauling corn from farm to ethanol plant, and finished ethanol from the plant to retailer. (Because of its affinity for absorbing water, ethanol cannot be shipped through efficient pipelines as oil can.)

   — Chemical plants use natural gas as the feedstock for making the millions of tons of fertilizers; pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides farmers depend upon.

   The last point is the most critical – we could not grow the massive amounts of corn we do with consuming massive amounts of nitrogen fertilizers. Unfortunately, almost all ammonia fertilizer is now made from natural gas. What is not widely known is that an increasingly large percentage of that fertilizer is made overseas and must be imported into the U.S. and the farming industry has estimated that within five years we will have to import almost 100% of the fertilizer we use.

   It is ironic that an increased use of ethanol would only mean an increased dependence on fertilizer made from foreign natural gas. Would it make sense to replace our dependence on foreign oil with a dependence on imported fertilizers made from foreign natural gas? Probably not.

   Excess Energy

   While there is excess energy from making corn ethanol, that energy is locked in a waste product of fermentation and distillation called dried distiller’s grains (DDG). (A pound of DDG contains about 9600 Btu.) Unfortunately, the excess energy locked in DDG is of little use to anyone. On a micro-scale with only a few ethanol plants in each state, it makes good cattle feed, but on a macro-scale we would soon have piles and piles of waste DDG heaped around our corn ethanol plants, that few people could use and no one could afford to haul away. If we ever went to large-scale corn ethanol production with the hundreds of ethanol plants some people envision, those ethanol plants would soon look like old coalmines and their huge slag heaps – only the slag heaps around ethanol plants would be heaps of DDG.

   Until the corn ethanol industry can demonstrate making ethanol returns more FUEL than it consumes, the studies they cite mean little, since you are not going to power your car or heat your house with waste DDG, no matter how much energy it contains.

2. Gare
   12/08/2005 at 9:24 pm

   Thank you for posting! These are great points that really make me think.

   Realizing that questioning the speaker is not a valid response, I have to say that I am intrigued, Mr. Dikkers. I google your name and find so many anti-ethanol posts that I initially suspect some ulterior agenda. But links such as http://www.madisonenvironmental.com/projects_carfree2005results.htm suggest that you are quite the opposite, quite possibly a conscientious person who has access to certain facts about ethanol production.

   I can’t find any flaw with you post – but I’ll keep looking – or your logic. What you say makes a lot of sense.

   Ethanol’s dependence on fossil fuels makes any governmental intervention on this topic tantamount to yet another unproductive farming subsidy.

3. Gary Dikkers
   12/17/2005 at 6:32 pm

   Gare,

   I like to think I’m conscientious, and I’m not anti-ethanol. I’d be more than happy if bio-fuels lead us to energy independence from Mideast, African, and South American oil.

   I am at least conscientious enough to think corn ethanol is not the answer — growing corn to turn it into ethanol uses too many resources and far too much fossil fuel. I am also conscientious enough to realize that the corn ethanol lobby really has little concern with energy independence, but instead is about politics, farm subsidies, and creating a market for the billions of tons of corn grown in the Corn Belt each year. (Could it be “Big Oil” And “Big Corn Ethanol” are cousins cast from the same mold?)

   The day the corn ethanol industry proves it can grown corn and turn it into ethanol without using nitrogen fertilizers made from foreign natural gas, diesel fuel on the farm, and more natural gas at the ethanol plant, I will change my view and fall in line.

   The corn ethanol industry repeats and repeats their claim that they produce more energy than they use, but as they continue repeating that claim, they also continue consuming vast amounts of natural gas and diesel fuel. Don’t their actions strike you as being inconsistent with their claim?

   Instead of relying on political clout to advance the corn ethanol agenda, they should instead simply demonstrate their industry can be self-sustaining by using ethanol to make more ethanol. That they can’t and haven’t done that speaks volumes.

   Best regards,

   Gary Dikkers

4. anonymous
   02/01/2006 at 2:10 pm

   Bush joins rush to ethanol fuel

   Harry Stoffer

   9:57 am, February 1, 2006

   WASHINGTON — President Bush, a former oilman, is getting on the ethanol bandwagon.

   In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, the president said he wants ethanol — not just from corn but also from nonfood plants — to be competitive with gasoline as a vehicle fuel within six years.

   He told Congress and a national TV audience that the move to “this new kind of ethanol” is part of a plan to replace 75 percent of U.S. oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.

   “America is addicted to oil,” he said.

   Bush’s plan, which he called the Advanced Energy Initiative, also includes more government-funded research on hydrogen fuel. He called for better batteries for hybrid vehicles, which combine internal combustion engines and electric power.

   Three years ago, Bush emphasized hydrogen fuel cells in his State of the Union message. But other options, such as ethanol, have gained ground in public discussions as more practical near-term alternatives to gasoline.

   Automakers, especially General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and the Chrysler group, build hundreds of thousands of vehicles each year that can use a fuel called E85 as well as gasoline. E85 is 85 percent ethanol, a kind of alcohol, and 15 percent gasoline.

   Critics call production of these flexible-fuel vehicles a phony move by car companies to earn credits that help them meet federal fuel economy standards. Most of the vehicles never burn anything but gasoline. Only about 600 filling stations, mostly in the corn-growing Midwest, offer E85.

   But GM and Ford insist that E85 is a realistic alternative to gasoline. They seek ways to expand availability of and consumer demand for the fuel. Coalitions of interest groups, including environmentalists and national defense experts, have joined them.

   Early reaction to Bush’s plan called it too little and too long-term.

   “The president offered a very modest proposal to reduce our dependence on foreign oil — a promise he’s made and broken in the past,” said Jerome Ringo, president of a coalition called Apollo Alliance.

   Jason Mark, clean-vehicles director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said: “The president has admitted we’re addicted to oil. There’s no reason to drag that addiction out 20 years.”

   Last August, Congress passed a comprehensive energy bill that incorporated many Bush administration energy policies. But when gasoline prices soared in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, many officials and activists in Washington demanded more action.

   You may e-mail Harry Stoffer at hstoffer@crain.com

   PRINTED FROM: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060201/SUB/60201010/1111&refsect=&template=printart
   Entire contents ©2006 Crain Communications, Inc.

5. Gare
   08/12/2006 at 7:30 pm

   Hybrids in the Third World?
   Green cars cost more, so why try to sell them in emerging nations? Because the market is huge—and so are the consequences of inaction

   Are hybrid cars too expensive for the Third World? While many consumers, investors, scientists, and environmental activists have focused on the importance of building hybrid cars for the U.S. market, it is in the emerging markets that the need for hybrids and other clean air technology may be even greater.

   Over the past decade emerging markets such as India, Latin America, and China have seen the numbers of cars on the road increase exponentially. Reports published by the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics show that in just half that time the number of private cars in the country has nearly tripled, from 6.25 million to 17 million.

   According to J.D. Power and Associates, Indians bought 1.2 million cars last year, and that figure is expected to rise nearly 10% annually over the next half decade. The growing population of cars in these countries is not without a concurrent environmental impact. A 2005 European Space Agency satellite study reports that pollutants in the sky over China have doubled in the past decade.

   FIRST VENTURE. Yet to hold down costs, some cars sold in these price-sensitive markets are available without basic safety features like airbags and anti-lock brakes. Given the fact that in the U.S. hybrid cars cost thousands of dollars more than their internal-combustion cousins, it is unlikely that many new car buyers in the Third World would today be able to spend the extra money for a hybrid car.

   These rapidly growing markets represent lucrative opportunities for auto makers. Despite the huge gap between the cost of hybrid technology and disposable incomes, some auto companies are beginning to establish pilot hybrid sales programs. In January, Honda (HMC ) began selling a hybrid version of its popular Civic in one of the world’s most polluted cities, Mexico City.

   That made Mexico the first Latin American country in which hybrids are available. Honda hopes to sell 450 vehicles there, a tiny number, but a start. In the first six months of 2006, Honda sold 15,755 of the same model in the U.S.

   MODEST GOALS. Honda executives were not available for comment for this story, but in an e-mail exchange the company said its hybrid cars will have to come down in price before they become widely adopted in the U.S. or elsewhere. “In about three years, Honda will introduce a hybrid that is less expensive. This hybrid will be introduced on a global basis, with expected annual sales worldwide of 200,000 units,” according to a company spokesperson.

   Toyota (TM), meanwhile, expects to sell 3,000 of its Prius hybrid cars in China this year. But these goals remain extremely modest compared to overall sales growth. In the first six months of 2006, Toyota sold 48,156 of the same model in the U.S.

   Michael Walsh, a MacArthur Fellow and independent transportation consultant based in Arlington, Va., says that even though auto makers have been introducing relatively advanced pollution-control technologies, they still can’t keep pace with rapid demand growth. The high cost of cleaner technologies has meant a focus on fuel solutions by industry and government officials.

   FUELED BY SUGAR. Take the case of Brazil. Billions in subsidies and almost 30 years of work are expected to pay off when Brazil attains energy independence later this year. The country is the world leader in alternative fuel technology. About 20% of its transport fuel market comes from ethanol, compared to just 1% worldwide.

   Brazil’s favorable climate and abundance of land make it the perfect candidate to grow the sugarcane that is used to produce ethanol. Even though gasoline gets more mileage per gallon, Brazilian ethanol is cheaper per mile. Sugarcane-based fuel is three times more efficient than the corn ethanol made in the U.S., and it’s easier to grow and process.

   Ethanol’s success means that drivers in Brazil no longer need to bet on which fuel type will be cheaper, but instead can switch between ethanol and gasoline or a combination of the two. More than 75% of new vehicles sold in the country are such flex-fuel models. And last month, Volkswagen Brazil announced that it was halting production of gasoline-only cars, becoming the first auto manufacturer to switch to an entirely flex-fuel lineup.

   MORE BETTER CARS. Development experts say China, India, and countries in Southeast Asia and Africa could all try to follow Brazil’s example of sugarcane-based fuel. But because state-owned oil companies and governments in developing countries keep gas prices and taxes low, they are nowhere close to Brazil in tapping that potential.

   Lee Schipper, Director of Research for EMBARQ, the World Resources Institute Center for Sustainable Transport, says Chinese and Indian efforts are resulting in dramatically reduced emissions, approaching standards of European and U.S. cars. But environmental concerns still loom. “The bad news is cities in China and India will be crawling with cars, but at least they will be good cars,” he says. That is, cars with more modern carburetors, fuel-injection, and catalytic converters.

   Though mid-term solutions remain works in progress, both in the U.S. and developing markets, some industry insiders say the best hopes for cutting back on gas guzzlers lie in translating the lessons learned in one region to another.

   IDEAS TAKE TIME. Brent Dewar, GM’s (GM) vice-president of field sales, service, and parts, has been working on alternative fuel initiatives inside the company since the late 1970s. He’s become an evangelist of sorts and formed a small cabal of enthusiasts that promotes new technologies. “We form the trim tab,” he says referring to the comparatively small piece of a plane’s rudder that allows it to make large turns.

   Dewar, who was involved in developing alternative fuel efforts in Canada as well as GM’s offerings in Brazil, says “The key is slowing everybody down just a little. You have to be able to make people understand.” Those who’ve worked with Dewar say his experiences in Brazil during the mid-’90s, when the country was bringing its ethanol strategy online, has helped influence GM’s ethanol offerings in the U.S.

   Like others both inside and outside of the automotive industry, Dewar admits that much progress remains to be made in both alternative fuels and hybrid technology. He adds, “In the end, it takes time to make a big idea.” But, until one overarching idea catches on, gains in the developing world will likely continue to be products of individual markets and their varying constraints, both economic and technological.
   http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/jul2006/bw20060728_570187.htm?chan=top+news_top+news

   By Christina Pryor and Matt Vella

6. Gare
   08/15/2006 at 6:32 am

   Beware of the ethanol hype
   By Salman Anwar

   Ethanol appears to be the new and exciting source of renewable energy, drawing considerable investor interest, as reflected by recent initial public stock offerings such as VeraSun Energy and Pacific Ethanol. The use of ethanol is also politically expedient, as it is perceived to be an alternative to Middle Eastern oil.

   Ethanol also benefits from growing concerns over the long-term supply of oil. And in the US, ethanol’s environmentally friendly role is growing because of legislation mandating a phasing-out of other fuel sources with the toxic ingredient methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) in favor of ethanol.

   Yet there remain big questions about the projected long-term

   viability of ethanol as the major oil-replacement fuel stock.

   Why ethanol?
   The economics behind ethanol do not necessarily demonstrate its practicality. Simply stated, it is unclear whether ethanol will be the solution to US energy woes.

   At the same time, there is currently an inadequate supply of ethanol to fulfill demand. The pressure from government forced the United States to produce 4 billion gallons (15.14 billion liters) of ethanol in 2006, which is forecast to increase to 7.5 billion gallons (28.39 billion liters) in 2012. This is helping to fuel an ethanol boom that will double the size of the industry by 2008. A number of states have a mandate in place to use 10% ethanol as the blending agent, replacing MTBE, which contributes to more environmental pollution than ethanol. As of April at least 85% of Hawaii’s gasoline must be 10% ethanol.

   In the United States, ethanol has been used in vehicle fuel for many years, but only as a blending agent. The recent increase in oil prices and angst over depleting oil reserves has led everyone’s attention toward ethanol production. Over time it is likely that ethanol will become much more important as a fuel source, but the technologies to make that happen appear to be decades away. It took decades for petroleum to be the main source of energy and years to make it burn more efficiently. For example, petroleum was first used as medicine, then as a fuel for lighting, then slowly moved toward its use in transportation.

   It took time for petroleum to go mainstream. The same factors apply to ethanol; it will take years before ethanol can fully replace oil, because basically everything runs on gasoline. For example, the median age of light vehicles in the US vehicle fleet is about 14 years, and it could take about 14 years for the fleet to be replaced by vehicles that can run on both gasoline and ethanol.

   Who’s pushing ethanol?
   There is an important political dimension to the use of ethanol in the United States. The farm lobby is strong and promotes ethanol as the fuel of the future, especially as it represents considerable profit potential. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), it would require almost a one-third of US farmland to power one in 10 of America’s cars with home-grown ethanol based on corn (maize).

   Consequently, the government is investing in a technology that is not up to the challenge because of land-use issues, a weakness in transportation and refining infrastructure, and a very political regime pertaining to keeping potential external sources of ethanol fuel-stock out of the market. According to an editorial in the Jamestown, New York, Post-Journal: “It should come as no surprise that ethanol’s best friends are in farm states – including members of Congress who represent them. Regardless of whether expanded use of ethanol would be good for US motorists, it would help those states.”

   The study conducted by Alexander Farrell of the University of California, Berkeley, published in Science magazine indicated that corn-based ethanol cuts overall greenhouse-gas emissions by only 13% compared with gasoline. In Brussels, the European Commission has found that the standard production methods for sugar-beet ethanol in Europe reduced global-warming emissions by one-third. Consequently, the question must be raised as to why Americans are investing so many resources in corn-based ethanol that reduces emissions by only 13%, when it can invest the same resources toward producing sugar-beet-based ethanol that reduces the emissions by 20% more. The answer, of course, is that it is all about keeping the farmers happy and showing the American public that the country is striving toward independence from foreign oil imports.

   Who benefits?
   Analysts are predicting that by 2008, ethanol production will reach 8 billion gallons (30.28 billion liters) in the US, but there remains a worry that the demand for corn could strain food supplies, raise costs in the livestock industry, and ultimately lead to a land rush. Already Agriculture Department economists expect the value of this year’s corn crop to climb roughly 20% over last year, also elevating the prices of sugar to record levels. The agriculture industry will benefit the most. This includes such companies as Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill Inc, Monsanto and DuPont that are involved in the production of ethanol or corn seed, or genetically engineering them to provide the most acreage.

   There is no disagreement that the ethanol frenzy will lead to a clean, green alternative to oil and relieve the US from the dependence on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries for oil, but many believe it makes more economic sense to import this fuel from Brazil or any other country that produces ethanol more cheaply or is much better placed in the production method of ethanol. The US therefore would benefit from being less stringent about its policy on ethanol imports, otherwise it will waste its scarce resources on the production of a fuel that is not made efficiently at an optimal cost. This would require the US to work side by side and to welcome the transfer of technology from countries that have a competitive advantage in ethanol production. Scrutiny by Congress is needed to research more about the expanded use ethanol before a policy is made to encourage it as the mainstream fuel.

   Obstacles faced by ethanol
   The most significant non-political obstacle the ethanol industry faces in the US is a lack of infrastructure. Unlike oil and natural gas, ethanol or gasoline containing ethanol cannot be transported by pipeline. The current oil refineries cannot be used for ethanol and will need to be converted. The only viable ways of transporting this fuel are either through trucks or over water. This is because ethanol is soluble in water and thus can be easily diluted or contaminated. To develop the infrastructure that supports ethanol will require time as well as the investment of resources.

   Most US ethanol plants are in the Midwestern states, and that poses another challenge. Transporting ethanol to the energy-hungry east and west coasts is a daunting task. One helpful factor is that the majority of the existing and proposed ethanol plants are on or a near a major waterway, but that poses another challenge, the need to equip all the ethanol plants so they can transport the fuel via water, for example trucks needed to bring the fuel from the site to the vessel. This is capital- and time-intensive. Another mode of transport for ethanol is via railroad, but this will require special cars. In addition, ethanol would have to compete for limited rail transport space with coal.

   Another obstacle is that owners of E85 (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) flex-fuel vehicles are unlikely to use E85 if it costs more than gasoline. For people to replace cars, especially when they are higher in price, poses a barrier for the consumer. The only thing that might persuade people to buy flex-fuel vehicles is if it has a significant cost advantage in the long run or if it is government-subsidized.

   Ethanol economics
   Currently, US ethanol production cannot meet demand, and imported ethanol is required to balance supply and demand. For the imports to be economically feasible, ethanol prices must be above $2.45 a gallon (65 cents a liter). That is because if the value of imported ethanol is 46 cents a liter, with custom duty and transportation costs of 4 cents a liter it is viable subject to the above-quoted price. Currently, ethanol makers can break even with oil priced at $55 a barrel. In the beginning ethanol production will be expensive because the technology needs to be further researched and developed. In the years to come, there are chances for this technology to take off, but at a cost.

   For all the challenges facing the US ethanol industry, efforts are being made to meet rising demand. Over the next 12 months, at least 39 new ethanol plants are expected to be completed. The new plants will add 5.3 billion liters a year to the current 17.4 billion. This will put the United States ahead of Brazil. But there remains the very basic problem of not having enough cars available that use ethanol. Ford, DaimlerChrysler and General Motors have flex-fuel vehicle programs under way, and the lineup of new cars is expected to be unveiled by the end of the year.

   A look at Brazil
   Similar to the United States, the Brazilian government subsidized the production of ethanol back in the 1970s. There was also a lot of investment from the private sector into the ethanol industry, sufficient to make Brazil independent from foreign oil. Brazil is the world leader in flex-fuel cars, and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has embraced the concept of being independent for energy. Brazil has perfected this technology of flex-fuel vehicles to the point that for a Brazilian the cheapest fuel choice is clearly ethanol.

   That is because Brazil produces ethanol efficiently and cost-effectively. Brazilian ethanol is sugarcane-based, unlike the corn-based version in the US, which requires more time and money. The Brazilian auto fleet is composed of 20% flex-fuel vehicles, and Brazil is the second-largest producer of ethanol. The country has taken to heart an approach of a vehicle that can run on multiple fuels. It has advanced in that aspect to an extent that it hopes to export flex-fuel cars and technology around the world. The idea for non-gasoline-powered vehicles goes back to the 1970s fuel crises in Brazil, when its economy nosedived. Brazilians enjoy the fruit of that initiative in the form of energy independence and cheap fuel.

   Benefits of ethanol questioned
   Many experts question the benefits of ethanol in the US. Domestic plants run on petroleum, leaving ethanol’s net contribution to reducing the use of oil questionable. David Pimental, a top agricultural expert from Cornell University, has calculated that powering the average US automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 4.5 hectares of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year’s supply of food for seven people.

   Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 34,610 British thermal units are needed to make one liter of ethanol. One liter of ethanol has an energy value of only 20,340Btu. Thus 70% more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one liter of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 14,270Btu. Consequently, there is a loss of energy for using ethanol as an alternative fuel source. Moreover, that does not include the trucks and the tankers involved with transport, which require petroleum as well. Despite the structural challenges facing ethanol, there remains a certain momentum to push this fuel as the alternative fuel to oil.

   Outlook
   One should not be carried away with the sudden excitement in the ethanol industry. The investment bankers first fueled the dotcom boom with the technology hype, and then that bubble burst. Now it appears to be the time for ethanol. What needs to be brought to an investors attention is that it is difficult to see how ethanol can go mainstream as a fuel if 70% more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it.

   Constant recommendations to buy the stock of ethanol companies and all the hype that is going into ethanol appear to be temporary because global oil prices have forced the world to seek alternative energy sources. The candidates for alternative energy such as butanol, hydrogen, wind, and biomass are also under constant research-and-development focus. Butanol, which is produced from sugar beet, is more environmentally friendly and cheaper than ethanol. Will butanol, hydrogen, wind, and biomass be able take over ethanol’s pace?

   An intelligent investor will not go with the market hype and will be mindful about the threats that ethanol faces from the other sources of energy and varying crop yield controlled by the weather. At the same time it is clear ethanol is one of the options now under development within the alternative-energy sector, and it needs to be monitored to determine its potential impact on efforts to expand beyond global reliance on petrochemical products.

   ( from KWR International, Inc, a consulting firm specializing in the delivery of research, communications and advisory services.)

   source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH01Dj01.html

7. Gare
   08/15/2006 at 6:36 am

   Environmentalists Burn Ethanol Hype as Empty Promise
   by Michelle Chen
   The Bush administration’s give-away to ethanol producers leaves critics saying the “green” gasoline creates a host of additional environmental and political problems.

   Aug. 9 – Prompted by climbing gas prices and mandates to promote alternative fuels, Washington is pouring public money into ethanol production. But watchdogs and environmentalists fear that corporate and political agendas are eclipsing environmental concerns in a headlong rush for “green” energy.

   While they acknowledge its potential as a renewable “biofuel,” skeptics say that banking on ethanol in its current form is environmentally and economically unsustainable, threatening to squander over $1 billion in tax incentives that Congress has recently lavished on the industry.

   An alternative fuel derived mainly from corn, ethanol currently constitutes only a miniscule fraction of the country’s fuel supply, but domestic production capacity has more than doubled since 2001, to over 4.5 billion gallons per year. About 100 production plants or “biorefineries” now dot the country, according to the trade group Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). Production is likely to soar over the next several years, since the Energy Policy Act of 2005 set a Renewable Fuels Standard mandating 7.5 billion gallons of annual domestic renewable-fuel production by 2012.

   In a statement issued Monday, RFA President Bob Dinneen celebrated the one-year anniversary of the Act’s signing. Dineen said that while ethanol alone would not completely eliminate the need for oil, the industry is “uniquely positioned to lessen our dependence on foreign oil today and to replace most of our imports in the future.” He added that ethanol is “providing economic revitalization in rural communities across the country.”

   Yet gasoline’s carbohydrate-based surrogate brings its own unique challenges, both ecological and political.

   In a 2005 study, Cornell University agricultural ecologist David Pimentel calculated that the process of producing corn-based ethanol, including harvesting the grain and converting it into liquid fuel, requires significant fossil-fuel inputs, which ultimately exceed the amount of energy generated.

   “We’re importing oil from Saudi Arabia to produce ethanol in the US at a net energy loss,” Pimentel told The NewStandard.

   Researchers at the University of California–Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group have published a study challenging Pimentel’s conclusions, arguing that his analysis was based on obsolete data and miscalculated key energy values. But even the rosier figures, which show a net energy gain for ethanol, cast doubt on corn-based ethanol’s long-term viability.

   The study’s author, Alex Farrell, found that compared to petroleum fuel, producing and using corn-based ethanol results in only about a 13-percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, because the production process itself generates pollution that offsets the benefits of cutting gasoline use.

   Farrell’s analysis did not directly factor in the negative impacts of soil degradation from growing the crops.

   Biorefineries, including many powered by coal, have also come under fire for polluting practices. In 2003 and 2005, the agribusiness giants Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill negotiated legal settlements with the federal government involving ethanol facilities across the country, which were emitting toxic chemicals in violation of the Clean Air Act. In January, the advocacy group Iowa Environmental Council reported that ethanol plants have released unusually high levels of dissolved solids and chloride into the state’s waterways.

   Some scientists and environmental groups have noted ethical challenges in deciding the best use of natural resources. Dedicating more land to ethanol crops would squeeze the supply of land for food production, for example. Government-sponsored efforts to cull forest lands for “biomass” fuel stocks could deplete habitats, in addition to posing unfeasible economic costs.

   And yet, even a full-throttle shift to ethanol production would barely dent the country’s oil dependence, leading some critics to question ethanol as a public investment. According to federal data, less than one-fifth of the country’s corn is now used to produce ethanol, which in turn contributes a tiny percentage of the country’s fuel consumption.

   Farrell and Pimentel both extrapolated that even devoting all of the country’s corn cropland to ethanol would “displace” only about six percent of America’s current petroleum demand, which continues to rise steadily.

   Many environmentalists see more promise in cellulosic ethanol, which can be extracted from vegetation, wood products and some waste materials. Existing research indicates that cellulosic ethanol, which has not yet reached mainstream markets, would generally produce fewer greenhouse-gas emissions than its corn counterpart while consuming less cropland. The Department of Energy estimates that the country’s lands contain the equivalent of about 30 percent of the country’s petroleum demand in “biomass” resources that could be turned into fuel.

   Farrell said that cellulosic-ethanol production might reduce the need for fossil-fuel inputs by running on its own waste residues. However, he said that it could be years before cellulosic ethanol begins to share the market with its corn-based cousin.

   Though the Energy Policy Act offers production incentives for cellulosic ethanol, Farrell said the political momentum for less-polluting biofuel still lags. “Officially, the US government doesn’t really care that much about [greenhouse-gas emissions]; we don’t have any policies,” he commented. “If that changes… then that would improve the likelihood that cellulosic would have an advantage over corn ethanol.”

   Worried that the movement toward renewables could stagnate in a corn-ethanol rut, groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists and Friends of the Earth say that government incentives for ethanol should be tied to standards that would require producers to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

   Yet environmentalists caution that corn-based ethanol is only a “bridge fuel” and should not detract from the long-range efforts to develop wind and solar power. They also promote more basic, common-sense measures to relieve the country’s energy crisis, including policies that invest in public mass transit and energy-conservation plans for communities.

   “[We] can’t afford just to look at ethanol, because we’re not just going to grow our way out of oil dependence,” said Don Mackenzie, a vehicles engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists. “We need to get a whole lot smarter about how we use our fuels.”

   Some watchdog groups say ethanol’s political popularity has less to do with its ecological merits than with the influence of well-moneyed agribusiness interests on Capitol Hill. The agribusiness sector has funneled more than $190 million into federal election campaigns since the 2000 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a clearinghouse on political donations.

   In July, Public Citizen called on government administrators to press ethanol producers to fully comply with lobbying disclosure rules. The watchdog group alleged that Archer Daniels Midland, which churns out about one-fifth of the country’s ethanol supply, has violated the Lobbying Disclosure Act by failing to report its extensive public-relations work as lobbying activity. In a written statement to TNS, the corporation denied any wrongdoing but conceded that it “has begun an expanded presence in Washington and [is] taking incremental steps toward increased government relations activities.”

   Public Citizen also found that lobbying records of the Renewable Fuels Association, which represents Archer Daniels Midland and other ethanol producers, reveal a discrepancy of some $1.2 million in unreported third-party lobbying efforts since 1999.

   “Whoever has the most powerful lobby, whoever gives the most campaign contributions – their version of policy is what gets implemented,” said Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s energy program. “And that’s why the ethanol lobby is front and center on the alternative-fuel path.”

   © 2006 The NewStandard. All rights reserved. The NewStandard is a non-profit publisher that encourages noncommercial reproduction of its content. Reprints must prominently attribute the author and The NewStandard, hyperlink to http://newstandardnews.net (online) or display newstandardnews.net (print), and carry this notice. For more information or commercial reprint rights, please see the TNS reprint policy.

   http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3514/printmode/true

8. Gare
   08/15/2006 at 6:37 am

   Google News Link searching on Ethanol produces many more articles

9. Gare
   08/15/2006 at 6:39 am

   Oklahoma Foundation Part Of Study Of Using Switchgrass For Ethanol
   AP – 8/12/2006 6:26 PM – Updated: 8/13/2006 6:36 PM

   WICHITA, Kan. (AP) _ A project that involves an Oklahoma-based foundation is looking at alternative ways to develop ethanol, which is an alternative fuel usually made of corn.

   Kansas State University will receive $700,000 from the US Department of Agriculture to do genetic research on making different types of vegetation, such as native switchgrass, more conducive to being turned into ethanol.

   Scientists know plants are rich in cellulose, which is similar to the basic sugars used in making ethanol. But plants can also be much tougher to break down than corn.

   The project is being done in conjunction with the Noble Foundation in Oklahoma and is part of a 5.7 million dollar federal program.

   Kansas State researcher Bikram Gill stresses that the research is the first of many steps required to see if such ethanol production is viable.
   http://www.kotv.com/news/?109258

10. Gare
    09/10/2006 at 9:50 am

    World must wake up to the dangers of biofuels, head of Kew Gardens warns
    By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
    Published: 09 September 2006

    The world should wake up to the dangers of the mass production of biofuels, which are increasingly seen as a major solution to global warming, according to Professor Sir Peter Crane, director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

    Extensive production of biofuel crops, such as oil palms, could destroy remaining areas of rainforest and bring about a new cycle of worldwide intensive agriculture involving vast applications of artificial fertilisers and pesticides, and requiring enormous water resources, said Professor Crane, who as the head of Kew Gardens is the world’s leading plant scientist.

    “There are big opportunities with biofuels, but there are big problems too,” he said. “It’s not a free lunch.”

    Professor Crane, 52, is retiring from Kew after seven very successful years to take up a chair at the University of Chicago, and gave his biofuels warning as part of a valedictory interview with The Independent.

    It comes at a critical moment. The production of road transport fuels made from crops, which do not add to the greenhouse gases causing global warming, is now starting to take off around the globe, and is likely to grow vastly. It will be one of the main agricultural developments of the 21st century.

    The attraction of biofuels in the fight against climate change is that they are “carbon neutral”. Unlike the fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal, which when burnt add to the net amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the CO2 which biofuels produce when ignited has been absorbed from the atmosphere by the crops used to make them, and so the net atmospheric amount is not increased.

    The best known biofuels are ethanol, a petrol substitute made from sugar cane, sugar beet or maize, widely used in Brazil and coming into use in many other countries, and biodiesel, which is made from oil palms, oilseed rape or recycled vegetable oil.

    American output of ethanol from maize is now rising at 30 per cent a year; Germany is raising output of biodiesel by nearly 50 per cent a year and China has built the world’s biggest ethanol plant. Britain jumped on to the biofuels bandwagon this year with an obligation on British petrol companies to blend a fixed proportion of biofuels with all the petrol and diesel that they sell on garage forecourts. But Sir Peter sounded a strongly cautionary note about the new developments. “If we’re serious about biofuels, we’re going to have to produce them in a much more sustainable way than intensive agriculture has given us in the past,” he said.

    He voiced a concern which has already been highlighted by some environmental groups – that mass expansion of biofuel production might lead to a new round of rainforest destruction, especially with crops such as oil palm. Oil palm needs warm humid conditions and is largely grown in south-east Asia on land from which rainforest has been cleared. “Expansion of oil palm production is going to have to be handled extremely carefully to ensure that it doesn’t start to eat into the remaining pieces of rainforest that still exist,” Professor Crane said.

    He went on: “We’re going to have to get biofuels off land that’s already degraded, perhaps land that’s not valuable for other purposes, for conservation or for agriculture. And we’ve got to do it without creating other problems with the kinds of inputs that in the past have gone into intensive agriculture.”

    It was possible that intensive biofuel production might involve too much nitrogen-based fertiliser, pesticides and herbicides, in order to get the desired level of production, he said, as well as taking up enormous amounts of scarce water in irrigation.

    Sir Peter will be succeeded as director at Kew by Professor Stephen Hopper from the University of Western Australia. In his timeat the Royal Botanic Gardens he has been one of the leading figures in world plant conservation, and was a principal architect of the UN’s Global Plant Conservation Strategy.

    Under his direction, Kew has been leading the way in one of the strategy’s first aims – to provide a working checklist of all the plants of the world.

    The world should wake up to the dangers of the mass production of biofuels, which are increasingly seen as a major solution to global warming, according to Professor Sir Peter Crane, director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

    Extensive production of biofuel crops, such as oil palms, could destroy remaining areas of rainforest and bring about a new cycle of worldwide intensive agriculture involving vast applications of artificial fertilisers and pesticides, and requiring enormous water resources, said Professor Crane, who as the head of Kew Gardens is the world’s leading plant scientist.

    “There are big opportunities with biofuels, but there are big problems too,” he said. “It’s not a free lunch.”

    Professor Crane, 52, is retiring from Kew after seven very successful years to take up a chair at the University of Chicago, and gave his biofuels warning as part of a valedictory interview with The Independent.

    It comes at a critical moment. The production of road transport fuels made from crops, which do not add to the greenhouse gases causing global warming, is now starting to take off around the globe, and is likely to grow vastly. It will be one of the main agricultural developments of the 21st century.

    The attraction of biofuels in the fight against climate change is that they are “carbon neutral”. Unlike the fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal, which when burnt add to the net amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the CO2 which biofuels produce when ignited has been absorbed from the atmosphere by the crops used to make them, and so the net atmospheric amount is not increased.

    The best known biofuels are ethanol, a petrol substitute made from sugar cane, sugar beet or maize, widely used in Brazil and coming into use in many other countries, and biodiesel, which is made from oil palms, oilseed rape or recycled vegetable oil.

    American output of ethanol from maize is now rising at 30 per cent a year; Germany is raising output of biodiesel by nearly 50 per cent a year and China has built the world’s biggest ethanol plant. Britain jumped on to the biofuels bandwagon this year with an obligation on British petrol companies to blend a fixed proportion of biofuels with all the petrol and diesel that they sell on garage forecourts. But Sir Peter sounded a strongly cautionary note about the new developments. “If we’re serious about biofuels, we’re going to have to produce them in a much more sustainable way than intensive agriculture has given us in the past,” he said.

    He voiced a concern which has already been highlighted by some environmental groups – that mass expansion of biofuel production might lead to a new round of rainforest destruction, especially with crops such as oil palm. Oil palm needs warm humid conditions and is largely grown in south-east Asia on land from which rainforest has been cleared. “Expansion of oil palm production is going to have to be handled extremely carefully to ensure that it doesn’t start to eat into the remaining pieces of rainforest that still exist,” Professor Crane said.

    He went on: “We’re going to have to get biofuels off land that’s already degraded, perhaps land that’s not valuable for other purposes, for conservation or for agriculture. And we’ve got to do it without creating other problems with the kinds of inputs that in the past have gone into intensive agriculture.”

    It was possible that intensive biofuel production might involve too much nitrogen-based fertiliser, pesticides and herbicides, in order to get the desired level of production, he said, as well as taking up enormous amounts of scarce water in irrigation.

    Sir Peter will be succeeded as director at Kew by Professor Stephen Hopper from the University of Western Australia. In his timeat the Royal Botanic Gardens he has been one of the leading figures in world plant conservation, and was a principal architect of the UN’s Global Plant Conservation Strategy.

    Under his direction, Kew has been leading the way in one of the strategy’s first aims – to provide a working checklist of all the plants of the world.

    source: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1431083.ece