The biofuel scam--and it's a 'beaut'
When it comes to navigating a way out of the nation's energy crisis, you have to wonder whether the fix is already in.
The government has picked the winner--even as senior policy makers issue bland pronouncements about finding new technologies to help break our energy dependence on foreign oil. Between now and 2012, biofuel subsidies will total more than $92 billion, according to a recent report conducted under the auspices of the Global Subsidiaries Initiative.
The timing is coincidental, but the report came out just as Senate and House leaders were weighing a plan which would leave renewable energy out of the next congressional energy bill.
I'm sure there's some larger logic to explain that omission. But it might have a little something to do with the political muscle of the farm interests, a powerful lobby that knows its way around the corridors of power.
The 2007 farm bill features strong support for biofuel subsidies--even with crude oil prices hovering over $90 a barrel.
I've read a number of expert studies questioning the environmental impact of biofuels--especially the production of corn ethanol. Yet few policy makers of any national significance are stepping forward to question whether our national bet on biofuels makes good sense. That hasn't stopped Washington and various state capitols from lavishing billions of dollars on agribusiness' pet project. Most of the $92 billion I mentioned earlier will go to ethanol production.
All this is giving the cynics a field day. Each dollar spent on biofuel subsidies is a dollar not getting invested in other, possibly cleaner technologies. But the only people squawking seem to be the folks involved from those particular fields. I'm not advocating dumping ethanol research and production, but the selling of biofuels as the all-American favorite has been a marketing tour de force. That doesn't necessarily mean it's smart decision-making.
Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. Before joining CNET News, he worked at the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie. 
I wish government spending was determined by what could provide the greatest benefit, rather than which lobbyist would appreciate it the most.
Why aren't they mentioned in the news media?
LOL, guess the party.
would be enough money to build 5 conversion plants, Gas would
be stable at less than $2.00 bucks per gallon and we could tell
OPEC to go take a flying leap.
How high do you want your grocery bill to go, Because corn"FOOD"
should not be made into fuel. People need to eat!!! People are
Starving to death every day, They need this corn to eat.
Ethanol was a failure in 1903, 1978, but might do OK today.
peanut oil was a failure shortly afterward.
hydrogen is looking promising but the energy it takes to produce is still too much for the result.
Wind power and solar power are the best the easiest and the cleanest tech we have today.
We need the technology funded researched and developed more!
We have out paced our supplies of fuel for our cars trucks and planes. We need congress to raise the Miles per Gallon bar fleet wide to make the oil last longer.
We have the scientist, the skilled workers, the engineers, and the Artist to design any thing we need and want, Why not put them to work and cut the upper management and CEO salary to real levels and put that money saved in R and D.
To me corn isn't the answer either because other crops are needed too to sustain life as we know it on this blue marble. So lets put the money were we truly need it and that is R & D for the replacement of the Gasoline engine, jet turbine, and others.
D~W
because it's grossly inefficient, let's not kid ourselves about corn
consumption in this country.
The agrobusiness interests in America are only pushing forward
the ethanol agenda because it will produce even higher profits
than is now created by sticking corn syrup into everything
consumers eat. I'd almost prefer that there be a corn shortage
for soft drinks, potato chips, candy bars, and all the other
villians in today's fat-full diets.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the main reason that Con Agra
and ADM are foisting biofuels down our throats is because
consumers are starting to wise up and buy less corn-syrup-
saturated junk food, endangering their obscene profit margins.
That's the grade of corn being used to make ethanol. It's
primarily used to fatten pigs and cows.
And even after it's processed to make ethanol, what's left is
called Distiller's Grains.
It's high in vitamins, and guess what, it's an ideal animal fodder.
More nutrition per pound than plain corn.
Distiller's Grains has only one downside.
If you're going to feed it to cattle it needs to be used up within
two days to avoid spoilage.
And since it comes out of the ethanol plant kind of wet and
heavy, it costs money to either ship it to the hog farm or dry it
first.
The answer is to build the ethanol plants near cattle farms, or
vice versa.
The cattle farmers buy the Distiller's Grains, the Ethanol plant
sells the ethanol, everybody's happy.
Now, if only the government were to sponsor the Butanol
technology instead of Ethanol.
Butanol is also an alcohol, it just burns a lot better than ethanol
does.
Besides, are we really going to reallocate water meant for humans and our food supply to be used for biofuel production?
We should be spending research dollars to increase the productivity of clean technologies such as wind, solar and wave energy. What if the country spent $100 billion a year for 2 years to provide direct grants for 1 out of 10 households to install solar panels and batteries? That would be the most amazing, direct impact on our carbon footprint, ever.
What about another $100 billion a year for 2 years for direct grants to 1 in 10 households to halve the cost of buying a hybrid vehicle? We drastically impact our carbon footprint AND our oil independence.
I say, take that, OPEC!#$#@!#!!!
Fuel cells are far too expensive for average people to afford, and using H2 in inefficient internal combustion engines results in very short driving range and very high per mile cost for fuel.
But worst of all, the cheapest source of H2 is from natural gas, and the biggest source of natural gas is... the middle east.
There are clean alternatives to H2 that are cheaper and better. The future is electric.
attention towards changing the way we live, drive, and elect our
politicians. You registered to vote? Participate in our government
process. If that doesn't work, you can always do that American
thing...revolution.
Between then and now, we need to add a few more refineries, perhaps a little more coal power, and some nuclear plants. Our goal shouldn't be clean energy before we've conquered energy independence. And if we don't do that, we should probably do something in the Gulf before China sucks all the oil out of the area and then resells it to us for $110/barrel.
We didn't start out as a stupid country and we darn well better stop acting like one soon.
or should we just ***** about it and offer no suggestions?
we're a nation comprised of huge corporate interests - we have been since the industrial revolution - and there have always been paranoid people to complain. maybe rightly, maybe not. let's not let our paranoia hinder progress, though.
what i think is good is that at last the US government is taking a few baby steps toward getting away from oil.
as for suggestions - i'd like to see us go more toward diesel. those engines run on almost anything (rudolph diesel designed the engine to run on peanut oil, but any vegetable oil - and petro oils, as well - will suffice as fuel in a diesel with the proper tuning).
so maybe ethanol not the single answer, but most think a combination of the technologies will win the day.
energetic, and supply-availability good sense? Here are a few
suggestions: nuclear, wind, solar. And for the farmers who just
want to get rich, how about just doing a bit less work and
producing a bit less food? The market will take care of the rest, and
you won't have to actually starve us all out in the process. Just
starve us enough to make us a bit healthier.
I love seeing all these commercials from GM, Ford, etc. touting how their cars run Flex-fuel (E85), when you can't even buy the stuff.
and am pleased with the results. Currently, I'm payng anywhere
from 80 cents to a dollar less per gallon than gasoline (about 33%
less) while only taking a 24 percent max drop in mileage
(depending on driving conditions). So it is a viable alternative--
especially not using foreign oil. Recent reports are showing E85 is
actually less damaging to your engine. so where is the scam?
Alternative fuels should be (more) renewable than a corn crop. Costing more to fertilize, irrigate, apply insecticide, harvest, trasport, process (you get the picture) than wind or solar.
As mentioned previously, it's about money. Who are the few getting rich from our simple needs as citizens?
The older I get, the less sense this world makes.
powers that be have done that math, since it's so easy. I'm equally
sure the powers that be are confident in being able to get what
THEY need and so don't give a rat's bee-hind about doing more
than proposing and promoting programs which provide the most
political effectiveness for the least work. Ably abetted by the "drive
by" or "mainstream" media, take your pick.
They are cost effective in generating electricity. Not every place is suited to windmills because of their wind profile. Windmills can provide large quantities of power but if the wind dies, you need have to supply that power from another source (makes reliance on windmills alone impossible).
That's the biggest dissadvantage, reliance on the wind which is unpredictable. If you can find a good way to store that energy for use later, I would appreciate it. Even so, windmills are a great way to reduce our reliance on oil but as of now, it won't eliminate it.
They dont want to change cars to use alt fuels or worry if Corn Ethanol is the right choice. Dont believe me, look how we vote people into office!
FACT: The process of making Corn Ethanol causes as much pollution as driving standard Gas vehicles.
FACT: Corn Ethanol is cheaper to make in the US and produces more fuel than say BioDiesel.
FACT: Sugar Ethanol is a better alt fuel (look at Brazil) however the Taxes to import sugar are twice the price as imported oil!!
FACT: BioDiesel does not produce the yield as Corn Ethanol- making the "pump" cost more than Corn Ethanol
FACT: BioDiesel requires NO MODS to existing Diesel engines (short of new filter and fuel line, the biodiesel is not big on rubber hoses)
FACT: BioDiesel making process has two by-products: methyl esters (biodiesel) and glycerin (usually sold to be used in soaps and other products). The process does not add to the problem as Corn Ethanol.
The US has such a bad taste over diesel from the 70's that they wont listen to the BioDiesel story. I see it every day. They simply dont care. Once again it?s the Money in Washington that is pushing Congress like sheep to do what the money wants. We are all paying for it. BioDiesel is "RIGHT NOW" probably the best option for the US. Sugar Ethanol is just as good, but how many Sugar Lobbies are there compared to Corn?
BTW, glycerin will likely be in great over-supply if biodiesel plants come on-line, reducing the economics of biodiesel production.
Electricity and a feedstock for biodiesel. Add in the wind, sun, run of the river hydro and all other renewable electric generation.
So lets run the cars on electricity, keep the money for fuel in the US (got plenty of coal), more jobs in the US, the companies are US (A123, Altairnano, Greenfuel).
system working for real.
I live in MA and the wind turbines here are always getting fought. The Cape Cod Wind Farm will never finish so as long as our elected officals take the biggest pay off. Yelling at them doesnt seem to help.
Look at the energy we can create from Wind.
blocked, was planned to be ultra-modern and environmentally
friendly.
The plans as I read about it were to include an Algae Farm to
capture the stack emissions and a sort of environmental "theme"
park for visitors.
The Algae Farm approach, if honestly scaled up to full power,
would let your power utility burn coal with LESS emissions than
standard oil fired plants.
The algae are harvested, pressed for their oil, and then burned as
fuel in the power plant.
The oil can be used for bio-diesel.
I never thought I'd be sorry to see a coal fired plant be denied a
permit !
And yes, if you're about to ask, if a power utility wanted to build a
coal gasification plant near me, and I was SURE they were serious
about the carbon sequestration, I would have no real problem
with it.
On the other hand, if somebody wanted to build a Nuclear plant,
I'd move.
a. Do you want to spend continuous subsidies, as you have indicated, on ag?
b. Do you want to spend one-time grants to install clean tech - windmills, solar, etc?
c. Do you want to just give out cash to the oil/energy companies by giving out free gas?
d. Do you want to spend ongoing money to fund R&D to gain efficiencies and find new technologies?
But shouldn't a "journalist" present some material backing up his
claims? If he claims that certain info is bunk who are we to believe
that his "opinion" isn't bunk as well?
Entropy is not dead -- every conversion of energy (chemical to mechanical to electrical and back to mechsnical) results in a loss of its availability and increse in the temperature of the environment. An elementary law of 'Nature 101'. Nature made the first conversion for us -- biomass to useable carbon -- for free. The only source of useable energy that does not cause further increase in the temperature of the environment is SOLAR.
cause further increase in the temperature of the environment is
SOLAR." As currently constructed used, solar collectors of many
kinds do increase the temperature of the environment because
they capture more solar energy than the earth does. The earth
reflects about 30 percent of sunlight back into space, while solar
collectors (PV, solar thermal, solar water heaters...) are designed
to absorb as close to 100 percent as possible. No matter what is
done with the energy subsequent to capture, it appears as heat
in the atmosphere. If reflective surfaces were included alongside
the collectors, there would be no problem except for a loss of
energy production potential due to a reduction in usable area.
Install them over black roofs? Well, if we start to use them in a
really big way, that "solution" will be inadequate. Besides, there
are those who complain about city heat island effects from solar
absorption in general. Why give solar energy systems a pass?
And maybe all those black roofs should have been white all
along anyway.
- We aren't going to do a thing`
- by kenny-J November 14, 2007 12:27 PM PST
- Same thing happened in the 70's, prices got to where the oil bandits wanted them, there was plenty of oil then, and people got used to paying the price. The hoopla about lessing dependence on oil had the same intensity, but when it was plentiful again, everybody went back to sleep.
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (99 Comments)Hillary Clinton has said she would push for a 40 mpg goal by 2020. So, it would seem she is saying in a backdoor way that in 2020 we will still be dependent on oil. So much for visionary leadership.
Biofuel is a myth--there is not enough ariable land to grow food and biofuel crops, especially given the explosive growth in population.
Global warming seems to be a myth. Local & Federal governments are doing nothing to alleviate the gasoline that is burned in rush hour traffic and the drive through windows. Al Gore certainly hasn't changed his lifestyle.
It's all a lot of politically correct sabre rattling that is going nowhere.