EJSG19:

You remain unconvinced; of that, we're aware. It seems that you'll stay in that state regardless what we say, so I guess I'll cease & desist. You wouldn't have to look long and hard to come up with 10 or 15 solid, factual, logical reasons to not burn corn-based alcohol as fuel.

I will say that we shouldn't stop using gasoline for the simple reason that we've done it for >100 years. Change, for the sake of change, isn't necessarily a good thing. After all, look what Obama brought us.

G'Day.

Oh, yeah, I guess maybe that pipeline fact slipped by you, eh? Can you allow me a point on that one? It is, after all, a fact, you see. It can't be disputed.

jb

Ethanol Takes More Energy
Than It Gives
by Marjorie Mazel Hecht

This article appears in the May 12, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review. http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/3319ethanol.html

The truth about ethanol, the wonder fuel that is supposed to replace U.S. dependence on "foreign oil," is that it takes more energy to produce the ethanol, than the resulting ethanol fuel will provide. And to replace imported oil with ethanol would require covering more than half the land area of the United States in corn or other biomass.

One of the strongest arguments against the use of ethanol comes from Prof. David Pimentel of Cornell University, a longtime low-technology advocate. He and a colleague, Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switchgrass, and wood biomass. Their findings, published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2005, pp. 65-76), are that ethanol from corn requires 29% more fossil fuel energy than the fuel produced; ethanol from switchgrass requires 45% more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and ethanol from wood biomass requires 57% more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

Pimentel and Patzek looked at the energy used in producing the crop, which includes pesticide and fertilizer production, farm machinery, irrigation, and transportation, and the energy necessary for distilling the ethanol.

As Pimentel told the Cornell University News Service in July 2005, "There is just no energy benefit to using biomass for liquid fuel. These strategies are not sustainable.... Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits."

Pimentel calculated that it takes about 131,000 BTUs (British Thermal Units) to make 1 gallon of ethanol—but 1 gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU—a net loss of 54,000 BTU per gallon.

Pimentel and Patzek did not include in their calculations the cost of the Federal and state subsidies that are handed out to the large corporate biomass-energy producers. Pimentel, it should be noted, supports the use of biomass (wood) for home heating, just not for producing liquid fuel.

That's Not All
But that's not all. Even the cheerleaders for ethanol production, such as former CIA director James Woolsey, note that the main obstacle to ethanol replacement for gasoline is its "high cost of production" and the fact that it requires "large subsidies." Woolsey and others point to new research in genetic engineering that will develop special microbes to ferment the corn and other biomass. But Woolsey et al. miss the ethanol elephant sitting in the middle of their arguments: land use.

Dr. Howard Hayden, professor emeritus from the University of Connecticut and publisher of The Energy Advocate newsletter, notes in an article in the Spring 2006 issue of 21st Century Science & Technology, that "to produce ethanol with as much energy as we use in transportation would require 1.1 billion acres devoted to high-yield corn production, complete with all the things environmentalists hate—fertilizer, irrigation, and pesticides. That's about 1.8 million square miles, some 51 percent of the land area of the 50 states."

This staggering amount of land-use doesn't faze the many companies, which are intoxicated with the prospect of government subsidies for distilling alcohol for fuel. The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in April that a Florida company, Progress Energy Florida, signed a 25-year contract to buy power from a 130-megawatt "grassy biomass" power plant in central Florida, which will get a government subsidy for the next ten years.

In Georgia, another alternative energy company, Earth Resources, plans a chicken-litter power plant (the technology for which was funded with a $1 million grant from the USDA). Other companies are pioneering the use of cow manure with government subsidy.

In California, long a leader in anti-physical-economy energy schemes, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger just signed an executive order setting goals to produce 20% of the state's 900 million gallons per year of biofuels within the state by 2010, increasing to 40% by 2020, and to 75% by 2050. The order also calls for biomass to provide 20% of the electricity generated to meet the state's renewable power requirements—a real energy loser.

At the same time, California green groups are citing a University of California report that documents how the use of ethanol would result in higher concentrations of toxic air contaminants.

Today's drive for ethanol comes directly out of the counterculture, foisted on the United States 30-some years ago, with the promotion of a post-industrial society and the devolution of science and technology. Reality and physical economy became irrelevant, and like Orwell's 1984 "Newspeak," more became less. Hence the popularity of ethanol, and the non-development of advanced technologies—nuclear and fusion—that can power an industrial society.

Ethanol probably is in the future, but we have developed exactly the wrong infrastucture for it. It's all about money for a few.

I might be wrong on this but I vaguely recall that both Dean Johnson and Steve Sviggum had investment interests in MN ethanol plants. Am I wrong on that?

Domestic ethanol gets a 50 cent subsidy, (on top of the farm subsidy) but foreign ethanol apparently has a 54 cent tarriff. If gas is 2.00/ gal, the energy is ethanol is is probably worth about 1.25.

Audit Recommends Ending Ethanol Subsidies

A report by the legislative auditor says lawmakers should consider ending state ethanol subsidies in favor of promoting programs designed to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

About $44 million is expected to go to ethanol producers over the next three years, and the report said legislators should consider the program carefully as they look to fill a two-year, $4.6 billion budget deficit.

The producer payment program, which has been in place since 1987, has paid $93 million toward biofuel production in the last five years to companies that have earned more than $600 million in profits during that period, according to the report released Friday.

It's unclear whether lawmakers will take up such a contentious issue during the last month of the session when the program is phasing out in the next few years anyway and lawmakers are already putting the finishing touches on budget bills.

Some lawmakers also said taking away the program could signal that Minnesota isn't committed to producing renewable fuels, which could have negative consequences when it comes to attracting new business to the state.

"We need to keep our commitments," said Rep. Bill Hilty, a Democrat from Finlayson who chairs the House energy committee.

But Sen. Ann Rest, a Democrat from New Hope who co-chairs the Legislative Audit Commission, said there's other dedicated funds, such as the Health Care Access Fund, that are being used to balance the budget.
"Should producer payment suffer any different fate?" she asked.

State Agriculture Commissioner Gene Hugoson opposes ending the subsidy program. In response to the auditor's report, Hugoson highlighted the ethanol industry's economic benefit to the state. He said the Minnesota ethanol and biodiesel industries have a more than $3 billion impact and have created thousands of jobs.

"That is a huge economic factor," Hugoson said.

In addition to the 22-year-old subsidy program, since 2003 Minnesota has helped finance the construction of new ethanol plants through its Job Opportunity Building Zone initiative.

The auditor's report said the state should give tax breaks to ethanol plants only if they need it, saying some plants that received incentives probably would have moved forward with their plans without them.

While subsidies and tax incentives have helped expand the ethanol industry in the state, auditors also said the 10 percent ethanol mandate for gasoline sold in the state has increased production.

But the report suggested that land use and environmental concerns could limit biofuels' potential as a substitute for fossil fuels. For example, even if all corn harvested in the country went to produce ethanol, the percentage of gas saved would be less than 17 percent, the report said.

"I don't think we'd ever get close to that, because there would be probably some significant repercussions for the price of food," said John Yunker, who managed the report.

While the report acknowledged that cellulosic ethanol produced from biomass has promise, it said there's still many unanswered questions about whether it can be a viable alternative. The legislative auditor recommended the state's Environmental Quality Board and other agencies look into it.

The report also said the environmental benefits of ethanol -- including reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- are also up for debate. Yunker said studies have shown them to be modest, at best.

While the report acknowledged that cellulosic ethanol produced from biomass has promise, it said there's still many unanswered questions about whether it can be a viable alternative.

I might be wrong on this but I vaguely recall that both Dean Johnson and Steve Sviggum had investment interests in MN ethanol plants. Am I wrong on that?

I'd rather they turn the corn into vodka.

Even better yet:
Lets make a car that runs off of vodka. Dual purpose fuel.

Even better yet:
Lets make a car that runs off of vodka. Dual purpose fuel.

See: Shaker vodka fron Chippewa Valley Ethanol Plaant Benson MN