The Ethanol Illusion

[thewho?]

Corn-based ethanol burns U.S. investors

Ethanol, the centrepiece of President George W. Bush's plan to wean the U.S. from oil, is 2007's worst energy investment.

The corn-based fuel tumbled 55 per cent from last year's record of $4.33 U.S. a gallon and drove crop prices to a 10-year high. Production in the U.S. tripled after Morgan Stanley, hedge fund firm D.E. Shaw & Co. and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla helped finance a building boom.

Even worse for investors and the Bush administration, energy experts contend ethanol isn't reducing oil demand. Scientists at Cornell University say making the fuel uses more energy than it creates, while the National Research Council warns ethanol production threatens scarce water supplies.

Corn has risen to $3.86 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade from less than $2.50 in September 2006.

The Bush energy plan spurred more production by mandating increased use of biofuels, such as corn-based ethanol. The administration proposed raising output in the next 10 years to five times the current target amount for 2012.

"It takes more energy to produce ethanol than it actually gives off," says David Pimentel, a Cornell University professor who has studied production of the fuel for two decades.

Continue...

The Ethanol Effect - Why corn-based fuel isn't our miracle cure for oil dependency

"Everything about ethanol is good, good, good," crows Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, echoing the conventional wisdom that corn-based ethanol will help us kick the oil habit, line the pockets of farmers, and usher in a new era of guilt-free motoring. But despite the wishes of Iowans (and the candidates courting them) the "dot-corn bubble" is too good to be true.

Ethanol Debunked

Creating ethanol takes as much energy to create as you get out of it when you burn it. On the way it consumes petro-chemicals for fertilisers, harvesting, processing and distribution.

Because we cannot give up valuable food acreage more land has to be set aside to grow corn for ethanol - leading to further deforestation.

Even if all the corn in the US were turned into ethanol it would still only supply 12% of the country’s fuel needs.

The producation of ethanol is actually worse for the environment than gasoline.

[IronGhost]

Absolutely the case -- yet we are barrelling ahead, building ethanol plants all over the Midwest. A tragic mistake. Even if all the corn in the U.S. was diverted to ethanol, it would only provide something like less than 10% of our energy needs.

I'm hoping we'll see the error of our ways before this turns into a behemoth industry with immense power. Too late already?

[__Kratos__]

How is that the fault of big oil?

[stevewinn]

nice post, i dont think future energy lies with corn or crops, we have wind and tidal power, including solar and Hydro, and available now

[thewho?]

Absolutely the case -- yet we are barrelling ahead, building ethanol plants all over the Midwest. A tragic mistake. Even if all the corn in the U.S. was diverted to ethanol, it would only provide something like less than 10% of our energy needs.

I'm hoping we'll see the error of our ways before this turns into a behemoth industry with immense power. Too late already?

It's a "feel good because it's natural" diversion to keep the profits streaming in to oil bohemoths.

How is that the fault of big oil?

This was George W. Bush's plan to "reduce our dependency on oil" (like Bush and his oil cronies really want to do that ). In reality, it does more harm to our atmosphere and environment than gasoline. Did you really think an administration under control by big oil would really come up with a valuable answer for an alternative energy source when they are raking in the biggest profits the US has ever seen? Yeah Right! That is wishful thinking. Read and weep, Kratos;

Big Oil, Big Influence

By LINDSAY RENICK MAYER

During his first month in office, President George W. Bush appointed Vice President Dick Cheney to head a task force charged with developing the country's energy policy. The group, which conducted its meetings in secret, relied on the recommendations of Big Oil behemoths Exxon Mobil, Conoco, Shell Oil, BP America and Chevron. It would be the first of many moves to come during the Bush administration that would position oil and gas companies well ahead of other energy interests with billions of dollars in subsidies and tax cuts—payback for an industry with strong ties to the administration and plenty of money to contribute to congressional and presidential campaigns.

During the time that Bush and Cheney, both of whom are former oil executives, have been in the White House, the oil and gas industry has spent $393.2 million on lobbying the federal government. This places the industry among the top nine in lobbying expenditures. The industry has also contributed a substantial $82.1 million to federal candidates, parties and political action committees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. 80 percent of the industry's contributions have gone to Republicans.

This support has not gone unrewarded. In 2005, Bush, who has received more from the oil and gas industry than any other politician, signed an energy bill from the Republican-controlled Congress that gave $14.5 billion in tax breaks for oil, gas, nuclear power and coal companies. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was based on recommendations by Cheney's energy task force, also rolled back regulations the oil industry considered burdensome, including exemptions from some clean water laws. All of this transpired only one year after Congress passed a bill that included a tax cut for domestic manufacturing that was expected to save energy companies at least $3.6 billion over a decade.

With members of Congress paying special attention to Big Oil, the policy that elected representatives have developed does not reflect the interest of the public, which wants "affordable, reliable, clean sources of energy," Slocum says. A 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center found a majority of Americans across the political spectrum want an energy policy that emphasizes renewable and alternative sources of energy.

To keep its prominent seat, the industry spends big sums of money on hiring the top lobbyists in Washington to push its agenda on a variety of issues, not just related to energy but on issues ranging from education to real estate. After a few years of declining lobbying expenditures, the industry spent $63.3 million in 2005, most of which was probably related to the energy bill. (Lobbying reports don't require lobbyists to itemize their spending related to specific bills or amendments). In 2007, with a new energy bill in the pipeline, the industry's lobbying expenditures are on track to exceed last year's total of $73 million.

Continue...

[__Kratos__]

Did you really think an administration under control by big oil would really come up with a valuable answer for an alternative energy source when they are raking in the biggest profits the US has ever seen? Yeah Right!

If the answer is so easy, why aren't other countries doing it while ignoring the US? Surely big oil doesn't control the entire globe...

[thewho?]

If the answer is so easy, why aren't other countries doing it while ignoring the US? Surely big oil doesn't control the entire globe...

Can you rephrase your question? It makes not one bit of sense to me, sorry. Edited December 1, 2007 by thewho?

[__Kratos__]

Can you rephrase your question? It makes not one bit of sense to me, sorry.

If it's so easy to make a clean and renewable fuel for cars and such... Why aren't other countries around the globe converting their systems while ditching oil? 'Big oil' can't have it's hands on every single country on this globe, so there is plenty of room for those other countries outside of the US to dtich oil and use this wonderful energy you seem to think is just being covered up.

[thewho?]

If it's so easy to make a clean and renewable fuel for cars and such...

Who said that?

there is plenty of room for those other countries outside of the US to dtich oil and use this wonderful energy you seem to think is just being covered up.

Who said anything about an alternative energy source being covered up?

Where are you pulling this crap from Kratos? Next time actually read the thread before replying. It can save you from looking like a fool.

Edited December 1, 2007 by thewho?

[leadbelly]

As far as I am concerned, this whole thread ignores many underlying issues, including economic, environmental, and security matters concerned with the subject of energy, its production and use.

I was going to cite some things, but don't really feel like it now.

Too many hotheads, painting with broad brushes simply to wrangle the nerves of others.

How sophomoric and one-sided can it get? Why not look at it more like a grown-up would? Look at it from several perspectives, not simply that of anti-business media writers at PBS, or elsewhere.

I'm not pro-or-anti anything. Just a realist.

Edited December 1, 2007 by leadbelly

[Unlimited]

If it's so easy to make a clean and renewable fuel for cars and such... Why aren't other countries around the globe converting their systems while ditching oil? 'Big oil' can't have it's hands on every single country on this globe, so there is plenty of room for those other countries outside of the US to dtich oil and use this wonderful energy you seem to think is just being covered up.

look at brazil 100% independent....

[Mekorig]

Looking for magical energies resources is not the solution. Alternative energy resources is just one step of an integral energy saving and retional spending program. More and better transportation public services and less cars is one of the steps too for example. The problem is that most people think in absoluts.

[Killer Moth]

"an acre of corn require 110 gal of gas to fertilize/havest/transport"

Is that from the farm vehicles using regular gas? if they all ran on ethanol would nt that solve the problem

[Unlimited]

This is oil company propoganda...the US burns corn and lets it rot in silos to mantain price....110 gallons of fuel to farm one acre?..ok..corn isnt the only thing used in biofuels you can use sugar cane..oranges.sawgrasses, etc..whoevers posting this is helping big oil keep you strapped over that pump!

[RX-7]

Lol, there's no way I'm ever putting that stuff in my car

[Bill Hill]

Can't we use 'water'.... where's that car that can run on water? Hidden away in Area 51?

[Unlimited]

Can't we use 'water'.... where's that car that can run on water? Hidden away in Area 51?

ya I think it is billy...they need an energy form they can control the masses with...imagine the look on big oils face if they released the water car..lol

Edited December 2, 2007 by Unlimited

[__Kratos__]

Who said that?

Who said anything about an alternative energy source being covered up?

Where are you pulling this crap from Kratos? Next time actually read the thread before replying. It can save you from looking like a fool.

You made it seem that way when you brought 'big oil' into your article by making it look like you were blaming them.

look at brazil 100% independent....

I was thinking about that and I wasn't really sure about it. They're also relying heavily on ethanol to solve their problems.

[Ins0mniac]

The big companies aren't going to maintain power forever with oil alone. Sooner or later it'll eventually run out.

[Unlimited]

If we as a people cant find an alternative to petrol in the next 5-10 years..were doomed to live in the past or worse...with cartels controlling prices along with futures traders...playing games with our financial well being...we must break free from these bonds!...