Say no to corn-based ethanol
(The following is an editorial in today's Boston Globe)
EUROPEAN OFFICIALS have the foresight and flexibility to admit that the world's romance with biofuels is going sour. Why can't the United States do the same?
Evidence is mounting that farming to meet the demand for biofuel feedstocks - mostly corn, soybeans, and sugar cane - is contributing to rising world food prices and deforestation. And the energy needed to produce fuel from food can cause a net increase in carbon emissions.
Faced with the facts, the Europeans didn't flinch. British and German energy ministers have recommended that their own ambitious production targets be scaled back. The European Parliament is considering new requirements that 20 percent of its biofuels come from algae or other non-farm sources.
By contrast, the US Congress refuses to reconsider the mandates set out in the 2007 energy bill, which requires that 36 billion gallons of biofuels be produced each year by 2022. Already, a quarter of the US corn crop goes to biofuels. The farm bill that passed last month does make a nod to less damaging alternative feedstocks, such as switchgrass, but there is no legislative vehicle on the horizon to revisit the overall mandates.
US Representative James McGovern of Worcester has been pressing for hearings on the issue. McGovern, who is also chairman of the Congressional Hunger Caucus, fears the rush to corn ethanol already has created its own political constituency. "It's a delicate question," he said in an interview. "How do we get to energy independence without creating a new problem?"
Last week the Massachusetts House passed a bill to promote efficient celluosic biofuels, with tax breaks and mandates beginning in 2010. It's a more thoughtful way to encourage alternative fuels.
What do you think? Let us know in our comments section below.
Ethanol can be made from waste (cellulosic). Cellulosic biofuels that do not use agricultural land or have to be watered or fertilized are the only sustainable answer to "alternative fuels". Recent U.S. Governement studies say that there is enough renewable waste in the U.S. to make between 60 billion and 150 billion gallons of fuel. Even if they are wrong by 50% at the low end = approximately 20% of the total U.S. fuel consumption can be replaced with ethanol made from waste that can cut greenhouse gases by over 80% and will be cheaper at the pump!! I look forward to the day that gasoline is viewed as the alternative fuel. Several technologies are currently being tested and on the road to commercialisation. The soonest will be in the next few years. The next energy giant could be born from this sector!
Ethanol is the answer! It doesn't have to come from corn, but corn is the best thing America has going right now. Future ethanol production will come from other feedstocks.
The claim that ethanol is causing food prices to rise is a BIG LIE promoted by the Saudi Petrochemical Lobby and their extreme leftwing allies. The price of every other commodity is soaring through the roof due to inflation, increased demand and the cost of production due to petroleum prices. Yet these people want us to believe that corn is supposed to be a sacroscant exception.
Nobody discussing corn ethanol's effect on food supplies dares to mention distillers grain, the leftover product from ethanol production. Distillers grain is a high protien animal feed that sells for LESS than raw corn.
Dr. Robert Zubrin writes:
"Here are the facts. In the last five years, despite the nearly threefold growth of the corn ethanol industry—actually, because of it—the amount of corn grown in the United States has vastly increased. The U.S. corn crop grew by 45 percent, the production of distillers grain (a high-value animal feed made from the protein saved from the corn used for ethanol) quadrupled, and the net U.S. corn production of food for humans and feed for animals increased 34 percent.
"Contrary to claims that farmers have cut other crops to grow more corn, U.S. soybean plantings this year are expected to be up 18 percent and wheat plantings up 6 percent. U.S. farm exports are up 23 percent over last year. America is clearly doing its share in feeding the world."
Nowhere in the article does the author tell us WHY the U.S. has resisted calls to cutback ethanol production. Last week, the Governor of Texas stepped up to lead the anti-ethanol lynch mob. A casual glance shows us who are the obvious benefactors of an American policy reversal on ethanol. This doesn't seem to stop the news media from slobbering over the anti-ethanol lynch mob.
Given the facts, the news media is doing the public a dis-service by publishing bogus claims against ethanol. The politicians carrying water for the OPEC cartel can tell the same lies over and over. That doesn't maket them true and the news media would be well advised to avoid repeating these lies as fact.
Why is it that we can't seem to follow the lead of the europeans?Algae based biofuels yield between 5,000 and 20,000 gallons per an acre per a year. That is according to the U.S. governments national renewable energy laboratory. Comapred that to corn based ethanol which yields 30 gallons per acre per year. In the 1990's, when ethanol first came on the scene we had a excess corn harvest. Then of course, money and politics took over. Members of both major parties know the importance of the Iowa caucauses and the need to gain votes in key mid-west farm states. Through this the farm lobby also gained power, money and influence thus furthering the problem. The reason we won't see algae based bio-fuels in the U.S. is simply because there is no pond scum lobbying/interest group (at leat not yet).
What else should we do, keep throwing money at the terrorist anti-American, anti-israel Arabs for their filthy oil? If we can convert corn to fuel, we have every right to. Our farmlands are our resource. OPEC doesn't lower the price of oil to help us, why should we try to control the price of corn to help them? The world supposedly hates us, so let them live without us. Their overpopulation is the cause of their hunger, not our domestic land use, we owe them nothing. Oh, and the arabs can eat their oil for all I care. I fill up with e85 regularly and I know for a fact my car produces far less pollution than conventional gasoline ones.
Another issue to consider in relation to corn-based ethanol is the risk of a diseased harvest or a drought or as we have seen this year-floods. All of which would not only create food shortages but, fuel shortages as well.
Say no to corn ethanol? Are you people serious? What's so wrong with supporting AMERICAN farmers, and environmentally friendly ethanol refineries that employ AMERICAN workers? AMERICA is now the WORLDS LEADER IN ETHANOL PRODUCTION. And has REDUCED oil imports last year DUE TO CORN ETHANOL PRODUCTION! The anti-ethanol lobby is OPEC and the oil companies. And mindless writers that repeat whatever they say like parrots. When the leader of OPEC starts complaining about ethanol, there's NO DOUBT that ethanol is good for AMERICA!
Ethanol is nothing but a joke and it's biggest partner is the big 3. GM 's sudden stewardship of the environment is simply a way to continue to make gas guzzlers thanks to E85 an extremely inefficient fuel. The CAFE standards call for all car companies to achieve an average MPG for all vehicles. I believe the most recent number is 27 MPG. Well if you make the biggest money off of 10 miles per gallon SUV's you would hate to say good bye to them wouldn't you?
The CAFE standards has a loophole, that being that an E85 vehicle operating on E85 miles per gallon are ONLY figured against the actual amount of gasoline in the blend (15%) if you divide 100% fuel by 15% gasoline you get the multiplier to the mpg (666) therefore a gas guzzling 10 MPG SUV is given credit for 66.6 MPG. If you sell one SUV like this you can have 5 vehicles only achieving 20 MPG and this gas guzzling SUV and you average more than 27 MPG overall while not one of their vehicles really met the standard.
GM is not the only one taking advantage of this free ride Ford and Chrysler are too. The big three are heading down the toilet and this is just their hands clinging to the rim.
Three reasons ethanol is okay for America. One, the market is working: while corn exports are above USDA projections, ethanol usage of corn is only 3/4 of USDA projections. A weak dollar has more to do with rapid corn stocks depletion than ethanol does. Second, creating a lucrative scenario for America's farmers will aleviate any shortage of corn (South American can produce soybeans better than us. Specialization.) and America's farmers tend to "buy American" supporting our at-home industries such as John Deere and Ford. Third, the technology for conversion of corn starch and sugar to ethanol is becoming much more efficient as a result of high corn prices, and cars can be engineered to transfer the available BTU's into horsepower much more efficiently than at present. Note the success of race cars (Indy) in getting like mileage from pure ethanol as previously with petro.
Ethanol can be made from waste (cellulosic). Cellulosic biofuels that do not use agricultural land or have to be watered or fertilized are the only sustainable answer to "alternative fuels". Recent U.S. Governement studies say that there is enough renewable waste in the U.S. to make between 60 billion and 150 billion gallons of fuel. Even if they are wrong by 50% at the low end = approximately 20% of the total U.S. fuel consumption can be replaced with ethanol made from waste that can cut greenhouse gases by over 80% and will be cheaper at the pump!! I look forward to the day that gasoline is viewed as the alternative fuel. Several technologies are currently being tested and on the road to commercialisation. The soonest will be in the next few years. The next energy giant could be born from this sector!
Corn based ethanol is NOT the answer. It will cause more erosion and silt filled streams. You can already see the few remaining native prairies and marginal ground being plowed out to put into corn. What corn did do is start people thinking about bio-fuels and the technology is easy just ask any moonshiner.
I'm a firm believer in that we have to look at several solutions, alternative modes of transportation, bio-fuels, wind and electric. I do like the notion of algae bio fuels but know little about it. My main imput into this conversation is about cellulose ethanol.
We have acres of CRP ground planted to warm season grasses (switchgrass being one). Farmers will plow these out and go to corn as soon as the contract is up, maybe before. My idea is this; Start up cellulose based ethanol. Allow the farmers with CRP ground to get their CRP payments but allow them to harvest the grass and get whatever payment they can get from the cellulose ethanol plant. Be it company shares, direct payment, tax credits, etc.
This would be an incentive payment for the cellulose industry that wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything. Most importantly it would keep these marginal acres in grass. Plus there would be less trips accross the field of switchgrass. You don't have to plant it, you don't have to til, you probably don't need chemicals. Maybe you fertilize in one pass, then one pass silage chop it and send to ethanol plant. Bring back distillers solids to land apply for soil productivity.
It won't solve our problem but it makes more sense than erosion causing pollution creating corn based ethanol.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
contributors
browse this blog
by categoryRelated Blogs
Organizations
Information Sources
INside Boston.com