Ethanol
Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:59 am
I've been writing on NWAPolitics.com recently, mainly as the sole anti-war guy vs. neo-con warmongers. But Lash posted an article about ethanol. I just posted a response that may be of interest to people here.
_____
At last, a subject that Lash and I agree on! Corn-based ethanol is grossly inefficient, and wouldn't be remotely viable except for massive subsidies. It is basically a political subsidy for corn farmers, to pander to environmental apocalypse-abusers. The most efficient energy sources should be determined on the market, and this simply cannot be done with gross price distortions due to government subsidies, tariffs, and protectionism. Yes, I agree with Lash totally on these points. Someone check to see if hell is freezing over!
There are some things about ethanol that I'd like to add, that the article underplays or doesn't mention. Yes, corn-based ethanol is so inefficent it's out of the game. Sugar beet based ethanol like they make in Brazil is marginal. But ethanol made from cellulose is quite a good possibility - many would say the favorite - to replace gasoline as the liquid fuel of choice. Switch-grass, sawdust, corn *stalks* and other agricultural waste are cheap, some even have a negative cost (meaning farmers currently pay someone to haul them away.)
The article leaves the impression that the technology for making ethanol from cellulose was found wanting as far back as the Jimmy Carter days. The real back-story is that when gas prices were high (remember Nixon's gasoline price-fixing scheme and the resulting long lines at gas pumps?) there was a lot of progress in cellulose-based ethanol research. But due to massive subsidies to oil companies (in the form of intervention in the Middle East, from the CIA assassination of an Iranian president to building infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, etc.) the price of gas went down. As a result, research in cellulose ethanol was curtailed. One Canadian company which had perfected an enzyme that turned cellulose into fermentable suger found that the only economic use was to sell the enzyme to fashion clothing companies to make faded-looking jeans! Bottom line: cellulosic ethanol research stopped because gas prices fell, not because of technical infeasibility.
Did you know that ethanol fuel competed successfully with gasoline until the temperance movement (and eventually Alcohol Prohibition) effectively outlawed it? Did you know that Henry Ford and other automotive pioneers expected cars to run on ethanol? Ford called it the "fuel of the future" in 1925. "The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumach out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust - almost anything," he said. Did you know that, before alcohol prohibition, about 80% of the ethanol produced in stills was used for fuel, not drinking? Finally, did you know that the most cutting edge cellulosic ethanol company in whole world is based in Fayetteville, Arkansas? Check out BRI Energy at www.brienergy.com and be proud of our local entrepreneurs!
Let's look at subsidies, direct and indirect, a little more. What would gasoline cost if it were not subsidized by US wars in the Middle East? $10 a gallon? $20 a gallon? Would there even be wars and occupations there if private oil firms had to buy the weapons, hire mercenaries, and do it on their own dime? So, like Lash, I say END ALL SUBSIDIES TO ENERGY FIRMS and let them fight it out in a free market! US out of the Middle East, US out of the corn fields, and US off the windmills! Let the market decide. We really can't predict what will replace gasoline any more than people in the "peak whale oil" days of the 1800s could predict what would light their lamps as whales became scare. But we do know that government subsidies, favoritism, and cronyism only distort the picture and make the transition harder.
_____
At last, a subject that Lash and I agree on! Corn-based ethanol is grossly inefficient, and wouldn't be remotely viable except for massive subsidies. It is basically a political subsidy for corn farmers, to pander to environmental apocalypse-abusers. The most efficient energy sources should be determined on the market, and this simply cannot be done with gross price distortions due to government subsidies, tariffs, and protectionism. Yes, I agree with Lash totally on these points. Someone check to see if hell is freezing over!
There are some things about ethanol that I'd like to add, that the article underplays or doesn't mention. Yes, corn-based ethanol is so inefficent it's out of the game. Sugar beet based ethanol like they make in Brazil is marginal. But ethanol made from cellulose is quite a good possibility - many would say the favorite - to replace gasoline as the liquid fuel of choice. Switch-grass, sawdust, corn *stalks* and other agricultural waste are cheap, some even have a negative cost (meaning farmers currently pay someone to haul them away.)
The article leaves the impression that the technology for making ethanol from cellulose was found wanting as far back as the Jimmy Carter days. The real back-story is that when gas prices were high (remember Nixon's gasoline price-fixing scheme and the resulting long lines at gas pumps?) there was a lot of progress in cellulose-based ethanol research. But due to massive subsidies to oil companies (in the form of intervention in the Middle East, from the CIA assassination of an Iranian president to building infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, etc.) the price of gas went down. As a result, research in cellulose ethanol was curtailed. One Canadian company which had perfected an enzyme that turned cellulose into fermentable suger found that the only economic use was to sell the enzyme to fashion clothing companies to make faded-looking jeans! Bottom line: cellulosic ethanol research stopped because gas prices fell, not because of technical infeasibility.
Did you know that ethanol fuel competed successfully with gasoline until the temperance movement (and eventually Alcohol Prohibition) effectively outlawed it? Did you know that Henry Ford and other automotive pioneers expected cars to run on ethanol? Ford called it the "fuel of the future" in 1925. "The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumach out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust - almost anything," he said. Did you know that, before alcohol prohibition, about 80% of the ethanol produced in stills was used for fuel, not drinking? Finally, did you know that the most cutting edge cellulosic ethanol company in whole world is based in Fayetteville, Arkansas? Check out BRI Energy at www.brienergy.com and be proud of our local entrepreneurs!
Let's look at subsidies, direct and indirect, a little more. What would gasoline cost if it were not subsidized by US wars in the Middle East? $10 a gallon? $20 a gallon? Would there even be wars and occupations there if private oil firms had to buy the weapons, hire mercenaries, and do it on their own dime? So, like Lash, I say END ALL SUBSIDIES TO ENERGY FIRMS and let them fight it out in a free market! US out of the Middle East, US out of the corn fields, and US off the windmills! Let the market decide. We really can't predict what will replace gasoline any more than people in the "peak whale oil" days of the 1800s could predict what would light their lamps as whales became scare. But we do know that government subsidies, favoritism, and cronyism only distort the picture and make the transition harder.