Rolling Stone: Ethanol Scam a Boondoggle that Hurts the Environment

[Roxanne Appleby]

"Politians' ethanol claims are not just hype -- they're dangerous, delusional bullshit."

"Filling the gas tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires more than 450 pounds of corn -- roughly enough calories to feed one person for a year."

"Even if the entire U.S. corn crop were used to make ethanol, the fuel would replace only twelve percent of current gasoline use."

Ethanol Scam Hurts the Environment And Is One of America's Biggest Political Boondoggles
By Jeff Goodell
Rolling Stone, July 24, 2007 - http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...one_of_americas_biggest_political_boondoggles

The great danger of confronting peak oil and global warming isn't that we will sit on our collective asses and do nothing while civilization collapses, but that we will plunge after "solutions" that will make our problems even worse. Like believing we can replace gasoline with ethanol, the much-hyped biofuel that we make from corn.

Ethanol, of course, is nothing new. American refiners will produce nearly 6 billion gallons of corn ethanol this year, mostly for use as a gasoline additive to make engines burn cleaner. But in June, the Senate all but announced that America's future is going to be powered by biofuels, mandating the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022. According to ethanol boosters, this is the beginning of a much larger revolution that could entirely replace our 21-million-barrel-a-day oil addiction. Midwest farmers will get rich, the air will be cleaner, the planet will be cooler, and, best of all, we can tell those greedy sheiks to fuck off. As the king of ethanol hype, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, put it recently, "Everything about ethanol is good, good, good."

This is not just hype -- it's dangerous, delusional bullshit. Ethanol doesn't burn cleaner than gasoline, nor is it cheaper. Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of our gasoline consumption -- yet it consumes twenty percent of the entire U.S. corn crop, causing the price of corn to double in the last two years and raising the threat of hunger in the Third World. And the increasing acreage devoted to corn for ethanol means less land for other staple crops, giving farmers in South America an incentive to carve fields out of tropical forests that help to cool the planet and stave off global warming.

So why bother? Because the whole point of corn ethanol is not to solve America's energy crisis, but to generate one of the great political boondoggles of our time. Corn is already the most subsidized crop in America, raking in a total of $51 billion in federal handouts between 1995 and 2005 -- twice as much as wheat subsidies and four times as much as soybeans. Ethanol itself is propped up by hefty subsidies, including a fifty-one-cent-per-gallon tax allowance for refiners. And a study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that ethanol subsidies amount to as much as $1.38 per gallon -- about half of ethanol's wholesale market price.

Three factors are driving the ethanol hype. The first is panic: Many energy experts believe that the world's oil supplies have already peaked or will peak within the next decade. The second is election-year politics. With the first vote to be held in Iowa, the largest corn-producing state in the nation, former skeptics like Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain now pay tribute to the wonders of ethanol. Earlier this year, Sen. Barack Obama pleased his agricultural backers in Illinois by co-authoring legislation to raise production of biofuels to 60 billion gallons by 2030. A few weeks later, rival Democrat John Edwards, who is staking his campaign on a victory in the Iowa caucus, upped the ante to 65 billion gallons by 2025.

The third factor stoking the ethanol frenzy is the war in Iraq, which has made energy independence a universal political slogan. Unlike coal, another heavily subsidized energy source, ethanol has the added political benefit of elevating the American farmer to national hero. As former CIA director James Woolsey, an outspoken ethanol evangelist, puts it, "American farmers, by making the commitment to grow more corn for ethanol, are at the top of the spear on the war against terrorism." If you love America, how can you not love ethanol?

More . . .

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The idea that adding Ethenol (Alcohol) to gasoline would make it a better fuel has never made much sence. Worse - The "Summer Mix" increases the amount of alcohol to gasoline. If anything, that's ass backwards. If you want something out of the alcohol, it should be increased in winter months in the coldest regions to maintain the viscosity of regular gasoline (Keep it from freezing).

Better yet, leave it out of gasoline entirely and use it to fuel the drivers in the form of Sour Mash Corn Whiskey. After all, that's what Ethenol really is.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I was liking the thought of driving on sugar beet gas....damn.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

It also takes two gallons of oil to produce one gallon of ethanol...

so how is that saving the environment?

 

[gauchecritic]

I heard reported on the radio, from an actual user (and other places too) that corn oil doesn't actually need to be made into ethanol.

I'm not sure of the ratio and I have no idea about the efficacy but during a radio phone in on deisel additives someone said that they put in a gallon of deisel from the pump and then add so many gallons of corn oil straight in to the tank and that he's been doing it for years with no adverse effects. I mean corn oil, the kind you buy from the kwiki-mart for cooking with.

Is there something that the oil companies don't want to tell us?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I heard reported on the radio, from an actual user (and other places too) that corn oil doesn't actually need to be made into ethanol.

I'm not sure of the ratio and I have no idea about the efficacy but during a radio phone in on deisel additives someone said that they put in a gallon of deisel from the pump and then add so many gallons of corn oil straight in to the tank and that he's been doing it for years with no adverse effects. I mean corn oil, the kind you buy from the kwiki-mart for cooking with.

Is there something that the oil companies don't want to tell us?

Soybean oil. It's still as goofy as hell and a complete boondoggle, but slightly less so than ethanol, because you don't have to distill the damned stuff into whiskey first. Just throw it in with the deisel, do a little chemical-ly stuff, and it's ready to burn.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

It's called bio-diesel and some people have been making it from the used cooking oil from fast food restaurants. Only that stuff has to be filtered first and your exhaust smells like french fries.

But the cooking oil off the shelf is a little expensive to fill your tank with @ around $1.30 a quart. That's over five dollars a gallon!

 

[gauchecritic]

It's called bio-diesel and some people have been making it from the used cooking oil from fast food restaurants. Only that stuff has to be filtered first and your exhaust smells like french fries.

But the cooking oil off the shelf is a little expensive to fill your tank with @ around $1.30 a quart. That's over five dollars a gallon!

You really have no idea how much better off you are over there do you?

Petrol over here is $10 a gallon.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I'm a fan of E85. FlexFuel capability kicks ass. Wooooooo!

(yes, maybe some of my opinions are for sale--but GM's paying well for them)

GO CORN!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm a fan of E85. FlexFuel capability kicks ass. Wooooooo!

(yes, maybe some of my opinions are for sale--but GM's paying well for them)

GO CORN!

That is the best reason I have heard to support ethanol. In fact, aside from ignorance it's the only reason I can discern to support it, and surely is the thing that's really motivating all it's prominent boosters. But all the rest of them are not so honest.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You really have no idea how much better off you are over there do you?

Petrol over here is $10 a gallon.

The underlying commodity costs the same - most of your $10 is taxes. The price cited here for bean oil would be 3-4 times the wholesale, pre-tax price of deisel. It almost certainly would be a lot less than that under mass production, but still a lot more than deisel, and still a boondoggle.

 

[R. Richard]

Not only does ethanol consume more energy to produce than it yields as a fuel, but the side effects of the corn production are incredibly bad. The chemical fertilizers that are used in the corn production are being washed into rivers and oceans. There are now dead spots in the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay, due to the algae that grows on the chemicals. The dead spots are growing in size.

Go to your Congressperson and demand the straight story.

 

[TxRad]

I've raced cars on ethanol for years.

First off, it takes 1.6 times as much ethanol to power the same motor as gasoline. So if your car on the highway gets 24 miles to the gallon on gas, figure 15 on corn.

Secondly to convert over to ethanol in your streetcar will take a complete new fuel system from the tank to the injectors or carburetor. Then the timing will have to be reset because ethanol cools a motor down below optimum temperatures. Since most cars today only have nine to one compression ratios you'll actually loose power in the conversion. Ethanol would add power if the compression ratio was above 11 to 1.

Then there is the water problem. Ethanol collects water faster than the IRS collects money. A little water would help the low compression engine up to a point. The blow by vapors from ethanol causes condensation inside the motor so oil has to be changed more often. The oil turns milky white and then breaks down quickly.

In case of a fire you won't see it burning in the daylight but the good news is it takes only 1/3 the chemicals to put it out compared to gas. It's also harder to ignite ethanol, so starting a fire in the first place would be harder. Speaking of which, in cold weather it's easier to start the car on gas and then turn on the ethanol. Starting a car even at 60 degrees is a bitch on straight ethanol.

This is from twenty years of hands on experience.

Oh and the fumes will make your eyes water if the engine is to rich.

 

[angela146]

OK, let's try to throw some light on this.

(Please note that when I use the word "gasoline" below, I am speaking generically. The reality is that it's sometimes gasoline, sometimes diesel, sometimes coal sometimes other fossil fuels).

1. A big part of the reason that ethanol production consumes gasoline is the process of transportation. Gasoline can be transported via pipelines. At the moment, ethanol can't travel in the same pipelines for two reasons: first of all, the pipelines are already being used for gasoline (duh) but more importantly, ethanol is corrosive to the materials that line the pipes. In other words, we would need a new pipeline infrastructure.

Because we don't have that, ethanol is being transported in tanker trucks (and rail cars), which is horrifically inefficient.

If we moved to large-scale E85 production, the pipeline companies would have an incentive to build more pipelines and re-configure some existing pipelines to carry ethanol. Note that there are some technology problems that have to be solved first (like perfecting a long-lasting lining that can stand up to years of ethanol exposure).

2. A second source of demand for gasoline in the production of ethanol is that the corn is transported in its unprocessed state from the farm to a regional processing facility in order to be turned into fuel. Corn is bigger and heaver than ethanol and it takes a lot more rail cars and trucks to move it than it would if it were processed on the farm.

Again, with large-scale E85, farmers (both large-scale farmers and small-scale farmers) would be able to invest in the equipment to turn corn into ethanol. That would greatly reduce the transportation cost (in dollars and in fuel demand) because there is less volume and less weight.

Right now, there isn't enough certainty that E85 will really happen, so it isn't worth their investment. Turning corn into ethanol isn't rocket science. It takes some equipment, but Jim-Bob and his brother Slim have been doing it for a couple of hundred years out in the back forty. It's not like oil refining that requires multiple separation processes.

Also, if farmers are producing their own ethanol, they can use ethanol itself to fuel the distillation equipment, *and* use ethanol to run their other equipment (tractors, harvesters, planters, etc.) thus removing more of the need for gasoline. They would produce their own fuel and would not need to transport gasoline from elsewhere.

3. Another part of the petroleum demand on farms is for fertilizer. This is a by-product of refining petroleum. It does not represent actual demand for crude oil, since it is essentially a waste-product. They do not turn gasoline into fertilizer, they turn the other stuff that is in the crude oil into fertilizer.

The anti-ethanol lobby (i.e. the oil companies) would like you to believe that fertilizer demand is a net demand for crude oil, when it really isn't.

Also, whatever the farmer grows in his field (hay, soy, corn, potatoes, Belgian endive etc.) is going to need fertilizer (more for some crops than for others). Switching to ethanol doesn't change the net demand for fertilizer *unless* more net acreage is put into production (I'll address that issue in a moment).

4. Growing corn to produce ethanol is green-house positive. The corn plant itself turns carbon-dioxide (CO2 a major green-house gas) and water and soil nutrients into sugar (and other stuff) releasing oxygen. Carbon is stored in the corn and eventually is turned into ethanol (C2H6O).

The process of burning ethanol releases carbon, but the process of growing corn removes carbon from the air. Of course it isn't a perfect balance, nothing ever is. However, it is a much much better balance than fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels drew their carbon out of the environment a bazzilion years ago. Consuming them now puts more carbon into the atmosphere without any net reduction in carbon during the production process.

It's not the "clean burning" of ethanol that makes the difference. What mattes is that producing ethanol requires the production plant (i.e. the corn plan) to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.

5. Now for the government subsidies. A lot of the subsidies are used to get farmers to not produce corn and leave their fields empty. That keeps corn prices artificially high and prevents over-production of corn.

The US has the capacity to produce a lot more corn than the world could ever consume (unless we were using it for fuel), so we are currently paying farmers to not do that. If it weren't for those subsidies, we would be buried in the stuff. If the demand for corn went through the roof (because of E85), the subsidies could end (or be drastically reduced) and farmers could put their acreage into production.

In other words, we could stop paying farmers to sit on their hands.

Yes, there would be some effect on corn prices but not as much as you might think. We have a lot of unused capacity out there. We would also save some tax dollars currently being spent to keep corn prices up and keep corn out of production.

Right now, those unused acres are growing things like grass, which gives you some reduction in carbon but not nearly the reduction that corn does (think of a field of two-foot high grass vs. eight-foot high corn. There's lots more green plant in a corn field than an inactive field).

Now, as I said above, there would be some increased need for fertilizer and fuel to plant/cultivate/harvest the crop, but in the net that's small potatoes (or small corn if you prefer). Remember that things get much better if we include the process of ethanol production on the farm so the farmers are making their own fuel.

---------

OK, I know that this is very broad-brush and there are a lot of devils in the details. I haven't shown any of the math. Others may have lots of fun doing that. My intent was to highlight the major reasons why E85 is actually feasible.

The tipping point in the US is somewhere around $3.00 - $3.25 per gallon of gas. We have been living with those kinds of prices in the Midwest for a couple of years now.

---- A side issue about Europe and it's fuel prices ----

Just to be fair, a big part of the reason that Europeans pay so much more for gasoline is that they choose to tax themselves a lot more on a litre of gas than we do. Even so, even if you take the taxes out of the equation, they still pay more for gasoline than we do in the US.

That's because they also do not have anywhere near as much domestic oil production as we do.

The U.S. has its own oil production, but obviously not enough to satisfy our demand for oil.

It gets better: If we bring E85 into the mix, the situation will get even worse for Europe relative to the US. The US produces a lot more corn (and similar grains) than the rest of the world, so our fuel prices would get even better.

Sorry folks, that's the advantage of having huge tracts of flat land in the middle of our country. Those pesky hills and mountains you have in Germany, Scandinavia, Italy, Switzerland etc. are nowhere near as easy to grow grains on as the flat-lands we have in Illinois, Nebraska and Kansas.

Until I moved out here, I didn't comprehend it. If you've never visited Illinois or Kansas, you have no idea what flat really is. It is very easy to drive for hundreds of miles and not see a single hill or mountain on the horizon.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

OK, let's try to throw some light on this.

Good effort, Angela, but no sale here.

I don't have the math either, but I suspect that much of your scenario for cutting transport and related costs is too rosy. I don't know but I'm skeptical that fertilizer is mostly a byproduct - I'd bet money that a lot of energy goes into it's production (and distribution).

You leave out the fact that rain forests are being cut down to grow cane in Brazil - for ethanol. And your "$3.00 gas break even" ignores the reality that the higher the fossil fuel price goes, the higher the corn cost goes, since the former is an important input into the latter. Indeed, I just saw a news item this week that a 2-year-old bio-deisel plant had closed this year - because the price of soybeans had made it below break-even, even with massive subsidies.

Here's what would convince me: If ethanol happened without any subsidies and mandates. As long as those exist they are proof positive that this is a wasteful boondoggle.

~~~~~~~~~

On a related issue, your observation about the hundreds of miles of flat in the U.S. heartland describes a reality that is hard for coasties to imagine. I believe this is why the excessive (and wrongheaded) fleet mileage standards have so much political muscle right now. Walk around DC and other eastern cities and you almost nothing but little cars. As we midwesterners know, when it's 100 miles of raging blizzard between towns those little econo-boxes look a lot less appealing than something with a little more space, mass and comfort.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

OK, let's try to throw some light on this.

Oh, one more item: You did not address the real hardships that high food prices caused by the ethanol scramble are imposing on the poor here, and the desperate hardship it may impose on the third world poor. Plus just the extra stress it's putting on the middle class. In my view, this is what makes the whole boondoggle actually immoral - subsidies for wealthy and politically well-connected agribiz and corporate farmers, hardship or desperation for the poor, and stress for the middle class.

~~~

And all for nothing, because our real energy future is an all-electric economy powered by nukes and possibly geothermal. Cars will be electric, and will have standardized batteries that one will swap at "gas stations" for batteries recharged after being dropped off by someone else a few hours earlier. You will back your 4-cell, 6-cell or 8-cell car up to a machine, it will pull out the cells, and insert recharged ones. With current technology battery cars can go about 150 miles. This will increase.

Rather than fuel trucks and pipelines, the nation's energy will be transported over wires. There will be fewer "gas stations" though, because most of the time people will plug their cars in at home every night. The stations will be for long distance traveling only.

This will cost somewhat more than fossil fuels, maybe double the amount, even. But it is sustainable for thousands of years, and assuages the current environmental angst - nukes (and geothermal generation) emit zero "greenhouse gases."

We are not "all gonna die," and not going to return to the caves or the Amish farms. The comforts and conveniences of modern civiliazation will be enjoyed by every person on the planet, on a sustainable basis.

 

[gauchecritic]

As a side note...

I doubt very much whether nuclear produced electricity will ever get the backing from government nor the people because of the obvious hazards therein.

The main (and possibly only) reason for their current usage is the other by-product for use in WMD.

My guess is that miniaturisation and chip production will eventually lessen the demand for gigawattage (cold lasers, flat screens, etc) and make smaller local power plants a viable future option driven by any number of methods, many of which will be natural.

Unfortunately for y'all that will put the far east in quite a superior position and then the west will learn (as we have learned) that the young 'uns aren't quite as bad as they're painted.

Due to the rapidity of modern growth that will leave the US just as bitter as Europe about fading dominance but with the added hurt of still not having any history to feel superior about.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I doubt very much whether nuclear produced electricity will ever get the backing from government nor the people because of the obvious hazards therein.

The main (and possibly only) reason for their current usage is the other by-product for use in WMD.

My guess is that miniaturisation and chip production will eventually lessen the demand for gigawattage (cold lasers, flat screens, etc) and make smaller local power plants a viable future option driven by any number of methods, many of which will be natural.

Unfortunately for y'all that will put the far east in quite a superior position and then the west will learn (as we have learned) that the young 'uns aren't quite as bad as they're painted.

Due to the rapidity of modern growth that will leave the US just as bitter as Europe about fading dominance but with the added hurt of still not having any history to feel superior about.

Gotta find a dark cloud somewhere, I suppose.

Actually, there 30 new nukes already being built in 12 countries right now; 70 more are planned, and 150 more are proposed. At some point the west will join the party, probably before we are reduced to shivering in the dark, but certainly no later than that.

 

[lisa123414]

Gotta find a dark cloud somewhere, I suppose.

Actually, there 30 new nukes already being built in 12 countries right now; 70 more are planned, and 150 more are proposed. At some point the west will join the party, probably before we are reduced to shivering in the dark, but certainly no later than that.

How are they disposing of the radioactive waste? Nuclear power is very seductive, as long as you don't worry about tomorrow.

 

[R. Richard]

In order to convert all US gasoline usage to E85 usage [15% ethanol] would require 30% of the US corn crop. If the US attempted to use ethanol to power our motor vehicles, it would require more than 100% of the total US corn crop.

Wait a minute, you say. What about my morning corn flakes? Well, first it would mean no more morning corn flakes. Second, corn is used more for animal food than people food, so the elimination of the corn as a food crop would also mean no hamburger for lunch.

The amount of fertilizer required to grow the amount of corn needed would pollute the hell out of the environment far worse than the carbon that is spewed into the air by petroleum burning vehicles.

But wait, what about wind power? We stop the ethanol madness and use nice clean wind power. Well, sports fans, It would take the entire state of Texas to provide enough wind powered electricity to satisfy the US demand as of 2005. [The people of Texas are armed and will strongly resist any attempt to turn their state into a humoungus wind farm. BEWARE!]

What about hydro power? Well, there is a bit of a problem. The best way to produce hydro power is to use the low demand nighttime power to pump the river back uphill so that there will be more power in the morning. I could describe the environmental effects, but I refuse to be resposible for the suicide of numerous Literotica members.

Eventually, you arrive at nuclear power. Nuclear is cheap, clean and quite safe. Unfortunately, no one wants a nuclear power generation plant in their immediate area [NIMBY.] To forestall the arguments, let me recite the answers. They use nuclear power in Europe. Europe doesn't have the vast western deserts that the US does. Thus, Europe has solved the nuclear waste disposal problem. What about nuclear disaster? Japan had a violent earthquake very near a nuclear power generation facility. Apparently there was some leakage of radioactive water into the environment. Thus far there have been no reports of giant ants attacking Tokyo, but STAY TUNED! What about Chernoble? The Russians designed an idiot nuclear power generation system and managed it in insane fashion. If the US avoids idiot design and insane management, we are OK.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

How are they disposing of the radioactive waste? Nuclear power is very seductive, as long as you don't worry about tomorrow.

Dig a deep hole in a geologically very stable place, deposit waste, plug hole.

OK, it's a bit more involved than that. But seriously, the nuclear waste issue, and the quantity of waste in in this country itself, is due to politics, not physics. Jimmy Carter canceled fuel recycling, but more than 98% of the material in a spent nuclear fuel rod is recyclable, and elsewhere in the world that's what they do. About 97% of spent fuel is uranium: 2% of that is the fissionable U-235 isotope, which powers the reactor, and the other 95% is U-238, the same non-fissionable isotope that comes out of the ground. This can't be used for bombs. Yes, it has a very long half-life, which is why environmentalists think they have to sit and watch it for a million years, but it's the same stuff that's in granite. The isotope of concern is plutonium-239, formed when small amounts of U-238 absorb neutrons during the three-year cycle. It makes up 1% of spent fuel. Separating it and putting it back in a reactor as "mixed oxide fuel" (uranium plus plutonium) is no problem. France, where 78 percent of electricity is generated by 58 nuke plants, recycles all its fuel rods. The remaining 2% of the fuel rod--the highly radioactive transuranic elements and fission byproducts-- are is all stored in a single room in Le Havre.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

In order to convert all US gasoline usage to E85 usage [15% ethanol] would require 30% of the US corn crop.

Oi vey, not even close. From the article in the OP: "Even if the entire U.S. corn crop were used to make ethanol, the fuel would replace only twelve percent of current gasoline use."

 

[R. Richard]

Oi vey, not even close. From the article in the OP: "Even if the entire U.S. corn crop were used to make ethanol, the fuel would replace only twelve percent of current gasoline use."

I have seen a figure of 35% used, but the picture is bleak in any case.

 

[Lisa Denton]

I dunno all the ethanol stuff, but I can believe what you say. What I do know about will kick ethanol's ass even more.

You want corn for ethanol?

My greatgrand-daddy was a very successful farmer, he never grew nothing, all his fields just sitting there. He had a little garden with some tomatoes and stuff he liked, but he never grew crops for sale.

He just did the math each year.

To keep crops adjusted, not too much this or that, each year they will pay a farmer NOT to grow certain crops. So each year he would sign up Not too grow every thing on the list, and go hunting.

He said he wasn't lazy, he actually made more money not growing anything.

He said america is a great country, just kinda wacky.

 

[Liar]

Here's what would convince me: If ethanol happened without any subsidies and mandates.

So you're pitching it against something with an established used base and existing infrastructure.

Just a question: Did gasoline happen without any subsidies and mandates?
Not insinuating anything. Just asking, since I honestly don't know.

(Ok, if the answer is what I think it is, I'm insinuating, a little.)