While sitting in a dentist chair this past Tuesday I read the February 12th Special Report in US News & World Report entitled “Overselling Ethanol.” The cover page goes on to add “for all the hype is it really the answer?” Hmm. After the President’s State of the Union address last month I drafted my own report with a different slant and post it now to get your feedback.
Sadly, a rebuttal on ethanol fuel, appearing in Sunday’s Register, contained false data. While the writer says that mileage of both fuels is the same I have checked multiple sources confirming that E-85 ethanol fuel is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than traditional fossil fuel gasoline. There is more to this story than which type of fuel we will be buying at the pump. Beyond the fuel cost is the need to create infrastructure for transporting the ethanol. At the end of the trail is a domino effect which I call a “zero-sum-gain.”
Honey, can we afford to go out for dinner tonight? Do we have enough fuel in our gas tank and will there be enough food to feed our family when we get to the restaurant?
During his State of the Union presentation President Bush stated his goals to reduce our dependence on imported oil by 20 percent in 10 years by making a major commitment to corn based ethanol fuels. In his Energy Initiative he wants “the U.S. to be using 35 billion gallons of alternate fuels by 2017” Nice goal.On the Ford Motor Company’s web site it states that their Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFV) cars “get about 20-30 percent fewer miles per gallon when fueled with E-85.” Therefore a 20 percent reduction in demand becomes a wash at best.
This is not a new challenge. The Oct 1973 Yom Kippur war between Egypt, Syria and Israel resulted in an oil embargo. I can still recall sitting in line for two to three hours at gas stations where motorists were only permitted to fill up on alternate days based on their license plate numbers. Some stations eventually ran out of fuel. As such we have been aware of our dependence on imported oil for “over thirty three years” going all the way back to the administration of Jimmy Carter. That’s five different presidents, none of whom accomplished US energy independence.
There is an expression that really applies in this self reliance objective. It’s called “zero-sum gain.” Wikipedia encyclopedia “describes a situation in which a participant’s gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s).”
Prior to president George W Bush’s State of the Union address last month we had the honor of interviewing Dr. Evaggelos Vallianatos on his latest book entitled “This Land is Their Land: How Corporate Farms Threaten the World.” You can see that interview at www.cuttingedge-atalkshow.com
Evaggelos, son of a Greek farmer, spent 25 years as an analyst with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) where he was involved in domestic and international agriculture and environmental policies. Dr. Vallianatos, who retired from the EPA in 2004, has traveled around the globe and closely monitors agricultural activities.
It is too early to discuss DuPont’s research and development with “cellulosic ethanol” that is derived from switchgrass plants. Current technology is simply not there yet.
During our hour interview of Mr. Vallianatos I asked him several questions based on facts in his book that are relevant to this discussion. i.e. there are “86 nations in the world do not grow enough food to feed themselves.” In his book he reports that there are “800 million chronically undernourished people in the world.” When I asked him to comment on that data Evaggelos stated that that number is probably higher today.
I also asked him to comment on the use of genetically engineered (or genetically modified) GE corn for food Vs fuel.
Without getting into a discussion of the pro’s and con’s of GE foods let me simply state that the recent focus on ethanol fuel is having a major impact on our food chain.
Farmers need to decide what seeds to plant to meet the Energy Initiative. I have read that 30 percent of this years US corn crop will be dedicated for ethanol. Setting aside this much acreage for ethanol corn will reduce the planting for soybeans and wheat.
The tripling in cost of tortilla’s in Mexico, a major staple of the Chiapas peasants of that nation, is approaching a crisis. In the US the cost of a bushel of corn used to feed our livestock has doubled from two to four dollars which will translate into higher prices at the supermarket when we purchase chicken, pork and beef.
Food for thought. As the world population is expected to increase from 6.5 to 8.25 billion and the US population projected to increase from 300 million today to 400 million by 2019 we will be faced with a major zero-sum challenge. Food or fuel? Let me add that the wealthy will always be able to purchase food while those less fortunate will have tough choices to make.
Juice readers. What’s your thoughts on this topic?
The goal is to lower the use of foreign oil, not to lower the cost of fuel.
Rasing prices lowers use.
There is the answer.
Cook.
The problem relates to dedicating agricultural land to grow corn for ethanol thereby reducing the amount of corn available for feed as well as having less land available to grow other basic crops.
As of now there are relatively few stations where you can obtain ethanol fuel resulting in higher costs. According to the US News & world Report there are roughly 1,000 stations offering ethanol out of 180,000 gas stations.
I won’t debate the cost variance other than to say the middle class and lower income workers are less able to endure this increase.
Yes, we do need to address this dependency on OPEC’s fossil fuels.
This is a big topic Larry and all I can say is the market will work it out and the government should stay 100% out of it. I just read where white corn production will increase 25% this year because of the tortilla issue. When I read about the corn prices recently I asked my Dad what was being grown on his little farm in Colorado. He said his neighbor has his mules on it. Somehow I think those mules will be gone soon and corn stalks will be growing.
I think those plug in hybrids will help a lot which is why I need to pick up a good mining company.
A university in Bath England is making progress on hydrogen storage.
It is an exciting time we are living in. There are going to be some big technological changes as long as government does not muck it all up.
Anonymous #3.
I surely agree with you that this is a major topic. It’s amusing, if I can use that word, that while we are encouraged to conserve we go out and buy gas hog Hummer’s and SUV’s.
The auto industry is being pressed to increase fuel economy. Worthy and proper challenge. To me let the marketplace make this call as to increased mileage to take or retain market share without big brother getting in the way.
OK. We increase mileage by 20 percent and switch to ethanol which requires over 20 percent more fuel to get you to the same destination. Do the math.
We missed a golden opportunity in the voting to open ANWR Alaska to show OPEC our willingness to break their stranglehold on the black gold. Congree simply lacks a backbone.
ANWR is said to contain 10 billion barrels or oil. We could be getting one million barrels per day from this taboo location. That is more than we obtain from CA or Texas. And yes, a new pipeline will take time before oil starts flowing. So as the saying goes, snooze, you lose.
My sense is that the general public will not take this issue seriously until we revert back to 1973 and the hour long waits at the pump.
Hydrogen, as a clean fuel alternative is also being tested. Hydrogen generators might be something we need to hear more about.
Sorry to ramble but there are many facets to this energy independence challenge.
A lot of good points have been raised here and this *is* a very complicated issue. I don’t think there is only one answer. I think there are a lot of things that will all become part of the ultimate answer.
Conservation is a big part of it. I too remember the gas lines of the early 70’s and the sudden popularity of smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Maybe as fuel costs continue to rise, or those gas lines return, we’ll see a move away from the gas hogs again.
New oil supplies are also part of it. We should have opened ANWR and tapped into that reserve. Ethanol, Hydrogen, Wind and other things all have their place as part of the program too. There is also the prospect of more nuclear power plants,if we can figure out what to do with the waste.
My point is, Ethanol should not be viewed as the total answer. If it is, corn will become the “new oil” and food supplies *will* be effected, so we’ll just trade one problem for another.
Just in from a former executive in the oil industry:
Larry, you didn’t go the “distance” in your ethanol alternative fuel essay. One way to get to President Bush’s goal is to build more nuclear power plants in the US, thus, reducing the dependence on fossil fuels for the conversion to electrical energy. Thus, the fossil fuels that had gone to produce electricity can then become available for conversion to gasoline and diesel, and heating oils. This is achievable and may also result in a reduction of green house gas emissions – less from the Nukes than the burning of fuels to create the electrical energy. The US focus should be on MORE Nuke Electricity, not more corn for ethanol !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PS: I agree with this writer.
A few years ago France obtained 70 percent of it’s electricty from nuclear power plants. I do not fear another Three Mile Island accident in America. As to the nuclear waste. We can bury it in the Irvine Great Park.
And don’t forget wind! I for one hope Irvine’s Composite Technology Corp. sells 10s of thousands of their new wind turbines. And if we go nuclear we also will need to buy thousands upon thousands of Composite Techonology’s composite core transmission cable. I would love for this underdog company to succeed.
Hegemony…is the word. Venezuela,
Russia, Malyasia, Viet-nam, Norway and others all have one thing in common; They want press and power
because of their oil. People forget the reason we are in Iraq.
Dare we say it: Oil
China is a huge oil producer that
no one talks about. They have some
untapped reserves which they are
saving…while we have to go fish
in Afganistan and Central Eurasia.
As the China market driven economy
dries up all the foreign oil with
their demand…..places like Venezuela who are selling oil to
China…will have a tough time
controlling their other markets.
Corn for Hummers? Sounds alot like
Atoms for Peace!
Hegemony…is the word. Venezuela,
Russia, Malyasia, Viet-nam, Norway and others all have one thing in common; They want press and power
because of their oil. People forget the reason we are in Iraq.
Dare we say it: Oil
China is a huge oil producer that
no one talks about. They have some
untapped reserves which they are
saving…while we have to go fish
in Afganistan and Central Eurasia.
As the China market driven economy
dries up all the foreign oil with
their demand…..places like Venezuela who are selling oil to
China…will have a tough time
controlling their other markets.
Corn for Hummers? Sounds alot like
Atoms for Peace!
The debate continues. Another executive in the oil industry just sent me the following by e-mail:
Larry – The ethanol debacle is pushed on the consumer by California’s water & air resources board! In addition, most oil companies jumped on this bandwagon as an effort to get away from the water contamination issues when they were forced to use MTBE in their gasoline to meet emission standards. MTBE (developed by BP) was required by the Air Resources board to meet their pollution standards. MTBE is not soluble, is carcinogenic and got into the water supplies of many municipalities. Now all of California’s gas contains ethanol. You can roll into Arizona and purchase gasoline not blended for California and increase your mileage and engine performance. Of course it does not burn as clean as our oxygenated fuel with ethanol. So we pay until the next solution……
What is not widely mentioned is that there is another non Middle Eastern sources of crude on the horizon, and I am not referring to Canada, Mexico or Venezuela.
For the past ten years a 1,000 mile long pipeline has been under construction by a consortium of major oil companies. The pipeline originates in the former Soviet Union Nation of Azerbaijian and terminates at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea.
This pipeline, which goes through the Caucasus, is capable of delivering up to a million barrels per day.
It behooves our government to establish and maintain good relations with the leaders of this Nation and this project consortium to broaden our source of crude to let the current OPEC barons recoginize that theirs is not the only game in town.
You can find out more regarding this source on Google. Here is part of one article from 2004:
The ‘Deal of the Century’
On September 20, 1994, a consortium of partners including BP Oil, Amoco and Pennzoil signed a deal with the Azerbaijan government.
The oil shipped to the West from Azerbaijan on slow, rusting trains would now be replaced by the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Pipeline. When the pipeline was completed, output would increase to one million barrels a day and become an essential cornerstone in the West’s plan to decrease its dependence on Middle East oil.
The BTC pipeline is a three billion dollar gamble but one that the Project’s CEO Michael Townshend says is worth it.
Michael Townshend: “In a few years time this oil will be about a quarter of all the new energy source in the world. It’s a non-Persian, non-Russian new source of energy.”
Is this debate about reducing the use of foreign oil, or replacing it with someone else’s foreign oil or corn oil?
“”During his State of the Union presentation President Bush stated his goals to reduce our dependence on imported oil by 20 percent in 10 years by making a major commitment to corn based ethanol fuels.”“
So is it to reduce or replace?
Like I posted ealier, rasing prices will reduce the use.
The oil companies are doing there share and banking massive profits.
The government should RAISE the gasoline TAXES too.
10 cents a gallon fed and state tax in 1960 is equal to 70 1/4 cents per gallon now. So the price of the TAX on gasoline, adjusted for inflation (currently 39 cents), is less than it was in 1960.