Obama will continue our moronic ethanol policy

I’ve previously written about the stupidity of U.S. ethanol policy. It’s nothing but corporate welfare for big corn farms. Ethanol would never stand alone on its own as a fuel without perpetual subsidies. The resulting higher corn prices have increased the cost of food, and there have been food riots in poorer countries.

According to today’s NY Times article, Obama is a big supporter of ethanol subsidies:

The candidates’ views were tested recently in the Farm Bill approved by Congress that extended the subsidies for corn ethanol, though reducing them slightly, and the tariffs on imported sugar cane ethanol. Because Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama were campaigning, neither voted. But Mr. McCain said that as president he would veto the bill, while Mr. Obama praised it.

As you see, there’s a big difference between McCain and Obama. McCain is the common sense candidate.

McCain also says that restrictions on offshore oil drilling should be lifted, another reason to vote for him.

Comments

[loki on the run]

Over on his blog, Ilkka Kokkarinen has pointed out that while women like to complain about the glass ceiling holding them down, they never complain about the glass floor that keeps them from falling as far as men can (and do).

This is a highly effective metaphor for the differences between the male and female variances that are likely to delight men and piss off women at the same time. Outstanding.

[Half Delta]

Ethanol isn't a bad alternative fuel, they are just using the wrong crop for it. Try switchgrass. Vertical farming would solve the long term global food crises (although regular farming could as well).

[capitalkid]

HS, while I fully agree that a corn-based ethanol solution will never work and is only promoted due to political reasons, I think it is unfair to blame the rising food prices and food riots solely on it. think it has more to do with rising energy costs. See the link for more info:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/73420-does-ethanol-deserve-the-blame-for-rising-food-prices

P.S. I'm pro offshore drilling, pro nuclear, pro R&D for cellulosic ethanol, but very anti corn-based ethanol.

[THC]

Hemp. Smoking it is for fools. You can eat it, burn it, make some serious cloth and rope from it. See "Hemp for Victory." The Feds denied it even existed for years. It grows like a weed almost anywhere.

[loki on the run]

It is quite possible that oil, and drilling for oil in and around the US, could turn into a pivotal issue in November.

If more white males can be brought to the polling booths in November things could get interesting. I imagine they will be very pissed off at gasoline prices and would love to poke a sharp stick in environmentalists' and liberals' eyes.

[Not Kidding]

I imagine they will be very pissed off at gasoline prices and would love to poke a sharp stick in environmentalists' and liberals' eyes.

I'd rather club them like seals or shoot them like coyotes. However, the current fuel price issues can be blamed on many factors. But as I said, I'm always willing to single out environmentalists and liberals for abuse. Their sins are many and can only be expiated through physical suffering and violence.

[Gannon]

Oil prices will never go down again.
By the way, how much calories do you use to produce 1000 calories of corn ethanol?

[John Smith]

Drilling will barely make a dent in the price of oil, China is still going to gobble up everything. We have to find alternatives ASAP.

[The Engineer]

You crazy. Ethanol is the best fuel out there. Check out my OTHER blog, which is about how I put E85 in my non-flex fuel Saab. It runs great on the stuff.

And E85 SHOULD be about $3.10 a gallon right now, vs. $4.14 for 87 and $4.25 for 93. If you can find a retailer that sells it for that little.

Check me out:

www.drunkenswede.blogspot.com

[David Alexander]

We have to find alternatives ASAP.

Nuke China?

BTW, Engineer, since you're in the petrochemical industry, what do you think of peak oil?

[Vim]

Usually I think Obama's opinions are GOOD to OK, this the first one I would have to say is actually pretty BAD. The corn thing is a disaster. I think I would need to hear more about what he thinks the benefit is that outweighs the sucky global effects.

That being said, ending the Iraq thing would be worth it. That's a much bigger disaster.

[Andysan]

Since HS mentioned common sense in regard to McCain, here is my take on common sense and its exact opposite, political correctness. Even engineering careers are involved.

Over the past 20 years, or so, the premium on common sense has gradually given way to rewarding political correctness. At one time people made decisions using predominantly common sense. When logging, farming, and fishing were major careers, even a momentary departure from common sense could be fatal. Engineering was/is valued because common sense could be regularly demonstrated.

In these PC times, common sense is certainly not valued. To be PC is to be peer accepted no matter the circumstances. In fact PC has even become a crutch which allows people to do terrible and stupid things to others and still live with themselves. After all, everyone is doing it!

For many young people, an engineering or computer science career is likely viewed by their peers as non-PC -- thereby not considered.

Politics has not escaped the common-sense political-correctness phenomena. The upcoming elections will likely turn more on PC than on common sense or good judgment.

So long as it is PC to value tundra and views more than sound economics, we have a lot to be worried about. I'm not optimistic.

[12 Volt]

An even more interesting McCain proposal here:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080623/D91FQ6L81.html

"The presumed Republican nominee is proposing a $300 million government prize to whoever can develop an automobile battery that far surpasses existing technology."

[Vim]

"So long as it is PC to value tundra and views more than sound economics"

If we lose too many species, ecosystems collapse and then no amount of economics can fix it. It's also possible that the equilibrium drastically switches and we get dramatic declines in a food species like (say tuna) in favor of some other inedible species like algae. We don't really know enough to fix any of this.

[Half Delta]

Vim that is not correct. You said you agree with global warming, as a man made phenomenon which is a massive global climate endeavor, yet we can't do anything with isolated environments. This is not true. We easily turn deserts into crop producing, megaopolisis. See Las Vegas. Crop growing will never really hit a critical point because hydroponic technology has become so advanced. Also algae is plenty edible and a lot of fish live off of it.

[Steve Johnson]

Vim:

That being said, ending the Iraq thing would be worth it. That's a much bigger disaster.

This isn't close to right.

Let's take it as a given that Iraq is a disaster (although this is debatable, disaster is a strong word). Corn ethanol is much worse for the simple reason that it is much less likely to ever go away. In 1969 the United States had troops in Viet Nam and started a bunch of new government programs to give people money. In 2008, there are no troops in Viet Nam but the programs created in 1969 that everyone acknowledges do so much harm are still around.

[Gannon]

To all the engineers here, specially smart alec Vim, how much of a Galon of ethanol do you need to produce 1 Galon of ethanol through farming? I have read numbers from 0.5 to 0.9 Galons to produce 1 Galon.

[Half Delta]

Gannon here you go:

Also, in some engines, there can be slight decrease in fuel economy and power. On average, there is about a 10% reduction in power. In other words, it takes about 1.1 gallons of biodiesel to equal 1 gallon of standard diesel.

But not all scientists agree with Pimental's analysis regarding energy efficiency. Dr. Michael Wang of the Argonne National Laboratory finds that it requires 0.74 million BTUs of fossil fuels to get 1 million BTUs of ethanol to market. That would mean a net gain in energy, not a net loss.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/ethanol-facts.htm

6000 miles per gallon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol#Ethanol
_Fuel_Cells

Switchgrass has the potential to produce the biomass required for production of up to 100 gallons (380 liters) of ethanol per metric ton.[20] This gives switchgrass the potential to produce 1000 gallons of ethanol per acre, compared to 665 gallons for sugarcane and 400 gallons for corn.[21]

However, there is debate on the viability of switchgrass, and all other biofuels, as an efficient energy source. University of California, Berkeley professor Tad Patzek argues that switchgrass has a negative ethanol fuel energy balance, requiring 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.[22] On the other side, David Bransby, professor of energy crops at Auburn University, has found that for every unit of energy input, switchgrass yields four units out.[23] In a 2007 lecture Professor Richard Muller, also of the University of California, Berkeley, noted that it is the conversion of switchgrass biomass into ethanol which introduces significant inefficiencies. He also noted that The Helios Project at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory is actively trying to engineer metabolic pathways in bacteria to more efficiently convert cellulose to ethanol. Bransby's work was the source for President Bush's comments in the 2006 State of the Union address.

Switchgrass is being used to heat small industrial and farm buildings in Germany and China through a process used to make a low-quality natural gas substitute.[2] It can also be pressed into fuel pellets which are burned in pellet stoves used to heat homes, which typically burn corn or wood pellets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgrass#Biofuel

[Gannon]

Thanks Half Delta. If you meed 0.75 or more units of ethanol to produce through agriculture 1 unit of ethanol, the energy gain doesn't seem significant.

[slwerner]

Gannon - "If you meed 0.75 or more units of ethanol to produce through agriculture 1 unit of ethanol, the energy gain doesn't seem significant."

But...(and it's a damned big deal)...

Even though the net energy gain is not large, the resultant energy source is more useful.

I don't know th eexact figures for the refinement of crude oil, but it too is an energy intensive operation. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that the "net energy gain" from crude oil refinement was in the same ballpark as ethanol production.

But, you cannot burn crude oil, corn, nor sawgrass in your car. It's going to cost some amount of energy to turn them into usable products.

On different note, on thing that I NEVER hear discussed here in the States is the relative sucess of Brazil's switch to ethanol many years ago.

Being geographically closer to them, maybe you have some idea about how the Brazilians are making out running on ethanol?

[annabelle]

Actually, Obama rightly opposes sugarcane ethanol because Brazil's ripping down its remaining rainforest for it. He's also working to transition farmers from corn to celluosic ethanol. But really, biofuels of any sort are at useful mainly for bioremediation of polluted "brownfields" (Pittsburgh's using sunflower and other non-food crops grown on polluted soils to remove the pollution and serve as raw material for biofuels) and for easing the move to an electricity-based economy powered by wind, solar, geothermal and other non-carbon-emitting power sources.