"First of all, Nolan believes that fossil fuels will continue to provide about 80 percent of our energy through 2030 because of technical, economic and environmental factors limiting alternative energies."

The main barriers are political, not technical. We could reduce fossil fuel usage in this country by 5-6% almost overnight with the repeal of some bad laws, such as the one making it illegal to transport intact tractor-trailer rigs by rail. Algae-based biodiesel could be in large-scale production in 3-4 years. And normal fleet turnover could have a majority of autos using electric or biodiesel (or both) power in less than 7 years.

"Secondly, he feels that the ethanol industry stands the best chance of succeeding if it's left to market forces and that the energy needed to produce ethanol must be weighed into the balance."

Considering that biodiesel actually has a large energy gain in production, and ethanol doesn't -- and biodiesel is cheaper to produce (per BTU), this is evidence of profound innumeracy, and Exxon shareholders would be well-advised to replace Mr. Nolan.

Either that, or he figures that his fossil fuel business will do a lot better with Politically Correct ethanol, which requires fossil fuel for production, than with biodiesel, which does not -- and he thinks his audience is stupid enough to buy this Politically Correct nonsense (unfortunately, he may be right about that).

Political Correctness makes bad science, and bad economics. Ethanol is a lousy fuel (a reasonable octane-boosting additive, but a lousy fuel). Corn is a lousy source for ethanol.

Reply

↓↑report

Ethanol is an ideal fuel. Henry Ford and other early industry pioneers preferred it to petroleum. It burns cleanly, has good anti-knock properties, is non-toxic, biodegradable and comes from renewable sources.

The majority of scientific studies of current corn ethanol production in the US show a positive energy return and a major reduction in petroleum consumption. Cellulosic ethanol is very likely in the next five years and offers the best solution to replace petroleum.

Mr. Nolan's call "to let market forces dictate ethanol industry" has a rather obviously purpose. The large petroleum producers and refiners control the market. The energy demand is inelastic, so the suppliers can run the show.

Reply

↓↑report

The company also says carbon trading is not an effective way to manage global warming.

Reply

↓↑report

"Ethanol is an ideal fuel. Henry Ford and other early industry pioneers preferred it to petroleum. It burns cleanly, has good anti-knock properties, is non-toxic, biodegradable and comes from renewable sources."

Well, Jimmy, your score is 50%. Better luck next time.

Yes, it burns cleanly, and has a high octane rating. It IS toxic (ingesting just a few ounces can kill; just breathing the vapor can impair your motor skills). Yes, it's biodegradable (so is gasoline). No, it does not come entirely from renewable sources. FOSSIL FUEL is used in the production of ethanol, because that is much cheaper than burning the ethanol itself for the energy needed to produce it. If only ethanol was used to supply the energy needed for production, the yield would be so low that the true economics would be obvious to everybody. As long as FOSSIL FUEL is used in the production of ethanol, it simply isn't 'green'.

It's a lousy fuel because it is expensive (actual cost per BTU), it has a low energy density, and it is extremely hydrophilic (requires more special handling than gasoline).

Biodiesel is biodegradable, burns cleanly in modern diesel engines (cleaner than dinodiesel) -- and really IS non-toxic -- you could use pure biodiesel for salad dressing as long as it is made from edible oils. In addition, it is not hydrophilic, and doesn't have a high vapor pressure, so it doesn't require any special handling at all. And, unlike ethanol, it doesn't require the use of FOSSIL FUEL to produce it. Unlike ethanol, biodiesel really *can* be produced economically entirely from renewable sources.

It can also be produced in factories that don't stink. For about $4000, you can buy a home biodiesel production system that can produce 30-40 gallons a week with about 3-4 hours of your time, at a cost of 50 cents/gallon plus the cost of the vegetable oil. And you can do so legally -- just try running your own moonshine still, and see how the feds react.

Reply

↓↑report

Howard, the Feds are fine with small ethanol producers, in fact they give a tax credit (small scale biodiesel as well). You must have a permit and denature the fuel produced. There are folks making ethanol fuel at home and the process was widely done in the 1920s (on farm ethanol production).

However, home made fuels are easily contaminated and quality control is generally lacking. You would be far better off using biodiesel that meets ASTM D6751.

It is irresponsible to suggest ingesting any motor fuel (bio or not). The EPA says ethanol is not considered toxic when used as a motor fuel (EPA Ethanol fact sheet, March 2002).

Reply

↓↑report

Howard,
We all know from your countless posts you prefer diodiesel to ethanol, but you need to look at the big picture. There's no need to pick one biofuel to support. Both biodiesel and ethanol are supperior to gasoline. By pointing out ethanols shortcoming, all of which can easily be overcome, and skipping biodiesels shortcoming you are spreading bad info. Try posting something constructive. Your whinning accomplishes nothing.

Reply

↓↑report

How about the fact that converted diesel engines can run on vegetable oil (recycled or new). Straight soybean oil can be purchased for ~$2/gal. It burns clean. It is obviously non-toxic. For $2 a gallon it seems to be economic to me. Not to mention the new diesel technologies running on ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel) are becoming even more efficient with emissions that can now be compared to gasoline engines. A converted diesel engine can run on straight recycled oil, new veggie oil, diesel, biodiesel, kerosene, etc. all with the same engine. There's more BTUs of energy (10-30%) in all of those fuels by volume than gasoline or ethanol (Ethanol contains about 15% less energy than gasoline by volume). Why do you think a diesel pickup gets 22mpg with more power and torque vs. gasoline engine getting 15mpg? There is no throttle body, which means no vacuum (energy loss), 19:1 compression, direct injection, etc. etc. etc. all those advantages of diesel engines that you can't get with a gasoline engine (except the direct injection). They're just inherently more efficient.

Reply

↓↑report

"We all know from your countless posts you prefer diodiesel to ethanol, but you need to look at the big picture."

Here's a big picture for you: Biodiesel is 'green', ethanol is not.

My opposition to ethanol stems from my desire not to sacrifice the planet to Political Correctness.

Reply

↓↑report

"Help me mommy! the big bad ethanol monster is going to get me"

Reply

↓↑report

Justin has decided that this isn't a debate, it's a schoolyard pushing match. Thanks for wasting the electricity, Justin.

The danger isn't that ethanol is "going to get us", the danger is that the subsidies and investment are pushing forward, to the exclusion of alternative alternative-fuels.

I'd rather not see the need for energy independence and CO2 reduction become still another boondoggle for the largest corporations in the world, replacing Chevron with ADM is not a step forward, in my view.

I'd like to see a world in which there are many options, and informed consumers making decisions based on valid evidence. Instead, as usual, we are seeing our options curtailed not by scientific debate but by the largesse of corporate lobbyists.

Reply

↓↑report