Ethanol use must increase according to Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota says that we could soon be producing too much ethanol for our own use. The U.S. is currently using 140 billion gallons of gasoline a year. According to North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner, there could be an oversupply of ethanol by 2010.
In North Dakota, site of an ethanol summit sponsored by the Senator, there are 15,000 E85 capable vehicles on the road, but only 30 E85 pumps in the state. There are issues in North Dakota when using 85 percent ethanol, even in vehicles capable of that percentage, because of the cold weather the state faces in the winter months. A possible solution is to use a smaller percentage of ethanol in the gasoline blend, perhaps 30 to 40 percent. This is a problem, however, for the owners of refilling stations, who say that offering that many blends is not economically feasible as it would cause too many pumps offering too many grades of gasoline.
Most in attendance agreed that the U.S. Government should revise its federal renewable fuels standards to require more ethanol in blends. Additionally, 80 percent of residents in North Dakota support a 10 percent ethanol blend requirement, and 87 percent believe there should be a tax benefit for using it. As is often the case, the summit concluded with just as many questions as answers as to fixing North Dakota's ethanol production versus use, and it may well be that way for the rest of the country as well. We would love to hear any of your opinions on the subject in the comments.
Related:
[Source: Iowa Farmer Today]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tim 4:59PM (12/19/2006)
Pork Barrel Dorgan loves to buy votes with corn ethanol tax subsides. It only takes a little research to learn that corn ethanol is not long-term viable. “The industrial corn cycle is not renewable and is unsustainable by a wide margin (at least 2.3-7 times) …it can never work.” http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf I guess Dorgan either can’t or won’t read, or is just more interested in looking good than making sense. After all, it’s not HIS money.
Reply
Jimmy 5:20PM (12/19/2006)
Quoting Patzek is wasting your time. His "research" has been widely refuted, even by colleagues are Berkley! He is funded by the petroleum industry and has a clear agenda against alternative fuels.
While corn ethanol isn't perfect, it is better than continued petroleum dependence. Ethanol and biodiesel are the most practical alternatives to petroleum.
Reply
quixote 1:19AM (12/20/2006)
Biofuels are the most practical short-term alternative to oil, but corn really is a silly way to get it. The farmers and Dorgans of the world are for it, for obvious reasons, but corn needs fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and those are all made from petroleum derivatives. There's also the ethical angle of growing food to burn in cars when people need it more, and all the usual arguments there. Corn, however, is _not_ the only usable raw material. There was some recent research (if I can find the link, I'll come back and post it in another comment) pointing out that prairie plants form almost as good a raw material, and wind up way ahead because they need no other inputs. Apparently, the main thing holding back their use, is that there's no corn lobby behind them.
Reply
quixote 11:00AM (12/20/2006)
Here's the link: it was an NSF-funded study by Tilman and others at the University of Minnesota.
Reply
Tim 8:51AM (12/20/2006)
The only "plant" that does not waste huge amount of energy and resources building an unusable cellulose support structure is algae. So bio-diesel from algae is the most logical source, not ethanol from grains, switch grass etc. Then again, when I try to think like a senator I understand why Dorgan follows the special interest lobbing money. I think our legislators need to set up offices in the red light district. They act like prostitutes. Perhaps if they were unpaid volunteers, and not career hacks things would be better. Always follow the money.
Reply
Russ Brown 9:52AM (12/20/2006)
The U.S. is consuming ~141.7 billion gallons of gasoline in 2006. 216.2 billion gallons of ethanol would be required to replace that much energy. However, the amount of fossil energy required to produce the ethanol must be subtracted from the gross value to calculate the net energy production. If the USDA’s 6% value were used as a basis, the gross amount of corn ethanol required would be 3590 billion gallons. Current production is about 7 billion gallons per year.
There is not enough arable land in the United States to provide even 1% of our transportation energy, assuming that we would be willing to forgo food production. An ethanol fuel economy is a mirage, a creature of Federal subsidies and careless thinking.
Reply
Bruce 12:54AM (6/18/2007)
Tim, let me educate you. Let me also help you say what I believe you meant to say. Senator Byron Dorgan loves to earn votes by doing what is good for the State of North Dakota and the people of the United States. It only takes a little common sense to know that continuing down the path of dependence on foreign sources of oil is not long term viable. While we continue to consume 25% of the world's oil from unstable and dangerous parts of the world, these countries are using our dollars to fund efforts to destroy the U.S. Ethanol may not be the most viable option right now, but as oil prices continue to rise and technologies required to make ethanol get better, ethanol and biofuels in general will become the best option to maintain energy independece, protect our national security, and protect our environment. I feel sorry for you that your warped little mind is only capable of seeing this issue from one petty perspective.
Reply
quixote 11:16AM (12/20/2006)
(Piffle. It stripped the actual link out. I hope this works.)
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108206
Reply
Tim 11:15AM (12/20/2006)
Bruce- Dorgan is more interested in votes, power and money than energy independence or science. If you can't see that, you need to stop sitting on that great big brain of yours, drop your pants and take a look around. You should educate yourself before attempting to help others.
Reply
Tim 3:28PM (12/27/2006)
Bruce- Bla Bla Bla. The funny thing is that we totally agree. Homegrown bio-fuels (mostly VegOil) and renewable electricity are the future. As you stated "…ethanol may not be the most viable option right now..." Then why do you defend it? In fact, corn is one of the worst ethanol sources period! Corn ethanol only makes sense for farmers (because they get our tax money), Big Oil (it takes a lot of this to produce it) and Pork Spenders (who want votes from farmers and the ignorant (and/or stupid) and campaign money from BIG OIL). We agree that ethanol is not the most viable option. I’m saying that electric cars with bio-diesel Auxiliary Power Units (range extenders) are where we are heading and that we should not waste time, money or energy (pun intended) with corn ethanol or the hydrogen pipe dream right now. Time is simply too short and there is too much at stake.
Reply