Raising voices about corn ethanol
Food & Water Watch, the Network for Energy Choices and the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School are on the quest of creating a report called "The Rush to Ethanol: Not all BioFuels are created equal". They affirm that, "ethanol is no silver bullet solution for fossil fuel dependence, energy independence or curbing emissions".
So the organisers' intention is to create a comprehensive report on the implications of corn ethanol, because that's were the taxpayers' money is going to, while "citizens are promised that they will be driving switchgrass-based ethanol" in the following years. This report will be sent as a recommendations for the US biofuels policy for the 2007 Farm Bill.
Follow the Read link for all their arguments against corn ethanol.
Related:
- More on the coming American ethanol glut
- Iowa State University researchers say corn ethanol not profitable after 2008
- Hale group announces ethanol 2012 study
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
frank78 11:33AM (7/14/2007)
Corn ethanol should stop as of yesterday!!
1.Ethanol is a poor fuel source to begin with. Lower energy content than any other viable fuel source.
2.The vast amounts of fresh water, good soil, fertilizer, time, fossil fuels that are used in production by themselves should stop corn ethanol.
3.Ethanol can't travel through pipelines, so it has to be driven from point to point.
4.It is only able to compete with regular gas via enormous SUBSIDIES. The fuel has to be paid for twice to be cost competitive.
5.Has not and will not ever make the tiniest difference in reliance on foreign oil.
Corn ethanol is a political tool. Politicians waving around money for ethanol are no different than politicians waving around welfare promises.
Reply
Angelo 1:28PM (7/14/2007)
Frank, I have to take issue with a couple of your comments:
1.Ethanol is a poor fuel source to begin with. Lower energy content than any other viable fuel source. Really, what other viable alternative energy carriers do you refer to? Regardless, it has already been demonstrated that the lower energy content can be completely negated by the increased thermal efficiencies possible in an engine optimized for ethanol combustion.
3.Ethanol can't travel through pipelines, so it has to be driven from point to point. Wrong. Ethanol cannot travel through the existing, shoddily constructed pipelines that were built for a different use. It would be very easy to transport ethanol through pipelines. Far easier than many other proposals, like hydrogen. Of course, you'd need to create sufficient supply and demand of ethanol before such investments in its infrastructure made sense. Hmmm, kinda sounds like what the ethanol subsidy is trying to accomplish.
4.It is only able to compete with regular gas via enormous SUBSIDIES. The fuel has to be paid for twice to be cost competitive. Sometimes, that's what it takes to get something going. Gasoline is heavily subsidized too. If it wasn't for the huge tax breaks that the oil companies get for "exploration" those costs would certainly be passed along to consumers as well. Do you know how many things we produce in America are subsidized by our government? Yet, ethanol gets all this bad press - I don't get it.
5.Has not and will not ever make the tiniest difference in reliance on foreign oil. I'm guessing you are not aware of the very promising developments in cellulose ethanol/butanol?
Reply
Tim 5:31PM (7/14/2007)
Let’s make this simple for the young & impressionable students. Petroleum is really bad! Food based ethanol/biodiesel is still pretty bad. Non-food waste byproduct based cellosic butanol/biodiesel is better. Electricity is better still. Renewable, non-polluting electricity is wonderful. And solar PV electricity with NO moving parts and NO maintenance is nirvana. Welcome to the “Electron Economy”.
Reply
frank78 8:02PM (7/15/2007)
Angelo, to be clear I was talking about corn ethanol. If ethanol can be produced and transported to the filling stations for $1.50 or less without subsidies (and before federal and state taxes which add about 50 cents), I'll be in definite favor of ethanol. Until cellulosic ethanol is more than promises, the rush to corn ethanol should be halted. CORN ethanol creates a lot more problems than it helps.
BTW, oil companies unfortunately do get some subsidies. However those subsidies are pretty insignificant compared to the size of the oil market. Imagine someone donating a couple of million dollars to Bill Gates. That's what govt subsidies to oil are. A wasteful drop in the bucket. Those should be cut absolutely.
Reply