[Rhodes22-list] "Make me the President for one day"

[Brad Haslett]

Ed,

Just stumbled on this jewel in between walks on the beach in Destin.  The
article highlights the evils of ethanol pretty well.  Give me my old 80'
model diesel VW Rabbit at 50 mpg and some bio-diesel and I'll demonstrate
some real energy independence.  Better yet, combine the diesel with a hybrid
drive and the milege is closer to 90 mpg.  This is off the shelf stuff.

"If we were to adopt automobile fuel efficiency standards to increase
efficiency by 20 percent, that would contribute as much as converting the
entire U.S. grain harvest into ethanol," Brown said.

That is probably the most important and accurate statement in the entire
piece.


Brad

-----------------------------------------------------

 Biofuels boom raises tough questions

By MATT CRENSON, AP National Writer*Sun Mar 11, 6:13 AM ET*

America is drunk on ethanol. Farmers in the Midwest are sending billions of
bushels of corn to refineries that turn it into billions of gallons of fuel.
Automakers in Detroit have already built millions of cars, trucks and SUVs
that can run on it, and are committed to making millions more. In
Washington, politicians have approved generous subsidies for companies that
make ethanol.

And just this week, President Bush arranged with Brazil's President Luiz
Inacio Lula da Silva for their countries to share ethanol production
technology.

Even alternative fuel aficionados are surprised at the nation's sudden
enthusiasm for grain alcohol.

"It's coming on dramatically; more rapidly than anyone had expected," said
Nathanael Greene, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense
Council.

You'd think that would be good news, but it actually worries a lot of
people.

The problem is, ethanol really isn't ready for prime time. The only
economical way to make ethanol right now is with corn, which means the
burgeoning industry is literally eating America's lunch, not to mention its
breakfast and dinner. And though ethanol from corn may have some minor
benefits with regard to energy independence, most analysts conclude its
environmental benefits are questionable at best.

Proponents acknowledge the drawbacks of corn-based ethanol, but they believe
it can help wean America off imported oil the way methadone helps a junkie
kick heroin. It may not be ideal, but ethanol could help the country make
the necessary and difficult transition to an environmentally and
economically sustainable future.

There are many questions about ethanol's place in America's energy future.
Some are easily answered; others, not so much.

WHAT IS ETHANOL?

Ethanol is moonshine. Hooch. Rotgut. White lightning. That explains why the
last time Americans produced it in any appreciable amount was during
Prohibition. Today, just like back then, virtually all the ethanol produced
in the United States comes from corn that is fermented and then distilled to
produce pure grain alcohol.

WILL MY CAR RUN ON IT?

Any car will burn gasoline mixed with a small amount of ethanol. But cars
must be equipped with special equipment to burn fuel that is more than about
10 percent ethanol. All three of the major American automakers are already
producing flex-fuel cars that can run on either gasoline or E85, a mix of 85
percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Thanks to incentives from the
federal government, they have committed to having half the cars they produce
run on either E85 or biodiesel by 2012.

HOW FAST IS ETHANOL PRODUCTION GROWING?

About as fast as farmers can grow the corn to make it. According to the
Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group, ethanol production has doubled
in the past three years, reaching nearly 5 billion gallons in 2006. With 113
ethanol plants currently operating and 78 more under construction, the
country's ethanol output is expected to double again in less than two years.

IS ETHANOL BETTER THAN GASOLINE?

For all the environmental and economic troubles it causes, gasoline turns
out to be a remarkably efficient automobile fuel. The energy required to
pump crude out of the ground, refine it and transport it from oil well to
gas tank is about 6 percent of the energy in the gasoline itself.

Ethanol is much less efficient, especially when it is made from corn. Just
growing corn requires expending energy — plowing, planting, fertilizing and
harvesting all require machinery that burns fossil fuel. Modern agriculture
relies on large amounts of fertilizer and pesticides, both of which are
produced by methods that consume fossil fuels. Then there's the cost of
transporting the corn to an ethanol plant, where the fermentation and
distillation processes consume yet more energy. Finally, there's the cost of
transporting the fuel to filling stations. And because ethanol is more
corrosive than gasoline, it can't be pumped through relatively efficient
pipelines, but must be transported by rail or tanker truck.

In the end, even the most generous analysts estimate that it takes the
energy equivalent of three gallons of ethanol to make four gallons of the
stuff. Some even argue that it takes more energy to produce ethanol from
corn than you get out of it, but most agricultural economists think that's a
stretch.

BUT AREN'T THERE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS TO ETHANOL?

If you make ethanol from corn, the environmental benefits are limited. When
you consider the greenhouse gases that are released in the growing and
refining process, corn-based ethanol is only slightly better with regard to
global warming than gasoline. Growing corn also requires the use of
pesticides and fertilizers that cause soil and water pollution.

The environmental benefit of corn-based ethanol is felt mostly around the
tailpipe. When blended into gasoline in small amounts, ethanol causes the
fuel to generate less smog-producing carbon monoxide. That has made it
popular in smoggy cities like Los Angeles.

WHAT ABOUT ETHANOL'S ECONOMIC BENEFITS?

Making ethanol is so profitable, thanks to government subsidies and
continued high oil prices, that plants are proliferating throughout the Corn
Belt. Iowa, the nation's top corn-producing state, is projected to have so
many ethanol plants by 2008 it could easily find itself importing corn in
order to feed them.

But that depends on the Invisible Hand. Making ethanol is profitable when
oil is costly and corn is cheap. And the 51 cent-a-gallon federal subsidy
doesn't hurt. But oil prices are off from last year's peaks and corn has
doubled in price over the past year, from about $2 to $4 a bushel, thanks
mostly to demand from ethanol producers.

High corn prices are causing social unrest in Mexico, where the government
has tried to mollify angry consumers by slapping price controls on
tortillas. Lester R. Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute,
predicts food riots in other major corn-importing countries if something
isn't done.

U.S. consumers will soon feel the effects of high corn prices as well, if
they haven't already, because virtually everything Americans put in their
mouths starts as corn. There's corn flakes, corn chips, corn nuts, and
hundreds of other processed foods that don't even have the word corn in
them. There's corn in the occasional pint of beer and shot of whisky. And
don't forget high fructose corn syrup, a sweetener that is added to soft
drinks, baked goods, candy and a lot of things that aren't even sweet.

Some freaks even eat it off the cob.

It's true that animals eat more than half of the corn produced in America;
guess who eats them? On Friday the Agriculture Department announced that
beef, pork and chicken will soon cost consumers more thanks to the demand of
ethanol for corn.

It's also true that there's a difference between edible sweet corn and the
feed corn that's used for ethanol production. But because farmers try to
grow the most profitable crop they can, higher prices for feed corn tend to
discourage the production of sweet corn. That decreases its supply, driving
the price of sweet corn up, too.

In fact, many agricultural economists believe rising demand for feed corn
has squeezed the supply — and boosted the price — of not just sweet corn but
also wheat, soybeans and several other crops.

America's appetite for corn is enormous. But Americans consume so much
gasoline that all the corn in the world couldn't make enough ethanol to
slake the nation's lust for transportation fuels. Last year ethanol
production used 12 percent of the U.S. corn harvest, but it replaced only
2.8 percent of the nation's gasoline consumption.

"If we were to adopt automobile fuel efficiency standards to increase
efficiency by 20 percent, that would contribute as much as converting the
entire U.S. grain harvest into ethanol," Brown said.

ISN'T THERE A BETTER RENEWABLE FUEL SUBSTITUTE FOR GASOLINE?

Most experts think it will take an array of renewable energy technologies to
replace fossil fuels. Ethanol's main drawbacks come not from the nature of
the fuel itself, but from the fact that it is made using a critical
component of the world's food supply. Ethanol would be more beneficial both
environmentally and economically if scientists could figure out how to make
it from a nonfood plant that could be grown without the need for
fertilizers, pesticides and other inputs. Researchers are currently working
on methods to do just that, making ethanol from the cellulose in a wide
variety of plants, including poplar trees, switchgrass and cornstalks.

But plant cellulose is more difficult to break down than the starch in corn
kernels. That's why people eat corn instead of grass. Plus it tastes better.


There are also technical hurdles related to separating, digesting and
fermenting the cellulose fiber. Though it can be done, making ethanol from
cellulose-rich material costs at least twice as much as making it from corn.


HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE BEFORE CELLULOSIC ETHANOL IS COMPETITIVE WITH CORN
ETHANOL AND GASOLINE?

Some experts estimate that it will take 10 to 15 years before cellulosic
ethanol becomes competitive. But Mitch Mandich, CEO of Range Fuels, thinks
it will be a lot sooner than that. The Colorado-based company has started
building a cellulosic ethanol plant in Georgia that converts wood chips and
other waste left behind by the forest products industry. Another company,
Iogen Corp., has been producing cellulosic ethanol from wheat, oat and
barley straw for several years at a demonstration plant in Ottawa, Canada.

HOW MUCH MORE EFFICIENT WOULD CELLULOSIC ETHANOL BE COMPARED TO CORN
ETHANOL?

Studies suggest that cellulosic ethanol could yield at least four to six
times the energy expended to produce it. It would also produce less
greenhouse gas emissions than corn-based ethanol because much of the energy
needed to refine it could come not from fossil fuels, but from burning other
chemical components of the very same plants that contained the cellulose.

HOW MUCH GASOLINE COULD CELLULOSIC ETHANOL REPLACE?

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the United States could produce
more than a billion tons of cellulosic material annually for ethanol
production, from switchgrass grown on marginal agricultural lands to wood
chips and other waste produced by the timber industry. In theory, that
material could produce enough ethanol to substitute for about 30 percent of
the country's oil consumption.

A University of Tennessee study released in November reached similar
conclusions. As much as 100 million acres of land would have to be dedicated
to energy crops in order to reach the goal of substituting renewable
biofuels for 25 percent of the nation's fuel consumption by 2025, the report
estimated. That would be a significant fraction of the nation's 800 million
acres of cultivable land, the study's authors said, but not enough to cause
disruptions in agricultural markets.

"There really aren't any losers," said University of Tennessee agricultural
economist Burton English.

REALLY? NO LOSERS AT ALL?

There might be losers. Simple economics dictates that if farmers find it
more profitable to grow switchgrass rather than corn, soy or cotton, the
price of those commodities is bound to rise in response to falling supply.

"You can produce a lot of ethanol from cellulose without competing with
food," said Wallace Tyner, an agricultural economist at Purdue University.
"But if you want to get half your fuel supply from it you will compete with
food agriculture."

There may also be ecological impacts. The government currently pays farmers
not to farm about 35 million acres of conservation land, mostly in the
Midwest. Those fallow tracts provide valuable habitat for wildlife,
especially birds. Though switchgrass is a good home for most birds, if it
became profitable to grow it or another energy crop on conservation land
some species could decline.

WILL ETHANOL SOLVE ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS?

Ethanol is certainly a valuable tool in our efforts to address the economic
and environmental problems associated with fossil fuels. But even the most
optimistic projections suggest it can only replace a fraction of the 140
billion gallons of gasoline that Americans consume every year. It will take
a mix of technologies to achieve energy independence and reduce the
country's production of greenhouse gases.

"I think we're in a very interesting era. We are recognizing a problem and
we are finding lots of potential solutions," said David Tilman, an ecologist
at the University of Minnesota.

But if we're serious about achieving energy independence and mitigating
global warming, Tilman and other experts said, one of those solutions must
be energy conservation.

That means doubling the fuel economy of our automobiles, expanding mass
transit and decreasing the amount of energy it takes to light, heat and cool
our buildings. Without such measures, ethanol and other innovations will
make little more than a dent in the nation's fossil fuel consumption.


On 3/7/07, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>
>
> "Make me the President for one day and I'll solve the problem in the US,"
> said Brad O'Hasslett.  We here know that you would not have done worse
> than
> the last few who held office, so go for it.
>
> Generally speaking, to get elected in USA, you need to be from one of the
> two major parties.  Although, I believe the right candidate might win on
> an
> independent or third party the next time around.  I understand that in
> some
> states you cannot get on the ballot as an independent, contrary to popular
> thought.  So do you plan to run on one of the major parties or third
> parties
> or completely as independent.
>
> Brad O'Hasslett said, "That won't happen because I'd have to make a
> campaign
> speech in Iowa and would tell the Corn Growers Association that corn based
> ethanol is the biggest energy loser ever hoisted on US taxpayers and as
> soon
> as I'm elected it will stop."  You usually do your homework, however,
> recently I came across information that might make your reasoning and
> facts
> incorrect.  I request that you go back and restudy this issue.  You might
> find the net result is a slight positive depending on the cost of
> gas.  And
> the way ethanol combust may have less damaging results.  So at the very
> least, you would not have to aggitate that group, just keep it neutral.
>
> Brad, you are at the perfect age.  You have a good education.  While your
> management experience is not that strong, you could make sure that you
> have
> a competent and honest staff and insure success.
>
> When do we start?
>
> Ed K
> Greenville, SC, USA
> Addendum:  "I will appeal to the leaders that are coming here to really
> step
> up to the plate and accept the challenge and show leadership."   Kofi
> Annan
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/%22Make-me-the-President-for-one-day%22-tf3362162.html#a9353144
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>