Senate Bill Would Double Ethanol Use

[Kadie]

Senate Bill Would Double Ethanol Use
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, May 25, 2005


(05-25) 14:07 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --


Over the strong objections of oil companies, a Senate committee on Wednesday approved a requirement that refiners must use more corn-based ethanol and other renewable fuels in gasoline.


The legislation would mandate that refiners use at least 8 billion gallons of renewable components — almost all of it ethanol made from corn — in gasoline annually by 2012. That would double ethanol production, a boon to farmers and the ethanol industry.


A House-passed energy bill would limit the requirement to 5 billion gallons.


Supporters of the higher number argued that use of ethanol as a 10 percent blend in gasoline would replace 5 percent of the gasoline by volume beginning in 2012 and reduce U.S. need for oil imports.

more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/05/25/national/w113245D09.DTL

[jbane]

1. This is an OUTRAGE!

Next they'll want to stop paying for Viagra for sex offenders. Big oil and big stiff peckers are as American as Paris Hiltons Hamburger Porn Video.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. You mean drinking it on capital hill???

Sounds like a plan.....

[DrDebug]

3. Very good. A renewable energy source

Why not let the farmers produce at much corn ethanol as they can. Revitalize the farmers and keep the cars running as well.

[Massacure]

4. This is a suck up to the corn farmers.

There are many, many better plants than corn for biofuels that don't destroy the soil.

[Governor]

11. Oh really?

While I agree that ethanol can be produced from many plant sources, I question what you think would be a better producer for ethanol than corn.

Corn doesn't destroy soil, for one thing.

[Massacure]

18. Corn has a very high ecological impact.

It requires large amount of water, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc... to grow.

If I had to choose a way to ween off of fossil fuels, it would be algae-based biodiesel.

[Governor]

22. fungicides?

Do you really know anything about growing corn?

[alarimer]

29. Doesn't it cost a gallon of gas (or maybe oil) to make a

gallon of ethanol? Where are the savings in that case? All ethanol is isa subsidy to corn growers.

[Governor]

32. net energy

on a website put out by USDA in 2002, it shows net energy at 170+% when you factor in the byproducts.
http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/pdfpresentations/Net%20Energy%20Balance%20of%20Corn%20Ethanol_Shapouri.ppt

[NickB79]

36. Many plants give a higher energy return

Soybeans and switchgrass both come to mind for biodiesel and ethanol production. Hemp is another possibility as well, though I don't know it's energy return off the top of my head.

The benefits of crops like switchgrass and hemp are that they are both very hardy crops, requiring less pesticide, herbicide and soil cultivation than corn. Soybeans require as much cultivation and chemcials as corn but produce more of a return than corn, pound per pound of fuel created.

[converted_democrat]

65. Uh, corn does destroy soil.......

Do you think they knife anhydrous into the soil for the fun of it? Why do you think farmers do crop rotations constantly? By the way my dad owns several tractor dealerships in Ohio, and all of my family farms.

[gizmo1979]

5. It's not so good.

It's just a handout to corporate farms.You still need petroleum products to make ethanol.I believe it may even be more.Also bad bad for fuel injecters.It sounds good on the cover but dig inside and it's just another big business handout.

[Governor]

14. Wow!

I'd like to see the proof behind it being bad for fuel injectors.

From what I've experienced, it is very good for fuel systems.
This bill will help corn farmers, and as a competitive result, other grain farmers as well. Sure, it will help the corporate farms too, but the answer to that is to actually apply the payment limitations to one payment per farmer.

While you believe that it may take more petroleum products to make ethanol(I assume you mean it takes more petroleum BTUs to make ethanol than it produces), I'd like to see you back that up with facts as well, as I happen to know that is bologna. The biggest reason for consuming petroleum when making ethanol is to 'denature' it and make it burn visibly. They require the addition of gasoline at the plant before they can transport it, but it is just blended straight in and transported out as gasohol. You can hardly count that use against ethanol production, that's just a safety requirement.

[NEDem]

15. He's kind of right

When ethanol first came out, many years ago, it got a bad rap because it did harm fuel injectors. But today the refining process has improved dramatically and its no worse than unleaded gasoline nowadays.

[Governor]

21. it wasn't the ethanol..

that was hurting the injectors, it was the crud that had accumulated in the tanks before the ethanol was put in.

Ethanol is a great solvent and it cleaned out the tanks, bringing all that varnish along to the carburators and injectors, where they plugged. The answer is to simply burn ethanol from the start and the fuel system will stay very clean.

Another benefit of burning ethanol is that the engines run much cooler, createing much less heat pollution and allowing engines to last twice as long. How much does that save the environment, having to make half as many engines?

[kysrsoze]

34. It was actually Methanol which was clogging fuel injectors

That stuff was horrible.

[gizmo1979]

39. Here you go oh non -believing one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lieberman031202.shtml this should help you see clearly.

[Governor]

44. I see clearly..

That you are easily misled. (no offense intended)

There are factual errors in this article. This is an opinion piece, not a fact piece.

No offense, and I'm sure there are some potential emmissions dangers due to evaporative conditions, but we are talking about pressurized systems. I think it's best to go with the actual results of studies, not someone's slant about potential emmisions.

If it didn't contain known errors about the net energy conversions, it would help its integrity, but looking right into the face of an incorrect statement and following it with how the emmisions aren't 'really' any better is just suspect.

Maybe I'm wrong and the emmisions are worse, but this piece isn't going to convince me. Nor should it convince you.

[Blastforth]

46. Why not sperm whale farms?

Why not raise sperm whales in ocean "farms" as a renewable source of oil? The whales could be tracked electronically by satellite with transponders so they can be "harvested" when mature and full of oil. They also could be genetically altered to produce larger amounts of oil.

[Governor]

57. Why not?

you'd have to subsidize it to begin with.:D

[Tesha]

58. Well, one reason to *NOT* let them is...

> Why not let the farmers produce at much corn ethanol as they can.

Well, one reason to *NOT* let them is that it apparently takes more
oil to produce 1 gallon of ethanol than it does to produce 1 gallon
of gasoline.

This is a sop to the red states, pure and simple. Now if we were
talking about methanol from all sorts of green manures, you might
have something, energy-wise, but ethanol is a sure loser for energy-
in versus energy-out.

Tesha

[Governor]

59. Can I..

see your data on that?

Pure and simple.

[Tesha]

61. You may look it up yourself; it's been fairly widely published. (NT)

[Governor]

62. I did look it up and..

I get completely different numbers.

That's why I asked you for your references, so I could compare them with what I found and see where the discrepancy is.

[Squeech]

6. Actually

it's kinda stoopid. We'd be taking something that's already useful food and, through a capital-intensive and not terribly energy-efficient process, turning it into something we can stuff in a gas tank and burn, somewhat less efficiently than the gasoline the engine was built for.

And yeah, I know, peak oil etc. But if we're gonna go the agricultural renewable energy route, we shouldn't use the edible corn as the feedstock, we should use the cornstalks, the part we can't eat. The rinds and stalks and roots of agricultural products. Lumber mill waste. Old newspapers, since paper recycling hasn't really taken off. Any form of useless cellulose.

As best as I can figure it, the process of turning cellulose into ethanol is pretty much the same as for corn, except you need one more step at the beginning, to break up the cellulose-- which like starch is a polysaccharide, but with stronger bonds that are harder to break. But there are people who've been brewing bugs that specialize in exactly that sort of digestion-- they can apparently support themselves on just that reaction, much as yeast can live off the conversion of sugars into ethanol. And I understand there are pilot plants out there today.

[amandabeech]

7. Cornstalks are left in the field to reduce erosion and because

they decay into the soil, after plowing or otherwise, providing much needed carbon, phosphorous and potassium, as well as improving soil structure.

Improving soil structure through incrasing organic matter not only encourages helpful microbes, worms and other organisms, but also helps the soil retain moisture.

Much of our farmland is dangerously low in organic matter and will not support much plant growth without huge inputs of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

Removing even more from the soil will do more harm than good, IMHO.

[Squeech]

9. Thanks

Both for the important facts and for taking me seriously. I understand that intensive tree farms fail for that reason too.

But I still think that it's a better idea not to get locked into using the food crop. I fear the time will come when we're going to have to make a choice between feeding a starving population and fueling a war machine/police state, and guess which will have priority.

[NEDem]

12. You ever eaten feed corn?

If you have you'd remember. I had a friend trick me once and gave me an ear of feed corn, saying it was sweet corn. I thought I was going to puke.

Anyway, trust someone who's in corn country we'll have no problems with supply while using corn for feed and fuel. Besides not being able to use all that we produce now, there is a lot of idle farm land that could be used to grow more if we needed to.

Just my 2 cents

[LiberallyInclined]

55. there's already too much corn grown-

that's part of the reason that high-fructose corn syrup is so prevalent as a sweetner.

if they want to help with biomass fuels- they should look at better crops than corn to do the job.

[amandabeech]

30. Thank you, and I agree.

I believe that we will end up using our best farmland for food production, primarily, to feed the 9-12 billion people who are expected to inhabit our plant in 50 years.

One problem of Global Warming, however, may be to reduce the amount of rain falling on our best farmland, like Illinois and Iowa, or reduce the amount of water available for irrigation, like California. If that is the case, then agriculture will change dramatically. For example, Illinois may be too dry for corn and soybeans, and instead produce wheat, which is rarely fed to animals. California may have to abandon rice and cotton production, and instead shift to drip irrigation of vegetables and fruit only. We are entering a new world.

[NEDem]

48. Yeah

We're seeing a pretty bad drought here in Nebraska right now, it has really hurt the soybean and corn farmers. But then again they always seem to vote against their interests so I don't feel all that sorry for them.

[Governor]

16. It's stoopid?

I don't think you realize that the byproduct of ethanol producing corn is cattlefeed. Plus, the corn that is used in producing ethanol is fieldcorn, not the sweetcorn that most people think of when they say corn. Other than making a few corn chips, field corn is overwhelmingly used as livestock feed.
Oh look, just like what they get out of the ethanol plant.

I'm fully behind the idea of waste processing for methane and ethanol, but I invite you all to get behind corn ethanol production, it's a good thing.

[RC]

8. In short, It takes more energy from oil to produce a given unit of

ethanol than is in that unit of ethanol. Ethanol is a net loss as far a a fuel is concerned.

[Squeech]

10. Not necessarily

If you use best practices, you can come out ahead.

But, name an industry dependent on subsidies that uses best practices.

[NEDem]

You also need to take into account

how ethanol is still a relatively young and emerging fuel source. I would think that as demand rises the technology to produce ethanol will improve.

I know the universities here are going full steam at trying to improve ethanol production technologies, they've made amazing progress in the last few years, and it can only get better.

[Realityhack]

13. EXACTLY - Net Loss

As I understand it Ethenol as currently produced is a Net Loss. So the more you use the worse it is on the environment and the faster you run out of oil... which seems a bit stupid all aroound untill you realize that it makes a great sound bite.

If they actualy wanted to DO something about oil consuption they would start with centrilized elecric plants, moving them to wind and solar power.

[Governor]

17. Net loss?

Ethanol has an energy balance of 1.24, for every 100 units of energy put into the process, it returns 124 units of energy.

As far as I know, where ever you got those figures must be throwing away the valuable feed that is left over after the process and calling all of those calories waste.

Sounds to me like there's some politics involved if that's the case. There is no doubt that part of ethanol energy is solar provided, it's a natural product with friendly by products which are used to make food in the form of meat.

I'm all for solar, water, and wind power, but there is also a great resource in ethanol.

[Realityhack]

19. The studdies varry

widely but poking around on the web it looks like untill some significant improvements are made you are talking about around .9 or something for corn based ethenol.

Either way it is not a good long term strategy... may be good short term though as some kind of transition fuel... the problem is the land use and coincedental polution are quite high.

I also wonder if the positive figures still apply when you adjust the blend so it does not increase the polution from the gasoline it is mixed with.

RH

[Governor]

23. plus

we need to factor in the decrease in heat pollution.

Also the gain in engine longevity.

Oil changes are fewer as well, saving oil there.
Emmisions are much cleaner as well, which is why they should go to a mandatory 10% blend even if it were a break even product energywise.

This fuel is a net gain in many ways environmentally. Economically, it's a home run for our nation.

[Realityhack]

27. I need to check that.....

A site I was just on mentioned the potential of INCREASED emmisions...

I think you may be thinking of bio-desil that reduces emmisions.

"When ethanol is blended with gasoline, it has the potential to increase the volatility of gasoline. High volatility gasoline has higher emissions that contribute to increased smog formation. It is the gasoline emissions that are creating the smog, however, it is ethanol that raises the volatility of the gasoline blend. In Canada, gasoline volatility is closely regulated. Commercial blends of ethanol and gasoline cannot have higher volatility than unblended gasoline, therefore, there is no increase in smog-forming emissions due to ethanol blended fuel in Canada."

You can balance a lot of what you said with pesticides, runnoff, watter consuption (which is a serious problem) soil erosion etc.

RH

[Governor]

33. ethanol too

your website speaks of potential, but where is the results? Lower emmisions.

Let's go to E85 if you want low emmisions.

soy diesel is great, but we are running into the problems of plugging fuel filters with it (I burn it in my tractors at an affordable percentage) since it is cleaning out the gunk built up in my fuel tanks! It certainly smells better!

We farmers are getting better in regards to pesticides, erosion and runoff, which are serious concerns. The water thing I think is misrepresented, where the corn is grown, the vast majority of it is rain water. Irrigation from deep well just isn't economical.

The fact remains that farmers are going to produce all the corn they can under the current system. It might as well be used to produce cleaner energy with lower heat pollution and longer engine life.

[Tesha]

63. Ahh, so this is why you're in favor of Ethanol.

> ...in my tractors...

Ahh, so this is why you're in favor of Ethanol; you're apparently
a party that will be directly benefited (or at least whose community
will be diectly benefited) by its use. Thanks for letting us know.

Tesha

[amandabeech]

28. Welcome to DU, Governor.

I've read reviews of several studies on ethanol, and it's either a little over even or a little under even.

The problem is that running an economy on 124/100 will be much more difficult in running an economy on 1000/100, which is roughly the energy balance, or EROEI of the world oil supply.

Nonetheless, I think that ethanol will be some part of our energy future. However, I sincerely doubt that corn will be the product here in the U.S.

As an earlier poster pointed out, there have been recent breakthroughs in the development of enzymes used to break down cellulosic biomass, like wastepaper, switch grass and kudzu, for ethanol production. I expect that it will be more efficient to use those low input sources for ethanol. I think that we'll be using our best farmland to produce more direct human food, less feed and a little biodiesel.

As Peak Oil unfolds, however, I doubt that any one source or any combination of sources will replace oil to the extent that we can live our lives like we do now. What our lives will be like then, I don't know, but I don't expect to making a "road trip" from Philadelphia to San Francisco 20 years from now.

[Governor]

35. Thanks!

I'm excited about fuel from waste, I think there is a lot of potential there.

But there seems to be some confusion here about corn being used for ethanol not being able to be used for food. The ethanol is extracted and the rest is fed as feed and is a great resource for the livestock producers. The corn isn't wasted and it's being produced anyway, good stewardship or not. The lastest USDA site that I found shows the energy net at 1.7:1 so it is definitely worth doing.

Long term viability? who knows? Hopefully they'll have zero point generation or something similar wrapped up in a handy power unit by the time we need it.

[amandabeech]

38. You're welcome, Governor.

Actually, I do know that the leftovers make a high-protein cattle feed, and that corn oil is usually pressed out first. I've been doing a little reading, and one of my uncles still does as much farming as one can do at 84--he has a few head of beef and mows some hay. He buys his corn now. The farm is in Michigan and has been in the family over 100 years. Unfortunately, when my uncle dies, that will be it. He doesn't have children, unfortunately, and none of his nieces and nephews are inclined to be farmers, although I fantasize about an organic farm from time to time. I still have interest in agricultural topics, though.

I'm sure that you're aware that the USDA work has been roundly critiqued by Pimentel and others. It seems as though calculating EROEI is a less than precise business, and that only a general idea can be gained from any one study. But like I said, we'll be using just about anything liquid that we can get out hands on for transportation when Peak Oil really makes things pinch.

In the meantime, we need that ethanol to replace that wretched MTBE, and I support programs to keep family farms going. From what I've seen, farming takes many, many skills, from sophisticated financial management, to zoology and botany, to something that approaches art. I think that it is important for any country to maintain a good pool of people who have all those skills necessary to put food on our plates.

I hope that your crops and prices are looking good for you this year.

[Governor]

42. Nope..

I didn't know about the sound critiquing, thanks for the heads-up.

You are right about it being guesswork. They are trying to put values on things that might not be in play. Shipping to the ethanol plants, for example. There are 4 times as many ethanol plants this year (roughly) in my area than before, so those costs are really coming down. Farmers don't need to ship corn very far to process it now. The plants are being built right where the corn is to increase the profitability. They are also calculating average drying costs and such for the corn and each year those costs seem lower due to better hybrid drying characteristics. All of these studies are snapshots of conditions they are trying to throw long term averages at, it's just silly.
One thing I saw was a value of gasoline used per acre of production and I knew that they weren't keeping things in perspective. Where the big corn crops are grown, gasoline is barely used in production equipment, everything is big diesels. They are using figures that must be the national averages for costs, which doesn't address the actual costs to the plants right in the heart of the corn belt where corn yields are 30 bushels over the national average and producers are very efficient with their inputs.

Thanks again for your words of welcome!

[suneel112]

20. Re. tarded

Making Ethanol takes about twice the energy in fossil fuels than the actual ethanol produces. A better plan would be to quintiple funding for solar power (research and deployment) and wind power, but I guess Bush still has some animosity towards Pres. Carter. Everyone knows that Bush likes big fat Saudi oil rigs, and will do anything to suck the oil out faster ;-) and increase the corruption of the oilgarchy.
And the farmers will love him for it. Bush is only patriotic to the republican party.

[Governor]

25. check your facts.

You aren't giving proper credit to the by-products.

You've been scammed.

[Realityhack]

24. Much like the US finacial situation...

Nobody wants to even THINK about the giant white elephant of a long term problem that is about to trample them...

Even if you replaced 100% of the oil with ethenol it would not be a sustanable long term plan when you take into account the land requirements, watter requirements, and dammage to the environment.

In the long term we need to reduce our USE. And move to energy sorces like solar and wind power.

RH

[Governor]

26. Hear, Hear!

You nailed it. We have to change our usage and our sources.

If you all haven't guessed, I grow corn in Iowa. While the water I use all falls as rain, I suppose some corn is using water but how is that a bad thing? We are letting most of our fresh water flow right out to sea, why not pump it onto the crop ground first and let it reenter the watercycle there?

I'd be happy to answer any corn farmer questions you have.

And no, I'm not a corporate farmer, just a family farmer trying to feed the world and my family at the same time.

What you might find neat, wind generators are popping up all around me here in Iowa. Several hundred a year.

[amandabeech]

31. I guess we all know that this has a lot to do with corn belt Senate seats

and electoral votes. Corn is big in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri and South Dakota. Did I miss any? Kansas?

[Governor]

37. states

Texas usually has a pretty good crop. North Dakota has as much as Kansas, probably.

In Iowa, you'll not get rid of Sen Grassley, I think. He's a platform republican. Sen Harkin isn't in jeopardy either, I believe.

Part of this effort is actually to cut government spending on Ag Subsidies, I believe. The USDA guarantees a certain price to grow corn and if it falls below that price, they pay. If they can increase the price so they don't pay, it frees that money up for war spending. Simple, no?

[amandabeech]

41. Simple, yes. So perhaps the sugar folks can take their cue

from Brazil and look into ethanol, also.

I'm not always wild about the price supports because they don't help all farmers, although I sure know why they're there--prices go up and down wildly, and agriculture is not a business that's easy to get in and out of in addition to my last post, which you might not have read, about my uncle.

In the area of Michigan where I grew up, fruits and vegetables are king, especially asparagus and tart cherries. There are real ups and downs. The cherries are subject to a marketing order which helps, but asparagus has been hurt by cheap imports from Peru, where the farmers rely on wet/dry rather than heat/cold for dormancy. Peruvian produce comes in duty free because we want to encourage a switch from cocaine to veggies, which is all well and good, except U.S. vegetable growers are taking the hit.

Are you involved in the conservation reserve? What do you think of that program?

Harkin's a great guy. I know some staffers from his '92 Presidential bid, and they think he's God. I supported him, too, by the way.

[Governor]

45. CRP

No, I didn't leave out the A.

There is some CRP around me, but I'm not in it myself at this time.

I am considering some ground for Wetlands reserve right now, though.

[Iowa]

43. Hey Governor! Interesting posts.

You seem to know your stuff.

You mentioned wind generators in your area. I grew up on a farm near Storm Lake, Iowa. My parents are still on the family farm (retired) so I get back to that area and there are a ton of those between Storm Lake and Cherokee.

[Governor]

51. Thanks..

There are a bunch and they keep growing.

I was over to Storm Lake about 2 months ago. Was happy to see some ethanol plants along the way as well. Plus they were selling E85 at some of the stations.

[Miss Chybil]

40. If the oil companies don't want it, you can forget it. nt

[triguy46]

47. This is a loser, but even our guys will vote for it

There is a lack of reason in DC. Growing more corn just shifts where petrochemicals are utilized in the production consumption chain. More corn means more fertilizers (petrochemical intensive), more harvesting, more refining. These all have input costs. If we don't have enough oil for cars, we won't have any more oil for making ethanol.

[NEDem]

49. Sorry, but I disagree

Sure the short term costs are big, but looking long term its a winner.

Right now the refining costs are somewhat high, but as demand grows, and technology improves, which is guaranteed to happen, refining costs will drop.

As for the petrochemicals used in growing and harvesting, seeds are being engineered daily to make them more resistant to drought, pests and disease. Its only a matter of time before they can make a seed that doesn't require fertilizer. I wouldn't support this for our food supply, but for growing fuel, I have no problem with it.

[Governor]

52. how much

petroleum products does it take to make a bushel of corn?

[NEDem]

50. I should mention

I drive a Dodge Grand Caravan the runs on E85, which is 85% ethanol. I got it 2 years ago when there was only one E85 pump in my city. Now there are 4 pumps, and E85 is anywhere from 40 to 50 cents cheaper per gallon then std unleaded. I get about 2 miles less per gallon when I run E85 but frankly it's worth it. I have never had any problems with my van.

So I'm a little jaded in this thread, I can't see where anyone (other than the oil companies) would have a problem with this.

[Governor]

53. Your engine..

should last a lot longer too, since it is running cooler.

[NickB79]

54. If ethanol has such a great return rate

Why does it have to be so heavily subsidized to survive?

[Governor]

56. simple

because the infrastructure wasn't developed yet to make it economical.
That is coming into place because of the subsidies, which is exactly what susidies should do, encourage economic development.

Last year, the ethanol growers made a big profit with cheaply priced corn and the fuel cost rising quickly. Now they are getting to the point of overproduction due to the delivery structure not keeping pace, but that will be rectified as well.

Once people discover this fuel and get over the myths spread against it, I think it will be a boon for our nation's economy.

[ihelpu2see]

60. BioDiesel would be a better investment

of-course people would have to by VW TDI but the 44- 50 mpg is great and BioDiesel blends are pretty "green"

[Tesha]

64. Funny how the free market is great until it ain't, huh?

The Republican Mantra:

"Socialize costs; privatize profits"

Tesha