Ethanol as a biofuel: Good or bad?

[LBJDemocrat]

I'm against the use of ethanol as a biofuel. It raises the price of corn crops and feed for livestock. It's the poor who are sensitive to fuel prices.

On the other hand, all the major presidential candidates of both parties and even Bush seem to be for it.

What's your opinion on ethanol?

[Redstone]

1. It's an utter disaster from ANY cost/benefit viewpoint. Maybe that's why

the bushyboy administration likes it so much.

Redstone

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Much better when made from sugar cane or beets, than from corn. But

corn is what Archer Midland Daniels controls, so that's where they want it to be.

[More Than A Feeling]

3. Terrible when it is made from industrial-grade corn.

Doesn't save an ounce of energy

[IndianaGreen]

4. Bad for people, bad for the environment! Has anyone seen how much milk prices have gone up?

Fidel Castro has written extensively on the effects of biofuels on the world's food supply. I suggest that DUer's check the DU archives for Fidel's articles posted in DU or just google it.

[unkachuck]

14. hi Indiana....

....I need to get on the right side of this issue....I need a little help....

....I thought ethanol is carbon-neutral?....and if made from switchgrass or other low-grade bio-mass, can't it be energy efficient, low-polluting, and not compete with food crops?....better yet if the bio-mass production occurs in oceans or on non-farmlands....

....burning ethanol does produce Co2 but burning anything will produce Co2....ethanol could be used to produce ethanol....

....it has a little over half the energy of fossil fuels so more will need to be used to do the same job....but if technology (mileage) increases, burning ethanol could be competative with fossil fuels....it produces less pollutants and the internal combustion engine doesn't need much alteration to burn ethanol efficiently....

....I love camping with my alcohol stoves and marvel at how clean they burn denatured alcohol (mostly ethanol)....why isn't ethanol one of the 'green' solutions to our fossil fuel addiction?

....where am I going wrong?....thanks

[IndianaGreen]

23. Post #9 by whistle answers part of your question

Below is whistle's post. I also recommend you read ooga booga's response to whistle.

whistle
9. It takes more BTUs of energy to make a barrel of ethanol then a barrel

...of ethanol can produce in BTUs. That's right, it takes 129,000 BTUs (British Thermal Units) of heat to produce one gallon of ethanol which can produce just 76,000 BTUs of heat energy. Even if the corn cobs are dried and ground up to be used as the fuel for the cooking and distillation of the fermented there will be BTUs of energy added to the mix and ultimately some fossil fuel will enter into the production processes, either fuel oil, natural gas or even coal.

In current automobile internal combustion engines ethanol must be mixed with gasoline in some ratio to make it work properly without doing damage to the engine. Also, no internal combustion engine works at 100% efficiency and actually only about 25% of the fuel burned in the engine becomes energy to power the automobile, the remaining 75% is dissipated as heat and thus is wasted energy.

I think alternate sources of energy must be found and used for transportation. I sure don't wish to have government spending billions of tax dollars on ethanol subsidies to big corporations!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3410642#3410686

Like Fidel, I am concerned about the impact on consumer prices and food availability as more farmland is converted for biofuel production. Fidel warns about mass starvation.

[Captain Angry]

5. It fools people into thinking they're doing the right thing.

When the REAL right thing to do would be to consume less of any fuel. Less driving, more efficient vehicles, etc.

[msongs]

6. its great for the welfare receiving industrial farmers and the politicians they buy nt

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Bad idea

It benefits megacorps just as sure as oil benefits them. That's not inherently bad. However, corn is not the best source of biofuel. I'm certain there are better crops for this special purpose. Argentina is using sugar cane.

A good place to start is to determine what crop would grow best on unused or hard to farm lands.

And don't forget .... if we're not careful, this will be the new Exxon:

[nealmhughes]

8. Horrid idea, it is just whiskey at a higher octane/proof and not a whit of charcoal mellowing.

Corn cultivation is a very expensive enterprise, what with the price of nitrates and other fertilizers, is a cog of Western diet now and is making everything associated with the maize market skyrocket, from soda to cheese.

G. Monbiot has written extensively on the issue of both ethanol from maize and also palm oil and the decrease of Food Crops!

I consider it a form of modern day Tulipomania, along with the ostrich and emu for food craze earlier, and today's present day alpaca and Ozark real estate crazes.

[whistle]

10. Good for bootleggers

:hurts: :hangover:

[whistle]

9. It takes more BTUs of energy to make a barrel of ethanol then a barrel

...of ethanol can produce in BTUs. That's right, it takes 129,000 BTUs (British Thermal Units) of heat to produce one gallon of ethanol which can produce just 76,000 BTUs of heat energy. Even if the corn cobs are dried and ground up to be used as the fuel for the cooking and distillation of the fermented there will be BTUs of energy added to the mix and ultimately some fossil fuel will enter into the production processes, either fuel oil, natural gas or even coal.

In current automobile internal combustion engines ethanol must be mixed with gasoline in some ratio to make it work properly without doing damage to the engine. Also, no internal combustion engine works at 100% efficiency and actually only about 25% of the fuel burned in the engine becomes energy to power the automobile, the remaining 75% is dissipated as heat and thus is wasted energy.

I think alternate sources of energy must be found and used for transportation. I sure don't wish to have government spending billions of tax dollars on ethanol subsidies to big corporations! :wtf:

[ooga booga]

19. I've also read that ethanol is water soluble - unlike gasoline

Being water soluble makes it impossible to transport via pipelines. The issue of water contamination of the ethanol is a troublesome wrinkle.

Basically, as others have stated, ethanol is primarily a way to pander to certain agriculturally focused states like Iowa and certain agribusiness giants like ADM. There are certainly other shameless political pandering ploys focused at various regions of the country. This is just one of the many.

[whistle]

27. As a local source of energy like the farmer using ethanol he has made

...himself in his own farm machinery it could provide an alternative fuel when gasoline becomes cost prohibitive and scarce, but I am very skeptical that ethanol could prove to be a feasible replacement for transportation fuel on a massive scale. I would hope that technology could overcome the obvious problems such as hydrolyzation of ethanol and stability in storage. However, even if that could be accomplished there is still the energy trade off issue of using greater amounts of BTUs to produce a gallon of ethanol than what a gallon of ethanol can deliver when used to do actual work.

Maybe they could add just a tad bit of thermite to the ethanol to make it burn hotter. Just keep clear of the melted engine debris on our roads

[lostinacause]

11. For the reasons other people have already said, it is a bad idea.

The only value that it has is as a politically viable farm subsidy. Given the economic costs of production it is a very inefficient farm subsidy at that. Might as well just give farmers money. You’re putting as much energy into production as you are getting out so there are no environmental benefits. It raises the price of gasoline and not just corn but ALL farm products. People think that biofuels are necessarily good for the environment. As ethanol produced by corn shows, this isn’t the case.

[madrchsod]

12. bad idea

to much land being planted in corn,volatile market price due to weather, and increases food costs.there are better alternatives than corn

[TruePatriot44]

13. Definately Good

I should note I'm from Minnesota where we have the most ethanol plants and by far more than half the ethanol stations in the country.

I'd rather be buying fuel supplied from midwestern farmers than middle east dictators. Every time I fill up on ethanol it is money going back to my local economy. Yes, it does take more energy to make ethanol, but the end result is a net profit for the farmers and an alternative to oil. I don't care whether corn or milk costs more - eat something else that is cheaper or grow your own. For too long people have taken farmers and farming states for granted.

Minnesota Governor Plawlenty has often stated that corn is only the first product to be used for ethanol. He understands it is very inefficient, but it is laying down the groundwork for other products to be made into bio-fuel. Just take a look at Brazil and how they are energy independent - how can you say it is a bad thing? Once we get rid of our oil dependency we can withdraw completely from the middle east and end inciting terrorism through bad foreign policy.

[Canuckistanian]

24. Localized ethanol production makes sense - sorta

But when you extrapolate that to national energy supplies and you lose, big time. Transportation, storage and distribution kill off any economic benefits (without massive subsidies).

One thing's for sure, though. The answer to ethanol production isn't corn.

[Omaha Steve]

30. I'm with you

I've burned 10% ethanol since the late 70's year round. The post use corn is cattle feed. Sugar beet farmers in Western Nebraska would love to get in on this too with a little help from a friendly Senator in Washington.

[KittyWampus]

15. Ethanol is stupid. It takes too much E. to transport materials like fertilizer, to grow, harvest

process and then distribute.

It is too highly centralized.

E. must be made from local waste at each locality.

Drop your garbage off at the thermal depolyermization plant and fuel up your car while there.

[Lone_Wolf]

16. There are better alternatives out there...

Ethanol has too many negatives.

[Alexander]

17. It is a bad idea, and support for it is a cynical ploy to win over Iowa voters.

I can't wait for the day when a Democrat comes out against ethanol fuels.

Of course, that Democrat won't have a prayer of winning Iowa.

That's why no one will.

[rucky]

18. I'm against the use of CORN as a biofuel

It's the worst. But I'm sure it's the "only option" being pushed by Monsanto, ADM, etc.

Check out the yield of corn vs. Palm, Jatropha, and ALGAE...

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Alternative-Energy/2006-02-01/Biodiesel-Homegrown-Oil.aspx#crops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Yields_of_common_crops

Listed by yield in gallons per acre:

Algae
5000 gallons

Oil Palm
635 gallons

Coconut
287 gallons

Jatropha
202 gallons

Rapeseed (canola)
127 gallons

Peanut
113 gallons

Sunflower
102 gallons

Safflower
83 gallons

Mustard
61 gallons

Soybean
48 gallons

Corn
18 gallons

[CK_John]

20. Ethanol should be made from seaweed. The only good thing about the current

process is that it will build an infrastructure for the future of alternate energy. It is a break from oil refiners single structure.

[HughMoran]

21. Corn is not the best crop for ethanol

There are already types of grass that produce much more ethanol per acre and are better for the soil to boot.

And this is before any of these crops have been specifically bioengineered to produce higher yields. It's not the be-all end-all in alternative fuels, but I used to be against it before I knew of the technical details and potential benefits it will have when a proper commitment is made to it's use.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. Bad

raises food prices and does nothing to reduce carbon emissions.

It's a ploy to lull people into thinking that they can keep their car-oriented lifestyle even if the oil runs out.

It would be interesting to trace the money behind the push for ethanol.

[burrowowl]

25. Ethanol idiocy!

Start your Liberty Garden!
Food will sky-rocket if more crops are converted to ethanol friendly crops, Mexicans are already getting screwed!

[windbreeze]

26. From what I am reading....it's detrimental...

for your car, for crops needed to feed people...for a lot of things...and it doesn't give enough actual benefit in mileage, to warrant the time to make it...
wb

[buzzard]

28. From what I have read it is a bad idea. This article has some interesting points.

The Hidden Agenda behind the Bush Administration's Bio-Fuel Plan
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6407


Part of the article here:

Another agenda behind Ethanol?

Uh Huh. The dramatic embrace of bio-fuels by the Bush Administration since 2005 has clearly been the global driver for soaring grain and food prices in the past 18 months. The evidence suggests this is no accident of sloppy legislative preparation. The US Government has been researching and developing bio-fuels since the 1970’s. The bio-ethanol architects did their homework we can be assured. It’s increasingly clear that the same people who brought us oil price inflation are now deliberately creating parallel food price inflation. We have had a rise in average oil prices of some 300% since the end of 2000 when George W. Bush and Dick Halliburton Cheney made oil the central preoccupation of US foreign policy.

Last year, as bio-ethanol production first became a major market factor, corn prices rose by some 130% on the Chicago in 14 months. It was more than known when Congress and the Bush Administration made their heavy push for bio-ethanol in 2005 that world grain reserves had been declining at alarming levels for several years at a time when global demand, driven especially by growing wealth And increasing meat consumption in China, was rising.

As a result of the diversion of record acreages of US and Brazilian corn and soybeans to bio-fuel production, food reserves are literally disappearing. Global food security, according to FAO data, is at its lowest since 1972. Curiously that was just the time that Henry Kissinger and the Nixon Administration engineered, in cahoots with Cargill and ADM—the major backers of the ethanol scam today—what was called The Great Grain Robbery, sale of huge volumes of US grain to the Soviet Union in exchange for sales of record volumes of Russian oil to the West. Both oil and corn prices rose by 1975 some 300-400% as a result. Just how that worked, I treated in detail in: A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics.

Today a new element has replaced USSR grain demand and harvest shortfalls. Bio-fuel demand, fed by US government subsidies is literally linking food prices to oil prices. The scale of the subsidized bio-fuel consumption has exploded so dramatically since the beginning of 2006 when the US Energy Policy Act of 2005 first began to impact crop planting decisions, not only in the USA, that there is emerging a de facto competition between people and cars for the same grains. Lester Brown recently noted, "We’re looking at competition in the global market between 800 million automobiles and the world’s two billion poorest people for the same commodity, the same grains. We are now in a new economic era where oil and food are interchangeable commodities because we can convert grain, sugar cane, soybeans—anything—into fuel for cars. In effect the price of oil is beginning to set the price of food."

In the mid-1970’s Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a protégé of the Rockefeller family and of its institutions stated, "Control the oil and you control entire nations; control the food and you control the people." The same cast of characters who brought the world the Iraq war, the global scramble to control oil, who brought us patented genetically manipulated seeds and now Terminator suicide seeds, and who cry about the "problem of world over-population," are now backing conversion of global grain production to burn as fuel at a time of declining global grain reserves. That alone should give pause for thought. As the popular saying goes, "Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you."

[MGKrebs]

29. The question doesn't really exist in a vacuum like that.

I think it's more important to determine if it's better or worse than other alternatives.
It may have a lot of negatives, but reducing dependency on foreign oil (or any oil for that matter) must count for something.
Higher prices weighted against higher wages and profits for farmers.
Corn as a less than the ideal source for ethanol vs. getting the ethanol infrastructure built.

It's one thing to go down the road of nuclear energy which has very serious known and unsolved dangers, quite another to reject ethanol because we likely won't do it perfectly right out of the box.