I had thought ethanol was more cost effective than this.
Got this in an email this morning.
From: BushGreenwatch <info@bushgreenwatch.org>
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2005 8:06 am
Subject: Experts Reject Bush Rationale for Corn-Based Ethanol
> ***************************************
> BUSHGREENWATCH
> Tracking the Bush Administration's Environmental Misdeeds
>
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org > ***************************************
>
> May 26, 2005
>
> EXPERTS REJECT BUSH RATIONALE FOR CORN-BASED ETHANOL
>
> In a speech at a biodiesel refinery in Virginia last week,
> President Bush touted the economic and environmental benefits of
> corn-based ethanol. Scientific evidence, however, contradicts
> the Administration's claims that increasing ethanol production
> would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil in an
> environmentally sound manner.
>
> "The ethanol production process consumes more fossil fuel energy
> than ethanol's actual calorific value," says University of
> California civil and environmental engineering professor Tad
> Patzek, who spent two years studying the environmental impacts
> of ethanol.
>
> "The energy cost of restoring the environmental damage caused by
> corn-based ethanol production takes seven times more energy than
> the amount of energy obtained from the ethanol itself," Patzek
> told BushGreenwatch.
>
> Increasing production from 5 billion to as much as 8 billion
> gallons of corn-based ethanol per year, as the Bush energy bill
> calls for, "will further deplete fossil fuels, and damage soil,
> water, and air with no benefit to the country, other than the
> few recipients of big government subsidies" said Patzek.
>
> Frank O'Donnell, President of Clean Air Watch, supports Patzek's
> conclusion: "Increasing ethanol production has been oversold as
> a pro-environmental policy," O'Donnell told BushGreenwatch,
> pointing out that "ethanol, particularly when used in the
> summer, can create high levels of smog and fine particle soot."
>
> A California Air Resources Board report states that the federal
> government's move to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline
> will add 70 tons of smog per day to the air in summer -- the
> equivalent of adding two million cars to the road. <1>
>
> Given the environmental risks associated with ethanol production
> and its lack of impact in creating an energy independent
> America, O'Donnell asserts that, "the driving force behind the
> Administration's desire to boost corn-based ethanol is to help
> the farm industry."
>
> The U.S. Department of Agriculture allocated $37 billion
> --repeat, $37 billion -- in corn subsidies from 1995 through
> 2003. <2>
>
> O'Donnell adds that alternative ethanol types, derived from
> different forms of biomass including agricultural waste, are
> worth looking into. But in its effort to prop up corn prices,
> the Bush Administration prefers to invest the lion's share of
> research and development funding for renewable energy toward
> corn-based ethanol. In his speech, President Bush proposed $84
> million for ongoing research on biofuel and ethanol.
>
> Patzek warns against this allocation, saying that an increase in
> corn-based ethanol use will actually "make us more dependent on
> foreign oil and natural gas, and cause us to divert our
> attention from the more important improvements in energy
> efficiency for our economy."
>
> In contrast, Brazil, a country hit hard by the sudden surge in
> oil prices in 1979, has been very successful in reducing its
> dependence on foreign oil. By increasing production of
> sugar-based ethanol and flex-fuel cars designed to use a
> combination of ethanol and gasoline, Brazil's oil imports have
> dropped from 85 percent of its energy consumption in 1978 to 10
> percent in 2002. <3>
>
> Many have suggested that the U.S. follow Brazil's model.
> Brazilian government officials have recommended that the U.S.
> increase imports of Brazilian sugar-based ethanol, and export
> its corn for human consumption. <4>
>
> Professor Patzek notes, however, that while "producing
> sugar-based ethanol is significantly more efficient than
> corn-based ethanol, we still have to live with the gradual
> depletion of soil and large-scale water contamination."
>
> Patzek recommends more efficient measures to reduce energy
> consumption, for example "doubling the mileage of the U.S. car
> fleet with existing technologies (hybrid cars, clean diesel
> cars). This would cut gasoline consumption by 50 percent and
> crude oil consumption by 20 percent."
>
> ###
>
> SOURCES:
> <1> "Dirty Prices," LA Weekly, Apr. 15, 2005,
>
http://ga3.org/ct/e7acV7S1RR3p/. > <2> "Bush's pick to head the USDA is a big ethanol booster,"
> Grist Magazine, Dec. 9, 2004,
http://ga3.org/ct/epacV7S1RR3P/. > <3> "Brazil's alternative-fuel strategy is a model for U.S.,"
> The Sun Herald, Apr. 3, 2005,
http://ga3.org/ct/d1acV7S1RR3Q/. >
> <4>Ibid.
>
> ***************************************
> :: TELL A FRIEND ABOUT BUSHGREENWATCH
>
http://ga3.org/ct/3pacV7S1RR3o/ >
> :: READ BACK ISSUES
>
http://ga3.org/ct/edacV7S1RR30/ > ***************************************
>
> BushGreenwatch
> 1320 18th Street NW 5th Floor
> Washington, DC 20036
> (202) 463-6670
> Web site comments: info@bushgreenwatch.org
>
> Copyright (c) 2003 Environmental Media Services
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for
> BushGreenwatch at:
>
>
http://ga3.org/bushgreenwatch/join.html?r=k1acV7S13X3YE >