Ethanol and the Democratic Party Primaries. (Iowa pork or sound science?)

[Wonk]

NYT

(snip)

But it is in corn country that the first significant event of the presidential season occurs, and every Democrat with a hope of winning the Iowa caucus in January is vowing to make every American put ethanol in the tank. It seems like a very long time ago that John McCain began his quest for the Republican nomination by bluntly denouncing ethanol as an environmentally dubious ripoff of the nation's drivers.

Instead we have Howard Dean, who claims the title of this year's truth-telling candidate, defending ethanol subsidies as essential for American security. The nation's spending on oil from the Middle East undermines peace in Israel and helps Saudi Arabians underwrite terrorism, he theorizes. If somebody is going to make money on energy, Dr. Dean says, why not American farmers "instead of Saudi sheiks?" It's not unusual for ethanol's defenders to claim that it is the solution to air pollution, but now it's also an additive to the Middle East road map.

more...

On a side note, the eyes of the energy world are currently on Manitoba, Canada, re: ethanol. They've recently proposed progressive new legislation that would require 85 per cent of the gasoline sold in the province to be blended with 10 per cent ethanol by September 2005. They're taking ethanol seriously and think that it's sound science, and I tend to agree.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/11/21/Consumers/gasohol031121

Your thoughts on this?

[gbwarming]

1. PORK! It costs a lot of diesel/petro fertilizers to make ethanol

The most optimistic net energy numbers are something like 1.3 times more fuel energy from the ethanol than the inputs (not including sunlight and soil degradation). Many studies show less than breakeven. I tend to classify it as pork.

Edit: Pimintel at Cornell is one of the critics, USDA and the NCGA (corn growers) is a booster. USDA is the most optimistic with a net energy ratio of 1.23 - in other word, you spend 8 gallons of diesel to get 10 gallons worth of ethanol. That's best case, USDA numbers. Pimintel says you spend 10 gallons of diesel to get only 7 gallons worth of ethanol.

http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/ethanol_woes.html
http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/issues/2001/ethanol/08_22_01b.htm


(The comparison between diesel and ethanol has to be done in energy units because the densities are different. The gallons above are 'energy gallons')

[farmbo]

5. But the biproduct, DDGS, can be used as a livestock feed...factor that in

...and it makes economic sense; not to mention public policy sense. Here's a renewable energy resource that's made here in the USA from corn. Unfortunately, ADM and the multinationals tend to dominate production at this time. A number of farmer cooperatives are exploring startup facilities, however.
(DDGS = Dried Distiller's Grain w/ Soluables)

[Maple]

2. Canada has ethanol plants

in Quebec and near where I live as well.

Use it all the time.

Cleaner burning, no clogging.

PS...it uses corn.

[Bill of Rights]

3. We use an ethanol blend

here in Minnesota. I don't notice any difference in how it powers my car. I think the potential of using 15% less oil/gasoline throughout the country is significant. I'm all for it. I would like to see figures showing how much it costs the west and east coast states to import ethanol. Is it a lot more expensive than the cost of pure gasoline?

[Maple]

4. Same price

here.

[punpirate]

6. I've read a lot on the total energy balance...

... and not all of the studies are completely convincing, mostly because some are looking at data used for producing corn as a food crop. Sweet corn used for fuel use does not have to be pampered quite as much. Some studies also use standard diesel fuel use in the mix, and someone producing corn for fuel shouldn't have to use diesel, since treated ethanol can be used in diesel engines with some modification.

The real issue is who is really going to benefit from the legislation. Daschle is reportedly in favor of the whole energy bill because it benefits some of his constituents, corn farmers. However, as with all other government attempts to increase grain production (such as the big push in the `70s to increase production to accommodate trade agreements for increased export to the Soviet Union), this one will do one thing--increase supply and decrease the per bushel price, steadily forcing out more small farmers. It was within a few years of the export agreements with the Soviet Union that wholesale farm foreclosures began to occur. One can argue about cause and effect, but the juxtaposition of those in time still make me wonder about the intentions.

As far as the ethanol portion of the energy bill goes, there will likely be one big winner, Archer-Daniels-Midland ("price-fixer to the world"). ADM has the single largest ethanol plant in the country.

On edit, I should add that even if careful farming brings never brings the energy balance down to less than 1:1, there is a small advantage as far as carbon dioxide balance goes. All the carbon going into fuel would have come from atmospheric carbon, and the carbon intake is higher than what shows up in the fuel. An additional advantage is that the ethanol comes from the sugars in the corn. The residue, when dried, is a very high protein animal feed. Encouraging the use of that feed (by discounting the price slightly over standard feed corn or manufactured animal feed) would produce leaner, healthier animals. Unfortunately, that would probably not happen at the large manufacturing levels, but could be an additional incentive for smaller, co-operative ventures.

Cheers.

[Wonk]

7. Interesting and educational thread so far... (kick)

[Wonk]

8. kick

[Snow]

9. Driving north from Des Moines on I-35,

I'm struck by how many wind power farms are springing up. I like the feel of that a lot better than pork for Archer-Daniels-Midland. I hope the guys considering corn ethanol co-ops also or alternatively consider the wind farms. Apparently those can be pretty reumunerative.