If you're of a certain vintage, you may remember. In winter, they began to "oxygenate" -- that is, adulterate -- gasoline with additives such as MTBE and ethanol, corn alcohol, in order (so they said) to lower tailpipe exhaust emissions. That excuse went away because older cars without computers could not adjust their air-fuel mixtures and so ran lean (and allegedly produced lower emissions when burning Not Quite Gas). So there arose a new excuse: "renewable energy." Suddenly it was patriotic to burn corn instead of eating it -- even if it took more energy to convert corn into alcohol and even if your car didn't go as far on a tank anymore -- because alcohol-laced fuel is less energy-dense than straight 100 proof gasoline.
The corn lobby (that is, the agro-business lobby) is quite powerful, firmly grasping Uncle Sam by the pockets, always applying just enough pressure to make sure he does what is required. The corn lobby wants for every American driver -- hell, everyone who buys "gas" (in quotes in the interests of accuracy, since what we are putting in our tanks is no longer, properly speaking, gasoline) -- to pay tribute each time he fills up. The total sum is incomprehensibly large but the average person sees the tab every time he's at the pump.
The latest interview with Eric Peters by Lew Rockwell is a good one, taking a critical view on corn ethanol production as a fuel, and the sustainability of it. It is politically-motivated, cannot exist without subsidization, increases pollution, decreases energy independence, decreases food supply that could help famine-ravaged nations, and makes everyone but the corn and ethanol producers poor. It is a sham, not a green energy.
Avoiding the Corn Con by Eric Peters @ LewRockwell.com
FEELING the need for an example of government policy run amok? Look no further than the box of cornflakes on your kitchen shelf. In its myriad corn-related interventions, Washington has managed simultaneously to help drive up food prices and add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit, while arguably increasing energy use and harming the environment.
Even in a crowd of rising food and commodity costs, corn stands out, its price having doubled in less than a year to a record $7.87 per bushel in early June. Booming global demand has overtaken stagnant supply.
But rather than ameliorate the problem, the government has exacerbated it, reducing food supply to a hungry world. Thanks to Washington, 4 of every 10 ears of corn grown in America — the source of 40 percent of the world’s production — are shunted into ethanol, a gasoline substitute that imperceptibly nicks our energy problem. Larded onto that are $11 billion a year of government subsidies to the corn complex.
Corn is hardly some minor agricultural product for breakfast cereal. It’s America’s largest crop, dwarfing wheat and soybeans. A small portion of production goes for human consumption; about 40 percent feeds cows, pigs, turkeys and chickens. Diverting 40 percent to ethanol has disagreeable consequences for food. In just a year, the price of bacon has soared by 24 percent.
Ethanol Production Wastes Corn - NYTimes.com
If ethanol's so good, why does it need government subsidies? Without subsidies, ethanol would cost much more than gasoline. The claim that using ethanol will save energy is another myth. Studies show that the amount of energy ethanol produces and the amount needed to make it are roughly the same. And because ethanol degrades, it can't be moved in pipelines the way that gasoline can. So many more big, polluting trucks will be needed to haul it. More bad news: The increased push for ethanol has already led to a sharp increase in corn-growing, which means much more land must be plowed. That means much more fertilizer, more water used on farms and more pesticides. A University of Minnesota study shows that even turning all of America's corn into ethanol would meet only 12 percent of our gasoline demand. Studies indicate that the standard mixture of 90 percent ethanol and 10 percent gasoline pollutes worse than gasoline. Virtually all studies show that the greenhouse gases associated with ethanol are about the same as those associated with conventional gasoline once we examine the entire life cycle of the two fuels. Surely, ethanol must be good for something. And here we finally have a fact. It is good for something - or at least someone: corn farmers and processors of ethanol, such as Archer Daniels Midland, the big food processor known for its savvy at getting subsidies out of the taxpayers.
The Many Myths of Ethanol (ABC News)
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3204163
Ethanol And Biodiesel From Crops Not Worth The Energy (Science Daily)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705231841.htm
Ethanol Fuel From Corn Faulted As "Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning" In Analysis By Cornell Scientist (Science Daily)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010808135444.htm
Ethanol Vehicles Pose Significant Risk To Health, New Study Finds (Science Daily)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070418072616.htm
Fuel Ethanol Cannot Alleviate U.S. Dependence On Petroleum (Science Daily)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050704110527.htm
Increase In Ethanol Production From Corn Could Significantly Harm Water Quality (Science Daily)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071010120538.htm
Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One (Science Daily)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm
Study: Ethanol won't solve energy problems (USA Today)
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-07-10-ethanol-study_x.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment