Introduction
Joseph sent me a pair of essays: The one below and one on E85. I will post the one on E85 within a few days. I don’t plan to post a rebuttal to the following essay, but I will address one item in the comments below the essay.
Previous Essays
Miglietta’s Second Response
My closing Statements On The Ethanol Debate
I am sure that in the coming years we will address conservation gradually ever more with more efficient, and fuel-diversified vehicles, including hybrids and plug-ins. Also, public transportation may assume a more important role. Oil reserves, even with China and India’s ever-increasing consumption, may last a few more decades taking into consideration the decreased consumption due to conservation. Coal is playing a more important role, directly, and indirectly through its byproducts. So, these two non-renewable sources of energy may sustain the world economy a while longer.
In the meantime, we are not sitting idle; we’re focused in finding cheaper and renewable sources of energy. I’m confident that long before we have exhausted these reserves, we have found effective solutions to our present energy problem without having to resort to mass transportation as our only solution left. There is no reason, therefore, to panic now. We will cross that bridge when we get there.
Ethanol, as a liquid fuel, may be a transitional solution, while better ways are found. It is a practical solution for the short-to-intermediate period, but only if it is made viable. It is ludicrous to consider corn as a viable material to make ethanol. It’s only a political platform. But it may serve as a starting point to use ethanol in our country.
Ethanol cannot be incorporated in gasoline blends in considerable amounts nationwide overnight. Even if we were to import ethanol, from Brazil for instance, they will require a long-term contract to increase their production to accommodate our demand. Brazil, however, can increase present sugar cane production even three folds. Currently, Brazil, as the U.S., is increasing ethanol production facilities; only Brazil has two big advantages over us: (1) they make their ethanol from sugar cane with a net energy gain of about 80%, and (2) they have 32 million cars on the road as compared to our 170 millions. Hence, they will have a surplus. So, ethanol imports could represent a viable, interim solution within the next three years. We cannot set a timetable on our research for more efficient production methods and for cheaper and more plentiful feedstock, but we are actively working on both. When this happens, corn won’t be used for making ethanol, except for moonshine.
JM
> I’m confident that long before we have exhausted these reserves, we have found effective solutions to our present energy problem without having to resort to mass transportation as our only solution left. There is no reason, therefore, to panic now. We will cross that bridge when we get there.
Miami voted a few years ago on a plan to build 103 miles of elevated “Subway in the Sky”. This plan will take 25 years to build with a half cent sales tax. When completed, 90+% of Miami will be within 3 miles of a station and over half within 2 miles. Many will be within easy walking or bicycling range.
Miami will be “ready” after 25 years of steady building. They and Denver have started, but most of America has not.
Just how many decades does Miglietta think that we have if most of America is not even starting to plan, much less build, an alternative ?
…we’re focused in finding cheaper and renewable sources of energy. I’m confident that long before we have exhausted these reserves, we have found effective solutions to our present energy problem without having to resort to mass transportation as our only solution left. Ethanol, as a liquid fuel, may be a transitional solution, while better ways are found.
Joseph,
Don’t get wrapped around the axle confusing renewable fuels and corn ethanol.
Corn ethanol is neither renewable nor sustainable. Every time I hear someone on TV or the radio saying we need ethanol from corn because it’s “renewable” I nearly blow a gasket.
Corn ethanol is a purely political product resulting from the evolution to factory corn farming and the subsidies and tax credits that have gone to corn farmers and agribusiness for decades.
I do feel there is a bright future for alcohol fuels — whether methanol, ethanol, butanol, or some even of the higher versions of alcohol.
Just today my wife asked me, “Why are you so against ethanol?” as we watched a promo on ABC touting the fact that next year the Indy 500 will be powered by 100% ethanol — as the announcer pulled out an ear of corn and waved it around while saying, “And Indiana has lots of this to make renewable ethanol.”
I told my wife I have nothing against ethanol and that it makes a perfectly good fuel. My problem is with the disingenuous claims of “renewable” those in the industrial corn business keep throwing out as a smokescreen when they know darn well industrial corn farming and corn ethanol production are entirely dependent on fossil fuels, and that if you asked Big Ethanol to go cold turkey and stop using fossil fuels, corn ethanol production would rapidly dry up.
The day corn farmers and ethanol plants can grow corn and make ethanol by using some of the ethanol they make as their energy source, is the day I buy into Big Ethanol’s claims their fuel is renewable.
I don’t see that day happening soon.
Best,
Gary Dikkers
Currently, Brazil, as the U.S., is increasing ethanol production facilities; only Brazil has two big advantages over us:
Actually, Brazil has one enormous advantage over us, and is the real reason they are able to be energy independent. I think I will write an essay on this in the near future. According to Per Capita Oil Consumption and Production, the per capita consumption of oil in Brazil is 4.2 bbl/yr. In the U.S., that number is 27 bbl/yr, 6.4 times as much per person as Brazil.
Yet we already produce much more oil per person than Brazil. The U.S. produces 11 bbl/oil per person each year, compared to 3.35 bbl/yr for Brazil. The problem is the gap that must be closed. Brazil has a gap of less than 1 bbl/yr per person that must be closed (4.2-3.35), and that can be closed by ethanol. The U.S. has a gap of 16 bbl/yr per person to close. No way can that be closed by ethanol. It can only be closed by conservation. Adding to that problem is that the U.S. population is about 100 million higher than Brazil, and it should be obvious that ethanol is not going to provide the U.S. with energy independence as it has for Brazil. These countries are apples and oranges.
RR
Robert said, “…the per capita consumption of oil in Brazil is 4.2 bbl/yr. In the U.S., that number is 27 bbl/yr, 6.4 times as much per person as Brazil.
Robert,
It is even more lopsided when you look at only the energy Brazil uses for transportation: On a per capita basis, they use only 12% (one-eighth) as much energy as we do.
If we suddenly reduced the amount of energy we used for transportation by a factor of eight, we too could be self-sufficient.
Comparing Brazil’s energy use to ours is really a case of comparing mangoes to apples. To a large extent, Brazil is still a third-world country. Get outside the major cities of Sao Paolo and Rio, and you find an agrarian society still dependent on low-priced, manual labor.
Anyone who says, “If Brazil can do it, we can do it.” doesn’t understand the differences between our two countries. They are right, we could do it, but it would mean most of the interior of the United States going back in time about 60 years.
Best,
Gary Dikkers
It is even more lopsided when you look at only the energy Brazil uses for transportation: On a per capita basis, they use only 12% (one-eighth) as much energy as we do.
Gary,
Do you have a good reference for that? I am writing an article comparing the U.S. to Brazil, and that would be handy.
Thanks,
RR