I have written previously about Brazil’s “ethanol miracle,” and the tendency of the media and various advocates to ignore facts and embrace hype:
There are two take home messages from those essays. First, ethanol provides a small fraction of Brazil’s transportation fuel, not 40% as is often reported. Second, the gap between supply and demand is gaping in the U.S., but very small in Brazil. Hence, ethanol is able to play a larger role in Brazil simply because Brazilians don’t use nearly as much energy as does the average American.
But it is coming up on 3 years since I updated the numbers, and I have been asked how the numbers in Brazil stack up now. In fact, several people have pointed to the claims in the following recently-published report, now picked up and repeated without anyone bothering to do any critical examination of the numbers:
In 2008 the global biofuels market consisted of more than 17 billion gallons of ethanol and 2.5 billion gallons of biodiesel production worldwide. For the first time, ethanol leader Brazil got more than 50 percent of its total national automobile transportation fuels from bioethanol, eclipsing petroleum use for the first time in any major market.
Big statement. Ethanol reportedly eclipsed “petroleum use for the first time in any major market.” The only problem is that it isn’t true. In fact, the full report itself has a little disclaimer that immediately falsifies the above claim: “(not including diesel)”. And there’s the rub. Diesel is certainly “petroleum”, and it amounts to over 50% of the transportation fuel in Brazil. The other thing is that Brazil is not the “ethanol leader.” The U.S. already produces substantially more ethanol than does Brazil, so Brazil may be “an ethanol leader”, but bear in mind as you read this story that the U.S. already produces about 50% more ethanol than does Brazil. (Brazil is #2).
I suspect if one is fluent in Portuguese, they can go and dig up all of this information for themselves at the Brazilian Ministry of Mines and Energy (Ministério de Minas e Energia). Alas, I am not and must therefore try to dig up the information as I can find it in English.
My starting point is this 2006 presentation that the Ministry of Mines and Energy delivered. At that time, the breakdown of vehicle fuels in Brazil (by volume) was 53.9% diesel, 26.2% gasoline, 17% ethanol (which works out to be 10% by energy content) and 2.9% natural gas. The diesel number is unlikely to have changed much, but I will try to update.
According to History and policy of biodiesel in Brazil, diesel consumption in Brazil is approximately 40 billion liters per year. Per this story (in Portuguese), diesel consumption grew by 11.5% in 2007, while gasoline grew by 2.9% and ethanol grew by 56%. This report states that in the first half of 2008, ethanol and gasoline sales were neck and neck: 2.4 billion gallons of gasoline and 2.38 billion gallons of ethanol (but that ethanol volumes had passed gasoline in specific months).
Two things are often not made explicit when these numbers are reported. First, a large fraction of the ethanol in Brazil is hydrated, meaning it contains 5% water. So 100 liters of hydrated ethanol contains 95 liters of ethanol. Second, due to the energy difference, the comparison above of 2.4 billion gallons of gasoline and 2.38 gallons of ethanol is not comparing apples to apples.
But if we throw together the numbers we have (and ignore the lower energy content for ethanol), we find that in the first half of 2008 we had 2.4 billion gallons of gasoline and 2.4 billion gallons of ethanol, plus 5.3 billion gallons of diesel (40 billion liters per year converted to gallons in 6 months). Natural gas also accounts for several hundred million gallons. Just accounting for volumes of ethanol, gasoline, and diesel, we find that ethanol is contributing 2.4/(2.4+2.4+5.3) = 23.8% by volume, which is a far cry from the claim that it has eclipsed petroleum use. Correct for the lower energy density (diesel is 130,000 btu/gal, gasoline 115,000, and ethanol 76,000) and you find that ethanol is contributing 16% of the transportation energy. Also note that we haven’t considered the fact that a good portion of the ethanol has water in it, nor that natural gas is also in the transportation mix (both of which will drop the ethanol contribution to under 15%).
None of this is written to demean the contribution ethanol has made in Brazil. I think ethanol can be an important, (even) sustainable solution for many tropical countries, and I like the sugarcane ethanol model. Where we get into trouble is trying to extrapolate that to the rest of the world. By grossly stretching the truth and suggesting that ethanol has now surpassed petroleum usage in Brazil, we set up false expectations. People hear these things, and then wrongly think that 1). Brazil used ethanol to become energy independent; 2). We in the U.S. can follow their example. It just isn’t so.
As I have said before, if we want to emulate Brazil, we need to cut our oil consumption by 75%. There is simply no way we can emulate their ethanol model without making huge changes in the amount of energy we use.
Robert,
For me this falls into the category of “technical people must be willing to be more public.” Silence from us will be filled….filled with misleading bunk like that ethanol story.
The most important point, to me, is that All of the standard gasoline in Brazil is 26% ethanol. 80%, or so, of the new cars manufactured are flexfuels.
Another interesting tidbit to consider is that there are still quite a few older, non-flexfuel cars on the road, and they’re using the E26 just fine, evidently.
Also, their cars are, overall, better at utilizing ethanol than are our flexfuels. They tend to have smaller displacement, higher compression engines.
And, probably most important, the Brazilians seem to be quite happy with their ethanol-burning automobiles, whatever the exact ratio.
“It just isn’t so.”
Wait for it …..!!
RR will be providing a link back to this essay claiming something or other.
If my company is building a 2 MWe biomass generating station. RR will object that biomass will not solve AGW or can not provide all the electricity the US needs.
Many things falling into the category of “It just isn’t so.”
And! And so what?
“As I have said before, if we want to emulate Brazil, we need to cut our oil consumption by 75%.”
What I want to know is what are the good practices for doing something. If we can adopt them in the US fine. If the best practices are what we do in the US, then we can market it to others.
For Brazil, ethanol might make sense. For the U.S., it is a farm subsidy, not an energy program.
The Department of Agriculture and farm state Senators will never let this program die.
It joins other government dinosaurs, such as HUD, a cold-war military, Department of Ed. and who knows what else.
The US has a long-term glut of natural gas brewing, and CNG works for busses, trucks and fleet automobiles. PHEVs are being brought to market by Toyota and GM. Ford has a hybrid out that get 49 mpg. We have lots of options, and should let price signals determine winners. The transition to a post-oil economy could be easy, even desirable.
Ou worst option is ethanol, and that is the one option our nation is committed to.
It would make more sense just to print money and give it to farmers.
Benny, we don’t know how batteries are going to work out. In honesty, we don’t know how oil is going to work out (other than it IS finite.) The good Antracite coal is not as plentiful as many make it out to be.
Nat gas is interesting, especially with the “shale” plays, but can it take over for coal, and Oil, also?
Look at it this way: We’re getting some infrastructure set up. We’re getting a LOT of research done. And, it’s really not costing us all that much to do it.
I mean, right now, with $2.00 gas it’s pretty unexciting; but, what if gasoline goes back to $4.25, or higher, and we don’t have a 30 year flood to spike the price of corn to $8.00/bu?
It’ll be alright.
“RR will be providing a link back to this essay claiming something or other.”
Kit, sometimes your comments make a little sense if I read them 2 or 3 times, and other times they are nonsensical. I can’t even parse what point you are trying to convey.
“RR will object that biomass will not solve AGW or can not provide all the electricity the US needs.”
Remember when Optimist said that you should tell us what you think, and then we will tell you what we think? Good advice.
This essay certainly flew way over your head. I can only conclude that you read the last couple of sentences, and decided you needed to comment.
RR
“Look at it this way: We’re getting some infrastructure set up. We’re getting a LOT of research done. And, it’s really not costing us all that much to do it.”
Wish I shared your optimism, Rufus.
The point about mandates is that we do not really know what these are costing us. For example, what position would US auto manufacturers have been in today if they had not had to spend so much time & money on complying with mandates instead of dealing with their underlying problems? How much did those mandates truly cost us?
But more to the point — the biggest cost is often the opportunity cost. While the US is importing windmills and subsidising ethanol, we are postponing making the serious decisions about the true energy supply issues that lie ahead. Every year we waste is gone forever — and when the time comes to look back, we are definitely going to concluded that we wasted time.
Robert,
Rufus and Kit P show why our energy policy is such a disaster.
Engineering and economics got tossed out the door long ago. Now the process is driven by who has the best lobbyists and the most popular support.
Rufus likes ethanol, he “believes” it is the solution to our fuel problems.
No amount of detailed engineering or economic explanation of the multitude of problems with ethanol is going to shake that belief.
I wish Kit P applied the same technical rigor to his biofuel comments that he does to his power generation comments.
It would be educational for everyone.
Duracomm
If Brazilian's are so happy fueling with ethanol, why does their ethanol lobby (UNICA) need to start a new campaign to distribute 2 million pro-ethanol booklets to 'educate' them more about the benefits of ethanol??
http://tinyurl.com/d5rp4y
Best source of Brazil ethanol info I've found is the annual USDA FAS report – http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200807/146295224.pdf
Actually the Wikipedia info on Brazil and ethanol is also not too bad. http://tinyurl.com/5rsxy5
If US could produce ethanol with a net energy comparable to Brazil, with an equivalent GHG footprint, on as little land, and as cheap, it would be game over. In that case we should embrace corn ethanol. But US ethanol interests have used a classic 'bait & switch' ploy to make us believe that US can be like Brazil. In reality, we will never come close to producing corn or cellulosic ethanol as efficiently as Brazil. Our corn ethanol has a lousy NEV, uses twice as much land, GHGs are way higher, and of course is much more expensive. Plus they actually have additional land they can bring into production – we've been using all of ours.
I don’t begrudge ethanol supporters their hope for a solution to our fuel issues.
What I do begrudge is:
1. Their breezy, studied, ignorance of the costs and negative impacts of their pet fuel.
2. Their perfect willingness to put a gun to everyone else’s head and force them to pay the costs and suffer the negative consequences required to get their pet fuel on the market.
Duracomm
I’m the only one who is espousing (in my own ignorant, breezy way, of course) a product that’s powering the equivalent of 20 Million American cars, as we write. 240 Million X 8% = 20 Million.
I, also, seem to be one of the few around here that understand we have a Billion Acres in the U.S. that are Suitable for Agriculture, and that we only row-crop 235 Million of those.
We took five million acres Out of Production This year.
Interestingly, Brazil took 5 Million Acres out of Soybean Production since 2003. And, no, they weren’t taken out of production to raise sugar cane. Sugar cane is grown several hundred miles South of the Cerrado. They were taken out because the Global Market is saturated.
They now have Over 150 Million acres lying fallow in the Cerrado, some of the most productive Soybean land in the world.
Anyhoo, Brazil sends quite a bit of ethanol up to the U.S. under the Caribbean Basin Agreement. There Is NO $0.51 tariff on this ethanol. Now, Here’s the interesting part. There was room for 500 Million gallons under the Caribbean Basin Initiative; but, they sent considerably less than that.
Why didn’t they meet their “quota?” I suspect that their cost of producing ethanol isn’t, really, all that far below ours. Their industry IS goddawful labor intensive, and the Government has cracked down on their use of “slave” labor. Also, even though they’re starting to ship some by pipeline, their isn’t much of a rail system in Brazil, and most everything has to go by truck (hence, the very large diesel numbers RR cites.)
Nope, my only “belief” is, that we might need something to replace a LOT of oil sooner, rather than later. Right now, ethanol is the only solution that’s not, LATER.
Thanks for this, Robert
I have recently concluded that most biofuel enthusiasts are unwitting victims of years of corporate propaganda. They would be aghast to think that they have been subtly manipulated by biofuel and agriculture corporations but that appears to be the case. The talking points just don’t stand up to close scrutiny.
Science has finally caught up with them but there is a lot of momentum built up.
Finding the wheat in the chaff is the hard part.
In studies such as This One from Iowa State it’s been calculated that, due to the competitive nature of the marketplace, gasoline prices were about $0.35/gal cheaper, last year, than they would have been if ethanol had not been available in the quantity that it was.
If accurate that would be a Savings of $40 Billion to the American consumer. Admittedly, you would have to subtract a decent chunk of that for decreased mileage; but even if you deducted $18 Billion (4.5 Billion gallons X $4.00) You would still have a net savings to the consumer of around $22 Billion. Bianchi at Merril Lynch said it was about double that.
The thing is, a whole lot of that money came dead out of the Oil Companies’ derrieres. Understandably, they were less than thrilled. And, they own the distribution system. Thus, the mandates. Trust me, folks, it “don’t get done” without’em. Thus, the blending credits. A little “makeup,” if you will.
It’ll be okay, chilluns. Your oil company stock will still be great investments. You just might not be able to retire quite as early as you’d hoped. 🙂
Missouri is one of only three states that require a 10-percent minimum ethanol blend (E-10) for retail gasoline sold within the state. The Missouri Corn Merchandising Council (MCMC) recently released a study purporting to demonstrate the positive economic benefits of the state’s ethanol mandate for Missouri consumers. The study claimed that Missourians will save more than $285 million through ethanol-induced fuel cost reductions in 2008 and nearly $2 billion in present value during the following decade. The MCMC study ignores important effects of the E-10 mandate, however, most notably the documented decrease in fuel efficiency of E-10 blended fuel and the taxpayer cost of ethanol subsidies. We find that accounting for these costs significantly impacts the MCMC savings projections and would result in a net loss to Missouri consumers of almost $1 billion during the next decade. If one were to consider the additional impact of the E-10 mandate on higher food prices and CO2 gas emissions, these costs would be even higher.
Rufus,
You keep saying we are taking land out of production.
You keep failing to provide any evidence that supports that.
The fact that you can’t produce any supporting evidence does not increase a persons confidence that it is true.
You have been making that statement, with no support or documentation since this post.
Anything But Oil
Still waiting for evidence, and the planting intention report you dredged up does not answer the question.
As before don’t count acreage diverted by crp.
Duracomm
Rufus:
If ethanol can stand on its own two feet, I would be all for it.
Actually, I wonder if there shouldn’t be a parallel system in the US of all-ethanol cars. The business of mixing ethanol with gasoline is expensive, and results in lower mpgs.
But, if we ever crack the code on making ethanol from biomass, it might make sense to have all ethanol cars. With ethanol, you can run at higher compression ratios.
There is a role for taxes in energy policy. For example, the price of a gallon of gasoline does not reflect environmental costs, nor the cost of an extensive military apparatus in the Mideast (Iraq is a trillion dollars and counting), or of the constant threat of an oil cutoff.
For those reasons, we would do well to tax gasoline heavily, as up to $4 a gallon, phased in at 25 cents per quarter for four years.
But, I might as well take a spit at the moon. My grandchildren will still be subsidizing ethanol 100 years from now, and we still will have troops in Korea and 11 aircraft carriers groups and HUD will still be trying to save cities. Government programs never die.
As ethanol is subsidized, we do not really know if it is EROEI positive. We could be burning almost as much fossil fuel making it as we save–RR has argued rather congently on this very point.
As for PHEVs working–both GM and Toyota, and several Chinese carmakers think they will work, and are building them.
Rufus said,
The thing is, a whole lot of that money came dead out of the Oil Companies’ derrieres.Actually it came out of the consumers pockets in the form of reduced fuel economy. It came out of the taxpayers in the form of massive subsidies.
It came out against lots of innocent bystanders in ways we are still figuring out including boat owners with damaged fuel systems
Amazing Ethanol Lawsuit Against Oil CompaniesBut out of the oil companies, not so much.
Duracomm
The DOE has used 1.5% as the loss of mileage with E10. I tend to use 2%, nowadays. I think the DOE might have underestimated the loss resulting from bad weather. My experience is that rainy weather whacks ethanol mileage pretty good.
So, let’s take a family that drives 400 miles/wk, and uses 20 gallons of gasoline. They, also, spend $100.00/wk at the grocery store. Let’s figure an “average” gasoline price of $3.30/gal.
According to DOE/Rufus they will use an extra 0.4 gallons of gasoline; but, according to Iowa State, and Merril Lynch they will only pay $3.00/gal. (okay, $2.95, but let’s keep it easy.)
Okay, w/o ethanol $66.00. That was easy. With 10% ethanol 20.4 X $3.00 = $61.20 Okay so far. 🙂
Now, the CBO said that ethanol has raised food bills by approx 15% of the 5.1% 2008 increase. In other words about 0.75%, or $0.75 on $100.00.
SO, to review the bidding: $66.00 – $61.40 = $4.60 Savings on gasoline, and $0.75 Loss on groceries = $4.85 Weekly Savings.
As for CO2 – Horsehocky. Ethanol is much lower (which, I, actually, consider a “Bug,” not a feature. – but, that’s a story for another time.)
Rufus,
Actually ethanol probably helps the oil companies bottom line.
They get to supply all the petroleum fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and other inputs to raise feedstock for the ethanol plants.
Then they get to sell a whole bunch of natural gas to the ethanol plants to distill the ethanol.
Duracomm
“we have a Billion Acres in the U.S. that are Suitable for Agriculture”
I like to think about numbers that people use. A billion acres is a lot. But, dividing by 640 gives us about 1.5 million square miles. The US (including Alaska’s 0.6 million sq mi) is about 3.5 million sq.mi.
Is 45% of the US suitable for agriculture? I guess that depends on what you mean.
The CIA world factbook says that 18% of the US land is arable (capable of producing crops; suitable for farming; suited to the plow and for tillage). But arable is not synonomus with agriculture, it does not include pasture.
Now I am sure that there are vast swaths of land that can be used (at least some of the year) to pasture goats, and which may therefor be deemed to be “Suitable for Agriculture”, but I am very skeptical that the amount of land available for “bio-fuels” exceeds the amount of arable land which is about 700,000 sq mi.
Here, Duracomm Global Land Use Changes This will give you something to chew on for awhile.
Oh, and btw, the CRP is being phased out. We’ve taken a couple of million acres OUT of it in the last couple of years.
Rufus you may understand this. I like camping and sailing. In the midwest, small ponds are made when over passes were created. Two hundred camping trailers camping to the sounds of semi trucks. Anyhow, I was out west and there was this beautiful little lake with only a fishing shack. Image running out of people before running out of lakes.
American farmers have run out of markets before running out land.
Kit, we raise 5 Times as much corn as we did in the 30’s – on 20% Less Land.
If you follow the information back in that lawsuit you will find that there were, exactly, TWO older makes/models of boats that had a fuel tank problem.
As for fiberglass, that fuel tank that stores the ethanol has a fiber-glass liner.
Fat Man, we used to raise the top five row crops on 400 million acres. Now, we rowcrop 235.
A lot of that “pastureland” is very lightly grazed. Very lightly. We could, probably, very easily use a couple of million acres of that for energy crops of one kind or other.
Plus, the “wood waste” from our forests could make a huge contribution (tens of billions of gallons, at the minimum.) Just the trees killed by the pine beetle would be a very large number.
Arable is one of those words with a couple of definitions it seems. I’ve always read it to be “suitable for agriculture.” Other sources seem to restrict it to “suitable for rowcropping.” Whatever definition you use, we’ve got a LOT of it. In the U.S., and the World.
Fat Man, raising livestock IS considered “Agriculture.”
Benny, in the short run you run into the problem of “Oil” owning the distribution system. They are, understandably, reluctant to promote a product that competes with theirs. In the last analysis: They own OIL Fields, not Corn Fields.
The technology for manipulating “compression”/displacement is being worked out as we speak. Saab was the first with their variable ratio turbocharger on the Saab 2.0L Biopower. When the sensor “smelled” oxygen it cranked up the revolutions, thus increasing the compression. GM’s been using “displacement on demand” now for a couple of years. Chryser is, also.
If you can manipulate compression, and displacement you’re home free. Look for some neat engines in late 2010, early 2011. VVT, Direct injection, variable turbos, and displacement on demand will turn 2.0 Liter engines into powerhouses.
Rufus said:
“…gasoline prices were about $0.35/gal cheaper, last year…”
That is not what the paper was trying to say. So, we can stop that internet urban legend right here.
I asked the authors for clarification on a few points some time ago because I suspected the media didn’t understand the paper any better than I did. I asked if it was saying that gas was 35 cents cheaper last year thanks to corn ethanol. The reply:
“No. For a specific year, we need to recalculate the effects.”
I was told that “…the average ethanol production level of 01/1995-03/2008, the wholesale gasoline prices is $0.14/gallon lower….”
He went on to explain that
“…These changes $0.29/$0.40 are for regional markets and based on sample average of ethanol production, crude oil prices…”
His English was quite poor but I think he was saying that the change of retail gasoline prices varies across refinery markets from $0.29-$0.40/gallon. He made it very clear that he was not saying that ethanol reduced the price of gas 29 to 40 cents per gallon last year as the press seems to think.
In a nutshell, supply and demand theory says that ethanol has reduced the cost of gas because it has increased the supply of liquid fuel available.
To me, this study (assuming it is correct) highlights why we should not be spending over 80 percent of our renewable energy budget trying to increase the supply of liquid fuel. We should instead be spending our money finding ways to use less liquid fuel.
If increasing our liquid fuel supply 4% chopped 14 cents off the average price of a gallon of gas 1/1995-3/2008, then reducing consumption 4% would do the same but you would add to that 14 cents the 4% you didn’t spend on gas in the first place, which would have resulted in a total savings of about 54 billion dollars in 2008 when gas was going for $3.60 per gallon.
Assuming we saved 14 cents per gallon in 2008 without reducing consumption 4% equates to about 20 billion dollars in savings, however, those savings were wiped out by the external costs of making ethanol.
To get that theoretical 14 cents per gallon average savings we had to build 214 ethanol refineries increase the cost of food, pay the oil companies 51 cents for every gallon of ethanol they blend, usurp grassland, jungle and conservation reserve carbon sinks, increase green house gas emissions, and exacerbate the Gulf of Mexico dead zone. This does not include future costs like making cars ethanol compatible and a strategic ethanol reserve to cushion impacts of bad crop years.
About 9.25 billion gallons of ethanol were blended in 2008. 0.51 cents x 9.25 billion = 4.7 billion dollars in subsidies.
140.5 billion gallons of gasoline consumed in 2008
9.25/140.5 = 6.6% average blend. If an 85% mixture drops mileage 27%, a 6.6 % blend will drop it 2%.
A 6.6 percent ethanol blend will result in a 2 percent drop in gas mileage. This caused Americans to buy an extra 2% of gas in 2008. Average price of gas in 2008= $3.30.
Extra money spent on gas = $3.3×140.5 billion x 0.02 =9.3 billion
The CBO just reported that ethanol will increase the cost of food assistance programs almost a billion dollars. Extrapolating that to the American public in general results in about $9 billion.
Assuming it will cost about $200 to make a car flex fuel and that 7.6 million cars are sold annually, it will cost $ 1.5 billion annually to exceed the 10% blending limit.
4.7+9.3+9+1.5 = $ 24.5 billion
Assuming it costs 500 million on average to build 200 ethanol refineries you are looking at $100 billion in capital costs and it keeps going from there.
When you compare the impacts of a 4% change in fuel use to the 50% reduction modern cars can accomplish today (Prius, Jetta, and Insight for example) it is pretty obvious why flex fuel cars fueled by corn ethanol are such a stupid idea for environmental and economical reasons.
Which begs the question, if reducing use of liquid fuels via efficiency gains (like higher gas mileage) is so much cheaper than increasing supply of liquid fuels with corn ethanol, why has our government decided to spend over 80% of our renewable energy funds on biofuels instead of on efficiency gains?
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img28.gif
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img19.gif
…also, Bianchi at Merril Lynch, which sold itself to Bank of America to avoid bankruptcy, claimed the savings was 15% in a single quote in one article. The problem is that he never came forth with the study. He appears to have pulled it out of his butt, launching yet another internet urban legend.
For Duracomm Corn Land Use, and Sustainability
No, NO, YOU are Misrepresenting. To wit”
Your Quote: level of 01/1995-03/2008, the wholesale gasoline prices is $0.14/gallon lowerMany of those years Gasoline was only about $1.00/gal.
I’m going to stop, now, and see if I can find the paper; but I read it once, and I came out with $0.29 to $0.40, depending on the region. That was quoted all over the news, and the internet, and the authors never refuted it.
See you in the morning.
btw, we didn’t build 214 ethanol refineries, and the cost of building an ethanol refinery is between $135 Million for a fifty million gpy facility, and $220 Million for a 100 Million gpy unit.
Well, THAT didn’t take long. It was right there in the Abstract. To Wit:
Using pooled regional time-series data and panel data estimation, we quantify the impact of
monthly ethanol production on monthly retail regular gasoline prices. This analysis suggests that
the growth in ethanol production has caused retail gasoline prices to be $0.29 to $0.40 per gallon
lower than would otherwise have been the case. The analysis shows that the negative impact of
ethanol on gasoline prices varies considerably across regions. The Midwest region has the
biggest impact, at $0.39/gallon, while the Rocky Mountain region had the smallest impact, at
$0.17/gallon. The results also indicate that ethanol production has significantly reduced the profit
margin of the oil refinery industry. The results are robust with respect to alternative model
specifications.He writes English, pretty clear.
Must have been a bad cell-phone connection.
1/1995-3/2008, then reducing consumption 4% You keep using these 1995 to 2008 numbers. That doesn’t make sense.
Obviously, the miniscule amount of ethanol we produced in the late nineties, early oughts would have very little effect on $1.00 gasoline. Focus.
The important numbers are 2008, and onwards. That’s where the game’s at.
My, you’re sure doing a lot of arm-waving, and shouting.The CBO just reported that ethanol will increase the cost of food assistance programs almost a billion dollars. Extrapolating that to the American public in general results in about $9 billion.We spend about $1.3 Trillion on Food. 9,000,000,000.00/1,300,000,000,000.00 = 0.0069 OR a skosche less than 7/10ths of 1%.
Or, $0.70 on the $100.00 Like I said. Oops, actuall, a touch less than my seventy five cents on the hundred dollar bill.
usurp grassland, jungle and conservation reserve carbon sinks, increase green house gas emissionsThis is just silly. I’ve already shown where we’re reducing farmland, not increasing it. See my link on sustainability above.
Also, Brazil has lowered their rate of deforestation 60% in the last decade, and have reduced their soybean planting by Five Million Acres (from 58 Million acres in 2003 to 53 Million Acres in 2008.)
In case you don’t understand the “theory,” corn ethanol was supposed to usurp soybean land, thus leading to more planting of soybeans in the Cerrado of Brazil, which would cause the Brazilians to have to cut down the Rain Forest to obtain land. Never mind that there are 150 Million Acres lying Fallow in the Cerrado. And, that the world is “glutted” with soybeans.
Other things Searchinger didn’t take into consideration was the amount of corn, AND Soybean Meal supplanted by DDGS, Low-till/no till cultivation. The everincreasing efficiency of corn cultivation, and seeds bringing steady increases in yields, and the fact that grassland has to be in “Native” grasses for many decades before planting a crop leaves much of a “Carbon Debt.”
The Study was a joke. The Journal Science is, rapidly, becoming a Joke.
I see things a little different than Russ F who wrote,
“To me, this study (assuming it is correct) highlights why we should not be spending over 80 percent of our renewable energy budget trying to increase the supply of liquid fuel.”
Thanks to Bush energy policy we are now talking about results, not theory. Wind and solar have been growing as fast as our ability to build them. Ethanol is not taking away from making electricity with renewable energy. Once again I need to point out that ethanol is a liquid transportation fuel and electricity production serves a different market.
Second there is no reason both ethanol wind can not be done at the same time. Iowa is doing both while California is not doing very much of anything except argue in Sacramento.
“we had to build 214 ethanol refineries”
Wow that is great. I am impressed. The only thing that compares for reducing oil use is the 104 nukes power plants that replaced making electricity with oil. Many argued how expensive nukes were but now the cheapest source of electricity is a paid off nuke.
So what will be the cost of ethanol when all those ethanol plants are paid off and how much tax revenue will they generate?
“When you compare the impacts of a 4% change in fuel use to the 50% reduction modern cars ..”
Again, I not sure why we can do both. I own two POV that do not use much gas. The gas has 10% ethanol. We do not put a lot of miles on the POV either. Therefore, I do not even worry about the price at the pump.
I will say it again. I have watched corn ethanol and it is hard to find anything to not to like. They are making ethanol at a reasonable cost and have increased production to the limits of our current infrastructure to use it.
I often revisit the US and Brazilian cases from time to time, using them for comparison to Australia where I am – and which has a limited history of having energy independence thrust upon it, during the Second World War (when wood or charcoal burning gasifiers were widely used). I generally come up with the answer that biofuels would be technically feasible but aren’t currently worth it. In other words, the answer is neither “yes” nor “no”, but “not yet”.
For what it’s worth, since we have plentiful coal and a moderate amount of infrastructure to distribute LPG and cars to use it, the option that seems to come closest to practicality isn’t making ethanol from sugar cane but using other energy sources to decarboxylate butyric acid from cassava to get biopropane. That would be using biomass for feedstock while providing additional fossil fuel energy inputs. Plus, of course, farm and local processing equipment could be run off gasifiers burning crop waste, if the ash could be recycled through something that fixed nitrogen to make up losses.
If you don’t care for numbers, try this parable:
The Parable of the broken window:“…The parable describes a shopkeeper whose window is broken by a little boy. Everyone sympathizes with the man whose window was broken, but pretty soon they start to suggest that the broken window makes work for the glazier, who will then buy bread, benefiting the baker, who will then buy shoes, benefiting the cobbler, etc. Finally, the onlookers conclude that the little boy was not guilty of vandalism; instead he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town.
The fallacy of the onlookers’ argument is that they considered only the benefits of purchasing a new window, but they ignored the cost to the shopkeeper. As the shopkeeper was forced to spend his money on a new window, he could not spend it on something else…”
Russ, I heard a similar story involving (I believe) Tom Vilsack. When he was extolling the benefits of mandated ethanol regarding job creation, someone from Silicon Valley asked if he would support a mandate that everyone buy a computer. After all, it would create a lot of jobs in Silicon Valley, and wouldn’t that be a great thing?
But in this case, people can easily see that if they shell out a few hundred dollars for a new computer, they have a few hundred dollars less to spend on other things. Hence, the job creation is illusory. When we spend that few hundred dollars over time on a few gallons of ethanol each week, the impact is less obvious. But it still means less money to spend on other things – which people are also employed to make.
RR
Well, since I’m winning the numbers war, I think I’ll stay with numbers.
The number that keeps jumping out at me is 10,000,000,000. That’s the number of gallons of gasoline that won’t get made from oil from our marginal supplier.
Our, “Marginal” supplier, of course, is the middle east.
So, we keep somewhere between $250 Billion, and $750 Billion/yr in the U.S. instead of sending it to people that want to kill us.
Rufus said,
“…He writes English, pretty clear….”
Our exchange was an email, and no, he does not write in English very clearly. Here is the exact exchange, his words in italics:
Question: I was wondering if you could explain to me the results of your paper:
“Estimation results show that over the period 1995 to 2007, ethanol production had a significant negative effect of $0.29 to $0.40 per gallon on retail gasoline prices.”
In the paper, we conclude that evaluate at the average ethanol production level of 01/1995-03/2008, the wholesale gasoline prices is $0.14/gallon lower. The change of retail gasoline prices varies across refinery markets from $0.29-$0.40/gallon.The biofuel industry kept applying this figure to 2008 gas prices. It would have been very clear had he said that the price of gasoline in “2008” was reduced $0.29 to $0.40 per gallon, but he never said that in the paper or in the email. What year exactly was it reduced by this much and will it reduce it that much in 2009, and on and on? I could not make sense of it any better than you can, although you seem to think you can, which is why I asked him for clarification in an email. Given our present economic situation and the economist’s failure to predict or prevent it, it is doubtful to me that what they do can be called science. I’ll stick with engineering. It is very good at prediction, which is all we want out of science.
Let’s face it, whether the savings are $2.00/wk, or $6.00/wk is a pretty unexciting distinction to the average Joe. He just wants to be able to afford to fill up his gas tank and go to work.
The only reason I bring it up is to combat the hysteria that “ethanol is a Disaster” for the consumer. It’s, actually, about a “break-even, to slightly positive” event.
In the future it could be quite a bit more important.
I, really, think the effects on “trade balance,” and strength of the Dollar will be more important.
Rufus,
“…Benny, we don’t know how batteries are going to work out….”
They are already working out. Some Prius cabs have hit a quarter of a million miles on original equipment. You will soon have your choice of the Fusion, Civic, Insight, and two models of Prius and on and on with more on the way every year. They all double average gas mileage thanks to their batteries. Battery factories are springing up faster than ethanol factories.
“…We’re getting a LOT of research done. And, it’s really not costing us all that much to do it….”
It is costing us a fortune and cellulosic is still just five years away from viability.
“…I mean, right now, with $2.00 gas it’s pretty unexciting; but, what if gasoline goes back to $4.25, or higher, and we don’t have a 30 year flood to spike the price of corn to $8.00/bu?…”
Driving a car that gets 50 mpg takes some of the sting out of paying $4.25 for your liquid fuel. Good point about the wild swings weather will bring to biofuel prices. Imagine having the equivalent of a random Opec oil embargo every few years caused by something we can’t control or predict (weather).
Russ, to be more specific, I’m thinking about “supply of lithium,” etc. I know hybrids/etc “work.” It’s “how well will the general public adapt to them,” and, “what will they really cost when they ramp up to full production, and have to make a profit.”
Understand, I’m NOT against Batteries. I think there’s a good chance that if I lived in L.A. I’d own one. But, I’m also sure we’ll need Liquid Fuels, as well.
Remember, a BIG part of my argument is that ethanol mixes well with gasoline. Brazil has shown us that “older” cars can work very well on a 26% Ethanol/gasoline blend. This could be Very important in the years before we get “switched over” to the new cars. Also, almost all people are going to want a “back-up” to their batteries. There’s no way most of us will buy a car that’s as range-limited as even the Best EV.
At least, I don’t think we will.
Look, if this oil situation deteriorates to the point that a lot of very smart people think it will we better have several arrows in the quiver. It COULD get really uly, really fast.
I want the “back-up.”
Most places right now ethanol is trading at a premium to gasoline. Because of the mandates, ethanol is making gasoline more expensive at the pump.
Rufus, if you think 10 billion gallons of ethanol means 10 billion gallons of gasoline won’t get made, you really have no understanding of the issues of energy density and energy return. Right off the top, ethanol has less energy per gallon, so it takes more than a gallon of ethanol to replace a gallon of gasoline. Second, it takes gasoline, diesel, and natural gas to make ethanol. This is the issue so many of us have with ethanol. It is a shell game. You are just moving fuels around without actually creating anything. It is a mirage.
I don’t think the next “flood” will affect prices nearly as much as the flood of 2008 did. A whole lot of people that didn’t understand Ag (including some biggies in the ethanol business) got involved and lost their shirts.
I warned at several sites not to get caught up in the hype. History is replete with instances of BIG yields after floods. The Next time people will remember.
Good point about efficient vehicles “taking the sting” out of high gasoline prices, but, it takes 17 years to “turn over” the fleet. Also, it’s the less wealthy that are stuck with the older, less efficient cars.
And, no, cellulosic research is NOT costing us a fortune. Actually, the government is putting very little into it. Most all of it is coming from private sources.
And, btw, the cost of production has to be getting down into the $2.50 range. All of the pilot plants are gearing up to go “commercial,” (I guess you could call KL Energy, “commercial,” now, in that they’re producing 1.5 Million Barrels/day) which means they have to be making a little money; and to be making a “little money” they would have to be coming in in the $2.50 range.
Besides, the “class act” out there is Jeff Broin of Poet, and he says they can make ethanol from corn cobs for $1.00 over the price of corn, and that would be right in the $2.50 range. He, also, says that they will have it down to $0.50 over the cost of corn ethanol ($2.00) by 2011.
“…I’m the only one who is espousing (in my own ignorant, breezy way, of course) a product that’s powering the equivalent of 20 Million American cars, as we write. 240 Million X 8% = 20 Million….”
I think your 8% number is off by about 50%. When accounting for lower mileage we only replaced about 4% of our gasoline. Let me know if you want a copy of the spreadsheet. That would make your count about 10 million cars. If you include the coal, natural gas, diesel, and gasoline burned to get that 4%, assuming an EROEI of 1.2, you would get the energy equivalent of a couple of million cars (not liquid fuels, energy total).
Look at the price paid by the environment and taxpayers to get the energy reduction equivalent of that many cars. We don’t need corn ethanol. The energy savings of hybrid cars will eclipse that of corn ethanol any day now, assuming they haven’t already. Prius sales alone are heading for the 3 quarter million mark in the U.S., which because they double average mileage is equivalent to 1.5 million regular cars. The U.S. population was growing by about 4 million people per year according to the last census.
No, anonymous, the wholesale price of ethanol is about $1.58/gal. Deduct the tax credit, and you’re looking at $1.12/gal. Add in higher shipping costs, say $0.15/gal and you’re at $1.27/gal + taxes to the blender.
The wholesale price of gasoline, as I type, is $1.40.
If a local station chooses to price their E85 at a premium to gasoline they’re just taking advantage of a local market condition.
See my above post. I allowed for a 20% (2% for E10) reduction in gas mileage.
What you need to keep in mind is that it also takes nat gas, diesel, etc to get oil to the refinery and get it refined into gasoline. You lose about 20%.
First, the credit is still a price that we are all still paying for the ethanol, so it isn’t really rational to deduct this to compare to gasoline. But even if it was rational, to replace a gallon gasoline takes a gallon and a half of ethanol because it only has 2/3rds the energ content. So if gasoline is at $1.40, wholesale ethanol would need to be at $0.94 before it was on par with gasoline. The price you have quoted of $1.27 is equal to gasoline at $1.90.
Russ, you’re right, the 8% is a skosche high. I’m looking at current production, and figuring a little from Brazil and coming up with 10.5/140 = .075 Deduct 20% and it’s looking like 6%.
Okay, 14,400,000 cars, then. Still way more than anything else.
BTW, we don’t know how well hybrids will sell when the Subsidies (“Tax Rebates”) are taken off. Also, to consider, only 20% of hybrid owners buy another hybrid the next time around. That is a low number. Just something to consider.
Anonymous, you are correct that the tax credit is still a cost to us all (insofar as, a non-tax on one can be a “cost” to another,) BUT you said, “price at the pump.”
It’s NOT just btus. You’re NOT “boiling water.” You’re operating an internal combustion engine. To do that you must consider OCTANE along with btus. Ethanol has a Much Higher Octane Rating than Gasloline. That means it can utilize its btus much more efficiently.
In my car I probably give up about 1.5% on E10. That is also DOE’s figure. On E6.6 I’m probably looking at around 1%. I do use the 2.0% number for E10 because I think the DOE might not have studied the difference cold, rainy weather can make.
But, you most assuredly do NOT need 1.5 gallons of ethanol to replace 1 gallon of gasoline.
Octane RatingsYou’ll notice that ethanol is 116, and gasoline w/o 10% ethanol is about 84.
Rufus,
“…We took five million acres Out of Production This year….”
Your attempts to convince us that biofuels are actually reducing the amount of land put under the plow are not working.
Extrapolating the above, by putting all of our corn crop into our gas tanks…let me see.. that would take an additional fifteen million acres out of production. Stellar!
“…Interestingly, Brazil took 5 Million Acres out of Soybean Production since 2003….”
You know what else is interesting? According to the following sources:
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1220-amazon.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/amazon-soy-moratorium-holds
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/su-bbc021309.php
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/newsblog/2009/02/fill-er-up-with-rainforest.html
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1008-brazil.html
“…It’s not known how much of new farmland is being used for biofuels, but Gibbs estimates it could be anywhere from a third to two-thirds. Unless biofuels are planted in pastures or degraded lands, she said, “‘we’re going to be burning rainforest in our gas tanks…'”
Growing crops on degraded land will be expensive. It’s a hard sell to get farmers to try to grow crops on bad land. Several studies have also found that letting that land grow back into forest would do more to reduce global warming than growing biofuels there for decades to several centuries depending on biofuel and type of habitat.
“… However, in some cases, allowing the degraded land to be returned to its natural, forested state might be the wisest use of the land, absorbing more carbon and providing ecological services such as flood mitigation, rainwater recycling and habitat for endangered species…”
Look at the destruction of the Amazon as a fire. Pouring biofuel on that fire is not going to help and speaking of fires:
“…The area of rainforest in the process of being deforested — razed but not yet cleared — surged in the Brazilian Amazon during 2008…”
“…24,932 square kilometers of Amazon forest was damaged between August 2007 and July 2008, an increase of 10,017 square kilometers — 67 percent — over the prior year. The figure is in addition to the 11,968 square kilometers of forest that were completely cleared, indicating that at least 36,900 square kilometers of forest were damaged or destroyed during the year….”
“…The surge in activity is attributed to the sharp rise in commodity prices over the past two years. While grain and meat prices have plunged since March, higher prices have provided an impetus for converting land for agriculture and pasture. Accordingly, the burning season of 2007 (July-September) saw record numbers of fires in some parts of the Amazon as farmers, speculators, and ranchers set vast areas ablaze to prepare for the 2008 growing season…”
“…U.S. consumption of corn to supply domestic ethanol production created a global corn frenzy which drove up prices and spurred expansion of croplands around the planet. Two examples are Brazil and Laos. Brazil increased production of soy to essentially make up for soy acreage lost to corn in America. In Laos (pictured), returns from corn were so high that Vietnamese traders pressured national park officials to open up protected areas in parts of the country to corn fields. They refused….”
“…falling grain prices early in the year coincided with a sharp slowing in deforestation. As food and fuel prices peaked through late 2007 and early 2008, it appeared that Amazon deforestation would climb to levels not seen since 2005 — more than 15,000 square kilometers were expected to be lost. The sudden downturn changed all that. When the final numbers came in for 2008, they showed that deforestation only increased a modest 3.8% to 11,968 square kilometers….”
Rufus,
“…I suspect that their cost of producing ethanol isn’t, really, all that far below ours. Their industry IS goddawful labor intensive…”
They are rapidly mechanizing. Corn ethanol does not stand a snowball’s chance in hell against it in the long run:
Net energy yield“…Nope, my only “belief” is, that we might need something to replace a LOT of oil sooner, rather than later. Right now, ethanol is the only solution that’s not, LATER…”
I don’t see the rush. This article in the WSJ suggests that we may have hit peak gasoline consumption.
Right or wrong, we are definitely using less. The money spent on corn ethanol may one day be viewed as one of the biggest spending boondoggles in history.
Rufus,
“…Now, the CBO said that ethanol has raised food bills by approx 15% of the 5.1% 2008 increase…”
The Congressional Budget Office reported that “…food stamps and child nutrition programs are expected to cost up to $900 million more this year because of increased ethanol use.”If you assume roughly 28 million people are using food stamps and that roughly 17 million children receive lunch assistance at school 9 months out of the year, you can extrapolate that $900 million number to the American populace, which is roughly 306 million. Doing so, I find that Americans are still paying roughly 8 billion dollars in extra food costs from corn ethanol. It is more complex than that I’m sure. You have to assume for example, that your average overweight American does not eat more than school children and those on food stamps etc.
Last year the USDA held a press conference to assure Americans that corn ethanol was not playing the biggest role in their skyrocketing food prices. Here are some quotes from that press conference:
“One of USDA’s missions is to make sure the American people have access to safe, abundant and affordable fuel supplies.”Exactly when did the Department of Agriculture become responsible for supplying Americans with abundant and affordable fuel?
According to this article
“11.9 million people went hungry in the United States at some point last year. That included nearly 700,000 children, up more than 50 percent from the year before.”A World Bank study said that 75% of the global increase came from biofuels.
The following is from an expert on subsidies:
“According to the USDA, total household food expenditure in 2007 was $1.14 trillion dollars. So 0.5% to 0.8% added to that number is $5.7 billion to $9.1 billion — not an insignificant amount of money. Note, too, the weighting: the cost of food purchased away from home (e.g., in restaurants and cafeterias) accounts for 49% of household expenditure on food. The price of a restaurant meal is influenced more by other costs than the costs of the ingredients that go into the meal. So it is not surprising that even when the price of basic food commodities, like grains and oilseeds, rise substantially, the CPI for food budges only a little.”
Rufus,
“…Oh, and btw, the CRP is being phased out. We’ve taken a couple of million acres OUT of it in the last couple of years….”
Which contradicts your contention that biofuels are reducing land use… and is counter to your government’s stated desire to reduce greenhouse gases:
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/08-0645.1“….Our analysis suggests that maintaining land in set-aside programs and allocating more agricultural lands to them would have a greater net GHG savings than having the same plots under corn ethanol production for at least four decades….”
Rufus,
“… The Journal Science is, rapidly, becoming a Joke…”
I’ll cancel my subscription.
Why would anyone stick with science when there is so much unsubstantiated innuendo, Renewable Fuels Association, Corn Growers Association, venture capitalist talking points, and assorted other Internet urban legends to pick and choose from to support one’s arguments?
Rufus, you bring a lot of good info to the table that is worth discussing, but you truly go off the rails with your statement “But, you most assuredly do NOT need 1.5 gallons of ethanol to replace 1 gallon of gasoline.” DoE is one of the biggest ethanol cheerleaders, but their current research confirms again and again (quoting from Sept 2008 DoE slides) that: “Fuel economy decreased on volumetric basis for E10, E15, E20, and E30 – closely tracks fuel energy content” And if there isn’t a mileage penalty, why does huge ethanol cheerleader NEVC use an example of it taking E85 1.4 gallons to go as far as gasoline http://www.e85fuel.com/legislation/index.php – that is from a document advocating lower fuel taxes for ethanol because of the mileage penalty! Their point being that motor fuel taxes are supposed to be used for road construction, and since you get less mileage from ethanol you should pay a lower tax that reflects the actual miles traveled. If you can’t accept the basic science of BTUs and today’s internal combustion engines, it’s hard to take many of your other positions very seriously.
Russ, This:
Brazil increased production of soy to essentially make up for soy acreage lost to corn in America..
simply is not true. In 2003 Brazil had 58 million acres under Soybean production. In 2008 the number was 53 Million acres.The fact is: only a few years ago we were rowcropping about 250 Million Acres. Today, we’re rowcropping 235 Million acres. I’m not saying it’s “because of” ethanol production, but that it’s “in spite of” ethanol production.
Russ, there are 150 Acres of very good land lying Fallow in the Cerrado. Why would anyone cut down trees in the rainforest to get land for soybeans when all they have to do is plant the land that’s lying fallow?
The fact is those rainforest hardwoods are incredibly valuable. They cut down the trees for the logs. After the trees are cut down, and the brush burned, they turn a few cattle in on it so that they can claim squatter’s rights. Very little of that land is ever farmed. It’s just not as fertile as other land that’s available.
Blogger rufus said… “Well, since I’m winning the numbers war, I think I’ll stay with numbers.”
No rufus, I don’t think so. You lost your credibility with me at the first turn. And I have better things to do, than poke holes in your arguments.
Don’t confuse silence with agreement.
Russ, first let me say, “I think the whole GHG thing is absolutely the most nonsensical thing I’ve seen come down the pike in my 62 years.” Heck, I want More CO2, not less.
As for NEVC’s “rent-seeking” behavior, I despise ALL political organizations, RFA, NEVC included.
I’ll tell you that from my personal experience, and that of interested parties I’ve been in contact with the “average” car will give up about 22% (but, it can vary greatly, depending on weather, type of engine, driving styles, etc.)
RR will tell you, himself, that a small high-compression engine running ethanol can deliver the same hp/mileage profile as a larger, lower-compression engine using gasoline. These engines are on the way. Look for the Chevy Cruse in 2010.
There was an article just a couple of days, ago, about a rally car with a 2.0 liter duratec that was delivering 550 hp on e85. Such stories are becoming more common. That’s 275 hp/liter.
If I’m not mistaken the “Indy” cars get a bit better “gas” mileage/speed ratio on ethanol than they did on gasoline.
Rufus,
“…We spend about $1.3 Trillion on Food. 9,000,000,000.00/1,300,000,000,000.00 = 0.0069 OR a skosche less than 7/10ths of 1%….”
Any of us can make a big number look small by dividing it with an even bigger number. Let’s divide the hypothetical $40 billion in savings from corn ethanol by our population and the number of days in a year. Corn ethanol saved each of us 35 cents a day (it actually didn’t, when you sum up what it cost to produce).
A significant proportion of that 1.3 trillion is restaurant meals of which very little involves the cost of the actual foodstuff.
Let’s apply the common sense test. If turning a quarter of our corn into fuel only impacts food spending 0.7 percent, turning all of it into fuel would only impact it 2.8 %. What are we so worried about? We may as well turn all of our corn into fuel! Hell, why stop with corn, let’s turn all of our food into fuel ; )
Oh, Oxymaven, pay close attention when you see statements like “closely tracked fuel energy content.” Every time I’ve seen that wording it had to do with a test at “Closed Loop.” Very few people drive more than .001 of the time in “Closed Loop.” If you do you’re going to be getting horrendous gas mileage irregardless of what’s in the tank. 🙂
Russ, we used, after accounting for distillers grains, something like 1/2 of 1% of the world’s grain acreage for ethanol last year. see my link above.That’s Really insignificant when you take into consideration the fact that we could easily Double the amount of land under cultivation, globally.
Rufus,
“…BTW, we don’t know how well hybrids will sell when the Subsidies (“Tax Rebates”) are taken off. Also, to consider, only 20% of hybrid owners buy another hybrid the next time around. That is a low number. Just something to consider….”
The tax rebates for hybrids are an attempt to get people to buy the American versions. They are another example of government bumbling and are unnecessary.
If Americans don’t share your concern about oil imports enough to bother buying high mileage cars, let them reap what they sow. This summer they will have a large variety to pick from, including a low cost mid size hatchback in the Insight. It they insist on driving poseur pickups and SUVs so be it. At least they get a choice. That’s not the case with corn ethanol. It’s being forced down our throats after already having subsidized its production.
Rufus,
“…Brazil had 58 million acres under Soybean production. In 2008 the number was 53 Million acres..”
You should have read the rest of that post. I’ll repeat it for you:
Look at the destruction of the Amazon as a fire. Pouring biofuel on that fire is not going to help and speaking of fires:
“…The area of rainforest in the process of being deforested — razed but not yet cleared — surged in the Brazilian Amazon during 2008…”
“…24,932 square kilometers of Amazon forest was damaged between August 2007 and July 2008, an increase of 10,017 square kilometers — 67 percent — over the prior year. The figure is in addition to the 11,968 square kilometers of forest that were completely cleared, indicating that at least 36,900 square kilometers of forest were damaged or destroyed during the year….”
“…The surge in activity is attributed to the sharp rise in commodity prices over the past two years. While grain and meat prices have plunged since March, higher prices have provided an impetus for converting land for agriculture and pasture. Accordingly, the burning season of 2007 (July-September) saw record numbers of fires in some parts of the Amazon as farmers, speculators, and ranchers set vast areas ablaze to prepare for the 2008 growing season…”
“…falling grain prices early in the year coincided with a sharp slowing in deforestation. As food and fuel prices peaked through late 2007 and early 2008, it appeared that Amazon deforestation would climb to levels not seen since 2005 — more than 15,000 square kilometers were expected to be lost. The sudden downturn changed all that. When the final numbers came in for 2008, they showed that deforestation only increased a modest 3.8% to 11,968 square kilometers….”
.88 percent of deforested Amazon acres since 2006 was due to soybean farming. 32 percent was attributed to cattle grazing. Land use change theory is environmentalism gone bat-nuts.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE53D65C20090414?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&sp=true
Rufus,
“…Russ, first let me say, “I think the whole GHG thing is absolutely the most nonsensical thing I’ve seen come down the pike in my 62 years.” Heck, I want More CO2, not less….”
If your entire worldview boils down to providing welfare for the American farm industry and good old fashioned patriotism with a little Middle Eastern xenophobia thrown in for good measure then we don’t need to debate any further.
I am concerned about the world in general, not just about the income of American farmers. We are living witnesses to the sixth extinction event. Our biofuel policies have hurt millions of impoverished children around the globe. There is fear that the Amazon has become a net carbon emitter because it is drying out. The Greek islands were once lush spruce forests. They are now desiccated rocks thanks to unsustainable logging and goats–ditto for Madagascar and many other places as well, like the once Fertile Crescent.
It is scary for those of us with young children, which may explain why some of us choose to wear blinders.
You fall somewhere between guy #1 and guy # 2 on my Internet Baboon (guys like us who debate on the Internet) list.
On the topic of high compression engines:
The "advantage" of ethanol is the ability to get more power with a higher compression ratio, but because ethanol still has less energy per gallon than gas you still get less mileage (efficiency):
Source: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/07/detroit-auto-show-saab-biopower-concept/
"… It runs on 100 percent ethanol [the Saab high-compression Biopower engine], and because of that it gets more power than its gasoline powered equivalent. However, the trade off, of course, is that because it uses ethanol only, the engine alone provides less fuel efficiency…."
About 12% less mileage in this case, which is better than the more typical 30% less mileage. So they have an engine that gets more power but worse gas mileage.
In theory, if you build an engine capable of jamming enough ethanol and oxygen into a chamber (high compression) you can get the same mileage as gas. Nobody has done that yet and doing so would force you to use only ethanol because other fuels would pre-ignite.
The Indy 500 has not used gasoline for decades.
Three big names in the ethanol industry drove the fuel switch from methanol. Tom Slunecka, executive director of the Ethanol Promotion and Information Council representing those ethanol interests said:
"…We could have put our name on the side of a car to promote ethanol, but instead we did it the hard way, so we arranged this fuel switch…."
The switch actually puts Indy drivers at risk. The decision to use methanol was made after the 1964 disaster that burned two racers alive:
"…Many of those fans, who were seated near the northwest turn, vowed never to return to the track after seeing Sachs burned alive and MacDonald fatally injured…."
Source: http://www2.indystar.com/cgi-bin/indy500/index.php?action=show_race&id=48
"…If an engine fire develops in a methanol-fueled Indy race car, the pit crew simply pours water on the fire to put it out. Normally, the car is able to get back in the race in a matter of seconds…."
Source: http://www.methanol.org/altfuel/press/pr970521.html
For safety reasons,
"…Pure methanol is required by rule to be used in Champcars, USAC sprint cars (as well as midgets, modifieds, etc.), and other dirt track series such as World of Outlaws, and Motorcycle Speedway …"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol
"…Ethanol presents firefighters with several unique challenges. For instance, ethanol fires cannot be put out with water; instead, they must be smothered with the careful application of alcohol-resistant foams…"
Source: http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/public-safety-and-transporting-ethanol
"… Lab tests show ethanol diluted to 50 percent still burns steadily. Results do not support fighting a polar solvent tank fire by flooding it with water…."
Source: http://www.fireworld.com/ifw_articles/e95_08_07.php
Russ, the fact remains: Brazil has SCADS of fertile land, lying fallow (150 Million acres in the Cerrado, alone,) and they’re decreasing, Not increasing their cultivation of Soybeans.
google Hardwood trees/Brazilian Rain Forest. It’s Amazing. There can be as many as 130 IIRC Different species of Hardwood on one acre. They are EXTREMELY valuable.
They cut down the Trees for the LUMBER.
Look, I’ll compromise, for my next car I’ll buy a Hybrid with a back-up flexfuel engine. Okay? 🙂
We are living witnesses to the sixth extinction event. Our biofuel policies have hurt millions of impoverished children around the globe.
There is, absolutely, not one Shred of emperical proof for either of those statements. If you can find any I’ll stop Right Now.
I put up number, and you put up “fears” (that the Amazon may be becoming a net carbon emitter – despite the fact that for every acre cut down 50 are growing back,) But, “I” am the Baboon.Don’t you read, ANYTHING? I said, you have to manipulate the Compression, AND the Displacement.The Biopower just manipulates the Compression. The engines coming down the pike will lower compression, and increase displacement when running gasoline, and reverse the scheme on ethanol.
We’ve had E85 pumps for about 30 years. To my knowledge, there’s never been a fire at an e85 pump.
Haven’t heard of any in Brazil, either.
And, it’s grossly unfair to assume that just because I don’t believe clouds are a Positive feedback I want the world’s children to suffer.
The fact is I just don’t believe CO2 can do what you think it can do. On the other hand, I KNOW that people die from lack of food, and cold weather (and, that the two go together quite often.)
As for the fertile crescent: The climate changed. It was crappy, then it got good, then it got crappy again. Must’ve been the SUVs.
“Don’t confuse silence with agreement.”
rufus, this old engineer thinks you are providing a logical and technically correct argument on ethanal.
I am sure some of the young folks can not understand why some of us are not too worried about AGW. The logical reason is of course geology. So rufus how many times have you heard the world is coming to an end. First, rufus and I were the last generation of human. Radiation was going to prevent us from having children. Then there was the nest ice again. Do not forget the population bomb.
RR has warned me about run on sentences, so a new paragraph is order to list all fears that folks have who can not raise children to take care of themselves. Next we have DDT, PCB, and mercury. However, it is hard to get an old sailer to not take asbestos seriously. Great fire retardant, maybe banning it was an over reaction. OMG there is a hole in the ozone and nuclear winter.
I do not rufus, gripping about how terrible the world is kind of fell on deaf years with WWII and Korea vets. Then there were the real scares like polio. It is really hard to take AGW seriously especially when you heard all that stuff before but human have demonstrated the ability to adapt.
Yeah, WWII, and Korea were brutal slogs, Kit. They turned out some “tough cookies.” Those/youse guys slapped the world into shape.
Vietnam was kind of good training for the 21st Century. It imbued us all with a good healthy dose of skepticism. Any GI/Marine there that didn’ know we were having our leg peed on while being serenaded with paeons to the warmness of the rain hadn’t got off the tarmac, yet.
Governments will “kill” you. Mine did its dead-level best to get me knocked off back in 67′. Never looked at politicians, or organizations the same after that. Other than the “Crotch,” of course.
Anyhoo, no, I don’t believe in “Catastrophic” Global Warming. But, I DO believe in biofuels.
I’m a “skunk” at every garden party I go to.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation has flipped, and it just looks to me like 1998 is going to be the “high” for this cycle; and, since we’re on the downslope of the Interglacial, I can’t help but worry that the mob is worried about the ambush coming from the wrong direction.
It seems to me that the big problem with AGW is it depends on “positive” feedback from water vapor (even the IPCC says CO2 can only contribute 1.2 C warming per doubling,) and the area with the most water vapor (the tropics) has a pretty livable, stable climate.
Basically, I just never have trusted Crowds. Especially when they’re being stampeded by their betters (Politicians, and ambitious scientists.)
But, That’s just me. Let’s have a beer.
rufus writes
“BTW, we don’t know how well hybrids will sell when the Subsidies (“Tax Rebates”) are taken off“
Tax credits on Toyota hybrids ended Oct 1, 2007, Honda hybrids Jan 1, 2009, Ford hybrids tax credits are already starting to phase out.
Even though the tax rebates on Toyota hybrids ended a year and a half ago, Toyota Prius is still the 16th most sold vehicle in the US, even in the first quarter 2009 when gasoline prices have dropped.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2009/03/04/452436.html
I don’t think the continuing loss of the tax credit is going to have a huge impact.
Rufus,
“Internet Baboons” is just the tongue-in-cheek title of an article I posted about guys (like us) who debate on the internet. I didn’t just call you a baboon. I apologize if you took it that way.
“…We’ve had E85 pumps for about 30 years. To my knowledge, there’s never been a fire at an e85 pump….”
There was an ethanol fire a few days ago in Florida. The stuff burns, that’s for sure:
“…The situation was deemed too dangerous for firefighters to approach the burning tank this morning, so they were allowing the fire to burn itself out…”
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/apr/24/241219/bartow-complex-evacuated-after-ethanol-explosion/news-metro/
Clee, I imagine hybrids are in about the same boat as ethanol. At $2.00/gal, not too exciting; at $4.00/gal you won’t be able to make’m fast enough.
Russ, I’ve been called worse (by folks closer to me than you are:) Apology accepted.
I never thought about how difficult it would be to put out with water. That’s interesting.
As a Brazilian i really think you amaericans should foget ethanol, just keep burning oil, sending tons of cash to chaves, the arabs and compnany, and leave us driving our clean cheap, vanilla smelling flex fuel cars, thank you very much !!!
Hi Robert,
A problem at the crux of the matter, and I mean THE crux of the matter, is the assumption that sugarcane ethanol won’t work in the US because the US can’t grow sugarcane on a large scale.
True. But how about growing sugarcane and producing ethanol in Brazil, and then shipping it to the US? What would be the energy calculations for that? Why doesn’t that idea come up more often? Why does the US have to get all its energy from sources on US soil? Does the US plan to get all its food and minerals stateside, too?
What usually comes up at this point in the discussion is the imminent deforestation of the Amazon forest, the return of widespread slavery, infrastructure problems etc. etc.
Well, here we have, finally, a problem that can actually be solved by throwing money at it. Brazil has a single language, and no ethnic, religious, or border problems. People who have done business in developing countries in Asia and Africa can appreciate that.
Without too much trouble, ethanol could be piped to the US (Vinod Khosla’s ethanol company, Brenco, is building an ethanol-only pipeline. Petrobras subsidiary for transportation, Transpetro, has been piping ethanol for decades). More about piping ethanol on my blog, Ethablog.
Sugarcane ethanol produced in Brazil is the marginal cost setter. It is the ONLY proven, widely-used, economically-feasible substitute for gasoline. It WILL be widely used in the US and Europe as Peak Oil kicks in. Might as well throw money at Brazil – the kind of money the US threw at Alberta and its tar sands – and demand part of it be used for forest police, enforcement of labor laws, etc.