Talk of Waco

By KDF

May 30, 2008 7:53 AM | Link to this

Not many folks understood the problems with using ethanol. It is appearant that the costs — at this time — far outweigh the money that we thought ethanol would save. <><

By Kansas City 1

May 30, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

Gov. Perry and Sen. Hutchison are only serving their constituents (big oil and cattlemen) with these proposals. Gov. Perry states that the mandate causes “an estimated $3.6 billion annually in added food costs,” yet has no proof. A study sponsored by the Texas state government at Texas A&M concluded that biofuels has little affect on the cost of food, yet I’ve never heard Gov. Perry and Sen. Hutchison mention that.

All they’re doing is political posturing during an election year, knowing none of their proposals will ever get passed. I’ve seen Sen. Hutchison twice on CNBC state that biofuels, specifically corn based ethanol, is causing corn acres to increase at expense to wheat acres in the U.S., further driving up the cost of food. The only problem is that is patently false - check the USDA website and you’ll see that wheat acres in the U.S. has increased the past three years. How can we trust their “reasoning” behind these proposals when they refuse to acknowledge studies they themselves sponsored and consistently cite false data?

By michael

May 30, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

Ethanol works pretty well in Brazil, but there it’s made from sugarcane. The production costs and energy required to produce it are much lower. Unfortunately corn requires more energy to produce than it delivers as a bio-fuel. It’s a net loss. So, why do it?

By d54

May 30, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

KDF is right. Ethanol just doesn’t pan out now as a fuel source. It takes oil in the form of gas and fertilizer to produce the corn and then to convert it to ethanol. The corn has to be schlepped around by truck or train. Oil can be sent through pipelines. On top of that, ethanol burns up faster in your vehicle, so if we’re forced to add 10 of 15 percent ethanol, you’re going to be heading back to the pump sooner than if you used 100% gasoline. It’s a boondoggle. It’s just a way to funnel pork barrel money back to states that produce corn. Sugarcane might be better, but in the long run, ethanol just is not the answer. Gas-electric hybrids are the near term solution and full electric is the long term solution to the transportation problem.

By Raul

May 30, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

I am a Chemical Engineer from the University of Texas at Austin who has spent the last three years in the ethanol industry in the Midwest. In reviewing the comments here, there are a lot of errors in people’s comments. First of all, ethanol delivers about 1.8 energy units for every 1.0 energy unit put in. The old theory that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than what you get out of it has been proven false by several independent studies. The original study was published by a professor that was funded by a major oil company. Secondly, ethanol has never been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels. It is part of the total solution not THE solution. The country will still need to develop other replacements, i.e. wind, solar, nuclear, etc. The third argument about corn being the reason for the rise in food prices is also way overstated. It is a small part of the reason but the majority of the reason is due to the high transportation costs associated with the high fuel cost. The Texas A&M study mentioned here has proven this fact. Also, we need to understand that fossil fuels will run out sometime in the future. We need to develop other options quickly or our children will suffer some major consequences in the future. I read somewhere that T. Boone Pickens is now in favor of further developing ethanol. He changed his mind because he is concerned with the fact that we send over $1 billion daily to countries that hate us for their crude. Can you imagine what the U.S. could do if we invested these funds instead on U.S. industry? As for the subsidies that everyone talks about related to ethanol, the $0.51 per gallon subsidy is paid to the blenders that use ethanol. Guess who the blenders are….yep, it’s the major oil companies. The government does this to encourage the use of ethanol instead of other oxygenates, i.e. MTBE. Ethanol producers do not get any of this subsidy.

By d54

May 30, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

Raul, you accuse the oil companies of bias but yet you admit that you have a vested financial and professional interest in the ethanol industry. What makes your position any less biased than that of oil companies and their professionals and chemical engineers?

There are competing studies on the energy balance of ethanol. That has not been put to bed. But even if we assume that the energy balance is positive, what about the fact that in normal gasoline engines, ethanol yields 34% less energy? Also, I don’t know if anyone’s keeping up with this, but,especially in Texas, water is becoming a scarcer resource. T. Boone pickens is also investing in that by the way, he’s buying up water rights all over Texas. Using finite water resources to produced crops to convert into ethanol seems irresponsible to say the least.

Ethanol should not be any part of the solution outside of specialized usages, especially with corn. (Heck, we have to have that stuff as a sweetener in almost everthing, now we have to add it as fuel to our vehicles? What next? Will we have to start wearing clothing made out of corn?) Ethanol is sucking up too much government funding that could be used on more worthwhile energy technology.

Oil is indeed a finite resource. That’s why we should use it sparingly by enforcing better mpg standards, and investing in gas-electric, and fully electric vehicles, so that we aren’t dependent on a specific fuel to run vehicles and instead can get that energy from any source, be it coal, nuclear, nat. gas, solar, geothermal, wind or hydroelectric.

We also have untapped reserves of oil in Alaska, as well as the easterna and western sea boards. They aren’t going to solve our oil problem, but they can help when combined with more efficient oil usage.

By KDF

May 30, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

Short-term, but currently financially more solvent, is to open up our U.S. reserves and open domestic drilling. The middle and lower class are hit worse by this mess than anyone. Government officals keep using big words and big statistics so to keep up pork barrel politics. Big Oil controls this country, closely followed by China.

I am all for hybrids as that technology continues to progress. <><

By Todd Klibner

May 31, 2008 1:36 AM | Link to this

We should be drilling in ANWAR and off shore, building nuclear power plants and constructing coal burning power plants. If ethanol was really a good idea, there would be no need for government subsidies. And remember, every vote for a Democrat is a vote for higher gas prices.