Ethanol myth blasted in new Science mag - Top Stocks Blog - MSN Money
 
Search Top Stocks:

Ethanol myth blasted in new Science mag

Posted Feb 11 2008, 02:54 AM by Jon Markman
Rating:

Corn-based ethanol production is sure to go down as one of the greatest mistakes ever in U.S. energy policy, yet it is so heavily embedded in election-year politics it just won't go away.

The government's recent move to boost ethanol production -- embedded in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007  -- panders to Midwestern and Southern farm-state electorates that are influential in presidential races, yet will end up costing the nation billions more than it purports to save.

I  wrote about this scam back in October in a column titled, "Shuck the ethanol and let solar shine," but apparently for some reason my expression of outrage was not enough to prevent Congress from passing a law in late December that will cost taxpayers as much as $550 billion over the next four years.

Now scientists have finally completed research that shows ethanol is not only bad business but also bad for the environment. According to news reports, the latest issue of Science magazine highlights studies showing that biofuels produce more greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels when all of their production inputs are accounted for. 

Two studies shows that replacing fossil fuels with corn-based ethanol would double greenhouse gas emissions over the next three decades. The studies show that switchgrass, an alternative to ethanol that's more weed than plant, would boost emissions by 50%.

How? It's because, as I described in my piece, so much energy is required to fertilize, harvest and refine the fuels. It's also because the growing of fuel plants replaces the growing of vegetation that actually consumes harmful greenhouse gases.

The research at Princeton and the Nature Conservancy found that an intensified push to grow fuel crops would also rob the world of biodiversity as it would require the clearing of vast tracts of pristine rainforest in South America and Africa. In total, the researchers said they discovered it would take as much as 300 years to pay off the carbon debt caused by biofuels' initial cultivation.

Luckily, some public officials are waking up to the danger of ethanol. The United Nations recently tasked a panel to evaluate biofuels sustainability, and there are rumblings that the next session of Congress will look at the possibility of already reforming the recently passed bill. 

Investors meanwhile should continue to avoid the ethanol-based stocks, including popular names like Pacific Ethanol and recent initial public offering BioFuel Energy.

Comments

 

And guess what?  I have found that my GEO Tracker gets 30 MPG when on pure gasoline as compared to 20 MPG on ethanol.  Not to mention how much better it runs when on pure gas.   Up until recently, there were gas stations in the hilly area in NJ that had pure gas with no ethanol in it, and my truck ran sooo much better on that.

I have checked mielage on 4 different vehicles comparing 100 % regular Gas to 10 % ethanol mix and in all 4 cases have found the mileage reduced to such a point as to require more Gas with the mix. all the ethanol does is increase Gas consumption. The oil companies must love this stuff.

LEL, Wisconsin

What most researchers don't take into consideration is the number of jobs that are provided by ethanol production. If there are no manufacturing jobs in America, due to overseas workers, and American farmers are paid not to grow crops, you will only see higher taxes to pay people not to work. The big picture is not what will happen burning fossil fuels, but sending our dollars out of the country to buy oil from countries that only want our money, and not human rights. How many real jobs have researchers created, our lack of Nuclear power plants are making us dependent on other countries and there lies the problem. To all the people that complain, come up with a solution or unhook from the electric company. Bill Campbell 573-353-3558

I agree it would sure be great to have a politician base his views on facts instead of it feel good policy

What about the possibilities of Bio-Diesel as a valid fuel source, made from recycling vegetable oil waste products ??

How might Bio-Diesel fit into the picture and would it not be a much more positive alternative fuel ??

I really wish I had learned this earlier.  I just very recently purchased a rather pricey E85 utilizing vehicle... thinking I was doing a "good" thing!  Now I have fears that my expensive purchase will lose value much more quickly than a vehicle normally would have done.

I also just went from thinking green (for the environment) to thinking red (for anger) rather quickly!  Once again, the car manufacturing industry has taken some of us for a ride we were not looking towards going on.  All the previous years of false gas mileage info was bad enough, now many of us will deal with driving something that is even worse for the environment than what we were driving before???!!!

Yeah, I  just went from "green" to "red" with no "yellow signal in between.  That definitely has to be dangerous for someone... doesn't it?

Just plain and simple reactionary policy. The government spends so much time doing nothing, that when they do  have something to do,  they cannot think about the right way to handle it, they just do what will line their pocket and pork barrels.

In the third world, you are right. land is being cleared and has been for years that shouldnt be. Here in the US on the other hand, the land has been farmed for decades. In fact there are millions, yes millions of acres sitting idle in set aside programs that we the tax payers pay for.

This is a surprize? Not withstanding the point that that scientific evidence (academic boodoggle that it is) requires "proof" before our government will give anything credibilty. Still, this evidence is so obvious that we have to wonder why it was proposed as a policy decision for anything over - lets say -- 1/2 a second!

Now, itill take an act of congress to repeal. Which means the damage will be done before action is taken. Another failed experiment, leaving in its wake an enormous amount of wasted resources and obsolete technology. Thanks again to our myopic leaders.

Does'nt surprize me at all, never did like the rush to try to deal with the oil problem we have been facing since the 70's.

For years we sit and do virtually nothing to stem our dependance on oil and then we rush to offset our use of it by using ethenol when so many other options are available, such as switchgrass.  Takes almost nothing to grow it and produces more output with less effort.

The other thing that makes me angry is, where do we get off as a nation to burn a food source when so much of the world goes hungry, what selfish arrogance.

Send a Comment

Comments must be directly related to the blog entry. Comments with offensive language will be deleted. Your e-mail address won't be displayed.

(please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):