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

 

It's about time someone has brought up the obvious.  Biofuels are not the answer.  They have only added inflation to an already stagnant economy.  They will do nothing to relieve us of our dependency on foreign oil.  And now we see they will worsen global warming.  Whatever happened to the electric car?  Our  witless leader has sold the ignorant a pig in a poke.  When will congress wake up and realize that George Bush has no idea what he is doing?  He is only for himself and Big Oil. I hope the people in New York and Washington start learning to tread water.  The big polar meltdown is already underway.

The Science magazine article was quite insightful however it only addressed corn-and energy crop based ethanol production.  Your argument concerns only either using current commodities or growing new ones; however, it does not include utilization of agricultural waste.  It does not take in account for new research in cellulolytic ethanol production using both cellulose and hemicellulose fractions which enable the utilization of agricultural waste such as corn stalk (non-edible plant parts) or sugar cane baggass (the plant material after all the sugar is extracted).

Sir,

Although there there are hurdles to overcome to make ethanol production an ideal replacement to fossil fuels, there is not currently, nor will there be in the near future any other method to fuel the transportation industry.  Face it, phasing in a replacement to the internal combustion engine will take >50 years (once the technology is developed), not to mention the the cost to the consumer who would have to purchase cars, truck, lawn mowers, etc..with no trade-in value for their obsolete internal combustion machines.  

Also to be considered is where the wealth is distributed.  Currently, our (United States) money is being funneled to the middle-east, venezuela, russia, and  africa to purchase oil.  It sure would be nice to quit funding countries who ultimately would like to see the United States fail.

Unfortunately, instead of using your pulpit to encourage more research into methods to fuel internal combustion engines with a source (maybe ethanol maybe not) that is "good" for the enviroment, you have chosen to discourage that research only to advocate solar technology which will never be a viable alternative for transportation purposes.

Additionally I would also like to know your position on nuclear power generation versus solar and coal technolgies.

Yes, solving our energy problems will be difficult.  I would just like to see technology progress with a consideration for what is practical to the consumer who ultimately will pay the price for whatever the solution may be.

You are really lacking in knowledge.  Corn uses all the CO2 next to the plant in about 5 minutes, and a field of corn will use more CO2 than a grass field.  If you doubt this, check Freeman Dyson's article.  PS Dyson is at Princeton.  

I still would feel much more comfortable with our energy supply having alternatives. Chavez is a nut job. The middle east is unstable.

wow what a blow. Well now maybe food prices can slow a bit. A long time ago I heard that bio fuel could be made from old restaurant oil. If so there are thousands of restaurants in the US. What would the efficiancy of that be?

Let move to Biodiesel from Algae production.

Anyone should have expected this!  Just think about it.  Plow the land, plant the crop, fertilize, irrigate, harvest, store the crop, ferment the crop, extract the alcohol, purify to fuel grade.  The energy required to do all this along with the capital investment will make ethanol too expensive to compete with other energy sources.

sounds like a press release right out of OPEC or conoco-phillips, I suppose we shouldn't eat plants either because we're taking away potential carbon reducers, also hence forth all animals are hereby outlawed because they are carbon producers.  I would love to use a fuel derived from plants, which are renewable, and sending money to America's heartland, which doesn't want to destroy us.  Maybe I should be a politican!

It always amazes me that in a nation that boasts of its intelligence and creativity, we manage to entrust people with decisions that are pejorative rather than healing. How do these ignorant people get this kind of authority? Where are the

inherent checks that are supposed to identify such socially farudulent schemes?

I am losing faith!

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):