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

 

While we're fueling our cars with corn, people in Hati are eating mud pies.  There are worse things about ethanol than the polution it creates.  But our government seems willing to embrace any idea that will keep the American people buying gas guzzling SUV's.  Scientists and researchers should be put to work finding energy alternatives that are clean, safe, and not simply a waste of other resources.

When will people like Brent Jacobson and x learn to do research for themselves instead of listening to propaganda on either side.  This is very much like rich yuppies prepaying their fuel bill with a hybrid instead of buying a cheaper more efficient conventional car which costs less energy overall...

And how much is involved in the oil process?  If you factor in everything from the ground to the pump the equation changes.  I agree biofuel is not the answer, but this article is pro big oil.  Nothing more.  Lets start looking at real solutions to save this dying nation.

Boy the oil companies love this story.  As some farmers have told me, the ethanol boom will only last for a couple of years because it is not socially correct for the peasants to be making good money.  what the author doesn't realize is that the rainforests were being removed for $2 corn and at $2 corn (which it has been for the last 7 years or so) the farmers have to farm more land.  I wonder if the author has a "green" house or drives an SUV to work

Noel Patten is right on. I was going to say all of that but I don't need to now. Thanks Jon and Noel.

As has been stated, it is high time for all the misinformation about the benefits of ethanol to be debunked.  It is just a blind leap to "something" to look like we are trying to reduce both greenhouse emissions and our dependence on foreign oil.  It is obvious we have to reduce oil dependence.  Automobiles are just a part of the picture of energy consumption.  As for reducing emissions due to global warming.......that's just another "hot" term that has been pushed to spread fear into the gullible and uninformed so that the powers that be, or those that want power, can push their own personal agendas.  Global warming is happening but by the accounts of virtually all unbiased, qualified scientists human activity accounts for less than 1% of the phenomenom.  I'm not ready to revert humanity to the stone age to try to avert the inevitable.

We would not need to tear down a bunch of Rain forests in order to grow the crops that we need. The US has millions of acres of land in the us that was once in crop production that is now being subsidiized to grow grass and leave it unharvested.  If our government would quite subsidizing these farmers to grow nothing, we could grow the crops we need to produce ethanol.

Putting farmers in the driver seat, Bad. Keeping oil rich barons in the driver seat, good. I don't have the perfect answer, but it seems to me that this information is speculative, with little factual studies out there of such evidence!!!!Share the wealth, work it both ways, do more science!

Why do the people that slammed this article always respond with a "this or that" argument. Noting litlle-discussed facts about ethanol, does not mean you are pro-fossil fuel any more than being anti-BCS means you hate college football.

 Do yourself a favor and open your cupboard....yes YOU! :) Now tell me how many of those products contain High fructose CORN syrup, or other corn derivatives? How about the price of meat? What do you think livestock feed is made largely of? CORN, CORN, and CORN.  Now remember the rules of supply and demand?

Ethanol has the potential to substantially raise the price of a vast number of products that you would never imagine. Imagine if your food contained oil? Wouldn't the same barons that control oil now, then have substantially more power over consumers? If Ethanol becomes what they want, you will all regret it.

Cheers

I have read many articles that suggest ethanol is bad for the environment. Our tax dollars need to be spent on research for fuels that are easy to produce and have little to no impact on the economy. In the meantime we have no other choice but to further develop and nuture ethanol based fuels. I much rather see $550 billion spent on mid-western and southern farmers rather than on middle eastern goverments that do little to nothing to stop islamic fundamentalist. I am happy to see our goverment invest our tax dollars on AMERICAN farmers.

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):