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

 

Yes, let's continue to pollute and poison ourselves with fossil fuels and

support the Islamic agenda.

Ask Brazil if they have major problems with their ethanol production.?.

In the short term, there maybe an increase in greenhouse gases, tough!

in the long run we will have a viable renewable alternate fuel; also wouldn't growing other types of plants help absorb CO2 generated at any rate!!

Fossil fuels stink and suck!

If for no other reason, Ethonol is an instument of war against the enemies of our country so its a great thing.

Now that food prices are going up and some real thinking about the cost of producing ethanol, maybe we can get back on track to some more serious alternatives.  One thing not being mentioned is the gas mileage penalty for using ethanol.

Seems to a lot of anti-oil and coal people around but when wind or solar projects are proposed many come out against them.  And do not even bring up nuclear power.  What are the alternatives for power that are acceptable?  Most common answer is conservation but when you ask for details it would usually mean going back to the stone age for that to work.  Turn off your computer for a start.

Ethanol as a motor fuel has been absolute nonsence from the beginning for both economic and environmental reasons.

That said: If our government, in its infinite wisdom, insists upon using ethanol as a motor fuel it should remove the $0.50 per gallon tariff on ethanol from Brazil and import it therefrom. Equatorial Brazil would like to export excess ethanol from three yearly sugar cane crops to the US but special interests in Washington do not so allow.

Finally people are starting to take notice of the shortsighted "remedies" for our dependence on fossil fuels.  Raping the planet of its forests and soil for fuel is no better than raping it of its oil for fuel.  In the end, the only solution for our dependence on all harvested fuels will be through combining the sustainable energies of solar, wind, water, and natural gas.

THAT'S NOT THE ONLY PROBLEM. WE SHOULD NOT BE USING A FOOD SOURCE FOR ENERGY.  

CORN IS A MAJOR FEED FOR OUR ANIMALS AND AS IT GETS IN SHORT SUPPLY GRAIN PRICES AS GOING TO GO THROUGH THE ROOF.

THAT WILL ONLY LEAD TO HIGHER ANAD HIGHER GROCERY PRICES FOR THE CONSUMMER.

ELECTRIC , FUEL CELL,  HYDROGEN, AND SOLAR, LOOKS LIKE THE DIRECTION THAT WE SHOULD BE GOING.

These so called energy input costs to the environment "cost" no more than what it was 10 yrs ago.  Tractors, combines, etc. are all still used.  Equipment has become more efficient and advances in minimal till technology probably cost less to the environment than they did years ago.

How much Exxon, BP,Conocco do you own in your portfolio?  How much did those big oil companies pay you to write this column.  Maybe you will realize what the Heartland means to this country!

As a chemistry/biology teacher, I can definitely say this study is on the right track.  For every pound of ethanol burned, 2 pounds carbon dioxide is poduced.  Add onto that the energy used to make fertilizer and the energy used to harvest and transport to the refinery.  The article makes a lot of sense

This summer, take a drive through Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa or ant other Midwestern state. Check out the center pivot irrigation that uses a gas engine , belching smoke, sucking ground water out of the ground through a pipe from 8 to 12 inches in diameter, draining the continental aquifer.  Then of course there's harvesting and shipping and processing the corn fuel.  A fuel that gets you litttle more than half the gas mileage of regular gas, and still produces emmissions.  How about putting carburators or fuel injectors on existing vehichles that will double or triple existing gas mileage of the average car? Of courese, emissions would drop inversly.  Not a perfect answer, but life offers fewof those any way.  Might even be what's best for the many rather than the few...how democratic!

The American people will believe anything, so why not tell them they will be able to continue running thier cars on corn when oil goes over $200/bbl.  If you don't give them a plausible deception, they might realize that running that SUV is going to be unaffordable in the next few years, and thus the house in the subburbs worthless because it's too far from work.  They might then agrily wonder why nobody did anything about this ahead of time.  Better not to have that question come up until after the elections.

Why would the government care about ethanol unless they were concerned about oil supply?  I think they are very, very concerned.

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):