DOWNSIZE DC REALLY HIT MY HOT BUTTON!
April 21st, 2008
By DWM, Osceola, Iowa
THIS BLOG is posted for those who are concerned about the spiraling cost of energy and food. The growing government-supported ethanol industry is having fingers pointed at it as one of the causes of rising food and energy prices. Of course it is the shrinking dollar that is the culprit, but does ethanol help the dollar shrink?
It is kind of difficult to get on in life if we cannot afford either food or energy, isn’t it? Higher energy costs means that food goes up somewhat proportionally because of processing and transportation to stores. Crude oil is at record highs today, (April 19, 2008) to the tune of $116 a barrel.
It is often stated by politicians that we can wean America from foreign oil imports by creating a homegrown energy supply, principally expanding ethanol production first, and concurrently expanding other alternative energy programs.
There have been numerous attacks against ethanol in recent and not so recent times, and the statements are fundamentally untrue. These are examples of what I deem as inaccurate statements in regard to ethanol!
-
Continued ethanol production will cause world food shortages.
-
Continued ethanol production will add to global warming.
-
Ethanol production causes food prices to rise.
-
Ethanol makes your fuel prices rise.
The examples given above are not all-inclusive. We all either know or suspect that Mainstream Media (MSM) has its agenda that excludes publishing the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And we all know or suspect that big business special interests manipulate government to do its wishes.
Many of us self-respecting Americans hoping for change rely much, some even totally, on alternative media such as found on the Internet to get a fair and balanced view regarding issues facing us. For one thing the Internet has brought us numerous opportunities to send email messages to members of the Congress en mass, with the hope that lawmakers pay attention to the people. One of those websites belongs to an organization called Downsize DC.
Some months ago I became aware of the Downsize DC web site and its mission statement, which is set forth plainly in its name. Since that time I have submitted letters to my two US Senators and one US Representative through the organization on several issues via Downsize DC’s electronic lobbying system.
On April 7, 2008 I received an email from Downsize DC asking for participation in electronically lobbying Congress regarding what Downsize called the ethanol scam. I read through the information provided by Downsize in its piece and found it full of some of the same old inaccuracies as set forth above, and then some.
We are in a terrible mess in this country now because of mistakes the Congress has made over the years, and, for the most part it was special interest lobbying groups’ efforts convincing members of Congress to pass outright anti-freedom legislation. Congress passed legislation mandating ethanol usage and that at the urging of special interest groups enfolded in the ethanol industry and beneficiaries therefrom. I have some knowledge of ethanol, and I found much of what was stated in the article very misleading. I did not participate in lobbying my United States Representative and Senators in the Congress as Downsize urged me to.
I refuse to lobby Congress based on the data supporting the petition. The idea to do away with ethanol mandates and subsidies is reasonable and proper, but I do not believe the evidence Downsize presents against ethanol is bona fide.
A little background on me first so you know where I am coming from on this. In the late 70s and through the mid-80s of the past century I was heavily involved in research and development of fuel ethanol and the goal of ultimate manufacture of a factory-built food/fuel modular factory-assembled production plant. I am listed as co-inventor for several US patents issued regarding fuel ethanol production. I wrote a technical paper once that was picked up by the Agency for International Development and sent around the world to its engineers for consideration. I drafted numerous feasibility studies concerning start-up and operation of ethanol plants. I did not like it in the 80s when ethanol got a bum rap, and I like it even less today. Consider me biased, but please consider me biased for good reason.
I now ask you go to the Downsize DC article and read it, then return to read my commentary. You might find my reasoning amusing and maybe thought provoking, but nowhere near radical! Please read the Downsize DC article now by going to End the Ethanol Scam.
* * *
Now that you have read what is portrayed as one single inning of a baseball game, with the blog author seemingly acting as the umpire behind home plate, perhaps we can follow the same line of thought here. Let’s take a look at how the umpire calls the pitches and whether he needs glasses.
PITCH ONE: Ethanol consumes more energy than it produces.
Oh? Well, you just gotta believe that because it was presented by a Cornell professor, Dr. David Pimentel, who knows so much more than anyone else about ethanol, right! NOT! A rebuttal to Dr. Pimentel’s conclusions was produced by the Colorado School of Mines and the National Corn Growers Association. Rebuttal
Doctor Pimentel has a long, long history of debasing the ethanol industry in the USA. Just do a Google search on him. I’m suggesting is what he says completely defies common logic in addition to the points raised in the rebuttal cited above.
For example, many, many thousands of people across the USA have attended organizational meetings where they were asked to invest into the construction of basically farmer-owned ethanol plants. Cannot you just imagine that many questions were asked of the proponents of the ethanol plants before the farmer risked his investment, such as, “Dr. Pimentel says that it is energy counter-productive to produce ethanol. Is it?” What might the answer given be? I suggest that it was along the line of “The engineering firm we have has addressed each and every question raised by Dr. Pimentel and others such as him regarding the same issue. We have what is called a ‘process guarantee’ from the bonded and licensed engineering firm that stipulates that it will cost only X number of BTU’s to produce a gallon of ethanol.”
Using common sense, isn’t it rational to rely on a guarantee from a deep-pockets engineering firm than it is to rely upon hyperbole — which is what all the arguments of those opposed to ethanol production appear to amount to. Seems to me that when you put your money where your mouth is, that’s what really counts. What all of those investor meetings boil down to is that hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars were committed to be invested into ethanol production facilities, and the investors committed their money with eyes wide open – and they were certainly aware of the BTU controversy.
And very important, when the fermentation and distillation process is complete, you still have all of the protein and fiber of the parent corn remaining, albeit in refined form. All that was taken from the original grain was the starch. So, in keeping an honest set of books, there really should not be any BTU “charge” for ethanol-from-corn production to account for the corn used — because the corn was not destroyed or eliminated in the process. In fact, the bushel of corn that was refined now has more feed value than it did originally!
Now I ask you to reason on this: With all the talk of global warming, why should we not want to replace gasoline with ethanol? It takes over 235,000 BTUs to produce one gallon of gasoline – which has a value of 125,000 BTUs, more than twice the carbon footprint as ethanol!
Producing a gallon of gasoline re BTUs includes exploration to find it in the first place, drilling, pumping, transportation to refineries, and distillation. Drilling a dry well thousands of feet into the earth costs massive amounts of BTUs, but to my knowledge those BTUs are never included in what it costs to get a gallon of gasoline to your vehicle. But let’s be fair about this. Neither are the BTUs counted when the farmer and his wife drive to the county seat to attend an ethanol information presentation, and they decided not to invest in a proposed project. Okay, some of them were going to go to town to have dinner at the local restaurant, so scratch a few of those. But….
Importantly, not included in the equation of BTU cost for gasoline, is the expenditure of energy to move troops and equipment to faraway lands to protect “our vital interests”, the BTU costs of flying military aircraft over oil fields in the mid-east to protect “our” oil supplies from sabotage, etc.
To keep an honest set of books, all costs of production expended must be allocated to a separate account. I have a darn good idea that the BTU cost of gasoline is much more than twice what it is pretended to be.
What is the BTU cost of flying surveillance aircraft over corn fields in the USA corn belt to insure our ethanol supply? Zero?
Should we add to the BTU cost of gasoline the jet fuel burned to fly back the bodies of over 4,000 American troops from Iraq? Maybe a distinction on the BTU books could be made for the Iraq war, say have one column for the promotion of democracy and another column for protecting (or taking over) oil supplies?
So now we really look to gasoline costing twice (or many times more than twice with an honest accounting) the BTUs as you can get for your engine – and ethanol costing about a third of the BTUs to produce that are delivered to your engine. More on that later, but please keep these facts in mind for now — and look for some reasoning on other pitches made in this ball game that may really get you cranked, maybe cranked more than me!
Perhaps I could possibly wrap this entire debate up right now by simply sending you folks to a state government web site that addresses most of what was posted in the Downsize DC blog, but I will not give you that URL yet. I’m asking you to please read to the end of this posting to get to it along with other pertinent information.
Okay, the first pitch has been thrown, and it is being called as STRIKE ONE by the umpire.
PITCH TWO; Burning ethanol in our cars emits less carbon dioxide (CO2) than burning gasoline, but this hardly matters given the net energy loss involved in ethanol’s production.
This second pitch made might well be defined as subtly induced circular reasoning. CO2 emissions reduced by burning ethanol? Really, why are there no citations to scientific studies given to support what is claimed as burning ethanol emits less CO2 than gasoline? Is that simply to be accepted as a fact, or as somewhat of a concession to established science? In other words, if you accept the first half of the statement as truth, then you should accept the other half as truth, too? Really? Is that the way we are supposed to think? Circular reasoning?
Going back above, is what is portrayed in Pitch Two, building upon what was stated further above in Pitch One — is that what it is? So, if we somehow believe that the umpire called the first pitch a strike, then we are assumed to believe that the umpire is also right in every subsequent pitch called in this baseball game? Isn’t there something called a “ball” in baseball when it comes to a pitch? According to whether or not it is within the strike zone? Anyway, let’s go on to PITCH THREE and see if the call is accurate.
PITCH THREE: When farmers use their land to grow crops for ethanol production, instead of food, the food supply drops and the price of food rises’
Oh, yeah, right, the farmer is to blame for rising food prices. Those nasty, greedy farmers! Gimme a break. Give every other food eater a break, too.
The farmer does not set the price for food, the market sets the price. If there is a market demand for a product, then if one has the ability to fill the demand and make a living doing it, then why not? At one time America prospered by “plowing new ground”. Is it immoral for a landowner to plow his ground to produce a crop that is in demand so long as it is a legal crop? Isn’t there supposed to be such a thing called “property rights”? At least in a free society.
Furthermore, and now let me take you to what I think is the REAL issue is regarding this situation. You may disagree with me. But please hear me out. It is what is termed as the “Fuel versus Food” controversy. The author of the Downsize DC piece calling it the ethanol scam surely must be concerned about the hungry people in the world. It is obvious he is convinced and committed, otherwise why would he write such a piece? Why not we give him a break for now and assume that his motives are not misplaced. Having said that, let’s move on, let us get into what the real deal of converting feed grains such as corn into ethanol is all about.
Let’s just restrict it to corn for now, because it appears that is what the argument set forth by the Downsize DC author is targeted upon. Are American ethanol producers really taking the world’s food supply and using it for their own selfish gain? And the next question is, “Is ethanol production from corn REALLY reducing the food available to hungry people around the world?”
To the point regarding PITCH THREE: The use of corn to produce ethanol actually extends the world food supply, rather than diminish it. How so? Well, first off, it is simple, at least to me. When corn is used as a substrate to produce ethanol – only the starch in the corn is converted into ethanol. After the process of refining the corn what remains is commonly referred to as distillers grain. The fermentation process separates corn into three components, starch which is converted to ethanol, carbon dioxide, and distillers grains. A fifty-six pound bushel of corn ends up as about 18 pounds of ethanol, 17 pounds of distillers dried grain and 21 pounds of CO2.
PLEASE NOTE that the 21 pounds of CO2 will be converted to oxygen by the natural means of photosynthesis in producing the next equal crop of corn and it does not contribute to the greenhouse effect unless the next crop is less than the previous.
As the result of the fermentation process employed in converting corn to ethanol, the co-product (distillers grain) gains in value as a feed for livestock, especially for ruminant animals (cattle). In fact, the protein content of the original grain is increased because of yeast cells in distillers grain.
The fermentation process producing distillers grain enhances digestibility of the grain, hence an increase in the rate of gain of beef cattle.
Controlled university studies, one example shown here that feeding distillers byproducts to ruminants increase their “rate of gain” by up to 15% vis a vis unrefined corn because of its high protein bypass value. (Note that in the past, before the burgeoning ethanol industry, there were never complaints about feeding corn to beef cattle. Okay, I concede a bit, vegetarians and vegans might have put up a bit of a fuss.)
Let’s be somewhat conservative about this and say only a 10% increase in rate of gain during the time distillers grain is fed to younger animals to replace corn. I don’t know what that tells you, but it tells me that you need to feed beef cattle 10% less corn to get to the same market weight.
First the assumption need be made that all of the production of distillers grain is being utilized. Otherwise ethanol plants would be shut down, it would be economically unfeasible to not market the co-product.
In 2007 it was reported by the UDSA that there was a 12 billion bushel corn crop harvested by American farmers. Let’s just assume that 25% of the entire crop will go into ethanol production in 2008 to meet the federal mandate of 8 billion gallons. That is 3 billion bushels. (Ethanol yield from a bushel of corn is about 2.7 gallons)
Now we do some more math, based on the premise that a 10% increase in the rate of gain of beef cattle results in a 10% decrease in the amount of corn needed to bring cattle to desirable market weight. That amounts to saving 300 million bushels of corn to feed America’s beef appetite. It also feeds the beef appetite of our foreign trading partners, whether in exported beef or exported distillers grain, helping the balance of trade.
I respectfully ask you to think about this. A semi hauling corn generally holds 800 bushels, and a semi is 65 feet in length. 300 million bushels will fill 375,000 grain trucks. Parked bumper to bumper, the lineup of grain trucks is 4,616 miles in length. A lineup approximately from either USA coast to the other coast and half again back! You really do not want to be at a stop sign waiting for all the trucks to pass before you can proceed. You’d have to pack more than one lunch!
Are we using food for fuel? Has the food supply dropped because of ethanol production as set for by Downsize DC? No, so far as I’m concerned, because there is more corn available. 300 million extra bushels of corn will feed a lot of hungry people around the world.
Now pitch three was a strike as the ump called it. Was it? Let’s move on to pitch four.
PITCH FOUR: Ethanol increases the cost you pay for food
Oh, sure, go ahead and blame it on ethanol, have to blame rising food prices on something, right? Why not blame it on the shrinking dollar, the true culprit?
Case in point, and get the pencil out, we do the math together again: Tomorrow is April 17, 2008 as I’m writing this portion of my rebuttal to the Downsize DC posting of April 7, 2008. Suppose tomorrow I wanted to sell some corn to an ethanol producer. I could get hopefully $5.75 a bushel for it. At the same time, the market price for distiller’s dried grain is about $170 per ton to the dairy or livestock producer. Recall now that a bushel of corn yields 17 pounds of dried distillers grain. One ton of distillers grain started out as 117 bushels of corn that weighed 6,552 pounds before being refined. Also remember that none of the feed value of the bushel of corn is lost when it is refined through the ethanol process. In other words, feeding cattle 17 pounds of DDG is more than equivalent to feeding the same animal 56 pounds of unrefined corn during its early growth cycle.
Now according to my math, the livestock producer or dairy operator is able to ultimately buy my $5.75 bushel of corn equivalent for $1.45 per bushel! And the producer can save even more by buying distillers grains at 50% moisture if the operation is near an ethanol plant, saving the drying cost is passed on.
What is remarkable is that prior to the upswing in ethanol production, the livestock or dairy producer had to pay about $1.80 a bushel for unrefined corn, and now he can get a superior product, refined corn, for $1.45!
Similarly, I can go to the local Fareway store in Osceola, Iowa, tomorrow on 4-18-08 and buy a pound of 85% lean ground beef for $1.99. The market price of corn has nearly tripled in the last several years, but the price of beef has not. Why not give credit to corn refiners/ethanol producers for keeping beef prices down instead of blame them for raising food prices?
And so far as milk prices go, well, maybe it is now that demand is outstripping supply? A good many of the people that complain about high milk prices work 9 to 5 jobs – or do not work at all. What about the dairy farmer? What is his workday like, 24/7/365, up before dawn to milk, then milk again after dark? What is the dairyman’s capital investment into his operation and what rate of return can he expect from his investment? What are his costs of production for the gallon of milk?
Frankly speaking, the dairyman’s family would probably be under the poverty level if he and his family members did not work so many hours a day at less than minimum wage! For those dairy farmers operating near an ethanol plant, well, they have opportunity now to begin to get paid for their hard work because they can buy $5.75 corn for $1.45, and help drive the cost of milk down. To drive milk prices down, we should have more ethanol production, not less!
My idea of what it takes to survive in a dairy operation is that if prices for milk are below the cost of production, well, you just don’t put the bull to work, you don’t end up with more calves to feed, since mama cow is not making you any money anyway. You cull the herd and keep only the top milkers and the lesser go to become Quarter Pounders at Mac and Don’s! Sooner or later a reduction in the total herd of milkers will balance supply/demand, then there might be profit in it.
Ethanol is being given all the credit by MSM for the record price for corn today. However, if you go back to Pitch Number Three and agree with my logic that the food supply is extended by corn refining, then corn could be much higher in price today because the world demand is there and there are only so many acres available to produce it from.
Regardless of my arguments above on pitch four, the umpire said it was strike four. What is your call on the pitch? Let’s go on to pitch number five.
PITCH FIVE: Ethanol also makes your fuel prices rise.
Dang, now I heard it somewhat different than that. What I heard was that if it had not been for ethanol today, that gasoline prices would be 45 cents a gallon higher!
I need to put in a quote here from the article cited in the Downsize blog re Pitch Number Five: “According to a 2005 report issued by the Agriculture Department, corn ethanol costs an average of $2.53 to produce, or several times what it costs to produce a gallon of gasoline.” Well, then why are we paying so much for gasoline if it costs about half as much to produce as ethanol? Why aren’t all ethanol producers that were in business in 2005 out of business now because they surely could not have sold their product for years at less than half the cost of production and survived in business.
And if you believe what the USDA tells you – then get in touch with me, I have great deals for you on some water-challenged land in Florida and a bridge in Brooklyn! Please note that previously I did cite a USDA figure, 2007 corn production at about 12 billion bushels, but I rely on other various sources besides the USDA to say, well, that’s a fairly accurate figure.
I seriously doubt what USDA claimed, that ethanol cost $2.53 a gallon to produce in 2005. As I recall, in 2005 corn was about $1.80 per bushel. Corn is the chief cost of producing ethanol in corn to ethanol. You get 2.7 gallons of ethanol from a bushel of corn. Thus, the cost of corn for ethanol in 2005 was about 67 cents a gallon. Add in all the other costs, including plant depreciation, management, labor, repairs, energy, supplies, etc., and it cannot have cost more than $1.60 to produce a gallon of ethanol back then.
Again, keep in mind that there is the co-product, distillers grain, that remains and is sold. And please reason on this, that if it cost that much to produce ethanol in 2005, $2.53 a gallon, then what about all of the plants proposed since then, financed and built? Did the investors become convinced that they should throw their money away on a losing proposition? Bankers were involved in the transactions, too, and you know how hard-nosed bankers are, right? Perhaps not hard-nosed in the sub-prime home mortgage market, the government and Federal Reverse System would be trusted to bail them out, but when a business seeks a loan, it is substantially different.
Now today in 2008 — corn, the largest cost of producing ethanol, is selling for about three times what it was in 2005. And today’s (4-17-08) price for ethanol from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (cme.com) was $2.48. Can you just imagine ethanol producers staying in business if the USDA was correct on it’s cost of ethanol in 2005 at $2.53?
What does it cost dollar-wise to produce a gallon of ethanol today with $6.00 corn? Please do not take this to be truth, it is just an estimate based upon my experience – and I’ve been away from the industry for many years – but I venture the cost for an efficient plant is about $2.10-$2.20 per gallon on 4-17-08.
Now, applying what was in the article referred to in the Downsize blog, if it is still the same today as it was in 2005, then the cost of producing a gallon of gasoline should be half of what it takes to produce ethanol, or $1.10. But regular unleaded without ethanol today was $3.39 a gallon at Casey’s General Store in Osceola, Iowa, and ethanol blend is $3.29. Is it an ethanol scam or a gasoline scam?
Going back to Hurricane Katrina, what happened? Immediately gasoline prices shot up because there was a sudden shortage of refining capacity in the affected area, plus shut down of oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Seems like a demand and supply scenario, right? All you really need is a 2% shortage and a supply scare to get things moving upwards. Or even no shortage, just a supply scare. What would it have been like if the gasoline producers controlled ALL of the market then? Without ethanol filling in for some of the so-called shortfall? Maybe that’s why the ethanol factor in the mix might have kept gasoline 45 cents cheaper than it might be otherwise without free market competition? See: A Free Market in Gasoline.
Pitch five was called as a strike by the umpire. Was it? Let’s move on to pitch number six in this first inning of the baseball game.
PITCH SIX: Ethanol has also been sold as a way to make our fuel supply more secure but …
I’ll just repeat myself, remember Hurricane Katrina? What happened to gasoline supplies then? I just happened to be traveling by car at the time, and I didn’t have to wait hours for the fuel truck to come by with just half a load because supplies were short. I could buy all the gasoline I wanted, just so long as I paid the price.
Is our gasoline supply secure now? From natural disasters? Hardly.
Going to the link that Downsize provided, well, the article is much about what might happen to ethanol if there were a drought. The writers seem to be very much concerned about natural disasters affecting ethanol supply. Given, that is possible. Yep, there is a drought cycle that hits the USA every so often. That, when it happens, could create an ethanol shortage – provided that the ethanol industry remains totally reliant upon rain-requiring corn as a substrate.
For over 28 years I have been hearing the same old argument, there isn’t enough corn to fuel American needs. What I ask is, “Where is it set in stone that corn is the only feedstock for ethanol production? Who wrote that law? Is the “law” valid?”
There is not-so-rapid movement on development of already proven processes to economically produce ethanol from cellulose products. Some of those processes were developed many years ago. Just do a quick Google search using key words “ethanol + cellulose + extruder + New York University.”
Next, do a Google search using keywords “ethanol + hemp”. You will find some interesting results. Hemp can be grown on about 13+ inches of rainfall per year on “marginal” land with minimum fertilizer. Hemp can provide the feedstock for ethanol at the rate of about 1,000 gallons per acre. Average corn yield per acre in non-drought conditions is about 155 bushels per acre, and at 2.7 gallon per bushel ethanol yield, that is about 420 gallons of ethanol per acre. There are many millions of acres in the USA receiving 13 inches of rainfall per year, insufficient rainfall for corn but okay for hemp, land that is currently not tilled with the ability to provide a billion gallons of ethanol per million acres. Only in America is it illegal to grow industrial hemp. I am patiently awaiting the day that Downsize electronically lobbies Congress to make industrial hemp legal. See Sounding Circle
Is it really going to take $200 a barrel for crude oil for a lot of people to wake up to the fact that cellulose to ethanol conversion is worth going after today and invest into the future?
The article referred to in the Downsize team’s Pitch Five against the For Ethanol team certainly fails to take into account the day to day risk America has on relying upon petroleum supplies. Gasoline prices continue to spiral up. All sorts of reasons are given. Excuses given by petro-companies are refinery shutdowns for maintenance, refinery shutdowns to change seasonal formulations, weather related (hurricanes etc.) insufficient refinery capacity expansion because of environmental issues — and, certainly, of course, political developments across the world, i.e., every hiccup by an American-sponsored dictator is likely to bump oil a buck or ten a barrel. And if gasoline is once again awarded the monopoly position of our liquid energy supply for transportation, then what security is there without competition?
Ethanol produced from corn will not fill the total need, admitted. Ethanol made from other substrates such as cellulose will get America up another step on the ladder towards energy security. Ethanol in and of itself is not the complete answer to America’s energy needs.
Does ethanol enhance America’s energy security? Downsize stated no, Downsize called it a strike. What do you call it? Let’s go onto the next throw by the Downsize team pitcher.
PITCH SEVEN: Ethanol has also been sold as an important part of achieving energy independence, but this is another myth. Even if we used ALL the corn produced in the U.S. to make ethanol, and NONE of it for food, U.S. gasoline consumption would drop by only about 12%.
I consider this a prime example of circular reasoning. To make the case against ethanol, Downsize first suggests “myth”, indicating a false premise or falsehood intentionally told by ethanol promoters. Then to support the term “myth”, the author goes on to emphasize in the second sentence the words ALL and NONE – as if one were supposed to believe it because of emphasis?
First off, truth be told, to my knowledge, there has never been any suggestion by anyone in the ethanol industry or supporters of ethanol that ALL of the corn crop is going to be used for ethanol production. Corn that is not converted to ethanol is eaten by people in the form of corn flakes, taco shells, corn meal, etc. Corn in it’s non-refined state (non-refined meaning not fermented in the ethanol process) is used to feed poultry and swine. Distillers grain is exported to the other countries to help offset the negative balance of trade.
I went and looked up what gasoline consumption is in the USA annually. I got average figures of 146 billion gallons. Again, please, do the math along with me of the premise that all of the 2007 year corn crop is converted to ethanol in year 2008.
-
12 billion bushel corn crop
-
12 billion bushels corn converted to ethanol at 2.7 gallons per bushel produces 32.4 billion gallons of ethanol.
-
32.4 billion gallons is 22%, not 12%, of annual consumption of 146 billion gallons. (12% is the figure published by Downsize.)
Again, corn is not the only substrate that can be used to produce ethanol. And, also, once again, ethanol from corn is not touted by the ethanol industry as the total answer, but just a part of the solution to get America to energy independence. One might equate ethanol from corn at the present as a tourniquet applied to one of the bleeding arterial wounds of American energy independence, and ethanol from cellulose is another bandage to be used. If stopping, or even slowing the bleeding is not an important part in immediately saving the life of American energy independence, then what is?
Self-appointed Downsize DC umpire called the last pitch as Strike Seven. Let’s move onto Pitch number Eight.
PITCH EIGHT: Ethanol makes it more likely that you will burn to death in your car.
I went to the URL the author posted concerning ethanol fires. No one died in a car fire in the cases cited. One semi-truck driver hauling a tanker of ethanol died. The other two cases were train wrecks. But one must be reasonable, so let’s go with the author’s argument that firefighters neither have the training nor special foam on hand to put out a car fire fueled by ethanol.
However, to be reasonable, one must take into consideration that there are very few vehicles running on pure ethanol today. Other than in Indy style racing cars.
Yes, there are a lot of vehicles capable of burning E-85 (85% ethanol/ 15% gasoline) if one can find a pump to dispense it — and there is a bit of risk involved if you are in an E-85 vehicle in a crash and it catches fire. But how much more risk than if you are in a pure gasoline fueled vehicle and your car catches fire a couple of minutes away from first responders that have the training and foam to put out a gasoline fire? Unless you crash and start to burn anywhere except right in front of a manned fire station, face it, you are probably toast anyway!
Fire departments DO have the training and foam necessary to put out car fires fueled by E-10 or E-15 fueled vehicles, if they can reach you in time. Simply ask your local firefighter.
Comparatively speaking, we must look at the dangers inherent in hybrid cars. Do a Google search for “hybrid cars electrical shock acid danger”. If I were a first responder to a hybrid car crash, I would need some essential training. Does that mean hybrid cars should be outlawed?
The umpire called Pitch Eight a strike. What do you call it?
PITCH NINE: The ethanol program is really a government program of corporate welfare.
There is no basis in the U.S. Constitution for corporate or even individual welfare. But Congress went ahead and did it anyway, violating the Constitution by subsidizing ethanol fuel! Or is it really a subsidy?
Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution sets forth with the Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, so far as such taxes are uniform throughout the states.
Just as Congress chose not to lay a tax upon many other items, it chose not to lay a tax upon ethanol. Congress has exempted many items from taxation. For example, having just filled out my 2007 federal income form, I learned that the social security benefits I received were exempt from income taxation. (Seems the Congress gave me a little break, I don’t make enough otherwise to have my social security “income” taxed, although others earning more than I would be taxed.)
Similarly, the Congress saw fit to not lay an excise tax on fuel ethanol. That does NOT make the 5.4 cents untaxed per gallon of E-10 a subsidy any more than not taxing my social security benefits is a subsidy to me. So, please, whenever you hear that there is a 54 cent subsidy on E-10 consider the statement somewhat flawed.
Now the Congress is actually guilty of passing legislation to give grants to corporations regarding research and development efforts concerning cellulose conversion — and that is certainly corporate welfare, no argument from me with Downsize about that!
One example is the Sioux Falls, SD company, Poet, formerly called the Broin Companies. Poet is in line for an $80 million grant from the federal government to expand its Emmetsburg, Iowa ethanol plant to add cellulose conversion ability. Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) was once the largest single ethanol producer in the world, but now Poet has surpassed ADM See: Poet
Poet, now the largest ethanol producer in the world, recently approached the Iowa Power Fund and asked for state (taxpayer) money, some $20 million, to supplement the $80 million it already has obtained from the federal government to further its development of its cellulose to ethanol experiment and its expansion of its plant. Of note is that the Iowa Power Fund officials tabled the proposal for the time being. Good for the officials! This is the link to the Des Moines Register article.
What Poet is doing now appears to be much of what ADM did in the past (and most likely is still doing in the present) according to the article cited in the Downsize blog in re pitch nine, allowing taxpayers to involuntarily assume the risk of the ventures, and if it is successful then Poet and ADM really prosper.
I am not picking on ADM and Poet in particular, they are just two large corporations out of hundreds or thousands that take advantage of free money handed out by the government for their own private gain by going to the Congress, state legislatures and state governors to secure public funds so they do not put themselves at risk. Poet and ADM though just happen to be two corporations that give a bad name to ethanol. No darn wonder people get bent out of shape when they are forced by law to use an ethanol blend product in their gas tanks! I believe that “righteous indignation” is the correct term.
Personally, I choose to burn ethanol blend fuel in my car because I am convinced it is a good fuel with very few downsides, and each time I gas up I buy 10% less gasoline, thus doing my tiny part of reducing the chances of my neighbor kids being sent to far off shores to protect “our vital interests”, for them to trade their blood for oil [company profits]. But right now I still have a choice. I can also buy regular unleaded without ethanol at the same pump.
Yep, I’ve read the studies that say you don’t get as good a mileage from ethanol blend, and even if I believed the studies, I’d still buy ethanol blend – even if I had to pay more for it – for my own personal reasons!
To me it is wrong that government should seek to give no one a choice, by mandate, to support an industry they do not believe in. Ethanol mandates are wrong, wrong, wrong! And corporations seeking to use government to force mandates or taxation upon the people for the corporation’s benefit are really out of line. And any public official that goes along with that is wrong, wrong, wrong.
I just cannot resist this opportunity to state that the gasoline that ethanol replaces is one of the highest “subsidized” products on the market. Why not level the playing field, fair is fair, right? According to ZFACTS the cost of the war in Iraq for the past six years has cost American taxpayers over $500 billion. Exxon-Mobil posted a profit for 2007 of about $40 billion.
Altogether, taking into consideration the large profits made by the other major petroleum producers/refiners during the past six years, the total could be well over what the cost of the Iraq war is during that time. If we are in Iraq and throughout the mid-east to protect our “vital interests”, then it cannot be for anything other than the wealth of oil there, so that “we” can ultimately get hold of it to feed our developed and growing appetite for gasoline.
So if the 54 cents per gallon “subsidy” for ethanol should be repealed, then, in the same vein of spirit of fair play, the oil companies that are having their oil supply protected should hire a private security firm and pay the cost of protection and all of their subsides and tax breaks dissolved. After all, it does not become “our” gasoline until it is pumped into our vehicles and we pay for it.
Pitch Nine was thrown, and the umpire called it a strike against ethanol. But was it really a strike called on the whole ethanol industry (the ethanol team) or was the strike called on a single batter, ADM, because of its abuses? What’s your call?
* * * * *
THE LAST TIME that I looked at the rules of baseball there were nine innings. The Downsize umpire called nine strikes and supposedly the game was over because one side was retired? Wait a minute, what’s wrong with this picture? Doesn’t the For Ethanol team get to pitch in the bottom of the first against the Anti-ethanol team?
Now for the link I promised to a state government site that pretty-well answers a lot of the questions raised and in opposition to many of the arguments made in the Downsize article, particularly about the energy cost of ethanol and the food for fuel argument.
And please do not get me wrong, I am in complete agreement with Downsize DC in regard to its position that ethanol should not be subsidized nor mandated — no more than other products should be mandated or subsidized by taxpayer dollars. That is the essence of freedom, that the government should not try to control the economy, the free market is best equipped.
My problem with the Downsize plea was that the information presented was inaccurate in my opinion, and I refuse to send a message to my US Representative and US Senators that is based upon inaccurate information (my opinion again) if the 4-7-08 Downsize article accompanied my forwarded email message to the lawmakers, or was in any way referred to.
As stated early on in this posting, I have sent through Downsize DC a number messages I was assured by Downsize DC that were forwarded to the federal legislators from Iowa, but I had to be in complete agreement with the accompanying message first.
I believe what is important is that not only federal legislators should be made aware of both sides of the ethanol argument as set forth in the Downsize article and rebutted by me here in part — every village, town, city, county, and state legislator and executive either seated in office or running for office in this election year should have opportunity to muse on the pro and con arguments of ethanol, because ethanol affects each and every American. Is ethanol responsible or not responsible for driving up our food and energy costs? Or is doing just the opposite? Is ethanol truly a scam or is it beneficial?
There are literally thousands of current or future office holders that sooner of later, most likely sooner, will be passing resolutions, creating laws or carrying out laws having to do with ethanol fuel, with they being called upon to adjudge whether local, state and/or federal taxpayers should monetarily support ethanol projects within their purview with continually shrinking dollars, or allow those projects to compete on their own. Similarly, all other proposed business projects should be given the same consideration. Most, if not all, of those in office or running for office have email contact addresses. You might consider emailing them and asking them to read this posting.
* * *
It is apparent that I wasn’t the only one that had my hot button hit by the Downsize DC posting calling ethanol a scam. There apparently was some immediate response to the 4-07-08 article by many supporters of Downsize DC’s mission, requiring some explanation by Downsize, that is, according according to an email I received from the organization on 4-17-08, reproduced in pertinent part below.
D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
Change the political environment. Recruit more Downsizers. Share this message with others.Quote of the Day:
“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
– Ronald Reagan
Subject: The ultimate test of ethanol
Our campaign against federal mandates and subsidies for ethanol provoked a huge response, both for and against. While thousands of DC Downsizers sent messages to Congress, an unusually large handful also wrote to us complaining that we were unfair to ethanol — even though they agreed that federal mandates and subsidies should be repealed.
We have no quarrel with this assertion, and our campaign has nothing to do with that source and use of ethanol.
We would even agree that ethanol produced and used directly on farms could actually lower the price of food, in addition to having a beneficial impact on energy efficiency and CO2 emissions. But exactly the opposite is the case for industrial ethanol produced for use in the nation’s cars. It’s the latter phenomenon, driven by federal law and subsidy, that we oppose.
Still others wrote to argue with our assertion that ethanol made from cellulose rather than food crops is also uneconomic and energy inefficient. It’s true that cellulose-ethanol has a great future potential, but technological improvements are still needed to make it viable. Even major proponents of cellulose-ethanol, such as the Rocky Mountain Institute, agree.
Finally, a few wrote to quibble with our assertions about the environmental impact of mass-produced ethanol. With the exception of ethanol that’s made and used directly on the farm, or the future but still unrealized potential of cellulose-ethanol, we stand by our claim.
In addition to the sources we provided in our campaign, there’s also a new survey of the scientific literature available at DisoverMagazine.com. The evidence that current methods of mass producing ethanol are bad for the environment is simply overwhelming.
Here’s the fundamental point. Mass-produced ethanol must meet the ultimate test, the market test. This is true even of cellulose-ethanol’s potential environmental benefits. Plenty of consumers want products with a smaller carbon footprint, even when those products are uneconomical. The increasing number of hybrid cars is proof of this. When mass produced ethanol makes either economic and/or environmental sense, it will find its way to the market.
Politicians cannot speed this outcome. They can only delay it, through policies that distort prices and disrupt markets. And this is exactly what the politicians are doing in a host of ways.
One final point: many people wrote to say that federal subsidies for other forms of energy are also a problem. They’re right.
Ethanol made from cellulose will make it to market much sooner if it doesn’t have to compete with subsidized oil, as well as other forms of energy. Tell Congress that. Tell them you want to end the mandates and subsidies for ethanol, AND for all other forms of energy too. Make ALL forms of energy face the ultimate test, the market test. You can add the second point in your personal comments.
Please also help us grow stronger by contributing just a few dollars a month: $5, $10, $15, $20, or $25. All of those amounts equal less than a dollar a day. Please start a monthly credit card pledge to make us grow. You can do so here.
Or, you can make a one-time contribution to help us make budget for April. We need just two more $100 contribution to win the $1,000 matching donation from Jack Mullen. You can contribute here.
Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.
Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.