Slashdot Mirror
Urging Congress to Cancel the Ethanol Tariff
reporter writes "The Wall Street Journal is urging Washington to discard the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. This tariff is effectively a subsidy for corn-based ethanol produced in the USA. Yet, producing ethanol from corn is highly inefficient and consumes 1 unit of energy for each 1.3 units of energy that burning ethanol provides. By contrast, ethanol derived from sugarcane (which is the sole source of ethanol in Brazil) yields 8.3 units of energy. Sugercane is about 7 times more efficient than corn. Some studies even show that corn yields only 0.8 unit of energy, resulting in a net loss of energy."
Ending the tariff is a good start, but it's pretty hard for corn farmer's to compete with sugar as an ethanol base material.
The obvious solution is to allow farmers to grow hemp - it's one of the easiest crops on the planet to grow (no spraying for pests, low irrigation, etc). Oil from the seeds can be used to run (unmodified) diesel vehicles, and the leftover material can be made into ethanol has four times the energy density of corn (about 2/3 that of sugar).
Oh - but this is in the land of the free - and we can't let the corn farmers compete, lest they plant a few thc bearing hemp plants in the middle of their crop. After all, a few stoners will mean the end of society as we know it.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I'm paying $3.70 out here in Los Angeles
So that's approximatly $1 a litre - which is still almost half of what I (in London) have to pay.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Very good point on the transportability. Beyond that, the "energy deficit" argument is flawed in that we could generate more energy for free that could offset or completely account for the energy cost of producing ethanol. Corn and wind are two things the midwest has in abundance. But beyond that, here's what the Iowa Farm Bureau says: http://www.iowafarmbureau.com/programs/commodity/i nformation/pdf/Trade%20Matters%20column%20050714%2 0Brazilian%20ethanol.pdf
(for those not familiar with the geography of the USA, Iowa is famous as a huge corn-producing state, and, according to the link here, produces one quarter of the ethanol produced in the US). They don't specifically advocate repealing the tariff, but they also acknowledge that competition is good and that we use more ethanol than we produce, so we must turn to outside sources.
In the UK there are heavy taxes on ethanol too. It's a shame, because those duties are pretty much restricting alternative fuel uses.
For example: It's pretty much cheaper to use a diesel engine than to use biodiesel that you make yourself. (if you're a 'good' citizen and pay all taxes due)
Reeks of inhibiting progress to me.
Yes, quite. You don't think that ridiculously low prices like that might be part of the reason you have a smog problem?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
> Seriously; is anybody thinking that the US will consider any other aspect but "protectionism"?
Depends on whether the alcohol importers' lobbyists have more money than the domestic alcohol producers' lobbists.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The 1.3x number comes from Pimentel and coworkers. They make unnecessarily pessimistic assumptions. Properly done, most studies have shown the fossil energy input is less than the energy in the ethanol. (The energy input including the sunlight is of course greater than the energy in the ethanol, but that is irrelevant.)
Even Pimental et al.'s numbers are only for corn-derived ethanol. Ethanol from cellulose, sugar cane, or gasified biomass (via a modified Fischer-Tropsch process) produce many times the energy content of the fossil fuels used to grow, harvest, and process the biomass. For sugarcane, the energy returned is eight times the energy spent.
While this is cheap compared to the rest of the world, I'm sure that we pay for the low gas prices by other means...
.. its money i don't have to make and spend, and i feel a lot healthier for not having to live in a wheely box for a major portion of my life.
.. i'm not fully cured: i still take the train to places i want to go, a taxi if i really need to (though i dislike doing so), and i use the local bus system (which is excellent) when necessary, and .. yes .. i'm sure there is a lot of oil-abusing infrastructure behind the machines i do maintain (synthesizers) but i sure as hell don't maintain a personal portable pollution-machine just for the apparent advantage it seems to give me.
.. its just a matter of social discipline..)
of course, if your city was designed by the same entity/deity that is selling you new pollution-machines every year, i can't imagine this will be easy or feasible advice for you, but another solution might be to cure your own dependence on oil first.
i gave up owning a pollution-machine years ago
i conveniently moved closer to work (its a 3-minute walk in this well-designed 700 year old city) and i rarely ever get involved in any situation that requires me to drive anywhere i can't get with a bicycle. its simple. its not so easy for a lot of the consumers out there, but the point is: stop being such a consumer, and watch how much easier life gets.
okay
the majority of the world walks to work: as do i. got no problems with it.
(PS - i also spent 15 years in LA without a car before i moved to europe, and i know for a fact it can be done there too
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
The thing is, this is what consumers should demand. This isn't something the governments of states or the Federal government of the United States has ANY business in.
the Political Inquirer
First, anyone who wants to be president (pretty much every senator) doesn't want to mess around with Iowa farmers since they have an early caucus. Reducing tarriffs almost always makes sense, economically. Not politically. For example, steel tarriffs make the steel workers happy. But they increase the price of domestic toasters, cars, etc.
Someone mentioned tarriffs on sugar. The National Review (a conservative magazine) did a front cover article on this a few months ago. Similar political situation but with La. farmers. It costs America a lot of jobs in food industries which require sugar. That's why they use corn syrup. It's cheaper relative to sugar, but only because of the tarriffs.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Yeah, unfortunately, it does. I'm pretty libretarian in my views, but the American people as a whole care not for things like the environment. They want their SUVs. So, in order to get better fuel economy, one of two things must happen.
- Govn't raises gas prices (tax?) to the level of true pain - $5, maybe $6/gallon where consumers are FORCED to demand better fuel economy or
- Govn't raises MPG standards for all vehicles produced moving forward. Closing the SUV hole is a good start.
Consumers only care for themselves in general, and will hardly ever demand something that will inevitably cost them more money for the sake of another - like the environment, or people in third world contries (or any other household for that matter).So unfortunately, in this case, the govn't does need to step up. I shudder to say it, but I do believe it.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
I have not been able to find a single peer reviewed source to back up that 7 times as efficient number. I see many references to the widely excepted 1.34 return, but I have found nothing that says 8.1 units returned. I did find one study that claimed SugarCane could hit 3.7 in production in Brazil, but that can't be directly compared to the US.
1) In Brazil manual labor can be had for $3-5/day. At that cost it can be cheaper to use a fleet of farm labor instead of a tractor. the fuel consumption requred by the work force is not included.
2) Brazil has a much larger land mass that is appropriate for growing sugar cane.
3) Ethanol has to be shipped in sealed tanks. Due to its propencity to attract water, piping it with fuel through the exist infrastructure would result in water contaminated fuel at the pump. The extra expences and fuel needed for the new delivery systems really kill the return. This is also the reason why E10 has been a pretty standard fuel in the Mid-West for years, but not on the costs. Brazil uses a much more localized distribution system (many 20k gallon plants as opposed to a centralized 10m gallon plants).
4) Ethanol has less power per volume then gas. That means those flex fuel vehicles are going to lose mileage AND power on E85. A proper E85+ designed engine could improve the power issue (Ethanol's higher octane rating allows for higher compression, which leads to more power and better efficiency).
I'm not saying Ethanol is bad, just that it isn't as great as GM wants you to believe.
Biodiesel is better (IMO) in that it can be added to the US's fuel infrastructure with no modication to the system or vehicles, it's performance is on par with petrol-diesel (ie: better than gas and ethanol).
-Rick
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
The last thing we need is to trade the current Mid-east manipulators of US economy for ones in South America!
I'm going to have to sharply disagree with you there. While energy independence is a goal that we must strive towards, I would rather be dependent (if we had to be) on Brazil than on Saudi Arabia. Brazil hasn't sponsored religious extremism and anti-Americanism worldwide. Brazil is a democracy and respects human rights unlike the Saudis. As a bonus, Brazil is also one of our strongest allies in South America. Plus, money pouring into Brazil might go toward taxes there to preserve the rainforests, and shifting from oil to ethanol would help reduce our impact on global warming. I'm just not seeing much in the way of reasons to say that being dependent on Brazil is the "last thing we need" especially in comparison to our current situation.
The concentration on ethanol production only from corn is due to powerful lobbying and this attitude should be curtailed rather than canceling tariffs!
This attitude is the result of lobbying. Without subsidies to corn production, tariffs on sugar imports, and tariffs on ethanol, we wouldn't have the assumption that corn will be used.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
This is true only because we're stuck in the Stone Age of trucks in the U.S., thanks to undemanding consumers and truck makers who'd, logically, rather make fat profits than innovate.
Everywhere else in the world, there are high-cube vans powered by small, extremely torquey turbodiesels that carry considerably more stuff than our vans and pickups.
With their short gearing, those vans are plenty quick at lower speeds. And they get more than twice the mileage of our trucks. The only two things they are missing that our trucks have are the ability to tow very heavy trailers and the 100mph top speeds.
Dodge is selling such a Mercedes van in the U.S. as the Sprinter, but it's only one product -- not a full line -- and it needs European-style gas prices to be fully cost-competitive for most markets.
What about large families that need large vehicles? ... How about someone who owns a boat and needs to tow it to a lake, so he needs a big V-8 or V-10? Should these people "feel the pain" when despite owning gas guzzlers, are driving vehicles they need?
Yes. Those are lifestyle choices. People should pay the costs of their lifestyle choices, not force the rest of us to pay them through artificially low gas prices that don't reflect the costs of maintaining a road network or fixing the environmental damage created by large, fuel-hogging vehicles.
Incidentally, you don't need a big V8 or V10 truck to tow most boats that most people own. Something like a V6 Toyota Tacoma will do just fine with all but the huge-ass, over-the-top showoff-craft.
I'm saying GM is not in a great financial position. So for them to invest in a marketing campaign for E85 is a win-win.
They invest a minimum amount in Flex Fuel vehicles (realistically, this is replacing rubber fuel lines and setting up the ECM to switch fuel mappings over a wider range depending on the O2 sensor's readings).
Since this is the 'low tech' way of making a gas engine run on ethanol (some more impressive FF vehicles use dynamic turbos and increase boost pressure when running more Ethanol, but so far as I know, GM's FF vehicles are only changing fuel mappings). It doesn't do anything for efficiency or power, so the vehicle will run significantly worse (power/mileage). But that doesn't matter since you can't really get E85 at any public pumps. I only know of a single E85 pump in all of south central Wisconsin. GM is aiming E85 primarily at fleet vehicles, for everyone else it's just a marketing gimmick. It allows them to look like a golden company in the face of rising gas prices to the public, they get free marketing off anyone talking about E85, and for a minimal investment in R&D and on the assembly line, they get a huge boost in sales.
E85 does have a place in the future of US fuel consumption, but that place is not GM's FlexFuel vehicle line. It's place is in vehicles designed to run on higher compression or those that can increase boost pressure. Vehicles that are designed to take advantage of Ethanol's properties as opposed to a patch kit that allows a gas engine to run on it.
Decreased engine life, shorter duration oil changes, invisible flames (on pure ethanol, not E85), it's amazing what some good marketing and desperate consumers will lead to.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Get two things, coward:
1. a reasonable boat -- if your boat is over 5000 lbs, you have it just to show off how rich you are.
2. some driving skill -- there are lots of safe vehicles with heavy/long trailers on our roads; they're called semis.
Anyway, a giant V8 truck that can't be parked anywhere, drives like a drunken elephant and gets 12 mpg is hardly a "decent vehicle." I'll keep my Acura TSX, thank you.
For reference, I'm in the UK, petrol currently costs 97.8p /litre at the pump.
That's, £3.70 per US gallon, or $6.89 at the current exchange rate.
I regularly hire cars, having measured the mileage on them they've all done over 10 miles to the litre, that's about 40miles / US gallon.
The idea that 20-30mpg is a fuel efficient vehicle is (to me) laughable.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
*cough* hemp *cough*
That will get you oil (seed), biodeisel (at much greater ratios than corn) and it can be grown at lower cost with greater yield...
but, someone might try to smoke it... so we can't have that.
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey