Corn Ethanol at a Long Term Competitive Disadvantage

The science and the processes behind cellulosic ethanol are still being worked out, but once that brand of ethanol production gets its feet, the corn based ethanol made in places like Wisconsin and Minnesota is going to be hard pressed to compete. To wit:

A new cellulosic ethanol plant that promises to produce renewable biofuel for less than $1 a gallon has a new partner.

ICM, a Kansas-based ethanol plant design, engineering and support firm, has a new agreement with Illinois-based Coskata, which made headlines when it announced it could produce next-generation ethanol made from waste, plant materials or other biomass, rather than corn, at a fraction of the cost, and with a fraction of the pollution and political fallout.

The southeast could stand to become this country's major ethanol producer. It offers a good climate for fast growing ethanol stocks like switch grass, and it likely has the land capacity to farm those stocks without seriously hampering food production. If we in the Midwest choose to prop up the production of corn ethanol legislatively now, we will likely continue to do so in the future and assure ourselves of higher fuel prices than other areas of the nation where cellulosic ethanol production may proliferate.

Re: Corn Ethanol at a Long Term Competitive Disadvantage

Jib,

Yeah corn based ethanol is expedient not efficient. We have corn, we know how to mash (a fascinating process one I should look into doing again shortly) it, we know how to ferment it, and we know how to distill it.

Over at Boots & Sabers I was in a discussion about ethanol and noted the depressed mileage Cornholio gets when I run ethanol through it. A commentator informed me E85 vehicles while capable of burning the high concentration of ethanol they are not optimized for ethanol, that the engineering prevents flex fuel vehicles from achieving the mileage they should. I asked about the energy content of ethanol vs. gasoline but have not revisited to view if there was a response.

Still, if we switch to ethanol whether based on corn or switch grass or what have you, there is going to be a need to use land to grow the raw material and I have this notion the land downtown Burbank is not what is going to be used.

Re: Ethanol & Competitve Disadvantage

Marcus, I had the pleasure of attending a speech by a gentleman from the Heartland Institute last year. His talk was largely on ethanol, and it was an enlightening session. If my memory serves me, he saw the future of ethanol production being cellulosic in nature. One of the highlights of, say, switch grass was that it could be grown in soils in the southeast that he said were salty and not capable of producing many food crops. Also, a crop like switch grass can create much more stock per acre in a year than corn can. He also discussed the use of crop residue to make cellulosic ethanol in agricultural regions like Wisconsin, but that opportunity is more limited because crop residue can act as a top soil erosion inhibitor. He also discussed the possibilities of genetically engineering some crops so they can be successfully grown in more arid regions out west, but I found that part of the discussion a little fanciful at worst and a long way off at best.

One additional advantage of cellulosic ethanol production is that the process could actually create a byproduct that could in turn be used as an energy source in the production process. That would reduce energy costs for those plants and increase the amount of energy ethanol gives over what it takes to produce.

Having said all of that, I still don't see ethanol as a silver bullet for our energy problems. I doubt that under any scenario we can produce enough of it. Additionally, it will never be significantly more environmentally sound than oil when all factors are considered. I am willing to consider it as a component of our energy policy as long as government stays the hell out of the way allow the best processes to succeed. I am concerned about Federal and state governments are propping up a type of ethanol (corn) that has way too many disadvantages, and once more advantageous forms of production come online that they'll continue to prop it up out of political expediency.

Ethanol Boosts Greenhouse Gases

Jo Egelhoff brought this link to our attention in the comments to a previous post on ethanol. Given our elected representatives' continued insistence on forcing ethanol upon us all with AB 682, I think a few excerpts from the New York Times article are appropriate.

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.

Wonder why ethanol interests want to shove this through? Perhaps it has something to do with that increased scrutiny.

Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.

“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,” said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. “Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.”

These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But even that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions — for refining and transport, for example.

I'm a doubter of man made global warming, but a lot of you out there are not, and if you think I'm wrong for doubting, then this should really upset you. And still, your representatives, Republican and Democrat alike, want to force more ethanol use and production on you. These mandates will not allow you to make your own economic or green decisions on the matter.

But, you ask, how does a little extra corn grown in Wisconsin make any difference? Well, here's how:

Likewise, Dr. Fargione said that the dedication of so much cropland in the United States to growing corn for bioethanol had caused indirect land use changes far away. Previously, Midwestern farmers had alternated corn with soy in their fields, one year to the next. Now many grow only corn, meaning that soy has to be grown elsewhere.

Increasingly, that elsewhere, Dr. Fargione said, is Brazil, on land that was previously forest or savanna. “Brazilian farmers are planting more of the world’s soybeans — and they’re deforesting the Amazon to do it,” he said.

This would seem to be a prime example of the slogan "Think Globally, Act Locally," don't you think? Opposing ethanol mandates, while not necessarily opposing ethanol completely, would seem to be one, maybe the only, common cause between environmentalists on the left and some of us on the right who are concerned about other effects of a mandate.

We told you so

I just wanted to point out this little article in The Independent to all of our state legislators who were hell bent on mandating ethanol earlier this year.

There is an anti-ethanol rebellion brewing, however, but it is not happening on America's highways. The rumbles of protest are being heard instead on rivers, lakes and along its shores, as boat owners discover that ethanol can sometimes be ruinous to their beloved yachts and cruisers.

As more marinas follow the national trend by offering only fuels with the 10 per cent ethanol blend, boat owners find they have no choice but to buy it, even as evidence accumulates that ethanol, benign though it is to the atmosphere, can leave boats dead in the water.

The problems were detailed in a report published by the Boat Owners Association of the United States, or Boat US. They are particularly worrisome for people with older boats fitted with fibreglass fuel tanks. Introduce ethanol to them, and a chemical reaction produces a black muck. The muck and marine engines do not mix well.

Now that wouldn't have been a problem here in Wisconsin, now would it have been? Especially with those two big lakes to our north and east, and a handful of inland lakes. (\sarcasm)

BoatUS's summary of E10 gasoline and fiberglass gas tanks
August 26 Journal Sentinel Article on effects in Milwaukee

Zien to work to re-introduce ethanol mandate

I'm usually fond of Dave Zien, but I wasn't very happy to read this in the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram:

“The power of conservative talk radio commands some of those legislators like puppets on a string, Sen. Dave Zien, R-Eau Claire, said this morning.

The group of Republicans and Democrats in the state Senate that derailed the bill said consumers were opposed to the mandate.

The Senate voted 17-15 to indefinitely postpone the measure. Supporters and critics pronounced the bill dead for this legislative session because lawmakers will meet only for limited business the rest of the year.

Zien is requesting an extraordinary legislative session from Gov. Jim Doyle when the Senate reconvenes in late April to investigate gas prices and revive legislation on ethanol and minimum fuel markups.

Zien is being disingenuous at best here, and I hope all that he is doing is pandering to the Chippewa Valley media market. The United States is facing a domestic shortfall in ethanol production this year. Those jobs will be created whether Wisconsin required you and I to buy ethanol gasoline or not. If the market prefers ethanol, then we will see the e-85 vehicles that Ford and GM make become more prevelant and this mandate won't even be necessary.

Just the same, it's a good idea to continue to watch this ethanol issue in Madison.

Putting the Sense in Sensenbrenner

Behold - the man from corn country co-sponsors the renewable fuel standard-, ethanol tax credit- and ethanol import tariff-repealing Flake Bill:

“I have always been opposed to reformulated gasoline (RFG) because it doesn’t reduce the pollution it was supposed to, and in fact, increases other kinds of pollution,” said Sensenbrenner.

“Fuel mixed with ethanol is less efficient, and results in fewer miles per gallon for consumers,” Sensenbrenner continued. “Moreover, it’s extremely expensive, even in the Midwest, where although corn is abundant, the cost of converting it to ethanol, and the difficulties associated with transporting it, has made it more expensive than traditional gasoline. As a result, we are seeing dramatic price increases in corn, which is hitting families hard considering the prevalence of corn in food production and in animal feed.”

“The fact is, the ethanol industry has been subsidized for twenty-seven years and claims to still need the subsidies to survive,” Sensenbrenner added. “If an industry cannot survive without government support after twenty-seven years, there are more serious problems in place.”

I'm guessing that the loss of subsidies in the face of increased ag-production costs (driven up by skyrocketing gas prices) isn't gonna set well on the back forty. Or on the grocery store shelves.

Via Protein Wisdom.

From the PW post's comments:

Burning food has to be the most immoral practice that our government has ever subsidized (and that’s saying quite a bit).

Update: Ack. Owen posted this yesterday, giving props to Dad29.

The Latest Ethanol Mandate

Cross-posted at THEB.

We blogged about yet another attempt by clueless legislators to ram an ethanol mandate down the throats of Wisconsin residents as a sop to the well-heeled and well-financed campaign contributors from the ethanol industry.

The latest pair of boobs (apologies to real pairs of boobs) are state Sen. Pat Kreitlow and state Rep. Scott Suder.

Kreitlow is the guy who said earlier this week that if it weren’t for Charlie Sykes and Mark Belling, Wisconsin would already have had a statewide mandate for ethanol. Actually, he’s only partially right. It isn’t talk radio and bloggers that has stopped repeated attempts from the ethanol whores to impose their will on the people of Wisconsin.

It’s people like you who contacted their senators and representatives and told them not just “No!” but “Hell No!”

It’s time now to contact Sen. Kreitlow and Rep. Suder and give them that not-so-subtle message again. Here’s how to get in touch with them:

Sen. Pat Kreitlow (Democrat)
Room 10 South
State Capitol
P.O. Box 7882
Madison, Wis. 53707
Telephone: (608) 266-7511 Or (888) 437-9436
Fax: 608-267-6794
Email: Sen.Kreitlow@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep. Scott Suder (Republican)
Madison Office
Room 324 East
State Capitol
P.O. Box 8953
Madison, Wis. 53708
Telephone: (608) 267-0280 Or (888) 534-0069
Fax: (608) 282-3669
Email: Rep.Suder@legis.wisconsin.gov

Contact them and ask them: “What part of ‘No!’ don’t you understand?” and remind them they work for the people of the state of Wisconsin, not the fat cat lobbyists walking through the state Capitol handing out $100 bills in plain brown wrappers.

The ethanol bill and my Fitzgerald concern

First off, I'd like to repeat the words of James Wigderson:

There may be still time. To find out who your state senator is, you can go to this website. If your state senator is Scott Fitzgerald, his Madison phone number is (608)266-5660, his district phone number is (920) 386-0260, his fax number is (608) 267-6795 and his e-mail address is Sen.Fitzgerald@legis.state.wi.us.

Next, I'd like to say that I have absolutely zero inside information on what I am going to say next, so take it for what it is worth. First, let's take a look at Senator Fitzgerald's District:Notice the red arrow in Fitzgerald's district. That is the location of an old Cargill Malt plant that announced it was closing last year. Last month in a post titled Losing Jefferson County to Ethanol?, I noted that the state was making a $1.9 million loan to Utica Energy to convert the plant to ethanol production. I'm sure that Senator Fitzgerald sees farmers, workers, and an energy company in his district that stand to benefit from this bill. If you live in Fitzgerald's district, it is imperative that you contact his office and register your opposition to the ethanol mandate. Unless his office hears from a lot of consumers in his district, it is logical that he could end up supporting the ethanol bill.

Additional
I have the text of my letter to Senator Fitzgerald here.

Re: Radio "Ad" Rips Green on Ethanol

The only 'truth' in that "ad" is that Green supports the ethanol mandate, an issue I believe he is wrong on, but not willing to go psycho on the guy like some of you seem so overjoyed to do.

Belling's been wrong from DAY ONE that this is all "Archer Daniels Midlands" doing. A quick look at the usual sources of data for who got money from whom shows that the only Wisconsin politicians who sought state offices who took ADM cash were Tommy Thompson and Mary Panzer.

Since Green was a Federal Candidate from 1998 to 2004, I looked there too. Nothing in 2004 for Green, nothing for 2002, nothing for 2000 & 1998.

If you want to go ADM's National PAC, check here, here, here, and here. The answers there are nothing, nothing, nothing, and nothing. John Gard's not on their list for 2006 for those interested BTW.

(I haven't figured out how to look at WDC's PAC database yet, so I couldn't check there.)

So, if ADM - Belling's self-created bogeyman - isn't the man behind the curtain, who is pushing the Ethanol Mandate that's not connected to the ethanol industry?

The answer is simple, the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation. The 800 lbs. Gorilla in agriculture issues in Wisconsin and a longtime friend of the State GOP. The other farm group pushing it is the smaller Wisconsin Farmers Union. It is much more left-leaning and friendlier to state Democrats.

It's the support of groups like the Farm Bureau that was the reason for Walker's line about farming on his blog. If he wins the primary, he's going to need the support of groups like them, and it was a subtle way of saying, "Hey, no hard feelings."

My own Assemblyman, who voted "no" on AB 15, told me something similar happened to him moments after the vote when he was approached by a WFB representative who said, "You know we're still friends after this right?" and that was it. One issue, not the end of the civilized world as we know it.

Finally, there's another thing at work here besides "Free Market vs. Mandate" and that is rural vs. urban or the east side of the state versus the west side of the state. The vote in the Assembly broke that way, and it could go that way again in the State Senate. That deals more with the reality that more urban areas of the state like Milwaukee and the rest of SE Wisconsin have plentiful economic opportunities, while places like Rice Lake, Chippewa Falls, or Superior don't and see ethanol production as a viable option. Look at who signed that letter. The overwhelming majority are from the western side of the state or rural districts.

We here might not see it that way, but for a corn farmer out west, the E10 Mandate looks like help to him and his family. The BBA's lack of understanding on rural issues not involving DNR tyranny is a gaping blind spot in my opinion.

I could go on, mainly on the 'selective prosecution' some of you have on this issue, but Daniel @ GOP3 hit on that yesterday. Or on why I was the only one critical of Walker on the Luxury Suite story given the fact that Ethics is suppose to matter this year - or so we keep pointing out on the things Doyle does. Or like Owen, I too have problems with the Walker plan on 2/3 school financing when the state's looking at a $2.12 B dollar hole thanks to Doyle's budget shenanigans.

It's unrealistic, especially with the possibility of a $500 M increase he'd likely have to do, no matter what Team Walker says about the "Three-Legged Stool of School Funding," it's money the state doesn't have.

There, I've spoken my peace. It's late and I really like too many of you as people too much to go off on the phoniness some of you have at times.

Perspective on Corn Ethanol

Ever wonder how much corn we grow for fuel, not food? A lot.

The pending global food crisis is due, in part, to a rich twist of irony: One of the factors driving up the price of T-bone steak, a dozen eggs and a carton of milk is a perfectly edible vegetable, a staple of many diets - corn.

To add to the irony, we're growing more corn than ever before. We're just not eating it.

"The U.S. is now using more corn for production of ethanol than our entire crop in Canada," says Kurt Klein, a professor of agricultural economics at the University of Lethbridge. "It's huge."

And it is going to get bigger. In 2000, world production of ethanol totalled 20 billion litres. In 2007, world production climbed to 60 billion litres. In the month of January alone, six billion new litres of ethanol were produced in the U.S., Mr. Klein says.

God help us all if we have a sustained drought here in the corn belt.

(Cross posted at Jiblog)

So tell me again why making fuel out of a major food source is a good thing?

This is sign is all over the Milk Case at my local Pick and Save(Pabst Farms in Oconomowoc)


I want to thank all those idiot politicians in Madison and DC for selling us out to your friends at ADM and other ethanol producers. This is only going to get worse as farmers stop planting other things like Soybeans etc to plant corn so they can sell it to ethanol producers, driving up the prices of those plants also.

It is all a big joke Switch grass would be a much better choice as a crop to use to make ethanol but guess what ADM does not grow switch grass do they?

this is a case when the politicians of both parties are selling us out.

Say No to Corn for Ethanol.

WSB Chris

Ethanol the "Fuel to Nowhere"

"Move over "Bridge to Nowhere, " there 's a new poster child of congressional waste and avarice -- ethanol, the "Fuel to Nowhere. " Ethanol leads only to higher food prices and greater greenhouse gas emissions."David A. Ridenour

That is the opening line to a wonderful anti Ethanol article in the WiSJ


Do what every you can to stop the Cult of Global Warming and the misguided true believers who preach in the Cults name.

WSB Chris

The cons of ethanol

The Salt Lake Tribune takes a look at the cons of ethanol. There are a lot more than many people think. They include a couple of things that I hadn't even thought about, and I've been reading way too much about ethanol over the last 6 months.

Wisconsin is a corn state, and as such, ethanol will never be a dead topic here. It is best if we all know as much about it as possible, because it will come up again.

LA Times opposes ethanol subsidies

The LA Times editorial board has come out against ethanol subsidies:

But there is talk, amazingly enough, about ending the tariff on imported ethanol. President Bush has proposed dropping it, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has joined with two Republicans to introduce legislation to do so. Opening the U.S. market to imports would increase supply and also give domestic ethanol producers a taste of free-market price competition.

With politicians from both the left and right supporting such a sane policy, the problem is the people in the middle — the middle of the country, that is. Representatives of corn-growing states, and the formidable corn lobby, are putting up a fight. And there are signs that the pressure of politics is overcoming the logic of economics. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), who initially supported dropping the tariff, switched positions last week. Other Farm Belt representatives need to decide which is more important: the free market or the corn lobby.

Surely this is a sign of the end times...I agree with the LA Times.

Re: Radio "Ad" Rips Green on Ethanol

I am still fighting off this flu, but I will try to make a coherent statement.

I think Kevin is misunderstanding the strong reaction against a bad decision that Green has taken, for some sort of joy to attack Green. I don't take pleasure in going after Green, until he announced that he would support the ethanol mandate, I was truly split on who to vote for. To be honest, I was leaning toward Green for a selfish reason. If Walker is elected, Milwaukee County will be left in the hands of the likes of Lee Holloway and that is a scary thought.

But with Green deciding that it is acceptable to use the coercive power of the government to force consumers to purchase and use an inferior product that is more expensive, less efficient, and when given the choice, they chose not to use, this is unacceptable to me. Forcing consumers to use a product that they don't want smacks of socialism to me. NO, I am not calling Green a socialist, what I am saying is this is not an acceptable stance for a Conservative/Free Market supporter to take.

I don't care who Green is or is not getting his money from, I will not support someone that is trying to force the entire state to use a product that we in S/E Wisconsin have been fighting to get rid of for years, and since we are finally making some progress with the EPA lifting requirements on reformulated gas, some leaders in this state are working to thwart those efforts.

Just a quick comment on not understanding rural points of view. I come from a farming family, one in the Black River Falls area (corn/wheat) and one in the Coon Valley area (tobacco and dairy). I can also tell you from personal experience with my family, farmers are by nature, frugal people. Try to tell my grandfather a few years ago when he was still farming, that he would be forced to use a fuel that costs more per gallon, gets less mileage per gallon and this means that he would have to buy more fuel per year. Then add that he would have storage problems because of the fact that ethanol evaporates and loses octane much faster than gasoline (farmers generally buy fuel in large quantities). I can hear his big booming voice ringing loud and clear, "Bull S%#t!"

Yes, a lot of corn farmers are supporting this, but it will be to the detriment of the entire state. In the long run, it will also hurt Wisconsin farmers since ethanol being made from other sources are being produced much cheaper. This legislation will harm us for many years to come, so it must be stopped before it is to late.

Another thing I fear about Green's stance is, if he is willing to support this mandate, what will be the next mandate he supports? Mandates are bad, if a product is better, then people will want to use it, they will even demand that they be allowed to use it, they will not need the coercive force of government to force people to use it.

The Ethanol Scam...

When accessing the supossed benefits of ethanol I did a little research. I first looked into the work of a scientist from Cornell University, a former Reagan Administration White House Science Consultant (physicist), and a fellow who earned his law degree from Harvard University and a doctorate in Mechanical Engineering from MIT. Last, but not least, I consulted my own common sense...

Then I read a press release from State Senator Harsdorf and Assemblyman Andy Lamb, two politicians from local farm country beholding to their respective constituencies. These two are "Lauding E10," or E10 legislation. The press release states: “Ethanol is a renewable energy that allows us to satisfy our energy needs by looking to family farmers in our own hometowns instead of overseas oil conglomerates.” It goes on to state, "the E10 plan is fashioned after the Minnesota law that requires not less than 9.2 % nor more than 10% ethanol in automotive gasoline. In addition, the E10 bill contains several exemptions for aircraft, collector vehicles, boats, and various other vehicles."

Read the rest @ OnTheBorderLine

Corn Ethanol Facts

I'm not even going to comment on this piece. Just go there and read it, because after you're done you'll have a lot of facts at your disposal the next time your state government tries to shove through an irresponsible ethanol mandate.

As an incentive to go read the piece at the link, I'm going to leave you with the author's parting words:

Are we just one drought away from $10 corn or are we just one drought away from famine?

And all this in exchange for an insignificant amount of petroleum and subject to the fickleness of Mother Nature!

The more I learn about ethanol, the more I believe that our current government policies are leading us down the path of disaster.

Ethanol To Spike Too!

Think ethanol is a cheap way to fuel up your vehicle? Here is a story noting that corn prices are now at record levels. Maybe ethanol isn't such a great idea after all.

Berkeley Professor on inefficiency of ethanol

Ted Patzek, a Berkeley Professor (yes, Berkeley), claims that ethanol requires 6 times more energy to create than it produces. If you look at the various formulations out there that attempt to figure out the energy to produce-energy provided ratio of ethanol, you learn pretty quickly that the variables that are/aren't chosen are highly subjective. This graphic is a very interesting look at Patzek's take on the issue, though.