Topic: Global Warming
Reflections on "The Clean Energy Scam" The cover article from this week's Time magazine says what many, although not most, think about so-called "clean" alternative fuels, particularly ethanol.by Bob Nightingale
(libertarian)
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
I was in my lawyer's waiting room this week when I saw the cover story in the April 7th edition of Time Magazine. Michael Grunwald wrote a scathing article about how ethanol really isn't a clean alternative energy source. You can read the whole article here ([link edited for length]) at Time's website. I'll save you some time by summarizing below, with my two cents thrown in.
Even if I were a staunch supporter of the war against Global Warming, which I'm not, I would want to look for alternative sources of energy that pollute less, use less fossil fuel in their production, cost less to manufacture, and not have negative impacts on the environment or the quality of human life. Unfortunately, ethanol production creates many of the problems that it was supposed to solve.
It is a disaster for the environment. Starting with his example of the destruction of the Brazilian rainforests, Grunwald shows that large swaths of the Amazon are being turned over to corn production. Most environmentalists would agree that the Amazon is vital for the world's survival because of its ecological diversity. It has a cornucopia of pharmaceutical raw material. Yet farmers, who were criticized in decades past for growing food for their families by cutting down just the forest they need to grow sustenance crops, are now being pushed aside so that mega-farms can grow bumper yields of corn for ethanol. That also requires large amounts of chemical fertilizers.
It causes food prices to go up. Newly commissioned ethanol plants require corn or other things that rot. Over time, farmer will be able to produce enough corn for food and fuel. But with mandatory usage dates for gas pumps to use ethanol by near dates certain, ethanol manufacturers will have to bid up the price of corn until they get their share first. We choose to feed our cars before we feed our children.
It adds CO2 into the air. Grunwald starts off by saying that Brazil is the fourth largest contributor of CO2 emissions in the world. About 20% of it is from the deforestation of the Amazon to create the farmland. But it also comes from the ethanol manufacturing process. All distillation processes are basically a form of cooking. It takes energy to cook the alcohol or the octane out of your raw material. Crops grown for ethanol production don't absorb CO2 from the air as efficiently as other types of vegetation, so there is a net gain of CO2.
Corn isn't necessary to produce ethanol. Ethanol can be produced far more efficiently from cane sugar or sugar beets.
No political will to ask the tough questions. Politicians pander for the farm vote and mandate ethanol pumps and quotas. Both parties want to look good to the voters by supporting "clean" energy sources. Not paying tribute to the Iowa farmers caused McCain to lose that state in the primary elections. Mike Huckabee, the winner, supported every farm subsidy.
But I'll ask the tough questions. If ethanol was such a great natural source of energy, would it also be naturally cheaper than fossil fuels? Why would it need quotas and subsidies? At what point did we put fuel ahead of food when it came to land use? In a previous article ([link edited for length] ), I tried to show that Iowa's corn farmers have been recipients of unnecessary subsidies for years. This push for ethanol as our primary fuel for cars will only feed into this.
I question the Global Warming orthodoxy. I am a heretic. I'd like to be counted as one who asks, "Does this make sense?"
Grunwald finishes the articles by acknowledging that alternative fuels are only part of the solution to the global warming problem. But then says that biofuels are the problem.
I couldn't agree more.
Many years ago, I lived next to a farmer in rural Michigan. He had plowed under his grapevines and cherry trees to plan wheat, corn and soybeans. But one year, he, my father and several neighbors invested in Jerusalem artichokes. Because of their high sugar content, they would make excellent ethanol. Like a potato, you make more of these artichokes by taking big ones and chopping them into smaller ones. Everything was going according to plan, until fuel prices started to drop. The next year, the farmer plowed that field under and planted soybeans again. We lost our investment. Oh, well.
But that's the nature of the markets. If there is a demand for a better fuel or for more food or whatever, in an efficient market, farmers will plant the crops that are needed and the oil companies will refine something to sell. As fossil fuels become scarce, their prices will rise and other sources of fuels will find their way into our tanks.
However, with government subsidies, the marketplace is distorted. Land is confiscated. The environment is destroyed. Inefficient industries are propped up. The poor are starved, and taxes are raised. The two fastest growing components of inflation are food and fuel. Politicians get praise for doing "something", when doing nothing is probably the best answer. However, doing nothing doesn't show as a line item for the ambitious.
Liquefied natural gas and propane can probably be manufactured much cheaper than ethanol. Although they are made from that evil petroleum, they are typically burned off in the refining process, because the markets for them aren't worth the recapture process. Fuel cell and hydrogen technologies are getting better. Electricity can be made for storage batteries from ocean wave action, hydro, solar and wind power. Even uranium is a naturally occurring element that seems to be abundant. If the storage and safety issues can be solved, perhaps it is the greenest fuel of all. These alternatives are worth at least exploring-- but not by government mandate.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 16 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Bob Nightingale only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Bob Nightingale is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Thumbs and Thanks for another outstanding article, Bob!
Government meddling is the source of so much of the evil in our country... Why is that so hard for so many folks to see? Articles like yours should help to open more eyes.
Ethanol is BS. Give me an electric car with hydrogen fuel cells like in scandanavia. Solar, wind, and water power are the future. Its about time we took away the tax credits for big oil and farming subsidies and let the free markets shift us to clean energy when the time is right - not hold us back 30+ years.
I do imagine that when the refineries realign their production so that they can start making at least minimal profits again (right now only the oil producers & speculators make profits), gas will be at over $4 a gallon. That is going to be a strong force for alternatives...assuming people still have enough wealth to buy the alternatives. I'm personally in the dilemma of either using my current paid-off car (which I can get decent gas mileage if I drive carefully) or buying one that has 50% improvement in gas mileage, but also has payments attached to it.
But even the ethanol question is only part of the equation. On the other side you have the utilities which are natural monopiolies, and therefore do require government oversight. They produce the other part of the problem, and might need to be leveraged to make portable energy possible (hydrogen or whatnot).
I'm not against regulations when it comes to public safety or right-of-way, such as where to put pipelines or overhead lines. To transmit fuel or electricity from point A to point B may require some eminent domain for the benefit of everyone. A hydroelectric plant will monopolize a river. I understand that.
We didn't build refineries because the market demand wasn't there and the environmental restrictions. I'm sure the government could have subsidized one or two for some national security reason-- the old energy independence argument. But I'm glad they didn't. It was cheaper to get refined oil from overseas.
As far as your old car goes, if you keep the tires inflated, the engine tuned up, and not taking unnecessary trips, you might get at least a 10% improvement. By not buying a new car, you will be conserving metal and rubber. It takes energy to make new cars too.
I was reading about the biodiesel splash and dash scam in the Wall Stree Journal. These legal enerygy scams by our government are going to bleed us dry.
You correctly point out some of the problems with ehtanol. So why has government done things to encourage ethanol production? I can think of three possibilities.
1) Buying votes or getting campaign funds or kickbacks from ethanol producers.
2) Gross incompetence
3) The undesireable consequences of higher food prices, and wasted tax dollars are intentional.
Pick a winner. I can't think of any other explanations. None of those represent the kind of responsible representation we should expect. In fact all of those are good reasons for throwing them out of office.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
