PDA

View Full Version : Ethanol’s Boom Stalling as Glut Depresses Price



johnnymk
09-30-2007, 07:33 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/business/30ethanol.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

NEVADA, Iowa, Sept. 24 — The ethanol boom of recent years — which spurred a frenzy of distillery construction, record corn prices, rising food prices and hopes of a new future for rural America — may be fading.

Only last year, farmers here spoke of a biofuel gold rush, and they rejoiced as prices for ethanol and the corn used to produce it set records.

But companies and farm cooperatives have built so many distilleries so quickly that the ethanol market is suddenly plagued by a glut, in part because the means to distribute it have not kept pace. The average national ethanol price on the spot market has plunged 30 percent since May, with the decline escalating sharply in the last few weeks.

“The end of the ethanol boom is possibly in sight and may already be here,” said Neil E. Harl, an economics professor emeritus at Iowa State University who lectures on ethanol and is a consultant for producers. “This is a dangerous time for people who are making investments.”

While generous government support is expected to keep the output of ethanol fuel growing, the poorly planned overexpansion of the industry raises questions about its ability to fulfill the hopes of President Bush and other policy makers to serve as a serious antidote to the nation’s heavy reliance on foreign oil.

And if the bust becomes worse, candidates for president could be put on the spot to pledge even more federal support for the industry, particularly here in Iowa, whose caucus in January is the first contest in the presidential nominating process.

Many industry experts say the worst problems are temporary and have been intensified by transportation bottlenecks in getting ethanol from the heartland to the coasts, where it is needed most. And even if some farmers who invested in the plants lose money, most of them are reaping a separate bounty from higher prices for corn and other commodities, which are expected to remain elevated for some time.

Even so, companies are already shelving plans for expansion and canceling new plant construction. If prices fall more, as many analysts predict, there is likely to be a sweeping consolidation of the industry, and some smaller companies could go out of business.

The falling price of ethanol comes in sharp contrast to the rise in crude oil prices. Lower ethanol prices help reduce gasoline prices at the pump, where ethanol is available, but because it constitutes 10 percent or less in most blends, the impact for the consumer is marginal.

Congress essentially legislated the industry’s expansion by requiring steadily higher quantities of ethanol as a gasoline blend, a kick-start that was further spurred by the proliferation of bans on a competing fuel additive used to help curb air pollution.

But the ethanol industry, which is also heavily subsidized by federal tax incentives, got far ahead of the requirements of the law, rapidly building scores of plants and snapping up a rising share of the corn harvest. Many of those plants have gone into operation in recent months, and many more are scheduled for completion by the end of next year.

The resulting ethanol oversupply is buffeting the market. Here in northern Iowa, deep in the corn belt, newly cautious farmers and ethanol executives are figuring out how to cut costs and weighing their options should the situation get worse.

“We don’t know what, ultimately, the marketplace will price ethanol at,” said Rick Brehm, president and chief executive of Lincolnway Energy, a midsize distillery here. “It could go lower.”

Since construction crews broke ground on the Lincolnway plant in 2005, the price of ethanol on the local market has fallen to $1.55 a gallon from about $2, Mr. Brehm said. Over the same period, the price of corn, representing 70 percent of production costs, has risen to $3.27 a bushel from $1.60. “We’re trapped between two commodities,” he said.

Lincolnway was once virtually alone in the region, but now a handful of new competing distilleries are operating and pouring even more ethanol onto the market, offering blenders more options to negotiate lower prices and driving up demand for corn.

“Obviously, I’m concerned about where we’re going,” said Bill Couser, chairman of Lincolnway Energy, though he added that his company is still making money and he is optimistic about the future.

The ethanol boom was set off when Congress enacted an energy law in 2005 that included a national mandate for the use of renewable fuel in gasoline, obliging the market to consume 7.5 billion gallons a year by 2012, compared with 3.5 billion gallons in 2004.

Already, ethanol producers are poised to outpace that mandate, with capacity expected to reach 7.8 billion gallons by the end of 2007 and 11.5 billion gallons by 2009, although some in the industry are now predicting that the expansion could slow.

The number of ethanol plants in the country has increased to 129 today from 81 in January 2005, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, while plants under construction or expanding have mushroomed to about 80 from 16 during the same period.

“As ethanol supply increases over the next 12 months, the challenge will be to find a home for it,” said Mark Flannery, head of energy equity research at Credit Suisse. “The ethanol surplus is here already.”

Because ethanol is corrosive and soaks up water and impurities, it cannot be shipped through the country’s fuel pipeline network. So it must be transported by train, truck and barge, a more expensive transportation network that is suddenly finding it hard to keep up with the surge in ethanol production.

There is a long backlog in orders for specialized ethanol rail cars to ship the surplus production. Many rail terminals at the ethanol plants do not have spurs large enough to accommodate the long trains that ethanol promoters like to call “virtual pipelines.” And pumps from the storage tanks to the rail cars at the terminals often do not have sufficient capacity to load trains quickly and efficiently.

Phillip C. Baumel, economics professor emeritus at Iowa State University, said that in many cases ethanol producers ramped up their production so rapidly that they gave “inadequate attention to meeting transportation and distribution needs.”

Gasoline wholesale marketers have been slow to gear up ethanol blending terminals, in part because they had to invest simultaneously in equipment to manage low sulfur diesel and tougher product specifications.

Prices of ethanol range widely around the country, even differing from one county to the next in the same state on a daily basis. [The average rack, or wholesale, price reported by the DTN Ethanol Center on Tuesday was $2.42 a gallon in New York and $1.77 in Iowa.] Generally, prices are highest in states farthest away from the Midwest farm belt and in ones that have federal or state clean-air requirements that encourage the use of ethanol.

In a new study, the Agriculture Department warned of “several supply chain issues that could inhibit growth in the ethanol industry,” including a backlog in rail tank car orders that grew to 36,166 rail cars by the end of the first quarter in 2007 from about 10,000 in the third quarter of 2005.

“You just can’t scale it up overnight,” said Chuck Baker, vice president and executive director of the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association.

Stiff blending regulations in some southern states like Florida have also been an impediment to ethanol. And so far, only about 1,000 of the 179,000 pumps at gasoline stations around the country offer E-85, a fuel that is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, intended for the five million flex-fuel vehicles on the road that can run on high ethanol blends.

Major ethanol producers and lobbyists describe the developing gulf between production output and transport capacity as a temporary growing pain that will be alleviated over time.

“We have an industry that has doubled in size in just the past couple of years,” said Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association. “It is going to take a little time for the infrastructure to catch up.”

Some analysts outside the industry think the current market upheaval may be more than simply a hiccup.

Aaron Brady, a director at the consulting firm Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said the current market problems could worsen if combined with other “unintended consequences that may be lurking” from increased ethanol production. He said pressure on corn and other food prices, water shortages, soil and fertilizer runoff could hurt political support for the industry.

“If Congress doesn’t substantially raise the renewable fuel standard,” Mr. Brady said, “then this is not just a short term problem but a long term issue, and there will be more of a shakeout in the industry.”

The Senate has approved a bill that would require gasoline producers to blend 36 billion gallons of ethanol into gasoline by 2022, an increase from the current standard of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. The House did not include such a provision in the version it passed, and it is uncertain whether any final legislation will emerge this year and what it will say about ethanol if it does.

Ethanol proponents say a new energy law is virtually inevitable at some point, and that even if it does not pass this year, lower ethanol prices will provide an incentive for refiners to blend more ethanol into expensive gasoline. A higher renewable fuels standard would force refiners and blenders to work faster to process increased amounts.

A strong energy law would also increase investment and research into ethanol production from nonfood sources, like switch grass, and persuade auto companies to make more cars that run on blends well beyond the standard low percentage ethanol mixture, ethanol proponents argue.

“This is an industry that is going to continue to grow,” said Bruce Rastetter, chief executive of Hawkeye Renewables, a private company based in nearby Ames that has two distilleries and two more under construction. “Once you see an energy bill, I think you will see the industry respond again.”

Still, he has dropped plans to build a fifth plant and take Hawkeye public.

Napoleon54
10-02-2007, 06:25 AM
The coverstory of this month's National Geographic is a great article about ethanol. Here's my Cliff's Notes version.

In the US corn is used to produce ethanol (as a substitute for gasoline) and soybeans are used to produce biodiesel (as a substitute for diesel fuel).

Corn ethanol is impractical
*If the US's entire corn and soybean crops were converted to ethanol, it would only be enough to replace 12% of our gasoline and 6% of our diesel fuel needs. President Bush's stated goal of replacing 15% of our projected gasoline use with ethanol by 2017 seems pretty ignorant in that light.

Corn ethanol is horribly inefficient
*The ratio between investing fossil fuel energy and production of ethanol energy is a platry 1:1.3 . Translate that to a per gallon figure and it means it takes over half a gallon of gas/diesel to make a gallon of ethanol (and remember, a gallon of ethanol only has 70% the energy of gas). Add in the investments of land, labor, etc, and it's questionable if there's any gain at all.

The take-home message of the artile is that he US is making ethanol in an incredibly stupid and irresponsible way. Corn is blatantly not the answer when you look at the stats. Producing ethanol from corn first requires that the starch in the kernels be enzymatically converted to sugar, which is the raw material for ethanol production. Brazil has a fairly impressive ethanol industry using sugar cane as a source. Their energy ratio of fossil fuel input to ethanol output is 1:8. That's pretty respectible. This due to the fact that sugarcane contains a HUGE amount of naturally occuring sugar. Brazil is not without serious problems though. The issues there concern the clearing forests for farm land, exploitation of workers, and the burning of cane fields prior to harvest creates tons of pollution.

The article ends with two experimental biofuel technologies: cellulose and algae.

Producing ethanol from cellulose aims to replicate the process that takes place in cow's stomachs. Converting cellulose starch to ethanol is something science is currently working on. Success in these endevours would allow us to convert an entire corn plant (stalks, leaves, etc... not just the kernels), dead leaves from your lawn, wood, paper, grasses, any source of cellulose, into ethanol. Cellulose technology has the potential for a fossil fuel:ethanol energy return ratio as high as 1:36.

Algae is the most experimental source discussed in the article. It is extremely early stage, but has HUGE potential. The article makes the following comparisson: "While each acre of corn produces around 300 gallons of ethanol a year and an acre of soybeans around 60 gallons of biodiesel, each acre of algae theoretically can churn out more than 5,000 gallons of biofuel each year." This is especially significant because ultimately the limiting factor for biofuel production will be land use. As stated earlier, the US's entire corn crop currently is only capable of supplanting 12% of our gasoline needs. In order to replace it entirely, and at the same time produce enough corn for other needs, we'd have to increase our corn production at least 10x. That's a whole lot of land, something anyone who's ever driven through the midwest will readily appreciate.

I highly recommend that anyone interested in this stuff go pick up the magazine. It is very informative and they do an excellent job of providing a balanced and unbiased perspective.

Markel
10-02-2007, 07:55 AM
President Bush's stated goal of replacing 15% of our projected gasoline use with ethanol by 2017 seems pretty ignorant in that light.
It is ignorant to suggest that President Bush's plan is based on corn. In a State of the Union address, he plainly stated that to goal of the program was to find efficient alternate sources (such as sawgrass), which is exactly what the article ends with.

Prngr44
10-02-2007, 08:06 AM
I also think it's too early to doom corn as a viable substitute. Sure it's not viable now, but I think it's a step in the right direction and technological advances will make it more viable in the future.

But I also agree that cellulosic methods have much more potential.

johnnymk
10-02-2007, 11:07 AM
It is ignorant to suggest that President Bush's plan is based on corn. In a State of the Union address, he plainly stated that to goal of the program was to find efficient alternate sources (such as sawgrass), which is exactly what the article ends with.

Yes, but the guy is no rocket scientist..and it will probably take a decade before the alternate sources are made efficient, if ever.

In the meantime, we have to suffer with higher food prices and environmental costs because of this wasteful and useless technology.

And I am sure his buddies at Archer Daniels Midland are loving this program

Markel
10-02-2007, 11:38 AM
Yes, but the guy is no rocket scientist..and it will probably take a decade before the alternate sources are made efficient, if ever.

In the meantime, we have to suffer with higher food prices and environmental costs because of this wasteful and useless technology.
Brazil has become totally self-sufficient through the use of ethanol (they do have the advantage of sugarcane production). If it takes us a decade to arrive at the solution, I think it would be worth it.

I'm not convinced that ethanol is the ultimate solution, but I'm not about to dismiss it because current technology isn't ideal.

zippyjuan
10-02-2007, 01:03 PM
Ethanol subsidies in 2006 were $7 billion for the production of 4.9 billion gallons of fuel or $1.49 a gallon. http://zfacts.com/p/63.html This is a nice incentive for companies to produce a lot of it (and encourage more to get into the business)reguardless of whether or not producing biofuel from corn is a good idea. For the producers at this rate, it certainly is. That is why there is over-production and that in result is pushing down the price of the product. Oil production also receives subsidies but that is more than paid back in taxes on their products.

Subsidies are often helpful and needed to get new technologies off the ground but the corn based ethanol monies definately seem to be misdirected.

In Brazil, they burn the remaining stalks from their ethanol production to boil water and drive turbines to create the electricity needed to run the plants. Production cost per gallon in 2006 was $1.10- less than just the subsidy in the US. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/13/tech/main1394254_page2.shtml Stations are required to have pumps for ethanol while in the US it is optional and only about 600 stations in the whole country have them. About 40% of cars in Brazil run on ethanol today.

An interesting comparison between the US and Brazil in reguards to ethanol and gas production and consumtion:
http://www.energybulletin.net/21064.html

Having a population that is 61% of the USA’s population, Brazil has a fleet of vehicles that is only 12% of the total American fleet. And a gasoline consumption that is only 2.9% (yes, this is really less than 3%!) of USA’s gasoline consumption.

This very large difference arises from seven factors:

First, being the richest country in the world, the USA has a number of cars that far exceeds the total number of licensed drivers, with almost 0.8 vehicles per person. Brazil, a much more modest country, has only 20% of that impressive rate.

Second, the average American vehicle is larger, heavier and less efficient (21 miles/gallon), with a large number of SUV’s and light trucks being preferred by families. The average car produced in Brazil (at 17 factories) is smaller, with predominant European and Asian influence in car design, a large number of cars being compact and obtaining 40 miles/gallon (gasoline).

Third, by the end of 2006 ethanol will supply 50% of all otherwise needed gasoline. Without fuel ethanol, Brazil would need now 8 billion gallons/year of gasoline, still a bargain when compared to the USA’s 140 billion gallons/year.

Four: there’s no suburban commuting in Brazil. Urban development did not give rise to an affluent class living in distant suburbia and commuting, for working and shopping, tens of miles a day. In Brazil, suburbia is synonymous to poverty; people commute by train, bus and subway to their working places.

Five: 80% of all new cars are now flex-fuel, running on pure gasoline, pure ethanol or any mix of them.

Six: Brazil started to produce and distribute fuel ethanol, for replacing gasoline, in 1975. That’s more than 30 years experience, so 100% of all gas stations, in cities or roads, have ethanol pumps and tanks.

Seven: Brazilian ethanol, produced from sugar cane, is much cheaper that Brazilian gasoline distillated from locally extracted oil. Most of the year, its price is around 55% of gasoline price. In order to be economic, the ethanol price must be at least 70% lower than the price for gasoline.

Self sufficiency in Brazil

To reach a point where all gasoline is replaced with ethanol would be very easy for Brazil and not so desirable for Petrobras, its State-controlled major gasoline producer and exporter. The present sugar cane cultivated area, dedicated to ethanol production and permitting a 50% replacement of gasoline, is 3 million hectares (7.4 million acres).

That is less than 1% of our total arable land. In order to double ethanol production, there is no need to exactly double the planted area, as a steady increase of 3% in yield has been achieved every year in agricultural plus industrial operations, over the last few decades. In 1975, ethanol yield was 375 gallons/acre/year. In 2006 it is reaching a new mark of 870 gallons/acre/year. And organic sugar cane has an even higher yield.

Available land for sugar cane expansion (considering only areas no longer needed for pasture land in Southeast and Center regions, best suited for sugar cane): 18 million ha (44.5 million acres). So it is really very easy for Brazil to replace gasoline with ethanol. But this is not the same for the United States.

USA

To replace all its gasoline (140 bln gal/yr) with ethanol from corn, the USA would need, at present yields of 400 gallons/acre/year, almost 350 million acres of dedicated corn, not including any corn for humans or animal feed. But all the present USA area cultivated with corn is only 75 million acres (FAO, Faostat, 2005)

It would require 297.5 million acres for E 85. Or 35 million acres for E10.

At present moment, USA needs almost 400 000 bbl/day of ethanol but produces 300 000+ bbl/day. This is just to replace MTBE, as required by law. So, imports and new plants are supposed to fill the gap.

But corn and sugar cane are very different

Sugar cane is a semi-perennial culture (6-7 years cycle) that needs far fewer nutrients (fixing nitrogen from air through Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus, for example) than corn. It is the less soil-eroding large crop in Brazil because soil remains covered most of the year or all year round. Sugar cane in Brazil is not irrigated.

All energy for the industrial process comes from bagasse burned in high pressure boilers, providing all thermal, mechanical and electrical energy needed, with at least 10% surplus electrical energy sold to the grid. Corn needs natural gas or fuel oil and electricity from the grid to supply its process-energy demands in the factory.

Ethanol yield (gallons/acre) for sugar cane under good tropical conditions is double that for corn. For all those reasons, sugar cane ethanol is seven times more energy efficient; its net energy, expressed as ERoEI, is 9:1 while corn ethanol has an ERoEI of only 1.3:1.

Conclusions

So, apart from considering whether USA corn ethanol is an energy efficient product or not (what I’m not doing here), one thing must be stressed: sugar cane ethanol from Brazil is NOT a realistic target or a comparable model for USA ethanol from corn. It is very easy to replace all gasoline when you would only need 8 billion gallons per year and you have a generous plant that thrives rain-fed under tropical conditions, occupying less than 1% of a country’s arable land, to produce alcohol to replace 50% of all that gasoline. However, this cannot be extrapolated for USA’s conditions, neither for corn, not even for sugar cane in Southern states. So, realistically, let’s understand that sugar cane ethanol in Brazil is mangoes and corn ethanol in USA is apples.

Milton Maciel, an organic farmer, consultant and author of more than 10 books, is a former Secretary of Agriculture in Alagoas State, Northeast Brazil. He specializes in soil regeneration, organic sugar cane and alcohol production and is a designer for Brazilian Zero Oil Farms project. Milton will be presenting more details about this comparison during the ASPO-USA conference at Boston University on October 26th.


Did you know that there is a $0.54 a gallon tarrif on ethanol imported from Brazil? http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2007/db20070316_016207_page_2.htm
Could this be because of large political contributions by Archer Daniels Midland, the largest producer of Ethanol in the world? Money talks loud in Washington. Did you also know that the US actually produces more ethanol than Brazil does? It is less significant here since we use hundreds times more oil than they do.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2007/db20070316_016207_page_2.htm

Economists argue that making ethanol from corn wouldn't make any sense without the government's help. The mix of federal and state subsidies to corn ethanol amounted to a conservative estimate of $5 billion to $7 billion in 2006, says Koplow of Earth Track. A considerable chunk of that money comes from the 51¢ tax refund for each gallon of ethanol refiners blend with gasoline to make fuels that can power flexible-fuel cars.

At the same time, the government imposes a 54¢-per-gallon tariff on ethanol from Brazil, which is a cheaper and more energy-efficient product made from sugar cane. Some economists say American politicians are subordinating smart energy policy for political support in key states like Iowa.



Algae production will require another resource which is becoming more scarce- fresh water. Human populations are growing but the supplies of fresh water are not- in the US they are in decline in many parts of the country.

guiseppewv
10-03-2007, 01:55 PM
ZJ: One problem with the article you posted: The price of ethanol has to be ~70% of the price of gas NOT "In order to be economic, the ethanol price must be at least 70% lower than the price for gasoline."

I think it would be more advantageous if the govt cut back the oil and ethanol subsidies and heavily subsidized clean energy (i.e. wind, solar, tidal, etc..). If we heavily subsidized the creation of clean power generators then it would pay dividends in the future (i.e. clean energy for years to come) rather than subsidized energy that we are using up. Think give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for life....plus he gets to go out an drink with his friends while fishing. :)

zippyjuan
10-03-2007, 03:48 PM
I would definately agree that there are probably better places to spend the kinds of money that are going into corn ethanol production for alternative energy sources. One article I read said that if we wanted to replace the amount of gasoline consumption proposed by Bush we would have to convert all of our crops to corn- and STILL have to import more ethanol.

guiseppewv
10-03-2007, 06:43 PM
I would definately agree that there are probably better places to spend the kinds of money that are going into corn ethanol production for alternative energy sources. One article I read said that if we wanted to replace the amount of gasoline consumption proposed by Bush we would have to convert all of our crops to corn- and STILL have to import more ethanol.

I agree to a certain degree. I don't think Bush ever said we were going to replace all gasoline with ethanol from corn. Ethanol created from cellulose is a promising technology which could make some contributions. I think that we should go after some "easy" wins in the reduction of pollution and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The "low hanging fruit" that I see is with wind power, solar, and tidal energy. If we can harness some of that and reduce our dependance on importing natural gas then we can focus on gasoline replacement as the technology is developed. Of course we would have to also fund research into that tech, too. Another low hanging fruit is to reduce consumption of gasoline by mandating a quick, but small, increase in fuel economy. Then increasing that number every couple years by a small amount.

Those are just some of the thoughts that are rolling around in my melon right now.

johnnymk
10-11-2007, 04:56 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119206474778855491.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


The stalling ethanol industry wants Congress to mandate greater use of the biofuel. But many of the industry's former friends have turned against it amid soaring prices for corn and other grains.

Congress gave a big boost to ethanol in 2005, when it mandated that oil refiners blend 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels such as ethanol into the nation's gasoline supply by 2012. The farm lobby was united behind ethanol as a way to strengthen rural economies. Environmental groups backed it as a way to fight global warming and lessen the nation's dependence on foreign oil. Even the petroleum industry was supportive.

Since then, dozens of ethanol plants have sprouted around the country, turning corn into fuel. The rise of the industry has helped to boost grain prices and create jobs in farm states.

But ethanol production today is close to reaching the 7.5-billion-gallon level in the 2005 law. Oversupply has forced down prices and driven some ethanol producers into trouble. Producers and corn farmers are lobbying hard for Congress to boost the requirement anew to ensure that demand can soak up the rising production.

Without new legislation, there will be a "natural barrier to growth in the industry," says Eric Washburn, legislative counsel for the American Coalition for Ethanol, a trade group based in Sioux Falls, S.D.

In June, the Senate passed a bill increasing the mandate for renewable-fuels use to 36 billion gallons by 2022, with 15 billion gallons coming from corn-based ethanol. A House bill would leave the current goal in place. Lawmakers in both houses are preparing to work on reconciling the bills, though the timing isn't clear.

Opposition to the ethanol industry's goals has grown significantly stiffer. The so-called barnyard lobby -- representing the meat, livestock and poultry industries -- says high corn prices are hurting its profits. The price of corn-based animal feed has increased about 60% since 2005, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

"Our single biggest priority is for Congress to reject a new renewable-fuels mandate," says Jesse Sevcik, vice president of legislative affairs at the American Meat Institute, a meat and poultry trade association.

Other groups that were originally sympathetic to ethanol are drifting away. They fear that the fuel's advantages are outweighed by the rise in corn prices, which they say increases the cost of foods ranging from steak to cereal. "Many policy makers were seduced by ethanol," says Cal Dooley, president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association. He opposes increasing federal support for ethanol.

The Agriculture Department says consumers can expect to pay as much as 4.5% more for groceries and restaurant meals this year over last, up from a 2.4% rise the year before.

The Renewable Fuels Association, the Washington-based ethanol trade group, disputes that ethanol is the chief culprit for rising food prices. It says higher energy costs are more to blame. The acting agriculture secretary, Chuck Connor, told the association last week that "clearly ethanol demand is having an impact" on food-price inflation, but the impact isn't as dire as some suggest.

The spreading coalition against new ethanol mandates includes the American Petroleum Institute, representing the oil industry. It says it supports ethanol but prefers a market-driven approach, rather than one driven by the government. Some petroleum refiners say ethanol prices are low enough now that they would consider buying the fuel on their own, without mandates.

The institute is finding common ground with environmental groups that usually battle the oil industry. Some environmentalists say unchecked growth in ethanol production could lead to soil erosion and degradation of wildlife habitats as more land is turned over to corn production.

"We've certainly had discussions" with the oil lobby, says Jim Presswood, a lobbyist for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Mr. Presswood notes that his organization has also talked with food and livestock groups to search for common ground.

Charles Stenholm, a former Democratic congressman from Texas who was influential in agriculture policy, is now a lobbyist in Washington. His clients include pork, dairy and oil interests, according to lobbying records. They all agree, he says, that "you need to let the market be the biggest determinant for ethanol."

Ethanol proponents say that isn't realistic for the short term. Most oil-and-gas pipelines aren't designed to distribute ethanol. Gasoline stations have been slow to install ethanol storage tanks and so-called E85 pumps, which pump an 85% ethanol blend instead of the more common 10% mix of ethanol and gasoline.

Matt Hartwig, spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, says ethanol is "still a young and developing industry." The government needs to keep supporting it, he says, if Americans want to "sniff the dream" of commercializing cellulosic ethanol, which can be made from materials including wood or switchgrass

VTGreg
10-11-2007, 05:26 PM
snip


I think this article does a good job of summing up all that is wrong with Washington politics. The majority of it discusses what all the different Washington special interest groups are lobbying for while there isn't any mention that corn based ethanol is a bad technology because it doesn't produce much energy for what is put into it.

Seriously, no one in that article cared about furthering technology that will help make us less dependent on oil with the exception of the last paragraph.

zippyjuan
10-11-2007, 06:12 PM
Start with higher fuel efficiency standards for autos including SUVs and light trucks- currently exempt from them. You can save more oil that way than by making ethanol from corn. Guiseppewv was right on that. But that might limit consumer's choices so we can't have that. Right now it is all about the lobbyists from companies like Archer Daniels Midland trying to keep their share of the $7 billion a year in subsidies. Since the price is artificially inflated, production will be inflated as well.

Napoleon54
10-16-2007, 08:16 PM
I think this article does a good job of summing up all that is wrong with Washington politics. The majority of it discusses what all the different Washington special interest groups are lobbying for while there isn't any mention that corn based ethanol is a bad technology because it doesn't produce much energy for what is put into it.

Seriously, no one in that article cared about furthering technology that will help make us less dependent on oil with the exception of the last paragraph.

:stupid: :stupid: :stupid:

Excellent observations, right on. It's all about what's good for who, rather than what's good for the greater good. :angry: