U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, will introduce legislation which would offer gas stations to decide whether or not they want to use gas without ethanol at the pump.
A draconian law will soon go into effect which will force everyone to offer gas with ethanol in it, even though many people don't want to put the stuff into their cars and equipment, because of the proven ethanol causes.
Some foolish and ignorant proponents of ethanol, for example, Terry Dietrich, President of American Farmers and Ranchers Insurance, say things like this, "We think it's high time that we quit fighting wars overseas and funding both sides. We've lost enough American soldiers."
This is so stupid as to not even be able to be taken seriously. In other words, all that oil in Afghanistan you mean? Is that why we need ethanol? Demagogues like this don't even attempt to use their brain when making their statements.
Some even pretend the proven higher costs of food coming from pushing ethanol isn't true either. That's an outright lie. Just ask the meat industry if that's what they have found out.
Just one way this happens is through the higher cost of feeding animals, which when we buy their meat, creates higher costs at the supermarket. How hard is that to understand.
Ethanol needs to be allowed to stand on its own, and the subsidies which make it survive need to be removed. Then we'll see if there's really a demand for it or not. I think we already know the answer to that.
Showing posts with label Ethanol Failure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethanol Failure. Show all posts
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
The Evil of Forced Ethanol
It's unbelievable what America and the radical environmentalists are getting away with. Ethanol is the latest attempt to force Americans to adhere to what can only be called a religion, with their god being the earth and the environment.
To even resist the monster is to be called a name, and that name is now a derisionary "gas purist."
Here's one example:
"Eric “Ric” Foster, the owner of a Gardner gasoline station, doesn’t like ethanol. No, that’s not quite right. He despises the stuff.
"A sign in front of the station alerts motorists that his gas contains no ethanol, and in case you miss it, an electronic sign in the window boasts of the station’s ethanol-free fuel."
The misguided regulations that force ethanol upon Americans is evil People have a right to the type of gas they want to buy, and the government has no place in telling them any different.
There are a growing number of people resisting this forced ethanol policy, and even by the standards of honest researchers, developing the ethanol industry on the back of corn is far worse for the environment than not doing it.
Once the monster that government is becoming puts something into law, only the bold and wise will be able to get a hearing on it, let alone make some real changes.
With so many things happening around us, it's hard to keep up with all this grab for power by the government, but we need to keep up the good fight, and this is really an issue of freedom.
People should be able to put into their cars what they deem the best fuel, and in a number of cars ethanol can damage them. And the damage done to power equipment is well documented.
The government blending the lines between them and industry is called fascism. This is the road we are increasingly traveling on in America, and we need to battle it every step of the way.
To even resist the monster is to be called a name, and that name is now a derisionary "gas purist."
Here's one example:
"Eric “Ric” Foster, the owner of a Gardner gasoline station, doesn’t like ethanol. No, that’s not quite right. He despises the stuff.
"A sign in front of the station alerts motorists that his gas contains no ethanol, and in case you miss it, an electronic sign in the window boasts of the station’s ethanol-free fuel."
The misguided regulations that force ethanol upon Americans is evil People have a right to the type of gas they want to buy, and the government has no place in telling them any different.
There are a growing number of people resisting this forced ethanol policy, and even by the standards of honest researchers, developing the ethanol industry on the back of corn is far worse for the environment than not doing it.
Once the monster that government is becoming puts something into law, only the bold and wise will be able to get a hearing on it, let alone make some real changes.
With so many things happening around us, it's hard to keep up with all this grab for power by the government, but we need to keep up the good fight, and this is really an issue of freedom.
People should be able to put into their cars what they deem the best fuel, and in a number of cars ethanol can damage them. And the damage done to power equipment is well documented.
The government blending the lines between them and industry is called fascism. This is the road we are increasingly traveling on in America, and we need to battle it every step of the way.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Meat Producers Ask for End to Ethanol Subsidies
Meat producers in America are rightly calling for an end to the subsidies given them by the government in order to misguidedly create ethanol industry.
The American Meat Institute, the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn., the National Chicken Council and the National Turkey Federation call for a level playing field in competition for corn, and they are of course correct.
If the ethanol industry can't survive competitively, it doesn't deserve to survive, and if people reject it as an alternative fuel, than there's no reason for it to be not only forced on people, but also to increase the price of meat as well for consumers.
The ethanol industry is coddled through tariffs on foreign ethanol, as well as receiving the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.
Government interference in any industry should be forbidden, as it eliminates market forces and creates a pseudo industry that can't survive on its own because consumers wouldn't buy it otherwise.
So when the meat industry has to acquire corn feed, they compete against a government entity in the ethanol industry, which acquires it at subsidized prices.
The beef and pork industries have been devastated because of this ignorant initiative that should never have been allowed in the first place, but now that it has, needs to be ended as quickly as possible.
With the economy down and production prices up for the meat industry, they had to take the losses because of the ethanol subsidies because people wouldn't buy meat when it is too expensive for them in tough economic times.
The meat industry estimates it has lost over $13 bilion as a result of higher corn and soybean prices.
Corn prices are over 4 times higher from 2005 to 2009 as the terrible ethanol policies devastated the industry.
The American Meat Institute, the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn., the National Chicken Council and the National Turkey Federation call for a level playing field in competition for corn, and they are of course correct.
If the ethanol industry can't survive competitively, it doesn't deserve to survive, and if people reject it as an alternative fuel, than there's no reason for it to be not only forced on people, but also to increase the price of meat as well for consumers.
The ethanol industry is coddled through tariffs on foreign ethanol, as well as receiving the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.
Government interference in any industry should be forbidden, as it eliminates market forces and creates a pseudo industry that can't survive on its own because consumers wouldn't buy it otherwise.
So when the meat industry has to acquire corn feed, they compete against a government entity in the ethanol industry, which acquires it at subsidized prices.
The beef and pork industries have been devastated because of this ignorant initiative that should never have been allowed in the first place, but now that it has, needs to be ended as quickly as possible.
With the economy down and production prices up for the meat industry, they had to take the losses because of the ethanol subsidies because people wouldn't buy meat when it is too expensive for them in tough economic times.
The meat industry estimates it has lost over $13 bilion as a result of higher corn and soybean prices.
Corn prices are over 4 times higher from 2005 to 2009 as the terrible ethanol policies devastated the industry.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Ethanol Plant Closing in Minnesota
Low ethanol prices continue to take a toll on the so-called industry, as an ethanol plant was closed in Buffalo Lake by Minnesota Energy.
This is completely based on price and margins,according to chairman of the board of the company, Randy Byro.
Byro said prices need to increase by at least 50 cents to 75 cents a gallon to even think of reopening the plant.
While not a huge plant, it does underscore the ethanol fiasco which was marketed as a savior to small communities across America, but has dashed hopes as the market for it remains small, and if not for taxpayer subsidies, would be a complete joke.
Let the free market determine whether ethanol is viable or not. If people want it they'll be willing to pay for it. Obviously people don't want it, and the program needs to be droppped along with the waste of taxpayers' dollars.
This is completely based on price and margins,according to chairman of the board of the company, Randy Byro.
Byro said prices need to increase by at least 50 cents to 75 cents a gallon to even think of reopening the plant.
While not a huge plant, it does underscore the ethanol fiasco which was marketed as a savior to small communities across America, but has dashed hopes as the market for it remains small, and if not for taxpayer subsidies, would be a complete joke.
Let the free market determine whether ethanol is viable or not. If people want it they'll be willing to pay for it. Obviously people don't want it, and the program needs to be droppped along with the waste of taxpayers' dollars.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Ethanol News | EPA Report Says Ethanol Harder on Climate than Gasoline - Politicians Throw Fit
Ethanol News
There is so much proof that the ethanol debacle needs to end, that even the report by the EPA that ethanol is worse on the environment than gasoline hasn't stopped politicians trying to get taxpayer dollars into their states from thowing a tantrum.
We’ve entered another ugly battle in the ethanol wars. The EPA released an analysis last month purporting that corn-based ethanol is actually worse for the climate than gasoline on a lifecycle basis, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a ruling that will effectively exclude corn-based ethanol from California’s Renewable Fuels Standard for that reason.
The ethanol industry and its supporters are livid (who cares). House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN), a longtime ethanol supporter, threw a fit during a recent hearing and now is threatening to block climate legislation over the new rules. "I don't care,” he exclaimed during a hearing over EPA’s draft rule, “Even if you fix this. I don't trust anybody anymore -- I’ve had it." Ethanol opponents are cheering the agencies' decisions and urging them to look at ethanol under worst-case scenarios.
What is sad about this spat is that while everyone is arguing over whether ethanol is bad, no one is talking about how to make it better. The worst impacts of ethanol occur far from Iowa or Washington in the forests that are burned down to respond to added demand for cropland.
Deforestation results in almost 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and it will not be solved through tired finger pointing. This problem is hard but solvable if we focus on the systemic drivers of slash-and-burn agriculture.
A quick primer on the latest wrinkle from the EPA and CARB: Both reached damning conclusions about the impact of ethanol based on complex economic modeling, but the basic logic behind their analysis is simple:
• Using farmland for ethanol diverts land from being used for food production, driving up price and demand
• Higher prices and demand encourage farmers in the developing world to plant more crops
• Developing world farmers clear and burn forests so they can plant more crops
• Clearing forest for cropland releases a tremendous amount of greenhouse gas
• Thus, devoting cropland to ethanol production leads to increases in greenhouse gas emissions
The ethanol industry and its supporters don’t dispute this logic, but claim two problems with the agencies’ approach: (1) The science behind this economic modeling is too new and imprecise, and (2) biofuels are being held to a much tougher standard than other climate solutions. Their opponents hold that the science is sound, and that other low-carbon technologies simply don't have these massive "indirect land-use" problems.
Yet this debate is just so much fiddling while Rome (or maybe Indonesia) burns. The crux of the problem is not in how we measure the impact of ethanol, it is that developing world farmers clear and burn forests so they can plant more crops. Ethanol is just one of the pressures that speed the disastrous destruction of these forests. The rest is just an accounting exercise.
Farmers in the developing world burn forests because it is the most economical, and often only, choice they have. They often can’t afford fertilizers, equipment or high-yield seeds. They have limited access to informational tools like education, soil tests and precision agriculture technology that would allow them to produce more crops in the same place. Without these resources, the only choice is to find new land.
Moreover, there is little or no barrier to slash-and-burn agriculture. Logging roads often give farmers access to virgin forests. Not enough forests are protected, and where they are, many governments lack the resources or the will to enforce conservation laws.
The solutions to these problems are not easy, but models exist. Technology transfer and economic development programs can increase crop yields and reduce the real costs of agricultural technology. A global agreement on REDD (reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation) could protect forests and provide payments from a global trust fund as an alternative to chopping trees down.
In order to reduce the lifecycle impact of ethanol, the industry needs to do more than cry foul on these regulations. It needs to be engaged in finding solutions to reduce the pressure to clear land for agriculture. A forward-thinking producer would be lobbying for global forest protection and working with partners in the agricultural industry to support technology transfer to the rural poor.
Meanwhile, ethanol's detractors need to admit that producers can't bear this burden alone, and that failing to compromise with such a politically powerful industry will lead only to delay and more poorly designed policies.
Here's a modest proposal: Congress lets the ethanol industry off the hook for its indirect upstream effects, and the industry agrees that some of its massive subsidies be diverted to programs that protect forests and give farmers options beyond burning them down. Putting more resources toward these programs will not only protect forests from the indirect effects of ethanol, but also the threats of logging, development or other future pressures on agricultural growth.
We will see many more of these fights in the coming years as industries, activists and policymakers argue over who has to bear the burden for indirect, unanticipated environmental and social damages. We need a systemic approach that tackles the problems on the ground, instead of shifting the blame around.
Noam Ross is a senior analyst at GreenOrder, an LRN Company. GreenOrder is a strategy and management consulting firm that has helped leading companies turn sustainability into business value since 2000.
Of course there aren't any climate problems in the first place, and to listen to Ross attempt to apply logic, confusion and reason to the made-up crisis, just shows how far many will go when decisions and conclusions take money out of their greedy pockets.
Ethanol News
There is so much proof that the ethanol debacle needs to end, that even the report by the EPA that ethanol is worse on the environment than gasoline hasn't stopped politicians trying to get taxpayer dollars into their states from thowing a tantrum.
We’ve entered another ugly battle in the ethanol wars. The EPA released an analysis last month purporting that corn-based ethanol is actually worse for the climate than gasoline on a lifecycle basis, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a ruling that will effectively exclude corn-based ethanol from California’s Renewable Fuels Standard for that reason.
The ethanol industry and its supporters are livid (who cares). House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN), a longtime ethanol supporter, threw a fit during a recent hearing and now is threatening to block climate legislation over the new rules. "I don't care,” he exclaimed during a hearing over EPA’s draft rule, “Even if you fix this. I don't trust anybody anymore -- I’ve had it." Ethanol opponents are cheering the agencies' decisions and urging them to look at ethanol under worst-case scenarios.
What is sad about this spat is that while everyone is arguing over whether ethanol is bad, no one is talking about how to make it better. The worst impacts of ethanol occur far from Iowa or Washington in the forests that are burned down to respond to added demand for cropland.
Deforestation results in almost 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and it will not be solved through tired finger pointing. This problem is hard but solvable if we focus on the systemic drivers of slash-and-burn agriculture.
A quick primer on the latest wrinkle from the EPA and CARB: Both reached damning conclusions about the impact of ethanol based on complex economic modeling, but the basic logic behind their analysis is simple:
• Using farmland for ethanol diverts land from being used for food production, driving up price and demand
• Higher prices and demand encourage farmers in the developing world to plant more crops
• Developing world farmers clear and burn forests so they can plant more crops
• Clearing forest for cropland releases a tremendous amount of greenhouse gas
• Thus, devoting cropland to ethanol production leads to increases in greenhouse gas emissions
The ethanol industry and its supporters don’t dispute this logic, but claim two problems with the agencies’ approach: (1) The science behind this economic modeling is too new and imprecise, and (2) biofuels are being held to a much tougher standard than other climate solutions. Their opponents hold that the science is sound, and that other low-carbon technologies simply don't have these massive "indirect land-use" problems.
Yet this debate is just so much fiddling while Rome (or maybe Indonesia) burns. The crux of the problem is not in how we measure the impact of ethanol, it is that developing world farmers clear and burn forests so they can plant more crops. Ethanol is just one of the pressures that speed the disastrous destruction of these forests. The rest is just an accounting exercise.
Farmers in the developing world burn forests because it is the most economical, and often only, choice they have. They often can’t afford fertilizers, equipment or high-yield seeds. They have limited access to informational tools like education, soil tests and precision agriculture technology that would allow them to produce more crops in the same place. Without these resources, the only choice is to find new land.
Moreover, there is little or no barrier to slash-and-burn agriculture. Logging roads often give farmers access to virgin forests. Not enough forests are protected, and where they are, many governments lack the resources or the will to enforce conservation laws.
The solutions to these problems are not easy, but models exist. Technology transfer and economic development programs can increase crop yields and reduce the real costs of agricultural technology. A global agreement on REDD (reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation) could protect forests and provide payments from a global trust fund as an alternative to chopping trees down.
In order to reduce the lifecycle impact of ethanol, the industry needs to do more than cry foul on these regulations. It needs to be engaged in finding solutions to reduce the pressure to clear land for agriculture. A forward-thinking producer would be lobbying for global forest protection and working with partners in the agricultural industry to support technology transfer to the rural poor.
Meanwhile, ethanol's detractors need to admit that producers can't bear this burden alone, and that failing to compromise with such a politically powerful industry will lead only to delay and more poorly designed policies.
Here's a modest proposal: Congress lets the ethanol industry off the hook for its indirect upstream effects, and the industry agrees that some of its massive subsidies be diverted to programs that protect forests and give farmers options beyond burning them down. Putting more resources toward these programs will not only protect forests from the indirect effects of ethanol, but also the threats of logging, development or other future pressures on agricultural growth.
We will see many more of these fights in the coming years as industries, activists and policymakers argue over who has to bear the burden for indirect, unanticipated environmental and social damages. We need a systemic approach that tackles the problems on the ground, instead of shifting the blame around.
Noam Ross is a senior analyst at GreenOrder, an LRN Company. GreenOrder is a strategy and management consulting firm that has helped leading companies turn sustainability into business value since 2000.
Of course there aren't any climate problems in the first place, and to listen to Ross attempt to apply logic, confusion and reason to the made-up crisis, just shows how far many will go when decisions and conclusions take money out of their greedy pockets.
Ethanol News
Friday, February 6, 2009
Ethanol | Worse than Gasoline
... says a study from the University of Minnesota on corn-based ethanol
Ethanol continues to get hammered as another study, this time from the University of Minnesota, says the costs are much higher than originally anticipated, and is higher than gasoline when taking into account all factors.
Health, environmental factors make conventional ethanol costly, but the market for alternative fuels is tanking
As noted in The New York Times yesterday, researchers from the University of Minnesota compared the cost of corn-based ethanol to the cost of gasoline and found that ethanol costs more when environmental and health factors are included.
The process of making ethanol is energy-intensive, and the most expensive ethanol is made with corn in facilities that burn cheap but polluting coal.
According to the study, “Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasoline,” the numbers are grim.
“For each billion ethanol-equivalent gallons of fuel produced and combusted in the U.S., the combined climate-change and health costs are $469 million for gasoline, $472–952 million for corn ethanol … but only $123–208 million for cellulosic ethanol [ethanol derived from prairie biomass, corn stalks, switchgrass or other sources],” the study says.
The huge range of cost for corn ethanol is due to the different methods used to produce the fuel. The $952 million number is for ethanol made using coal, a method that’s being used in an increasing number of ethanol facilities.
As Grist noted back in 2006, “More and more ethanol manufacturers are looking to power their plants with cheap coal instead of its cleaner and increasingly expensive competitor, natural gas, thereby potentially limiting ethanol’s environmental benefits.”
The University of Minnesota study includes charts and maps, including one that shows a big, dark red blotch — next to New Mexico — that indicates where corn ethanol is made with coal.
Without those handy state border lines it’s a little hard to tell what’s what in those pictures above. But here’s another map that puts it in better perspective:
The map is a little old; there are now three plants in operation in Texas and seven more planned.
That green dot in New Mexico is the Abengoa Bioenergy plant in Portales. Built in 1985, it was producing 30 million gallons of ethanol before a temporary shutdown in October due to fluctuations in both the grain and oil markets.
Most of the city of Portales gets its power from Xcel Energy, which sells power generated New Mexico and Texas, including two coal fired power plants in West Texas. About half of Xcel’s power — 52 percent — comes from coal; 41 percent comes from natural gas and 7 percent comes from wind and other renewables.
“The coal plants run about 24-7 because its the least expensive and the most efficient,” says Wes Reeves of Xcel.
More than 70 percent of New Mexico’s power is generated at two coal-fired plants near Farmington (pdf). Carbon dioxide emissions from coal make up more than half of the emissions from power plants in New Mexico.
Because producing ethanol is so energy intensive, many ethanol plants don’t buy electricity; they either buy natural gas or they have their own power plants, which burn coal or other fuel, such as cow poop.
When the Abengoa plant is running, it uses the cleaner, but more expensive, natural gas. Abengoa, which is headquartered in Spain, does not have any coal-fired ethanol plants, says Vice President Christopher Stanley.
The Portales ethanol plant had to close temporarily because the high price of grain sorghum and milo — the raw ingredients it uses to make ethanol — is relatively high, while the price of gasoline, which largely determines the price of ethanol, is low.
“It’s all market-driven,” Stanley says. “It’s our intention to resume production as soon as the market improves.”
And the market is not good. As the Times noted earlier this week, the crummy economy and the credit crisis have put a serious dent in the market for alternative energy. Companies that make wind turbines and solar panels have all laid off workers; biomass and geothermal groups have also seen a slowdown. Meanwhile, the falling price of oil has put a kink in alternative fuels’ chain.
One ethanol plant in Hereford, Texas, which broke ground in 2005, planned to use manure from nearby dairy farms rather than natural gas or coal for power. But less than two weeks ago, the company, Hereford Biofuels, filed for bankruptcy and announced it was putting the still-unfinished plant up for sale.
Algae-derived biodiesel is attractive in part because conventional biodiesel is made from soybeans, and like corn-based ethanol, is subject to the “food or fuel” debate. And demand for biodiesel is increasing; in 2007, the New Mexcio Legislature passed the Biodiesel Standards Act, which will require 5 percent biodiesel in state vehicles by 2010 and for all vehicles by 2012. The state is also offering tax credits to facilities that install blending equipment.
The Center of Excellence for Hazardous Materials Management, working in partnership with Los Alamos National Laboratory and New Mexico State University, has developed an algae biodiesel test project near Carlsbad.
“In Carlsbad we’re hoping to take microalgae to market. The project has the potential to make biodiesel that wouldn’t use a field crop but would take advantage of some wide open spaces and brine water,” says Fernando Martinez, director of the Energy Conservation and Management Division of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department.
But is algae biodiesel economically viable? Last year, Doug Lynn, the center’s executive director, said he was cautiously optimistic that biodiesel could be produced from algae for $80 per barrel. That’s a lot better than last year’s $150 per barrel prices for oil, but not compared to the $40 we’re paying right now.
In the aftermath of yet another study critical of corn-based ethanol, ethanol backers are expressing frustration with what they consider faulty research.
Dr. Martha Schlicher is the former head of the National Corn to Ethanol Research Center and now vice president of Illinois River Energy. She says the recent University of Minnesota study, like others in the past, fails to recognize dramatic technology improvements occurring in corn ethanol production.
“Science grows and develops and gets perfected with time,” Schlicher says. “We have a willingness to accept that in the medical field—I think brain surgery and heart surgery have probably improved dramatically. Antibiotics have improved dramatically.”
In the Minnesota study, for example, Sclicher says researchers failed to mention that natural gas and electricity could eventually be eliminated from the ethanol production process, which would greatly alter its emission profile.
While negative to corn ethanol, the Minnesota study was very positive to cellulosic ethanol. However, Schlicher thinks it “over-promises” on the potential of cellulosics.
“If we think for a minute that cellulosic-based ethanol, or an advanced biofuel, is going to be perfect when it gets to market, we’ve got another think coming,” Schlicher says, “and then we’re right back to the same old starting point and we’ll never have an alternative to gasoline.”
Schlicher says cellulosic ethanol is an important part of our renewable future. But while it is being developed, she says America should optimize the base of production that it has today in corn ethanol.
Even with these continuous misguided and dishonest calls for ethanol as a biofuel, and even looking to the more expensive cellulosic ethanol as a future alternative to corn-based ethanol, it looks like its backers are looking at it as a form of environmental religion, as they continue to ignore the disaster that ethanol in whatever form it takes is.
Ethanol continues to get hammered as another study, this time from the University of Minnesota, says the costs are much higher than originally anticipated, and is higher than gasoline when taking into account all factors.
Health, environmental factors make conventional ethanol costly, but the market for alternative fuels is tanking
As noted in The New York Times yesterday, researchers from the University of Minnesota compared the cost of corn-based ethanol to the cost of gasoline and found that ethanol costs more when environmental and health factors are included.
The process of making ethanol is energy-intensive, and the most expensive ethanol is made with corn in facilities that burn cheap but polluting coal.
According to the study, “Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasoline,” the numbers are grim.
“For each billion ethanol-equivalent gallons of fuel produced and combusted in the U.S., the combined climate-change and health costs are $469 million for gasoline, $472–952 million for corn ethanol … but only $123–208 million for cellulosic ethanol [ethanol derived from prairie biomass, corn stalks, switchgrass or other sources],” the study says.
The huge range of cost for corn ethanol is due to the different methods used to produce the fuel. The $952 million number is for ethanol made using coal, a method that’s being used in an increasing number of ethanol facilities.
As Grist noted back in 2006, “More and more ethanol manufacturers are looking to power their plants with cheap coal instead of its cleaner and increasingly expensive competitor, natural gas, thereby potentially limiting ethanol’s environmental benefits.”
The University of Minnesota study includes charts and maps, including one that shows a big, dark red blotch — next to New Mexico — that indicates where corn ethanol is made with coal.
Without those handy state border lines it’s a little hard to tell what’s what in those pictures above. But here’s another map that puts it in better perspective:
The map is a little old; there are now three plants in operation in Texas and seven more planned.
That green dot in New Mexico is the Abengoa Bioenergy plant in Portales. Built in 1985, it was producing 30 million gallons of ethanol before a temporary shutdown in October due to fluctuations in both the grain and oil markets.
Most of the city of Portales gets its power from Xcel Energy, which sells power generated New Mexico and Texas, including two coal fired power plants in West Texas. About half of Xcel’s power — 52 percent — comes from coal; 41 percent comes from natural gas and 7 percent comes from wind and other renewables.
“The coal plants run about 24-7 because its the least expensive and the most efficient,” says Wes Reeves of Xcel.
More than 70 percent of New Mexico’s power is generated at two coal-fired plants near Farmington (pdf). Carbon dioxide emissions from coal make up more than half of the emissions from power plants in New Mexico.
Because producing ethanol is so energy intensive, many ethanol plants don’t buy electricity; they either buy natural gas or they have their own power plants, which burn coal or other fuel, such as cow poop.
When the Abengoa plant is running, it uses the cleaner, but more expensive, natural gas. Abengoa, which is headquartered in Spain, does not have any coal-fired ethanol plants, says Vice President Christopher Stanley.
The Portales ethanol plant had to close temporarily because the high price of grain sorghum and milo — the raw ingredients it uses to make ethanol — is relatively high, while the price of gasoline, which largely determines the price of ethanol, is low.
“It’s all market-driven,” Stanley says. “It’s our intention to resume production as soon as the market improves.”
And the market is not good. As the Times noted earlier this week, the crummy economy and the credit crisis have put a serious dent in the market for alternative energy. Companies that make wind turbines and solar panels have all laid off workers; biomass and geothermal groups have also seen a slowdown. Meanwhile, the falling price of oil has put a kink in alternative fuels’ chain.
One ethanol plant in Hereford, Texas, which broke ground in 2005, planned to use manure from nearby dairy farms rather than natural gas or coal for power. But less than two weeks ago, the company, Hereford Biofuels, filed for bankruptcy and announced it was putting the still-unfinished plant up for sale.
Algae-derived biodiesel is attractive in part because conventional biodiesel is made from soybeans, and like corn-based ethanol, is subject to the “food or fuel” debate. And demand for biodiesel is increasing; in 2007, the New Mexcio Legislature passed the Biodiesel Standards Act, which will require 5 percent biodiesel in state vehicles by 2010 and for all vehicles by 2012. The state is also offering tax credits to facilities that install blending equipment.
The Center of Excellence for Hazardous Materials Management, working in partnership with Los Alamos National Laboratory and New Mexico State University, has developed an algae biodiesel test project near Carlsbad.
“In Carlsbad we’re hoping to take microalgae to market. The project has the potential to make biodiesel that wouldn’t use a field crop but would take advantage of some wide open spaces and brine water,” says Fernando Martinez, director of the Energy Conservation and Management Division of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department.
But is algae biodiesel economically viable? Last year, Doug Lynn, the center’s executive director, said he was cautiously optimistic that biodiesel could be produced from algae for $80 per barrel. That’s a lot better than last year’s $150 per barrel prices for oil, but not compared to the $40 we’re paying right now.
In the aftermath of yet another study critical of corn-based ethanol, ethanol backers are expressing frustration with what they consider faulty research.
Dr. Martha Schlicher is the former head of the National Corn to Ethanol Research Center and now vice president of Illinois River Energy. She says the recent University of Minnesota study, like others in the past, fails to recognize dramatic technology improvements occurring in corn ethanol production.
“Science grows and develops and gets perfected with time,” Schlicher says. “We have a willingness to accept that in the medical field—I think brain surgery and heart surgery have probably improved dramatically. Antibiotics have improved dramatically.”
In the Minnesota study, for example, Sclicher says researchers failed to mention that natural gas and electricity could eventually be eliminated from the ethanol production process, which would greatly alter its emission profile.
While negative to corn ethanol, the Minnesota study was very positive to cellulosic ethanol. However, Schlicher thinks it “over-promises” on the potential of cellulosics.
“If we think for a minute that cellulosic-based ethanol, or an advanced biofuel, is going to be perfect when it gets to market, we’ve got another think coming,” Schlicher says, “and then we’re right back to the same old starting point and we’ll never have an alternative to gasoline.”
Schlicher says cellulosic ethanol is an important part of our renewable future. But while it is being developed, she says America should optimize the base of production that it has today in corn ethanol.
Even with these continuous misguided and dishonest calls for ethanol as a biofuel, and even looking to the more expensive cellulosic ethanol as a future alternative to corn-based ethanol, it looks like its backers are looking at it as a form of environmental religion, as they continue to ignore the disaster that ethanol in whatever form it takes is.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Ethanol | Greater Ohio Ethanol
Greater Ohio Ethanol - Another Reason to Abandon the Ethanol Debacle
The failure of the ethanol initiative is again unveiled as the Greater Ohio Ethanol company can't find a buyer that could justify the price and debt the company is attempting to command and owes.
Costs for the ethanol plant were an astronomical $150 million, without anything but a pathetic government mandate to force ethanol as a biofuel on the public. Even with taxpayer subsidies the biofuel can't even come close to producing a profit.
Unless Greater Ohio Ethanol is basically given away, it's not even worth the trouble. Even then it's doubtful it would be worth the headache of an inevitable shutdown. If someone takes this responsibility on, they deserve what they get, as it's been a losing proposition from the beginning.
While the ethanol plants' creditors are obviously trying to patch up as much damage to their investment as they can, they have absolutely no foundation to stand on, the reason deal after deal has been turned down.
So far two companies have made bids for Greater Ohio Ethanol, but they've both been rejected. Both companies have stakes in Greater Ohio Ethanol, as Paladin Capital Group of Washington, D.C. provided the equity to build the Lima plant, and NextGen Ethanol owns two of the ethanol plants currently operating.
Bills continue to mount in spite of the failed bids, and it'll keep getting worse the longer the bankruptcy proceedings last, as they're costly as well. There are still operational costs at the ethanol plant, along with construction bills that have yet to be paid. What a mess the misguided ethanol industry has become, and Greater Ohio Ethanol is a cover story to emphasize the debacle.
With creditors anxiously looking on, they've filed a motion to convert the Chapter 11 bankruptcy to a Chapter 7, as those unsecured debtors are in a secondary position, and probably will receive nothing under the Chapter 11. At this time a sale of the company would only benefit the senior, secured lenders. Of course the unsecured debtors knew this when they signed on, so it's nothing but their own fault for taking the risk.
Lima, Ohio is finding out the hard way, along with much of the midwest, that ethanol as a business is basically fools gold, and it's going to remain that way. The Greater Ohio Ethanol company, along with the numerous other ethanol companies, is a narrative showing ethanol as a biofuel needs to be abandoned as a viable alternative. The numbers just don't add up, and it's a waste of billions in taxpayer dollars.
The failure of the ethanol initiative is again unveiled as the Greater Ohio Ethanol company can't find a buyer that could justify the price and debt the company is attempting to command and owes.
Costs for the ethanol plant were an astronomical $150 million, without anything but a pathetic government mandate to force ethanol as a biofuel on the public. Even with taxpayer subsidies the biofuel can't even come close to producing a profit.
Unless Greater Ohio Ethanol is basically given away, it's not even worth the trouble. Even then it's doubtful it would be worth the headache of an inevitable shutdown. If someone takes this responsibility on, they deserve what they get, as it's been a losing proposition from the beginning.
While the ethanol plants' creditors are obviously trying to patch up as much damage to their investment as they can, they have absolutely no foundation to stand on, the reason deal after deal has been turned down.
So far two companies have made bids for Greater Ohio Ethanol, but they've both been rejected. Both companies have stakes in Greater Ohio Ethanol, as Paladin Capital Group of Washington, D.C. provided the equity to build the Lima plant, and NextGen Ethanol owns two of the ethanol plants currently operating.
Bills continue to mount in spite of the failed bids, and it'll keep getting worse the longer the bankruptcy proceedings last, as they're costly as well. There are still operational costs at the ethanol plant, along with construction bills that have yet to be paid. What a mess the misguided ethanol industry has become, and Greater Ohio Ethanol is a cover story to emphasize the debacle.
With creditors anxiously looking on, they've filed a motion to convert the Chapter 11 bankruptcy to a Chapter 7, as those unsecured debtors are in a secondary position, and probably will receive nothing under the Chapter 11. At this time a sale of the company would only benefit the senior, secured lenders. Of course the unsecured debtors knew this when they signed on, so it's nothing but their own fault for taking the risk.
Lima, Ohio is finding out the hard way, along with much of the midwest, that ethanol as a business is basically fools gold, and it's going to remain that way. The Greater Ohio Ethanol company, along with the numerous other ethanol companies, is a narrative showing ethanol as a biofuel needs to be abandoned as a viable alternative. The numbers just don't add up, and it's a waste of billions in taxpayer dollars.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Ethanol: "Show Me Ethanol" Conflict of Interest
"Show Me Ethanol" in Missouri is in a battle over conflict of interest, as politicians in the state own shares in the company, potentially giving the ethanol plant it's operating for the purpose of making money for state legislaters.
State Treasurer Sarah Steelman has a policy in place to keep the taxpayer subsidized company from benefiting those in governmental power.
Some are trying to pressure Steelman to ease up on the policy, but she's right - there shouldn't be any politician anywhere that benefits from a government subsidy program, as it's really another form of insider trading, no matter how you look at it.
Show Me Ethanol is scheduled to open this spring, and had received an initial nod from Steelman that they had conditional approval to receive loans from banks at rates below the market rate.
That condition was that the ethanol plant had to comply with the conflict of interest policy, where no single investor in the company could have ties to statewide elected officials or anyone related to them.
In the case of Show Me Ethanol, that's not the case, as a number of Missouri politians or their family members have invested in the ethanol company, including John Quinn, his wife, Mary, Andy Blunt, and Lesley Graves.
Supposedly other ethanol companies have been reluctant to work under Sarah Steelman's strict policy, but that seems to be a condemnation rather than a pressure on Steelman. They don't understand that by rejecting the policy, they're admitting they are indeed looking for favors from politicians, and that those politicians would benefit from it.
This underscores the problem of the ethanol industry, which can't survive without being artificially propped up by taxpayer money and tax credits, or low interest loans.
Include with this the tremendous amount of damage it does to some cars and power equipment like snowmobiles, chainsaws and many others, we need to simply get this idea off the table, along with the thought that this is a viable alternative energy source.
Ethanol really isn't a business, it's a socialist program designed to placate those who are earth worshippers and hate the thought of digging for the billions of barrels of oil on American soil, which would allow fuel for decades ahead.
Ethanol supporters are in denial of this, and so push forward this disastrous program that costs people so much, let alone the damage it does to the environment.
As an investment - as the failed ethanol companies around the country show - ethanol sucks, the alternative gas mix is terrible, and it's far less effective than regular gasoline.
What it's becoming is a political, socialist business, not a free market business. That's why the biofuel is failing, along with the many ethanol companies.
While the government should be involved in any type of business, if they are going to be, at least it should be something that isn't destructive like ethanol is, and something that has a future.
Ethanol as a business and alternative fuel isn't one of them. The taxpayer money is being wasted as the powerful farm and corn growers lobbies think of only themselves at the expense of the rest of us.
End the low paying loans, taxpayer subsidies and tax credits to farmers. If the business is a legitimate one, it would be able to stand on its own. Ethanol businesses can't.
State Treasurer Sarah Steelman has a policy in place to keep the taxpayer subsidized company from benefiting those in governmental power.
Some are trying to pressure Steelman to ease up on the policy, but she's right - there shouldn't be any politician anywhere that benefits from a government subsidy program, as it's really another form of insider trading, no matter how you look at it.
Show Me Ethanol is scheduled to open this spring, and had received an initial nod from Steelman that they had conditional approval to receive loans from banks at rates below the market rate.
That condition was that the ethanol plant had to comply with the conflict of interest policy, where no single investor in the company could have ties to statewide elected officials or anyone related to them.
In the case of Show Me Ethanol, that's not the case, as a number of Missouri politians or their family members have invested in the ethanol company, including John Quinn, his wife, Mary, Andy Blunt, and Lesley Graves.
Supposedly other ethanol companies have been reluctant to work under Sarah Steelman's strict policy, but that seems to be a condemnation rather than a pressure on Steelman. They don't understand that by rejecting the policy, they're admitting they are indeed looking for favors from politicians, and that those politicians would benefit from it.
This underscores the problem of the ethanol industry, which can't survive without being artificially propped up by taxpayer money and tax credits, or low interest loans.
Include with this the tremendous amount of damage it does to some cars and power equipment like snowmobiles, chainsaws and many others, we need to simply get this idea off the table, along with the thought that this is a viable alternative energy source.
Ethanol really isn't a business, it's a socialist program designed to placate those who are earth worshippers and hate the thought of digging for the billions of barrels of oil on American soil, which would allow fuel for decades ahead.
Ethanol supporters are in denial of this, and so push forward this disastrous program that costs people so much, let alone the damage it does to the environment.
As an investment - as the failed ethanol companies around the country show - ethanol sucks, the alternative gas mix is terrible, and it's far less effective than regular gasoline.
What it's becoming is a political, socialist business, not a free market business. That's why the biofuel is failing, along with the many ethanol companies.
While the government should be involved in any type of business, if they are going to be, at least it should be something that isn't destructive like ethanol is, and something that has a future.
Ethanol as a business and alternative fuel isn't one of them. The taxpayer money is being wasted as the powerful farm and corn growers lobbies think of only themselves at the expense of the rest of us.
End the low paying loans, taxpayer subsidies and tax credits to farmers. If the business is a legitimate one, it would be able to stand on its own. Ethanol businesses can't.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
"Advanced BioEnergy" Ethanol Company Seeking Merger or Sale
The failed ethanol industry has another company about to go under, as Advanced BioEnergy (ABE), which owns three ethanol plants, is in the process of looking for merger partners or selling the company outright.
It's already defaulted on a $10 million loan in October 2008, and is in even bigger trouble now, as its operating at a $13.1 million net loss while debt has risen to about $211 million, according to the Cleveland Research Company.
Besides selling the company outright or a merger, other considerations are to issue more debt, sell some of its operating assets or equity securities.
This is just the typical example of almost every ethanol company in the U.S. Just let this propped up illusory industry die. Not only is ethanol destructive to snowmobiles and most other small engines, but even with the waste of taxpayers' dollars it still can't even come close to turning a profit.
It's already defaulted on a $10 million loan in October 2008, and is in even bigger trouble now, as its operating at a $13.1 million net loss while debt has risen to about $211 million, according to the Cleveland Research Company.
Besides selling the company outright or a merger, other considerations are to issue more debt, sell some of its operating assets or equity securities.
This is just the typical example of almost every ethanol company in the U.S. Just let this propped up illusory industry die. Not only is ethanol destructive to snowmobiles and most other small engines, but even with the waste of taxpayers' dollars it still can't even come close to turning a profit.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Another Waste of Taxpayers Money as Northeast Biofuels Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
Only a mere five months after becoming operational, Northeast Biofuels LP has already sought out bankuptcy protection under Chapter 11.
Businesses filing under Chapter 11 restructure their finances with the goal of starting operations up again.
The plant cost about $200 million to build, as another huge waste of taxpayers' money is revealed in the ongoing ethanol debacle.
Go here for bankruptcy petition, which was filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Syracuse
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Government's Ethanol Policy Costing another 75 Jobs: Butterball Laying Off 75 Workers
The horrendous, artificial ethanol industry continues to devastate other American industry, as Butterball announced it would be laying off another 75 workers, this time in Carthage, Missouri.
Last year the company had to lay off another 490 workers in Longmont, Colorado, citing the surging corn prices caused by corn-based ethanol subsidies from the U.S. government.
CEO Keith Shoemaker says this time around the problem continues to be the terrible government-sponsored ethanol policies which have artificially inflated the price of corn.
Many other animal-based businesses are experiencing the same disaster, as feed prices continue to rise.
Ethanol Fix continues to call upon the government to stop this atrocity and rescind the failed law and plan.
Pacific Ethanol Shuts Down Madera Plant
Pacific Ethanol (PEIX) continues to fight to survive, as they have now shut down the Madera plant, although they say it's only a temporary move.
This follows their disastrous third quarter, where "Losses for the company widened by an extraordinary amount, surging to $54.9 million, or 98 cents a share, in contrast to the same quarter last year where losses were at $4.8 million."
None of this will end any time soon, as on average ethanol is 60 cents higher in cost than gasoline, and make gas prices higher when included in the mix. Consequently, demand continues to fall, in spite of the misguided subsidies offered by the government.
Take the subsidies out of there, and the real story would be far worse for this ongoing debacle that is becoming more of a religion than at legitimate alternative.
This has pummeled the company's stock, which on January 9, 2008 was at $8 a share, now it stands at a pathetic 56 cents a share.
We need to end this ignorant pursuit of corn-based ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol as well. Those of the ethanol religion are now attempting to get the mind of the public off the corn-based ethanol debacle and make it look like the even more expensive cellulosic ethanol is the answer.
This follows their disastrous third quarter, where "Losses for the company widened by an extraordinary amount, surging to $54.9 million, or 98 cents a share, in contrast to the same quarter last year where losses were at $4.8 million."
None of this will end any time soon, as on average ethanol is 60 cents higher in cost than gasoline, and make gas prices higher when included in the mix. Consequently, demand continues to fall, in spite of the misguided subsidies offered by the government.
Take the subsidies out of there, and the real story would be far worse for this ongoing debacle that is becoming more of a religion than at legitimate alternative.
This has pummeled the company's stock, which on January 9, 2008 was at $8 a share, now it stands at a pathetic 56 cents a share.
We need to end this ignorant pursuit of corn-based ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol as well. Those of the ethanol religion are now attempting to get the mind of the public off the corn-based ethanol debacle and make it look like the even more expensive cellulosic ethanol is the answer.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Obama's Pick of Tom Vilsack for Agriculture Secretary Grim News for Nation
Obama hasn't shown a lot of wisdom in his cabinet choices so far, and is evidenced in relationship to ethanol, as he picked ethanol subsidy proponent Tom Vilsack, former Iowa governor, to lead the Department of Agriculture.
The conflict of interest is too obvious to have to comment on, in that Iowa has been the largest recipient of taxpayer dollars, receiving the largest portion of the over $25 billion wasted on ethanol subsidies so far.
Not only that, but Vilsack is even more radical in pushing for larger subsidies for the failing biofuel strategy.
It's hard to understand how Obama on one side of his mouth asks for a cap on subsidies for wealthy farmers, citing the excessive power the special interest group wields, and then on the other side of his mouth places someone like Vilsack in charge of the Department of Agriculture. It's a grim, complete disaster.
"The president-elect’s own history is difficult to square with his recent farm-reform talk. Obama ardently backed ethanol subsidies while in the Senate — his home state of Illinois trails only Iowa in corn production — and one of his closest confidants, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, is as responsible as any politician for the explosion in these subsidies."
Not only does corn-based ethanol require more inputs than other crops, but the usual unintended consequences have emerged, and as usual hurt the little people the most, as processed food prices soared in response to the artificial propping up of the prices of corn, driven only by Federal subsidies.
It looks like a lot more pain will have to be inflicted on people before politicians and environmentalist admit the failure of this venture, which was instigated by the unholy agreement between the two.
Now that the obvious results of the disaster are becoming known, green groups are trying to distance themselves from the debacle, as they're made to look like the fools they are.
All of us are still waiting to see where the reform promised by Obama is going to implemented. So far it's business as usual in Washington. And in the case of ethanol, it's an increasing disaster no one is willing to admit to and just drop off the subsidy list.
The conflict of interest is too obvious to have to comment on, in that Iowa has been the largest recipient of taxpayer dollars, receiving the largest portion of the over $25 billion wasted on ethanol subsidies so far.
Not only that, but Vilsack is even more radical in pushing for larger subsidies for the failing biofuel strategy.
It's hard to understand how Obama on one side of his mouth asks for a cap on subsidies for wealthy farmers, citing the excessive power the special interest group wields, and then on the other side of his mouth places someone like Vilsack in charge of the Department of Agriculture. It's a grim, complete disaster.
"The president-elect’s own history is difficult to square with his recent farm-reform talk. Obama ardently backed ethanol subsidies while in the Senate — his home state of Illinois trails only Iowa in corn production — and one of his closest confidants, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, is as responsible as any politician for the explosion in these subsidies."
Not only does corn-based ethanol require more inputs than other crops, but the usual unintended consequences have emerged, and as usual hurt the little people the most, as processed food prices soared in response to the artificial propping up of the prices of corn, driven only by Federal subsidies.
It looks like a lot more pain will have to be inflicted on people before politicians and environmentalist admit the failure of this venture, which was instigated by the unholy agreement between the two.
Now that the obvious results of the disaster are becoming known, green groups are trying to distance themselves from the debacle, as they're made to look like the fools they are.
All of us are still waiting to see where the reform promised by Obama is going to implemented. So far it's business as usual in Washington. And in the case of ethanol, it's an increasing disaster no one is willing to admit to and just drop off the subsidy list.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Government-created Ethanol Industry now Begging for their Bailout!
Already gouging taxpayers for $25 billion in handout subsidies, the ethanol industry lobbying arm - the Renewable Energy Association - is now begging the government for another billion in short-term credit, along with up to $50 billion in loan guarantees to expand the diastrous industry.
In an even more evil move, the association is asking for the government to lower the existing 10 percent limit on how much ethanol can be added to fuel for regular cars and trucks. That has the potential to wreak havoc on the engines of the car, as those mixtures are unproven.
So what we have is a false market created by the government because it's great to get votes and give the illusion that jobs are being created. So now the non-market business needs to be bailed out in order to keep our politicians from looking like the uniformed, dangerous people they're increasingly becoming.
In an even more evil move, the association is asking for the government to lower the existing 10 percent limit on how much ethanol can be added to fuel for regular cars and trucks. That has the potential to wreak havoc on the engines of the car, as those mixtures are unproven.
So what we have is a false market created by the government because it's great to get votes and give the illusion that jobs are being created. So now the non-market business needs to be bailed out in order to keep our politicians from looking like the uniformed, dangerous people they're increasingly becoming.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Many Reasons to Drop the Ethanol Debacle
"New" ethanol to face crunch time under a Chu DOE
"Steven Chu, Obama's pick for the head of the Department of Energy, is a steadfast supporter of next-generation biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, expected to be made from the tough woody bits of crops like grasses and fast growing trees as well as plant and timber waste.
"But next-generation biofuels are no quick fix. They are more expensive than gasoline, a problem that was tricky when oil hit $147 a barrel over the summer, but even more difficult now as it trades under $50 a barrel."
Why the Ethanol Mandate is a Joke and a Crime
Shawn McCambridge, senior grains analyst for Prudential-Bache, said capacity could dip below the mandate because the economy will make politicians unwilling to enforce penalties or push for more ethanol at the expense of consumers.
NSW Farmers question lift in mandatory ethanol targets
The NSW Farmers’ Association supports the availability of ethanol blended petrol at service stations throughout NSW, but it believes that this should be determined by market forces, not Government intervention by mandating the percentage of ethanol in petrol.
The Real Future of Ethanol
A state fund that helps North Dakota ethanol plants is expected to run out of money this month.
Ethanol isn't the Answer
Going to ethanol was a great decision for the Brazilians – they got off of foreign oil and, as luck would have it, created a greener fuel which only became important recently. But that doesn’t mean that we can do the same. It’s good that we began to look at other countries to see what they do well, but we need to understand differences between countries, too. Here, we should have known that ethanol wasn’t right for us. If we want energy independence and a greener fuel, we need to look at what else America has to offer.
Ethanol the Killer
Governments worldwide are tempering their drive for biofuel use after a surge in production increased land clearance in Latin America and Asia and reduced food production in some regions. In July, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimated wheat and corn prices may rise as much as 7 percent in the next decade because of greater U.S. and European production of alternative fuels.
Ethanol is Worst Biofuel Option
Ethanol-based biofuels will irreversibly damage human health, wildlife, water supply and land use than current fossil fuels ... warns an expert.
"Steven Chu, Obama's pick for the head of the Department of Energy, is a steadfast supporter of next-generation biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, expected to be made from the tough woody bits of crops like grasses and fast growing trees as well as plant and timber waste.
"But next-generation biofuels are no quick fix. They are more expensive than gasoline, a problem that was tricky when oil hit $147 a barrel over the summer, but even more difficult now as it trades under $50 a barrel."
Why the Ethanol Mandate is a Joke and a Crime
Shawn McCambridge, senior grains analyst for Prudential-Bache, said capacity could dip below the mandate because the economy will make politicians unwilling to enforce penalties or push for more ethanol at the expense of consumers.
NSW Farmers question lift in mandatory ethanol targets
The NSW Farmers’ Association supports the availability of ethanol blended petrol at service stations throughout NSW, but it believes that this should be determined by market forces, not Government intervention by mandating the percentage of ethanol in petrol.
The Real Future of Ethanol
A state fund that helps North Dakota ethanol plants is expected to run out of money this month.
Ethanol isn't the Answer
Going to ethanol was a great decision for the Brazilians – they got off of foreign oil and, as luck would have it, created a greener fuel which only became important recently. But that doesn’t mean that we can do the same. It’s good that we began to look at other countries to see what they do well, but we need to understand differences between countries, too. Here, we should have known that ethanol wasn’t right for us. If we want energy independence and a greener fuel, we need to look at what else America has to offer.
Ethanol the Killer
Governments worldwide are tempering their drive for biofuel use after a surge in production increased land clearance in Latin America and Asia and reduced food production in some regions. In July, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimated wheat and corn prices may rise as much as 7 percent in the next decade because of greater U.S. and European production of alternative fuels.
Ethanol is Worst Biofuel Option
Ethanol-based biofuels will irreversibly damage human health, wildlife, water supply and land use than current fossil fuels ... warns an expert.
Unrealistic Ethanol Subsidies Should be Dropped in Minnesota
With their darling biofuel project - corn-based ethanol - continuing to prove a disaster, many states are having to reevaluate their commitment and cut back on funding.
Minnesota is one of those states, as Governor Tim Pawlenty will have to make a key decision on how much the state is able to commit to with a projected $5.2 billion budget deficit facing him.
The problem for Minnesota is they hailed the dubious industry as a savior of Minnesota farmers and could face a huge backlash as that assertion and ploy comes back to haunt them.
Last year Minnesota paid out above $15 million to ethanol plants in subsidies, and its going to be hard to justify continuing that in the current economic climate.
All states need to take a hard look at the problem and get rid of this subsidy and misguided effort to produce a biofuel that experts all around say isn't viable and does more harm than good.
Minnesota is one of those states, as Governor Tim Pawlenty will have to make a key decision on how much the state is able to commit to with a projected $5.2 billion budget deficit facing him.
The problem for Minnesota is they hailed the dubious industry as a savior of Minnesota farmers and could face a huge backlash as that assertion and ploy comes back to haunt them.
Last year Minnesota paid out above $15 million to ethanol plants in subsidies, and its going to be hard to justify continuing that in the current economic climate.
All states need to take a hard look at the problem and get rid of this subsidy and misguided effort to produce a biofuel that experts all around say isn't viable and does more harm than good.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
VeraSun Energy Requests Permission to Void Corn Contracts
Another reason to abandon the ethanol fiasco!
VeraSun energy has requested permission from a bankruptcy court in Delaware to void contracts with farmers if they give them a 10-day notice.
VeraSun energy has requested permission from a bankruptcy court in Delaware to void contracts with farmers if they give them a 10-day notice.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Pacific Ethanol Performance Underscores Ethanol Debacle
The performance of Pacific Ethanol (PEIX) in the third quarter underscores the debacle that the ethanol industry is in the United States.
Losses for the company widened by an extraordinary amount, surging to $54.9 million, or 98 cents a share, in contrast to the same quarter last year where losses were at $4.8 million.
This happened while revenue increased to $184 million, up from $118.1 million last year. Analysts were looking for revenue to reach $218.6 million. The 98 cents a share was also far higher than the 16 cents a share analysts expected.
It's time to end government subsidies and end the ethanol fiasco in the U.S. Even with subsidies the industry isn't viable, and saying cellulosic ethanol is the answer is wrong as well, as it costs far more to produce than the corn-based ethanol we're now producing.
Losses for the company widened by an extraordinary amount, surging to $54.9 million, or 98 cents a share, in contrast to the same quarter last year where losses were at $4.8 million.
This happened while revenue increased to $184 million, up from $118.1 million last year. Analysts were looking for revenue to reach $218.6 million. The 98 cents a share was also far higher than the 16 cents a share analysts expected.
It's time to end government subsidies and end the ethanol fiasco in the U.S. Even with subsidies the industry isn't viable, and saying cellulosic ethanol is the answer is wrong as well, as it costs far more to produce than the corn-based ethanol we're now producing.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
So much for change! Obama to follow same failed ethanol policy as Bush
We now see the first step in change Obama will perform in his new administration, he will keep the failed ethanol policy of President Bush in place. Wait! Change? What's this?
It's politics as usual in Washington, and things aren't going to change in spite of this being the most "important" election in decades.
Obama has already confirmed this through his announcement via his campaign senior energy adviser Heather Zichal, who recently said concerning Obama's policy for ethanol: "Obama recognizes how important the renewable and biofuels industry is to creating jobs and meeting our goal of reducing dependence on foreign oil. He's fully committed to it and sees tremendous value in the renewable fuels standard and continuing down this path."
Yawn. I guess the food riots will continue around the world, and feed prices rise as we continue along this disastrous path.
Even though the idea of cellulosic ethanol was offered up as the eventual future of the biofuel, the truth about it at this time is it costs about twice as much to produce as corn-based ethanol, and it's many years away from being ready for use, if it ever is.
When subsidies and tariffs can't even make an industry succeed, it's far past time to change directions and admit mistakes. To continue to pour billions down this rabbit hole is irresponsible at best.
One major reason for Obama is his home state of Illinois is the second-largest producer of ethanol, and he also was rewarded by Iowa on his presidential run. He wouldn't dare to the right thing by ending this travesty, as he would pay for it in four years.
Business as usual in Washington.
It's politics as usual in Washington, and things aren't going to change in spite of this being the most "important" election in decades.
Obama has already confirmed this through his announcement via his campaign senior energy adviser Heather Zichal, who recently said concerning Obama's policy for ethanol: "Obama recognizes how important the renewable and biofuels industry is to creating jobs and meeting our goal of reducing dependence on foreign oil. He's fully committed to it and sees tremendous value in the renewable fuels standard and continuing down this path."
Yawn. I guess the food riots will continue around the world, and feed prices rise as we continue along this disastrous path.
Even though the idea of cellulosic ethanol was offered up as the eventual future of the biofuel, the truth about it at this time is it costs about twice as much to produce as corn-based ethanol, and it's many years away from being ready for use, if it ever is.
When subsidies and tariffs can't even make an industry succeed, it's far past time to change directions and admit mistakes. To continue to pour billions down this rabbit hole is irresponsible at best.
One major reason for Obama is his home state of Illinois is the second-largest producer of ethanol, and he also was rewarded by Iowa on his presidential run. He wouldn't dare to the right thing by ending this travesty, as he would pay for it in four years.
Business as usual in Washington.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
VeraSun Energy Corp. May be Close to Declaring Bankruptcy
It's far past time to end the taxpayer subsidizing of the ethanol industry in America, as another big ethanol company is on the verge of declaring bankruptcy.
This time its VeraSun Energy Corp., based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, which is close to declaring bankruptcy. The share price on Wednesday closed at a pathetic 49 cents a share, as they, along with many other ethanol companies, are quickly becoming insolvent.
As usual with government-sponsored companies, the management is horrible, and strategies employed with an eye toward being bailed out regardless of decisions or the marketplace.
When companies aren't allowed to fail, like in the current financial climate, all it does is regard terribly run companies with a safety mechanism that doesn't belong there.
In the past industries and companies were allowed to fail in order that the best-run companies emerge with the best products and services at the best price.
The foolishness of ethanol in America simply needs to be dropped and the market left to decide which way it wants to go. Most Americans want to drill for the proven reserves of billions of barrels of oil while we work on legitimate energy alternatives. Ethanol isn't one of them.
Update: VeraSun Files
This time its VeraSun Energy Corp., based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, which is close to declaring bankruptcy. The share price on Wednesday closed at a pathetic 49 cents a share, as they, along with many other ethanol companies, are quickly becoming insolvent.
As usual with government-sponsored companies, the management is horrible, and strategies employed with an eye toward being bailed out regardless of decisions or the marketplace.
When companies aren't allowed to fail, like in the current financial climate, all it does is regard terribly run companies with a safety mechanism that doesn't belong there.
In the past industries and companies were allowed to fail in order that the best-run companies emerge with the best products and services at the best price.
The foolishness of ethanol in America simply needs to be dropped and the market left to decide which way it wants to go. Most Americans want to drill for the proven reserves of billions of barrels of oil while we work on legitimate energy alternatives. Ethanol isn't one of them.
Update: VeraSun Files
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
