Large companies that stand to reap billions in subsidies and tax breaks from these energy "sources" are selling them as the way to a healthy planet and energy independence for the United States. For two reasons, don't believe it.
First, consider "energy return on energy invested," or EROEI. This is how much energy we "earn" for every unit of energy we "spend" to get it.
Gasoline's EROEI ranges between 6-to-1 and 10-to-1, says Cutler Cleveland, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University. In other words, we get anywhere from six to 10 gallons of gasoline for every gallon we use to find oil, pump it out of the ground and refine it. But the EROEI of corn-based ethanol, the most common U.S. biofuel, is a mere 1.34-to-1, the Agriculture Department says. So even though an acre of corn can make 360 gallons of ethanol, only 90 gallons of that is "new" fuel.
The corn used to make the ethanol at your local gas pump exacts a heavy price from our land and water. The fertilizer required for high corn yields starts as a resource, but once it leaves farm fields -- and most does -- it essentially becomes poison, polluting our lakes and rivers, harming drinking water, and creating a huge lifeless zone at its final destination, the Gulf of Mexico. Corn production also uses actual poisons in the form of pesticides, and these too can end up in our water and even our food.
And corn plants have wimpy roots that do a poor job of preventing erosion. Millions of tons of superb, irreplaceable Midwestern soils are lost from fields every year because of corn.
TEXT
Showing posts with label FOOD AS FUEL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FOOD AS FUEL. Show all posts
Friday, August 31, 2007
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
THE ETHANOL "QUICK FIX"
The unintended consequences of the ethanol quick fix
The push to increase ethanol production and ease dependence on oil has created a price runup in fuel and food prices.
By Ray Nothstine from the July 27, 2007 edition
GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. - Ronald Reagan once said that the most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." His one-liner immediately comes to mind when looking at the problems behind the federal government's campaign to boost production of corn-based ethanol with a massive 51-cent-per-gallon subsidy.
Ethanol and other biofuels are advertised as one of the main cures for our oil-thirsty economy. But it's clear that the ethanol boom, with a major assist from Washington, is succeeding in simultaneously raising both fuel and food prices.
With more than 20 percent of corn now dedicated to ethanol production, the US Department of Agriculture is projecting a record US corn crop in 2007 – along with record prices.
Outside the United States, the unintended consequences of ill-considered policies promoting ethanol and other biofuel crops are already in full view. The poor, of course, are hit hardest.
In Mexico, where corn is a staple, rapidly rising prices for tortillas have sparked open revolt. Tortilla prices skyrocketed more than threefold last year. Protesters took to the streets in Mexico City, compelling the normally free market-minded President Felipe Calderón to cap prices at 78 cents per kilogram.
TEXT
The push to increase ethanol production and ease dependence on oil has created a price runup in fuel and food prices.
By Ray Nothstine from the July 27, 2007 edition
GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. - Ronald Reagan once said that the most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." His one-liner immediately comes to mind when looking at the problems behind the federal government's campaign to boost production of corn-based ethanol with a massive 51-cent-per-gallon subsidy.
Ethanol and other biofuels are advertised as one of the main cures for our oil-thirsty economy. But it's clear that the ethanol boom, with a major assist from Washington, is succeeding in simultaneously raising both fuel and food prices.
With more than 20 percent of corn now dedicated to ethanol production, the US Department of Agriculture is projecting a record US corn crop in 2007 – along with record prices.
Outside the United States, the unintended consequences of ill-considered policies promoting ethanol and other biofuel crops are already in full view. The poor, of course, are hit hardest.
In Mexico, where corn is a staple, rapidly rising prices for tortillas have sparked open revolt. Tortilla prices skyrocketed more than threefold last year. Protesters took to the streets in Mexico City, compelling the normally free market-minded President Felipe Calderón to cap prices at 78 cents per kilogram.
TEXT
Sunday, July 29, 2007
ETHANOL FACTORY ON SCHEDULE
Rogersville ethanol plant still moving forward, company says By Matt Wagner
Springfield Business Journal Staff 7/16/2007
A Mount Vernon company’s plans to build a corn-based ethanol plant near Rogersville are still moving forward, according to a company official.
More than two months have passed since a judge ruled that Gulfstream Bioflex Energy LLC could proceed with the $185 million plant despite objections from property owners who sued the company over concerns about their groundwater supply.
But GBE’s lead attorney, Bryan Wade of Husch & Eppenberger LLC, said his client still intends to build the plant on 252 acres east of Rogersville. Wade said he recently filed a response to post-trial motions filed by the plant opponents’ attorney, Bill McDonald of McDonald, Hosmer, King & Royce PC.
“We would certainly like to know what the court’s feeling is on it before any significant activity occurs, but as far as I know, everything’s a go,” Wade said.
GBE Vice President Charles Luna would neither discuss the impending sale nor the plant’s construction timeline. He did, however, say that the company expects to have an approved air permit from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources no later than Sept. 30.
When asked whether other Missouri cities have attempted to woo GBE, Luna said that Seymour – several miles east of the existing site – previously expressed interest. The Rogersville site, however, remains GBE’s top pick for a plant, he said.
TEXT
Webster County's Ethanol Factory looks to be on schedule. With the next round in court all but a done deal for the ethanol factory and DNR getting ready to issue an approved air permit for that TOXIC TERROR, construction should be taking place on the ethanol factory no later than by the end of this year.
Unless people in Webster County and the Ozarks band together to fight this monstrosity, 2007 could be known as the last year in which Webster County folks enjoyed breathing air free of pollutants.
2007 will also be remembered as the last year in which Ozark Aquifer water was free of ethanol factory pollutants.
Better plan for the future by investing in a large truck with a water tank. Because once our drinking water dries up from feeding the insatiable quench of this ethanol factory, hauling water to our homes will be a weekly occurence in the Ozarks.
As for the ethanol factory claims that it will create more than $3 million annually in property tax revenue, one has to figure in the DECREASE that will come from the devaluation of the property tax value of the houses near the ethanol factory, which will offset the ethanol factory figures.
And write off any future growth for that part of Webster County. Who would want to buy a house or piece of property near a TOXIC TERROR?
Springfield Business Journal Staff 7/16/2007
A Mount Vernon company’s plans to build a corn-based ethanol plant near Rogersville are still moving forward, according to a company official.
More than two months have passed since a judge ruled that Gulfstream Bioflex Energy LLC could proceed with the $185 million plant despite objections from property owners who sued the company over concerns about their groundwater supply.
But GBE’s lead attorney, Bryan Wade of Husch & Eppenberger LLC, said his client still intends to build the plant on 252 acres east of Rogersville. Wade said he recently filed a response to post-trial motions filed by the plant opponents’ attorney, Bill McDonald of McDonald, Hosmer, King & Royce PC.
“We would certainly like to know what the court’s feeling is on it before any significant activity occurs, but as far as I know, everything’s a go,” Wade said.
GBE Vice President Charles Luna would neither discuss the impending sale nor the plant’s construction timeline. He did, however, say that the company expects to have an approved air permit from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources no later than Sept. 30.
When asked whether other Missouri cities have attempted to woo GBE, Luna said that Seymour – several miles east of the existing site – previously expressed interest. The Rogersville site, however, remains GBE’s top pick for a plant, he said.
TEXT
Webster County's Ethanol Factory looks to be on schedule. With the next round in court all but a done deal for the ethanol factory and DNR getting ready to issue an approved air permit for that TOXIC TERROR, construction should be taking place on the ethanol factory no later than by the end of this year.
Unless people in Webster County and the Ozarks band together to fight this monstrosity, 2007 could be known as the last year in which Webster County folks enjoyed breathing air free of pollutants.
2007 will also be remembered as the last year in which Ozark Aquifer water was free of ethanol factory pollutants.
Better plan for the future by investing in a large truck with a water tank. Because once our drinking water dries up from feeding the insatiable quench of this ethanol factory, hauling water to our homes will be a weekly occurence in the Ozarks.
As for the ethanol factory claims that it will create more than $3 million annually in property tax revenue, one has to figure in the DECREASE that will come from the devaluation of the property tax value of the houses near the ethanol factory, which will offset the ethanol factory figures.
And write off any future growth for that part of Webster County. Who would want to buy a house or piece of property near a TOXIC TERROR?
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
GOODBYE CHEAP FOOD, HELLO SMOG
Biofuel Mania Ends Days Of Cheap Food By Gwynne Dyer
07/16/07 "NZHerald" --The era of cheap food is over. The price of maize has doubled in a year, and wheat futures are at their highest in a decade. The food price index in India has risen 11 per cent in one year, and in Mexico in January there were riots after the price of corn flour - used in making the staple food of the poor, tortillas - went up fourfold.
Before World War II, most families in developed countries spent a third or more of their income on food, as the poor majority in developing countries still do. But after the war, a series of radical changes, from mechanisation to the green revolution, raised agricultural productivity hugely and caused a long, steep fall in the real price of food.
For the global middle class, it was the good old days, with food taking only a tenth of their income.
It will probably be back up to a quarter within a decade. And it may go much higher than that because we are entering a period when three separate factors are converging to drive food prices up.
A sixth of all the grain grown in the United States this year will be "industrial corn" destined to be converted into ethanol and burned in cars, and Europe, Brazil and China are all heading in the same direction.
The attraction of biofuels for politicians is obvious: they can claim that they are doing something useful to combat emissions and global warming - although the claims are deeply suspect - without demanding any sacrifices from business or the voters.
The amount of United States farmland devoted to biofuels grew by 48 per cent in the past year alone, and hardly any new land was brought under the plough to replace the lost food production.
ARTICLE
07/16/07 "NZHerald" --The era of cheap food is over. The price of maize has doubled in a year, and wheat futures are at their highest in a decade. The food price index in India has risen 11 per cent in one year, and in Mexico in January there were riots after the price of corn flour - used in making the staple food of the poor, tortillas - went up fourfold.
Before World War II, most families in developed countries spent a third or more of their income on food, as the poor majority in developing countries still do. But after the war, a series of radical changes, from mechanisation to the green revolution, raised agricultural productivity hugely and caused a long, steep fall in the real price of food.
For the global middle class, it was the good old days, with food taking only a tenth of their income.
It will probably be back up to a quarter within a decade. And it may go much higher than that because we are entering a period when three separate factors are converging to drive food prices up.
A sixth of all the grain grown in the United States this year will be "industrial corn" destined to be converted into ethanol and burned in cars, and Europe, Brazil and China are all heading in the same direction.
The attraction of biofuels for politicians is obvious: they can claim that they are doing something useful to combat emissions and global warming - although the claims are deeply suspect - without demanding any sacrifices from business or the voters.
The amount of United States farmland devoted to biofuels grew by 48 per cent in the past year alone, and hardly any new land was brought under the plough to replace the lost food production.
ARTICLE
Sunday, July 15, 2007
THE ULTIMATE CON GAME
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy
By Susan S. Lang
ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.
"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."
Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).
In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
"The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products."
TEXT
That ethanol will somehow magically help cure our addiction to oil is nothing more than a pipe dream, being sold to the American public by assorted shills, who's only interest is their bottom line.
That ethanol will somehow get us away from importing oil from the world's premier trouble spot, the Middle East, is another fabrication, being sold to the American public by some of the same corporations that are seeing their quarterly profits set new records every year.
As this respected study shows, ethanol production will use MORE fossil energy to produce than it gives back. That means more money going to certain Middle East countries with a proven track record of supporting terrorism.
Terrorism that will be increasingly directed at the U.S., as long as we have a massive military presence in that volatile region.
Ethanol is nothing more than a variation of the "SHELL" con game, which is portrayed as a gambling game, but in reality, when a wager for money is made, it is an illegal confidence trick used to perpetrate fraud.
The person perpetrating the swindle begins the game by placing the pea under one of the shells, then quickly shuffles the shells around. Once done shuffling, the operator takes bets from his audience on the location of the pea. The audience is told that if a player bets and guesses correctly, the player will win back double his bet (that is, he will double his money); otherwise he/she loses the money. However, in the hands of a skilled operator, it is not possible for the game to be won, unless the operator wants the player to win.
And in essence, we are being played by professional con artists, seeking to separate us from our money, health and our pristine Ozark enviroment.
Will we fall for this con or wise up and walk away before we lose all we hold dear?
By Susan S. Lang
ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.
"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."
Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).
In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
"The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products."
TEXT
That ethanol will somehow magically help cure our addiction to oil is nothing more than a pipe dream, being sold to the American public by assorted shills, who's only interest is their bottom line.
That ethanol will somehow get us away from importing oil from the world's premier trouble spot, the Middle East, is another fabrication, being sold to the American public by some of the same corporations that are seeing their quarterly profits set new records every year.
As this respected study shows, ethanol production will use MORE fossil energy to produce than it gives back. That means more money going to certain Middle East countries with a proven track record of supporting terrorism.
Terrorism that will be increasingly directed at the U.S., as long as we have a massive military presence in that volatile region.
Ethanol is nothing more than a variation of the "SHELL" con game, which is portrayed as a gambling game, but in reality, when a wager for money is made, it is an illegal confidence trick used to perpetrate fraud.
The person perpetrating the swindle begins the game by placing the pea under one of the shells, then quickly shuffles the shells around. Once done shuffling, the operator takes bets from his audience on the location of the pea. The audience is told that if a player bets and guesses correctly, the player will win back double his bet (that is, he will double his money); otherwise he/she loses the money. However, in the hands of a skilled operator, it is not possible for the game to be won, unless the operator wants the player to win.
And in essence, we are being played by professional con artists, seeking to separate us from our money, health and our pristine Ozark enviroment.
Will we fall for this con or wise up and walk away before we lose all we hold dear?
Monday, June 25, 2007
EATING AT THE LOCAL "ETHANOL DINER"
“FOOD” ETHANOL IS NOT SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE.
Last August I wrote a letter to the editor questioning the morality of burning food or corn/ethanol in our vehicles. That valid question is even more real to me now, since a proposed corn/ethanol plant would be nearly visible from my home. I remain convinced that the production of “food”/ethanol is simply wrong and others around the world are beginning to agree.
A June 12, 2007 article states; “China’s communist rulers announced a moratorium on the production of ethanol from corn and other food crops yesterday at the very time that Western leaders are rushing to embrace alternative food-based fuel technology. Another Chinese decision states that “...as droughts, and pollution have led to hundreds of millions of people going without regular drinking water… calculated each gallon of ethanol required 8.310 gallons of water for growing corn and another 30-37 gallons for conversion to fuel…if they are using corn for fuel, they are not going to get the water free”.
In America, the land of free flowing streams and clean lakes, we have yet to consider water as a limiting factor. During my career, I often told students and anyone who might listen that we would one day pay a very high price for drinking water and may see bloodshed over water rights. Those days are here sooner than I expected. We are now paying eight dollars or more per gallon for drinking water just to appear fashionable. This could easily become mandatory as competition for clean water increases.
Also, I believe it is morally wrong for any company to have unlimited use of our groundwater and then return their polluted water to our streams. That is just what Gulfstream Bioflex, LLC, has stated in court will happen if their plant is constructed east of Rogersville. This should alarm everyone within a hundred mile radius, not just a few of us who live near this site! I have full confidence in the professional staff of MDNR to see that this does not happen through their permitting system. Our objective now, is to insure that each and every questionable detail is covered prior to the issuance of any and all permits.
Oh yes, just in case you thought you would be burning ethanol “Made in America” to help our farmers, you should know this. On top of the federal ethanol mandate, federal law grants a 50-cent tax credit for each gallon of ethanol a blender buys. Both domestic and imported ethanol qualifies for these subsidies. Chinese ethanol, however, benefits from one additional U.S. subsidy. In 2004, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), a federal agency that finances the exports of U.S. companies, subsidized construction of an “ethanol dehydration facility” in Trinidad and Tobago—exactly the sort of facility through which foreign ethanol passes duty-free into the U.S. So much for “made in America”!
In his essay Who Owns America? Dr. John Ikerd, University of Missouri, said it best. “Many issues concerning the natural environment are fundamentally moral or ethical issues. We should not be buying and selling pollution rights, because no individual has the moral right to pollute in the first place, and thus, has no right to sell it…Pollution of the environment is fundamentally, morally wrong, the same as it is morally wrong to kill, to steal, or enslave.”
To further quote Dr. Ikerd, “Any system of development that is not ecologically sound and economically viable and socially responsible just quite simply is not sustainable over time.” In my opinion, the ethanol scam fails the test of all three. The high use of water, natural gas, corn and the resultant pollution of air and water make it ecologically unsound. Without tax subsidies it is not economically viable. And due to both of these, the production of ethanol is most certainly not socially responsible. Given time, the ethanol initiative will ultimately fail. The landscape will be left with tax constructed monuments to short-sighted greed and to a government’s rush to quick-fix the fuel problem.
David E. Pitts, Certified Biologist
Rogersville, Mo.
Last August I wrote a letter to the editor questioning the morality of burning food or corn/ethanol in our vehicles. That valid question is even more real to me now, since a proposed corn/ethanol plant would be nearly visible from my home. I remain convinced that the production of “food”/ethanol is simply wrong and others around the world are beginning to agree.
A June 12, 2007 article states; “China’s communist rulers announced a moratorium on the production of ethanol from corn and other food crops yesterday at the very time that Western leaders are rushing to embrace alternative food-based fuel technology. Another Chinese decision states that “...as droughts, and pollution have led to hundreds of millions of people going without regular drinking water… calculated each gallon of ethanol required 8.310 gallons of water for growing corn and another 30-37 gallons for conversion to fuel…if they are using corn for fuel, they are not going to get the water free”.
In America, the land of free flowing streams and clean lakes, we have yet to consider water as a limiting factor. During my career, I often told students and anyone who might listen that we would one day pay a very high price for drinking water and may see bloodshed over water rights. Those days are here sooner than I expected. We are now paying eight dollars or more per gallon for drinking water just to appear fashionable. This could easily become mandatory as competition for clean water increases.
Also, I believe it is morally wrong for any company to have unlimited use of our groundwater and then return their polluted water to our streams. That is just what Gulfstream Bioflex, LLC, has stated in court will happen if their plant is constructed east of Rogersville. This should alarm everyone within a hundred mile radius, not just a few of us who live near this site! I have full confidence in the professional staff of MDNR to see that this does not happen through their permitting system. Our objective now, is to insure that each and every questionable detail is covered prior to the issuance of any and all permits.
Oh yes, just in case you thought you would be burning ethanol “Made in America” to help our farmers, you should know this. On top of the federal ethanol mandate, federal law grants a 50-cent tax credit for each gallon of ethanol a blender buys. Both domestic and imported ethanol qualifies for these subsidies. Chinese ethanol, however, benefits from one additional U.S. subsidy. In 2004, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), a federal agency that finances the exports of U.S. companies, subsidized construction of an “ethanol dehydration facility” in Trinidad and Tobago—exactly the sort of facility through which foreign ethanol passes duty-free into the U.S. So much for “made in America”!
In his essay Who Owns America? Dr. John Ikerd, University of Missouri, said it best. “Many issues concerning the natural environment are fundamentally moral or ethical issues. We should not be buying and selling pollution rights, because no individual has the moral right to pollute in the first place, and thus, has no right to sell it…Pollution of the environment is fundamentally, morally wrong, the same as it is morally wrong to kill, to steal, or enslave.”
To further quote Dr. Ikerd, “Any system of development that is not ecologically sound and economically viable and socially responsible just quite simply is not sustainable over time.” In my opinion, the ethanol scam fails the test of all three. The high use of water, natural gas, corn and the resultant pollution of air and water make it ecologically unsound. Without tax subsidies it is not economically viable. And due to both of these, the production of ethanol is most certainly not socially responsible. Given time, the ethanol initiative will ultimately fail. The landscape will be left with tax constructed monuments to short-sighted greed and to a government’s rush to quick-fix the fuel problem.
David E. Pitts, Certified Biologist
Rogersville, Mo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)