<DrumBeat: February 6, 2007 The Oil Drum DrumBeat: February 7, 2007>

122 comments on US News and World Report looks at Ethanol

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

quadour88 on February 6, 2007 - 1:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

... it is likely to do untold harm to other areas of the world and to US image abroad.

Is it really the US taxpayers duty to deliver highly subsidized cheap food to the rest of the world? I don't think so. People all over the world must learn to plant their food, where it is used. To ship food from one continent to the other does not make sense at all.

Also to remember: The EU is currently expanding ethanol and Biodiesel production on a unprecedented scale. And nobody here in Europe cares about its image "abroad".

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on February 6, 2007 - 1:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Is it really the US taxpayers duty to deliver highly subsidized cheap food to the rest of the world?

No of course its not - but back in the good ol' days when the Americans were the goodies, they did. This has bred a dependenecy and several hundred million people - so I guess I feel that if you provide the food that allows a population to survive / explode, then is there not a moral obligation to sustain it, or at least to manage its decline.

We're in a mess, and I don't see using a major part of the world's food supply to sustain a 50 mile round trip commute in a tank is a wise approach to the solution.

Hey - I've just had an idea - put LNG in the tank (that technology has been around for decades) and keep growing food. I'm not sure how wide spread bio-fuels are here in Europe, but with EROEI close to 1 you are as well paying farmers to paint stones white.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
thomas deplume on February 6, 2007 - 3:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

While nat gas does release as much CO2 when burned as other fossil fuels considerable amounts of CO2 are released at or near the wellhead. Measured on this basis nat gas isn't any better than gasoline.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on February 6, 2007 - 3:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

That's a new one for me. Whilst I know of nat gas reserves that contain significant CO2 that are not being produced because of this, I never heard of considerable amounts being released at the well head on a routine basis - refs please.

At any rate this misses the point. Using nat gas to make corn ethanol is a way of upgrading the energy quality from a gas (nat gas) to a liquid (ethanol) - with the bonus that it keeps farmers and Wall Mart happy. Nat gas can be upgraded to a liquid much more effectively by freezing and compressing it - you just cut out all the labour growing corn etc. - so long as you are happy sacrificing some space in your trunk for an LNG tank. In fact, USA is importing increasing amounts of LNG - why not stick this straight in your tank? Cut out all this regassification crap as well.

So thats the choice - sacrifice some space in your trunk or let thousands starve to death. Which do you think is the right answer if the USA wants to regain some of the substantial amounts of international good will lost in the last 6 years?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jkissing on February 6, 2007 - 4:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

About 30% of the natural gas produced for lng is consumed to generate the energy to liquify it, trasnport it, and then gasify it. The co2 released during this process is not always considered in the overall co2 calculation.

I too had heard that much ng is released - in the worst way, that is, unburnt - in the production process. Not routinely, I suppose, but when plugged wells leak, etc. In addition, some gas associated with oil production is still flared, and this co2 release is probably not charged against the oil that is later burnt.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on February 6, 2007 - 4:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Ah - now that's somethings completely different - energy consumption in LNG production and gas flaring - u seen the pictures of gas flaring in Siberia in Gore's book?

But all this is still irrelavnt to my central theme, which is that temperate latitude ethanol seems to be a total waste of time. Our society runs on large surpluss production of energy.

Hat tip to Roel who sent me this a few weeks back:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BiofuelsBiodevastationHunger.php

(Chris - you still got to write a post on this one)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on February 6, 2007 - 4:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Which do you think is the right answer if the USA wants to regain some of the substantial amounts of international good will lost in the last 6 years?

Wrong question. I doubt many care that much about international good will.

FWIW, my employer recently took delivery of a bunch of natural gas powered cars. And promptly returned them as unacceptable. Too small. They said there wasn't enough room for passengers and equipment, especially since there's no trunk on such vehicles. (The gas tank takes up the whole trunk.) They asked for minivans instead, but apparently, nobody makes natural gas powered minivans.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on February 6, 2007 - 4:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I doubt many care that much about international good will.

Well they should.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on February 6, 2007 - 4:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

They'd rather boycott French fries.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on February 6, 2007 - 4:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The French were right!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on February 6, 2007 - 7:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The French are also more effective in providing aid to New Orleans than those incompentent Americans in Washington DC.

Just talked with firefighter in line in grocery store. The only reason that we have ANY fire protection in the 80% of the city that flooded is because of our good friends the French. They sat down with the NOFD and selected which stations to rebuild and they "just did it". The other fire stations are still years away from any FEMA funding and the city is broke. Good ole French "Can Do" spirit !!

Fire risks, and fires, are up dramatically as people rebuild their homes and live in tents inside their gutted homes.

Viva La France !

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ET on February 7, 2007 - 12:18am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Well, this is no surprise since the French now own Louisiana.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on February 8, 2007 - 9:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

We could only hope and pray.

Reminds me of "what we lost" articles during bicentenial "celebrations" of Louisiana Purchase.

Universal health care, vacation all August, several nuclear power plants to get us off of natural gas for electricity. Cultural culinary exchange (we have done things with roux that the French never dreamed of :-) High speed trains and more streetcars (will we have to call them trams ?). A more melodic and expressive language. Tariff free access to the EU AND, most important, freedom from the stulifying, uncaring bureaucracy of Washington DC and getting a responsive gov't instead.

Best Hopes,

Alan

PS: I especially liked that part about immediately spending the French payment to buy back Louisiana on rebuilding Iraq. Bush certainly has his priorities straight !

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on February 8, 2007 - 10:02am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Valuethinker on February 6, 2007 - 4:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

That's Freedom Fries.

The US cares about international goodwill when it needs the cooperation of other powers to achieve its ends.

For example:

- to hunt down international terrorist groups like Al Quaida

- to form a united front against Iranian nuclear ambitions

- to help extract itself from the mess that it is in in Iraq

- to help secure Afghanistan

- to maintain a united front against a crazed and nuclear armed North Korea

- to work out what to do about global warming

Now it turns out French intelligence is particularly good on the Islamic terrorist issue (having crushed Islamic terrorists in the early 90s, and being spectacularly well connected in the Middle East).

And before the invasion of Iraq, Syrian intelligence was very helpful in tracking down Al Quaida people (and Syria was part of the CIA Extraordinary Rendition aka torture network).

So GWB's bluster notwithstanding, the US needs the world, just as the world needs the US.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on February 6, 2007 - 4:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

So GWB's bluster notwithstanding, the US needs the world

But not enough to actually drive a car without trunk space.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on February 6, 2007 - 5:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You guys need bigger cars with bigger trunks.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ash23 on February 7, 2007 - 12:53am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Americans, on the whole, have more than enough 'junk in the trunk'.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DelusionaL on February 7, 2007 - 10:04am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"- with the bonus that it keeps farmers and Wall Mart happy."

Euan - your off hand comment is probably very close to the real reason. As the Pres says - Go shopping!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mencial on February 6, 2007 - 4:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The US, and the EU, have applied immense pressure to open other, mainly developing world, markets to their exports. The subsidized industrial exports are in many cases cheaper than the local produce.

However, the industrialized countries do not open their markets to exports in the same way, and they subsidize their food producers, in part to have a measure of food security. ¿What is this food security for? Well, now you see.

The US did not promise cheap food to anyone, the same way as your local supermarket did not promise cheap food to you. ¿What would happen if suddenly no one sold food around you? The problem is, Moroccans cannot complain to anyone.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack on February 7, 2007 - 4:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The subsidized industrial exports are in many cases cheaper than the local produce.

However, the industrialized countries do not open their markets to exports in the same way,

I don't think it is accurate to say that industrialized countries are less open to industrial imports than developing countries. I have seen considerable research that shows tariffs and other barriers are much higher in developing countries than in industrialized countries.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Valuethinker on February 8, 2007 - 3:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

*not* in the case of agriculture. Nor particularly in services (banking etc.)-- I'd have to check that though.

In manufactured goods, yes, generally I think.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

122 comments on US News and World Report looks at Ethanol

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version