ethanol

Painful

Bush at the Radio and TV Correspondents Dinner (green connection: ethanol joke!): Arianna Huffington has an amusing account of the event. (h/t: Hugg)

This is what we’ve come to

This article is just plain bizarre — a great illustration of how skewed and narrow the mainstream energy dialogue has become. It’s allegedly about the new "war on oil" in the U.S. (Oh good, another war.) Apparently, though, that war consists of firing away wildly with exactly one weapon: ethanol. Here’s the frame the author […]

And cellulosic might too — plus it’s still a decade off

Yes, this is another bitter polemic against ethanol, but I want to make one point up front, because I sometimes forget to: The only concrete alternative energy/climate policy that our political class can agree on — a plan that unites Democrats and Republicans to commit some $5 billion per year and rising — is a […]

Where is it written that there’s an easy out to replace oil?

Another day, another story about cellulosic ethanol pointing out that, like the Star Wars missile system, it's a technology capable of sucking up endless tax dollars without ever producing anything that delivers in the real world.

Philpott talks ethanol

My face may be made for radio, but I don’t especially like the way my voice sounds. Even so, I accepted an invitation to talk ethanol on today’s Sunday Salon show on Berkeley’s KPFA radio station. I’m glad I did. The host, Sandra Lupien, was very well-prepared and asked great questions. The other guests were […]

We need to rethink all food based biofuels

The lion's share of biofuel bashing on Grist deals with corn ethanol, because we Americans primarily use gasoline for our cars and ethanol runs fine in them, with few modifications. However, our pals in Europe drive a lot of diesel cars and the biofuel crisis over there revolves primarily around biodiesel. I think it is time we recognize that their problem is also our problem. A comment from Pcarbo alerted me to Monbiot's latest take on biofuels. He has now gone so far as to propose a ...

... moratorium on all targets and incentives for biofuels, until a second generation of fuels can be produced for less than it costs to make fuel from palm oil or sugar cane.

Unintended or not, the consequences were predictable

It’s hard to imagine what politicians and corporate chiefs are intending to do by crafting a corn-based ethanol boom, beyond rigging public policy (and raiding the public purse) to generate huge private profits. But whatever their intentions, they’re methodically creating environmental and social disasters — while brazenly brandishing the “green” flag. Before I go on, […]

Rising costs affect consumers

One of the side effects of the rapid increase in ethanol consumption in the U.S. is that corn -- the main feedstock for ethanol -- has gotten much more expensive. Just take a look at the futures markets: the July 2007 corn contract started climbing last fall, which was about the time people started to realize just how quickly demand for corn-based ethanol was growing.

Obviously, rising costs trickle down to consumers in all sorts of ways. If corn prices stay high, meat, poultry, and dairy products will all get more expensive, since the animals are fed lots of corn. But more directly, stuff that's made from corn -- such as the corn flour, corn sweeteners, and corn oils that are used in all sorts of processed foods -- will get pricier too. (Sorry, donut fiends.)

So wait, does this mean that there's an upside to the rapid rise in corn prices? If junk food gets more expensive, will we eat more healthfully?

Not likely.

Edwards, Canada, and now South Africa

Former Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) -- now a presidential hopeful -- has just published his latest energy plan. One important plank of that plan foresees the nation producing (not just consuming, which would allow for imports) 65 billion gallons a year of ethanol by 2025. ("I'll meet your bid for 2030, Barack, and raise it by five billion!")

If the 51 cents a gallon volumetric ethanol excise tax credit (VEETC) is extended beyond the end of 2010 -- as most commentators and even the USDA expect will happen -- here's what the cumulative cost to the U.S. Treasury would be from 2007 through 2025, assuming straight-line growth:

Almost $350 billion (=$0.51 x 19 x [7+(65-7)/2]).