THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VIII, Issue # 41, February 26, 2006
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT ETHANOL?
By Alan Caruba
PETROLEUM, ALTERNATIVE MOTOR FUELS, & AMERICA'S TRANSPORTATION ENERGY NEEDS: THE VIABILITY OF ALCOHOL &
BIODIESEL AS REPLACEMENTS FOR OR ADDITIVES TO MOTOR FUELS DERIVED FROM PETROLEUM -- THE IDEOLOGY &
PROPAGANDA OF POLITICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM VERSUS REALITY
FULL STORY:
I don’t know how many years I have been hearing how great ethanol is as a gasoline additive. I think of ethanol mostly as a
boon to farmers who raise corn and other crops that are converted into this form of alcohol. The energy bill, a mishmash of
giveaways to all kinds of energy interests, mandated more use of ethanol and biodiesel. Then the President gave his State of
the Union speech and talked about using woodchips and who knows what else to make alcohol and biodiesel.
Ethanol has some significant incentives going for it. It receives a 51-cent-a-gallon federal subsidy. Biodiesel gets a $1-a-gallon
federal tax credit. Politicians love ethanol, particularly if they are from farm states, but some farmers are not as thrilled. In the
February, 2006, issue of Wheat Life, a magazine published by the Washington Association of Wheat Growers, the
President of the Association of Washington Business, Don C. Brunell, had some words of caution.
“Washington State," stated Brunell, "seems poised to jump on the biofuel bandwagon, but before we do, it may be wise to
look before we leap.” Brunell pointed out that the concept of biofuel has been around for more than a century, but “the idea
faded because making gasoline from crude oil was cheaper and easier to refine.”
Brunell is far from alone is raising a warning. A recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle noted: “Ethanol, touted
as an alternative fuel of the future, may eat up more energy during its creation than it winds up giving back, according to
research by a University of California--Berkeley scientist that raises questions about the nation’s move toward its
widespread use.”
Geoengineering professor, Tad Patzek, was published in the journal, Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. His view was
that “up to six times more energy is used to make ethanol than the finished fuel actually contains.” Patzek is cited as believing
that “those who think using the ‘green’ fuel will reduce fossil fuel consumption are deluding themselves — and the federal
government’s practice of subsidizing ethanol by offering tax exemptions to oil refiners who buy it is a waste of money.”
Professor Patzek is not alone. A Cornell University ecologist, David Pimentel, came to a similar conclusion:
“There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for
liquid fuel. These strategies are not sustainable.”
Professors Patzek and Pimentel conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn,
switch grass and wood biomass, as well as producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report was
published in Natural Resources Research. Corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, switch
grass requires 45 percent more, and wood biomass requires 57 percent more.
Professor Pimentel concluded that “The United States desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future, but
producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road.” He noted that the government “spends
more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a
renewable energy source or an economical fuel.”
Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., on February 20, 2006, the Chief Economist for the U.S. Agriculture Department, Keith Collins,
announced that the United States, the longtime number one corn exporter in the world, will soon distill more corn to make
ethanol than it sells abroad. Does this make any sense at all?
According to the USDA, United States corn exports are projected to rise to 2.0 billion bushels in the 2006/07 marketing year,
while ethanol production is forecast to consume 2.15 billion bushels. Despite those large numbers, corn-based ethanol is now
used in only three percent of U.S. gasoline, while consuming fourteen percent of the nation’s corn crop this marketing year.
The United States is the largest ethanol producer in the world, producing 4.3 billion gallons in 2005. According to the
Renewable Fuels Association, production is expected to climb to 5.1 billion gallons this year and 6 billion by 2007.
The question is why? Why would the United States throw billions in tax subsidies at a gasoline additive that requires more
energy to produce than the energy it generates?
On that basis alone, using petroleum-derivative fertilizers and fuel energy to produce ethanol is idiotic.
Once again, environmentalist hype has triumphed over reality, when it comes to addressing the problem of a finite amount of
oil. Between being told that the Earth is running out of oil and being told that we are polluting whenever we drive our cars
and trucks, ethanol seems like some kind of answer, but, in terms of the energy it saves, it is not an answer.
We are decades and maybe even centuries away from running out of oil. Known, but as yet untapped, oil reserves exist and
technology to exploit them exists. It is far too soon to push the panic button, but not too soon to stop wasting money and
energy producing a useless panacea.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Policy Issues Relating to Energy, Environment,
& Natural Resources
Alan Caruba is a veteran business and science writer, a Public Relations Counselor, and Founder of the National Anxiety Center, a
clearinghouse for information about media-driven scare campaigns. Caruba writes a weekly commentary, "Warning Signs," posted
on the Internet website of the National Anxiety Center, which is located at
www.anxietycenter.com.
© Alan Caruba 2006
Published with Permission of Alan Caruba
ACaruba@AOL.Com
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VIII, 2006
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues