The scam of corn ethonal

[amherstblackbear]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Apologies if it's already been batted around earlier in the thread, but...

My money is on fracking as the next big energy fight -- not clean coal.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_11/b4219025777026.htm

 

[goldy_331]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Hmmm...I'll have to look at this later since many of the linked graphs are blocked here at work. But the quick perusal of the paper itself leaves one overarching question: why not?

His case that ethanol supporters exaggerate the substitution effect is pretty solid, for sure.

His claims that it's had no effect whatsoever are much less so, and he doesn't profer any explanations for why that'd be the case. My educated guess would be a demand-pull situation where ethanol's cheaper price due to subsidies creates a higher demand that negates the offset. In essence, ethanol's "benefits" cause people to want to use it more, thus eliminating any offset gains. See also, e.g., lighting (more efficient lightbulbs individually use less electricity, but people then use them more or use a brighter bulb - rather than receiving the same amount of light at a lower energy cost, they use the same amount of energy for more light). But that's just a guess, and given the relatively inelastic nature of gas, doesn't seem like it'd be enough to completely negate the substitution effect entirely.

The obverse of this theory that ethanol doesn't replace any oil is that if we took away all ethanol tomorrow, we wouldn't use a single drop more of oil than we already use to make up for ethanol's disappearance. Which may or may not be a true statement (since we can't exactly test it), though anecdotedly I find it hard to believe that would be the case -- I currently fill up with the 10% blend since it's the cheapest; even after accounting for any mileage gains from going to pure gasoline, still seems like I'd be using some amount of oil more than I currently use, even if it wouldn't be 10% more.

So, unless there's a magic bullet waiting for me to see in one of the graphs, I'm skeptical to the extent he argues there's no substitution effect at all. I fully agree the effect is exaggerated by proponents, though.

But if it takes more oil to produce the ethanol than it replaces, as some opponents have claimed, there is no substitution. Even a negative substitution.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Imagine a complex system, with all new untested components. If you observe a system failure, but one of the components shows a slight blip ( within the noise range), its difficult to establish a root cause. Why? A lot of larger factors , and interactions amongst them remain…

I believe this article is following the same rationale. Ethanol *might* have had an impact, but due to the small number of gallons involved and possible other larger modes ( recession, gas prices etc), it would be hard to conclude with confidence that ethanol had much of an effect. The conclusion isn’t that it does/ doesn’t, its that its probably overstated.

Lastly, I am pretty sure all gasoline blends 10% EA. They are trying for E15 as I believe that their production capacity is much higher than it needs to be…

 

[unofan]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Lastly, I am pretty sure all gasoline blends 10% EA.

Are you saying all gasoline can blend 10%, or that all gasoline is blended 10%? The former is surely true, the latter is not. There's a reason the 89 octane gas around most of the midwest is cheaper than the 87 blend; the 89 has 10% ethanol, and the 87 doesn't. Premium likewise doesn't have it.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Are you saying all gasoline can blend 10%, or that all gasoline is blended 10%? The former is surely true, the latter is not. There's a reason the 89 octane gas around most of the midwest is cheaper than the 87 blend; the 89 has 10% ethanol, and the 87 doesn't. Premium likewise doesn't have it.

The 87 around here has ethanol in it.

 

[unofan]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

The 87 around here has ethanol in it.

Nebraska and Iowa both only blend the 89. Pretty sure when I drove down to Kansas City that Missouri was the same way, though I can't remember for sure.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

I use 93 and occasionally check EA content. To me, it seems that they use it in all blends. If its different, I honestly wouldn't know.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Next up: "clean" coal.

Some coal is a lot cleaner than other coal (obvious comparison is China vs. U.S.).

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Ah yes, clean coal which is an oxymoron.

I believe one of the technologies they might be referring too is a process called carbon sequestration. Basically you reduce the net CO2 emissions somehow. People have proposed many things. The most asinine is to stick a smoke stack literally upside down into the ground, and score the carbon slurry. What does this do? I makes your coal burning more inefficient, so you need to burn more to get the same energy equivalent. Oh yes, what happens when this slurry gets back out into nature? Take a wild guess…

Basically its trading putting carbon one place ( the air), for another ( the ground, in someone else’s back yard). Its so stupid, its funny.

The general idea isn't stupid: there's a finite capability for CO2 to be removed from the air by natural processes and that ability is already being exceeded by current production, ergo to avoid exacerbating potential climate issues, we use unnatural processes to put CO2 from coal production somewhere other than the air. Maybe underground, maybe underwater, that's actually one of the challenges of the whole CO2 capture thing, where to put it so that it will stay there rather than escape and render the whole thing a very expensive exercise in futility.

And yeah, any such process will necessarily introduce inefficiencies, but I'd rather avoid man-made climate change as much as possible thankyouverymuch, given that it will be much too late to do anything about it if (when?) we find that the results are not to our liking (e.g., higher sea levels putting coastal cities underwater, significantly reduced carrying capacity on the planet causing widespread famine, that sort of thing).

"Clean coal" is related to but separate from carbon sequestration. The relation is that any "clean coal" process will certainly produce a CO2 stream that is easier to sequester than conventional combustion. But that's not necessarily why it's being pursued, I think the main reason for pursuing it is fewer non-CO2 emissions.

 

[Tundra]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Apologies if it's already been batted around earlier in the thread, but...

My money is on fracking as the next big energy fight -- not clean coal.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_11/b4219025777026.htm

what fight? there is no caribou migration like ANWR. just drinking water so it should be drill to create jobs and revenue for all those states. At least the private landowners are getting 20% royalty "tax".

That is lot of natural gas 490 Trillion cubic feet vs 85 Trillion cubic feet in North slope area. And our state is trying to build a LNG pipeline to lower 48? since we can't sell it to Asia (China) by law.

I think the area is bigger than North slope and ANWR combined. But it's ok to drill there since there is no caribou birthing grounds.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

True - there's not much fight, since Obama is on board with it.

I haven't seen 'Gasland', but if the teaser is any guide, there might be reason for folks to be concerned.

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UrnnQ17SH_A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And unlike oil, which helpfully is located in TX and AK, this stuff is under a lot of blue/purple states.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Th
"Clean coal" is related to but separate from carbon sequestration. The relation is that any "clean coal" process will certainly produce a CO2 stream that is easier to sequester than conventional combustion. But that's not necessarily why it's being pursued, I think the main reason for pursuing it is fewer non-CO2 emissions.

My thought of what clean coal was any technology to mitigate the negative side effects of coal - e.g CS

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

what fight? there is no caribou migration like ANWR. just drinking water so it should be drill to create jobs and revenue for all those states. At least the private landowners are getting 20% royalty "tax".

That is lot of natural gas 490 Trillion cubic feet vs 85 Trillion cubic feet in North slope area. And our state is trying to build a LNG pipeline to lower 48? since we can't sell it to Asia (China) by law.

I think the area is bigger than North slope and ANWR combined. But it's ok to drill there since there is no caribou birthing grounds.

Your map shows hydrates, which is a whole different potential source of natural gas down the road, though nowhere near feasible for recovery today. They have done some small scale demonstration collectors that have performed fairly well though, so maybe down the road. Not sure how big the environmental issues would be with harvesting that off the ocean floor, probably big.

I don't see how an Alaska natural gas pipeline, or the Canadian McKenzie Valley version can be economically viable as long as shale is flooding the lower 48 market. Five years ago, before shale made its splash, it seemed to be a different story.

Alaska has been selling LNG to Japan for decades, so that certainly hasn't been against the law.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

My thought of what clean coal was any technology to mitigate the negative side effects of coal - e.g CS

I've never bought into the concept of carbon sequestration, barring some totally out of the box technological breakthrough. Putting it underground or underwater just doesn't seem viable, given the unbelievably large amount of it you're trying to store somewhere. Even if there was space somewhere, the amount of infrastructure you'd have to build to transport it would be staggering.

 

[Almington]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

My thought of what clean coal was any technology to mitigate the negative side effects of coal - e.g CS

Traditionally, "clean" coal basically refers to a way of reducing regulated emissions, making coal have close to the same pollution profile as "cleaner burning" natural gas.

The reason that people look to coal plants with regards to CCS, is that they are large point emission sources that can most cost effectively (CO2 captured per $ spent) be retrofited with the technology to capture the CO2 (as opposed to trying to put equivalent technology on nearly every home in New England).

 

[True Blue Fan]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

True - there's not much fight, since Obama is on board with it.

I haven't seen 'Gasland', but if the teaser is any guide, there might be reason for folks to be concerned.

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UrnnQ17SH_A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And unlike oil, which helpfully is located in TX and AK, this stuff is under a lot of blue/purple states.

I have seen Gasland and it is pretty shocking stuff.

 

[Tundra]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Alaska has been selling LNG to Japan for decades, so that certainly hasn't been against the law.

True we export LNG to Japan, Mexico, Canada. But there is an export ban for NG since 1938. you need special permission from energy department to export.
The oil export ban for Alaska has been lifted since 1996 so there is no law against oil exports.

Looks like NG guys are going to export to Europe... so why are we building a NG pipeline to lower 48 (Mid west)... instead of shipping more to Japan or China/India.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/11/12/18664051.php

“The first U.S. LNG cargo for Europe is of course a symbolic event, but I would not overestimate it.”

The number of cargoes redirected from the United States to Europe this winter will be limited, because most shipments will probably head directly from producing countries, but the ongoing shale gas boom could lead to the export of American gas by tanker. Cheniere Energy, operator of the Sabine Pass import terminal in Louisiana, announced plans in June to build a liquefaction plant at the terminal. It said on Tuesday that U.S. bank Morgan Stanley hoped to secure some of its export capacity. Pending approval, the plant would export U.S.-produced shale gas to markets all over the globe from 2015.

It would be the first U.S. LNG export plant in 40 years – following the old Kenai facility which supplies Asia from Alaska – and would be well placed to supply Europe.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

because a horse is never dead if that horse is named Corn ethanol:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/7401/Corn-based-Ethanol-The-Real-Cost

A better look at the changes in price and land usage in the past decade. What effect does corn ethanol have? Decreased use for other agri products, and a higher cost (duh) of corn itself. other than that, nothing really to add to this which hasn't already been stated. If there is any reason in the entire world to stop this horrible practice, it is summed up in this

First, the net energy ratio of corn-based ethanol (useful energy divided by the energy required to produce a unit of ethanol) is at best 1.25 but in practice a lot worse. Some have calculated a ratio less than one, meaning that it takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than the energy content of the fuel.

If this is a net energy loser....than why? You could theoretically displace an astronomically large amount of petrol, but if the net energy balance is less than one, than its the ultimate testiment to how stupid our policy makers are. Whoever runs against obama would be very wise to leverage this against his campeign, especially when we are running up against the debt ceiling, and spending has become unsustainable.

 

[unofan]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Whoever runs against obama would be very wise to leverage this against his campeign, especially when we are running up against the debt ceiling, and spending has become unsustainable.

A) Like the GOP is going to run against farmers and agribusiness. Paul might, but he's unelectable anyway. If you believe that, I've got a couple bridges to sell to you.
B) The debt ceiling is not what you think it is, despite its name. The debt ceiling is a limit on how much we'll pay back, not how much we'll spend. This isn't the country maxing out its credit cards, this is the country telling the credit card company it refuses to make the monthly minimum payment.
C) While I agree spending levels are higher than they should be, I'd dispute that they're unsustainable. We could afford them if we wanted to (through higher taxes), we just don't want to. This isn't the case of a fast food worker wanting a rolls royce, it's more like Warren Buffett wanting a rolls royce while only paying enough for an accord.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Its not running against agriculture so much as it is as advocating for agriculture to be producing something useful vs. something useless. In a way, they are a middle man reacting to market forces. Imagine if suddenly there was huge tax breaks or even royalties ( as an example) to grow tobacco - I’d put vegas odds on farmers re-gearing towards tobacco production. So in essence, it’s a fault of the administration, not agriculture here. The overall message being no fuel for food, and to have our farmers feeding people, not spending taxpayer money.

As for the other two points, I think those belong on another thread and they are probably already being discussed there. In general we are being irresponsible with spending. That is probably as in depth as the subject needs to be on an ethyl alcohol thread.

edit: i'd be more than happy to discuss debt and US fiscal policy on an entirely new thread. i promise ill play nice. mostly