^^^ actually, I only support ethanol production based on tropical sugar cane based technology ... which returns something like 400% more energy than it consumes. Unfortunately, the only areas of America that can effectively grow sugar cane are Hawaii, parts of florida, and small parts of Louisiana and Texas. While tropical countries like Brazil have the capability of producing and exporting VAST quantities of comparatively low cost sugar cane based ethanol to the USA ( I believe the actual cost of delivered Brazilian sugar cane ethanol is less than US$2.00 versus a delivered cost of about $5.00 for US corn ethanol), the existance of US import quota laws currently limit the maximum amount of imported sugar cane ethanol to something like 7% of the amount of US produced corn ethanol. In truth Brazil could supply 100% of America's ethanol needs at less than half the cost, but of course that would eliminate the lucrative earnings of subsidized US corn farmers, would eliminate the subsidized profits of US ethanol refiners, and would eliminate the ethanol production tax credits which rich investors can now use to reduce the tax bill due on income earned from other investments / business ventures.
I do NOT support US corn based ethanol technology on a scientific basis either ... because it returns only 150% of the input energy requirement if you're lucky, and because it owes it's illusion of financial viability to heavy subsidies collected both from taxpayers (via higher income taxes used to fund farm subsidies and ethanol production tax credits for investors) and from buyers of ethanol blend gasoline who must pay a 'stealth' ethanol tax of 56 cents per gallon of ethanol = 5.6 cents per gallon of blended gasoline (and which is then directly kicked back to US ethanol refiners to increase their de-facto profit margin).
you added on after I said we agreed on more than not. Now not so much. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted
I'm very curious as to why you are less supportive of ethanol when you found out I was talking about imported sugar cane based ethanol versus US corn based ethanol. After all, compared to US corn based ethanol, imported sugar cane based ethanol is, or could be ...
- approximately 1/2 the wholesale price, since the farming, fermentation and distillation of sugar cane based ethanol require far less fossil fuel input costs (i.e. about 1/3rd as much fossil fuel energy per ethanol gallon produced) and far lower labor costs
- less expensive still, since the cost of taxpayer funded US gov't subsidy programs to corn farmers would be greatly reduced
- less expensive still, since the cost of taxpayer funded production tax credits to rich investors would be greatly reduced
- the use of $2 imported ethanol instead of $4 US corn based ethanol in 10% blended gasoline would result in an immediate 20 cent per gallon price reduction at US pumps.
- net worldwide consumption of fossil fuels would be reduced, since sugar cane ethanol requires far less fossil fuel energy input to produce the same number of gallons of ethanol
- food prices, meat prices, dairy prices etc. would be reduced as a consequence, since the present high demand for corn would be reduced thus allowing much higher percentages of US corn production (and production of other food crops as well) to be funneled to the worldwide 'food' market versus the 'energy' market.
- food prices, meat prices, dairy prices etc. would be reduced because a reduction in demand for prime US farm acreage to produce ethanol feedstock corn would allow for 'marginal' acreage currently being put back into agricultural production (which requires much higher usage of fossil fuel generated fertilizers, much higher use of chemical pesticides, much higher fossil fuel based cultivation, much more water per acre etc.) to be left fallow.





Bookmarks