Radioactive Communist Zombies

Ethanol Subsidies are Dead?

The Red State blog is reporting that ethanol subsidies are going to be allowed to expire and with the current make up of the House, won't be coming back (links original):

Details here and here: the short version is that the Senate back in June kicked off opposition to continued ethanol subsidies via a bipartisan amendment: it didn’t pass, but Congress has just let both the ethanol subsidy and a restrictive foreign tariff (on Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol) lapse. Given that the Iowa caucuses will be finished by the time Congress reconvenes – and given that the House of Representatives is currently chock-heavy with people who spit at the very phrase ‘ethanol subsidy’ – getting back either is going to be a problem for the domestic ethanol industry.

As Red State points out, there's still a mandate for ethanol use but with the price of local ethanol going up 45 cents per gallon and Brazilian ethanol going down 54 cents per gallon, if we're going to meet the mandate it will probably be with juice from Brazil.

For a while this blog was the anti-ethanol blog. I railed against this waste of taxpayer and consumer money for years.  On of this blog's first posts was about ethanol.  As I said then about ethanol subsidies:

Morally and ethically, it's a legal mugging.  But it's good news for farmers.

The end of ethanol subsidies and the tariff on import ethanol is good news for taxpayers and consumers.  Now if we could just get rid of the stupid mandates so we can stop putting food in our cars.

EU Biofuels Mandate Spews Carbon

Apparently there are still people out there concerned about carbon dioxide (Why?).  And the European Union (EU), which apparently still exists, in an effort to cut down on carbon emissions has mandated biofuel usage (just like the US did with ethanol).  Now a study shows that the biofuels are at least as bad as gasoline at producing carbon emissions (Hat tip: instapundit).  From the EurekAlert! website:

A new study on greenhouse gas emissions from oil palm plantations has calculated a more than 50% increase in levels of CO₂ emissions than previously thought – and warned that the demand for 'green' biofuels could be costing the earth.

You see, biodiesel requires palm oil, and that means cutting down palm trees.  And that exposes the ground to sunlight.  And that causes tropical peat lands to break down and release (wait for it) CO₂ which makes biodiesel a significant source of greenhouse gases.

I guess letting markets decide what fuels should be used is not acceptable but it sounds like dead dinosaurs are still better than biofuels.  And cheaper, too.  But the last thing the EU wants is freedom of choice and free markets when it comes to saving the planet.

Senate Votes to Eliminate Ethanol Subsidies

With only 33 Republican votes (and 38 Democrat votes), the Senate voted to end the $5 billion subsidy to the ethanol industry.  Who would have thought there'd be more Democrats voting for this than Republicans?  Maybe because more Republicans come from farm states.  This bill was nearly identical to the one that failed to pass a couple of days ago.  What's the difference?  I don't know other than the first was sponsored by a Republican and the second by a Democrat.  The bill also eliminates the tariff on foreign ethanol.

This isn't the end of ethanol, however.  As AP reports:

In a sign that some ethanol subsidies are likely to endure, the Senate also voted 59-41 to reject a measure that would have eliminated a government program that supports the distribution of ethanol. The House had passed a similar measure earlier in the day, by a vote of 283-128, adding it to an agriculture spending bill.

Saving $6 billion (or $5 billion depending on your source) out of a $3 trillion federal budget may not sound like much.  But it's a start.  Ethanol should compete with other sources of energy without government money that is most likely borrowed from the Chinese.

Now if we could just eliminate subsidies for solar and wind power.

Dumb Republicans

Here's my conundrum: 1) My politics aren't quite Republican but aren't quite Libertarian (for details, see here). (UPDATE: They really aren't Democrat.)  2) I really don't think in the U.S. a third party will ever have a chance to play more than on the margins. This (and abortion) have kept me out of the Libertarian Party. But, 3) sometimes (like oh, the whole George W. Bush administration) Republicans do something so stupid I wish I belonged to another party. (But it's not as if the Democrats are any smarter. If brains were dynamite, I don't think collectively they'd have enough for one episode of "Mythbusters.")

The U.S. Senate couldn't even get a majority to take a modest step toward ending the ethanol money-suck-up boondoggle. Only 36 out of 41 voted to, as Investors' Business Daily reports in an unsigned editorial:

[E]nd the $6 billion in tax subsidies plus the import tariffs that have given rise to Big Ethanol.

The problem is, ethanol gets huge goverment help:

Even Coburn's bill would have been just a modest first step. As he has put it, ethanol enjoys "a triple crown of government intervention: its use is mandated by law, it is protected by tariffs and companies are paid by the federal government to use it."

But while his bill would end two of these — the 45-cents-a-gallon tax credit and the 54-cents-a-gallon import tariff — it would leave in place the equally awful Renewable Fuel Standard, enacted under President Bush in 2005 and expanded in 2007, which mandates ever-increasing amounts of ethanol and other renewable fuels in gasoline.

But Republicans didn't vote for Coburn's bill in large enough numbers to pass it. Why? Can't these people see ethanol for what is it? Don't they read this blog? (I know they don't; that was a joke.)

I swear, some people get to Washington D.C. and they get enamored with government. That's why we need to elect small-government Republicans to all levels of office. The smaller the government, the less damage it can do.

More Reasons Not to Support Romney

On my list of potential GOP presidential nominees, Mitt Romney is somewhere below Michele Bachmann (but above Ron Paul).  Why?  Well, for one, I think he is the candidate who is the biggest politician.  He has flip-flopped on issues such as 2nd Amendment rights and abortion depending on where or what he's running for.  I don't think he utters a word unless it's been focus-grouped.  And he supports ethanol subsidies (and you know how I feel about ethanol). From "The Primary Event" blog:

Talking to an Iowa voter, Romney said, “I support the subsidy of ethanol. I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.”

(Yes, I know Ron Paul doesn't support ethanol subsidies, but his Libertarian foreign policy and his thinking the Federal Reserve is the root of all evil trumps that.)

I'm still leaning toward Herman Cain.

Pawlenty of Courage

As you may know, I'm leaning toward Herman Cain for the '12 GOP presidential nomination. But I haven't made up my mind to the point where I am ready to say "he's my guy."  And today, another candidate caught my attention by calling for phasing out ethanol subsidies.  And he did it in Iowa!  As reported in The Corner Tim Pawlenty's announcement that he's running included this passage:

I’m here today to tell Iowans the truth, too.

America is facing a crushing debt crisis the likes of which we’ve never seen before. We need to cut spending, and we need to cut it…big time. The hard truth is that there are no longer any sacred programs.

The truth about federal energy subsidies, including federal subsidies for ethanol, is that they have to be phased out. We need to do it gradually. We need to do it fairly. But we need to do it.

To quote Darth Vader: "Most impressive." If you've been reading this blog you know how I feel about ethanol (I don't like it).  To stand up in Iowa and say we need to get ride of subsidies for it is amazing courage.  A former governor of Minnesota, Pawlenty can speak with some validity on agricultural issues.

I'm still leaning toward Cain, but Pawlenty's moved up a notch or two.  I'll have to learn more about him, too (his "issues" page on his website doesn't cover a lot of hot-button items such as immigration, and doesn't say a thing about 2nd Amendment rights and energy and global warming issues).

$5 Gasoline: Obama Administration Policy?

It's no secret that gasoline prices are going up.  Well, unless you rely on the MSM for your information.

What is the Obama Administration doing about high gas prices?  Making it worse, according to Conn Carroll writing at the Heritage Foundation Morning Bell blog (links original):

Pressed on gas prices yesterday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said: “We are also, as you have seen over the past two-plus years, very focused on the need precisely to develop other energy sources so that we are not as dependent on foreign oil as we have been in the past.” So what are these “other energy sources” the White House has been developing? How does the White House plan to “diversify supply” to reduce gas prices? The answers are corn, wind, sun, and electric cars. And they won’t help a bit.

The Obama Administration is pushing "solutions" that aren't solutions at all:

These are all terrible public policies. The major source of biomass production, corn-based ethanol, produces less energy per unit volume than gasoline, contributes to food price increases, costs taxpayers $4 billion to produce 2 percent of the total gasoline supply, and has dubious environmental effects. The electric cars the Obama Administration has invested in are prohibitively costly, do not fit the needs of the American consumer, and are also environmentally suspect. The other sources of energy the Obama Administration is subsidizing and promoting—wind and solar—not only make up a minuscule 1 percent of America’s electricity generation but are entirely irrelevant to gasoline supply in the transportation sector.

Yeah, that'll bring down gasoline prices.  Frankly I don't think the Obama Administration wants to bring down gasoline prices.  Energy Secretary Chu has stated he'd like to see gasoline cost what it does in Europe (about $8 per gallon).  And predictions that we'll again see $4 gasoline this summer and $5 gasoline next year looking more and more likely.

But is the unrest in the Mideast really his fault?  No (although some are saying he could handle it better).  Bit what is the fault of the Obama Administration is their policies that have decreased domestic supply of energy, thus making us more reliant on the unstable Mideast for our oil:

• First, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled 77 leases for oil and gas drilling in Utah in his first month in office. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management, there are 800 billion barrels (a moderate estimate) of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation, which goes through Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. This is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
• Then last summer, President Obama needlessly instituted not one but two outright drilling bans in the Gulf of Mexico. The Energy Information Administration estimates that President Obama’s offshore drilling ban will cut domestic offshore oil production by 13 percent this year.
• Last fall, Interior Secretary Salazar announced that the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic coast, and the Pacific coast will not be developed, effectively banning drilling in those areas for the next seven years. At least 19 billion barrels of easily recoverable oil lie off the currently restricted Pacific and Atlantic coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
• President Obama has also failed to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil lie beneath a few thousand acres that can be accessed with minimal environmental impact. Those 10 billion barrels are equivalent to 16 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia at the current rate.

If Obama isn't trying to make gasoline more expensive, he's doing a good impression of it.

Some think at $4 a gallon gasoline helped get Obama elected.  Maybe $5 gasoline will help get him out of office come 2012.  But the damage to the economy may not be worth it.

Fuel From Bacteria?

A Massachusetts company says they can make diesel or ethanol from bacteria needing only sunlight and CO₂. As AP reports:

Joule Unlimited has invented a genetically-engineered organism that it says simply secretes diesel fuel or ethanol wherever it finds sunlight, water and carbon dioxide.

The Cambridge, Mass.-based company says it can manipulate the organism to produce the renewable fuels on demand at unprecedented rates, and can do it in facilities large and small at costs comparable to the cheapest fossil fuels.

Cool. But there are problems to be solved. While the company claims costs of $30 a barrel for diesel, (compared to $100 a barrel for oil) apparently the fuel is blended with water:

Recovering the fuel is where Joule could find significant problems, said Pienkos, the NREL scientist, who is also principal investigator on a Department of Energy-funded project with Algenol, a Joule competitor that makes ethanol and is one of the handful of companies that also bypass biomass.

Pienkos said his calculations, based on information in Joule's recent paper, indicate that though they eliminate biomass problems, their technology leaves relatively small amounts of fuel in relatively large amounts of water, producing a sort of "sheen." They may not be dealing with biomass, but the company is facing complicated "engineering issues" in order to recover large amounts of its fuel efficiently, he said.

And there's only one way to remove ethanol from water: energy intensive distilling.  And if they can make diesel (a hydrocarbon) why can't they make gasoline?

But this would be a much better way to make ethanol and biodeisel than growing a crop and throwing most of it away.  It also wouldn't affect the food supply.  And if it's cheaper than oil, then that's a plus.

As someone says: "Faster, please."

EPA Approves E15 for More Cars

Remember when the EPA approved using a 15% ethanol mix (E15) for cars newer than 2007?  That was back in October.

Now the EPA has announced that it approves E15 for cars made since 2001.  I feel so much better, don't you?  The Washington Post reports:

The fuel [E15] is popular in farm country because most ethanol comes from corn and other grains. It faces strong opposition, however, from the auto industry, environmentalists, cattle ranchers, food companies and others. Those groups say that using corn to make ethanol makes animal feed more expensive, raises prices at the grocery store and tears up the land. There have already been several lawsuits filed against the EPA - including one filed by automakers, boat manufacturers and outdoor power equipment manufacturers - since the agency decided to allow the higher blends for newer cars in October.

Ahhh, good job, EPA, keeping those lawyers employed.

Frankly, I don't trust the EPA with my cars (all of which except one are older than 2007).  And, as the Post article points out:

Ethanol burns hotter than gasoline, causing catalytic converters, which help clean engine emissions, to break down faster.

And that's not a cheap piece of equipment to replace.

And what are gas stations supposed to do?  Install new tanks, pumps, signage to cope with carrying E10 and E15?  Or just carry E10 and forget about it?  Or worse, just carry E15.  Oh, and your gas mileage will be worse with E15 because ethanol doesn't carry as much energy per unit of volume as gasoline.

This is an Obama Administration sop to the corn lobby.  Pure and simple.  I even agree with environmentalists on this one.

"It seems like corn growers and the ethanol industry are the only real winners here," said Craig Cox of the Environmental Working Group.

This is bad for so many reasons.

U.S. Can't Burn More Ethanol

(Hat Tip: Planet Gore)

According to a  Purdue University study, the US can not burn more ethanol than it currently does because the nation doesn't have the infrastructure to do so:

[The study authors] used U.S. Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency data to determine that the United States is at the "blending wall," the saturation point for ethanol use. Without new technology or a significant increase in infrastructure, Tyner predicts that the country will not be able to consume more ethanol than is being currently produced.

Which is a problem due to government mandates that the US blend more ethanol into its gasoline:

The federal Renewable Fuel Standard requires an increase of renewable fuel production to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022. About 13 billion gallons of renewable fuel was required for 2010, the same amount Tyner predicts is the threshold for U.S. infrastructure and consumption ability.

So we're about 23 billion gallons short of what the government requires, or we can now consume about 36% of the 2022 requirement.  And the problems aren't small:

Tyner said there simply aren't enough flex-fuel vehicles, which use an 85 percent ethanol blend, or E85 stations to distribute more biofuels. According to EPA estimates, flex-fuel vehicles make up 7.3 million of the 240 million vehicles on the nation's roads. Of those, about 3 million of flex-fuel vehicle owners aren't even aware they can use E85 fuel.There are only about 2,000 E85 fuel pumps in the United States, and it took more than 20 years to install them."Even if you could produce a whole bunch of E85, there is no way to distribute it," Tyner said. "We would need to install about 2,000 pumps per year through 2022 to do it. You're not going to go from 100 per year to 2,000 per year overnight. It's just not going to happen."And even if the fuel could be distributed, E85 would have to be substantially cheaper than gasoline to entice consumers to use it because E85 gets lower mileage, Tyner said. If gasoline were $3 per gallon, E85 would have to be $2.34 per gallon to break even on mileage.

(I think the nearest E85 pump to me is about 70 miles away.)   When Consumer Reports looked at an E85 vehicle back in 2006, they reported the worst gas mileage they'd seen in a long time.

It comes down to: not enough vehicles to burn more ethanol and not enough E85 stations to fill the vehicles if we had them.  Oh, and consumers won't like it because they'll get worse gas mileage.

Sounds like a win-win to me.  Or more like a typical government program.