Biofuels: Poison for the Poor?

[Richpo64]

Biofuels: Poison for the Poor?
By David Strom
Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Two years ago, Ethanol and Biodiesel were being touted as the solution to our ?addiction? to oil.

After all, wouldn?t it be better to grow our fuel than simply pump it out of the ground at exorbitant rates?

Appealing as that idea sounded, it has turned out to be a big mess threatening to get bigger by the day. A new coalition of?believe it or not?environmentalists and advocates for the poor have started raising tough questions about the tax breaks, subsidies and mandates that have fueled the growth of the Ethanol and biodiesel industry.

Ethanol, it turns out, may be great politics in Midwestern corn growing states, but it is terrible environmental and economic policy. As more and more food is diverted from human consumption to producing fuel, prices for basic food are skyrocketing around the world. Deforestation is on the rise as third world countries try to cash in on the boom, and violence has broken out as small landholders are being kicked off their land to make way for large palm oil farms.

A coalition made up of Oxfam, the World Wildlife fund, and other groups is raising concerns about the current rush to replace fossil fuels with biofuels. Increased Ethanol production has led to a spike in corn prices that has caused food shortages in third world countries, including our neighbor to the South, Mexico. African and Asian countries that are currently unable to produce enough food for their own populations are clearing cropland to supply Ethanol for Europe?s new mandate of 10% Ethanol in all their gasoline.

The environmental benefits of using Ethanol are miniscule to non-existent?some estimates even show that it takes more fossil fuel to make a gallon of Ethanol than it yields as a fuel. Water resources are being stretched to the point of disaster, and food prices are spiking across the world. The Japanese car companies warn consumers to avoid biodiesel as it lowers the life-span and efficiency of their engines.

Politicians and other ethanol advocates have argued that government mandates and subsidies and mandates were needed to ?jump-start? the ethanol industry?that someday, some way all these government subsidy will pay off in better and more efficient fuels. After 30 years of government subsidies and mandates, Ethanol production is as inefficient today as it was then?only now it?s hurting more people.

A new cost-benefit analysis jointly produced by the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute estimates that eliminating the subsidies and mandates would save taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars over the next decade.

The solution to this problem is simple: lift the subsidies and mandates and let consumers choose the fuel they want to put in their cars. Better yet, lift the restrictions on domestic oil production that limit drilling in Alaska and the Continental shelf that artificially distort the market and drive fuel prices up.

Subsidies and mandates hurt not help by driving investment where it otherwise would not go. Artificial restrictions on oil production have driven prices higher than they otherwise would be, and have made America much more dependent upon foreign oil sources than it otherwise would be.

As usual, government ?solutions? to our woes have made things worse, not better for the average person. When government gets into the job of picking winners and losers, you can almost be certain that the loser will be you.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidStrom/2007/11/13/biofuels_poison_for_the_poor

David Strom is the President of the Minnesota Free Market Institute. Until recently he was President of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, one of the largest and most successful state-based taxpayer advocacy organizations in the country.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Japanese car companies warn consumers to avoid biodiesel as it lowers the life-span and efficiency of their engines.

============================================================
They do?

Please tell us exactly which Japanese companies are currently selling Diesel engines in the US. You will find that there are none.

Currently, only VW and Mercedes sell Diesel engine cars in the US. Ford, GM, Volvo, Hino and Cummins produce Diesel truck engines.

It is WVO (waste vegetable oil), not biodiesel, that cokes up Diesel engines. Biodiesel can be made from WVO and a variety of other vegetable oils.
Engines can of course be redesigned to run on biodiesel as well.

Ethanol is a viable fuel, it is just not very viable to produce it from corn or other grains. Cane and cellulosic ethanol are better alternatives.

Whoever wrote this seems to be a shill for Big Oil.

[Amianthus]

Please tell us exactly which Japanese companies are currently selling Diesel engines in the US. You will find that there are none.

Honda, Subaru, and Nissan all have diesel engines slated for next year or the following year. I'm sure they have starting writing the owners manuals already.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I'm sure they have starting writing the owners manuals already.
 
========================================
But neither you nor the clown who posted this have read them.

Biodiesel is not a problem. Biodiesel is thinner in viscocity than WVO ( Waste Vegetable Oil), and if filtered properly, is not likely to coke up the engine.

A friend who drove his VW exclusively on WVO managed to get 60K before it coked up and needed a ring job.

[Amianthus]

But neither you nor the clown who posted this have read them.

How do you know this? After all, Honda, Subaru, and Nissan have been selling diesels in Europe for years. One of the sticking points with introducing them in the US has been the fact you cannot sell them in 5 states. The newer diesel engine will pass California's standards, so those 5 states will no longer be a problem.

[Richpo64]

>>But neither you nor the clown who posted this have read them.<<

Since returning I have not gotten personal with these people. Could someone do something about this before I do.

[Richpo64]

>>How do you know this?<<

He doesn't.

I don't understand why socialists would come out so maliciously against the information in this article. You would think they would be concerned about the point of this article, the effect on the poor.

I guess it's just the template.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't understand why socialists would come out so maliciously against the information in this article. You would think they would be concerned about the point of this article, the effect on the poor.

First off, Biofuels are NOT "Poison for the poor".

Ethanol and biodiesel poisons no one. So the title sucks.

The only way that you can use E-85 ius to have a really late model US made car that will run on it. Poor people cannot afford new vehicles, and these things have not reached an age in which and poor person could buy a used one.

The only way you can use biodiesel is to own a car that will run on Diesel. There are two choices of relatively inexpensive passenger cars, a car with the excellent VW 1.9 litre Diesel engine or an old Mercedes, notably those imported between 1977 and 1995. You need some modifications to run a common rail Diesel on biodiesel, or at leaste that is what I hear.

I have a 1985 Mercedes wagon and a 1990 Mercedes sedan and run both of them on 99%  biodiesel. They run quieter and cleaner, and you can see this when you see the primary filter, since the fuel recycles again and again at a constant pressure until it is burned, and the tarry black residue from the petrodoiesel used first accumulates in the prefilter for about 2000 miles until everything has been cleaned out by the biodiesel, which acts as a solvent.

Mileage is about 1 mpg less with biodiesel, I have found. At the moment biodiesel is about 10% cheapetr thhan petrodiesel here.

I know many people who use biodiesel. None of them could be described as "poor".

The main thrust of this article is neither capitalist nor socialist, but just dumb. It is the poorly informed rantings of someone who is adamantly ignorant and proud of it. It merits the attention and respect of no one. There is little or no valid information in this stupid article.

[Richpo64]

>>Poor people cannot afford new vehicles, and these things have not reached an age in which and poor person could buy a used one.<<

You're missing the point of the article. It's not that the writer has a problem with using corn for fuel, it's that by using corn for fuel the price of corn increases which effects the price of food which effects the poor of the world.

[Plane]

>>But neither you nor the clown who posted this have read them.<<

Since returning I have not gotten personal with these people. Could someone do something about this before I do.

Kudos for you and your maturity.

It is better to praise the mature than to chide the childish , the praise is accepted easily , chideing is returned, since it was after all directed twards the childish.

[Xavier_Onassis]

No, I did not miss any point. You just didn't read what I wrote.

The title of this article is "Poison for the Poor", and of course, neither ethanol nor biofuels are poisonous when used properly.

AS I said, corn, at least the grain itself, is an ineffective way to make ethanol. This is done in the US, not to benefit the poor, but to benefit Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM), who buy the grain and process it into alcohol and are subsidized by the government for doing so. The movers and shakers behind subsidizing ADM are not the Democrats nor the Republicans, but the senators and representatives from corn-producing states, who are in favor of anything that runs up the price of corn.

Ethanol from corn is a bad idea.

Biodiesel is rarely produced from grain crops, such as soy, because the price of soy is too high for this. The best source of oil for biodiesel is probably oil palms, which are a tropical plant rarely grown in the US. The biodioesel I use is made from palm oil from Ecuador and Panama. Currently it sells for $3.00 a gallon vs $3.39.9 for petrodiesel.

It would make a lot more sense to subsidize research to develop a process to make alcohol out of the stem and husks of corn, or some other plant high in cellulose, such as switchgrass. Sugar cane yields a huge amount more alcohol per acre than corn as well, but it is more easily grown in a tropical climate.

I have already indicated what are the some of best ways of producing biodiesel: jojoba and other oilseeds in the desert where nothing is grown now.

The Juniorbush government has not dedicated much money for research to produce biodiesel or cellulosic ethanol, or energy from other sources, such as geothermal, wind, solar or tidal. They are clearly not serious about ending even a tiny bit of dependency on petroleum imports.

One of the first things that Reagan did when he became president was to rip the solar panels off the White House. This was as symbolic as it was for Carter to put them there in the first place, and clearly the message was that Big Oil Rules Again.

When it comes to ending dependency on imported oil, the Democrats barely get a D and the Republicans score an F. And that is if we grade on the curve.

[Plane]

Could it be that you pay so much attention to the Presidents critics, that you never pay any attention to the President himself?



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050516.html

One of the things that is really important for government is to make sure that the environment is such that the entrepreneurial spirit remains strong. Ever since I've been elected, I tell people that the role of government is not to try to create wealth, but an environment in which people are willing to take risks. That's the role of government. And across our nation, small businesses like Virginia BioDiesel are taking risks and are developing innovative products. As a matter of fact, small businesses create most of the new jobs in America. I don't know if you know that or not, but 70 percent of new jobs in this country are created by small businesses and entrepreneurs. And I'm pleased to report that the small business sector of America is strong today. As a matter of fact, over the last two years we have added 3.5 million new jobs. More Americans are working today than ever in our nation's history. (Applause.)

And to keep creating jobs and to keep this economy growing, it is important for our country to understand we need an affordable, reliable supply of energy. And that starts with pursuing policies to make prices reasonable at the pump. Today's gasoline prices and diesel prices are making it harder for our families to meet their budgets. These prices are making it more expensive for farmers to produce their crop, more difficult for businesses to create jobs.

Americans are concerned about high prices at the pump, and they're really concerned as they start making their travel plans, and I understand that. I wish I could just wave a magic wand and lower the price at the pump; I'd do that. That's not how it works. You see, the high prices we face today have been decades in the making. Four years ago I laid out a comprehensive energy strategy to address our energy challenges. Yet Congress hasn't passed energy legislation. For the sake of the American consumers, it is time to confront our problems now, and not pass them on to future Congresses and future generations.

The increase in the price of crude oil is largely responsible for the higher gas prices and diesel prices that you're paying at the pump. For many years, most of the crude oil refined into gasoline in America came from home, came from domestic oil fields. In 1985, 75 percent of the crude oil used in U.S. refineries came from American sources; only about 25 percent came from abroad. Over the past few decades we've seen a dramatic change in our energy equation. American gasoline consumption has increased by about a third, while our crude production has dropped and oil imports have risen dramatically.

The result today -- the result is that today only 35 percent -- only 35 percent -- of the crude oil used in U.S. refineries comes from here at home; 65 percent comes from foreign countries, like Saudi Arabia and Mexico and Canada and Venezuela. You see, we're growing more dependent on foreign oil. Because we haven't had an energy strategy, we're becoming more dependent on countries outside our borders to provide us with the energy needed to refine gasoline. To compound the problem, countries with rapidly growing economies, like India and China, are competing for more of the world oil supply. And that drives up the price of oil, and that makes prices at the pump even higher for American families and businesses and farmers.
 Our dependence on foreign oil is like a foreign tax on the American Dream, and that tax is growing every year. My administration is doing all we can to help ease the problem in the short run. We're encouraging oil-producing countries to maximize their production so that more crude oil is on the market, which will help take the pressure off price. We'll make sure that consumers here at home are treated fairly, there's not going to be any price-gouging here in America. But to solve the problem in the long run, we must address the root causes of high gasoline prices. We need to take four steps toward one vital goal, and that is to make America less dependent on foreign sources of oil. (Applause.)

To improve fuel efficiency, we're also taking advantage of more efficient engine technologies. Hybrid vehicles are powered by a combination of internal combustion engine and an electric motor. Hybrid cars and trucks can travel twice as far on a gallon of fuel as gasoline-only vehicles. And they produce lower emissions.

To help more consumers conserve gas and protect the environment, my budget next year proposes that every American who purchases a hybrid vehicle receive a tax credit of up to $4,000. (Applause.)

Diesel engine technology has also progressed dramatically in the past few decades. Many Americans remember the diesel cars of the 1970s -- they made a lot of noise and they spewed a lot of black smoke. Advances in technology and new rules issued by my administration have allowed us to leave those days of diesel behind. Our clean diesel rules will reduce air pollution from diesel engines by about 90 percent, and reduce the sulfur content of diesel fuel by more than 95 percent.

Today I saw a diesel-powered truck that can get up to 30 percent better fuel economy than gasoline-powered vehicles, without the harmful emissions of past diesels. I mean, the fellow got in the truck and cranked it up, and another man got on the ladder, and he put the white handkerchief by the emissions port, and the white handkerchief remained white. In other words, technology is changing the world. Our engines are becoming cleaner.

Consumers around the world are taking advantage of clean diesel technology. About half of newly registered passenger cars in Western Europe are now equipped with diesel engines. Yet in America, fewer than 1 percent of the cars on the road use diesel. According to the Department of Energy, if diesel vehicles made up 20 percent of our fleet in 15 years, we would save 350,000 barrels of oil a day. That's about a quarter of what we import every day from Venezuela.

To help more Americans benefit from a new generation of diesel technology, I have proposed making owners of clean diesel vehicles eligible for the same tax credit as owners of hybrid vehicles. America leads the world in technology. We need to use that technology to lead the world in fuel efficiency. (Applause.)

[kimba1]

ok I waited long enough
hi yall
I`m trickling in
it`s like a heroin withdrawl.
my question is
doesns`t biodiesel still need fossel fuel?
meaning every single plant base fuel require the use of coal or oil
solar,wind and maybe geothermal is the only item i know that doesn`t need it.
what I`m getting at is we`re nowhere near being independent from oil or coal
p.s. doesn`t nuclear power cost more?
I don`t recall it being a cheaper powersource.

[Plane]

ok I waited long enough
hi yall
I`m trickling in
it`s like a heroin withdrawl.
my question is
doesns`t biodiesel still need fossel fuel?
meaning every single plant base fuel require the use of coal or oil
solar,wind and maybe geothermal is the only item i know that doesn`t need it.
what I`m getting at is we`re nowhere near being independent from oil or coal
p.s. doesn`t nuclear power cost more?
I don`t recall it being a cheaper powersource.

Tractors can be run on plant derived oils same as trucks , cars, but how much space sould a farm devote to fuel and how much to food?

[kimba1]

it`s not that plant can`t be used for fuel.
it`s that fuel is required to
1.make fertizer
2.process plants to fuel
3. I think tending the fields itself cost something also
meaning it`s not really gas independence
but hey i just realize it`s also nature dependent.
meaning a really bad crop season can`t impact us even more greatly

p.s. I might be totally wrong.but using food crops for anything but food ,just doesn`t sound good.