Energy doesn't come from pork. -- Arnold Kling
Much excitement and legislation is circulating regarding increasing Ethanol consumption in the US.
Carbon cloud over a green fuel | csmonitor.com
I am beginning to believe that we have all been had. There is quite a bit of controversy about it in the academic circles, but there is hardly any in the political circles. Farmers get to grow federally subsidized corn, and sell it to factories that have markets guaranteed for them by state regulations. Now it is beginning to look like Coal mines are going to get a chunk of the revenue.
The automaker's lobby has been bought off by the ability to count dual fuel vehicles as higher MPG vehicles than they really are. This allows the automakers to sell more low economy vehicles, and still remain under their regulated Corporate MPG limit.
If Ethanol where really an economically viable option, would a 51-71 cent per gallon subsidy really be necessary? That is the current government subsidy. (Through a fuel tax exemption).
There is still a lot of debate about how efficient Ethanol is to produce. The most recent studies indicate that it is efficient enough to be economical, but not efficient enough to be revolutionary. Previous studies indicated that you actually had to burn more energy in the production process than you received in the end product.
The other issue is a shortage farmland. It would take an enormous amount of farmland to create enough corn fuel our cars. Much more than is currently in production now. Brazil is the largest producer in Ethanol in the world, and they are plowing down Rainforests to make room for more farmland.
Anyway, there are lots of special interests who stand to profit from ethanol. I am not sure that there is a point however. It is not a solution for the energy shortage, and it is not very green, if it is green at all.
The way to solve the energy problem is pretty simple: Burn less fuel.
