The NY Times, The Oil Patch's Faithful Cheerleader, Trashes Ethanol

Perhaps it was inevitable -- the New York Times with its 'rose tinted glasses' reporting on the world oil industry, standing shoulder to shoulder together with Hugo Chavez (please see post "Hugo Chavez Flirts With Hypocrisy and Ethanol" 04.23.07) and his well rehearsed sense of victimization, bashing "ethanol", happy to undermine ethanol's growing challenge to oil's perfidious hegemony over our lives.

Hugo's self interest is clear. Use more ethanol and you use less of his oil. The Times' motivations are a little harder to fathom, forever mouthing oil industry pablums, absent any insightful nor questioning reporting on the acceleration of world oil oil prices other than oil patch handouts. Perhaps the corn growers and the Agricultural Cooperatives don't have the massive advertising budgets that the oil companies do, or maybe it's just a lack of market sophistication. But the bottom line is that for Hugo and the New York Times it makes clear good sense, according to their reckoning, to pay $80 plus for a barrel of oil and get on with global warming. Corn at $3.85 a bushel is highway robbery. That it is fine to strangle economies and freeze households in winter with exorbitant fuel costs caused by manipulated oil prices (that's what OPEC does, folks) so the that the good royals over in Saudi land can roll around in their Rolls Royces and fund madrassas throughout the world, or have Iran's President Ahmadinejad play with his erector set building nuclear bombs. But the minute you make otherwise abundantly available food products a touch higher in price, so our farmers can buy a new John Deere, that becomes a grievous sin and a misallocation of economic resources. (As to the staggering disparity in feedstock prices -- oil is at $80/bbl plus, having risen 800% over the last decade with production costs significantly less than $20/bbl throughout the industry or in the case of Saudi Arabia less than $1.50 a barrel or a margin of over 6000% vs that of corn at $3.85/bushel on which our farmers are doing well if they have a 50% margin).

Aha! You will say, but oil is a finite resource while corn is a renewable resource. If for some reason you don't say it the oil boys will be quick to remind you. But consider this. For corn, sugar or whatever crop, to grow the crop with sufficient yields to meet the world's needs (think 'Green Revolution') it requires vast inputs of such fertilizer elements such as phosphates, potash and nitrates all of which, as with oil, are finite as well, and without which food shortages would have become commonplace years ago.

Last Wednesday the New York Times in a lead editorial ("The High Cost of Ethanol") instructed us on the shortcomings of ethanol as an alternative fuel. Warily, they warned us that grain prices have been pushed higher and are threatening social unrest (no mention of the social unrest in Myanmar caused in large part by escalating energy prices and culminating in riots this weekend). They go on, cherry picking their references in order to present us with an array of always impressionable and emotionally charged buzz words cautioning that growing corn and biodiesel feedstocks is "threatening natural habitats and imposing other environmental costs."

In my post, "The Energy Solution That Dare Not Speak Its Name" 07.17.07, I reported that at an Aspen Institute Energy Seminar, attended by senior oil industry officials, it became chillingly clear that those with a vested interest in oil or oil production, oil and energy distribution, and oil governance, are all for conservation and protecting the environment as long as it does not negatively impact the price of oil or fossil fuel derived energy. To quote the former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle from his article "Myth vs Reality" in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, "As the public's attention has begun to focus on the need for alternatives to oil, the major oil companies have become concerned. Unsurprisingly warnings of a looming food-fuel tradeoff have crept back into the national debate".

What better platform to further the cause, than on the editorial page of the evermore slumbering 'Old Grey Lady'. The Times' relentless oil-patch-friendly propaganda has elicited previous posts from this writer commenting on the Times' take on issues of oil's production and price and their unwillingness to discuss accountability, namely: "The New York Times, Mouthpiece for the American Petroleum Institute" 07.23.07"; "The New York Times' Paroxysm of Mutual Self Congratulation With The Oil Patch" 08.06.07; "The New York Times Shamelessly Shills For OPEC" 09.12.06".

Corn Farmers throughout the world grow corn to meet market needs, unlike oil, with its peak oil doomsayers (please see "Peak Oil Theorists Gush Obfuscation!" 06.29.07) and the production constraints imposed by OPEC and cheered on by the international oil companies and other major oil producers like Russia. According to Daschle the U.S. corn crop alone, has increased from approximately seven billion bushels in 1980 to nearly 12 billion in 2006. Compare that to OPEC's oil production of 31 million barrels a day in 1979 to barely 30 million barrels/day today, and that includes the production of its recent newest member Angola, and that of Iraq where production once again is edging toward pre-war levels. OPEC's constraint of oil production is not because there is less oil but rather to manipulate higher prices. OPEC's acknowledged reserves today are significantly higher than they were in 1979, with Saudi Arabia alone revising its reserves from some 260 billion barrels to over 700 billion barrels now (see post: "Peak Oil" RIP. Official Obit Frontpaged in the NY Times" 03.08.07).

Two additional points of particular significance, and I quote from Daschle's article, "An interesting analysis released by the Natural Resources Defense Council last May showed that corn-based ethanol out performs gasoline when the two fuels' full production and use cycles are compared. Innovation in the the biofuel industry is leading to even greater greenhouse gas reductions, regardless of the feedstock".

He later continues, "An acre of corn, one of the rare plant species to use carbon-dioxide efficient photosynthesis system, removes more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than does an acre of mature Amazonian rain forest, and next generation of biofuel technologies -including those using non cellulosic feedstocks - will increasingly contribute to the goal of reducing ... humans' carbon footprint."

It is clear that the "oiligopoly" and their allies such as the New York Times will do all they can to deflect our focus and confuse our goals to divest ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels. Yes, some of the current government programs supporting bio/ethanol fuels are overly generous. The 54 cent gallon import duty on Brazilian sugar-based ethanol is a particular blemish, especially in that gasoline can be imported duty free. But, in all, they do not compare to the government's largesse extended to the oil patch, from near giveaways of oil drilling rights on federal land and offshore, to tax 'incentives' that are costing us billions before we even get to the pump.

Comments

[neutrino74]

Ethanol from crops is a disaster. It produces little or no net energy. It consumes vast amounts of resources and generates waste. For what? Replacing 5% of our gasoline? This is simply a clever way to funnel money to the ag business.

Simply increasing the CAFE standards by 10% and strictly enforcing that would provide more benefit. We should aim to have all passenger vehicles get 40mpg or better. This is not a long term solution but it certainly would provide us with breathing room.

[CaptainObvious]

Over 60% of the world's population is malnourished and lacks adequate access to clean drinking water. We are one of the few countries to be blessed with a vast surplus of food.

What are we planning to do with the surplus? Give it to those in need? NO - WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT IN OUR GAS TANKS.

[1will]

Did the author get a kickback from the Ethanol Lobby?
Is he the last one on Earth to know that corn based Ethanol is just a feel good scheme that adds nothing to our energy independence?
You cannot grow enough corn in this country to make a dent in our oil consumption. Corn based ethanol is inefficient compared to that made from Sawgrass, sugar or beets. Ethanol cuts your gas mileage in your auto by nearly 10% Ethanol must be trucked (using yet more gasoline) to the fueling stations since it cannot be sent through the pipelines. I won't even go into the fertilizer and energy that must be used to grow all of that corn.

[GWChimpzilla]

Reality is trying to tell us that we can't run an economy based on nothing more than investment schemes without directing investment into activities that produce things of value.
Reality is telling us to be very worried about living arrangements that can only function with copious imports of oil from people who are disgusted with us.
Reality is telling us that we can't divert our food crops into making motor fuels without [many] people becoming unable to afford either fuel or food.
Reality is telling us to redirect our culture more toward things-we-do-with-other-people and less toward things-we-do-with-new-things.
Reality is telling us to shift from avoidance behavior and denial to engaging with reality in order to lead lives that are consistent with reality.
--James Howard Kunstler, 9-24-07

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

Reality is telling me that as far as the energy debate is concerned , Americans stopped listening to reality a long time ago....

[joebhed]

Its the ecology, stupid!
Yes, corn-based ethanol production should stop where it is right now. There are good reasons for that.
But the larger "ethanol" debate ought to be around what one poster here called ecological ethanol.
This is a research project with an incredibly worthy goal.
We want the highest degree possible of ecological efficiency in developing an ethanol-like(could be ethanol) liquid to replace "whatever" we are doing with our imported fuels.
Not just gasoline, but also stationary uses.
And, we need to do it in a way that not only limits the depletion of the soils, but to whatever degree possible, enhances the fertility of our soils.
Let's pretend that we are living beings on a living planet and we want to keep it that way.
Technology must and surely will be forthcoming to such a venture.
And there would definitely be many jobs created by such a resource transformation.
And, to me, this beats hybrid-electrics because the researchers are saying that this technology will wipe out all of the electricity savings from efficiency, leaving us with more nuclear and coal powered electricity, not less.

[kpod]

And check out the latest issue of National Geographic's coverage of the pros and cons of ethanol. The difference in input:output ratios between corn-based ethanol and sugarcane-based is astonishing.

[peacepipe]

This blogger needs to do some homework on the environmental costs of filling the midwest with chemically dependent corn that dumps herbicides and pesticides into the Gulf of Mexico. Ever heard of a "dead zone?" He also needs a better source of information than a former farm belt Senator now shilling for agribusiness. Corn based ethanol is a boondoggle, and even the Chicago Tribune knows it.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Well, what if you burned gasoline DIFFERENTLY,
like in a much more efficient engine? Oil's
worth A Lot Of Money, and it kind of stands
to reason that the economic inertia involved
is Pretty Darn Massive. The actions of the people invested in the oil biz are predictable
too, gotta protect the ol' revenue stream, there.

Luckily, there are many, many other high-quality
publications out there for public perusal...

[TRYKER]

Using gas more efficiently is a logical step. One man got 50 mpg when he heated the gasoline into vapor before it ignited, thereby getting more mileage. We do need to look into these methods.

Foodstuffs for fuel is insane...but it makes for the dying off of the "less than elites" much faster so much more efficient. Oh no, you mean we won't have to BOMB them?

[larry278]

You have it. It will be called a humane eugenic measure. We will have peace in out time, at last.

[OneFish]

Near term actions: alternative energy utilization, conservation and efficiency buy us time. These are essential.

Nuclear fission is a potential mid-term solution to oil's decline.

My primary issue with nuclear fission is that in the current climate of corporate immunity from any regulation or consequences for malfeasance, nuclear is unsafe.

A safety first nuclear industry would be a good mid-term target. AFTER the quest for alternatives, conservation and efficiency are well funded and well underway.

[JohnJames]

Barring cold fusion, nothing can begin to replace hydrocarbons, the product of hundreds of millions of years of concentrated solar energy, free for the taking until it runs out. The whole modern world, since the idustrial revolution, with its six billion people is the product of this energy bonanza. We're going to have to adjust somehow to its increasing scarcity but most people are either ignorant of the laws of physics and think we can invent our way out of this bind or are in denial as to how serious the situation really is. Greenspan states the obvious about the Iraq war, that it's a resource war for oil, and everyone one in Washington pretends to think it's paranoid nonsense.

[philistine]

Conservation can be practiced NOW. A 10% reduction in energy consumption can be effected without any new technology. That 10% reduction drops the price of oil and buys time for other technological and social solutions such as solar and wind energy, and subsidies for public transportation like we used to do. We don't have to replace all oil consumption overnight; in fact, we can't. We CAN reduce consumption immediately.

[Henry]

Phil:
Agreed, but the only conservatives I see are liberals!

[FearlessFreep]

What they should do is promote organic ethanol, which provides an oil substitute without requiring oil products.

BTW, Hugo Chavez doesn't understand that only Americans are allowed to claim victim status.

[OneFish]

Enough with the ethanol already: as it is envisioned today it's just more corrupt corporate welfare. Some reading from a prof in the Ag School at my Alma Mater:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html

Now if you can find a nice way to break cellulose waste into sugars and from there make your way to ethanol, you might be onto something interesting.

[Waubay]

Ethanol is not the solution. Hydrogen fuel cells are not the solution. Batteries are the solution. We don't even need any big technological breakthrough to make them the solution - we just need to use the ones that have already been developed. If my car could go 20 miles on batteries alone - I would use 90% less fuel. If I could collect that electricity with photovoltaic panels on the roof of my garage I would do 90% of my driving on free(not including the cost of the panels and storage batteries) sun power. I think this is the nightmare scenario for the fuel industry and the ultimate solution to our national and economic security problems as well as our pollution/global warming problems. Why aren't our legislators setting mandates that lead to a solution?

[OneFish]

here's my rough estimate of your "batteries are the answer" assertion:

My daily commute:
5 gallons of fuel or about 250 horsepower-hours
or about 187 kw-hours

at a vehicle efficiency of about 20% that means I get about 37kw-hours to the wheels.

Let's say I downsize from my Honda Accord-sized vehicle so I only need 25 kw-hrs for my commute.

Let's further say that my electric vehicle is 80% efficient, that means I need about 32 kw-hours.

Next, my solar panels are about 12% efficient so that means I need about 260 kw-hours of sun input.

Next approximation - 6 hours of good sun input per day so that means about 45 square meters of solar cells. That's a reasonable size.

Let's double-check this estimate from actual solar panel cost and output figures.

Sun Power is the reference for this estimate.
A 2kW system is about 130 sqft and $19k ($12k after rebates and government assistance). We need 32kw-hrs or about 2.5 of these systems so that's about 325 sq ft and $48K ($30K after assistance).

So my initial size/power estimate is in the ballpark.

Batteries are not "the solution", they are a solution for some subset of people who are able to afford it and who's requirements fall within technological capabilities.

Myself, I take a train that in round figures gets me to work and back on about one gallon of diesel. I don't think battery-based technology would meet my requirements yet.

"The solution" will be a patchwork of choices built around alternative energy, mass transportation and telecommuting that provides enough improved efficiency choices for multiple use cases that our overall energy efficiency is improved.

[readyforchange]

I'm sure you know the answer to this. Our legislators are financed by the oil industry. They aren't looking for a REAL solution. Big Oil is defining the policies.

[Waubay]

Aside from the solar argument - the technology I am speaking of is plug-in hybrid vehicles. These vehicles get 20-40 miles of all electric range - then switch over to fuel and get 40+ mpg. The kw-hr amounts spoken of above are way out of the ballpark. The Tesla Roadster has a 50kw-hr battery pack and a 250 mile range. GM estimates that they would need a 16kw-hr battery to get their Volt to have a 40 mile all electric range. Even without the solar panel option - off-peak prices of electricity costs the equivalent of less than $1 per gallon of gasoline. Power companies have lots of excess capacity at night that they would be more than willing to sell. Check out this link - then let me know why plug-in hybrids would not be the solution. http://www.pluginpartners.com/

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

Heck, they even had their finger in the whole fuel-cell /Hydrogen car boondoggle.

Whats the best source of hydrogen?
wait for it.....
wait for it....

Natural Gas! (Methane CH4) The hydrogen cracks out a lot easier that in water and it's the source of almost all industrial hydrogen. So for the most part you might as well replace your fuel 15 years away like it has been since the sixties cell car with a IC engine powered with LNG like thousands of fleet vehicle presently are. Anyway your fuel cell car is likely to be as dependent on fossil fuels as the gasoline one!

[ManhattanMC]

It takes one gallon of oil to pump forty gallons of oil.

Net gain for ethanol after fertilizers, pesticides-both made almost exclusively from oil-and running farm equipment-

near zero-

and that doesn't even consider the depletion of our remaining topsoil, nor the effect on nations that import our corn.

[kpod]

Here in the upper midwest, I can see first hand the impacts of the President's and Congress's advocacy for ethanol - wall to wall corn. Where there used to be a variety of crops, or even - heaven forbid - land lying fallow for a season, there is corn. Lowland areas are being planted to corn, impeding the water infiltration function those areas perform. Land that had been enrolled in conservation programs due to its steep slopes and accompanying high erodability is being planted to corn.

And given the stranglehold that Monsanto and Dow have on the agricultural industry, the corn being planted requires fertilizers to maximize productivity. Fertilizers which then run off the fields and into the waterways.

In the interest of full disclosure, I work for a non-profit conservation organization, whose mission is to natural resources in our state. From the perspective of ensuring a sustainable, healthy environment, ethanol is bad news. Not to say that oil isn't also bad news. But we are just substituting one ill for another, without any attempt to address the underlying issue: the way in which our society builds and functions is predicated on the premise of cheap fuel.

[readyforchange]

kpod, you are correct. Illinois is awash in corn as well. This year I witnessed many acres of newly-planted soybeans destroyed and replaced with corn.

I agree with your points about ethanol. It is NOT the solution. It's production is too energy-driven (fertilizers, pesticides, farm equipment, etc.). CONSERVATION is the main solution, but Americans are unwilling to budge with their energy-intensive lifestyles. We are a spoiled, selfish nation driven by the oil industry's policies.

We will continue to waste time looking for REAL solutions until every last drop of oil is pumped.

[larry278]

If bull shit was oil-back issues of NYT would be a bonanza when they were recycled into oil.
That goes for all newspapers & other neo-con printed media.

[prado]

There's no way that the corn lobby and their politicians are going to let this gravy train go away. If Congress was really interested in sensible ethanol, it would let Brazilian sugar-based ethanol enter the United States duty-free. Chavez has enough cheerleaders in this country plus our wasteful energy consumption habits to keep him in business for a long time.

[JohnJames]

Sugar cane is no more sensible than corn. Brazil is wiping out its wilderness and biodiversity to make room for it and it's almost as bad as corn in regard to its ultimate energy yield and both are pitiful in comparison to oil and since the bulk of their biomass isn't returned to the soil, which is impratical when agriculture is done on a massive scale, both crops need constant fertilizing. The only source for this nitrogen-rich fertilizer is hydrocarbons. One person who does recognize the irreplacibility of oil is Dick Cheney, hence this administration's odd obsession with "freedom" for the Iraqi people.