Do you seriously think a sane energy policy includes ethanol production subsidies?

I think the evidence piled in the last few years say no, it does not.

Not only does it encourage low-efficiency efforts, it costs us a second time, in higher food bills.

(All energy production subsidies should be eliminated, but ethanol is the big stinker right now.)

I'm not a big fan of subsidies. One argument Zubrin makes is that the subsidies we currently provide for ethanol are a drop in the bucket next to the way we subsidize oil with military expenditures in the Middle East.

Be that as it may, my enthusiasm is for a competitive fuel market and choice at the pump, not for government subsidies.

It's a poor argument that because we lie to ourselves about the true cost of oil, we should also lie to ourselves about the true cost of ethanol.

(I think you tacitly agreed to that, but I wanted to say it straight up.)

A new story on market distortions - farm prices & ethanol subsidies

I don't think we should lie about the price of anything. But does that mean we want to see the true cost of oil reflected at the gas pump? How much would gas cost us at the pump if we paid for it that way rather than taxes feeding into the defense budget, which in part contributes to keeping the oil flowing?

Again, I think ethanol is small potatoes in comparison. Ultimately, I'd like to see a robust and competitive fuel market, although I would hate to see us get there by jacking the cost of gasoline sky high.

Was ethanol-driven food inflation really small potatoes this year?

"Is it [food inflation] all down to Asian consumers?

Not at all. Rapid growth in agricultural prices has coincided with a massive expansion of the US ethanol programme since 2005. Many Western politicians believe biofuels are the answer to petrol’s two weaknesses – its rising cost, due to a spiralling oil price, and its impact on the environment, owing to the toxic gases released when making or burning it. The problem, as the World Bank notes, is that the grain needed to fill up an SUV would feed a person for a year. Taken as a whole, the demands of America’s ethanol programme account for around three-fifths of the global decline in grain stockpiles this year, of around 53 million tons. Worse, the diversion of corn to create ethanol is having a domino-effect on the price of commodities such as wheat and soyabeans, sacrificed to make way for what The Economist describes as a “jaw-dropping” US corn harvest this year."

why food will cost you more in 2008

Ethanol is broken, and we lie to ourselves about the (wide distribution of) costs.

Odo -

Did you ever see It's a Wonderful Life? "Every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings."

To which I would add -- "Every time the MSM spouts anti-ethanol rhetoric, a Saudi billionaire sighs contentedly."

Not as pithy, perhaps, but I don't buy the food shortage or cost-of-food arguments. Zubrin argues that these agricultural shortages have more to do with how we've rigged the game against farmers in the developing world than any real lack of capacity.

That seems likely to me.

Ethanol is broken...

I think "broken" and "unworkable" are two different things. The way we're doing ethanol right now may, indeed, be broken.

But ethanol seems to be working fine in Brazil, in part because of their adoption of a flex-fuel strategy. When gas is cheaper, they put gas in their cars. Plus they have the option of burning methanol.

Anyway, what I'm really in favor of is not so much ethanol as choice. I want to be able to power my car by the widest possible set of fuel choices, and I want to be able to plug it into the wall socket in my garage.

"To which I would add -- 'Every time the MSM spouts anti-ethanol rhetoric, a Saudi billionaire sighs contentedly.'"

Isn't that just a neat way to avoid data?

Ye Gods! Ethanol works in Brazil because (a) they have sugar cane and (b) they drive 500 kilo cars. We can't do (a) and refuse to do (b).

This is a willful refusal of basic physics.

Isn't that just a neat way to avoid data?

No, I think it's more a way of recognizing that data, particularly of this sort, doesn't just magically appear pure as the driven snow. Many of the anti-ethanol studies originate with Saudi-funded think-tanks, just as any study you see favoring ethanol is likely to have the farm lobby somewhere back there behind it.

We can't do (a)

True. Of course, we can grow sugar beets. Plus there are numerous other crop choices that might make more sense than corn. Moreover, we might source our ethanol from produce grown elsewhere, as I suggested in my previous comment.

and refuse to do (b)

Speak for yourself. I, for one, don't refuse. Personally, I'd like to get one of these.

Anyhow, what you're apparently looking for is the opportunity to argue with somebody who is in favor of our current ethanol infrastructure. That's not me.

I'm not big on subsidies, I don't think ethanol needs to come from corn, and I don't care if the produce that gives us ethanol is grown in the US or not.

I tipped a Gristmill thread to this discussion, hope you don't mind.

Maybe it won't seem "just me" if more perspectives arrive.

On the 500 kg cars ... I observe the market and how until recently at least 50% of new car purchases were SUVs, and how GM used the Yellow Gas Cap campaign not to promote sensible little cars, but crazy-big SUVs.

So no when I say "we don't" I observe our market.

I never thought it was just you -- anti-ethanol rhetoric is very widespread in the blogosphere.

Others are certainly welcome to join the discussion, although there's not much discussing going on here, as we are at cross purposes. If others are going to chime in on why subsidies are bad or how ethanol is going to drive up the price of food, that will certainly extend the thread, but I doubt it will get us much of anywhere.

Well, why don't you tell me about your best-of-breed example of ethanol production ... for that matter, for the full field-to-miles lifecycle.

Who is matching Brazilian ethanol production efficiency in the US?

Who is matching Brazilian per-capita energy consumption?

I'd jump in Odo but Phil does not seem all that invested in the issue which explains his lack of knowledge on the subject, not meant as an insult there, Phil. There are plenty of topics I don't know much about or care much about.

Previewing your Comment

Odo-

Ethanol is probably not the optimum solution for transportation. Almost certainly not corn based.

And while I generally disfavor science by voting, the consensus however is that even corn based it is net energy positive.

Me- my head is spinning on nuclear fusion and I already want an electric car- so ethanol? Pfff. Pish-posh. So you can grow it in an Iowa cornfield. That's cool- but you can't electrify the world while burning the waste form fission reactors.

You want to add up subsidies and how many are publicized?! mein gott in himmel- let's start with the FAA. Imagine taking the FAA budget, dividing it be the number of plane tickets sold
in the US and predict what commercial aviation would look like in the US?

But wait- US civil aviation also gets the benefit of the oil subsidy.

We could make everything pay as you go and nothing is subsidized - it would tend to be regressive, though could probably be mitigated- but I'm not so sure that makes civilization work better.

Now- clearly this is heading into political issues so I'll stop. Though I will point out again that the question about how we organize- or not- and how we prioritize what we want and how we want it is critical when we're talking about things that cost more than a small number can fund.

Phil-
I followed the link to the list of 50 for what you want one of "these" and while I get that the hyperlink was aiming for the Aptera, and maybe it's just my browser- I got the tatoo picture. Makes sense in a different way.

MSM?

I suspect the as the science matures to move us away from gasoline- ethanol and several other fuels will play a role. I like electric for me- but it's hard to picture electric replacing the diesel that powers the trucking industry.
But as the maturation occurs- we'll get to choose whether we buy corn- based ethanol, domestic or otherwise. Or whether we aim for cellulosic methanol, domestic or otherwise.

And though higher prices at the pump are a little intimidating to contemplate - there are economies that now have an inverse relationship to oil consumption, ie the economy grows and they consume less oil (UK & Japan for example)
I think we'd benefit from the same ....whoops- more politico think.

So more on nuclear fusion to follow - and no stinkin' tokamaks neither.

Bio --

Thanks. I never pretended to have any special knowledge of ethanol. On the other hand, I'm not sure that I would agree that being skeptical about the standard arguments against ethanol is quite the same as a "lack of knowledge."

Odo --

Well, why don't you tell me about your best-of-breed example of ethanol production ... for that matter, for the full field-to-miles lifecycle.

I don't have one. I would recommend you read Zubrin's book (see Amazon link, above.)

Who is matching Brazilian ethanol production efficiency in the US?

As I mentioned, we could get much closer to Brazilian levels of efficiency by basing ethanol production on better suited crops. Per Zubrin, sugarcane yields 90 liters of ethanol per ton of crop produce. Corn yields a measly 9.4 liters. On the other hand, sweet sorghum, sugar beets, and fodder beets will yield 90, 80, and 90 liters respectively. Ethanol crop production in the US should focus on those regions and those crops that can produce the appropriate results. And,as you have pointed out in comments in the earlier thread, we should get serious about cellulose-based ethanol production, too. But there is no reason why all our ethanol has to be home-grown. Zubrin makes the case that Cassava, which yields 170 liters per ton (along with other crops) could be grown by farmers in the developing world to help supply the world ethanol market. Again, I would refer you to his book.

Plus, ethanol is only part of the equation, along with methanol, gasoline, electricity, and (in a parallel track) diesel/bio-diesel. I'm not suggesting we power our cars using just ethanol.

Who is matching Brazilian per-capita energy consumption?

I'm not sure I see the relevance. Of some possible interest would be the rate of per-vehicle liquid fuel consumption, I suppose. Since I'm arguing not just for ethanol, but for plug-in hybrid flex-fuel vehicles (that was the "sane energy policy" that I recommended, which somehow led us to this lengthy discussion of ethanol), I think we could start seeing some favorable numbers in that area. That is, an American flex-fuel plug-in hybrid will probably burn less gasoline/methanol/ethanol than a non-hybrid Brazilian flex-fuel vehicle. But if the Brazilians go the hybrid route, their cars will probably burn less than ours. Not exactly sure what this proves.

MD --

Yeah, something funny about that link. The html appears coded correctly, but it seems to go to random places on that page. (But when you reload, it goes straight to the Aptera.) I have no idea why.

MSM = mainstream media

I think we'll see plug-in diesel hybrids sooner or later. Along with plug-n flex-fuels cars, they are the second prong of my "sane energy policy."

Fusion is a very exciting possibility. It's our long term energy future, but when it kicks in is anybody's guess.

I'm a big believer in the future, and an optimist about human invention, innovation, and even cultural flexibility.

You'd think therefore that I'd be on-vibe with a site like Speculist.

I'm not though. It might be because even as I believe in better futures, I doubt our ability to call them (prediction). I also think our tendency to force them (denial) runs in opposition to truly better futures.

One short answer to all this is that you can't be opposed to subsidies and for ethanol because subsidies are the only way ethanol works. Period.

Maybe some obscure guy in a backwater book maintains he can design a better ethanol economy ... but are we speculists also believers in a dynamic free market of innovation and ideas?

If the tech existed for it to be done, it would have been done. Growers with crop X would have cleaned the corn guys (and the Saudi's) clock.

Didn't happen, and in your soul of souls you know why.

Back to the future ... I think the most consistent dynamic is that we get better things which we didn't expect. No one wrote in 1970 about $150 7 mega-pixel digital cameras because that kind of prediction is simply beyond us as homo sapiens.

We will get better energy solutions, by better sources or by better efficiency ... but in the natural process and not by artificial subsidy.

Artificial subsidies actually slow that process and prop up losers.

If the tech existed for it to be done, it would have been done. Growers with crop X would have cleaned the corn guys (and the Saudi's) clock.

And since the technology doesn't exist, it can never exist.

Oh, but wait:

No one wrote in 1970 about $150 7 mega-pixel digital cameras because that kind of prediction is simply beyond us as homo sapiens.

But we can say with certainty that ethanol will never be part of an economically viable mix of fuel choices. Then again, some obscure guy writing some backwater book might actually be on to something.

Anyhow, since we're back to subsidies, I'm ready to let this thing rest. Speaking as a denier of what I know to be true in my soul of souls, a man who glibly argues with the laws of physics, and someone who sneakily makes the case for government subsidies while pretending to be against them, I just don't think I can keep the charade going any longer.

;-), you miss my intention.

I back technologies happily once they exist. I only oppose declaring winners in horse races yet to be run.

Racing improves the breed, in horses, cars, alternative energies, etc.

But you know, let's actually run the race (without sandbags or performance enhancing drugs - subsidies).

more on my vibe

Shorter: It's a temporal contortion to say that ethanol wins, because it might win at some point in the future.