New study says ethanol from cellulose not likely affordable - ever!
calde...@yahoo.com
That means no ethanol from switchgrass, wood chips, and "crop waste"
is ever likely to be affordable!
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/3/125745/7746
Cellulosic ethanol: not likely to be viable
New study from mainstream ag economists at Iowa State
Posted by Tom Philpott at 3:45 PM on 03 Mar 2008
Cellulosic ethanol represents a beacon on the horizon -- the
justification cited by wiseguys like Vinod Khosla for dropping
billions per year in public cash to prop up corn ethanol production.
Corn ethanol, you see, is a bridge to a bright cellulosic future.
But the beacon is looking more and more like a mirage, a ghost, a
specter; the bridge we're hurtling down may well lead to a chasm. A
quiet consensus seems to be forming among people you'd think would
know the facts on the ground: cellulosic ethanol, touted as five years
away from viability for decades now, may never be viable.
Last fall, a researcher from the USDA -- an agency that has lavished
ethanol with research cash since the '70s -- declared that while
cellulosic has 'some long-term promise' (some?), we shouldn't expect
it to contribute significantly to fuel supplies before 2013.
Then in January, Colin Peterson -- chair of the House Ag Committee and
a long-time friend of agribiz -- let slip that 'I'm not sure
cellulosic ethanol will ever get off the ground.' He muttered
something about 'a lot bigger problem to overcome here than people
realize in terms of the feedstocks.'
Now we get a new study (PDF) from a trio of ag economists at Iowa
State University. For the record, the authors are conventional ag
scholars firmly entrenched within the corporate-dominated research
world described so well by Nancy Scola in her recent 'Monsanto U.'
post.
Indeed, one of the authors holds the Pioneer Hi-Bred International
Chair in Agribusiness. (Pioneer is the genetically modified seed arm
of the chemical giant Dupont.) The researchers' patrons -- i.e., the
agribiz giants -- benefit from the corn-as-bridge-to-cellulosic myth;
it keeps those highly profitable government goodies coming.
So it's surprising to see these mainstream economists deliver such a
dismal forecast for cellulosic ethanol.
To come up with their forecasts, the authors do their economists'
trick of creating a model and plugging in various assumptions.
They start by calculating that without the latest round of goodies --
i.e., the fat 'Renewable Fuel Standard' of the 2007 Energy Act --
cellulosic ethanol (and biodiesel, too) would have withered away. In
that scenario, corn ethanol would keep ramping up from the current
level of about 7 billion gallons, pushed by high oil prices and the
$0.51/gallon tax credit that's existed for years.
Here's what they say would have happened by 2022, if the 2007 Act had
never happened (economists lay out their conditional, speculative
scenarios in the simple present tense):
The corn ethanol sector expands until total production exceeds 18
billion gallons per year. Biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol from
switchgrass are not viable in this scenario. Cellulosic ethanol never
expands, and the biodiesel sector contracts so that there are no
biodiesel plants operating in the long run.
They add a bit that I found particularly devastating: 'These results
suggest that [without the 2007 Energy Act], once the opportunity cost
of land is taken into account, rational farmers will not grow
switchgrass or soybeans for biofuel production, and rational investors
will not build these plants.'
Believe me, that thing about 'rational' farmers and investors is
strong stuff, coming from conventional economists.
Now, what happens when we account for the 2007 Act's hefty mandate?
Current production, almost all from corn, stands at about 7 billion
gallons. The act demands 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022, of
which 15 billion comes from corn, and the other 21 billion gallons
comes from cellulosic (and to a much less extent biodiesel).
The authors seriously doubt the cellulosic target can even come close
to being met. They reckon that the mandate can inspire 'rational'
farmers and investors to churn out 4.5 billion gallons of cellulosic
ethanol by 2022 -- but there's a catch. In order to reach even that
level, the government will have to significantly jack up the tax
credit awarded to mixers -- from the current 51 cents to $1.55.
The message is this: Even with the fat 2007 Act mandate, cellulosic
ethanol can only offset a tiny amount of petroleum use -- and then
only if it's borne aloft by titanic amounts of public cash.
--------------------------------
The biofuel disaster just keeps getting worse, and at an ever
accelerating rate!
SEE 10 good reasons to oppose biofuels - http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
Christopher Calder
Lobby Dosser
> New study says ethanol from cellulose not likely affordable - ever!
No Problemo!!
The Genome Man is creating critters that will eat CO2 and shit Premium
Unleaded.
Google it.
Oat Willie
<calde...@yahoo.com> mumbled:
>New study says
Oh STFU you whining lieberal puke!
Oat Willie
<lobby.dos...@verizon.net> mumbled:
What will the naysayers do then!