Sometimes Dave's remarks border on mustacheism. I suspect it is more envy than malice, and I am not saying that just because I have a mustache. I finally got around to reading the article Dave posted about and have decided to use the Gristmill bully pulpit rather than bury my thoughts (that grew into a diatribe) in the comments, thus boring to tears a wider audience.
Sorry you can't read said article without a paying for it. I don't care much for newspapers. This piece was an example of why. If Friedman's column were a blog, he would be learning a great deal right about now from comments.
(Writing letters to the New York Times is a waste of energy; don't bother.)
Worst of all, his readers have been misled, unintentionally I am sure, but misled all the same. Tom needs to start reading Gristmill, and regularly.
He visited Brazil to get to the bottom of this ethanol business (as if a trip to South America would be the best way to do that) and listened to enthusiastic reports by everyone he met (who just happened to be making a profit off it).
I asked Brazilian experts what they'd do if they were the U.S. president. The consensus answer: Require U.S. oil companies to provide ethanol fuel pumps at all their gas stations, require U.S. auto companies to make all their new cars flex-fuel and improve mileage standards, and get rid of the crazy 54-cent tariff we've imposed on imported sugar ethanol (to protect our farmers). And then let the market work.
Jeeze! Like that response was unexpected. That part about improving mileage standards must have been said while trying to keep a straight face.
He states that Brazil could be the "Saudi Arabia of sugar," suggesting that we should get rid of our 54 cent tariff on imported sugar ethanol. Never mind that this would scratch the biggest argument presently being used by our government, farmers, and car manufacturers for supporting and subsidizing ethanol -- independence from foreign sources of fuel (the God-bless-America argument).
Sugarcane has already hit a limit. It is more profitable now to sell it for food. The more fuel makers pay for sugar, the more the fuel will cost (and food). This will soon happen here with soy and corn, and in this country, this will probably mean higher government subsidies (for both) in an endless circle of government meddling and market distortion.
He tells us that the government should force fuel distributors to provide ethanol fuel pumps at all their gas stations while simultaneously forcing car manufacturers to make all of their new cars flex-fuel. Only then does he finally suggest we sit back and "let the market work." The Prius and the nano-phosphate battery didn't need all of this government assistance, and neither should ethanol.
Case in point: We just took delivery of a Prius and will be getting $3,100 of our fellow citizens' tax dollars handed to us in about three months. I want to personally thank each and every one of you along with our bumbling government for paying me to buy a car I would have bought anyway.
He talks about how, after the sugar is turned into ethanol, the waste is then burned to make electricity. Not a bad idea, but also not a new one. Burning cellulose is by far the most carbon neutral and efficient means of extracting energy from it (be it sugar cane, wood, or switchgrass). Burning it in a wood stove to provide direct heat is the most efficient way to do that. Burning it to produce electricity is the next most efficient way.
Turning it into a liquid fuel is the least efficient way to do that, regardless of the method used.
We can already grow switchgrass and wood here and stuff it into power plants in place of coal (it is being done in some places already). In fact, the antique steam-powered tractor I saw at the fair this summer did exactly what he is suggesting we do now, as if burning wood (cellulose) were somehow a new idea.
He tells us that after doing all of these things, the demand for ethanol would soar. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the only thing that will make ethanol "soar" is for it to be the cheapest fuel. His edict that it would be the cheapest is the weakest link in his whole poorly thought out argument. Only government subsidies can guarantee that.
Building on this unsupported declaration that demand for ethanol would soar if we lifted the tariff and forced companies to provide pumps and flex fuel cars, he then makes another unsupported supposition, saying that this would push us faster down the innovation curve.
It might, it might not. It is much more likely to clear more rainforests (which are still cheap and plentiful) for more cropland. There is no guarantee that cellulosic ethanol will ever become economically viable (still waiting for fusion), and most importantly, if it does, we certainly won't need sugarcane to make it. Many sources of cellulose we can grow here will do.
Dave has expressed this frustration before: a guy with access to a bully pulpit like the New York Times should be writing tighter stuff than this.
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
Comments
View as Threaded
Robert Delfs Posted 9:08 pm
17 Sep 2006
But I think you and David misrepresent some of Friedman's arguments in order to knock them down, which should be a no-no. You wrote that Friedman states..
.. Brazil could be the 'Saudi Arabia of sugar,' suggesting that we should get rid of our 54 cent tariff on imported sugar ethanol. Never mind that this would scratch the biggest argument presently being used by our government, farmers, and car manufacturers for supporting and subsidizing ethanol -- independence from foreign sources of fuel (the God-bless-America argument).
I could understand your opposition to losing this tariff if I thought you owned shares in Archer-Daniel-Midland (our slogan: the world's greatest price fixer) or if you planned to pay for your Prius with gains from a long position in corn futures. (Congrats on your car and the tax break, by the way.) But neither of those seem likely. So why?
US Energy independence per se isn't so important. The point is that importing more ethanol from Brazil would not increase the political leverage of Saudi Arabia or Iran one iota. Not so importing more petroleum. In any case, the arguments for US energy independence are mainly political and economic, not environmental. Lower tariffs and higher imports of ethanol from Brazil would lower ethanol prices in the US while raising them in Brazil. Is this is a problem? You also wrote:
Sugarcane has already hit a limit. It is more profitable now to sell it for food. The more fuel makers pay for sugar, the more the fuel will cost (and food). This will soon happen here with soy and corn, and in this country, this will probably mean higher government subsidies (for both) in an endless circle of government meddling and market distortion.
Hmm. Maybe in the US where gas still seems as cheap as water (compared to Europe or Asia). Amory Lovins and his colleagues at the Rocky Mountain Institute (in Winning the Oil Endgame,) wrote that:
In recent years, the Brazilian untaxed retail price of hydrous ethanol has been lower than that of gasoline per gallon. It has even been cheaper than gasoline--and has matched our 2025 cellulosic ethanol cost--on an energy-equivalent basis for some periods during 2002-04.
This isn't really my field, but I would not be surprised if the relative costs of gasoline and ethanol continue to jump around for a few years. Long-term, however, ethanol's cost advantage relative to petroleum-based gasoline will only get better, especially after cellulosic hits.
Anyway, I wouldn't mind if Americans used more high-fructose corn syrup for driving back and forth to the mall in their SUVs and fed less of it into their bloodstreams in the form of processed food and soft drinks, but I suppose this also is not really an environmental argument. You wrote:
There is no guarantee that cellulosic ethanol will ever become economically viable (still waiting for fusion), and most importantly, if it does, we certainly won't need sugarcane to make it. Many sources of cellulose we can grow here will do.
Well, there are no guarantees about anything, but the odds that cellulosic conversion technology is coming certainly improved after gasoline prices in the US hit $3 a gallon earlier this year. Most of the scientists writing about it seem to think cellulosic is in the pipeline, likely to hit in 5, 10 or at most 15 years. Is there a good reason to suspect these projections are flawed?
Friedman was writing about what Brazil, so of course he talked a lot about about ethanol from sugar cane. But he never suggested the US should rely on sugarcane to make ethanol, as you imply. Friedman certainly knows that we have other sources of cellulose, and that the US will rely more on corn and other crop residues for cellulose to make ethanol, not sugar cane bagasse.
Also, I don't think Friedman actually said the government should force force fuel distributors to provide ethanol fuel pumps at all their gas stations. I think he said just more of them. (But I've already thrown the newspaper with his column in it away, so I can't recheck that.)
Again, I'm not trying to defend the substance of Friedman's arguments, and I'm certainly not saying that this is a wonderful column. But if it really is absolutely wrong-headed, or even if Friedman just badly over-stated or over-simplified the case he was making, it shouldn't be necessary to put words in his mouth that he never said in order to prove it.
Robert Delfs
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 11:59 pm
17 Sep 2006
If you haven't seen Robert Rapier's blog yet, it's well worth some study. He is skeptical of many of the claims currently being made by ethanol boosters, but he also supports certain ethanol technologies and initiatives when he thinks they make economic and technological sense. This index of essays is a good place to start.
"Long-term, however, ethanol's cost advantage relative to petroleum-based gasoline will only get better, especially after cellulosic hits."
I think that's right, but it's because producers will switch to coal instead of oil, as they have already started doing.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:50 am
18 Sep 2006
I'm agnostic about ethanol. Friedman hasn't yet persuaded me ethanol is viable, but nor have you convinced me that it's nuts. (I'm waiting for a rigorous comparative analysis and projection of all real costs - including the energy consumed growing corn or sugar cane)...
I don't think ethanol is nuts. Most informed people by now (whose vision is not clouded by profit) agree that making it out of corn is nuts. I certainly did not mean to defend corn ethanol. Making it out of something like sugarcane is far more efficient, but in the end, if demand outstrips supply, your only way out is to cut down more carbon sinks.
Here is the rub: The problem with dropping the tariff is that it would kick off a surge in ethanol production in Brazil. Brazil is already using most of what they produce. Producing more at this juncture would require more land. Where will that land come from? I am guessing rainforest carbon sinks. And the other point is that if we finally do get cellulosic ethanol to where it can compete with fermented cane sugar, you wouldn't need sugar cane anymore because there are more efficient ways to grow cellulose.
I could understand your opposition to losing this tariff if I thought you owned shares in Archer-Daniel-Midland... The point is that importing more ethanol from Brazil would not increase the political leverage of Saudi Arabia or Iran one iota.
Again, I did not mean to suggest that I support this tariff. I was just pointing out that Friedman's call for its end knocks down the biggest argument for subsidizing ethanol production--America's energy independence--which was a dig against those supporting American energy independence and subsidies, not Friedman per se. If that tariff went away, American corn farmers would have only two options. Quit making ethanol out of it, or successfully lobby government to increase subsidies. Odds are good we would be on our way toward energy dependence with a new foreign country having no guarantee that they would not decide to sell to China instead of us the first time we rub them wrong.
I am no supporter of "massive" government interference in the free market. The government should not be trying to pick winners for us. Nuclear may not even exist today in its present form had our government not picked it as a winner.
Friedman was writing about what Brazil, so of course he talked a lot about ethanol from sugar cane. But he never suggested the US should rely on sugarcane to make ethanol, as you imply.
I just reread his article. He is clearly suggesting that we drop the tariff and let Brazil supply us. And no, he was not just writing about Brazil and ended up talking about ethanol from cane:
I came to Brazil to try to better grasp what is real and what is not in the ethanol story, because no country has done more to pioneer sugar ethanol than Brazil.
Friedman certainly knows that we have other sources of cellulose, and that the US will rely more on corn and other crop residues for cellulose to make ethanol, not sugar cane bagasse.
I would hope so. The problem with this sloppy article is that he did not say so.
Also, I don't think Friedman actually said the government should force fuel distributors to provide ethanol fuel pumps at all their gas stations. I think he said just more of them. (But I've already thrown the newspaper with his column in it away, so I can't recheck that.)
Your are right. He was quoting the Brazilians who said, "...at all their gas stations ...all their new cars flex-fuel." However, I assumed he agreed with them since he didn't say anything otherwise. To be more accurate, I should have said something like:
He [tells us] seems to support the idea that the government should force fuel distributors to provide ethanol fuel pumps at all their gas stations while simultaneously forcing car manufacturers to make all of their new cars flex-fuel.
...it shouldn't be necessary to put words in his mouth that he never said in order to prove it.
I abhor strawman arguments. Other than my above example, I can't see where I was guilty of doing that. Critique is a good thing and I appreciate it, I suspect Tom does also.
Also, take a look at Rapier's articles as suggested by Mr. Aurbach above if you can find the time. They are very well written and thought out, which is the power of blogs.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 5:56 am
18 Sep 2006
Photovoltaics and Ethanol Efficiency
The map shows the relative areas required to offset 50% of the miles driven in the US for photovoltaics, cellulosic ethanol and corn ethanol. Compared to photovoltaics, cellulosic ethanol, which is still unproven at large scale, requires a huge land area, even when using the assumptions of its most optimistic proponents.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:03 am
18 Sep 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink