Since I follow Energy policy, I find this to be a interesting article.
Pimmentel is a entomologist from Cornell who has been on the payroll of the Petroleum Industry. His study has several acknoleged errors and omissions that use dated figures to defend his argument. He has acknoleged that they exist, but refuses to correct them.... Kind of reminds me of enviros trying to shut down Yellowstone park using dated information. (I know they will not be happy until there are no snowmobiles are in the park because mitigation and 4-strokes have not quieted them.) The energy balances vary, but with corn it is around 1.24-1.3:1. Ethanol from Sugar cane is better, but its expanded growth into tropical rainforests causes other environmental problems that may negate gains in the US. One question that I ask is what is the energy balance of gasoline? It is a whopping negative .85. Cellulosic ethanol sounds promising, and improves energy balances, but we are probably 7 years out on commercial scale projects of significant output. Ever wonder what their feasibility studies factor in for feedstock cost? Not enough for farmers to make a living fueling someone elses biofuels pipe dream with todays numbers of $35-40 per ton without some sort of subsidy somewhere in the pipeline. BTW If you think that the oil companies are not subsidized with tax credits and other tools (military) to manage the industry, you are mistaken.
Biofuels policy is not only about energy balances, carbon balances, or the environment, it is also about energy security and reducing vulnerabilities to Middle Eastern countries holding around 70% of global oil reserves while as a nation remaining globally competitive amidst the rise of developing countries like China and India which are responsible for 70% of the increase in demand for petroleum which will bring about new energy paradigms for the 21st century which will likely incorporate a portfolio approach that will change the way our children think about fuel and energy from how we have been raised in ways that have yet to be defined. At the end of the day, economics and resource security trumps and we can do a better job with our environmental challenges. There are winners and losers and nobody wants to lose market share. Do not think for a minute that big oil does not have the best lobbyists in DC that money can buy, but that is just a part of how business is done.
As a capitalist, farmer and a price taker, I welcome the addition of new markets to replace market distorting subsidies which promote artificially low prices, challenging young and family farmers across the US to make ends meet while at the same time allowing Americans to spend around 10 percent of their income on safe food which shure has not gone up in price as fast as a new sled.
Pimmentel is a entomologist from Cornell who has been on the payroll of the Petroleum Industry. His study has several acknoleged errors and omissions that use dated figures to defend his argument. He has acknoleged that they exist, but refuses to correct them.... Kind of reminds me of enviros trying to shut down Yellowstone park using dated information. (I know they will not be happy until there are no snowmobiles are in the park because mitigation and 4-strokes have not quieted them.) The energy balances vary, but with corn it is around 1.24-1.3:1. Ethanol from Sugar cane is better, but its expanded growth into tropical rainforests causes other environmental problems that may negate gains in the US. One question that I ask is what is the energy balance of gasoline? It is a whopping negative .85. Cellulosic ethanol sounds promising, and improves energy balances, but we are probably 7 years out on commercial scale projects of significant output. Ever wonder what their feasibility studies factor in for feedstock cost? Not enough for farmers to make a living fueling someone elses biofuels pipe dream with todays numbers of $35-40 per ton without some sort of subsidy somewhere in the pipeline. BTW If you think that the oil companies are not subsidized with tax credits and other tools (military) to manage the industry, you are mistaken.
Biofuels policy is not only about energy balances, carbon balances, or the environment, it is also about energy security and reducing vulnerabilities to Middle Eastern countries holding around 70% of global oil reserves while as a nation remaining globally competitive amidst the rise of developing countries like China and India which are responsible for 70% of the increase in demand for petroleum which will bring about new energy paradigms for the 21st century which will likely incorporate a portfolio approach that will change the way our children think about fuel and energy from how we have been raised in ways that have yet to be defined. At the end of the day, economics and resource security trumps and we can do a better job with our environmental challenges. There are winners and losers and nobody wants to lose market share. Do not think for a minute that big oil does not have the best lobbyists in DC that money can buy, but that is just a part of how business is done.
As a capitalist, farmer and a price taker, I welcome the addition of new markets to replace market distorting subsidies which promote artificially low prices, challenging young and family farmers across the US to make ends meet while at the same time allowing Americans to spend around 10 percent of their income on safe food which shure has not gone up in price as fast as a new sled.
Last edited:
