Obama Push To "Clean" Energy

[TripleB]

I haven't really been paying much attention to the Obama clean energy push until recently when I read about new ethanol requirements - something about new gas required to be 15% ethanol up from 10%.

From everything I understand, this is an awful idea because ethanol is significantly more expensive than gas, the increased demand for ethanol from fuel use is causing significant corn-price inflation, and ethanol doesn't contain as much energy in its chemical bonds as gas, so you're essentially burning more gas for less miles.

Is this just based on the corn lobby pushing politicians to "clean energy" so that they can profit from spikes in corn prices?

Does the government really genuinely think they can mandate clean energy as opposed to letting the free market create it (organically, once "dirty" energy sources become more expensive due to exhausting supplies)?

How much energy is wasted and air pollution created shipping all of our products from China to the US because increased environmental regulations in the US have forced manufacturing overseas where China is free to pollute, and then freight shippers pollute even more to bring it back to the US. Wouldn't it be more environmentally efficient to reduce regulations in the US and allow things to be made domestically and thus "shipping waste" doesn't add to pollution?

Do people who make the push towards electric cars not realize that most electricity in the US is made from burning coal so essentially they are just shifting the polluting exhaust from their tailpipe further upstream the supply chain to the electricity manufacturers? And that every time energy is shifted from one form to another, there's a loss to heat and thus it would produce less pollution to burn gas in a car than burn coal at a power plant 1000 miles away and "transport" the energy over powerlines where it's lost to resistance (producing heat).

Is this another case of ideology getting in the way of economics and science?

Am I just an asshole that wants cheaper cost of living at the expense of the environment?

[Pointedstick]

In theory, one could buy an electric car and power it with one's own solar panels and wind turbine. But there's still all the carbon and pollution emitted from the manufacture of those machines. Trying to make gasoline-powered cars less polluting is a fool's errand, IMHO, and people who attempt it are deluding themselves. This ethanol push is a great example of good intentions captured by an industry that can profit from political naiveté. If the government wanted to truly make a difference in petroleum-powered transportation, they'd push for diesel engines, which are more efficient than gasoline engines and can burn a much greater variety of fuels, many 100% recycled such as vegetable oil.

But if you really want to make a difference, you'll probably have to ditch your car entirely.

[rickb]

I haven't really been paying much attention to the Obama clean energy push until recently when I read about new ethanol requirements - something about new gas required to be 15% ethanol up from 10%.

The Wikipedia article about this is interesting, see specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fu ... ions. 

It would appear the change is to allow (not require) use of 15% ethanol in some (not all) vehicles made between 2001 and 2006 (use of this fuel in vehicles manufactured after 2007 was already allowed - also not required).  Historically ethanol was introduced as a replacement for MTBE, which does not biodegrade and was finding its way into groundwater supplies.  The push for increased use of ethanol is intended to support long term goals of renewable energy use and US energy self-sufficiency - supported by Big Ag and opposed by Big Oil.  Of course, the fact that Big Ag claims to be on the side of renewable energy and energy self-sufficiency doesn't mean they really are.

As far as I can tell, the government is doing what it always does - which is pass laws beneficial to whoever exerts the most influence (usually through money) - and, in this case, Big Ag is winning out over Big Oil.  The notion that the "free market" would fix this if the government would just butt out is laughable.  Part of the free market is the ability of Big Oil and Big Ag to spend as much money as they want to tilt the tables in their favor.  So they do.  Note that selling a 15% ethanol mix for use in vehicles (made between 2001 and 2006) was apparently previously prohibited - no doubt by some law passed on behalf of Big Oil.  By allowing this, the government is (in a sense) simply butting out of something they'd previously butted into.

[Benko]

  The notion that the "free market" would fix this if the government would just butt out is laughable.

What solution do you propose?
Clearly solyndra and the likes were a bust.

[Pointedstick]

The notion that the "free market" would fix this if the government would just butt out is laughable.  Part of the free market is the ability of Big Oil and Big Ag to spend as much money as they want to  tilt the tables in their favor.

Remember what they're paying for and who they're paying. The idea of entrenched corporations paying politicians for favorable legislation is an awfully strange definition of "free market."

[RuralEngineer]

It's all a scam.  Even the environmentalists don't support corn ethanol anymore.  The only ones who do were snookered during the Bush years or are members of the corn lobby.  Everybody points to Brazil, but they use the waste from sugar processing to create ethanol.  The structure of their industry is completely different.

Even electric cars aren't the glorious saviors they've been touted to be.  This is from a Norwegian Engineering study.  Hooray for lower CO2 (not a toxin), oh but we get increased levels of other toxins in both our bodies and our water?  Yay...?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 532.x/full

We find that EVs powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in global warming potential (GWP) relative to conventional diesel or gasoline vehicles assuming lifetimes of 150,000 km. However, EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chain. Results are sensitive to assumptions regarding electricity source, use phase energy consumption, vehicle lifetime, and battery replacement schedules. Because production impacts are more significant for EVs than conventional vehicles, assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000 km exaggerates the GWP benefits of EVs to 27% to 29% relative to gasoline vehicles or 17% to 20% relative to diesel. An assumption of 100,000 km decreases the benefit of EVs to 9% to 14% with respect to gasoline vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle.

[Storm]

I don't think Obama has anything to do with the idiotic E15 blend that a few corn lobbyist owned states are pushing.  The auto manufacturers have basically come right out and said "if you put E15 in your car you void the warranty."

I'd love to see what happens when the $83 billion corn industry runs smack into the power of the $443 billion (US sales only) auto industry.  You do not want to wake a sleeping giant and feel it's wrath...

[rickb]

The notion that the "free market" would fix this if the government would just butt out is laughable.  Part of the free market is the ability of Big Oil and Big Ag to spend as much money as they want to  tilt the tables in their favor.

Remember what they're paying for and who they're paying. The idea of entrenched corporations paying politicians for favorable legislation is an awfully strange definition of "free market."

My point was that the market is already not "free" and any additional government laws or regulations are being implemented against a backdrop of an existing set of laws or regulations almost certainly set up for someone's benefit.  Moreover, in this particular case, TB apparently has it completely backwards.  The government is not mandating anything, but simply allowing something previously prohibited.

This is perhaps libertarian heresy, but it seems as long as we

1)  have a government that passes laws
2)  allow corporations to grow arbitrarily large (become "entrenched")
3)  allow corporations to influence politicians

we have a system where corporations will become entrenched and will pay politicians for favorable legislation.  The constitution sets up #1.  #2 and #3 are a consequence of corporations having the same rights as individuals - widely credited to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, a 1896 Supreme Court case (even though it didn't specifically rule on this).  For more on this, see http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-a ... ations-us/.

[hoost]

I interned at an extremely large AgriBusiness company in college; I worked in the corporate office with many of the head managerial and technical people.  I recall having a conversation with the key technical guy for the ethanol business and him saying that they were limiting their investment in ethanol, since the only reason the business was profitable was due to the government subsidy.  I'm not sure if their outlook has changed, but that said to me that there is a reason that people weren't using too much ethanol before the government mandate.

I do think there is good potential for biodiesel; there are non-food plants, particularly a strain of algae, that yield oil that could be used to create biodiesel.  I'm not sure where the research is for something like that at this point, but it seems a bit more promising than burning food to power cars.