Blogging Against Senator Sam Brownback Since March 2005
From the State’s News Service comes word of Brownback supporting a tax credit for E-85 fuel:
The demand for greater access to alternative fuels such as E-85 ethanol and biodiesel has increased significantly among the American public in recent months. Given that this tax credit became effective for properties placed into service January 1, 2006, we urge you to issue preliminary guidance or rulemaking on this new provision as soon as possible. Many stakeholders, including fuel station owners and feedstock suppliers, require certainty for business planning purposes and will benefit from expedited guidance from the Internal Revenue Service regarding this tax credit, the letter states.
Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Mark Dayton (D-MN), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Barack Obama (D-IL), Ken Salazar (D-CO), and Jim Talent (R-MO) joined Lugar in signing the letter. (from lexis-nexis)
First, let me applaud Senator Brownback for supporting research into alternative fuels. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and if we are smart we will engineer our own solutions and then seel them to the rest of the world. That being said, Ethanol increasingly appears to be a pork-barrel handout to states like Iowa which just happens to be the first in the nation for 2008 presidential caucuses.
The main problem with ethanol as a fuel is that it takes more energy to produce it that it gives.
The total fossil energy expended to produce 1 liter of ethanol from corn is 10,200 kcal, but note that 1 liter of ethanol has an energy value of only 5130 kcal. Thus, there is an energy imbalance causing a net energy loss. Approximately 53% of the total cost (55¢ per liter) of producing ethanol in a large, modern plant is for the corn raw material (Pimentel 1991). The total energy inputs for producing ethanol using corn can be partially offset when the dried distillers grain produced is fed to livestock. Although the feed value of the dried distillers grain reduces the total energy inputs by 8 % to 24%, the energy budget remains negative.
Not that I blame Brownback for playing this game. All candidates for President have to at one time or another. If they don’t, they run the risk of ending up like Gen. Wes Clark. I wanted to point this out only as a further indicator that Senator Brownback is still preparing to run for president.
[powered by WordPress.]
Blogging Against Senator Sam Brownback Since March 2005
I am a student of political science at the University of Kansas. Contact me with any questions, comments or tips.
21 queries. 0.324 seconds
January 24th, 2006 at 8:20 am
What information do you have to back up your assertion that “ethanol increasingly appears to be a pork-barrel handout to states like Iowa?” Has it occurred to you that Iowais also the nation’s leading corn producer, therefore making it a logical geographic region for ethanol production? (Kansas, the nation’s top sorghum producer, is also a great location for ethanol plants–of which we have several.)
January 24th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Take a look at the link above for notes on how it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it gives. Additionally, Corn is an awful crop to make ethanol with because of it’s water needs. We already have enough of a water problem here in Kansas without planting more (government subsidized) corn.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
There is also dissenting opinion regarding the efficiency of ethanol. The study you cite is now 12 years old and both crop and fuel production efficiency has improved markedly since. Here is a page that lists some more recent opinions: http://www.newrules.org/agri/netenergy.html
Furthermore, I never suggested that Kansas farmers begin growing more corn for ethanol. As I stated, our sorghum production levels make us perfect candidates for ethanol production. (Agreed, sorghum is much better suited for dryland production, than is water-requiring corn.) That is precisely why Iowa has (or will soon have) nearly four times as many ethanol plants as Kansas.
I also don’t appreciate your statement about planting more “gov’t subsidized corn.” It is quite obvious you have little understanding of production agriculture, outside of a few buzz words and talking points. Farmers often receive a premium price for corn and/or sorghum when sold to ethanol plants–usually 10 cents or more per bushel. And with the rising price of oil, that premium is forecasted to rise accordingly. This will be a tremendous upswing for corn producers and help rid them of the subsidizations they now receive.
At the very least, you failed to answer my question posed in the original comment: Has it occurred to you that Iowa is also the nation’s leading corn producer, therefore making it a logical geographic region for ethanol production? I am failing to see how ethanol serves as a pork barrel handout, especially in areas where ethanol production makes perfect sense.