Posts tagged with: ethanol

Blog author: lglinzak
posted by on Thursday, July 7, 2011

Political news changes quickly, and now reports are coming out of Washington DC that Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has been leading the way in killing the ethanol subsidy and tariff, has struck a deal with Senators Amy Klobuchar and John Thune, two stalwarts for protecting ethanol. While the rumored deal does not indicate the repeal of the blending mandate it is a step in the right direction.

However, while we wait on Congress and the President for action, the Brazilian ethanol industry is eying the U.S. ethanol market. Repealing the tariff will allow Brazil to expand its ethanol industry. Many questions need to be answered before ethanol is imported into the U.S. from Brazil.

In a previous post I posed concerns about whether ethanol can meet both U.S. and Brazilian demands. Furthermore, what are the environmental consequences of ethanol? Reports are showing deforestation in the rainforest. Finally, what will happen to food prices?

It is unfortunate that there are even more questions that need to be answered.

Like the corn based ethanol in the U.S., Brazil’s sugar based ethanol is a false market created by the government. Brazil doesn’t subsidize ethanol; instead it resorts to high taxes. Brazilian gasoline taxes are at 53 percent while the tax placed on ethanol is much lower making ethanol cheaper than gasoline. The question is how long can an industry last and actually be sustainable when it is propped up by the government and is a false market?

It is also important to note that the Brazilian ethanol industry needs a large sum of new investment, about $80 billion worth in the next ten years, to meet global demand. In an industry that is heavily dependent on the government one must wonder, who will pay for these new investments?

Another potential hazard of relying on ethanol is crop shortages. Such crop shortages may occur for a variety of reasons, one of which is out of our control: the weather. What happens when fuel relies on crops, and there is actually a shortage in the harvest? How much of the crop goes to fuel and how much goes to the food supply? Both are important. Food nourishes, however, fuel gets people to their jobs where they earn a salary which they use to purchase food. Brazil may be forced to answer these questions this year as sugarcane production is currently down 25 percent as compared to last year. The lack of production is due to bad weather and aging plants.

However, because of the lack of production sugar prices are on the rise as they saw a 14 percent surge in June. While some are sounding the alarm, other analysts are remaining calm, such as Eli Mamoun Amrouk of the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization:

El Mamoun Amrouk, sugar analyst at the Rome-based FAO, said: “It’s difficult to predict exactly what’s going to happen to the sugar price because the market’s so volatile and so any new information can have a big effect on price. The speculation is still there, exacerbating the trend and changes in the dollar also play a part.

“But the signs are that production is growing significantly and, especially in India and Thailand, the prospects are very positive, so we should see the price start coming down in the summer,” he said.

Whether sugar prices do come down or not, we still face a critical question. If we continue to pursue an energy plan based on biofuels, what happens when we do face a shortage in crop production? The world will be faced with not just rising food prices but also with rising fuel prices. How do people in developed countries, who already have a difficult time affording food, feed themselves when the food supply is actually going into the fuel supply?

The future of corn ethanol is up in the air, and while the Senate gave signs of repealing both the subsidy and the tariff on imported ethanol, the bill the repeal was attached to failed and Congress is back to square one in the ethanol debate. The uncertain future of corn ethanol has brought forth discussion on the possibility of importing sugar cane based ethanol from Brazil.

Before the U.S. begins importing ethanol from Brazil, a broad cost benefit analysis needs to be taken by the government to decide if it is actually a smart decision to begin importing and using sugar cane based ethanol from Brazil.

A concern of many critics of alternative fuels is whether or not alternative fuels can meet demand. According to the Energy Tribune, corn ethanol cannot meet U.S. demand whereas even the country turned all of its corn into ethanol only 6 percent of its total annual oil needs would be met.

This leaves ethanol supporters looking for another energy source to help close the gap. They may be looking no further than the sugar cane based ethanol produced in Brazil. However, even importing Brazilian ethanol will leave the U.S. looking for another energy resource.

In 2010 the U.S. consumed 138.6 billion gallons of gasoline and Brazil currently produces about 7.4 billion gallons of sugar cane based biofuels. Importing sugar cane based ethanol from Brazil while still consuming corn ethanol does not even get the U.S. close to meeting its energy demands especially when 75 percent of Brazil’s ethanol output is sold within its borders, and it experienced a shortage earlier this year.

And the simplistic answer to this problem, planting more sugar cane, may not be the best solution. The Brazilian government has been surprised by the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. According to Brazil’s space research institute, deforestation of the Amazon rainforest increased from 103 sq km in March and April 2010 to 593 sq km during the same period this year. This surprised the Brazilian government which reported that deforestation had fallen to its lowest rate in 22 years when actually there was a 27 percent jump in deforestation from August 2010 to April 2011. The biggest rise in deforestation was in Mato Grosso, a state in Brazil, which produces more than a quarter of Brazil’s soybean harvest. However, what does that have to do with sugar cane causing deforestation?

A 2010 article by Foreign Policy explains how sugar cane based ethanol fosters “agricultural displacement” resulting in the deforestation of the rainforest:

Public officials declare that ethanol will not lead to deforestation in the Amazon or exacerbate climate change. They say that the particular soils and rainy weather characteristic of the rainforest are not suitable for the growth of sugar cane. Agriculture minister Reinhold Stephanes has been quoted as saying that “Cane does not exist in Amazonia.” In a withering blow to Stephanes’s credibility, however, authorities recently raided a sugar cane plantation in the state of Pará where 1,000 workers were laboring under appalling debt slavery conditions. In all, environmentalists claim, hundreds of thousands of acres of sugar cane have been planted in the Amazon.

Even if there are only a few cane plantations operating in the Amazon, ethanol may exert an indirect impact on the rainforest through a phenomenon known as “agricultural displacement.” Though the state of São Paulo is located far from the Amazon rainforest, the sugar cane there can drive other crops toward the agricultural frontier. In the state of São Paulo, sugar cane has been planted on former pastureland and this has pushed cattle into Mato Grosso. Hundreds of thousands of cattle are moving into the Amazon every year as a result of displacement by ethanol in the state of São Paulo alone, say environmentalists. This migration is becoming all the more likely since one can purchase 800 hectares of land in the Amazon for the price of just one hectare in São Paulo. Additionally, some soy plantations in the center of the country have been turned over to ethanol production, prompting concern among environmentalists that this will lead soy producers to move into the Amazon. And local observers say that sugar cane plantations are already pushing soy farmers and ranchers into the rainforest.

The same article by Foreign Policy states that sugar cane crops have also led to the deforestation in the Atlantic rainforest.

There are still many unintended consequences and factors the United States needs to take into account before importing sugar cane based ethanol. CNNMoney published an article stating that, “Some experts say the Brazilian formula gets even less gas mileage than its corn ethanol counterpart, which itself gets lower mileage generally than gasoline.” Furthermore, biofuels will have an adverse effect on food prices. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which is the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, biofuels will absorb 13 percent of global coarse grain production, 15 percent of vegetable oil, and some 30 percent of sugar by 2020. Again, what is more important, food or fuel? How are the poor and vulnerable expected to purchase food when it is being shipped to prosperous countries for fuel?

Just like corn based ethanol, sugar cane based ethanol also has its consequences. Experts continue to debate whether sugar cane based ethanol is a viable option. However, before jumping on the bandwagon, policy makers need to take a pragmatic approach when discussing the energy future of the U.S.

Ethanol subsidies, once considered a sacred cow, are facing the possibility of being axed from the budget. The Senate cast a deciding vote, 73-27 in repealing the 45 cent per gallon subsidy to refiners for blending gasoline with ethanol, and the 54 cent per gallon tariff on imported ethanol.

Cutting the ethanol subsidy and repealing the tariff still face an uphill battle as it must pass the house and get the signature of President Obama, who has vowed not to fully repeal the subsidy. Supporters of ethanol are fighting harder to preserve the subsidy and tariff, and are now issuing claims that the ethanol subsidy keeps gas prices lower than what they would be if the subsidy wasn’t in place.

Iowa State University released a study arguing that ethanol has helped suppress gasoline prices. It is of no surprise that supporters of the ethanol subsidy and tariff have embraced the study by Iowa State University with open arms and are using it to add weight to their position.

Unfortunately for supporters of the ethanol subsidy, the Institute for Energy Research, released its own study debunking the arguments from Iowa State. While the Institute for Energy Research admits that removing the ethanol subsidy will result in a short-term spike in gasoline prices, they argue that in the long run consumers are better off without the ethanol subsidy–ideally the country would’ve been better off if the subsidy had never existed.

Those who claim that removing the ethanol subsidy and tariff will increase gasoline prices also fail to acknowledge principles of basic market economics. By removing the tariff, the United States is able to import cheaper ethanol from countries like Brazil, which produce the cheaper sugar-based ethanol, thus making ethanol more affordable for consumers. As a result, the market adds a product to compete with gasoline, and through competition, may drive the price of gasoline lower.

The concept of competition driving down prices is explained by Joel Velasco, former chief representative in North America for the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association. Velasco argues that competition between corn and sugarcane ethanol will benefit consumers. The principle of competition found in his argument can be applied to competition between gasoline and ethanol as well.

While it may seem like ethanol from Brazil is a perfect solution, there are unintended consequences that must be weighed. Ecology professor at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, Luiz Martinelli, warns of the many problems with Brazilian ethanol in an article published in the Cornell Daily Sun. Martinelli explains that ethanol production pollutes the environment and results cause serious problems:

Ethanol production fosters deforestation in Brazil. Sugarcane needs a well-defined drought season to concentrate sugars in the cane stalk, making the wetter Amazon region less than ideal for growth. Consequently, growers convert increasing areas of land in the transitional area between the cerrado grasslands and the Amazon forests to sugarcane. As a result, the increase may indirectly lead to deforestation as other crops, like soybean, are pushed into the Amazon.

“We don’t have much room for deforestation. If sugarcane causes 1,000 of squared kilometers of deforestation, we’ve set off any savings [of avoided carbon emissions] that we have saved,” emphasized Martinelli.

Such unintended consequences were also articulated by Ray Nothstine on the PowerBlog in 2007 as religious leaders began to express alarm about increasing ethanol production:

Religious leaders are speaking out. In March, Roman Catholic bishops in Brazil warned that a rapid increase in ethanol production based on sugar cane could lead to widespread deforestation, massive relocation of workers and their communities, and harsh working conditions for cane cutters. Analysts predict that Brazil, the world’s largest exporter of ethanol, may increase ethanol production as much as 40 percent in the next four years. “We are going to turn the country into a huge cane (plantation),” said Cardinal Geraldo Majella Agnelo. In Colombia, Christian aid organizations say armed groups are driving peasants off their lands to make way for plantations of palm oil, another biofuel. Acreage dedicated to production of the palm oil tree has more than doubled in the last four years.

Nothstine later explains in “‘Big Corn’ and Unintended Consequences” how corn ethanol will increase food prices, is more costly to produce and transport, and has pollution problems.

If ethanol made from sugarcane gains traction in the United States and other countries, the same questions that have been raised by corn ethanol must also be asked when it comes to sugar-based ethanol. Will we have a problem with unintended consequences? Will sugar ethanol contribute to rising food prices in a manner similar to that of corn ethanol? What effects will sugar ethanol have on the environment, and what are the impacts of deforestation?

Blog author: lglinzak
posted by on Wednesday, May 11, 2011

With rising gas and food prices, ethanol subsidies are getting strict scrutiny. Many have called for the end of ethanol subsidies, and now the Senate is acting. Senators Tom Coburn and Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation that would end ethanol subsidies and repeal the tariff that is placed on foreign ethanol.

The problems with ethanol subsidies have been vast as I’ve pointed out in previous posts including a tax credit for oil companies that blends ethanol with gasoline—even though they are mandated to do it by law. That’s right. Oil companies are being paid to follow the law. Senators Feinstein and Coburn put together a long list of problems associated with ethanol subsidies:

“The ethanol subsidy and tariff is bad economic policy, bad energy policy and bad environmental policy. As our nation faces a crushing debt burden, rising gas prices and the prospect of serious inflation, continuing our parochial ethanol policy that increases the cost of energy and food is irresponsible. I’m pleased to introduce this common sense bill with Senator Feinstein and will push for its consideration at the earliest opportunity,” Dr. Coburn said, noting that the bill has been filed as an amendment (#309) to the small business bill pending in the Senate.

“Ethanol is the only industry that benefits from a triple crown of government intervention: its use is mandated by law, it is protected by tariffs, and companies are paid by the federal government to use it. Ethanol subsidies and tariffs sap our budget, they’re bad for the environment, and they increase our dependence on foreign oil. It’s time we end subsidies that we cannot afford and tariffs that increase gas prices,” Sen. Feinstein said.

And, as the Heritage Foundation states in a recent blog post, this legislation, if passed, will “…fully eliminate the import tariff on ethanol and repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit. This would grant U.S. blenders cheaper inputs, which in effect lowers productions costs and, subsequently, prices.”

Blog author: lglinzak
posted by on Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Everywhere we look we are facing rising prices. We find them at the gas pumps and now we see them at our supermarkets. Food prices are climbing, and just like gas prices, they are having broadly felt adverse effects on Americans.

The Wall Street Journal sat down with C. Larry Pope, the CEO of Smithfield Foods Inc., the world’s largest pork processor and hog producer by volume, to discuss the rising food prices and how they are affecting his business. Pope attributes the increase in food prices to corn prices and the ethanol industry:

It’s also a business under enormous strain. Some “60 to 70% of the cost of raising a hog is tied up in the grains,” Mr. Pope explains. “The major ingredient is corn, and the secondary ingredient is soybean meal.” Over the last several years, “the cost of corn has gone from a base of $2.40 a bushel to today at $7.40 a bushel, nearly triple what it was just a few years ago.” Which means every product that uses corn has risen, too—including everything from “cereal to soft drinks” and more.

It is also important to note that, while Pope does not go into great detail, he points to the depreciating dollar as playing a role in inflated food prices.

Pope says the majority of his customers will be hurt by rising food prices:

“Maybe to someone in the upper incomes it doesn’t matter what the price of a pound of bacon is, or what the price of a ham, or the price of a pound of pork chops is,” he says. “But for many of the customers we sell to, it really does matter.” Workers can share cars when the price of oil rises, he quips, but “you can’t share your food.”

As food prices rise, what are most people expected to do? Many are on a limited budget and where will they cut back? Increasing food prices may also result in people turning to cheaper less nutritious food. Lora Iannotti, public health expert and professor at Washington University in St. Louis, explains how rising food prices lead to nutritional problems for everyone—especially the most vulnerable:

“During a food price crisis, households moved away from ‘luxury’ food items such as meat, fish and dairy products to poorer quality food,” she says.

Data from nationally representative household budget surveys show that during a food crisis, calorie intake is reduced by an average eight percent from pre-crisis levels, equally affecting rural and urban areas.

“We are particularly concerned for families with young children,” Iannotti says. “When you have a reduction in calories and critical nutrients for kids under 2, there are long term consequences such as stunted growth, cognitive deficits, lower educational attainment, and reduced future productivity.”

Like many other critics of the ethanol subsidy, Pope calls for an end to these subsidies. That would be a significant aid to reigning in the high food prices:

…Mr. Pope says, get rid of the ethanol subsidies and the tariff. “I am in competition with the government and the oil industry,” he says. “It’s not fair.” Smithfield’s economists estimate corn prices would fall by a dollar a bushel if ethanol blending wasn’t subsidized. “Even the announcement that it is going away would see the price of corn go down, which would translate very quickly into reduced meat prices in the meat case,” he says. Imagine what would happen if the mandate and tariff were eliminated, too.

Gary Wolfram, economics and public policy professor at Hillsdale College, offers a similar message. Wolfram points to the sharp increase in food prices, the inefficiency of corn ethanol, and calls for the end of ethanol subsidies:

World food prices are on the rise. In the United States, retail food prices rose .6 percent in February and are up 2.3 percent from February of 2010, the highest 12-month increase since May 2009. Part of the reason for the revolutionary fervor in the Middle East is rising food prices. Yet our government provides a $6 billion per year subsidy to turn the U.S. corn crop into gasoline. Ever gallon of ethanol refined into gasoline receives a 45-cent per gallon subsidy.

[…]

But this inefficient use of corn does more than just cost taxpayers’ money. It is part of the problem of increasing food prices. Ethanol makes up about 8 percent of U.S. fuel for vehicles, but uses up about 40 percent of the nation’s corn crop. The Economist estimates that if all the American corn crop that goes into ethanol were used as food, global corn food supplies would increase by 14 percent.

And as an article in Investors.com argues, ethanol has failed to achieve many of the goals that its proponents claim it would achieve.

Acton’s criticism of the ethanol subsidy is not new. In 2008, Ray Nothstine was interviewed and articulated the moral problems with the ethanol subsidy, the unintended consequences, and inefficiencies of ethanol that are now coming to light. Readers can listen to the interview here.

Rising food and gasoline prices are causing people to bear economic hardships, and, with limited household budgets, these trends cannot continue. Many leaders and economists are correct in calling for a reevaluation of our ethanol policy.



Gas prices are not the only thing on the rise. As of yesterday, corn is at its highest level in three years at $7.60 a bushel and prices are not predicated to go down anytime soon. The United States government anticipates a shortage despite farmers’ intent to plant 5 percent more acreage of corn this year, a shortage is still predicted.

Reuters also indicates that rising corn prices will continue:

U.S. corn prices will keep rising to new highs over the coming months, a new Reuters poll has found, as demand from ranchers and ethanol makers proves better able to withstand record costs than many thought.

The forecasts will compound inflation concerns as higher feed costs filter through to beef and chicken prices. Analysts also warned that anything less than perfect growing weather for the spring crop could push prices even higher as traders fear tight conditions will extend well into next year.

As the article later states, the chances of having a perfect growing season with no weather related problems are very slim.

Reuters also asserts that food prices rose by 14 percent over the past three months which can be attributed to the rising use of ethanol and the ranchers demand for feed for livestock: “The rally has sharpened the focus on two imponderables: the price point at which livestock ranchers or ethanol makers will begin to cut back use, relieving demand pressures; so far, traders say there’s little evidence of this happening yet.”

Perhaps the United States should learn from China’s mistake. An article in the New York Times describes how the biofuel sector does affect the food supply and price, and how China’s ethanol use resulted in higher food prices:

It can be tricky predicting how new demand from the biofuel sector will affect the supply and price of food. Sometimes, as with corn or cassava, direct competition between purchasers drives up the prices of biofuel ingredients. In other instances, shortages and price inflation occur because farmers who formerly grew crops like vegetables for consumption plant different crops that can be used for fuel.

China learned this the hard way nearly a decade ago when it set out to make bioethanol from corn, only to discover that the plan caused alarming shortages and a rise in food prices. In 2007 the government banned the use of grains to make biofuel.

However, the article later explains that China is now using cassava, instead of corn. China may have not entirely learned their lesson as cassava is still a food crop used predominately in Africa and also in China during food shortages.

The article by the New York Times adequately closes with a quote from Olivier Dubois, a bioenergy expert at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization that gets at the root of the food and fuel argument: “We have to move away from the thinking that producing an energy crop doesn’t compete with food,” he said. “It almost inevitably does.”

Previous blog posts on ethanol, rising food prices, and the moral issues of the two can be found here, here, here, and here.

Blog author: lglinzak
posted by on Wednesday, March 16, 2011

As a follow up to recent blog posts (here, here, and here) where rising food prices have been discussed, the most current numbers have been released. What many of us already know from visits to the grocery store is that food prices have increased dramatically.

Food prices rose by 3.9 percent in the month of February, making this the largest increase since November of 1974. An article from the Associated Press explains the rise in food prices while also showing the rise in energy prices:

The Labor Department said Wednesday that the Producer Price Index rose a seasonally adjusted 1.6 percent in February — double the 0.8 percent rise in the previous month. Outside of food and energy costs, the core index ticked up 0.2 percent, less than January’s 0.5 percent rise.

Food prices soared 3.9 percent last month, the biggest gain since November 1974. Most of that increase was due to a sharp rise in vegetable costs, which increased nearly 50 percent. That was the most in almost a year. Meat and dairy products also rose.

Energy prices rose 3.3 percent last month, led by a 3.7 percent increase in gasoline costs.

As the AP states — and which we’ve been saying here on the PowerBlog — there are many culprits behind rising food prices: “Food costs, meanwhile, are rising. Bad weather in the past year has damaged crops in Australia, Russia, and South America. Demand for corn for ethanol use has also contributed to the increase.”

Blog author: lglinzak
posted by on Wednesday, March 9, 2011

A big report is due out tomorrow which may have a positive or negative impact on economies across the globe. These numbers are not coming from the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, the Tokyo Stock Exchange, the London Stock Exchange, or any other stock exchange; they are actually coming from a report being released by the U.S. Agriculture Department (USDA). It will talk about the role the U.S. will play in preventing or reducing the effects of a global food shortage.

There have been many pundits warning about a global food crisis resulting in a substantial increase in food prices. Shoppers are already experiencing the effects of higher food prices, with wheat prices up 80 percent from a year ago and U.S. retail food prices expecting to climb about 4 percent this year.

And prices are not expected to come down any time in the near future. The Ogallala Aquifer in the U.S. is depleting, and without a way to replenish itself, experts are wondering if the U.S. is on the verge of seeing another dust bowl. Texas’ wheat crop is also predicted to not meet harvesting expectations as 56 percent of its crop is rated in poor to very poor conditions by the USDA with dry weather persisting. Furthermore, an article published in Foreign Policy articulates many variables contributing to the increase in food prices and the potential food crisis which include population increase, arable lands depleting, the increasing demand for water for numerous uses, and urban sprawl. The industry is left with a lot of factors to compete with while trying to keep prices as low as possible.

It is important to note that the developed world is not immune from the adverse effects of a potential food crisis. Karen Ward, senior global economist at the worldwide bank HSBC, explains slow wage growth and use of food crops in alternative fuels are going to result in problems for those living in developed countries. While speaking on Jeff Randall Live, Ward also warned the UK may be subject to the food riots similar to those that occurred in other countries:

“Even in the developed world I think we have very, very low wage growth, so people aren’t getting more in their pay packet to compensate them for food and energy, and I think we could see social unrest certainly in parts of the developed world and the UK as well.”

She went on to highlight the link between high food prices and the escalating cost of crude oil.

“More and more we are seeing that some of these foodstuffs are actually substitutes for energy itself, particularly biofuels. So I think the energy markets are a significant contributor to these food price gains.”

While farmers are continuing to produce bigger crops, the U.S. is expected to see a 4 percent increase in the area planted along with a harvest record for corn of 13.73 billion bushels, it still may not be enough. However, corn is on such high demand due to the increase of the ethanol industry in the U.S., and current rising oil prices are even further contributing to the demand for ethanol. As a result, the 10 percent increase that is projected in the corn harvest will only add to reserves in the U.S. by five days, and by the time the fall harvest begins, the USDA predicts the U.S to only have enough corn left to satisfy the country’s appetite for 18 days.

Whether there is a food crisis of 2011 or not does not avoid the much needed ethical debate involving the use of crops. As I discussed in an earlier post, the U.S. is mandated to continue to increase its ethanol production, and with biofuels increasing the demand on crops and ever increasing population that demands food, priorities need to be evaluated and questions need to be raised. Shall more emphasis be placed on crops being harvested for food consumption or fuel usage?

With the surge in oil prices, there’s renewed interest in alternative energy options. Numerous countries have gradually taken steps to promoting renewable or clean energy technologies, and it seems the United States is drifting more towards favoring alternative energy options as the Obama Administration is looking at banning off shore drilling along the continental shelf until 2012 and beyond. However, before we move farther down this road, a critical analysis of the pros and cons is a must.

A more serious assessment is now being applied to ethanol and its effect on food production. There’s now more caution on the use of ethanol, based on both economical and moral arguments, and the same approach also needs to be taken when analyzing clean technologies such as the use of wind turbines.

As a recent article in the Mail Online demonstrates, many countries in Europe are currently seeing the unintended consequences of their policies favoring the use of wind power.

The article notes that the wind turbines are proving to be very inefficient:

The most glaring dishonesty peddled by the wind industry — and echoed by gullible politicians — is vastly to exaggerate the output of turbines by deliberately talking about them only in terms of their ‘capacity’, as if this was what they actually produce. Rather, it is the total amount of power they have the capability of producing.

The point about wind, of course, is that it is constantly varying in speed, so that the output of turbines averages out at barely a quarter of their capacity.

This means that the 1,000 megawatts all those 3,500 turbines sited around the country feed on average into the grid is derisory: no more than the output of a single, medium-sized conventional power station.

The wind turbine’s production of energy not only fluctuates based on the varying speeds of the wind, but is also seasonal. For example, Britain’s wind turbines became largely inefficient in the winter when the weather was mostly freezing and windless, and to keep homes warm Britain was forced to import immense amounts of power from nuclear reactors in France.

Furthermore, the article also notes, each country in Europe is required to produce more wind turbines each year which will result in a higher increase of CO2 emissions because of the need to build more gas-fired power stations to function as a back-up energy source when the wind drops. Due to the unreliability of the wind, these gas-fired power stations must run for twenty-four hours a day to be prepared for any moment when the wind may diminish.

The article is also quick to point out how the production and installation of the wind turbines also brings forth an increase in CO2 emissions:

Then, of course, the construction of the turbines generates enormous CO2 emissions as a result of the mining and smelting of the metals used, the carbon-intensive cement needed for their huge concrete foundations, the building of miles of road often needed to move them to the site, and the releasing of immense quantities of CO2 locked up in the peat bogs where many turbines are built.

It is such unintended consequences of wind turbines that possibly make them counterproductive to their stated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Like the production of ethanol in the United States, the production of wind turbines in Europe is a market that relies on the government. Wind turbines are very expensive to build, and often require a government subsidy in order to get them built.

Many countries in Europe are seeing the disastrous effects of relying on wind turbines, and some are even beginning to shift away from their reliance on them. Germany, for example, which has produced more turbines than any other country in the world, is now building new coal-fired stations.

Yes, wind turbines were supported with good intentions: to provide clean sustainable energy while also supporting environmental stewardship. However, wind turbines may be actually counter-intuitive to their original goals. While the rising oil prices are having adverse effects on everyone, when searching for alternative fuels, we need to be critical of the potential of unintended consequences they may bring upon us.

Posts on ethanol production and the ethanol subsidy can be found here and here.

After taking a look yesterday at economic consequences of rising food prices along with the affects ethanol may have on the rising food prices, a moral perspective must also be taken into account.

As I stated in my previous blog post, the World Bank says rising food prices have pushed 44 million more people into extreme poverty in developing countries since June of 2010, and are having an adverse effect on people around the globe.  The increase in demand and expanded use of crops have caused global stockpiles to erode.  Stockpiles are important to help ensure a steady flow of food, especially during traumatic times such as large food shortages.  Even the corn stocks of United States, the world’s largest corn producer, amount to 5 percent of annual use which is far below the 13.6 percent average that they have been kept at over the last 15 years.

We are also called to be stewards of the Earth and this not only means not abusing the one planet we are given, but also ensuring that we leave a planet in good condition for future generations.  However, recent studies have called into question whether ethanol is actually better for the environment.  A study conducted by the University of Minnesota demonstrates that corn ethanol is actually more harmful than gasoline to the environment.  Furthermore, a recent article from Forbes also articulates that ethanol gasoline lets out more harmful toxins than regular gasoline.  There are even suggestions that ethanol uses more energy per gallon to produce it than the energy contained the actual gallon of ethanol.

In 2007, Ray Nothstine’s commentary Big Corn’ and Unitended Consequences pointed out some of the effects of rising food prices and the environmental implications of ethanol production.

Ethanol is expensive to produce, has contributed to a rise in gasoline prices, and has its own pollution problems. It requires a lot of fertilizer, fresh water, and productive farm land. And, because of corrosive properties that make pipeline transportation problematic, it takes a lot of trucks to haul it.

While the policies behind increased ethanol production may have been intended to promote good environmental stewardship, the actual results may show a higher negative environmental impact than other fuel sources.

If ethanol is causing the problems recent studies have indicated, then is the ethanol subsidy and the government mandate to continue the increase use of ethanol sound policy?  Continued funding for the ethanol subsidy and a mandate to increase the use of ethanol, when it may not be accomplishing its originally intended goals, might be cause to reevaluate ethanol’s future.  With food prices on the rise, and the demand for wider uses for crops across the globe also rising, the United States continues to fund the current ethanol policy, which may become counter intuitive to its original goals. The United States currently dedicates 40 percent of the amount of corn it produces each year to ethanol, and so you wonder if we are actually working at cross purposes to sound stewardship, and if so, it may be time to look towards a more morally sound solution.