Tach Visitors Write, Tach Writes Back

Co-publishers Note: In response to our editorial; Yes Virginia, There Is A Single Solution To "No More Gasoline Now"; a Tach reader had some questions, comments and concerns about our position that, a viable and near term soulution to our gasoline dependency is immedietly at hand. Below are his questions and our answers.

Hello Mr. A

Thank you for taking the time to read Bob's story "Yes Virginia There Is A Single Solution To "No More Gasoline Now" and for contacting us.

Whether you are aware of it or not, your questions are some of the most typical objections and cited points-of-contention proffered by those individuals and entities seeking to discredit ethanol as a replacement to gasoline. The individuals and entities I’m referring to are those in the employ of the oil/gasoline industry as well as those politicians who have received significant campaign contributions from the “gasoline” lobby. This doesn’t make the objections correct, they are just the most used. I will try to respond to the points, but then also direct you to where you can learn additional information about these points.

Question 1: Depending on the source, how costly, energy intensive, or lengthy is production of Ethanol? Would we just be transferring our dependence on oil from burning gas in cars to the amount of energy used to produce Ethanol?

Critics will often cite a negative “EROEI” (energy return on energy invested) in the production of ethanol, particularly corn ethanol, but their estimates are based upon business models that are irrelevant to corn ethanol production and distribution. For example, the critics will talk about the high cost of shipping ethanol from the Midwest to the coasts. They also talk about the high loss of ethanol volume through evaporation if the ethanol is piped over long distances. They talk about the high cost of fertilizers needed to grow the corn, in addition to the damage to the environment that fertilizer production and use creates. And then the critics talk about the cost of the energy expended to produce the equipment required to plant and harvest the corn. When they add up these items they say it takes more energy (more money) to produce ethanol than the ethanol puts out.

First of all, corn is just one of several raw materials that can be used to produce ethanol. It should only be used as the base material when it is the most economically viable for a specific geographic area. Other materials, such as cattails, switch grass, cane sugar, beet sugar, seaweed, garbage, discarded paper, and wood chips and wood remnants might be more economical and plentiful. Moreover, cattails, switch grass and seaweed require no fertilizer. In fact, when it comes to cattails, switch grass and seaweed (garbage too, for that matter), municipalities have to go out of their way to try and limit their growth.

Secondly, ethanol production would not rely upon a “gasoline” business model in which it is shipped or piped long distances. It would rely upon a business model that more closely resembles the dairy industry or even the soft drink beverage industry: most drinking milk in America is produced in a local region by local farmers and then only trucked to local stores. This would eliminate the cost of expensive over-the-road (or on-water) transportation, and there would be minimal loss (if any) due to evaporation.

Third, it is just plain silly to suggest that existing tractors and silos are incapable of doing the work of planting, harvesting and storing corn. There is no need to ramp up an entirely new and expensive production line to build new “corn ethanol” tractors and equipment. A farmer might buy a new tractor just because he needs a new tractor, not because corn is involved. There would be no significant added cost or waste of energy to build new equipment.

Regarding the production time elements portion of your question; yes, corn, sugar, switch grass, cattails and seaweed have to go through a growing cycle. Corn and sugar are probably the longest because they require human cultivation to insure maximum yield. The other items, plus garbage are abundant by natural flow. But, regardless of which raw material is used, once the cycle commences there will be a continuous uninterrupted flow (unless it is intentionally interrupted). This is no different than “farming for oil,” which is also subject to time-to-market factors.

If ethanol became the dominant engine-fuel do we become dependent on it? Yes, of course. We would always be dependent on something, even if we could run an engine on our own urine – there’s a finite amount that we could piss into a bottle. However, the issue is not that we are dependent upon a fuel, but that we depend upon enemies or unfriendly people to get it. This is what we have to become “energy independent” from.

Question 2: Since Ethanol will be produced from feedstock (corn, cane, etc.), are we going to have competition between food and fuel, which will, undoubtedly, result in price increase for food? And Ethanol for that matter? This will affect food for us AND for livestock.

Again, corn and sugar are just two of several raw materials that can be used to produce ethanol. Therefore, the reliance on just those two items is far less than has been claimed by anti-alternative fuel critics. Second, the entire “competition for food” issue was just a fabricated lie. There is no competition. The vast majority of corn (something around 95%) is produced for animal feedstock, not human consumption. Moreover, most of the corn is not fed to cattle, for example, since they cannot digest the kernels the way that humans do. Distillers grain, which is the remnant of corn after it is processed for ethanol is the best to feed to cattle. Therefore, the corn actually serves two purposes for the price of one. The rise in food prices of a few years ago, that was attributed to the use of corn for ethanol was based solely on price fixing and improper manipulation.

Question 3: If we were to replace gasoline with Ethanol, would our consumption of source material (for food and fuel) not increase enough to push us to begin importing, yet again, our main fuel source? And fall into the same cycle? This time instead of having to protect oil wells, we will have to guard corn field, as an example.

Estimates are that there is enough seaweed grown naturally in the Gulf of Mexico to produce all the ethanol necessary to fuel America. Of course, the BP oil disaster may effect seaweed growth in the Gulf of Mexico, but we still have the entire eastern and pacific coasts, which are lined with seaweed beds. Then, add in all the switch grass and cattails that grow naturally (and imagine how much more can be grown with some help), along with the corn, sugar, garbage, and waste wood. We would not have to import garbage, for example, from other countries.

To your point about guarding corn fields (or other sources of base materials) from crooks or terrorists; there could be stepped up security around switch grass fields, similar to needing security guards posted in department stores. Unfortunately, this is just a cost of doing business. But, it is unlikely that we would have to engage in a foreign war on the other side of the world to protect a switch grass field that runs along a local American highway.

I hope I have been able to satisfactorily address your concerns. For more information please visit the links below; some contain videos.

Sincerely yours,

Marc J. Rauch
Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher THE AUTO CHANNEL

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2010/02/18/466262.html http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2010/05/25/479977.html