We all should applaud the California Air Resources Board’s plan to increase use of alternative fuels to help solve our energy dependence on the Middle East (Contra Costa Times Editorial, April 24th). Reducing the use of corn-based ethanol is the right action considering its relatively low yield of fuel compared to other feedstocks.
But instead of cheers the Contra Costa Times Editorial Board should get boos for its efforts. The obsessive bashing of the Bush Administration and lazy reporting and research just follows a familiar pattern. The Federal subsidy of the corn ethanol industry did not start with the Bush Administration (it started with Jimmy Carter, a peanut farmer) and it certainly won’t end with the Obama Administration. The Times also forgot the historical fact that eliminating MTBE’s to save our drinking water was a primary factor in ethanol growth.
The primary mechanism of the Federal Government to subsidize the corn ethanol industry has been the reduction of the Excise Tax on sales of gasoline blended with ethanol. The program was part of the Energy Tax Act of 1978. It was augmented in 1980 and subsequently increased in separate Legislation in 1984, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993 and 1998.
The rapid expansion behind the ethanol fuel market was the phase-out of MTBE (methyl-tertiary-butyl ether) as a fuel oxygenate. Because of water contamination issues MTBE’s were a public health hazard. After lengthy court appeals, the State of California was one of the first in the country to ban MTBE’s in 2002. In responding to the need for an alternative oxygenate for fuel, the 2005 Federal Energy Bill was passed with goals for a national minimum use standard of ethanol. We all remember the disastrous mistake government made with MTBE’s; ethanol was the best alternative at that time to oxygenate fuel to improve air quality.
The minimum use standards the Federal Government has employed are currently being mimicked in California, as minimum targets for alternative fuels are being established as a result of our own AB 32, Governor Schwarzenegger’s Global Warming Initiative.
Corn and soy, both food products, yield a relatively small amount of oil per acre of cultivation. Corn and soy yield 50 gallons per acre while alternatives such as jatropha (650 gallons per acre), palm oil (850 gallons per acre), and coconut (300 gallons per acre) offer much greater yields and are not taking base commodities out of the world-wide food supply. Although still undergoing research and development, the future of bio-fuels will likely be algae, which can yield an estimated 5,000-10,000 gallons per acre.
The Bay Area is known world-wide for its colleges and universities, national laboratories and Silicon Valley. Current business and community leaders want Northern California to be the home base for the new Green Economy. Solving the key problems of the day; energy and water, will require a massive effort from all.
Right now, great minds are planning a future for the Bay Area which provides high-paying jobs and a prosperous economy for our region. Taking advantage of the opportunity requires forward-thinking. The Times should also think towards the future instead of re-inventing the past.
- Guy Houston, former California State Assemblyman from 2002-2008 who served on the Assembly Transportation Committee, Banking and Finance Committee and Local Government Committees. He is currently president of California Gold Advocacy Group, a government affairs company working with emerging businesses and local/state government.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Ethanol can damage your engine and we see rising food costs as corn is taken off the food market to be used as energy. The ethanol scam clearly is for the benefit of corn farmers over the consumer and is an example of how lobbyists are destroying our Country. I smell a rat or could it be some leftover M.T.B.E.?
There seems to be a data issue here. Either Corn yields 50 gallons or it yields 375.
From what I understand the Brazilians cut their oil imports using sugar cane. However, the US blocks imports of Sugar Cane based gasoline to protect our corn growing folks. So why not grow sugar cane here again and get away from the Mid East folks, sell more corn for eating?
The subsidy goes to Oil companies, not ethanol refineries.
You are wrong saying that corn yields 50 gallons of ethanol per acre. The amount of ethanol produced from one acre of corn is at least 375 gallons. In some parts of the country it can be up to 600 gallons per acre, which puts corn ethanol right up there with jatropha, palm oil, etc. If we aren’t growing corn for ethanol we will need to grow/harvest something else for it. The corn belt and it’s hard working farmers are continually working to improve yeild. The energy savings are there according to Yale’s Journal of Industrial Ecology which states that there is a 1.5 – 1.8 energy return from ethanol.
To the Editor:
The ethanol subsidy is nonsense.
In fact, ethanol as a fuel is nonsense.
One unit of ethanol gives off 100 calories of energy. To make one unit of ethanol, requires 130 calories of energy.
So, where is the big energy savings?
The ethanol subsidy is just government welfare for ethanol producers.
One more point: Why does the United States put a tariff on imported ethanol. The tariff only raises the price.
Richard S. Colman
Orinda, CA
April 29, 2009