Interesting comment. What I believe is lacking is a discussion about cost/benefit. A simple example is the nuclear fuel cycle the US has adopted. As opposed to others.

1) As you said, 10% of our oil consumption is nothing to sneeze at. It is also just about equivalent to what we import from the Middle East. Don’t overlook the fact that North America’s petroleum reserves exceed those of the Middle East - we just haven’t wanted to develop them at this time.

2) You point about water is correct - I agree. This will place limits on just where ethanol production will be feasible in the U.S. Water-rich Brazil, on the other hand, is preparing to export supertankers of the stuff to us. The North Central states and Canada have plenty of fresh water resources, however.

3) Nuclear fission - I agree. Nuclear fusion - not there, yet. Certainly, the French have been very successful harnessing nuclear power. However, 60-70% of our petroleum needs are for transportation. I believe that ethanol will be a big part of the solution: combined with new hybrid technologies in development, we aren’t that far away from getting 100 miles per HALF gallon of petroleum products. When that happens, OPEC collapses and our defense expenditures in the Middle East go way down.

4) Diversion of feedstuffs is not for feeding livestock in the U.S. but as for livestock feed demand overseas. I got the information straight from an Under-Secretary at the USDA. Look at Ag Export data for corn and soybeans over the past two years.

As you say, ethanol is only one small part of the equation. There are no magic bullets. Corn and soy farmers and the communities they live in here in the Midwest are pretty happy about this, though.

1. It’s taking way too much in subsidies. Yes, lots of other industries get subsidies, but subsidies are just plain the wrong way. There’s no indication that the industry is struggling to get up its economies of scale. I don’t mind subsidies into research into the enzymatic cellulose technologies, but the subsidies to the ethanol industry are just too large. I think they’re political plums, not honest energy strategy.

2. I disagree with the USDA on the effects of diversion of corn production to ethanol. There’s no question that diverting that product into another area creates a lessened supply, which must surely drive prices up. There remains a question over the degree to which prices are driven up, but I don’t buy the USDA’s story. I’d have to see the numbers on beef production, corn production, the prices over the years, and the diversion of corn to ethanol production before I came to any firm conclusions. Did the USDA publish its numbers?

3. Even if we exploited ethanol to the hilt, it would still provide us with only some 10% of our liquid fuel needs. Now, I realize that 10% is nothing to snort at, and that anything helps, but let’s recognize that this is at best one small part of the overall solution.

4. What worries me most is the opportunity cost. There are so many other technologies that seem more promising to me. Nuclear fission is one — I think we could, in the extreme, power the entire country solely on nuclear (although I admit that the capital intensity of that strategy would be staggering.) We can pick up a few percentage points here and there from greater utilization of deep geothermal, wind, and maybe even tidal. There are all sorts of crazy ideas for wave power, ocean thermal, solar thermal, and so forth. Some of these have been experimented with and found wanting, but I’d like to see the billions being spent on ethanol subsidies diverted to research on some of these wacky ideas — there might just be something workable in there.

BTW, the comment that “The USDA and AgCanada believe that there is more-than adequate land to produce biomass for biofuels development AND food.” evoked a wry smile. Yes, they”re right, there is plenty of land. What they don’t mention is the adequacy of the supply of water. Land is in Great Plains is being taken out of production because the Ogallala Aquifer is being pumped dry, and it’s too expensive to pump it in some places. So, yes, there IS plenty of land…

I like your point about ethanol paving the way for the cheaper fuel. That’s a sound point. I don’t think it’s compelling, but it is definitely a tick mark in the positive column.

Ophi, the tract on biofuels was not written by Lomborg but by David Strom.

Care to share with us your reasons why you believe that it has been a costly mistake?

Here are some facts:

1) The ratio of fuel produced to fuel utilized is about 2:1, right now, and getting better.

2) According to the USDA, the major source of rising commodity prices has not been ethanol but exports to Asia to feed a growing demand for meat products by consumers as their income increases. The USDA and AgCanada believe that there is more-than adequate land to produce biomass for biofuels development AND food.

3) Increases in demand for corn for ethanol production are expected to be met by increased agricultural productivity.

4) The major benefit of corn-based ethanol is that it is putting into place an infrastructure to handle cellulose-based ethanol when the technology is ready to come on line. At that point, ethanol production becomes extremely cost-competitive with conventional petroleum-based fuels.

5) ALL energy in the U.S. is government subsidized to some degree. Subsidization of new industrial infrastructures is hardly new, either (e.g., railroads in the 19th Century, airlines today).

Frankly, Strom’s screed is hysterical, inflammatory and simply wrong. Nobody is saying that ethanol is THE solution, it is only one of many solutions. New hybrid motor vehicle technologies in development will be an even bigger solution.

http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy

A fuel saving vehicle may actually be worse in the long run dependent on it’s embedded energy.