Alcohol fuel - The obvious answer, Yes or No?

[Billy T]

...Yes, but you've never suggested any suitable candidates outside of Brazil. Where exactly are these non-Brazilian suitable agricultural lands in the tropics? Sure, there's some lands, but I'm not seeing any tropical areas with anywhere near as much spare land as Brazil has, so.. ...

Just returned to Brazil from month in USA and do not have time for full reply, but by chance, today's paper tells that Brazil's president (Lula) is in central America, with plane load of business men (50) most of whom are trying to sell sugar cane / alcohol related equipment. They will visit 5 different countries, one being Mexico, which along with several others is already expanding their cane fields.

These countries, unlike Brazil, have "free trade" agreement with USA, and are closer to US. Thus, they avoid the 54 cents per gallon tariff and ship more economically. Brazil leads world in the design and manufacturing of the cane to alcohol equipment, so sale of equipment is all Brazil can do to profit from the US alcohol market. I also recal reading that ADM (almost sure it was ADM) is making a big investment in Hondurous, I think it was, to develope cane fields and crushing/ fermentation/ distilation plants.

 

[quadraphonics]

A new, comprehensive study on the impact of ethanol fuel on air quality has just been released by Stanford University. The results:

"Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution," said Jacobson, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering. "But our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070418072616.htm

 

[Billy T]

A new, comprehensive study on the impact of ethanol fuel on air quality has just been released by Stanford University. The results:

"Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution," said Jacobson, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering. "But our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070418072616.htm

Not true. The study considered E85 vs Gasoline. It did not consider pure ethanol vs. gasoline. Note the part of your quote I made bold.

In genereral the more different chemicals you add to the fuel, the more complex will be the mix coming out of the exhaust pipe. This is why several "octane boosters" for gasoline are BANNED, even when only a small fraction of 1% was added to the gasoline and even though they do cause the gasoline to burn rather than explode ("knock"). Knocking makes a huge presure and temperature surge and lots of complex, potentially dangerous, compounds.

Pure ethanol is a single simple molecule that burns clean, and as it has higher octane than even pure octane, requires no additatives.

 

[quadraphonics]

Not true. The study considered E85 vs Gasoline. It did not consider pure ethanol vs. gasoline.

Fair enough, but there's a good reason they considered E85 rather than pure ethanol. The reason is that nobody is even considering trying to switch the US auto fleet to pure ethanol. Apart from the additional costs of converting vehicles to accept pure ethanol (E85 requires only minor changes), there's no possibility of that much ethanol being produced any time in the forseeable future. Even the most optimistic scenarios for world ethanol production won't result in enough to move the US to E85, let along pure ethanol. Realistically, increased ethanol fuel usage in the United States is going to come in the form of higher-proof blends with gasoline, and so that is the relevant thing to study.

 

[Billy T]

...Realistically, increased ethanol fuel usage in the United States is going to come in the form of higher-proof blends with gasoline, and so that is the relevant thing to study.

US is in the control of big oil and big agro-business. Both are happy with Bush's alcohol from corn program as it will increase food prices (already is) increase land prices (farms) increase (or at least not reduce) oil consumption.
So I think you are correct on this, but note that x% of US cars could run on pure ethonol and (100-x)% on gasoline only.

You can buy these alcohol only cars now (or 20 years ago!) from Brazil at lower prices than US cars that run on gasoline. Despite the strong Real, Brazil is exporting more every year - to countries with governments more interested in the wealfare of the average citizen than big business.

 

[quadraphonics]

So I think you are correct on this, but note that x% of US cars could run on pure ethonol and (100-x)% on gasoline only.

Yes, but x would have to be less than 15 (and then only if America manages to meet the goal of boosting production by a factor of 6, Brazil increases production by a factor of 7, and America buys every drop of Brazilian ethanol). Even then, it would only work if said 15% of the cars were driven only in a geographically localized area (it isn't economical to install ethanol pumps nationwide if only 15% of cars are going to use it).

Another ethanol fun-fact: it cannot be transported in pipelines like oil can, as it will absorb too much water along the way. Thus, it has to be shipped around in inefficient diesel trucks or trains.

http://www.agmrc.org/NR/rdonlyres/4EE0E81C-C607-4C3F-BBCF-B75B7395C881/0/ksupipelineethl.pdf

 

[Billy T]

Yes, but x would have to be less than 15 (and then only if America manages to meet the goal of boosting production by a factor of 6, Brazil increases production by a factor of 7, and America buys every drop of Brazilian ethanol). Even then, it would only work if said 15% of the cars were driven only in a geographically localized area (it isn't economical to install ethanol pumps nationwide if only 15% of cars are going to use it).

Another ethanol fun-fact: it cannot be transported in pipelines like oil can, as it will absorb too much water along the way. Thus, it has to be shipped around in inefficient diesel trucks or trains.
...

Yes but it is a chicken and egg problem. With US market closed, and large subsidies to both corn producers and the fermentation/distilation facilities (per gallon) Brazil will not expand production. (currently at some stations alcohol is less than one Real because of the production exceeds demand and gasoline is R$2.30/ liter. There is an enormous amount of underutalized land in the global and near global tropics. (BTW more than half of Brazil production is south of the tropics, to be near to market of Sao Paulo.)

I agree that the suburban life style of the US is unsustanable. I have long called for less "suburban infrastructure" more urban high rises (with near by parks, etc) public transport, smaller cars with higher cost (via taxes) etc. but think US has run out of time. (It will take more than a decade to get even to european levels of rational land use and transport systems.) Imported alcohol and cars to use it might make it possible for US to avoid depression with high cost oil when China and India have many more cars, but I have given up hope that it will happen.

I too have read that alcohol can not be moved by pipelines, but do not understand where the water would come from, so I expect this is just big oil fighting back with mis-information. Japan is building many ocean tankers in partneship with Brazil for transport of alcohol (30 year contracts already signed, etc.) - How is that possible if pipeline transport is not?

To Quadraphonics:
If you have time, please look at my new thread in world events forum called: "Is today start of perfect financial storm? (caused by "6L cycle") "

 

[quadraphonics]

Yes but it is a chicken and egg problem. With US market closed, and large subsidies to both corn producers and the fermentation/distilation facilities (per gallon) Brazil will not expand production. (currently at some stations alcohol is less than one Real because of the production exceeds demand and gasoline is R$2.30/ liter.

Again, if ethanol fuel is such a great idea, why isn't the rest of the world buying it? It shouldn't matter whether America buys it or not, as there are plenty of other markets to provide demand. You keep saying that tons of countries are signing up, and yet the production boom is not materializing. Something doesn't add up. I'll mention again that energy independence is as important to most people as aspects like sustainability and even cost, so switching from imported oil to imported ethanol is not a terribly appealing proposition.

There is an enormous amount of underutalized land in the global and near global tropics.

You keep saying that, but when I ask where said land is, I never receive an answer. As mentioned previously, even if we believe the sky-high predictions of a 35-fold increase in Brazilian production being feasible, that STILL isn't enough ethanol to switch America to E85, let alone supply Brazil and the rest of the world, or leave any room for food production and biodiesel.

(It will take more than a decade to get even to european levels of rational land use and transport systems.)

European land use isn't so much 'rational' as 'crowded.' There's 50% more people in the same area, and open, wild spaces are pretty much non-existant. Also, you're far too married to this stereotype of Americans living in the suburbs and driving big cars everywhere. There is a segment of the population that does that, but the demographic trend has been towards reurbanization for decades now. The days of sprawl cities pretty much dried up some years back, with the recent increases in gas prices being the last nail in the coffin. Well over half of the population lives in cities, and lots of investment in mass transit has been made. They've even got a subway in Los Angeles now, for crying out loud! San Diego, another bastion of the car culture, has been in the process of expanding light-rail throughout the city for decades, and already has an extensive bus system that runs entirely on natural gas. It's the rural population that stands to suffer, as they actually need to drive long distances and haul lots of stuff in their cars. But, on the other hand, the ethanol boom is driving up their income and property values, so no problems there.

Imported alcohol and cars to use it might make it possible for US to avoid depression with high cost oil when China and India have many more cars, but I have given up hope that it will happen.

Oh, and how are China and India going to avoid depression when the high oil cost hits? Considering that they're in the process of moving *away* from mass transit and *towards* personal automobiles, and also operate much more energy-intensive economies than the United States?

I too have read that alcohol can not be moved by pipelines, but do not understand where the water would come from, so I expect this is just big oil fighting back with mis-information.

Not sure how the water gets in there, but it seems to be a normal phenomenon. The study I posted was from the agriculture department at Kansas State University, as part of the Agriculture Marketing Resource Center, so I have a hard time believing it's disinformation from "Big Oil." Anyway, a couple posts ago you were claiming that Big Oil is in on the ethanol conspiracy. I suggest you pick a conspiracy and stick with it.

Japan is building many ocean tankers in partneship with Brazil for transport of alcohol (30 year contracts already signed, etc.) - How is that possible if pipeline transport is not?

Err, maybe because ocean liners, being boats, are designed to keep water out? Pipelines and ships are very different things.

 

[Billy T]

Again, if ethanol fuel is such a great idea, why isn't the rest of the world buying it? It shouldn't matter whether America buys it or not, as there are plenty of other markets to provide demand. You keep saying that tons of countries are signing up, and yet the production boom is not materializing. Something doesn't add up.

I think mainly because special ocean tankers are required and they are just now being built. I do not have all the answers, but as I own 2500 sh of San Martino I can tell you (from their news release of 26March07):

" ...Sao Martinho signed a 30-year ethanol supply deal with Mitsubishi Corp. Sao Martinho subsidiary Usina Boa Vista SA will ultimately produce around 286,000 cubic meters hydrated alcohol and sell Mitsubishi 30% of it. Some from the 2008/09 harvest, with prices based on prevailing market conditions. Also Mitsubishi will buy 10 percent of new usina, Boa Vista. Financial terms were not disclosed. "Mitsubishi already acquires our Ribonucleic Acid Sodium Salt output and this new contract strengthens our long-term ties even further, as well as reinforcing Sao Martinho's determination to continue investing in the growth of its activities," Joao Carvalho do Val, CEO said. ..."

(I keep and update private files on more than 100 companies that I either own or am considering buying.)

SUMMARY: Many countries and large international firms are buying but the delivery is still typically a few years away. (Mainly due to logistical and automative fleet conversion delays. I recall reading Toyota will soon market an alcohol powered car.)

When USA wakes up, your concerns will be validated. I.e. Brazil will not be able to supply alcohol to the US.

Unfortunately the production boom is materalizing. That is why most producing compaines are hurting with the glut induced low prices. - The wholesale price has dropped about 40% in the last 6 months with the glut of supply. I have a paper loss of about 8,000 R$ on my shares!

I'll mention again that energy independence is as important to most people as aspects like sustainability and even cost, so switching from imported oil to imported ethanol is not a terribly appealing proposition.

There are three main reasons to spend your fuel importing dollars on alcohol instead of oil:
(1) Most importantly is to cut off much of the funding that supplies most of the terrorists.
(2) To diversify the number of competing suppliers. - At least twice as many countries can produce significantly alcohol (if assured of a market) as can significant amounts of oil.
(3) To reduce CO2 contribution to "global warming" by a net removal of it from the air, instead of adding more CO2 into the air from carbon sources now well sequested deep in the earth

You keep saying that, but when I ask where said land is, I never receive an answer.

That is not true. I told you that Mexico is expanind it fields, I mentioned Cuba and you even agreed that there was significant potential there. I also mentionde that India is a big producer, with a chronic glut of sugar and molasis. (Government is strongly encouraging the production of alcohol to solve this problem.) I DO NOT NEED TO REPEAT MORE - GET A GLOBE. See how much land is between +40 and -40 latitude. I am getting tired of your implying that I think or suggest only Brazil has potential, when I have said just the opposite - I have guessed that in this hemisphere Brazil has at most half of the potential.

European land use isn't so much 'rational' as 'crowded.' There's 50% more people in the same area, and open, wild spaces are pretty much non-existant.

I will not argue withj you on what to call it. Call it "crowed" if you like, but that is what makes for less distance traveled by cars and that is what is imjportant when it comes to liquid fuel requirements. Also, US has not even approached the public transport system and small efficient cars available in Europe - why the per capitat use of petroeum in US is so much higher.
Get back in your Hummer (or SUV), drive around and try to find many American made cars like the new Morris Mini, etc. that are very common in Europe, where gasoline has been "rationally priced" (excuse me, "expensive," if you prefer) for decades to produce the absence of SUVs etc. and well developed bus and passenger trains (worlds fastest etc.)

Also, you're far too married to this stereotype of Americans living in the suburbs and driving big cars everywhere. There is a segment of the population that does that, but the demographic trend has been towards reurbanization for decades now. The days of sprawl cities pretty much dried up some years back, with the recent increases in gas prices being the last nail in the coffin. Well over half of the population lives in cities, and lots of investment in mass transit has been made. They've even got a subway in Los Angeles now, for crying out loud! San Diego, another bastion of the car culture, has been in the process of expanding light-rail throughout the city for decades, and already has an extensive bus system that runs entirely on natural gas. It's the rural population that stands to suffer, as they actually need to drive long distances and haul lots of stuff in their cars. But, on the other hand, the ethanol boom is driving up their income and property values, so no problems there.

As I have only visited US for about a year total in the last 15 years, I can not strongly argue with your observations here, but I have not noticed much of what you are claiming.

One of my "bitches" for the last 50 years is against the unlimited tax deduction on home mortgages. It is a huge economic distortion - unthinking central planning of land use. It is why a high-income childless couple is forced to buy a country estate. - They need the tax deduction, not the 6 bed-room house. About 40 years ago, US news and World Report published my letter making this point after they printed an article calling for a housing slump bail out via greater tax deduction. (I concluded with: "Better the current slump now than a recession later from over building."

In general, I still think the US has been very stupid with it tacit assumption that cheap oil is "forever." - US will soon pay a high price for this short sightedness. (Call me "too married" to concerns about the "US's surburban infrastructure" if you like now, but when Joe American's car is up on blocks because he can not afford gas, I do not think you will be so critical of my POV. He should have had an apartment in the "crowed" city, near the park if with kids, and on the express bus line, only two block from the metro station, with grocery store, barber shop, dry cleaners, etc. on the ground level of the building. Most US zoning laws stupidly keep services and residences far apart or at least did so when I lived there and the suburban infrastucture was being made.)

This post already too long so I will not reply to your remainer, but could and will later, if asked to do so.

 

[2inquisitive]

Billy T,

(currently at some stations alcohol is less than one Real because of the production exceeds demand and gasoline is R$2.30/ liter. There is an enormous amount of underutalized land in the global and near global tropics. (BTW more than half of Brazil production is south of the tropics, to be near to market of Sao Paulo.)

So, one of the reasons alcohol is so cheap in Sao Paulo is because production is close to market, correct?

Japan is building many ocean tankers in partneship with Brazil for transport of alcohol (30 year contracts already signed, etc.)

How could Brazil transport a large supply of alcohol to the US if the specially constructed tankers do not yet exist?

I too have read that alcohol can not be moved by pipelines, but do not understand where the water would come from, so I expect this is just big oil fighting back with mis-information.

That was pretty easy to find info about. Alcohol is corrosive to the welds that have been used in older pipeline construction, oil is not. Stress fractures occur, leading to water contamination hazards of the 99.8% pure alcohol. The US government is investing several million dollars for a study of how best to construct pipelines for alcohol transport. Another problem is that present pipelines are not in the right locations. They are concentrated around oil-producing areas, not ethanol producing areas.

That is not true. I told you that Mexico is expanind it fields, I mentioned Cuba and you even agreed that there was significant potential there. I also mentionde that India is a big producer, with a chronic glut of sugar and molasis. (Government is strongly encouraging the production of alcohol to solve this problem.)

The US and Cuba are not exactly on friendly trading terms, are they? The US and Brazil have problems agreeing on import duties. Brazil places high import duties on cheap American milk and some other agricultural products to protect their farmers and dairy industry. The US does the same on alcohol to protect the US sugar industry. I thought you said earlier that India and China were going to cause serious problems with world oil supplies due to their economic development? If India can produce more than enough alcohol to supply their own needs allowing them to export, why would they need to import so much oil?

Billy T, the Brazilian government subsidized their alcohol industry for many years to reach the point they are at now. The US cannot convert over to alcohol quickly. Citizens cannot afford to lose their investments in their gasoline-burning cars overnight. Cars that burn pure alcohol are not even sold here yet. There are a few new E85 vehicles at dealers now, but most people find it much more economical to pay a few dollars more to fill-up their late model vehicle that to shell out $20,000 plus dollars for a new car. There are not ANY fuel stations that sell E85 in my area as of yet. I am thinking of buying a new car this fall myself, even though my present car only has 24,000 miles on it. I will probably get either a hybrid or diesel car, even though I am a low-milage driver, because of future fuel price concerns. Except for the higher initial vehicle purchase price compared to Flex-fuel, hybrids are my best bet because most all my driving is short trips on city streets. Flex-fuel and alcohol cars hold little appeal for me because I doubt alcohol, or E85, will ever sell for much less than gasoline in the forseeable future at my location. Better dump those alcohol stocks before you lose your butt, Billy T!

 

[Billy T]

... So, one of the reasons alcohol is so cheap in Sao Paulo is because production is close to market, correct?

That helps but main reason is the expansion of the cane fields (I think in part to bankrupt most of the smaller producers - consolidate the now highly divided industry. Even San Martino, second largest producer, only has three large refineries and there are several hundred small independent ones in Brazil.) Every one believes Brazil will produce much more at a profit when the transport and distribution and cars in Japan etc. are running on alcohol. The long-term "take or pay" contracts are signed.

...How could Brazil transport a large supply of alcohol to the US if the specially constructed tankers do not yet exist?

I do not think they could now, and even later while the US market is closed. No one (but possibly me) is wanting to sell much to USA. (All over the world now, few want to help the rich "war mongers"). I am motivated to help US avoid the foolish "GWB alcohol from corn" plan, which is designed to build more campaign contributions from rich pigs already well feed by taxpayer's dollars instead of reducing oil imports, terminating much of the funds now going to terrorists, reducing CO2 polution, etc. (All my grandchildren live in the USA - my efforts are for them.)

Thanks for the pipeline information - that probably explains why existing tankers are not suitable. I rarely search the net, instead of my memory.

...The US and Cuba are not exactly on friendly trading terms, are they? The US and Brazil have problems agreeing on import duties. Brazil places high import duties on cheap American milk and some other agricultural products to protect their farmers and dairy industry.

I take a longer term view so current relations with Cuba do not concern me. Yes there is trade conflict between Brazil and US but I doubt US milk can be competive in Brazil with the locally produced milk (unless there are subsidies to make this possible). Perhaps US can sell cheeze here. Brazil's "guilt" (stupidity in the long term) is trying to protect its industral products, especially electronics. It is the "make high value added products" mentality causing this. Brazil's natural advantage is agricultural. Other items can be traded for. Adam Smith told / proved this was the best plan long ago.

I intend to get back to you and Quadraphonics on China questions in a later post.

...Billy T, the Brazilian government subsidized their alcohol industry for many years to reach the point they are at now. ... Better dump those alcohol stocks before you lose your butt, Billy T!

I do not know if there was any subsidy as not here 35 years ago. Brazil was a military dictatorship in oil crisis of 1973. They simply ordered all gas stations to install alcohol pumps, farmers to plant cane and may have funded the processing plants but I do not know the details. I am sure the total subsidy, if any, given back then is small compared to only the tax write-offs big oil still gets (called "Oil Depletion Allowances") every year in the US, despite huge profits.

Yes, I was too quick* to buy after the 30 year contract with Mitisbshi was announced and did not adequately understand / anticipate the drive now under way to crush the little guys by making alcohol low priced with excessive production for the local demand. I am in for the long haul and not concerned with the current low prices. (They at least help when I fill the car's tank.)
-----------------
*I usually read, in portugese, local financial paper early and as Brazil's time is ahead of NYC's, I have my buy or sell orders near front of the "market execute" line when the market opens, but I do not trade much - none for the last two months. I rarely deal in the "after hours market." If Bloomberg already knows what I am reading in local paper, I do not act fast. Unfortunately, this time I knew first.

 

[quadraphonics]

There are three main reasons to spend your fuel importing dollars on alcohol instead of oil:
(1) Most importantly is to cut off much of the funding that supplies most of the terrorists.

Ummm... those oil dollars pay for a lot of things besides terrorism. Water, food, hospitals and schools, for example. I don't think that trying to starve entire societies is a very useful solution to the problem of terrorism. I suppose you just included this as a jingoistic appeal to Americans, but it's a pretty ugly sentiment.

(2) To diversify the number of competing suppliers. - At least twice as many countries can produce significantly alcohol (if assured of a market) as can significant amounts of oil.
(3) To reduce CO2 contribution to "global warming" by a net removal of it from the air, instead of adding more CO2 into the air from carbon sources now well sequested deep in the earth

There's no net removal of CO2 with ethanol, but, yeah, those are still nice properties. I never said there weren't reasons to favor ethanol over gas. What I said was that people are as much (or more) interested in energy independence as with these other concerns. It's not just the corn farmers: you're not going to get Americans in general excited about the idea of switching from one form of imported energy to another, no matter what the other benefits may be.

That is not true. I told you that Mexico is expanind it fields, I mentioned Cuba and you even agreed that there was significant potential there. I also mentionde that India is a big producer, with a chronic glut of sugar and molasis. (Government is strongly encouraging the production of alcohol to solve this problem.) I DO NOT NEED TO REPEAT MORE - GET A GLOBE. See how much land is between +40 and -40 latitude. I am getting tired of your implying that I think or suggest only Brazil has potential, when I have said just the opposite - I have guessed that in this hemisphere Brazil has at most half of the potential.

I never said there wasn't any land in the tropics, I said there wasn't any *unused* land in the tropics. There's no way Cuba can produce enough to even dent global demand, and Mexico is largely desert. The thing about tropical countries is that, other than Brazil, they tend to be quite crowded already. Brazil has a population density of 22 people/km^2 (182nd in the word, out of about 200 countries). India has 336 people/km^2 (31st highest in the world). Australia and northern Africa are mostly desert. About the only place with rainfall and low-ish population densities is sub-Saharan Africa, and they have a whole other set of problems.

Get back in your Hummer (or SUV), drive around and try to find many American made cars like the new Morris Mini, etc. that are very common in Europe, where gasoline has been "rationally priced" (excuse me, "expensive," if you prefer) for decades to produce the absence of SUVs etc. and well developed bus and passenger trains (worlds fastest etc.)

What does it matter where the cars are made? What matters is where they're sold. Incidentally, Americans now purchase more cars from foreign brands than American brands. Also, the MINI has been on the American market for like 5 years now, and sells very well. I see them all the time. And the public transport is pretty well developed, if not to the point of Europe (which, again, has 50% more people in the same area, with the same income). I regularly ride the train to visit my girlfriend, and have my choice of bus or light-rail options to commute to work.

By the way, I drive a Subaru wagon.

Most US zoning laws stupidly keep services and residences far apart or at least did so when I lived there and the suburban infrastucture was being made.

Yeah, those types of zoning practices were another casualty of the last two decades. The phrase nowadays is "mixed-use" or "live-work" zoning, which means commercial areas on the first floor, with residential areas above and behind them, like you see in big cities. The sprawl thing kind of ran into a limit, where the benefits of cheap land were counteracted by the distance from jobs and services (especially as gas prices keep going up). Meanwhile, the urban centers had been somewhat neglected during the suburban building boom, and so became cheaper to redevelop, as well as offering the proximity to various amenities that customers want. So the trend in the past decade has been "reurbanization."

That's not to say that there isn't still a lot of suburban areas with a lot of people living in them, but most aren't being expanded (the growth is in more urban areas), and there's a renewed effort to include localized services in them (which boosts their desirability; people are sick of long commutes). Anyway, there's a good reason that people choose to live in suburbs and commute even in the face of rising gas prices. The reason is this: the amount of money spent on fuel is miniscule compared to the cost of a house. Even if gas prices triple, it will still cost less than buying a house in the city and avoiding the commute, since the city houses often go for 3-4 times (or more) what suburban houses cost (and are smaller to boot). The gas money comes out of disposable income, so it's less TVs, iPods and vacations that people can afford. But ask someone to choose between home ownership with a large gasoline bill, or renting a house in the city and riding the bus, and they'll go for the former every time.

 

[Billy T]

Ummm... those oil dollars pay for a lot of things besides terrorism. Water, food, hospitals and schools, for example. I don't think that trying to starve entire societies is a very useful solution to the problem of terrorism. I suppose you just included this as a jingoistic appeal to Americans, but it's a pretty ugly sentiment.

No, I did not suggest "starve entire societies" to end funds supporting terroist. We both know and accept that US will be importing most of its energy from Saudi Arabia, etc. for decades; however, if the funds going there (to countries now supporting terrorist) were not growing so rapidly, then their ability to fund terrorist would be reduced as they met these domestic demands. (Water, food, hospitals and schools etc. as you said.)

There's no net removal of CO2 with ethanol, but, ...

Yes, there is. Some of the carbon removed from the air (in form of CO2) remains in the soil (roots of the cut cane) or in the growing cane.

The carbon in the alcohol storage tanks, tankers transporting it, even in the "gas tanks" of cars is all also a result of removal of CO2 from the air. This storage of carbon is not quite as large as that stored in the growing cane, but is a real reduction in atmospheric CO2, in contrast to the buring of oil which only adds CO2 to the air from sources that are now well sequested deep in the Earth. In contrast to gasoline, the CO2 in the exhaust from a vehicle buring alcohol ADDS ZERO NEW CO2 to the air - it is only restoring PART of that, which was removed earlier.

On your other comments, I am glad to learn that the US is not still expanding the suburban infrastructure and now allowing more integrated land use (mixed zoning).

 

[quadraphonics]

No, I did not suggest "starve entire societies" to end funds supporting terroist. We both know and accept that US will be importing most of its energy from Saudi Arabia, etc. for decades; however, if the funds going there (to countries now supporting terrorist) were not growing so rapidly, then their ability to fund terrorist would be reduced as they met these domestic demands. (Water, food, hospitals and schools etc. as you said.)

Okay, so you want to impoverish, rather than outright starve, entire societies. Big difference... you do understand that terrorism is, by and large, financed by sources *other* than oil income, right? It's not as if the Saudi government has a beaurocrat charged with tracking income growth and infrastructure costs and funneling any surplusses to terrorism. On the contrary, terrorism is largely funded by black market operations (Afghan opium crop) and underground international charity networks. Not to mention Bin Laden's extensive personal fortune. And have you considered that it just might piss off a whole lot of potential terrorists for America to endorse a policy of undermining the economies of the entire Middle East?

Also, only 10% of American oil imports come from Saudi Arabia, and only about 12-13% come from the Middle East as a whole. Europe, China and India are the main markets for Middle Eastern oil. If America were to stop importing oil, the big losers would be Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Angola and Nigeria. Of course world prices would all come down, but those are the countries with easy oil transport to the US, so they'd lose the most.

Yes, there is. Some of the carbon removed from the air (in form of CO2) remains in the soil (roots of the cut cane) or in the growing cane.

Growing cane doesn't count as a net removal. That's simply short-term storage. Likewise, the carbon in roots is rerelased into the atmosphere when the roots decompose.

The carbon in the alcohol storage tanks, tankers transporting it, even in the "gas tanks" of cars is all also a result of removal of CO2 from the air. This reduction is not quite as large as that in the growing cane, but is a real reduction in contrast to the buring of oil which only adds CO2 to the air from sources that are now well sequested deep in the Earth. In contrast, the CO2 in the exhaust from a vehicle buring alcohol ADDS ZERO NEW CO2 to the air - it is only restoring part that was removed earlier.

I agree that ethanol doesn't *add* CO2 (unlike fossil fuels), but it's incorrect to refer to carbon temporarily stored in the infrastructure as "removed." It's simply been temporarily stored, soon to be released back into the atmosphere.

To actually remove CO2 from circulation, you need some kind of permanent sequestering technology, or large-scale reforestation. Unfortunately, Brazil seems more interested in continuing deforestation (to the tune of 10,000 km^2 per year) than reforestation, and this trend is likely to increase with boosted biofuel production, persistent commodity prices, energy and transport project in the Amazon basin, and a tax policy that favors agricultural lands over forests. Despite Brazil's efforts in the transportation and energy sectors, deforestation has resulted in an overall economy with roughly the same carbon intensity as the United States (i.e., dollars made divided by CO2 emitted). Which is to say that, were Brazil's economy to grow to the same size as that of the US, we'd expect it to release the exact same amount of CO2 that the US does.

Also, note that the eastern US is one of the very few spots in the world were large-scale reforestation HAS occurred, mitigating the effects of greenhouse gases. Not that anybody ever gives us any credit for that when tallying up the emissions numbers.

 

[Billy T]

...Growing cane doesn't count as a net removal. That's simply short-term storage. Likewise, the carbon in roots is rerelased into the atmosphere when the roots decompose.

I agree that ethanol doesn't *add* CO2 (unlike fossil fuels), but it's incorrect to refer to carbon temporarily stored in the infrastructure as "removed." It's simply been temporarily stored, soon to be released back into the atmosphere.

To actually remove CO2 from circulation, you need some kind of permanent sequestering technology, or large-scale reforestation. Unfortunately, Brazil seems more interested in continuing deforestation (to the tune of 10,000 km^2 per year) than reforestation, . ...

The carbon stored (in roots, cane fields, storage tanks etc.) is permanent as long as cars use alcohol. Obviously, the cane in the field THIS YEAR is not a permanet removal of CO2 from the air, but more will be grown next year etc. so until the use of alcohol from cane stops, it is removed. It is, in fact, the most economical means available to actually remove CO2 from the air. (You make a profit, instead of require payment as the "plant trees/ carbon credits" require.)

Brazil is having some success with reducing the cutting down of trees TO SUPPLY THE GLOBAL DEMAND FOR LUMBER, NOT CANE FIELDS. Long before Brazil exported a drop of alcohol or even planed cane to produce it, Brazil exported wood.

In fact the name "Brazil" comes from the name of a native tree which was extensively exported (and now is rarely found) beginning about 300 years ago. The developed world has "rapped the amazon" for WOOD for 300 years.* When brazil wood trees were cut to exhaustion, then and only then, did the planting of coffee begin. The history of Brazil is presented as three major cycle: export of wood from the brazil tree, export of coffee (still continuing) and the modern industral era.
-------------------------
*This is still continuing, but most of the cutting is illegal. - The area is great and the enforcement is thus difficult. If you want to help save the Amazon, stop buying Brazilian mahogany etc. Unlike most wood, the growing of ucaleptus trees is a crop - planted and harvested in about 7 years for paper pulp. For more information on this see:
www.aracruz.com
I own stock in them - they are the world's largest (and lowest cost) supplier of short fiber cellulose pulp.

 

[quadraphonics]

The carbon stored (in roots, cane fields, storage tanks etc.) is permanent as long as cars use alcohol. Obviously, the cane in the field THIS YEAR is not a permanet removal of CO2 from the air, but more will be grown next year etc. so until the use of alcohol from cane stops, it is removed. It is, in fact, the most economical means available to actually remove CO2 from the air. (You make a profit, instead of require payment as the "plant trees/ carbon credits" require.)

Okay, if you insist on accounting this way, but if you really want to argue semantics I'll point out that this type of CO2 "removal" is associated with the *growth* of ethanol usage, as opposed to ethanol usage per-se. Steady-state ethanol usage does not result in any removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Brazil is having some success with reducing the cutting down of trees TO SUPPLY THE GLOBAL DEMAND FOR LUMBER, NOT CANE FIELDS.

Actually, lumber is a secondary cause. Most of the deforestation has been to convert the forest into pasture land for raising cattle, which is then exported to Europe. See here:

http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html

While commercial agriculture is not a direct cause of deforestation, the expansion of agriculture throughout Brazil has pushed up land prices, and so created another incentive for ranchers and subsistence farmers to clear more forest. Also, much commercial agriculture is on land that was once rainforest, was cleared by ranchers or subsistence farmers, and was then sold to the commercial farmers. While Brazil has passed some unenforceable laws to crack down on unauthorized clearing, these are more than counteracted by the various land-use, development and tax policies which all encourage deforestation. Why do you think there is so much unused pasture land that could potentially be converted to cane production?

 

[Billy T]

....Actually, lumber is a secondary cause. Most of the deforestation has been to convert the forest into pasture land for raising cattle, which is then exported to Europe. See here:

http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html

While commercial agriculture is not a direct cause of deforestation, the expansion of agriculture throughout Brazil has pushed up land prices, and so created another incentive for ranchers and subsistence farmers to clear more forest. ...Why do you think there is so much unused pasture land that could potentially be converted to cane production?

I do not think your reference is entirely accurate, but admit that much of cleared rainforest does end up as poor abandoned pasture land, usually not even a single cow on it. What often happens is that after illegal logging is done the loggers set fire to the remaining forest to help hide their crime. Then some one will try for a few years to make a profit on the grasses that grow, but the rain forest soil is poor, so they soon fail and that answers your question as to why there is so much "unused pasture land."

It is true farm land taxes are extremely low, but there is zero tax on the forest part of it, so this is not an inducement to convert forest to farmland. Also, one is required now to keep 20% of your farm as forest and all land withing 50 meters of any stream, even very tiny ones, can not be farmed.

(I owned about 100 acres of pasture and paid less than US$10 annually in taxes! When I bought this "farm" it was badly run down and supported only 15 head of skinny, sad looking, cattle, trying to find grass amonst the weeds. When I sold it about 10 years later it had 50 steers, all fat and well feed, as I rebuilt the pasture by plowing and planting good seed, etc. Most farmers burn their fields at least every year to kill insects, bushes and restore grasses. I did not but had a man with hoe kill weeds and let the dying vegetation feed earthworms etc. to help restore the soil fertility.)

 

[quadraphonics]

I do not think your reference is entirely accurate, but admit that much of cleared rainforest does end up as poor abandoned pasture land, usually not even a single cow on it. What often happens is that after illegal logging is done the loggers set fire to the remaining forest to help hide their crime. Then some one will try for a few years to make a profit on the grasses that grow, but the rain forest soil is poor, so they soon fail and that answers your question as to why there is so much "unused pasture land."

Well, here's another source stating that the primary cause is conversion to cattle pasture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Rainforest#Deforestation

Note that they don't even mention logging on there. Also, a few years ago I attended a lecture from a noted econometrician who had spent the last decade studying the deforestation of Brazil, and he also cited the primary cause as the cattle industry. I certainly believe that illegal logging is a real issue, but I'm not convinced that its impact is even close to that of cattle and other factors.

It is true farm land taxes are extremely low, but there is zero tax on the forest part of it, so this is not an inducement to convert forest to farmland.

The effect is not as direct as that. It's driven by tax incentives which reward agricultural income, driving up demand for farmland:

http://www.colby.edu/personal/t/thtieten/defor-brazil.html

Also, one is required now to keep 20% of your farm as forest and all land withing 50 meters of any stream, even very tiny ones, can not be farmed.

Sounds good to me.

Most farmers burn their fields at least every year to kill insects, bushes and restore grasses. I did not but had a man with hoe kill weeds and let the dying vegetation feed earthworms etc. to help restore the soil fertility.)

Yeah, short-sighted agricultural practices are another contributing factor, as they unnecessarily diminish the supply of good farm and pasture land, creating further incentives for deforestation.

 

[Billy T]

Well, here's another source stating that the primary cause is conversion to cattle pasture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Rainforest#Deforestation

Note that they don't even mention logging on there. ...

YES THEY DO. In fact they confirm what I told you:

"Brazil produces about 300 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide a year; 200 million of these come from logging and burning in the Amazon."

What many think when they see some cows grazing on the poor soil's grass that was once rain forest, is that it was cleared for that reason and not to burn to hid the illegal logging that took out the valuable mahogony trees (some 500 dollars each) but the local residents use the forest for thier livlyhoods and many have died fighting agains the road developers that the big logging companies push into their homeland and transform their way of life.

The article is correct. 2/3 of the CO2 comes from the burning the forests(some by lighning and some to cover logging crimes) and one third from the cars and factories.

must stop now for other reasons - no time to edit.

 

[quadraphonics]

I thought it was clear that my statements pertained tot he "Deforestation" section of the page, which is what I'd directly linked to (and the subject we're talking about). Note that the "causes of deforestation" section doesn't mention anything about logging. Also note that the CO2 emissions associated with logging don't necessarily equate to deforestation. It's perfectly possible to do sustainable logging, and it need not be located in the rainforest at all. Moreover, the fact that the CO2 is directly released in the logging and burning phase of land-clearing doesn't mean that the clearing wasn't done for the purpose of ranching or farming.

Anyway, illegal logging is usually done in a selective fashion. I.e., they go in and cut down a few mahogany trees here, and a few over there. There's no interest in slashing and burning whole areas, as is required for cattle pasture or cropland usage. That land you see cows on was cleared for cattle; cutting and selling the wood was just an intermediate step:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051023123348.htm

Also note that the CO2 emissions figures do not include emissions due to illegal selective logging, which is thought to boost the number by 100 million tonnes per year. Which means that Brazil's economy is actually substantially more carbon-intensive than America's.