Alcohol fuel - The obvious answer, Yes or No?

[Billy T]

... 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....

Again you have not read your own reference well: I agian quote what you missed and make bold the part that again confirms what I told you:

"...selective logging also involves the use of tractors and skidders that rip up the soil and the forest floor. Loggers also build makeshift dirt roads to get in, and study after study has shown that those frontier roads become larger and larger as more people move in, and that feeds the deforestation process. Think of logging as the first land-use change. ..."

The logger transform the entire economy. the native hunters, trappers, fishers, gathers of nuts, panner for gold, stealer of animals for zoos and private collectors, growers of pot, taper of natural rubber trees, etc. (and god knows what else they live on) resist and are killed. (Even a Nun who was helping them resist the loggers was killed last year.) Some join the logging companies to drive the tractors, make the dirt roads, and eventually help set the fires. Then with their way of life destroyed there is little choice for those that remain except to try to farm the poor soil - raise a few cows, chickens and pigs. Soon they too sell out and then the cattle rancher do move in (if the paper companies like Aracruz do not plant forests as a crop to harvest).

This is when the "do gooder" enviomentalist arrives, see the cattle on vast expanse of cleard land and write the reference you quote, blaming the cattle farmers instead of the loggers who illegally started the process. They of course are not the truely guilty parties - they live in the developed world and like the looks of their manhogny coffee table etc. but prefer to blame the victims.

 

[quadraphonics]

Nobody has disputed that the first step in deforestation is the cutting down of trees. But that doesn't mean that the logging interests are the primary driver of deforestation. Moreover, you're conflating several different phenomena here: there's legal commercial logging, illegal logging, land clearing and road/infrastructure development. They are interrelated, but you still need to observe the distinctions. The deforestation created by illegal logging in combination with subsistence farmers is not a significant source of deforestation. As stated in one of my earlier links ( http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html ):

"In many tropical countries, the majority of deforestation results from the actions of poor subsistence cultivators. However, in Brazil only about one-third of recent deforestation can be linked to "shifted" cultivators. Historically a large portion of deforestation in Brazil can be attributed to land clearing for pastureland by commercial and speculative interests, misguided government policies, inappropriate World Bank projects, and commercial exploitation of forest resources. For effective action it is imperative that these issues be addressed. Focusing solely on the promotion of sustainable use by local people would neglect the most important forces behind deforestation in Brazil.

Brazilian deforestation is strongly correlated to the economic health of the country: the decline in deforestation from 1988-1991 nicely matched the economic slowdown during the same period, while the rocketing rate of deforestation from 1993-1998 paralleled Brazil's period of rapid economic growth. During lean times, ranchers and developers do not have the cash to rapidly expand their pasturelands and operations, while the government lacks funds to sponsor highways and colonization programs and grant tax breaks and subsidies to forest exploiters.

A relatively small percentage of large landowners clear vast sections of the Amazon for cattle pastureland. Large tracts of forest are cleared and sometimes planted with African savanna grasses for cattle feeding. In many cases, especially during periods of high inflation, land is simply cleared for investment purposes. When pastureland prices exceed forest land prices (a condition made possible by tax incentives that favor pastureland over natural forest), forest clearing is a good hedge against inflation.

Such favorable taxation policies, combined with government subsidized agriculture and colonization programs, encourage the destruction of the Amazon. The practice of low taxes on income derived from agriculture and tax rates that favor pasture over forest overvalues agriculture and pastureland and makes it profitable to convert natural forest for these purposes when it normally would not be so. "

It's not the case that weak-minded foreign environmentalists swing through Brazil, see a cow on what was once rainforest, and leap to the conclusion that deforestation is entirely caused by cattle. There are whole groups of professional policy analysts, econometricians and government policy-makers who spend their entire careers on the subject of Amazon deforestation. They have access to satellite imagery, government records and investigative bodies, as well as a myriad of other sources. When they say that ranching and farming are the primary causes of deforestation, they are staking their careers and livelihoods on this assertion. You can be completely assured that they have spent much more time and effort working out the causes than you have.

 

[Billy T]

To Quadraphonics:

I will not reporduce your post 167 as I agree with much of it, but again we have a verb tense / time reference conflict. It certainly WAS true what you state AND you reference (one, but not sure this one) is published in 1990 on data collected years earlier (cites developments in 1950 as I recall, but will not look at again).

I am speaking of modern Brazil. Brazil has some of the toughest enviromental laws on the books and some reasonable efforts at enforcement of them.* The problem is that there is wide spread corruption and the police are paid off. One of your reference was not only obsolete, wrong in several places, but as naieve in its suggestion that giving the police a small part of the fines would help enforcement. - The police would laugh at that as they make much more from the criminals. (I paid one R$50 to avoid having my car detained until if could get some papers proving I owned it from my house. They are grosely underpaid and have very dangerous job - many killed each month. All and all, bribes are part of the necessity here.)

Summary: Yes Brazil did rape the land just as the US did a couple of hundred years earlier as Dan Boon etc lead the settlers into the virgin forests. (In fact I tend to understand Brazil best when I think of it as like the US of about 100 years ago - your reference's use of "slash and burn / move on" agriculture is exactly how Dixie raised cotton etc.)

A large part of the current enviromental conflict between developing world (India, Brazil, China, all of Africa, etc) and US and English enviromentalist is that they want to do what the US and England did to develope at the expense of the enviroment also. - Burn dirty coal, pollute the streams, clear the forests, kill the native heards (buffalo in the US, deer in England) and move in cattle. the first of your reference has a nice grap of the area Amazon cleared each year - steadly downward for last few years - least than half what it was less than a decade ago. I am speaking of modern Brazil - your reference of Brazil at least a decade earlier when it was following the US example of a 100 years earlier.
---------------------------
*When I owned my farm, I got a notice to come to court for judgement about cutting some trees - detected by photo reconcance, but fortunely for me it was my neighbor cutting on his side of the common border. Another time worried as someone (posibably the man I bought fence post from), had entered my woods and cut about 20 small trees for fence posts one night, but not yet removed then that same night. My hired man notice it and we moved them and hid them in a new location. I immediately filed a report that they had been stolen with the police. I did not dare to use them as that would under mine my true claim that someelse had cut them against my wishes (as far as I know they were rotting on the ground when I sold the farm.) Brazil is an interesting place to live, but you need to do as the natives do.

 

[quadraphonics]

It certainly WAS true what you state AND you reference (one, but not sure this one) is published in 1990 on data collected years earlier (cites developments in 1950 as I reacall, but will not look at again). I am speaking of modern Brazil.

Uh, the article on tax law in Brazil was from 1990 or so, but the others (which detail the causes of deforestation) are all much newer. The oldest one is from 2005, the other two are from this year.

 

[Billy T]

I lost the reference, but starting in 2008 Mexio will be able to ship sugar to US without paying the protective tariff that makes it economical for sugar beets to be grown in the US (mainly in the northern mid west states). A rider has just been added to farm subsidy bill which will require the US gov to buy ALL of it up and resell to the alcohol industry at a loss (for mixing with the fermenting corn).

More false economic protection so big agribusiness can compete with ROW and the tax paying Joe American can pay even more. Twice (Once to IRS and again to grocery stores) Again I ask:

How DUMB can US voters be?

 

[ibm.eub]

'ZERO POINT ENERGY' is the only viable option. It might all be well and good for our generation (maybe not, we will see) but what about the future. Any type of fuel that does not contain a closed loop belongs in the history books!!!

 

[quadraphonics]

I lost the reference, but starting in 2008 Mexio will be able to ship sugar to US without paying the protective tariff that makes it economical for sugar beets to be grown in the US (mainly in the northern mid west states). A rider has just been added to farm subsidy bill which will require the US gov to buy ALL of it up and resell to the alcohol industry at a loss (for mixing with the fermenting corn).

More false economic protection so big agribusiness can compete with ROW and the tax paying Joe American can pay even more. Twice (Once to IRS and again to grocery stores) Again I ask:

How DUMB can US voters be?

I guess about as dumb as Brazilian voters, who supported a comparable system of subsidies and protections for decades in order to get their ethanol fuel industry up and running. For that matter, the Brazilian energy sector as a whole is much less liberalized than the US sector, even after the reforms of the 1990's.

 

[Billy T]

...Brazilian voters, who supported a comparable system of subsidies and protections for decades in order to get their ethanol fuel industry up and running. For that matter, the Brazilian energy sector as a whole is much less liberalized than the US sector, even after the reforms of the 1990's.

Can you give me a reference about the period of Brazilian subsidies to alcohol? (I am not saying they were not subsidized - I just don't know. They have not been in 16 years I have lived here to best of my knowledge.)

Also I do not understand what you refer to by:
"Brazilian energy sector as a whole is much less liberalized than the US sector"

There is lots of competition. Foreign oil companies (Shell, BP, Exxo*, lots of independants like Hddson, Ruff, etc.) operate in competitions

All stations offer both gasoline and Alcohol and one other fuel (about half that "other" is diesel and about half it is compressed natural gas, which is used by most of the taxis and many of the pickup trucks as it the the most economical of all.)

The alcohol industry is very fragmented. There are ~400 distillers at least 250are single operators. San Martino, which I own shares in is number 2 in production and has only three, relatively large refineries. The largest is Cosan but I do not know much about them.

What would you like to see more "liberal"?
--------------
*It still goes by the name ESSO here, so I am not sure of US name.)

 

[Billy T]

See new chenistry forum thread:
"Alcohol's second threat to oil is as chemical feed stocks."
At:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1514936&postcount=1

 

[quadraphonics]

Can you give me a reference about the period of Brazilian subsidies to alcohol? (I am not saying they were not subsidized - I just don't know. They have not been in 16 years I have lived here to best of my knowledge.)

I don't have a good reference handy, but the program was called "Proalcool", and was started in the mid-70's. It was mostly dismantled in the mid-90's, and consisted of subsidies to cane growers, price controls on ethanol to keep to cheaper than gasoline, and various tax breaks for ethanol producers/transporters/etc. Note that the removal of this program of subsidies had less to do with any Brazil aversion to government interference in the economy (Petrobras retained their monopoly for years afterwards), but rather that the price controls became unaffordable in the face of low oil prices.

Also I do not understand what you refer to by:
"Brazilian energy sector as a whole is much less liberalized than the US sector"

There is lots of competition. Foreign oil companies (Shell, BP, Exxo*, lots of independants like Hddson, Ruff, etc.) operate in competitions.

There have been some recent liberalizations, but the state oil company Petrobras still accounts for essentially all Brazilian oil production. Note that they had a legal monopoly on oil production until (IIRC) 1997.

All stations offer both gasoline and Alcohol and one other fuel

Yeah, due to a government regulation forcing them to do so. Not to say that wasn't a good idea, but it's not exactly laissez-faire.

The alcohol industry is very fragmented. There are ~400 distillers at least 250are single operators. San Martino, which I own shares in is number 2 in production and has only three, relatively large refineries. The largest is Cosan but I do not know much about them.

It's true that there has been an explosion in the number of producers lately, but my understanding was that the lion's share of production is still done by a handful of companies, controlled by powerful old-money families of plantation owners.

What would you like to see more "liberal"?

It's not so much that I'd like to see more liberalization (Brazil has done a pretty good job deregulating and privatizing various sectors over the past 10-15 years). Given more time to work, the reforms will probably turn out quite well. What I'd like to see is a more balanced critique of American ethanol policy. You keep complaining that America is overly protectionist towards the ethanol industry, while ignoring the fact that Brazil was much MORE protectionist towards its ethanol industry at comparable stages of its development. If America were to truly follow Brazil's lead in ethanol development, we'd add price controls, boost subsidies and increase tariffs. The reason for protectionism is obvious: we're interested in developing a reliable internal supply, and the industry is not at a point where it can compete with Brazilian suppliers. Brazil's alcohol industry nearly tanked when some of the protectionist measures were removed in the 1990's, so I have to question the wisdom of your recommendations.

 

[Billy T]

...the state oil company Petrobras still accounts for essentially all Brazilian oil production. Note that they had a legal monopoly on oil production until (IIRC) 1997.

More important that any legal monopoly is the fact that all of Brazil's oil is off shore, so Petrobras, by necessity became the world leader in deep ocean drilling. Mexico has turned to Pertobras to try to replinish the dying fields it has. - I do not believe anyone else can economically drill in as deep sea as Petrobras.

I think one of the other international companies did win a bid on some Brazilian sector recently. Most nations dominate their own contental shelf economically. When was the last time you saw a Japanese boat haulling lobsters off the coast of Maine?

...Yeah, due to a government regulation forcing them to do so. Not to say that wasn't a good idea, but it's not exactly laissez-faire.

What do you expect from a Military dictatorship? (Which along with those in most others South American nations at the time had the active support of the US thru the CIA) Yes, they ordered people to plant cane, stations to install alcohol pumps etc in respose the oil crisis of 1973. The US under laissez-faire, let the people buy their gas gulzers as soon as they got out of the gas lines, so look at what it has today - SUVs. Finally the US government is dropping some of your cherished laissez-faire and mandating things too, like fuel efficiency - but I assume you oppose this also to be a consistent supporter of laissez-faire.

 

[quadraphonics]

More important that any legal monopoly is the fact that all of Brazil's oil is off shore, so Petrobras, by necessity became the world leader in deep ocean drilling. Mexico has turned to Pertobras to try to replinish the dying fields it has. - I do not believe anyone else can economically drill in as deep sea as Petrobras.

Yes, because others were prevented from competing with Petrobras. Just because their legal monopoly is over doesn't mean that they don't still enjoy advantages stemming from it.

I think one of the other international companies did win a bid on some Brazilian sector recently. Most nations dominate their own contental shelf economically. When was the last time you saw a Japanese boat haulling lobsters off the coast of Maine?

The point wasn't the national affiliation of the companies in the energy sector, but the *number* of them, which is very low. One company does not add up to much competition.

Finally the US government is dropping some of your cherished laissez-faire and mandating things too, like fuel efficiency - but I assume you oppose this also to be a consistent supporter of laissez-faire.

I don't recall evangelizing about laissez-faire policies. The point is that if you're going to call Americans dumb for permitting a protectionist approach to developing ethanol production, then you're also going to have to admit that Brazilians are even dumber, since they employed a much more egregious protectionist regime for much longer. You insist that America should emulate Brazilian energy policy, and then call us idiots when we do exactly that.

 

[Billy T]

...The point is that if you're going to call Americans dumb for permitting a protectionist approach to developing ethanol production, then you're also going to have to admit that Brazilians are even dumber, since they employed a much more egregious protectionist regime for much longer. You insist that America should emulate Brazilian energy policy, and then call us idiots when we do exactly that.

NO - you missed the point entirely!

I do not call Americans DUMB for (or not for) using the power of government to aid (or restrict) trade with subsidies and/or tariffs, although I go along with Adam Smith in that restriction are bad at least in the long run - every one should do what they can do best (most economically). If US were able to produce alcohol without subsidies and protective tariffs EVENTUALLY, then it not necessarily dumb to put them in place while the industry is developing. But it is dumb (to take an extreme example) for Alsaka to grow oranges in greenhouses. (Given enough subsidies and tariff walls, even that could be done.) US can never compete with corn against tropical cane for the produdtion of alcohol! - period - same as Alaska can never compete against California & Florida in growing oranges. It is DUMB for either to try.

I am angy that the Bush administration is selling Joe American on a plan to add to his cost of food and increase his taxes with essentially no impact on US's need to import oil. It is pure and simple "reward the few and rich campaign contributers at the expense of the poor and many" politics again.

GWB is careful not to even promisse that alcohol from corn will (or even may) reduce oil imports. All he states is that it can displace 20% of the gasoline requirements. - Poor dumb Joe is being duped into thinking that at least the US will not be so dependent upon the oil imports.

 

[quadraphonics]

If US were able to produce alcohol without subsidies and protective tariffs EVENTUALLY, then it not necessarily dumb to put them in place while the industry is developing.

I don't think it's at all clear that America won't eventually become competitive in ethanol production. It's unlikely to happen with corn as a feedstock, but feedstock production is only one small part of the ethanol production chain, all of which needs to develop if America is going to have a viable ethanol fuel industry. You're dumb for assuming America will never switch to another feedstock (despite the fact that all of the research money and interest is in cellulosic production), and for ignoring the myriad other elements of the supply chain that require protection for initial development.

 

[Billy T]

I don't think it's at all clear that America won't eventually become competitive in ethanol production. It's unlikely to happen with corn as a feedstock, but feedstock production is only one small part of the ethanol production chain, all of which needs to develop if America is going to have a viable ethanol fuel industry. You're dumb for assuming America will never switch to another feedstock (despite the fact that all of the research money and interest is in cellulosic production), and for ignoring the myriad other elements of the supply chain that require protection for initial development.

No if US switches to celulose alcohol so will Brazil. There is an enormous amout of research on this and all aspects of alcohol production going on in Brazil. The same canes fields will then yield at least three times more alcohol.

No. What is dumb is to think that Iowa can ever compete with the tropics in converting sunshine into energy, regardless of the agro-technology that is used to convert it.

 

[quadraphonics]

No if US switches to celulose alcohol so will Brazil. There is an enormous amout of research on this and all aspects of alcohol production going on in Brazil. The same canes fields will then yield at least three times more alcohol.

Yeah, so? America won't even need dedicated ethanol fields if cellulosic production takes off: the waste cellulose from food production, forestry, etc. will provide enough feedstock to produce stupendous quantities of ethanol.

No. What is dumb is to think that Iowa can ever compete with the tropics in converting sunshine into energy, regardless of the agro-technology that is used to convert it.

You're not converting sunshine into energy (sunshine IS energy after all), but rather converting it to (storage) chemical energy. And to suggest that technology has no influence on this issue is idiotic.

 

[Billy T]

Yeah, so? America won't even need dedicated ethanol fields if cellulosic production takes off: the waste cellulose from food production, forestry, etc. will provide enough feedstock to produce stupendous quantities of ethanol.

Possible true, but it will still need tariffs and or subsidies to avoid import of the lower cost alcohol from where there is more sunshine, cheaper labor, more rain, cheaper land and the grass never freezes.

You're not converting sunshine into energy (sunshine IS energy after all), but rather converting it to (storage) chemical energy. And to suggest that technology has no influence on this issue is idiotic.

Talk about being pedantic! You and every one know that I was speaking of energy in the form of alcohol, especially as I said "reguardless of what form of agro-technology is used!" Also I never said that the technology has "no influence." I only said that Brazil and US would both use cellulose if that proves to be possible. (That it will boost the output of the cane fields by a factor of three, I also noted.)

 

[quadraphonics]

Possible true, but it will still need tariffs and or subsidies to avoid import of the lower cost alcohol from where there is more sunshine, cheaper labor, more rain, cheaper land and the grass never freezes.

Not really. The added transport costs associated with those places will probably be tarriff enough. Especially if you consider that labor costs are not a major factor, as the production will be mechanized like all other US agricultural production. Land costs are unlikely to be a big factor either, as cellulosic feedstocks do not require new land to be developed; in fact, land costs will drop as demand for corn subsides. Rain is also not a big factor when you consider that America already has extensive irrigation infrastructure. Some of our most productive agricultural lands are in the desert. And there is plenty of agricultural land in the US that never freezes. I'm not sure why you're siezing on Iowa for this example; there's a lot of other states, and cellulosic production does not need to be fed by Iowa-specific crops. The agricultural waste produced by California and Florida, for example, represents a huge potential feedstock source for cellulosic production.

 

[Billy T]

...The added transport costs associated with those places will probably be tarriff enough. Especially if you consider that labor costs are not a major factor, as the production will be mechanized like all other US agricultural production. Land costs are unlikely to be a big factor either, as cellulosic feedstocks do not require new land to be developed; in fact, land costs will drop as demand for corn subsides. Rain is also not a big factor when you consider that America already has extensive irrigation infrastructure. Some of our most productive agricultural lands are in the desert. And there is plenty of agricultural land in the US that never freezes. I'm not sure why you're siezing on Iowa for this example; there's a lot of other states, and cellulosic production does not need to be fed by Iowa-specific crops. The agricultural waste produced by California and Florida, for example, represents a huge potential feedstock source for cellulosic production.

I agree that any reference I made to Iowa a few post back was restricted to the current corn based alcohol program. Certainly there is a great deal of un-used cellulose produced in the USA, but most of it must be collected from the fields (and this will reduce the soil fertility in the long run compared to plowing it under. - That lower fertility is a cost also, either in lower yields or more fertilizer later.)

There has been at least one attempt to use some of it. (Timber waste usually left in the forest as limbs are trimed off for loading on trucks of the trunks. - In Maine as I recal a small power plant was developed to collect and burn the forest and lumber mill waste, but I think it failed economically. (Too expensive to collect the limbs from forest and not enough sawdust at the mill.) Labor cost do count! (Even with free fuel, it failed - actually slightly negative cost fuel as the mills pay them a little to take the waste away, but not as much as coal power companies pay for someone to take the sulpher away.)

You are greatly over estimating the cost of ocean transport (on a per liter basis, of course.) and underestimating the cost of building plants in US verse Brazil and other low land and labor cost areas. As far as "making the deserts bloom" that is true, but expensive - ask Israel - even just the cost of the water, not including the pumps and energy for them is significant. - Look at the fertial irrigated lands in souther California (and the assoicated disputes over water costs with LA etc.) These desert areas can NOT economically produce anything but crops like vegetables etc with relative high value per pound. For example, they do not grow hay and export it, even though that can displace relatively expensive animal food. Hay must be produced near its final use.

That all said, I remind you that I have already admitted that tropical lands closer to USA will supply alcohol to US cheaper than Brazil. That is why Brazil's president just returned from visit to 5 central American countires (including Mexico, where cane fields are already expanding) trying to sell the EQUIPMENT associated with alcohol production. I.e. Brazil recognizes that in the end it will need to send to Europe and Asia, not the US, so this is the best way for Brazil to profit from the potential US demand. (Brazil even exports this equipment to India as it is the most advanced available.)

 

[quadraphonics]

Labor cost do count!

[...]

That is why Brazil's president just returned from visit to 5 central American countires (including Mexico, where cane fields are already expanding) trying to sell the EQUIPMENT associated with alcohol production.

Well, if you think that the cost of agricultural labor in the United States differs significantly from its cost in Mexico and Central America, you're really out of touch. You may have heard about the 12+ Million illegal immigrants from those countries that are living in America?