Big Corn Muscles Aside Solar, Wind and Geothermal Subsidies
Ronald Bailey | January 8, 2009, 2:25pm
The Environmental Working Group has just issued a report that finds that 75 percent of all renewable fuels tax subsidies in 2007 went to environmentally damaging corn-ethanol production. In addition, the corn ethanol industry, teetering on the edge of collapse despite billions already wasted in subsidies on it, now wants additional billions for a bailout. According to EWG:
A little noticed analysis buried in an April 2008 report from the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA)1 shows that the corn-based ethanol industry received $3 billion in tax credits in 2007, more than four times the $690 million in credits available to companies trying to expand all other forms of renewable energy, including solar, wind and geothermal power.
In the EWG press release, report author and EWG Midwest Vice President Craig Cox says:
"With America facing an exploding federal deficit and the crisis of climate change, it defies common sense to continue to lavish billions of tax dollars on corn-based ethanol, a fuel that has failed to fulfill its promises at every turn."
"Corn-based ethanol production, spurred by federal subsidies and mandates, is polluting our nation's water, eroding our soil and plowing up precious wildlife habitat -- and worst of all is likely contributing to global warming," Cox said. "As the polluting ethanol industry gets fat at taxpayer expense, proven clean technologies such as solar, wind and geothermal are fighting for support. America needs a truly renewable energy portfolio, and the evidence is mounting that corn-based ethanol will not get us where we need to go."
Of course, Reason.com has been inveighing against ethanol subsidies for years. But right on EWG! Hmmm. I wonder how EWG knows that the renewable energy sources its wants to subsidize won't have similar unintended consequences. Oh, never mind.
Whole EWG report here. Reason TV's video "Silly Senator, Corn is for Food," can be found here.
No Name Guy | January 9, 2009, 3:05pm | #
See, the thing with back of the envelope calcs, as DB implies, is that they allow one to scope a problem to see if it's even in the realm of possibility.
Bound the problem with (in engineering terms) conservative and un-conservative (favorable) assumptions as to the various factors and run the numbers in a simplified analysis to see what the results are.
Doing this, DB illustrates the point that 'renewables' use vast amounts of land.
I note no one bothered to address the questions I posed in my first post, to wit: Which part of the country is going to be covered by the bio-reactors? What's the environmental cost of doing this? How does that compare to other alternatives?
Even if algal oil is used for only 10% or 5% of our needs, that still raises the point (based on DB's numbers that it would take an area the size of Utah): Which 10,000 to 20,000 square KM (that's roughly 1/4 to 1/2 the size of Switzerland, by the way) in our country is going to be covered with these things?
Baked: You're right - no sense in tossing the stuff away with the cavet that if it can be recycled into bio-diesel at a profit. Also right in that it'll never be anything more than a drop in the bucket.
Well Neu - perhaps the exception proves the rule. The enviro's I run across all too often here in Seattle are 'educated', but couldn't solve the most basic math / science / engineering problems to save their lives. They understand little to nothing of orders of magnitue when looking at problems, 'the dose makes the poison' in their paranoia on chemicals, radiation and Vitamin A, etc.
They know little to nothing of the fact that science is a process, not a result, and that the only results of said process that matter are being able to accurately, reliabily and repeatably being able to predict the respose of the physical world that we inhabit to a given set of input conditions.