|
|
| |
Facts about Corn Ethanol Production
Want real answers—not technobable? Read Carbonomics.
|
|
| |
We use only data from pro-corn-ethanol researchers, & the National Academy of Sciences —no data from anti-ethanol researchers. We love cellulose ethanol. All our calculations have super-simple documentation. Check them!
Energy Independence? 2.8%
According to the pro-corn-ethanol US Dept. of Agriculture, 2006 ethanol production was enough for 1.5% oil independence, and by 2017, we will max out at 3.7%. But this ignores the foreign fossil energy input to ethanol production, shown at the right.
Greenhouse gas reduction? 2/10 of 1% max
Less than 2/10 of 1% in 2017. These global warming emissions calculations based on data from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which is more optimistic than data from UC Berkeley's Renewable and Appropriate Energy Lab. See Climate. Corn's heavy use of nitrogen fertilizer is contributing to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico — the NAS again. See Ecology.
How did we get into corn ethanol anyway?
Follow the money. Huge subsidies, huge profits, lots of votes. The politicians are for it. They're doing the math, but not the global warming emissions math. Who started it?
How big are the subsides?
In 2006, the feds paid ethanol blenders $2.5 billion and ethanol corn farmers $0.9 billion. We paid an extra $3.6 billion at the pump. Total was $2.21 extra per gallon of gasoline replaced. Of all that, $5.4 billion went for windfall profits, creating what USDA's chief economist called "ethanol euphoria."
|
|
http://zfacts.com/p/60.html | 01/18/12 07:16 GMT
Modified: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 03:29:44 GMT
|
Amazon
A riveting and eye-opening book on this huge racket. The Subsidy Scandal follows the money. Pye-Smith's travels are vibrantly illuminated by interviews with bureaucrats, politicians, loggers, farmers, miners, fishermen, industrialists and environmentalists. Based on research in North America, with examples from Europe and beyond.
more books
|
|
