Tom Konrad

Ethanol's Persecution Complex: To Rehabilitate Its Image, It Must Understand the Issues

Thanks for the info on the FFV break phasing out in 2014. Good news.
A large %age of FFvs is a good thing, but it's no substitute for efficienct vehicles.


On Jun 20 10:22 AM GMBiofuelsGuy wrote:

> Tom Konrad: I work in Biofuels at General Motors. Toward the bottom
> of your blog, you reference the CAFE break that automakers receive
> for building flex-fuel vehicles. The Renewable Fuel Standard indexes
> these out around 2014. At GM, we have been building 3X as many FFVs
> annually as qualify for a CAFE break. Current plan has GM at 61 percent
> FFVs by 2012. Now, we just need to see a commesurate increase in
> the number of fueling stations that offer E85, which is the point
> of our commitment to FFVs.

Ethanol's Persecution Complex: To Rehabilitate Its Image, It Must Understand the Issues

Does anyone else find these comments from the corn lobby as annoying as I do? The issue I'm taking about is not high fructose corn sysrup vs sugar, it's high frutose corn syrup vs ethanol.


On Jun 19 04:34 PM cornrefiner wrote:

> High fructose corn syrup, sugar, and several fruit juices are all
> nutritionally the same.
>
> High fructose corn syrup is simply a kind of corn sugar. It has the
> same number of calories as sugar and is handled similarly by the
> body.
>
> The American Medical Association in June 2008 helped put to rest
> misunderstandings about this sweetener and obesity, stating that
> “high fructose syrup does not appear to contribute to obesity more
> than other caloric sweeteners.”
>
> Even former critics of high fructose corn syrup dispel long-held
> myths and distance themselves from earlier speculation about the
> sweetener’s link to obesity as the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
> releases its 2008 Vol. 88 supplement's comprehensive scientific review.
>
>
> Consumers can see the latest research and learn more about high fructose
> corn syrup at sweetsurprise.com/.
>
> Audrae Erickson
> President
> Corn Refiners Association

Ethanol's Persecution Complex: To Rehabilitate Its Image, It Must Understand the Issues

I totally agree with you, John, that biofuel from waste is a very good thing (as opposed to the kinda sorta good thing that is corn ethanol) athough there may be better ways to displace carbon emissions using waste, such as recycling the recyclables, and gasifing the remaining organics to generate electricity.

As for the quantity available, it's limited, and very difficult to turn into fuel. I have an upcoming article on advanced biofuels with more detail (will publish Monday.) The difficulty imposed by the impurity of wate streams is the reason why waste to electricity may be a better use.


On Jun 19 11:28 AM John Lounsbury wrote:

> In my opinion, ethanol (or any biofuel) is most attractive if made
> from waste. Does anyone have numbers for the amount of processable
> waste that is currently going to incineration, landfills, etc? How
> much potential fuel are we not taking advantage of? And producing
> more methane in landfills, to boot.

Ethanol's Persecution Complex: To Rehabilitate Its Image, It Must Understand the Issues

SubsidyEye: in response to htis comment:

> You also claim that "Ethanol ... puts corn to a much better use than
> high fructose corn syrup that contributes to growing epidemics of
> obesity and diabetes." That is merely an assertion. Got any studies
> to prove that?

My assertion is not based on 1) Americans eat too many calories, many in the form of HFCS. 2) Displacing gasoline in your car does little or no net harm, and may do some slight good. Hence use #2 is better than use #1.

Ethanol's Persecution Complex: To Rehabilitate Its Image, It Must Understand the Issues

SubsidyEye, I actually agree with you. Like any lobby group's studies, the RFA's will be biased... However, this puts Mr. Dinnen on a higher level than the others I quoted, whom I doubt even have biased studies to back up thier assertions, which was my point.


On Jun 19 09:23 AM SubsidyEye wrote:

> Good article, Mr. Konrad, until the section headed "Food and Fuel".
> Even before that, you assert, "Unlike the other speakers, I'm confident
> that his [Bob Dineen's] assertions can be backed up with studies."
> Oh yeah? Ever looked at the RFA's studies in detail? How about the
> ones they use to back up their inflated claims about how much petroleum
> is being displaced by ethanol? A recent analysis by the Global Subsidies
> Initiative (and previous ones by Robert Rapier) show that the real
> displace ment is less than half what they claim:
>
> globalsubsidies.org/en...
>
>
> In short, I would have said, "I am confident that few of Bob Dineen's
> assertions can be backed up with credible, peer-reviewed studies."
>
>
> You also say, "Although only about 10-15% of price rises in food
> are due to ethanol-induced corn price rises, ethanol makes a convenient
> whipping boy for price rises which arise from many factors, most
> importantly the rising price of energy." Note: 48.5% of the Consumer
> Price Index (seekingalpha.com/symbo...) for food is the
> cost of food eaten outside the home -- i.e., in restaurants and cafeterias.
> As we all know, or should know, the cost of the commodities that
> go into those meals accounts for a very small part of the cost of
> the meals. Of the remaining 51.5%, the farmgate cost of commodities
> accounts for about 20% of the cost of groceries -- the rest is processing,
> packaging, marketing and transport. Hence even 10% of a 5.5% increase
> (following a 4% increase the year before) in an annual $1.17 trillion
> worth of household expenditure on food (excluding alcoholic beverages,
> like beer, the cost of which was also affected by the rising costs
> of grains) is significant.
>
> You also claim that "Ethanol ... puts corn to a much better use than
> high fructose corn syrup that contributes to growing epidemics of
> obesity and diabetes." That is merely an assertion. Got any studies
> to prove that? Ethanol is subsidized; high-fructose corn syrup is
> not, or at least not directly. Mainly it exists thanks to policies
> that in the past depressed the price of corn and that still raise
> the domestic price of sugar. We should be reforming those policies,
> not trying to tackle the problem of obesity through creating an artificial
> market for fuel ethanol.
>
> I find it incredible that you write, "While environmentalists should
> not be joining oil companies and food processors by piling on the
> ethanol industry over its imperfect environmental record ... ." Um,
> the food processors and oil companies have been rather silent on
> the "imperfect environmental record" of the corn-ethanol industry.
> It has been scientists and environmental activists that first raised
> this clarion call.
>
> That said, I am at least glad that you call into question the industry's
> claim that there is an organized conspiracy against ethanol, and
> counsel them to avoid "the exaggerated claims they are prone to."
> If only the politicians that are in the industry's pocket would also
> follow that same advice.