FOX News Special Report W/Brit Hume; one of the best news and information sources on TV; aired a segment titled “Energy Debate” (Tues, 9/02). I watched it live Tuesday night and viewed it several times on the FOX web site. Much to my disappointment, the information presented continued the propagation of misconceptions and distortions concerning the production and use of corn ethanol. FOX News and Special Report make every effort to be “fair and balanced” and usually are; but in this case it appears they have been misled by the mass of flawed information that’s being put out by critics of the corn ethanol program and the legions that are influenced by them.
The segment began with a brief dissertation by the narrator (FOX correspondent Wendell Goler) about the Republican platform that calls for a change in the energy bills the president signed in Dec, ‘07. The bill requires a five fold increase in the production of ethanol over the next nine years. The Republican platform says the US government should end mandates for ethanol and let the markets work. This was followed by part of a talk by Senator and Presidential nominee John McCain.
Sen. McCain was shown making the following statement:
“Support for corn based ethanol has been a case study in the law of unintended consequences - distorting food markets through cropland competition - depriving America of better and cheaper alternative fuels”.
The segment began with a brief dissertation by the narrator (FOX correspondent Wendell Goler) about the Republican platform that calls for a change in the energy bills the president signed in Dec, ‘07. The bill requires a five fold increase in the production of ethanol over the next nine years. The Republican platform says the US government should end mandates for ethanol and let the markets work. This was followed by part of a talk by Senator and Presidential nominee John McCain.
Sen. McCain was shown making the following statement:
“Support for corn based ethanol has been a case study in the law of unintended consequences - distorting food markets through cropland competition - depriving America of better and cheaper alternative fuels”.
FACTS:
“Distorting food markets” implies that the production and use of corn ethanol is the primary cause of the rise in food prices. Several studies, conducted in the last few years have proven this to be false; yet the myth continues to be propagated.
A study by the Department of Agriculture (DOA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) completed in June of 2008 revealed that during the first 4 months of 2008, the all food CPI increased by 4.8%. Factors such as significant increases in energy prices, increases in global demand, speculation in commodities markets, etc., accounted for 95-96% of the increase in the index. Ethanol production accounted for the rest.
It is also difficult to understand how the use of corn ethanol is “Depriving America of better and cheaper alternative fuels” when better and cheaper alternative fuels are not broadly available yet. In addition, E85 for flex fuel vehicles sells for about $2.98 a gallon while the price of regular gas is about $3.65. Finally, it is estimated in the DOA/DOE study that, if we had not been blending ethanol with gasoline, the price of gas would be 20 to 35 cents per gallon higher.
Wendell Goler followed with:
“Corn prices have more than doubled this year; Corn based ethanol gets poorer mileage than gas; produces more green house gas than gas; literally not enough corn to fulfill the mandate.”
A study by the Department of Agriculture (DOA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) completed in June of 2008 revealed that during the first 4 months of 2008, the all food CPI increased by 4.8%. Factors such as significant increases in energy prices, increases in global demand, speculation in commodities markets, etc., accounted for 95-96% of the increase in the index. Ethanol production accounted for the rest.
It is also difficult to understand how the use of corn ethanol is “Depriving America of better and cheaper alternative fuels” when better and cheaper alternative fuels are not broadly available yet. In addition, E85 for flex fuel vehicles sells for about $2.98 a gallon while the price of regular gas is about $3.65. Finally, it is estimated in the DOA/DOE study that, if we had not been blending ethanol with gasoline, the price of gas would be 20 to 35 cents per gallon higher.
Wendell Goler followed with:
“Corn prices have more than doubled this year; Corn based ethanol gets poorer mileage than gas; produces more green house gas than gas; literally not enough corn to fulfill the mandate.”
FACTS:
“Corn based ethanol gets poorer mileage than gas” is based on estimated MPG derived from comparative BTU (energy content) calculations and not actual testing. These calculations indicate that ethanol alone should deliver 25% fewer miles per gallon than unleaded gas alone. However, the jury is still out on this one.
University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) and the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research (MnCAR) conducted vehicle Highway Fuel Economy Testing (HWFET) on four 2007 model cars. A full report was issued Nov.16,’07.
The vehicles tested included a Chevrolet Impala flex-fuel and three non-flex-fuel vehicles: a Ford Fusion, a Toyota Camry, and a Chevrolet Impala. This investigation utilized a range of ethanol/gasoline blend levels from 0% to 85%. The primary objective of the investigation was to examine the possible existence of a fuel economy-based optimal ethanol blend level, as determined by the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HWFET).
The results revealed that MPG obtained when using ethanol/gasoline blends depends on the particular car and the ratio of ethanol to gasoline in the blended fuel. Blends tested included E10 (10% Eth), E20 (20% Eth), etc. through E85 (85% Eth).
HWFET testing of E20 in the flex-fuel Chevrolet Impala, E30 in the non-flex-fuel Ford Fusion and Toyota Camry, and E40 in the non-flex-fuel Chevrolet Impala resulted in measured miles-per-gallon fuel economy greater than predicted by the calculations based on ethanol BTU (energy) content. It is also notable that the non-flex-fuel vehicles obtained greater fuel economy at higher ethanol/gasoline blends than regular unleaded gasoline.
“Produces more Green House Gas(GHG) than gas” is simply not true. An industry-standard-setting total lifecycle model has been developed with support from the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The model allows researchers to evaluate various vehicle and fuel combinations with a consistent methodology. The model was developed by Dr. Michael Wang, Argonne National Laboratory’s Center for Transportation Research and is called “The Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy use in Transportation (GREET).
This model revealed that the use of corn ethanol could reduce GHG emissions by 18% to 28%. The use of cellulosic ethanol offers an even greater benefit, with an 87% reduction in GHG emissions.
“Literally not enough corn to fulfill the mandates”. This is generally true. However, Ethanol produced from corn kernels (virtually all of the ethanol being produced in the US today) was never meant to satisfy all of the mandates in the bill (The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110–140, Dec. 19, 2007). It is a first step and has been very successful in addressing the applicable mandates so far. Corn based ethanol probably will continue to be a major contributor until new technologies are brought online.
Note: In 1979, corn yields averaged 91 bushels per acre. It was at 137 bushels per acre in 2000, and averages about 150-160 today.
Wendell then said:
“In fairness President Bush is counting on replacing corn in ethanol with something else.”
President Bush was shown saying:
“I believe strongly that research will enable us to use wood chips, switch grass and biomass to be able to develop the ethanol necessary to help us to realize the vision outlined in the bill.”
FACTS:
The “something else” President Bush was speaking about is cellulosic ethanol.
In late February, 2007 It was announced that U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will invest up to $385 million for six cellulosic ethanol biorefinery projects over the next four years. The biorefineries are expected to produce more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year.
A biorefinery built to produce 1.4 million gallons of ethanol a year from cellulosic biomass opened May, 2008 in Jennings, LA. Built by Verenium Corporation, based in Cambridge, MA, the plant is expected to make ethanol from agricultural waste left over from processing sugarcane. The new plant is the first demonstration-scale cellulosic ethanol plant in the United States. It will be used to try out variations on the company's technology and is designed to run continuously. Verenium wants to demonstrate that it can create ethanol for $2 a gallon, which it hopes will make the fuel competitive with other types of ethanol and gasoline. Next year, the company plans to begin construction on commercial plants that will each produce about 20 to 30 million gallons of ethanol a year.
Statements by Patrick J. Michaels (CATO Institute) were also included in the “Energy Debate” segment. Regarding corn based ethanol he said:
“We don’t have the capacity to do it; it’s bad for the environment; and makes just about everything more expensive.”
“We don’t have the capacity to do it; it’s bad for the environment; and makes just about everything more expensive.”
FACTS:
As I previously noted, all of these statements are either misleading or false.
With regard to cellulosic ethanol Michaels said:
“People have been trying to figure out how to do this economically - they have been unable to for a long time; I don’t understand why throwing a lot of government money at it will make it happen any sooner.”
FACTS:
As I previously noted, significant progress is being made in this area.
Finishing up, Wendell said:
“There’s not a single commercial refinery making ethanol out of anything but corn in this country and while they make it cheaper out of sugar in Brazil – still there is a hefty US tariff to discourage importing it.” ……
The general gist most viewers got from the segment was that the use of corn to make ethanol is a mistake, and for that reason, the mandates to blend ethanol with our gas put into law in 2005 are also a mistake and they should end or be curtailed.
The sad part is that most of the statements made in the segment were either false, based on proven false information, or simply opinions based on arbitrary assumptions. In this case FOX News failed to live up to their "Fair and Balanced" mantra. They included no information or statements from anyone in the corn growing or ethanol industries or any of the supporting groups in the show.
“There’s not a single commercial refinery making ethanol out of anything but corn in this country and while they make it cheaper out of sugar in Brazil – still there is a hefty US tariff to discourage importing it.” ……
The general gist most viewers got from the segment was that the use of corn to make ethanol is a mistake, and for that reason, the mandates to blend ethanol with our gas put into law in 2005 are also a mistake and they should end or be curtailed.
The sad part is that most of the statements made in the segment were either false, based on proven false information, or simply opinions based on arbitrary assumptions. In this case FOX News failed to live up to their "Fair and Balanced" mantra. They included no information or statements from anyone in the corn growing or ethanol industries or any of the supporting groups in the show.
