Oily To Bed and Oily To Rise
Mark Hutchinson, writing in TAS this morning, has a piece which complements my post Oils Well That Ends Well; he argues that the alternative-energy policies enunciated by President Bush are more lip service than real policy. He points out that the President never spoke of purchasing cheap sugar from Brazil, where it has been used to augment gasoline for years.
He states;
There's a reason for the absence of sugar-cane from Bush's speech: the demands of domestic U.S. politics. Sugar-cane growers in the Caribbean and South America are unlikely to provide significant campaign contributions, so are not a favored class. Indeed, sugar imports to the United States are currently regulated by the "Global Refined Tariff Rate Sugar" program, which prevents significant competition to coddled domestic sugar producers. Needless to say, domestic sugar producers are major campaign contributors, particularly in the key state of Florida.
This set me to thinking (which is such a novel experience I marveled at it for minutes); sugar cane grows as far north as Missouri. Why shouldn`t America increase sugar production for fuel use? Furthermore, sugar cane is not the only source of sugar; in Europe sugar is extracted from beets, and there is no reason why sugar beets can`t be grown here in abundance. Perhaps it`s time for a sugar-beet industry to sprout in the heartland!
It`s simply too expensive to make alcohol from midwest grain. Essentially, one must make beer first, then distill it to alcohol. This is a two-step process in that the starches in the grain must be converted to sugars, then the sugars must be fermented to alcohol (I used to be a homebrewer, and dabble in winemaking now.) The final alcohol levels are considerably lower than one would obtain from grapes (which contain considerable amounts-22% or so-of sugar as compared to the 10% or so obtained from malt) and far below what is easily obtainable from sugarcane. I`m not sure how much sugar comes from beets, but I`m certain that it is considerably more than is obtained from the starch-conversion process.
Also, don`t forget trees; many maple trees may not make suitable syrup, but could potentially be used for sugar production (Vermont RUM is some of the best in the World, and it is made from Vermont maple sugar). Also, native Americans used Birch trees for sugar production, in addition to Maples. I don`t know how practical this would be, but it would be renewable and means the planting of more trees, which should make the Enviro-Mentals happy...
Of course, my objection to alcohol as fuel remain; alcohol produces considerably less energy than gasoline, and that means you would have to fill up more frequently (or have a larger tank). Still, if it were cheap enough, people wouldn`t mind having to pump more fuel in their cars. It ultimately is a cost/benefit ratio; is it worth doing compared to the difficulties and price?
Furthermore, I`m not sure we will successfully defund the oil kingdoms of the middle-east. China will simply get gas cheaper, which could hurt us in the long run. Also, oil is the only thing keeping Russia afloat. What will happen if their economy collapses as a result of decreased oil production?
Still, it is sensible to reduce OUR dependency on our enemies for fuel. I just don`t know how useful government financing of this idea will be.
He states;
There's a reason for the absence of sugar-cane from Bush's speech: the demands of domestic U.S. politics. Sugar-cane growers in the Caribbean and South America are unlikely to provide significant campaign contributions, so are not a favored class. Indeed, sugar imports to the United States are currently regulated by the "Global Refined Tariff Rate Sugar" program, which prevents significant competition to coddled domestic sugar producers. Needless to say, domestic sugar producers are major campaign contributors, particularly in the key state of Florida.
This set me to thinking (which is such a novel experience I marveled at it for minutes); sugar cane grows as far north as Missouri. Why shouldn`t America increase sugar production for fuel use? Furthermore, sugar cane is not the only source of sugar; in Europe sugar is extracted from beets, and there is no reason why sugar beets can`t be grown here in abundance. Perhaps it`s time for a sugar-beet industry to sprout in the heartland!
It`s simply too expensive to make alcohol from midwest grain. Essentially, one must make beer first, then distill it to alcohol. This is a two-step process in that the starches in the grain must be converted to sugars, then the sugars must be fermented to alcohol (I used to be a homebrewer, and dabble in winemaking now.) The final alcohol levels are considerably lower than one would obtain from grapes (which contain considerable amounts-22% or so-of sugar as compared to the 10% or so obtained from malt) and far below what is easily obtainable from sugarcane. I`m not sure how much sugar comes from beets, but I`m certain that it is considerably more than is obtained from the starch-conversion process.
Also, don`t forget trees; many maple trees may not make suitable syrup, but could potentially be used for sugar production (Vermont RUM is some of the best in the World, and it is made from Vermont maple sugar). Also, native Americans used Birch trees for sugar production, in addition to Maples. I don`t know how practical this would be, but it would be renewable and means the planting of more trees, which should make the Enviro-Mentals happy...
Of course, my objection to alcohol as fuel remain; alcohol produces considerably less energy than gasoline, and that means you would have to fill up more frequently (or have a larger tank). Still, if it were cheap enough, people wouldn`t mind having to pump more fuel in their cars. It ultimately is a cost/benefit ratio; is it worth doing compared to the difficulties and price?
Furthermore, I`m not sure we will successfully defund the oil kingdoms of the middle-east. China will simply get gas cheaper, which could hurt us in the long run. Also, oil is the only thing keeping Russia afloat. What will happen if their economy collapses as a result of decreased oil production?
Still, it is sensible to reduce OUR dependency on our enemies for fuel. I just don`t know how useful government financing of this idea will be.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:18 AM
2 Comments:
Why shouldn`t America increase sugar production for fuel use?
From the WaPo:
Sugar Producers Boost Their Lobbying Muscle
By Judy Sarasohn
Thursday, February 2, 2006
Although the farm bill doesn't expire until 2007, it's not too soon for the sugar lobby to start increasing its firepower.
So forget any concerns about the revolving door. The American Sugar Alliance, which represents those who farm, process and refine sugar beets and sugar cane, has turned to Combest, Sell & Associates to help push its cause on Capitol Hill. Larry Combest (R-Tex.), of course, is the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and the architect, as the alliance notes, of the current farm legislation. Tom Sell is the former deputy staff director of the committee.
Adding to its muscle, the Florida Sugar Cane League, an alliance member, has hired Ryan Weston , a longtime committee staffer, as vice president. Claire Folbre , another senior staff member of the panel, joined the league in August.
And just in case that isn't enough, alliance spokesman Phillip Hayes said about 50 sugar beet farmers will lobby the Hill next month.
The big issue for the sugar producers, Hayes said, is keeping in place federal policy that limits imports. Sugar users, such as candy companies, say that policy keeps sugar prices higher--because it limits competition.
"The farm bill will literally make or break the country's ability to make sugar," Hayes said.
Thanks, AOW!
Government giveth, and Government taketh away. President Bush plans on dumping huge amounts of money into alternate-energy research, while farm lobbies stop our utilization of an easy market to develope those alternatives cheaply. It`s reminiscent of Shakespeare, ``fair is foul, and foul is fair``; government distorts the economy by it`s constant use of law and tax money. It`s really disgusting.
Post a Comment
<< Home