An interesting piece was posted on the AgWeb.com web site that I thought made a pretty good argument in the food-versus-fuel debate.

Greg Anderson, a family farmer who grows soybeans near Newman Grove, Nebraska (and serves as an ex-officio member of the United Soybean Board Executive Committee) makes some pretty strong arguments that there is not a great food shortage brought on by the rise in popularity of biodiesel:

Historically, surplus soybean oil supplies dragged down the overall price of soybeans. There was, and still is, plenty of soybean oil for meeting the demands of food production. But the surplus needed to be utilized. That’s why the soybean checkoff helped develop the U.S. biodiesel industry through research funding to find new uses for soybean oil. One of those uses was soy biodiesel. Over time, the industry grew and provided great new opportunities for U.S. soybean farmers, not to mention increased energy security and environmental benefits for us all. This helped boost demand for soybeans, but not at the risk of sacrificing food use.

So where is the soybean oil going? (more…)

A host of the Discovery Channel’s new “Planet Green” channel, which dedicates itself to earth-friendly causes, has written a pretty good opinion piece, urging the passage of a measure before Congress that will help create jobs in the renewable energy sector.

In the piece on ItsGettingHotinHere.org titled, “Green-Collar Jobs or Rust-Belt Future,” model and environmental scientist (I know, I almost couldn’t believe the title when I wrote it!) Summer Rayne asks people to call their senators and tell them to vote for the Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act (iCAP). She answers the question: how will the bill help create jobs?:

Simple, it would create the jobs of the future, new local jobs, jobs that cannot be outsourced—in other words, Green Jobs. And these jobs span the gamut, yet with one important thing in common. From installing solar panels and constructing transit lines to retrofitting buildings for energy-efficiency, reclaiming mine sites, and refining vegetable waste oil into biodiesel, all these jobs benefit the economy and improve our environment.

It shouldn’t have to be that way. Pennsylvania and other struggling areas should be a land of opportunity. Much of the U.S. workforce is ideally suited to green-collar work—many are middle-skill jobs that are well within reach for low income workers if they have access to effective training programs and support. Whether it’s learning the new skills needed to become a renewable energy technician or retraining workers for a clean energy economy, i.e., fixing an electric engine, our universities, technical schools, businesses and governments need to lead the way.

Rayne goes on to point out that if the bill passes, there could be $125 million annually for green jobs training, providing 30,000-35,000 jobs that won’t be outsourced to some foreign shore.

Now don’t get me wrong. I like Rush Limbaugh. I really do. He’s given a voice to the conservative cause for many years… even when things looked pretty bleak for his side. And he does GOOD radio. He knows how to communicate to his audience, and my hat is off to him for his radio skills.

But when it comes to his position on biofuels, he’s just plain wrong. Not every day, but many days I catch his short commentary on the local radio station on my way to work, and I’ll catch him if I’m out running errands during my lunch hour. And, increasingly, he’s been taking potshots at ethanol and biodiesel. He says it’s bad for your engines… it’s costing you extra at the gas pumps and grocery store… there’s food riots because of the green fuels… and billions of those poor souls in the Developing World will starve to death because of biofuels. I’m amazed that the same scientists who have been bashing his friends in the oil industry, which Limbaugh has dismissed as “junk science,” are now being quoted by Rush as if they brought word from Moses himself! Give me a break!

So what can we do? Well, I think the first thing is to keep putting out factual information about the benefits of ethanol and biodiesel. Tell people how the green fuels are saving the world millions of gallons of non-renewable petroleum. Point out that the biggest cost inputs for the price of food come in the fuel used to plant, harvest, and deliver that food to your store. Keep researching to find more feedstocks to eliminate the food vs. fuel debate. In other words, keep doing what this web site and many others continue to do every day.

But what about the Maha-Rush-ee? This harmless, lovable, little fuzz ball has a huge audience. And he’s got a forum (which he has every right to have) for his Big-Oil fueled rants against biofuels. What else can we do? I say: just pay him!

Look, it might not be very palatable, but I really think that Limbaugh’s viewpoints are for sale. Just look at the example of his most recent sponsor, Chevrolet. For years, Rush has railed against the little four-cylinder cars that get great gas mileage as pretty much worthless death traps for those unfortunate enough to get behind the wheel. But wait, now he’s touting the benefits of a four-cylinder Chevy Malibu. Hmmm… new sponsor, new attitude. I think it could work for the ethanol and biodiesel industries.

Just think, grease (with bio-based oil) his palms a little, and soon enough, he’s singing the benefits of our beloved green fuels: “Folks, this stuff is great… and I should know… I am the smartest man to whom you’ve ever listened.” Then we hear him take a big swig of ethanol, smack his lips, and claim that it’s the tastiest thing he’s had since the pain pills he sent his housekeeper to get. Well, OK, maybe that’s using a bit of dramatic license. But it’s just crazy enough to work. We’ve got to do something. This guy’s just too full of hot air to let it go to waste.

I’m just saying…

An opinion piece in GreenEnergyWar.com asks an interesting question: Wouldn’t we miss the 500,000 barrels of oil that biofuels replace every day?

Check out what former California Energy Commissioner John Geesman (who, by the way, has also been following California politics for more than 40 years) has to say:

As debate continues to rage over the role which biofuels policies have played in the extraordinary inflation in world food prices, a sobering awareness may spread. Crop-based fuels like ethanol and biodiesel may have already become an indispensable element of global supplies of liquid fuels. Their absence could have a significant impact on the price of oil.

Significantly, that 300,000 barrels-a-day amount represents one-third of the world’s growth in the demand for oil last year, which was about 900,000 barrels-a-day.

Now, I don’t know about you, but 15 percent more for my gas would push it over $4-a-gallon… and I know I’m not paying as much as some people are paying. I’m just glad we’ve got some folks outside of OPEC doing what they can to make it a little better for folks like you and me… and some floks who are writing opinion pieces like Geesman is doing.

Do you know what is one of the best things about blog-style news sites? It gives the editors the freedom to not only spark feedback from readers, but to share that feedback with the rest of the site’s subscribers. One subscriber, Tim, pointed out the how ethanol is moving forward in Oregon. I thought that both what he found and what he had to say are every bit of post worthy:

What do democratic Oregon Governor Kulongoski, republican Congressman Greg Walden, an Eastern Oregon Wheat farmer and a barge operator have in common? They were all among the 500 people in Boardman, Oregon on October 5th celebrating the grand opening of Pacific Ethanol’s state-of-the-art biorefinery, Oregon’s first opportunity to produce its own motor fuel. This video shows how renewable fuels are breaking down old political barriers between urban and rural America.

Oregon is doing renewable fuels right–having passed a landmark legislative package that ensures market access; creates incentives for local feedstocks; and encourages efficient production and investment in new technology. The policy is already translating into on-the-ground investment. Oregon provides a great model for other states across the country looking to reap the economic and environmental benefits of renewable fuels.

Borrowing part of a phrase from that great American humorist Mark Twain, when it comes to critics of ethanol, there seems to be “lies, damn lies, and statistics.” There has been a lot of misinformation spread about the green fuel, but there are some out there fighting the good fight dispelling these myths… especially the one that says it takes more energy to produce ethanol than what it’s worth.

One such fighter is Stafford “Doc” Williamson, who writes for Beverly Hills, California-based American Chronicle:

My underlying point is that by the same method of accounting gasoline takes more energy to produce than it contains, which is to say that if you count the energy that is necessary to build the drilling equipment to get it out of the ground, and the pumping energy to squeeze the last drops of oil from a well whose pressure has fallen so low that it no longer flows without assistance, and the energy to heat the steam to encourage heavy oil to flow into the tapped pool by heating it in the rock formations. This is the kind of energy accounting that if it came out that it really was more efficient to produce ethanol, the author of the “study” would “discover” a line item to pay for the revisions to textbooks to educate the next generation on the evils of fossil fuels in the first place, and on and on until the scales tilted in the desired direction. The real point of the energy input to any liquid fuel is the need to make the fuel suitable for the purpose for which we intend it, which in this case means a portable form of energy that is compatible with internal combustion engines that already exist in the majority of our vehicles. All these calculations that suggest it takes more fossil fuels to create a gallon of ethanol ignore the possibility that the ethanol producers might actually be environmentally conscious. They might be using biodiesel in the tractors and combines in the farm fields. They may be using crop rotation to minimize the need for fertilizers (if any) and pesticides that may be needed on their particular fields (which is only to say, somewhat more so than “average”, which is usually the number statistical studies rely upon).

Williamson goes on to make some remarks about President Bush and the war in Iraq that I might not agree with, but I’ll give him props for what he is saying about ethanol. I suggest you give this column (at least the ethanol part) a read.

I don’t usually post opinion pieces, but I saw this letter-to-the-editor and thought it rose to the level of a post for Domestic Fuel.

Glenn Gryka of Mesa sent this letter to the Arizona Republic:

Ethanol is not cost effective, so we are told.

It is more like “we don’t want to.”

Well said… in my opinion.

We’ve been trying to document all the different pieces of state legislation out there that have impacts on the biodiesel industry. This blog entry posted by John Gartner on Autopia - Wired News, I think, kind of sums up what the effects might be if the 11 states… Florida, Connecticut, Missouri, California, Oregon, Mississippi, Arkansas, Nebraska, Montana, Tennessee and New Mexico… raise their biodiesel requirements from two to five percent, and other states look at reducing taxes on biodiesel:

You can view this as interventionist government messing with the free market for both food and fuel. Or, you can say it is the states creating a minimum market that ensures interest from growers and refiners to establish demand that is necessary to battle oil dependency (for national security reasons) or for environmental purposes.

Another option would be that states (or the federal government) could use their purchasing power to create the market. If all government vehicles used only biofuels, it would provide the certainty that producers need while reducing the effect on the free market. This is done all of the time with emerging technologies, so it shouldn’t be a surprise if it happens here.

Well said.

Here is a great editorial by Mark Bennett of the Terre Haute (Ind) Tribune-Star.

Basically, he summarizes all of the criticisms being thrown at ethanol and says that, as a matter of national security, he’d still rather pay for a home-grown fuel than subsidize Middle Eastern countries.

If self-serving interests in farm states such as Iowa, Nebraska and Indiana drive up the price of corn and, thus, ethanol, we’re not likely to end up in an armed conflict. No amount of economic inefficiency offsets that price.

Bennett also points out the “hidden costs” of sticking with oil because it is “cheaper.”

Americans pay beyond the pump price for gasoline. Those added costs include the human and financial toll from military conflicts, as well as the expense of having to guard international shipping routes, not to mention directly and indirectly subsidizing unsavory governments controlling oil-producing countries.

Many more good points in his op-ed piece - a very good read.

Some Domestic Fuel readers may criticize us for not being more “balanced” in our coverage of mainly ethanol news - in other words, not reporting all the negative stuff. There’s plenty of that out there. We believe strongly that ethanol is part of the solution - not all, just part - and we are not going to criticize it or any other potential solutions to making our country more energy independent.

Truth About Trade & Technology has posted a Wall Street Journal commentary on the tortilla crisis in Mexico. The op-ed piece contends that the “cause of the corn price spike is too much government intervention.”

The sharp increase in Mexican corn prices, which fueled the tortilla price spike, followed big price increases for corn on international markets over the past year. The main cause, according to most commodity analysts, was the U.S. decision to subsidize ethanol made from corn. Growers who previously marketed their harvests to food and livestock companies suddenly have new demand from ethanol producers, who are also armed with a subsidy to make their bids more attractive. The increase in demand from government-subsidized ethanol producers pushed up prices.

Yet the U.S. isn’t the only government that is distorting markets. Mexico’s quota system for corn imports has exacerbated the problem.

Read the whole commentary.