Power Hungry (49 page)

Furthermore, the EPA bailout of the ethanol sector allows the corn fuel scammers to continue gorging themselves at the public trough. In July, the Congressional Budget Office reported that corn ethanol subsidies cost U. S. taxpayers more than $7 billion per year. Those subsidies are larger than those given to any other form of renewable energy.

The increase in ethanol consumption was opposed by one of the strangest coalitions in modern American politics. In August, thirty-nine groups—ranging from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group—asked Congress to hold hearings about the proposed increase.
⁴⁶
Congressional leaders ignored the request.

Of course, the ethanol lobby loved the EPA's decision. Growth Energy, an advocacy group issued a press release applauding the move but insisted that “much more must be done to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.” That statement implies that all of the subsidies and mandates for corn ethanol have helped cut U. S. foreign oil imports. Here's the reality: they haven't done anything.

Between 1999 and 2009, U. S. ethanol production increased sevenfold to more than 700,000 barrels per day, but during that same time period, U. S. oil imports actually
increased
by more than 800,000 bbl/d. Furthermore, and perhaps most surprising, is this: during that same time period, U. S. oil exports—yes, exports—more than doubled to some 2 million bbl/d. Data from the U. S. Energy Information Administration show that oil imports closely track U. S. oil consumption. Over the last decade, as U. S. oil demand grew, imports grew. When consumption fell, imports dropped. And ethanol production levels had no apparent effect on oil imports or consumption.
⁴⁷

Thus, despite more than three decades of subsidies that have cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, the ethanol industry has not, and cannot, show any decline in oil imports during the time period when it experienced its most rapid growth. Maddening as that is, the real outrage of the corn ethanol scam involves air quality. In 2007, the EPA admitted that increased use of ethanol in gasoline would increase emissions of key air pollutants like volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxide by as much as 7 percent.
⁴⁸
In the documents the EPA released on October 13, 2010, announcing the approval of the 15 percent ethanol blends, the agency again acknowledged that more ethanol consumption will mean higher emissions of key pollutants.
⁴⁹

That admission is driving environmental advocates like Frank O'Donnell, the president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington, DC-based group, to distraction. Right after the EPA decision, O'Donnell told me that the agency is saying that more ethanol will mean higher emissions of nitrogen oxide, and yet the ethanol bailout, is “coming at the same time that the EPA is setting tougher standards on smog.” Indeed, the EPA is implementing new rules on ground-level ozone that could affect dozens of cities.
⁵⁰
What contributes to the formation of ozone? You guessed it: nitrogen oxide.
⁵¹

Donald Stedman, a professor emeritus of chemistry at the University of Denver, has been studying ethanol's impact on air quality for two decades. His assessment of the EPA's decision is nearly identical to O'Donnell's. “More ethanol means worse air quality, period,” says Stedman, who adds that corn ethanol “doesn't do anything to reduce greenhouse gases.”

Evidence that the Obama administration is more worried about the farm lobby than urban air quality came within minutes of the EPA's announcement. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack quickly issued a statement praising the move, saying that the increased use of ethanol “is an important step toward making America more energy independent.”

Here's a tip: whenever you hear the phrase “energy independent” or any of its variants, substitute the word “ripoff.” The EPA's decision is yet another unfortunate win for the farm lobby and another loss for consumers and clean-air advocates.

Finally, just in case you need one more example of the egregiousness of the ethanol scam, here it is: U. S. ethanol producers and blenders are now exporting record amounts of ethanol. Through the first nine months of 2010, the U. S. exported about 251 million gallons of the alcohol fuel—that's more than double the export volume recorded in 2009. Among the countries getting U. S. ethanol exports: Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

To summarize: In October, the Obama administration bailed out the ethanol industry because the industry had built too much capacity. Administration officials and the ethanol scammers justified the bailout by saying it will help the United States achieve energy independence and cut oil imports. But rather than reduce oil imports, the ethanol scammers are collecting about $7 billion per year in subsidies from U. S. taxpayers so that they can ship increasing amounts of American-made ethanol abroad.
⁵²
And in doing so, the ethanol scammers are consuming nearly 40 percent of all the corn grown in the United States.
⁵³

I'm running out of adjectives that do justice to the stupidity of the ethanol madness.

1 watt (W) = 0.00134 horsepower, or 1 joule/second (J/s)

1 kilowatt (kW) = 1,000 watts, or 1.35 horsepower (hp)

1 kilowatt-hour (kWh) = 1,000 watts for 1 hour

1 megawatt-hour (MWh) = 1 megawatt for 1 hour

1 megawatt (MW) = 1,000 kilowatts, or 1 million watts

1 gigawatt (GW) = 1,000 megawatts, 1 million kilowatts, or 1 billion watts

1 terawatt (TW) = 1,000 gigawatts, 1 million megawatts, 1 billion kilowatts, or 1 trillion watts

1 electric lamp of 100 W = 0.1 kW

1 car engine with a 60 hp engine = 44 kW

1 turbine rated at 1 megawatt (MW) = 1,350 hp
¹

1 nuclear plant with 1,000 MW of capacity = 1,350,000 hp
²

1 gallon of oil equivalent per day = 0.71 hp (529 W)

1 barrel of oil equivalent per day = 30 hp (22.1 kW)
³

1,000 cubic feet of natural gas per day = 5 hp (3,819 W)
⁴

1 day of Saudi Arabia's oil production = 250 million hp (186.5 billion W, or 186.5 gigawatts)
⁵

0.1 joule = energy used in average golf putt
⁶

1 Btu = energy released by burning 1 wooden match = 1.055 kilojoules

1 cubic foot of natural gas = 1,031 Btu
⁷
= 1.09 megajoules

1 cubic foot = volume of a regulation basketball
⁸

1 cubic meter of natural gas = 35.3 cubic feet of natural gas

1 kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity = 3,412 Btu = 3.6 megajoules
⁹

1 gallon gasoline = 125,000 Btu = 125 megajoules

1 gallon gasoline = 36 kWh of electricity

1 ton of oil = 7.33 barrels (bbl) of oil

1 bbl of oil = 42 gallons, or 159 liters
¹⁰

1 bbl of oil equivalent = 5,800,000 Btu = 5.8 gigajoules

1 bbl of oil equivalent = 1.64 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity
¹¹

1 bbl of oil equivalent = 5,487 cubic feet of natural gas
¹²

 

Note:
Equivalent units between oil and electricity are notoriously difficult. These equivalences only measure the Btu content of each and do not account for any heat lost during the conversion of oil to electricity, which normally results in a loss of about two-thirds of the heat content.

As discussed in Chapter 3, SI units are an essential part of modern life. We use many SI numerical designations—milli, mega, nano—on a regular basis without recognizing that they are part of a larger system. Given the fact that most Americans are only passingly familiar with these terms, it makes sense to examine all of the designations—starting with “yocto” and “yotta”—and understand what they mean.

The difference between yocto and yotta is the difference between a septillionth and a septillion. Between yocto, the SI prefix for 10
^–24
, and yotta (sometimes spelled yota), the SI prefix for 10
²⁴
, there are 48 zeroes. It's the difference between 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. But in SI, those numbers would be written without the commas, thus, yocto is: 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001; and yotta is: 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000.

Herewith, the SI numerical designations and their symbols.

Source
:
Math.com
, “Number Notation: Hierarchy or Decimal Notation,”
http://www.math.com/tables/general/numnotation.htm
.

In 1971, the
Christian Science Monitor
estimated that federal energy policy was determined by forty-eight federal agencies and fourteen congressional committees.
^b
In 2009, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy estimated that there were twenty-four federal agencies and twenty-five congressional committees playing roles in shaping energy policy:
^c

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Commerce

U.S. Department of Defense

U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of State

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Department of the Treasury

U.S. Department of Transportation