Wal-Mart isn't completely evil after all?

August 9, 2006 5:05 AM

Perhaps Wal-Mart isn't completely evil?In a move that I'm sure will stun environmentalists, Wal-Mart wants to introduce E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) to its gas stations (which could potentially more than double the national locations that offer E85 from 800 to almost 2150).
posted by SeizeTheDay (114 comments total)

E85 is the future of government subsidies.
posted by thirteenkiller at 5:10 AM on August 9, 2006

Ethanol is cheaper. "Not evil" has nothing to do with it.

Wake me up when Wal*Mart uses the money it saves to pay back wages to the workers in locks in its warehouses for hours after their shifts have ended.
posted by orthogonality at 5:10 AM on August 9, 2006

And what he said.
posted by thirteenkiller at 5:12 AM on August 9, 2006

E85 is the future of government subsidies.

You say that like it's a bad thing.
posted by biffa at 5:13 AM on August 9, 2006

How much does an x% ethanol gasoline blend product reduce mileage? Does the environmental benefit from ethanol blends outweigh the increased consumption of gasoline products? Or is the benefit negligible for the consumer?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:14 AM on August 9, 2006

No. Worse than normal fossil fuels. To make each gallon of biofuels from corn/maize, 1.29 gallons of fossil fuel get used. The cure is worse than the disease.
posted by imperium at 5:22 AM on August 9, 2006

Wal-Mart could be selling cans of pure concentrated World Peace for 99 cents. They'd still be evil.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:26 AM on August 9, 2006

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I just say it like it's a thing.

It's good when government incentives make the good thing profitable so both good and evil companies choose it.

That said, the goodness of ethanol isn't uncontested. It's useful as an alternative to imported oil. Still, there are questions about the global economic impact of US farm subsidies and the environmental cost of ethanol (ex. use of coal in processing).
posted by thirteenkiller at 5:26 AM on August 9, 2006

Wal-Mart is also getting into the whole/health/natural foods business, isn't it? But for a real indication of how good or bad Wal-Mart is, look at what they continue to sell: weapons of mass destruction, "Naughty Little Kitty" pet torture kits, laboratory-raised babies.

Or not. I'm not really sure what they sell because I've never been in one. But if they sell guns, for example, I don't like them, and it doesn't matter to me how much healthy, tasty ethanol-based food spread they sell.
posted by pracowity at 5:27 AM on August 9, 2006

Imperium - No opinion yet, one way or the other, but...

From the DoE's Alternative Fuels Data Center:

"One of the biggest critics of fuel ethanol is David Pimentel, Cornell University. He asserts that it takes about 70% more energy to grow corn and make ethanol from it than what goes into the ethanol. Among other things, however, his analysis is based on old data and does not give any credit for the energy value of the animal feed co-product of making ethanol. On August 23, 2005, the National Corn Growers Association hosted The Debate on the Net Energy Balance of Ethanol, which directly addresses and refutes Pimentel's claims."
posted by CodeBaloo at 5:34 AM on August 9, 2006

They are a corporation, so really they are beyond good and evil and just care about the money, so what do you expect?

Here in Oz there's a lot of excitement about ethanol from sugar; probably a lot of sugar.

As for the energy sums, I am ignorant. Does any one know how they add for bio- diesel and not ethanol?
posted by lerrup at 5:39 AM on August 9, 2006

Ethanol's energy density is half of gasoline -- 22.6 MJ/kg, compared to 44.1MJ/kg for gas. The density is roughly the same -- within 10%, depending on forumation. This means to carry the same amount of energy, you'll need roughly twice the tankerage. Which means to haul the equivalent energy of one gas truck needs almost two E-85 trucks.

Which means to replace gas with E-85, you'll need to make nearly *twice* as much E-85 as we currently use in gas.

Translation: double the transportation costs for E-85 over gas.

Now, how much feedstock do we have to turn into ethanol? The most generous estimate I've seen is if the US uses all of the available plant feedstock for ethanol (translation, we starve), we could replace about 25% of our gas usage.

Note that feedstocks can't be pumped in pipes. Trucks haul the grains and whatnot to processing plants. That's *more* energy.

So, if we can multiply the amount of crops we grow by, oh, about six to seven times, we *might* be able to replace gas with E-85 across the whole country.

Whereupon, we die from global warming from the extra carbon load of burning up all the plantstocks in the US many time over, while China and Europe buy the oilstocks and burn that.

Replacing one burning stock with another is no answer, esp. when the burning stock you are currently using is the optimal one, if you are going to burn things.
posted by eriko at 5:46 AM on August 9, 2006

Sign posted at remote Australian service station:
"Our petrol does not contain Ethanol"

Scrawled on the sign:
"-so don't drink it"
posted by spazzm at 5:49 AM on August 9, 2006

"...On August 23, 2005, the National Corn Growers Association hosted The Debate on the Net Energy Balance of Ethanol, which directly addresses and refutes Pimentel's claims."

I think Pimentel's view of ethanol is too gloomy, but the National Corn Growers Association isn't who I'd pick to do an unbiased counter point.
posted by justkevin at 5:55 AM on August 9, 2006

There was a story on NPR which discusses what impact ethanol may have if it becomes very popular. It may come down to choosing whether we want food or fuel...
posted by Roger Dodger at 5:56 AM on August 9, 2006

Let's crunch some numbers for the consumer side of things:

Average subsidized E85 per-gallon cost, via E85 Price Forum: $2.71

Average unleaded per-gallon cost, via GasBuddy: $3.03

A 30% loss in mileage from using E85 means an adjusted, unleaded per-gallon cost of $2.31 for the same per-gallon energy output.

Unsubidized, the E85 blend would cost another $0.54, or $3.25. This is the true cost, given that the subsidy comes out of the taxpayer's pocket.

Per-gallon, E85 gas costs almost a dollar more to the taxpayer than unleaded gasoline.

Given the increased usage requirements, increased cost, and increased greenhouse gas (carbon) emissions from ethanol processing, I still don't see how this is an argument for its environmental benefits.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:57 AM on August 9, 2006

Whereupon, we die from global warming from the extra carbon load of burning up all the plantstocks in the US many time over, while China and Europe buy the oilstocks and burn that.

The plants don't release any more carbon when burnt than they took from the atmosphere while growing. The only net contribution of carbon is from the fossil fuels used in growing/processing/transporting the ethanol.
posted by justkevin at 5:59 AM on August 9, 2006

Ethanol is not the panacea. thirteenkiller is right, with this both petrol and agros are lined up for subsidies. Yay! More corporate welfare.

imperium is right, still more fossil fuels get burned to make Ethanol.

eriko is right, Ethanol is does not have as much energy potential per gallon as gasoline, plus the tradeoff is corn used for ethanol comes at the cost of feed for livestock. And by cost, I mean literally and figuratively. Nevermind what happens *if* global warming is real or disease devastates the corn crops.
posted by rzklkng at 6:01 AM on August 9, 2006

Who killed the electric car?
posted by riotgrrl69 at 6:02 AM on August 9, 2006

I think Pimentel's view of ethanol is too gloomy, but the national corn growers association isn't who i'd pick to do an unbiased counter point.

Pimentel is a scientist. Calling his research results "too gloomy" isn't really helpful.
posted by Djinh at 6:04 AM on August 9, 2006

Djinh:

By "too gloomy" I meant that unrealisitically pessimistic. His initial study used old data which was refuted by a number of researchers. He has since revised his numbers, but these are still questioned by critics [wiki].
posted by justkevin at 6:13 AM on August 9, 2006

"They are a corporation, so really they are beyond good and evil and just care about the money, so what do you expect?"

Not caring about anything except money is pretty much a paradigmatic example of evil.
posted by oddman at 6:15 AM on August 9, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Interesting way of disguising a farm subsidy. Quite clever, really.
posted by reklaw at 6:17 AM on August 9, 2006

Ethanol is not the panacea. thirteenkiller is right, with this both petrol and agros are lined up for subsidies. Yay! More corporate welfare.

As thirteenkiller has already pointed out (apologies if I was a bit aggressive by the way), he wasn't implying that subsidies for alternative fuels with reduced impacts on climate change are a bad thing. He was actually pointing out (I think) that the shift to ethanol was a response to the increased subsidy that ethanol is likely to receive as a potential part of the solution to climate change. This is one of the key intentions of policy related to renewable energy. New fuel/energy sources won't come through on their own because they are up against the established - and often heavily subsidised - fossil fuels sector. Incentives for renewable energy need to be provided in order to break though the initial barriers, draw in corporations and investors that would otherwise not be interested and thus foment change. Public subsidies are justified on the grounds that the change involves a public good that would otherwise not be captured.

Blazecock Pileon: you neglect to take into account a whole host of subsidies and externalities that do not get into the final cost of unleaded. For example, the costs of climate change, health costs, costs of maintaining supply borne by other than the consumer. There are plenty of these.
posted by biffa at 6:22 AM on August 9, 2006

recklaw, that it's a farm subsidy is no big secret. Check it out here - the State of Iowa's ethanol promotion activities are all a part of the agriculture department. People in agricultural areas talk quite openly about how ethanol subsidies benefit farmers.
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:23 AM on August 9, 2006

Not caring about anything except money is pretty much a paradigmatic example of evil.

When they put on a suit, all business leaders have an obligation to care about nothing but money (including the money generated by good PR). That's why people invest in their business. If they care about things other than money, it's good grounds for their shareholders to dismiss them. That's the society we live in.
posted by riotgrrl69 at 6:24 AM on August 9, 2006

"To me, there can't be anything good about all these chemicals in the air. There can't be anything good about the smog you see in cities. There can't be anything good about putting chemicals in these rivers in Third World countries so that somebody can buy an item for less money in a developed country. Those things are just inherently wrong, whether you are an environmentalist or not."
-- Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott
Fortune Magazine Aug. 2006

"In a speech broadcast to all of Wal-Mart's facilities last November, Scott set several ambitious goals: Increase the efficiency of its vehicle fleet by 25% over the next three years, and double efficiency in ten years. Eliminate 30% of the energy used in stores. Reduce solid waste from U.S. stores by 25% in three years. Wal-Mart says it will invest $500 million in sustainability projects, and the company has done a lot more than draw up targets. It has quickly become, for instance, the biggest seller of organic milk and the biggest buyer of organic cotton in the world."
--Fortune Magazine Aug. 2006

Wal-Mart is also starting to use produce containers made of corn plastic.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 6:25 AM on August 9, 2006

Study countering Pimentel's:

Corn-Based Ethanol Does Indeed Achieve Energy Benefits (pdf)
posted by justkevin at 6:26 AM on August 9, 2006

This is a disguise? It's the subsidy equivalent of a plastic moustache.
posted by verb at 6:27 AM on August 9, 2006

On the non-evil side...

A few big corporations have the ability to force society-wide changes quickly. If McDonalds started buying organic potatoes it would change the potato industry overnight. Wallmart has that kind of power. I'd sure like to see excess corn being used for ethanol than other current uses.
posted by stbalbach at 6:29 AM on August 9, 2006

When they put on a suit, all business leaders have an obligation to care about nothing but money...

Thus consumers and the government need to make sure doing good things is profitable.

It's hard to figure out what's really good sometimes, though.
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:32 AM on August 9, 2006

Blazecock Pileon: you neglect to take into account a whole host of subsidies and externalities that do not get into the final cost of unleaded. For example, the costs of climate change, health costs, costs of maintaining supply borne by other than the consumer. There are plenty of these.

Of these, only the subsidized supplier cost (e.g., miltary action in the Middle East) has an impact on the cost of unleaded, and the fair, objective assessment of this impact is largely political, whereas E85 subsidies can be clearly defined. E85 processing and distribution appears to carry with it a greater negative impact on climate and health than unleaded.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:32 AM on August 9, 2006

that it's a farm subsidy is no big secret
It's the subsidy equivalent of a plastic moustache.

Well, it allows them to both subsidise agriculture and look all environmental (look at the original slant on this post). Sure, you might not see it that way if you bother to do the research, but 99% of people never research any such things.
posted by reklaw at 6:33 AM on August 9, 2006

amusing
posted by riotgrrl69 at 6:36 AM on August 9, 2006

Another thing to take into account is that a lack of US dependence on Arab oil would mean that the US would no longer feel obliged to support the evil regimes of Saudi Arabia et al, and political change might be precipitated.
posted by riotgrrl69 at 6:38 AM on August 9, 2006

14 to 1.
posted by peacay at 6:40 AM on August 9, 2006

Regarding the cost in fossil fuels of ethanol production - there are obviously different opinions on whether current production techniques are an efficient use of fossil fuels or not. I expect, however, that as technology advances (and maybe this can be accelerated by government support?), the required input of fossil fuels should decrease. Eventually ethanol might be clearly superior in terms of fossil fuel consumption; subsidies and consumer dollars now can be seen as an investment in that more advanced and efficient future rather than a crutch for the nasty present.
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:40 AM on August 9, 2006

I'm not really sure what they sell because I've never been in one.

Someone once said that the easiest way to be a cultural elitist is to tell people you don't watch t.v. I think we've just found the second-best option.
posted by mecran01 at 6:41 AM on August 9, 2006

15 to 12.
posted by riotgrrl69 at 6:46 AM on August 9, 2006

Wal-Mart could be selling cans of pure concentrated World Peace for 99 cents. They'd still be evil.

Sam Walton would also become the Sixth Fist of Science.
posted by Smart Dalek at 6:48 AM on August 9, 2006

Of course another reason for never having been in a Wal-Mart is er, never having visited the US.
posted by randomination at 6:49 AM on August 9, 2006

Eventually ethanol might be clearly superior in terms of fossil fuel consumption; subsidies and consumer dollars now can be seen as an investment in that more advanced and efficient future rather than a crutch for the nasty present.

Despite my technical reservations about E85, if there are ways to manufacture ethanol that have less genuine environmental impact than use of current fossil fuels, energy unit for energy unit, I wouldn't mind subsidizing it or having WalMart sell it. Until then, ethanol's positives as a fuel additive seem far outweighed by its technical negatives.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:49 AM on August 9, 2006

"Finally, Wal-Mart's interest in alternative fuels like ethanol comes as part of its sweeping efforts to adopt business practices that are better for the environment."

I don't know that I buy the environmental argument. Wal-Mart is the gold standard of just-in-time delivery, and has defined the term "warehouse on wheels", since at any given time most of its goods are on trucks, traveling America's highways en route to its stores rather than languishing in storage waiting for delivery. Since they've already cut the cost of storing goods by doing away with most of their physical warehouses, now they're looking at making their fleet more energy-efficient - or at least lowering their fuel costs. If E85 is going to be heavily subsidized to the point where it's going to be cheaper than gas or diesel, you can bet they want to be in that market, both as a consumer and the largest supplier.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:53 AM on August 9, 2006

Blazecock, my point is that the technological advances that might make ethanol environmentally superior to gasoline require investment now; if we stop funding ethanol now because it's inefficient (and I agree that it probably is) then ethanol production technology won't advance.
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:56 AM on August 9, 2006

Smart Dalek, that comic sounds awesome. Thanks for the tip.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:57 AM on August 9, 2006

I haven't formed an opinion on ethanol yet, but these arguments about the fossil fuels burned in producing alternative fuels like ethanol or biodiesel ring a little false. Sure, you have to expend a lot of energy on processing and transporting the stuff. But what if this energy also came from alternative fuels. Would it be so bad that we have to truck around twice as much E85 as gasoline if, say, the tanker trucks ran on the stuff? They'd have to burn twice as much E85, and there'd be twice as many trucks, but that's still only 15% x 4 = 60% as much gasoline used in delivering fuel to the stations, still a net improvement. And ultimately this should makes it cheaper to make alternative fuels available. Whether the savings is passed on consumers or taken by producers is another, very important, question.

You have to make alternative energy available in the first place, and in practice that's always going to require the use of conventional energy, but eventually the factories that manufacture parts for wind farms can run on their own wind farmed electricity.
posted by Songdog at 7:11 AM on August 9, 2006

Songdog, if you don't get more energy from ethanol than it takes to make the ethanol to start with then you will always be on a loser in terms of emissions, (or at least until such a time as efficiency improves to the point where there is some gain.) Effectively if you can't capture more energy in the ethanol than you start with from your initial investment of fossil energy then you will keep losing each time. Say you spend 100 units of fossil energy to get 90 units of ethanol energy, then to make the second batch you have to spend all of that 90 plus 10 more units of fossil fuel to get 90 more units of ethanol, and so on and so on, its just loss on loss. you never see anything extra that can go and displace fossil fuel use elsewhere.

If the return is over 100 units of ethanol energy for each 100 units of fossil fuel energy then there can be an overall benefit to the environment. Say if you get 105 units of ethanol energy out of 100 units of fossil fuel, then you can put the first 100 units of ethanol into more ethanol production and use the additional 5 for something else. (You might have to have quite a few units over a 100 before its economically profitable though.)

We're already well past the point where the energy produced by a wind turbine is greater than the energy that goes into its construction.
posted by biffa at 7:29 AM on August 9, 2006

If they care about things other than money, it's good grounds for their shareholders to dismiss them. That's the society we live in.

Ever considered that the society we live in might be, y'know, EVIL? I mean, Wal-Mart may be just playing the capitalist game according to the current rules. But if the outcome to society is so harmful, then maybe the rules should be changed.

F'rinstance: Hizbollah gets its money from Iran. Iran gets its money from selling oil to China. China gets its money from selling cheap crap to Wal-Mart.

Question the "global marketplace." Question the need for more stuff. Do you really need to do all that driving, anyway?
posted by rikschell at 7:30 AM on August 9, 2006

Is the 15% gasoline required for proper operation of vehicles or is it just there so that people don't drink the stuff?
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 7:33 AM on August 9, 2006

Question the "global marketplace." Question the need for more stuff. Do you really need to do all that driving, anyway?

I don't think any of that discourages businesses from trying to make money for their shareholders. While you're right in saying the rules of the game need to be changed, that's the job for the US Government, not for individual businesses. However, nothing will ever stop businesses trying to make money, unless you outlaw money (and I believe the barter system comes with its own problems).
posted by riotgrrl69 at 7:42 AM on August 9, 2006

Serious question: Why isn't Death Valley covered in solar panels? What's holding back the growth of renewable energy?
posted by riotgrrl69 at 7:43 AM on August 9, 2006

Randomination: If you've ever been in ASDA you've effectively been in Walmart.
posted by Hal Mumkin at 7:45 AM on August 9, 2006

You need the gasoline - on really cold starts the gasoline is what gets your engine started - the ethanol doesn't burn efficiently until the engine warms up.
posted by rfs at 7:46 AM on August 9, 2006

Corn syrup is evil... ethanol for fuel from corn doesn't make everything taste like crap. I'm for it.
posted by LoopSouth at 7:52 AM on August 9, 2006

What rfs said. Also, E85 causes driveability problems at temps of 100 degrees F and above (in Flex Fuel vehicles, anyway).
posted by pmurray63 at 7:55 AM on August 9, 2006

Question the "global marketplace." Question the need for more stuff. Do you really need to do all that driving, anyway?

Man, it's just not that simple. Society and "the system" are not things which are inherently good or evil. There are plenty of examples of functioning capitalism and profit that lead to good things.

F'rinstance: You buy a PC, Bill Gates gets some money, he uses it to fund vaccination programs in Africa. The copper in the PC was mined in Mongolia and shipped by a train that ran over a cute Chinese puppy and a boat that leaked oil. You use the PC to sell some clothes on ebay and with the money from that you buy an energy bar made with subsidized American corn syrup. The subsidy for that corn syrup keeps a hard working American family on their hundred-year-old farm but drives global corn prices down so a farmer in Guatemala can't afford his rent and moves his family to the city. He can't find a job there but his kids get access to public schools and closer contact with NGOs that give them $1.40 a month for pencils.

Is it good or evil? It's neither, it just is. There is potential for good or evil in any economic system. There can be good outcomes from a capitalist system; participants in the system can use their money to make good outcomes profitable.
posted by thirteenkiller at 7:56 AM on August 9, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]

riotgrrl69, The call it death valley because one cannot drink water fast enough. You sweat faster then the body can absorb water... it isn't exactly the best place to be working outside... you know... maintaining solar infrastructure.
posted by LoopSouth at 7:56 AM on August 9, 2006

LoopSouth, although Death Valley is still a fairly inhospitable place, I think our capacity to deal with harsh environments has improved significantly since it earned that name.
posted by thirteenkiller at 7:59 AM on August 9, 2006

One of the things that tends to get missed in ethanol discussions (and has been glossed over in this one) is that it matters what you're making it from. Brazil makes gobs of ethanol from sugar; sounds like Australia is considering it. Corn is a much less efficient way to produce ethanol, because you have to convert the starches to sugars before you can ferment it. If we can figure out cellulosic ethanol, that would really get things cooking.

A recent study in Science (login may be required, sorry) suggests that there may very well be energy and environmental benefits to corn ethanol -- that is, that the energy balance is positive.

biffa, it seems to me that you're falling into a common trap -- that is, being concerned only with the energy that comes out in the ethanol. A number of ethanol plants in Minnesota are having some success burning the co-products (eg, the spent grains and such) for process heat and even selling some electricity from it (sorry, I don't have a link -- it's word-of-mouth from a researcher at the U of M).
posted by nickmark at 8:00 AM on August 9, 2006

Unless you did all the work at night it still couldn't be done efficiently. Workers would be limited to shifts of less then a couple hours at a time during the day, and there would be slow turnaround for each worker, ect...
posted by LoopSouth at 8:04 AM on August 9, 2006

Serious question: Why isn't Death Valley covered in solar panels? What's holding back the growth of renewable energy?
posted by riotgrrl69

"It's no surprise to hear that industry groups, particularly the oil and gas industries, spend a portion of their income lobbying. A report from the Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit group, seeks to reveal exactly how much government influence this money is buying. The report POLITICS OF OIL, released on July 15, 2004, is an international investigation of one of the world's richest industries and how it influences government and public policy around the world."
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:05 AM on August 9, 2006

Death Valley isn't lined with solar panels because it would cost more to do than it costs to get energy from other sources. Even with current levels of motivation to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions, cost of solar panel + any extra environmental benefit is still more economically costly than the fossil alternatives (taking into account any subsidy they might recieve).
posted by biffa at 8:06 AM on August 9, 2006

riotgrrl69 -- It's basically a cost issue. Solar photovoltaics are extremely expensive. Add to that the fact that there's probably not a ton of transmission in Death Valley, and you've got a mind-bogglingly expensive proposition. (Plus, if you were to literally cover the place in PV, you'd piss off the enviros...)

Renewables are making tremendous progress, especially in places where policy is providing the right incentives... But economically, they still have trouble competing with fossil fuels. That could change in a second if the the right disincentives on fossils were implemented (eg, a carbon tax), but that's a whole 'nother fight.

As an aside, I always get a little frustrated by the arguments trying to show how it would be impossible to address our energy needs by doing a particular thing. No serious person suggests that wind (or solar, or E85, or anything else) is going to do the whole job, and it's a phony argument to demonstrate that they can't. I also wish folks would pay more attention to efficiency (and on that score, three cheers for WalMart); we waste gobs and gobs of energy in the US. Then again, if we paid more for it, we might be a bit more careful...
posted by nickmark at 8:07 AM on August 9, 2006

Wow, this thread got long fast.

It seems like people are arguing different subjects here.
Ethanol doesn't help because it doesn't address all of the oil problems facing us, and in some ways it is actually counterproductive.

Issues:

Intro. High Price or Price Stability/Predictability

The problem with oil now is that ther appears to be no stable price, because of mideast conflicts, rapidly growing huge economies, new demands for energy and plastics ins the developed west and asia. If there was some level of confidence that oil would be stable around $80 for the next three years, that would be one thing, because industrial oil consumers (companies) and retail consumers (us) could plan. We could alter our car purchases, decide where to live, etc on this basis.

The problem is that it is not stable, seems to be rising, and there's no consensus on how high it goes. So decisions can't be made, and people, firms, and governments fumble around and a lot of wrong judgment calls are going to be made.


1. Peak Oil Problem
The problem here is that we are running out of cheap oil - not running out of all oil. Whether we have peaked yet or not doesn't really matter - we are definitely in the transition phase where oil creeps up in price. The crisis is what happens to the middle class in suburbs and rural areas at $7/gallon gasoline. The crisis is not what's on the cover of < ahref="http://www.harpers.org/MostRecentCover.html">this month's Harper's, namely running out of oil. We aren't going to run out. Not for centuries. It might be $5000/bbl in 100 years, but we will still have it.

Don't forget there are trillions of barrels tied up in tar sands that would be profitable at >$100/bbl crude. In fact, there is so much there that efficient extraction of oil from tar sands would result in a new stable world price way higher than what it is now, but importantly, it would be stable. The world uses about 30 billion barrels a year, growing at roughly 2%. And we really don't know what's at the bottom of the ocean. It's not even economical to look there at this point, but someday it will be.

Ethanol doesn't make a dent here because (a) the highest possible theoretical amount is insignificant. Furthermore, as people have pointed out, ethanol is expensive financially and in terms of energy to extract from corn and ship. It is not a solution to the peak oil problem (the only solution is, well, there isn't any execpt more efficiency and alterante sources of energy).


2. Oil Import Problem/Mideast Reliance/Why Are All Oil Producers Our Enemies

Ethanol could help here, I suppose, thought not much. Ethanol replaces gasoline, not crude oil. Less than half of crude becomes gas. True, we can rely less on Venezuala and Saudi Arabia, but now we have to worry about tornadoes destroying crops and long winters etc. The temperature in Saudi Arabia hasn't changed for about 100,000 years. Ethanol prices are likely to fluctuate with the 5-day forecast. Not exactly a recipie for price stability. The problem is that ethonal continues our reliance on riding in 3000lb metal boxes with internal combustion engines that use only 40% of their energy for work, with the other 60% lost to heat. Gasonline isn't the problem, its that we are still basically using technology from 1935.

3. Global Warming Problem
Peak Oil actually helps here to the extent that expensive oil pushes energy production and consumption to be more efficient or use renewable that just so happen not to destroy the environment. Ethanol is counterproductive in this regard, because it still requires burning, still pollutes and adds CO2, and prevents automotive fuel prices from rising enough to where renewable automotive energy becomes viable.

If gas goes to $9/gal, hybrids/electric/fuelcell are economical at $8/gal, but ethanol comes online at $6, we actually prevent ourselves from reaching what is probably a realisitc and attainable long term solution.

In conclusion, 100 years from now people will be shicked that we extracted all that oil only to set it on fire.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:20 AM on August 9, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]

people will be *shocked*

grr...
posted by Pastabagel at 8:21 AM on August 9, 2006

Im' really geting fed with this leitmotiv,

CORPORATION = EVIL

corporations do what they are meant to do : make money by all means

it's the politics that do not do their job by not controling those corporations.
posted by zouhair at 8:24 AM on August 9, 2006

thirteenkiller:

Sure, you can have good or bad outcomes with whatever economy, but have you noticed that ours is unsustainable? And when the Chinese and Indians want to live our consuming lifestyle, where is all that STUFF going to come from?

I'm down with the vaccination and all, but what we need is not government regulation. What we need is for people to live with less. Less money, less stuff, more free time.

More work, more money, more stuff: this is why we have global warming.
posted by rikschell at 8:25 AM on August 9, 2006

Wal Mart's image-repairers have been in overdrive for almost a year now.

This is just another PR ploy. They're "considering" this move.

And notice the item appears in corporate-friendly Money Magazine's website.
posted by wfc123 at 8:26 AM on August 9, 2006

One or two other things to add to the mix...

If E85 became wildly popular, that would lead to more and being repurposed for agriculture (and don't give me the crap about it being removed from food-growing...there is a hell of a lot of land that could be used for this that is doing effectively nothing now). That extra plant growth becomes a massive worldwide oxygen-factory, maybe doing a good job of cutting down CO2 in our atmosphere and helping with global warming.

If E85 became wildly popular, people would be sick of only getting 200 miles to the tank full of gas, making it likely that a greater effort would be made in increasing efficiency of E85-running engines. Big gain for everyone.
posted by Kickstart70 at 8:38 AM on August 9, 2006

Note that feedstocks can't be pumped in pipes.

*blinks*

Why can't you pump a corn slurry in pipes?

Why isn't Death Valley covered in solar panels?

Because it's a national park and utterly beautiful in its desolation. That would be like damming the rest of the Grand Canyon or Yosemite Valley or like burning the contents of the Louvre as fuel.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:46 AM on August 9, 2006

Serious question: Why isn't Death Valley covered in solar panels? What's holding back the growth of renewable energy?

Back of the envelope:
solar panels are $4/W
gas-turbine power plant is $0.86/W

Plus Death Valley is subject to hail storms and is home to the Timbisha Shoshone.

On preview, and it's beautiful.
posted by eddydamascene at 8:52 AM on August 9, 2006

Outside of the low energy yield, I have always found ethanol from corn to be humorous. It's kind of like mining for gold and throwing away all the nuggets that are less than a .5 an ounce.

Corn is the most complex and energy hungry part of the plant. In order to get the corn, the plant has to reach sexual maturity, send out pollen, receive pollen, form a bunch of complex structures and resist all the natural parasites and diseases that focus specifically on that part of the plant.

The result may be very dense in energy compared to the rest of the plant but it wastes a lot of the solar energy that is the entire point of using ethanol in the first place.

What I don't get is why cars can't be run off of methanol. Cellulose is the most abundant form of sugar on the planet. Everytime you mow your lawn you are probably throwing away enough energy to get you car halfway to work.

If ethanol subsidies were about the environment rather than making campaign contributors happy the discussion would be about methanol from some sort of fast growing grass -maybe switch grass?- rather than ethanol from corn.
posted by 517 at 9:04 AM on August 9, 2006

I was talking with a guy who works for the environmental consulting firm that Walmart hired for this whole campaign (the one who got Al Gore to come speak for them), and he was saying that Wal Mart is shooting for complete sustainability by 2020 or something like that. Condemn Walmart all you want, but this could set a huge and wonderful precedent.

Huge corporations are creepy and inhumane, but just calling them EVIL doesn't help anything. Meanwhile, Starbucks get's a lot of their energy from windpower.
posted by odasaku at 9:09 AM on August 9, 2006

I'm glad this thread dropped the "if we use all the corn for ethanol, we'll starve" angle early...
If we stopped feeding the corn to livestock, and just feed it to humans, you cut out the middle-cow, save the environment from excessive animal wastes and waste products, and feed more people, more cheaply.
If we use the land we're currently grazing cows on to grow crops that can be eaten or turned into bio-fuels/ethanol, we'd be making a still greater leap toward sustainability.

Of course, to fertilize all of that corn/biomatter we'd like to grow, we'd be using up a helluva lot of natural gas (and it's attendant costs in the form of processing and transport), so there's a big cost to add to the biofuels right there.

Hey! maybe the solution is making do with less of everything..?
posted by I, Credulous at 9:28 AM on August 9, 2006

517 writes "What I don't get is why cars can't be run off of methanol. "

They can, the big problem is methanol is so poisonous.
posted by Mitheral at 9:44 AM on August 9, 2006

I would just like to say that I rather enjoy shopping at WalMart. My local store offers friendly faces and low prices.

That is all.
posted by bradth27 at 9:54 AM on August 9, 2006

Hey, I've got an idea that would do a great deal more good than E85: Stop planning cities around the idea that everyone should take two tons of metal with them everywhere they go.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:02 AM on August 9, 2006

[expletive deleted], it's more likely that cities may be the solution, and that flyover states will pay most dearly for the addiction to supply-chain-dependent fuel. No public transportation, remote shopping and food sources, and a dependence on the automobile doesn't favor well for modern rural or extreme-suburban America.
posted by rzklkng at 10:14 AM on August 9, 2006

Hey, I've got an idea that would do a great deal more good than E85: Stop planning cities around the idea that everyone should take two tons of metal with them everywhere they go.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:02 PM EST on August 9 [+] [!]

A much better solution would be to shed one of those two tons from every new car 10 years from now.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:15 AM on August 9, 2006

E85 sounds like an excellent way of putting off energy choices that should be made now...
posted by clevershark at 10:29 AM on August 9, 2006

Pastabagel writes "A much better solution would be to shed one of those two tons from every new car 10 years from now."

Sure, but by and large people would insist on having the heavier vehicle, citing that they "feel safer" -- even though they aren't really any safer at all.
posted by clevershark at 10:30 AM on August 9, 2006

Riotgrrl69 wrote, "Serious question: Why isn't Death Valley covered in solar panels? What's holding back the growth of renewable energy?"

What other people have said, plus Death Valley contains numerous species found nowhere else in the world and remains one of the last big expanses of unspoiled wilderness in Southern California.

Here's my serious question: Why isn't the roof of every house in suburbia covered with solar panels? Seems to me the aesthetics of suburbia couldn't get any worse. At least we could put all that sprawl to a good use.

Randomination wrote "Of course another reason for never having been in a Wal-Mart is er, never having visited the US."

Asda?
posted by bcveen at 10:33 AM on August 9, 2006

it's more likely that cities may be the solution, and that flyover states will pay most dearly for the addiction to supply-chain-dependent fuel. No public transportation, remote shopping and food sources, and a dependence on the automobile doesn't favor well for modern rural or extreme-suburban America.
posted by rzklkng at 1:14 PM EST on August 9 [+] [!]

You've got it backwards. Rural life was the norm until industrialization and fossil fuel based energy and transportation made large cities livable. Rural Americans can grow their own food, and can get water from wells.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:38 AM on August 9, 2006

I know that methanol is poisonous if ingested by humans, but if ingested by internal-combustion engines...?

I'd also like the idea of living in a city that doesn't require 1800 lb. of metal, glass and plastic to get me to work. I wish 99% telecommuting were the norm so I could just show up in person for the rare meeting and do all my stuff in a bathrobe and Homer Simpson slippers.
posted by pax digita at 10:42 AM on August 9, 2006

Mitheral

Methanol LD50 = 5628 mg/kg
Ethanol LD50 = 7060 mg/kg

Not by much.

I couldn't find a LD 50 for gasoline but I would imagine its somewhere in the same ballpark.
posted by 517 at 10:49 AM on August 9, 2006

It's not methanol that's directly poisonous, but how it is metabolized by your body that gives it its toxic properties.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:56 AM on August 9, 2006

"When they put on a suit, all business leaders have an obligation to care about nothing but money"

Let's see this reasoning at play in other fields.

When they put on a uniform all soldiers have an obligation to follow every order; abu ghraib.

When they put on a Priest's collar all clergy have an obligation to follow the edicts of their church; many many abuses in the names of many gods.

When they put on a flag (metaphorically speaking) all patriots have an obligation to support their country; Japanese internment camps in WWII America.

The idea that there are some vocations and obligations that somehow trump moral responsibility is just plain wrongheaded. Every person should be expected to act morally at all times regardless of what his or her responsibilities are in other contexts. (Please let's avoid the inane counter-examples. Of course there are choices and situations with negligible if any moral dimensions. The topic at hand, the role of a business leader, is not one of them.)
posted by oddman at 10:57 AM on August 9, 2006

What about the idea of putting really huge solar reflectors in space and focusing the solar energy on some place around L.A. Phoenix and Las Vegas. You know, out in the desert away from the tourist attractions...did we give up on that one?
posted by kozad at 11:06 AM on August 9, 2006

Toxicity isn't the whole problem, the other factor in risk is exposure.

There are tens of thousands of small spills of gasoline in the US every year (down to the litre scale---most are too small to warrant even investigation, but everything has to be reported). Gas is easy to clean up compared with any alcohol. It gets absorbed by soils readily and doesn't get transported very well by groundwater. Alcohols, like ethanol and methanol, on the other hand, are gone as soon as they hit water. Oil spills you can contain and clean up, alcohol spills you can just dilute and and hope that the damages aren't too severe.

California went bananas in the late '90s because a 10% MTBE additive from relatively small gasoline spills leaked into ground water. In comparison to methanol (and ethanol), MTBE is way less water soluble (it's approximately the same toxicity). Transporting mass quantities of alcohols for fuels is going to be very tough on the environment and will have much heavier potential consequences for human health.
posted by bonehead at 11:09 AM on August 9, 2006

[derail]

When they put on a uniform all soldiers have an obligation to follow every order; abu ghraib.

Ummm, that should read "...every lawful order..." (ask any currently serving service member; they'll confirm this) and so your premise is unsupported in this instance.

[/derail]
posted by pax digita at 11:12 AM on August 9, 2006

What he said. I'm not asking the CEO of Wal-Mart to break into his neighbour's house and steal the piggy bank. That wouldn't be good for business, because business is subject to both the rule of law and the needs of public relations, just as Abu Ghraib wasn't good for the Army's interests.

When a business acts unscrupulously within the law in order to make money, it is not useful to call the business evil. It is far more useful to call for laws to be enacted so that it is no longer in the business's financial interest to commit the deeds, and to punish politicians who refuse to enact those laws.
posted by riotgrrl69 at 11:19 AM on August 9, 2006

Ethanol's energy density is half of gasoline -- 22.6 MJ/kg, compared to 44.1MJ/kg for gas.

Depends whom you ask, doesn't it. Not to mention that what we really care about is energy per volume, not energy per weight. (Sorry, don't have those numbers).

See how the gas milage compares:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/FFV2000.shtml

But I think the really big reason to go to grown fuels is to eliminate foreign energy dependence. cf. Brazil.

Not to mention other reasons: less spills, carbon dioxide sequestering (although this assumes you're replacing parking lots or very inefficient plants with grass, not just replacing grass with grass).

As for the energy in vs. energy out, you can easily imagine using sugarcane (in Florida, HI, Texas 8:1 energy ratio), or beets (something like 5:1) in Northern areas. Not that Walmart is doing that, of course.
posted by noble_rot at 11:24 AM on August 9, 2006

Brazil's "energy independence" is based more on shifting vehicle fleets to new fields of domestically produced natural gas than on ethanol use. Yes ethanol plays a role in their marketplace, and yes sugarcane is much better at producing it than corn (to the point where they're not going broke using it), but Brazil is mostly using new off-shore fields of methane to meet their energy needs. This is why Petrobras was so annoyed when Bolivia kicked them out a few months ago.
posted by bonehead at 11:32 AM on August 9, 2006

Indeed, the future of energy is in using less of it. The idea of reducing demand on a massive scale really

Wal-Mart didn't become the juggernaut it is today by making poor business decisions. I seem to recall some shockingly pro-environment comments from Pat Robertson recently, too. It sounds like people are seeing the writing on the wall about the environment. It would be nice to see an environmental-friendliness arms race happen between the superpowers (the US and China (let's not split hairs here)). That would be an arms race I could get behind.
posted by mullingitover at 11:42 AM on August 9, 2006

Gah.
*The idea of reducing demand on a massive scale really scares the oil producers.
posted by mullingitover at 11:45 AM on August 9, 2006

"...you can easily imagine using sugarcane ... or beets"

You can imagine it, but you'll have a tough time getting it done -- much of the proposed legislation around ethanol specifies that it has to come from corn. That's the farm lobby for ya.
posted by nickmark at 11:56 AM on August 9, 2006

517 writes "Methanol LD50 = 5628 mg/kg
"Ethanol LD50 = 7060 mg/kg

"Not by much. "

There are other harms than death. A couple shots of Ethanol will give you a nice buzz. A couple shots of Methanol and it's white cane time. And unlike gas you can absorb it thru your skin.

Methylated spirits is ethanol denatured with methanol so you can't drink it.
posted by Mitheral at 12:04 PM on August 9, 2006

noble_rot: ...less spills...

How is transporting mass-quantities of ethanol by truck or boat going to result in less accidents than transporting diesel or gasoline by truck and by boat? You must realize that the majority of environmental releases occur as many small spills, rather than a few large ones.
posted by bonehead at 12:06 PM on August 9, 2006

When they put on a suit, all business leaders have an obligation to care about nothing but money...

Yes, but (just to start out with a tiny step) they could care about making sustainable profits for the entire economy over, say, the next two years or two decades rather than just how to maximize their own stock value over the next quarter.

In the long run, a sustainable economy will maximize stock values.
posted by flug at 12:24 PM on August 9, 2006

That's right, flug, and that's why a purely monetary interest need not conflict with societal good.
posted by thirteenkiller at 12:32 PM on August 9, 2006

No. Worse than normal fossil fuels. To make each gallon of biofuels from corn/maize, 1.29 gallons of fossil fuel get used. The cure is worse than the disease.

Nice non-biased link there.

Actually, recent studies have shown that only about 0.8 gallons of fossil fuels to produce one gallon of ethanol, which is actually more efficient then the production of gasoline.
posted by delmoi at 12:56 PM on August 9, 2006

How is transporting mass-quantities of ethanol by truck or boat going to result in less accidents than transporting diesel or gasoline by truck and by boat?

It desolves in water, dosn't harm biological life nearly as much (you can literally drink it) and it evaporates quickly.
posted by delmoi at 12:57 PM on August 9, 2006

You are missing (of just avoiding) the point. You are basically saying that it's ok for a business leader to ignore morality if the obviously immoral action is not enshrined in the law. According to your understanding if something is morally wrong, it's up to people and institutions outside of business to stop the business from engaging in that action.

That is wrong. Why shouldn't the business be expected to control themselves? Why the weird paternalistic attitude? "Oh they can't help themselves, they're just businesses. It's our fault for not making that immoral act illegal."

Stop arguing as if breaking the law is what is really at stake. Are business leaders excused from acting morally, simply because they are business leaders? If you think they are, by what write are business leaders excused from moral behavior?
posted by oddman at 1:04 PM on August 9, 2006

delmoi -- It's my understanding that "ethanol," as provided to fuel blenders from the plant, is already blended with about 5% gasoline, to prevent folks from drinking it. So really E85 is closer to E80-point-something.
posted by nickmark at 1:11 PM on August 9, 2006

It dissolves in water, doesn't harm biological life nearly as much (you can literally drink it) and it evaporates quickly.

Really. There's no acute lethality to aquatic life by ethanol (PDF). That's comforting to know. No warnings necessary about alcohol in ground water (those are tiny spills, by the way, a single tankcar).

Evaporation rate doesn't matter when alcohol gets into ground water. There's no vapor phase to evaporate into. Gas evaporates much more quickly than ethanol anyway. Ethanol is more like diesel than gas in terms of weathering rates. I can give you the evaporation equations if you want them.

Just because we can poison ourselves with small doses of ethanol with relatively few consequences, don't assume that it's not harmful to the environment. Exposure is more important toxicity here. Gasoline does not partition well into water, fish by and large aren't killed by hydrocarbon spills unless there's a lot of turbulent mixing (surface species like birds are at most risk). Likewise oils are not easily transported by and do not mix well with groundwater.

With water-soluble materials like alcohol, on the other hand are transported extremely rapidly by groundwater and can have huge human health effects.

Ethanol is potentially really bad news in terms of accidental spills and releases. I expect the furor over MTBE to be repeated many times over once it comes into wide use.
posted by bonehead at 1:37 PM on August 9, 2006

oddman, here is a thought experiment. Mr A runs Company-A, arch rivals of Company-B led by Mr B. Company-B does something which is both economically wise (including PR issues) and legal, but is considered by Mr A to be morally questionable. So, Company-A doesn't adopt the practise.

Company-B thrives. Company-A stagnates. Shareholders, who like money, invest in Company-B. Company-A shrinks. People get laid off. Mr A gets fired by the board, and replaced by someone a little more focused on the bottom line.

Is it useful to call Mr B evil? Do you think businessmen should be expected to wake up every day and behave like Mr A instead?

Shareholders oblige businessmen to treat business like a sportsman treats his game: doing everything useful to win. If a sportsman does something you don't like to win the game, within the rules, do you blame him, or do you blame the referee and the rulemakers?

Another thing. Look at Bill Gates, a ruthless businessmen his whole career. Through his charities he's done more material good for the world, curing disease and fighting poverty, than almost any individual in history. Has he led an evil life?
posted by riotgrrl69 at 1:40 PM on August 9, 2006

On the idea that corporations aren't evil, they should just be reined in:

Completely false. If you think you could ever be morally acceptable to devote all your energy to making money, even if you just made sure to obey all laws, then you are either being disingenuous or are a fool. Any entity that exists for the purpose of making money, all other considerations be damned, is simply, evil.

A wise tiger once said, maybe good is more than the absence of bad. Plus, if there is ever a loophole in the law that makes some dodgy, profitable behavior legal, then eventually the system will rearrange itself so that that behavior becomes mandatory just to compete. Perfect capitalism requires perfect laws, perfect oversight and perfect enforcement if our civilization is to thrive. We have not those three things, so we should not have perfect capitalism.
posted by JHarris at 1:43 PM on August 9, 2006

We have not those three things, so we should not have perfect capitalism.

OK, what should we have?
posted by riotgrrl69 at 1:46 PM on August 9, 2006

Methanol LD50 = 5628 mg/kg
Ethanol LD50 = 7060 mg/kg

517 what the heck are you doing? This thread's already drawn out the Wal-Mart-is-evil folks, the fossil-fuels-are-evil folks, the E85-is-evil folks, the methanol-is-evil folks, the global warming chicken littles, the corporations-are-evil folks, the global-market-is-evil folks, and even the military/church/patriots-are-evil folks...

and now you invite the animal rights folks to join the fray? ;)
posted by CodeBaloo at 6:52 PM on August 9, 2006

"Is it useful to call Mr B evil? Do you think businessmen should be expected to wake up every day and behave like Mr A instead?"

Yes and yes. One should not engage in immoral activities merely to put one's self on equal footing with an immoral competitor. (Notice that if all businessmen acted like Mr. A the marketplace would still be competitive and it would be ethical. What's the drawback in that?)

You do realize that in your scenario all of the investors and customers of Mr. B are aiding (and at least implicitly endorsing) unethical behavior, thereby tainting there own behavior. Mr. A's real problem is that he apparently lives in an unjust society.

But again, you did not answer the question. Why don't you blame Mr. B for behaving unethically? You indicate that it's not useful to label him an unethical agent. Why not?

I'm not even going to touch the Gates comment, except to say that by that rubric any and every single unethical action, no matter how unspeakable, is justifiable by subsequent good deeds -- so long as the deeds are good enough. Please.
posted by oddman at 7:33 PM on August 9, 2006

CodeBaloo: guilty!
posted by I, Credulous at 7:35 PM on August 9, 2006

What if Mr A's acting ethically violates his fiduciary obligations to the shareholders? As far as I can tell, CEOs and other corporate decision makers who want to act ethically are in an entirely unenviable position. My understanding is that if at any point acting in the interests of the general populace and acting in the interest of the shareholders come into conflict, they're legally obligated to act in the interest of the latter, damn the consequences. Am I misinterpreting how corporations work? Seriously, I'm open to clarification ...
posted by bcveen at 10:49 PM on August 9, 2006

bonehead:

I guess one learns something every day. Nice links.
posted by noble_rot at 2:35 PM on August 10, 2006

"What if Mr A's acting ethically violates his fiduciary obligations to the shareholders?"

If true (and I think whistleblower laws come into the picture here), then this law is just a product of the unjust society that the executive lives in. Laws (financial or otherwise) should never force someone to be unethical.
posted by oddman at 11:47 AM on August 11, 2006