The United States churned out 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006 due almost entirely to increased demand. As more states mandated some amount of ethanol in gasoline and more automakers created flex-fuel cars.

Whoa Nelly!

Those two sentences are in direct conflict. One says increased demand the other says mandated.

If we are forced to use something, can we really say the demand has increased? It would seem that the increased demand may be completely artificial and not a true result of customer demand.

I think that falls within increased demand.

"Demand" doesn't discriminate on how it's created.

If you sell a widget and the government makes it mandatory, demand for that widget increases.

But that's semantics I guess..

Whoa indeed. There's a lot to Biofuels we need to keep in mind as we wade deeper into 2007.

""Demand" doesn't discriminate on how it's created.
If you sell a widget and the government makes it mandatory, demand for that widget increases.
But that's semantics I guess.."

So, if the government were to mandate increased production of only shoes for left feet in size 13, it would follow that "demand" for that item would automatically increase?

I guess this is the magical action of centrally planned economies which has worked so brilliantly in places like Cuba and North Korea.

You are assuming that "demand" somehow is a good thing, but it's a neutral word. It can be for useless stuff or a bad use of resources.. But the point still stands that there's more demand for that thing, the producers can exchange more of that thing against money or goods.

Make that a small piece...
Ethanol will always remain a small piece of America's energy pie, but will nonetheless take a huge bite out of our corn crop. And the numbers are even worse than the 330,000 barrels/day would indicate. Since the energy return on energy invested (EROI) for ethanol is 1.2, then for every 5 barrels produced, 4 represent the equivalent oil energy needed to grow, harvest, ferment, and distill the ethanol. Thus, the impact on America's fuel supply and energy dependence is a fifth of that claimed.

Well, looks like another one of my comments has been "disappeared" by treehugger's mysterious and uncontrollable "spam filter".

Odd how it only seems to affect comments by me?

Until we find a better way of making ethanol, I'm not sure increased usage is something to celebrate. As reported in a recent Scientific American article (Is Ethanol for the Long Haul? current methods of ethanol production require nearly as much energy, almost exclusively from fossil fuels (mostly coal), as is released in its combustion. Essentially, corn-produced ethanol is a bridge to the coal-powered car, not a pretty thought.

There are also other aspects of this to consider. For example, the use of corn to fuel cars when it could be used to alleviate starvation.

Also, from a technical stance, there is some concern about the emissions from burning ethanol as opposed to gasoline. One study (I wish I could provide a reference, I'd have to find my paper to find it again) showed that emissions of acetaldehyde, a suspected carcinogen, increase significantly with the use of gasoline that is only 10% ethanol. One can only assume emissions would further increase with 85% ethanol fuel.

Avoiding foreign dependence on oil is one big plus for increased use of ethanol, but it's nowhere near the "green" fuel that many paint it to be.

"You are assuming that "demand" somehow is a good thing"

Oh? Did I assume that?

"but it's a neutral word. It can be for useless stuff or a bad use of resources..."

Ah, so in your view, at least, consumer demand is not neutral. Or is it? I'm all confused now.

Certainly, I agree with you that consumer demand is meddlesome to the Central Committee's Glorious Five-Year Plan, and therefore should be completely disregarded.

"But the point still stands that there's more demand for that thing,"

No, you still haven't demonstraded that increased ethanol production is a result of consumer demand, rather than legislative edict.

"producers can exchange more of that thing against money or goods."

Of course. The producers (such as Archer Daniels Midland, the single largest manufacturer of ethanol) can then, in turn, use that increased revenue to make generous campaign contributions to legislators, for example.

Not that that would ever happen. Just sayin' ...

Ah, now you slipped in "consumer" in there.

I never said there was more "consumer demand" for ethanol, I said there was more "demand". Not the same thing.

As for the rest, we agree that a lot of bad can come out of this kind of demand. I was just saying that it's demand anyway. You can drop the USSR references, I'm no commie.

Originally you wrote:

"If you sell a widget and the government makes it mandatory, demand for that widget increases. But that's semantics I guess..?"

Then, oddly enough, you declare:

" never said there was more "consumer demand" for ethanol, I said there was more "demand". Not the same thing."

Sorry? What was that you were saying about "semantics"?

-----

"As for the rest, we agree that a lot of bad can come out of this kind of demand. I was just saying that it's demand anyway."

Again, I'll ask, what "demand"? You still haven't shown that there ever was any increased market demand for ethanol in gasoline to begin with.

"You can drop the USSR references, I'm no commie."

Fair enough, perhaps you're not. However, you seem to have a remarkably soviet grasp of basic economic concepts.

That's not a good thing, by the way.

"Consumer demand" is a subset of "demand". That's simple enough to understand, I think. Heck, demand could come from the industry and that's not "consumer demand" though it is "demand". Same thing with government regulations that create "demand".

Your Honour, I rest my case.