Why Can’t the U.S. Duplicate Brazil’s Success with Ethanol?
By Michael Lang on Jun 29, 2008 in SOLVERS AND SOLUTIONS
It is baffling to me that with all of the so-called and self-professed experts on using alternative fuels to solve the energy crisis, the subject of Brazil’s success is rarely discussed. Brazil’s ethanol program, which originated in the 1970s in response to the uncertainties of the oil market, has enjoyed intermittent success.
After nearly three decades of work, Brazil has succeeded where much of the industrialized world has failed: It has developed a cost-effective alternative to gasoline. With its sugarcane-based fuel and new offshore oil discoveries, the nation may become energy independent this year.
Many Brazilians are driving “flexible fuel” cars that run on either ethanol or gasoline and allow the consumer to fill up with whichever option is cheaper – often ethanol. Countries with large fuel bills such as India and China are following Brazil’s progress closely.
At current prices, Brazil can make ethanol for about $1 a gallon, according to the World Bank. That compares with the international price of gasoline of about $1.50 a gallon. Even though ethanol gets less mileage than gasoline, in Brazil it’s still cheaper per mile driven. As a result, ethanol now accounts for as much as 20% of Brazil’s transport fuel market. The country’s use of gasoline has actually declined since the late 1970s. The use of alternative fuels in the rest of the world is a scant 1%.
With government support, sugar companies and auto makers’ local units delivered cost-saving breakthroughs. "Flexible fuel" cars running 
ethanol, gasoline or a mixture of both, have become a hit. Car buyers no longer have to worry about fluctuating prices for either fuel because flex-fuel cars allow them to hedge their bets at the pump. Seven out of every 10 new cars sold in Brazil are flex-fuel.
Brazil is also fortunate that sugar is the cheapest way to make ethanol and Brazil has the right conditions for growing the crop — plenty of land, rain and cheap labor.
Despite these unique circumstances, Brazil’s efforts are being closely followed by countries with big fuel bills. India and China have sent a parade of top officials to see Brazil’s program. India, the world’s second-biggest sugar producer behind Brazil, mandated in 2003 that nine of its states add a 5% ethanol mixture to gas. The Brazilian unit of Germany’s Volkswagen AG, the first car maker to introduce a flex-fuel model in Brazil, has received 38 delegations from more than a dozen countries in the past year alone, VW officials say.
Brazil says its ethanol exports will likely double to $1.3 billion in 2010 from $600 million in 2005, largely to Japan and Sweden. These countries hope using ethanol — which releases less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels — will help them meet their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol to cut emissions.
The U.S., which currently imports 60% of its oil, is watching Brazil’s progress, too. Three members of the Senate Energy Committee recently visited, and Sen. Hillary Clinton has cited Brazil as a role model in cutting dependence on imported oil. When President Bush made a recent stop-over in Brasilia, Brazilian leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva hosted a barbecue and described to Mr. Bush how the country has reduced its oil import bill, according to Brazilian officials at the meeting.
The most recent U.S. energy bill, signed into law in August, calls for more than doubling ethanol use by 2012. But U.S. ethanol, which is made from corn, costs at least 30% more than Brazil’s product, in part because the starch in corn must be first turned into sugar before being distilled into alcohol. It may take the U.S. a few more decades to bring the cost of ethanol down to 80 cents a gallon — equivalent to Brazil’s most efficient producers — according to the U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. trade barriers make Brazilian ethanol and its sugar expensive to buy.
And therein lies most of the problem. It is apparent that using corn to manufacture ethanol, which right now a “zero-sum” fuel source and is a setup for failure. It takes just as much energy to produce “corn-based” ethanol as it generates.
So why aren’t we using sugar to produce ethanol? Probably because it works! There is something sinister about the fact that a lot of these alternative fuel sources, like hydrogen, ethanol, solar and wind, that have been around for many years are not being exploited.
If you’ve never seen the film, “Who Killed the Electric Car?” you should as it is extremely enlightening and certainly relevant to this article.
We at The Lang Report will be following up up Brazil’s success as well as other doable solutions that big business and the Special Interest groups they finance have been thwarting. STAY TUNED!
Brazil signs deal to export sustainable ethanol - SAO PAULO,— A group of Brazilian ethanol companies signed a deal to export certified sustainable ethanol to Sweden, in the…
Ethanol from Brazil is the best biodiesel - Oxfam, a nongovernmental organization dedicated to combating poverty in the world, believes the Brazilian ethanol is the most favorable biofuel in the world in terms of emissions of polluting gases and cost. …
Biofuel use expands as Brazil begins exporting ethanol - Brazil is the 2nd largest producer of ethanol in the world, mostly produced from sugar cane, it makes up a third of all ethanol on the globe. Together with the United States, their numbers reach 70% of current production. …
Brazilian ethanol exports to US projected to jump 50 percent as a … - In Brazil, the national sugar cane association Unica projected that Brazilian ethanol exports to the US would increase by 50 percent to more than 1.2 Bgy, with the United States as the primary customer despite the 54 cent per gallon …
8 Comment(s)
By Clean_Burning on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
US production of ethanol is indeed a farce! Especially since we have Natural Gas as a domestically abundant and perfectly viable alternative fuel source.
Compressed Natural Gas or (CNG) is the cleanest burning of all fuels. Unlike ethanol, it will not add to the pollution problem with an “energy negative†content that makes it both a waste of time and money. As more people realize that “growing our own fuel†is a dangerous slogan, which endangers the environment and the livelihood of regular folks around the world, the demand for Natural Gas as the cost-effective alternative is increasing quite naturally.
So much so that, the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) projects that worldwide demand for Natural Gas will increase by 52 percent from 2005 to 2030.
Why doesn’t the US make environmentally sound policy decisions? Why aren’t we ensuring a future of sustainable energy by investing in the infrastructure necessary to supply us all with Natural Gas, which many researchers regard as the one practical bridge to hydrogen?
More sinister schemes perhaps? Conspiracy theories aside, your article is a great contribution towards arriving at the bottom-line truth-ethanol stinks-Thanks!
By Michael Lang on Jul 1, 2008 | Reply
Thank you for you most informative comment as well as your compliments.
The simple answer to why we aren’t agressively seeking viable solutions is money. Not the lack of it but whose pockets it has been going into and there desire to maintain that status quo.
The technology and “know how” is and has been available for some time now but it won’t be applied!
Conversely, when President John Kennedy challenged America to put a man on the moon by the end of that decade, we did not have most of the technology and infrastructure that would be needed. But we did it despite of those things.
My hope is that our next President (hopefully Obama) will issue a similar challenge to “kick the oil habit” and replace it with viable alternatives.
OK?
Michael Lang
Publisher
By p. m. nayab on Jul 7, 2008 | Reply
taking into account all cross views it is really frustrating to see that US is not taking lead in this regard.This only helps to consolidate the view that The car & oil co. loby is so strong that it prevails on administration to see that alternative fuels not used.
It is time that people should come out and demonstrate for administration should take steps to inplement right policy.
By Michael Lang on Jul 7, 2008 | Reply
I couldn’t agree more with you as it is criminal that we still rely on fossil fuels to our detriment even though there are viable alternative already available. We, and our children’s children will pay a very dear price as they wonder what the hell we were doing when the writing was on the wall!
Mike Lang
Publisher
By Marcos on Aug 10, 2008 | Reply
I think you mean well and your article is on point. However, you neglect to point out that presently the waste product of corn based ethanol production is a superb animal feed (DDG) and the corn stalks are used for silage, feed and soil conditioning. Nothing is burned in the process. Cane is burned and the bagasse while suited for eventual conversion to more ethanol is burnt for steam heat. The food cycle is helped with corn based ethanol. Eventually DDG will be made for human consumption. This is a fact that cannot escape the reality of future grown. Also, its just fine to have both kinds of ethanol production. Why give up one for another. The US will not divert its sugar cane to ethanol and the US needs to have some degree of self sufficiency in production of alternative fuels.
By Michael Lang on Aug 10, 2008 | Reply
Marcos, we always welcome comments, but especially appreciate those that inform, furthering the awareness and knowledge of the subject matter.
So we thank you for the information you’ve provided. Hopefully it is solution based comments like yours that will lead to solution based action.
Mike Lang
Publisher
By glen walters on Dec 5, 2008 | Reply
i understand the problem with e-85 is that it needs a compression ratio of apx 11-1 to burn economically. most gasolene cars are apx 8-1. why don’t the industry. offer both engines instead of trying to do one engine for both. Also i understand that bio-diesel has more plant and tree possibilities. palm at 600 gal per acre and algae at 1800 gal per acre. 5000 to 10000 gal per acre lab test. why doesn’t the united states use diesel engines in their cars. france used 76% and europe 67% diesel engines. algae for an example grows good in hot climates and doesn’ interfer with our food crop. their our many bio-diesel plants that don’t require food producing soil or conditions. by typing algae pond for bio-diesel, a whole list of web sites comes up on the subject. volkswagen jetta tdl get 55-65 miles per gal. a new toyota gets 49-50. ford has a new fiesta made in europe which get 41 mpg gasolene and 65 mpg diesel. the new bmw gits 26 gasolene and 36 dieisel. it appears that diesels get apx 30% more miles to the gal. hybridnize and get another 30% glen
By Starkiller on Jan 4, 2009 | Reply
hey I’m a high school policy debater and you guys are right we should switch to sugar ethanol and I actually got an idea about the ethanol since right now we can’t import from brazil couldn’t we just use our sugar beets and sugar cane that we already have