The Supposed "Brazil Model"

By: Lowell
Published On: 2/19/2007 10:49:55 AM

At the JJ Dinner this weekend, I heard Barack Obama talk about the "Brazil model" for U.S. energy independence.  I've heard other politicians speak about this too.  Basically, the argument is that Brazil achieved oil independence through ethanol production, and if they can do it, we certainly can as well.  Except for one problem: the analogy is absolutely absurd. Let me state this is plainly as possible, just so there is no misunderstanding of my position on this issue:

THERE IS NO BRAZIL MODEL FOR THE UNITED STATES

Why do I say this?  Three main reasons (there are others):

1) Brazil consumes just one-tenth the oil we do in the United States (2.2 million barrels per day vs. 21 million barrels per day).  There's no comparison between the two countries.

2) Brazil's ethanol comes from sugar cane, which grows in the country's tropical climate. Uh, last time I checked, the United States didn't HAVE a tropical climate, except in a few places like the Everglades, which we have decimated by things like, uh, growing sugar cane! So much for that. (Oh, and PLEASE don't get me started on the corn-based ethanol crock.)

3) See the graph below, courtesy of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, for the main answer for how Brazil has achieved oil independence: they've utilized deepwater, offshore drilling technologies in order to produce more...drum roll please...oil!  That's right, Brazil has increased its conventional, crude oil production three-fold since 1986.  In contrast, U.S. oil production has  fallen sharply - from 9.2 million barrels per day in 1973 to 5.2 million barrels per day in 2006 - due to the fact that we are what's known as a "mature oil province."


So, there you have it.  Brazil and the United States essentially have NOTHING in common when it comes to their energy situations.  Which is why Barack Obama and other politicians are totally wrong when he says there's a "Brazil model" for the United States.  Once again, let me reiterate:

THERE IS NO BRAZIL MODEL FOR THE UNITED STATES

Thank you, I feel much better now. :)


Comments



I sympathize w/ your frustration (Chris Guy - 2/19/2007 10:56:32 AM)
Sometimes disinformation just takes on a life of it's own.


True, and it skews public policy (Lowell - 2/19/2007 11:09:48 AM)
In general, people don't have any idea about this stuff, and so they hear term like "Brazil model" or "ethanol" and they think, "ahhhhhh....sounds great!"  But if you study it for any length of time (I worked at the Energy Department for 17 years), you find that it's not only NOT great, it's actually really bad, really unfeasible, really uneconomical, really...for lack of a better word, stupid.  Hence, my frustration when I hear people like Barack Obama talking about the "Brazil model" instead of energy efficiency, which all serious energy experts know is the lowest of low-hanging fruit on this issue.


Lowell (Gordie - 2/19/2007 9:17:31 PM)
I have got to hand it to you. You sure know how to get a discussion going.

Personally I am beginning to understand where and what is going on. Great job.

I classify you with too much brains and common sense to believe that you really believe what you are writing. Keep up the good work and getting others to think.



Thanks Gordie. (Lowell - 2/19/2007 9:21:23 PM)
You're right, I really do believe what I'm writing, but I definitely don't believe I know it all.  That's why I love this community blog; there are always people who know more than I do about any given subject.  Including this one. :)


THANK YOU LOWELL (pitin - 2/19/2007 2:30:23 PM)
I noticed that as soon as Barack said that.

There is no way for the U.S. to get as much energy out of Corn, Wheat, switch grass or any other vegetation that we can grow up here.

What Brazil has done is taken energy rich sugar and used that to produce it's ethonal (psst, Americans pay 3x the world price for sugar), and I'm sure Brazil pays a little less then that, seeing as how they produce it.

The Brazil model does NOT apply to the US.



Exactly, thank you Nate!!! (Lowell - 2/19/2007 3:17:49 PM)
By the way, the answer to America's energy problems has been studied intensively by the best minds in the field.  I strongly recommend that everyone here read Winning the Oil Endgame, which "offers a coherent strategy for ending oil dependence." In short, here are the answers:

1) "Double the efficiency of using oil."
2) "Apply creative business models and public policies to speed the profitable adoption of superefficient light vehicles, heavy trucks, and airplanes."
3) "Provide another one-fourth of U.S. oil needs by a major domestic biofuels industry. Recent advances in biotechnology and cellulose-to-ethanol conversion can double previous techniques' yield, yet cost less in both capital and energy. Replacing fossil-fuel hydrocarbons with plant-derived carbohydrates will strengthen rural America, boost net farm income by tens of billions of dollars a year, and create more than 750,000 new jobs. Convergence between the energy, chemical, and agricultural value chains will also let versatile new classes of biomaterials replace petrochemicals."
4) "Use well established, highly profitable efficiency techniques to save half the projected 2025 use of natural gas, making it again abundant and affordable, then substitute part of the saved gas for oil."

Please note that cellulosic ethanol is PART of the solution, but that energy efficiency (NOT "conservation," by the way- that's a different concept) is overwhelmingly the answer.



Adam Siegel of the Energize America folks pushes this (teacherken - 2/19/2007 3:21:59 PM)
pointing out how much we could save by transitioning not only to compact Flourescent bulbs, but even further to LED lighting, whose energy use can often be at only 5% of incadescent.


Even Vilsack recognizes that (teacherken - 2/19/2007 3:19:07 PM)
from the speech he gave on energy in SF (and I have added the bolding:

The second objective:  A Vilsack administration will offer a new range of federal tax incentives, including a 25-cent per-gallon credit for the production of ethanol from cellular fiber.

As many of you know, Iowa is one of the nation's leading producers of corn, and many people in my state have an economic stake in the expanded use of corn-based ethanol.  But the reality is, corn-based ethanol will never be enough to reach our long-term goals.

Some suggest that we import more sugar-based ethanol from Brazil.  We should consider all sources of available ethanol to accelerate an immediate effort to expand the supply and, therefore, the use of E85.  But, as I said earlier, if we're going to create energy security, we cannot simply replace one imported source of energy with another.

That alone is not security.  Let us learn from the lessons of the past. 

The only way we can produce enough renewable fuel domestically is if we greatly improve the technology to create cellulosic ethanol, which is made from urban, agricultural, and forestry sources.

These tax credits will spur that innovation.

Now I am aware that there are still some holes in this reasoning, and I am not trying to convince anyone, certainly not a Lowell with his expertise, that this is the perfect answer.  Vilsack has engage in dialog with people over his ideas, and is still open to further modifications.  Some of the Energize America people at dailykos are part of that dialog.

My point in posting this is that the man who oversaw the greatest expansion of corn-based ethanol in our country recognizes that it is not the answer, nor is sugar-based ethanol from Brazil, or attempting to reproduce that here.

DISCLOSURE:  in case anyone here does not know it, I have endorsed Tom Vilsack.  I am not, however paid by nor do I have any official relationship with the campaign.



Lowell (Gordie - 2/19/2007 12:16:41 PM)
I have said it before and will say it again.

You are wrong and what you say is totally off the track. Just because OBama said Brazil Model, I am sure he did not mean sugar cane as the source.

I am not going to get into a lengthy discussion, but you are wrong, wrong. wrong. I have no ideal of where you are coming from and why you are so dead against ethanol, but you are wrong. wrong. wrong. I will believe science and other sources before I will believe any one on a blog....



Explain to me where I'm wrong. (Lowell - 2/19/2007 12:26:52 PM)
And where all my former colleagues at the Energy Department are wrong, and where every serious energy expert I've talked to is wrong.  Tell me how we grow sugar cane in the United States.  Tell me how corn-based ethanol makes sense.  Yes, please do explain.


I Have (Gordie - 2/19/2007 9:09:23 PM)
explained to you in the past and had a promoter of Bio Fuels explain some of the issues to you.

Yes corn based ethanol may only have a 10 year life span, but since when do we throw good ideals out the window because it is not the best solution now. That in it's self is crazy. Where would we ne today with computers if it was decided years ago that to have a ten story building house what a lap top can house today. We should have thrown those old computers out because they were too large. That is stupdity at its highest level.

"One of the big problems with the want now generation in its finest form "now generation" is they never learned to crawl."

I am 70 years old and gave up nieveness about 25 years ago. I will never again trust any Government Agency that is taking money by the truck load from the oil industry again. So please throw out the example of the Energy Department, no government agaency can be trusted for the total truth.



See the rest of the comments in this thread. (Lowell - 2/19/2007 9:19:34 PM)
Also, see here:

The growing myth that corn is a cure-all for our energy woes is leading us toward a potentially dangerous global fight for food. While crop-based ethanol -the latest craze in alternative energy - promises a guilt-free way to keep our gas tanks full, the reality is that overuse of our agricultural resources could have consequences even more drastic than, say, being deprived of our SUVs. It could leave much of the world hungry.

Wonderful.



Where I am coming from is that (Lowell - 2/19/2007 12:31:01 PM)
this whole idiotic discussion of a "Brazil model" is throwing us WAYYYY off course the real solutions to global warming.  Frankly, we don't have time for this crap.


I caught it too! (Turning VA Blue - 2/19/2007 5:28:25 PM)
I thought it was odd that he said this to almost 4,000 people. 

I am with Lowell on this one. 

A Presidential Candidate should not mislead the public.  Certainly not party faithfuls!  All the man had to do was show up and say hi, and we all would have been excited.

It is not cool to send us all out with misinformation.

Just my thoughts.



this is interesting (martha - 2/19/2007 12:22:33 PM)
So other than ethanol and conservation what are everyone's suggestions? Electric cars? Fuel Cells?
I am interested in knowing what some suggestions all of you have.


Energy efficiency (Lowell - 2/19/2007 12:34:38 PM)
Energy efficiency
Energy efficiency

Plus, wind, solar, tidal, wave...



You're right, but wrong... (cvllelaw - 2/19/2007 12:27:38 PM)
You're right that we will never get to the position of using no petrochemicals, but that's not the point.  First, we still produce a hell of a lot of petroleum ourselves, so if energy independence is the goal, we can get there without going oil-less.  Second, if you're hung up on "ethanol-from-sugar-cane," think instead of "butanol-from-switchgrass."  I firmly believe that the energy technology of the future is not going to be ethanol, but butanol.  If you remember your organic chemistry, butanol is butyl alcohol -- C4H9OH (sorry I don't know how to do subscripts).  There are microbes available that turn cellulose into butanol, and BP recently announced a proposal to use those microbes on an industrial scale.  The process is much less abusive to the environment than the distillation processes that go into making ethanol, and butanol is not as corrosive to gaskets as concentrated ethanol is.  It's energy density is about 90% of gasoline (as opposed to about 60% for ethanol).  Finally, all it needs is a source of cellulose, which can come from switchgrass (grown natively), wood chips, or any of a number of other things.  See http://en.wikipedia.... for more.

I'm not saying that even locally produced butanol could replace all gasoline, but let's not get hung up on "ethanol-from-sugar-cane" as a reason why biofuels won't work.



Do you seriously believe we can replace (Lowell - 2/19/2007 12:30:12 PM)
21 million barrels per day of oil consumption with switchgrass and corn stalks?


Cvllelaw specifically said... (Clemgo3165 - 2/19/2007 6:20:05 PM)
that butanol wouldn't replace all gasoline use.  But, surely we can agree that exploring the use of plant-derived butanol is a reasonable course to follow, along with increasing fuel-efficiency and adjusting usage patterns.


More options for Energy (hereinva - 2/19/2007 12:55:56 PM)
While there may not be an official "Brazil Model" reg. trade mark INC, Brazil provides an example of how an industrial country can move their automobile fuel to something other than "Texas Tea" . Brazil has been able to do this with considerable support (subsidies) from the government. In US, fuels include a mix of ethanol..but there are no ethanol fuel distributors for autos than can run exclusively on ethanol.

Oil exploration and production is still big business in Brazil to the detriment and degradation of the Amazon Basin and the indiginous people who live in the region.
I watched a portion of a special called "Crude Impact" on Link-TV..[http://www.worldlink...]

Energy Conservation is one of the "easiest" ways to help curb use. But while I am installing all of those special flourescent bulbs, and driving my fuel efficient automobile,
I drive by those massive parking lots filled with SUV's with its lights glowing all night long.

In the meantime, China is ramping its conversion from a bicyle economy to an auto driven economy..1 -2 BILLION autos
on the way.

Back in Virginia, the state legislature is on the cusp of passing their "re-regulation" bill that will bring more coal burning plants into the clear skies of Virginia. Dominion Power will be pleased..and who incidentally was the biggest sponsor of Saturday's JJ Dinner.

While ethanol is not THE answer to our energy requirements, it offers another option to fossil fuels.
[http://www.wharton.u...]

 



Brazil Model is not intended (Teddy - 2/19/2007 12:56:44 PM)
to mean an exact congruance, as I understood it. It means rather a model for independence which includes development of alternative fuels, alternative engineering, alternative life styles which means a government push or encouragement to DEVELOP such alternatives, and that does not necessarily imply ethanol.

The so-called Brazilian model was developed through government leadership to fit Brasil's situation. I would therefore assume that an American government push would develop alternatives appropriate to the American situation. Ranting against the so-called Brasil model (or, conversely, unstintingly praising the Brasilian model) should not imply doing precisely what the Brasilians did. It should imply government sponsored research and development by and for the American situation. A more fruitful discussion would be about what the American situation would include--- such as the topic of switchgrass, touched on above. That's a solution, or (if you insist) a partial solution already strongly advocated by Democratic candidates within Virginia, where switchgrass grows very well indeed.



Again, the "Brazil model" is overwhelmingly (Lowell - 2/19/2007 3:23:24 PM)
based on PRODUCING MORE OIL.  That's the vast majority of it right there, and is simply NOT a model for a mature oil province like the United States.  Nor is sugar cane-based ethanol.  Go travel to Brazil and check it out (I've been there twice to meet with government energy officials), you'll see what I'm talking about.


Dare I say it (DukieDem - 2/19/2007 7:07:16 PM)
Obama's intended audience is not the policy wonks of the Department of Energy, but rather those who know we need to work on energy independence and need proof that it can be done in one way or another.

I have heard countless politicians cite the Brazil Model as proof that a country that is focused can move towards energy independence. So maybe Obama doesn't mean this to be literal. Just a thought.



Wrong on so many levels (TheGreenMiles - 2/19/2007 1:11:14 PM)
Let's not also forget that when burned, ethanol produces just as much carbon dioxide as gasoline.  It's not a solution to global warming.

If we wanted to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we could raise fuel efficiency standards, raise energy taxes, and implement a carbon tax TODAY.  But that's not politically expedient, so we get lots of hot air about ethanol and fuel cells.



I totally agree with you.! (Lowell - 2/19/2007 3:21:41 PM)
I'm open to cellulosic ethanol, but corn-based ethanol is a freaking disaster, except to ADM.  Everyone serious about this subject knows the answer, and that is energy efficiency combined with currently feasible alternative energy sources such as wind and solar.  This isn't difficult conceptually, but there's been so much disinformation and misinformation on this whole subject, people actually think that phrases like "Brazil model" mean anything in the U.S. context.  We've got to stop saying stuff like that because it simply perpetuates the cycle of dis/misinformation.


Carbon-neutral fuel (cvllelaw - 2/19/2007 4:19:38 PM)
The advantage of using ethanol (or butanol) is that the carbon that is burned has actually come out of the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.  So if you have switchgrass taking the carbon dioxide out of the air and you burn it and it becomes carbon dioxide again, you're no worse off.  But if you burn gasoline, that is carbon that did NOT come from the atmosphere (at least not in the last 250 million years), so it is not carbon-neutral.


very good stuff (martha - 2/19/2007 3:57:23 PM)
I drive a Honda. I have CF bulbs in every light I can. I try NOT to drive anywhere at least one day a week. I recycle. I change the oil in my car regularly. I use canvass bags at the grocery store ( when I remember to take them...I'm working on that).I have spoken out against urban sprawl and over-development.
That's what I CAN DO. The politicians and scientists need to help MORE!


Excellent, Reality-based Posting (FMArouet - 2/19/2007 8:30:51 PM)
Lowell:

  The reality-based community needs to keep these candidates honest. I hope that someone from each of the various campaign staffs notices your cogent posting.

  Unfortunately, each candidate will likely feel compelled to pander to Iowa corn farmers, who individually benefit from ethanol subsidies.

  I would like to see some credible numbers on how many units of energy (from fuel for tractors to energy for processing) are required to produce a unit of corn-derived ethanol. My lurking suspicion/hypothesis is that there would be a net loss of energy, and no significant savings in CO2 emissions.

  Random note: if you divide two trillion dollars, one figure often used as a projection of the total ultimate cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, by the cost of a Toyota Prius (on the showrooms for between $25,000 and $30,000), you could buy approximately 70 million Prius hybrids to replace nearly one-third of the U.S. gas-guzzling motor vehicle fleet. That newly hybridized third of the fleet would have nearly double the efficiency of the vehicles that would be replaced.

  By the time the whole fleet--both passenger and transport--could be hybridized, total requirements for petroleum could almost be halved.

  Diesel/electric hybrids would likely be even more efficient than gasoline/electric hybrids, for diesel fuel has more energy for an equivalent volume than does gasoline. There would likely not be any CO2 advantage with diesels, though.



Agreed. (Lowell - 2/19/2007 9:07:15 PM)
By the way, there are some estimates that it actually takes MORE energy to produce corn-based ethanol than you get out of the system.  Other estimates indicate break-even, while others show a small gain in energy out of the system.  It also takes huge amounts of water and land to grow all this corn, and it drives up the price of food for humans and feedstock for animals.  Besides that, it's great!!!  Ha.


Ok, your button got pushed.... (CommonSense - 2/19/2007 8:39:20 PM)
I do believe in your position(s), however I would like to say that I also firmly believe that there is no one solution to this problem. What I get from the "Brazil Model" (NOTE: model not solution) is that if a country chooses to face the problem and actually begin to DO something, they CAN make some progress. Period. That is the only message I am getting here.

Are they doing it right? Maybe not, but the important thing is that they, AS A COUNTRY, are actively trying to DO SOMETHING.

We have put this on the back burner (no pun intended) for way too long. In this country we want to "take a pill" and have it be all better. We jump on one bandwagon after another only to find that there are required sacrifices we
don't wish to make, limitations that inconvienence us, and some that were ill-conceived to begin with and just plain don't work.

For me, it would appear that a concentrated effort on ALL fronts (not just by the rank and file) is what it will take to make any progress. We as individuals can do everything possible to conserve and change our ways, but if those in charge don't commit it isn't going to be enough.

The Honda (yes, me too), light bulbs, corn, sawgrass, better insulation, conservation, solar, wind, hybrids, light trucks, increased gas milage, nuclear (gasp), and every damn thing we can come up with ALL have to be put into play.

Or we are all going to have to make snow like Wintergreen to hold the ice caps and tele-commute because we have to live underground.....

Sooner rather than later. 



I believe we should launch an Apollo Project (Lowell - 2/19/2007 9:10:15 PM)
to get off of oil, and we should do it immediately.  Basically, I'm with these guys:

1. Promote Advanced Technology & Hybrid Cars: Begin today to provide incentives for converting domestic assembly lines to manufacture highly efficient cars, transitioning the fleet to American made advanced technology vehicles, increasing consumer choice and strengthening the US auto industry.

2. Invest In More Efficient Factories: Make innovative use of the tax code and economic development systems to promote more efficient and profitable manufacturing while saving energy through environmental retrofits, improved boiler operations, and industrial cogeneration of electricity, retaining jobs by investing in plants and workers.

3. Encourage High Performance Building: Increase investment in construction of "green buildings" and energy efficient homes and offices through innovative financing and incentives, improved building operations, and updated codes and standards, helping working families, businesses, and government realize substantial cost savings.

4. Increase Use of Energy Efficient Appliances: Drive a new generation of highly efficient manufactured goods into widespread use, without driving jobs overseas, by linking higher energy standards to consumer and manufacturing incentives that increase demand for new durable goods and increase investment in US factories.

5. Modernize Electrical Infrastructure: Deploy the best available technology like scrubbers to existing plants, protecting jobs and the environment; research new technology to capture and sequester carbon and improve transmission for distributed renewable generation.

6. Expand Renewable Energy Development: Diversify energy sources by promoting existing technologies in solar, biomass and wind while setting ambitious but achievable goals for increasing renewable generation, and promoting state and local policy innovations that link clean energy and jobs.

7. Improve Transportation Options: Increase mobility, job access, and transportation choice by investing in effective multimodal networks including bicycle, local bus and rail transit, regional high-speed rail and magnetic levitation rail projects.

8. Reinvest In Smart Urban Growth: Revitalize urban centers to promote strong cities and good jobs, by rebuilding and upgrading local infrastructure including road maintenance, bridge repair, and water and waste water systems, and by expanding redevelopment of idled urban "brownfield" lands, and by improving metropolitan planning and governance.

9. Plan For A Hydrogen Future: Invest in long term research & development of hydrogen fuel cell technology, and deploy the infrastructure to support hydrogen powered cars and distributed electricity generation using stationary fuel cells, to create jobs in the industries of the future.

10. Preserve Regulatory Protections: Encourage balanced growth and investment through regulation that ensures energy diversity and system reliability, that protects workers and the environment, that rewards consumers, and that establishes a fair framework for emerging technologies.

This is exactly what we need to do, and we need to do it with total national commitment to accomplishing it.  This is crucial both for our national security AND for our planet.  And there's no time to waste.



"Setting America Free" (Lowell - 2/20/2007 11:40:26 AM)
The Institute for Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) "F-R-E-E-D-O-M" plan for slashing U.S. oil demand (and imports):

Fuel diversification>: Today, consumers can choose among various octanes of gasoline, which accounts for 45% of U.S. oil consumption, or diesel, which accounts for almost another fifth. To these choices should promptly be added non-oil-based fuels that are domestically produced, clean and affordable.

Real world solutions: We have no time to wait for commercialization of immature technologies. The U.S. should implement technologies that have been certified by the Department of Energy and can be commercialized rapidly. To the extent possible, solutions should be compatible with current infrastructure.

Economically sound technologies: after the initial investments in infrastructure, next-generation vehicles and fuels should be price-competitive to what we pay today.

Environmentally sensible choices: the technologies we rely on should improve public safety and respond to the public's environmental concerns.

Domestic resource utilization: while the U.S. is not rich in oil or natural gas, we have a wealth of other energy sources that can be easily, cleanly, safely, and cheaply used as fuel for automotive transportation, among them: hundreds of years worth of coal reserves (25% of the world's total), billions of tons a year of biomass and hundreds of million of tons of municipal waste.

Optimal energy use: as long as gasoline is our main transportation fuel we must increase our fuel efficiency, increase mileage per gallon and seek technologies that allow us to optimize our use of scarce resources.

Maintenance of the American way of life: there is no reason for us to compromise our lifestyles, settle for smaller, slower, or less comfortable vehicles. Cars running on next generation fuels can have similar performance to those we use today.

Regarding corn ethanol, here's what IAGS has to say:  "Ethanol, also known as grain alcohol, is currently produced in the U.S. from corn. Upping production entails a shift to producing ethanol from biomass waste and dedicated energy crops."  Yet another vote against corn ethanol.