Dumb Ethanol Policies Continue Despite Evidence
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Bad Decisions, Energy
I’ve said it before on this blog, but it bears repeating…the ethanol industry is not good for this country.
But instead of paying attention to the facts, there’s a new lobbying push headed by General Wesley Clark to up the mandated 10% in our fuel supply to 15%.
Why? Because the industry is going bankrupt and they need the market gamed for them.
Ugh.
And as this Business Week article points out, there are A LOT of other problems too…
First, the primary job of the Environmental Protection Agency is, dare it be said, to protect our environment. Yet using ethanol actually creates more smog than using regular gas, and the EPA’s own attorneys had to admit that fact in front of the justices presiding over the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995 (API v. EPA).Second, truly independent studies on ethanol, such as those written by Tad Patzek of Berkeley and David Pimentel of Cornell, show that ethanol is a net energy loser. Other studies suggest there is a small net energy gain from it.
Third, all fuels laced with ethanol reduce the vehicle’s fuel efficiency, and the E85 blend drops gas mileage between 30% and 40%, depending on whether you use the EPA’s fuel mileage standards (fueleconomy.gov) or those of the Dept. of Energy.
Fourth, forget what biofuels have done to the price of foodstuffs worldwide over the past three years; the science seems to suggest that using ethanol increases global warming emissions over the use of straight gasoline. Just these issues should have kept ethanol from being brought back for its fourth run in American history.
And if all of those reasons aren’t bad enough, the additive is also destroying our engines!
Though the media is ignoring it, one can easily find many stories on BMW blogs relating similar problems with fuel systems damaged by the use of ethanol. Certainly that was the case with Christi Jordan and her 2007 Mini. For weeks it was difficult to start; Moritz BMW in Arlington, Tex., inspected it and found severe carbon buildup inside the engine. On her second trip to the mechanics they decided to test the ethanol content of Christi’s fuel and found it was much higher than the federally mandated limit of 10%. This time the fuel pump had been destroyed by the ethanol. The repair bill came to $1,200: As in all cases where vehicles are damaged by ethanol, legally the factory warranty no longer applied.
All of this seems so obvious and yet we won’t let this industry die. Why? I can’t help but think one of the key reasons the it exists is because Iowa has one of the first presidential primaries, so it skews the political opinion towards supporting a market that is completely fabricated.
That’s why it’s up to us. Please try and spread the word in your social spaces about the real effects of ethanol and let’s shine a little light on this growing scam.
This entry was posted on Monday, May 25th, 2009 and is filed under Bad Decisions, Energy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 25th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Donklephant » Dumb Ethanol Policies Continue Despite Evidence…
Trackback from PunditKix.com…
May 25th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Sugar cane Ethanol is a lot smarter than the corn-based stuff. With corn you have to strip away lots of vitamins, minerals, and nutrients to get to the sugar. Which takes energy. But sugar cane doesn’t have any of that healthy stuff mixed in.
Don’t blame Iowa for Ethanol’s existence. Iowa produces a lot of corn, and nothing but corn. So support for big corn is a good way to win the Iowa Caucus. But you can easily win a Presidential nomination without winning Iowa. Dukakis lost Iowa, as did Clinton in ’92. Bush I beat Reagan there in 1980, but lost to Dole in ’88. Most recently McCain came in fourth in Iowa.
But lots of other states also produce corn. And nobody’s won the White House without one of them (Ohio) since JFK.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
/agree, Justin. All crop-based ethanol at this point is a losing proposition (sorry Nick). There’s too much opportunity cost and financial impact on other industry (i.e. food manufacturers) going against it. Why not dump a couple billion into supporting oxygen-carbon batteries (cuz Lithium is another losing proposition, considering the supply. You think oil is scarce?) etc.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
I was just going to say that you can produce ethanol from many other things than corn, which is probably one of the worst.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:57 am
As I’ve pointed out here and elsewhere for years, the “net energy loser” argument is somewhat hollow. The correct metric is the unit dollar cost-per-mile of portable usable energy as delivered to the consumer. The goal is portable usable energy, and comparing non-portable inputs directly to portable outputs is a patently false comparison. Apples and oranges.
In addition, there are some serious flaws in the assumptions used in those “truly independent studies” (snicker) by Patzel/Pimentel. Why, one might almost think they started with their conclusions, then struggled mightily to justify them. Less biased/flawed research suggests a net energy gain of 40% or so for grain ethanol production. (Which is still not great, but is a demonstrable “profit” in energy terms, not a loss. However, see also point above about non-portable inputs versus portable outputs.) Some other methods of ethanol/methanol production achieve better energy conversion and production efficiencies. It’s still apples and oranges.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
[...] about anything that might touch the status quo of cash for that cause. It doesn’t matter if it’s good green policy (and evidence suggests that it is not) — it matters if it is good [...]
May 26th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Oh yeah, Tully? What if I have a car with a 50 mile extension cord? What then?
I mean, what could go wrong? LOL
May 27th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Seriously, do you think I wouldn’t wait until you were in rush-hour traffic and then unplug you? Just for grins? :-)
May 30th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
[...] Closing: Ethanol; how are we supposed to prevent identity theft when the IRS is busy selling our tax info?; Plunge [...]
May 31st, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Senator McCain won my lasting admiration last year when he refused to cave in on his opposition to corn ethanol. He was the only candidate who stated the simple truth. Corn ethanol is a farm subsidy and a big one. It takes more fossil fuel energy to create ethanol than we get back from the fuel, after the fertilizers, tractor fuel, transportation costs and distillation is factored in. This principled stand cost him Iowa and Indiana in the general election.