-
Enough With the Bipartisanship
May 24, 2013 | 28 comments
-
Damage Control for Dummies
May 22, 2013 | 85 comments
-
Assessing a Week of Scandal
May 17, 2013 | 135 comments
-
After Obamacare
May 16, 2013 | 24 comments
-
The New Paternalism
May 3, 2013 | 39 comments
Special Report
Corny Capitalism
The great ethanol scam and how it threatens our cars.
Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency issued another one of those announcements read exclusively by government bureaucrats and green policy wonks. The EPA decided to delay a decision to increase the concentration of ethanol legal in gasoline from 10% to 15%. So-called E15 fuel would have to wait for approval until November.
It was a little-read regulatory decision that barely made a splash in the media. But it was also a rock thrown at Washington’s hornets’ nest of food and agricultural lobbyists. “We are disappointed,” warned food giant Archer Daniels Midland. “We find this further delay unacceptable” and a “dereliction of duty,” harrumphed ethanol lobbying group Growth Energy.
By delaying the decision, the EPA punted on a crucial decision. The pressure brought to bear against the agency by the agriculture industry has been incredible. It’s also been applied well; the EPA will most likely still approve E15 fuel in the fall.
That’s bad news for any American who likes to drive. In a country powered by the automobile, E15 is an enormous question mark. Since the 1970s when ethanol was first regulated by the feds, concentrations of alcohol in fuel above 10% have been illegal. But the government, lost in a dream world where cars can run on corn, has tied itself in regulatory knots trying to force ethanol into the fuel supply.
The history of ethanol is a sad torrid affair of crony capitalism and green fantasies. By jumping in bed with the agriculture industry and blindly slapping on new regulations, the government artificially propped up an industry and put itself in a bind from which there may be no return.
From Suing Toyota to Subsidizing E15
Across America, pumps at gas stations are emblazoned with the words, “Contains 10% Ethanol.” That’s no free market innovation. Since the 1970s, the federal government has heavily subsidized the production of “gasohol”—a blend of 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol that reduces tailpipe emissions. For decades, progressive politicians and environmental groups have revered ethanol as a miracle additive that will help purify America’s air. “No country has ever gone to war over ethanol,” reads one sign on the Washington, D.C. Metro subway.
There’s just one problem: Ethanol fuel is wildly inefficient. The amount of corn required to soak the fuel supply is massive. To shift America’s car culture entirely from gasoline to gasohol would require 700,000 square miles of land growing corn exclusively for ethanol production. That would mean converting one-fifth of the United States into a sprawling corn farm.
Then again, the government never found a green boondoggle it didn’t love. For five years now, Congress has been mandating that the fuel supply be diluted with ethanol. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol in the fuel supply by 2012. A Democratic Congress went a step further in 2007, mandating 9 billion gallons by 2008, 15.2 billion by 2012, and 36 billion by 2022.
Unfortunately, that whole Economics 101, supply-and-demand thing got in the way. The maximum amount of ethanol that can be produced to meet demand, called the “blend wall,” is expected to level out at 15 billion. That will make it impossible to meet the government’s mandates.
The agriculture industry, represented primarily by Archer Daniels Midland and Growth Energy, spied an opportunity. Why not increase the legal gasohol concentration from 10% ethanol to 12% or even 15%? That would immediately ignite ethanol production and allow the government to meet its mandate. More importantly, it would make Big Agriculture some serious money.
The EPA looked ready to raise the limit until science finally intervened. A study surfaced by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory from 2008 that found E15 ethanol caused a raft of problems in cars, including a loss of fuel economy and spikes in exhaust temperatures. Meanwhile the higher concentration of ethanol did nothing to reduce tailpipe emissions. The study also found problems when E15 fuel was used in lawn trimmers.
The car industry exploded in outrage. Most car warranties only cover E10, which could leave customers stuck with hefty bills if their engines were damaged. A study done by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers found E15 “made engines run hot, compromised catalytic converters, and even damaged cylinder walls.”
To its credit, the EPA ultimately delayed its decision in order to review the science. But in the meantime they’ll have an army of powerful agricultural lobbyists leaning on them. Even supported by its scaffolding of government subsidies and mandates, the ethanol industry is collapsing. The recession shuttered several ethanol companies. Others were gobbled up by oil giants at bargain prices. Some estimates suggest ethanol producers are losing 10 cents on every gallon of gasoline. This is all despite the fact that 25% of corn grown in the United States goes towards ethanol production.
The agricultural industry needs E15. And if history is any indication, it’ll probably get what it wants.
About the Author
Matt Purple is The American Spectator’s assistant managing editor.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (119) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Matt Purple
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/27/corny-capitalism
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
saleboter| 8.27.10 @ 7:43AM
Sad but this is what you get when the government picks winners and losers rather than the free market.
Ron L| 8.27.10 @ 11:48AM
Free market my butt. I want to use 30% ethanol in my own car that I paid for, and the government says I have to use at least 90% gasoline. Where's the free market in that? It would cost me less money and it would be going to people who do business in my town. The government CLEARLY has picked a winner, and it's oil.
RDN in Houston| 8.27.10 @ 12:10PM
So you want to use 30% ethanol in your car? Did you see this on page one of the article?
"A study surfaced by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory from 2008 that found E15 ethanol caused a raft of problems in cars, including a loss of fuel economy and spikes in exhaust temperatures. "
Why do you want to shoot yourself in the foot unless you are a corn farmer?
J Rich | 8.31.10 @ 12:16AM
This article is full of BS. You are using the same scare tatctics they used when 10% was introduced. It is going to ruin your engine, it will clog your fuel filter. Never happened. There are still people out there that think it will wreck there car. You people would rather keep on buying oil from the Arabs and never seeing that money in our economy than spend it right here in our country and see that money turn over 7 times in our economy.
Why no mention of the value of the by-products that are used for feeding livestock. Does it not make good sense to take out the ethanol first rather than food the whole corn to livestock?
This article talks about ethanol but the picture of the gas pump in the middle of a soybean field clearly shows the integrity of the author of this article. If he doesn't know beans from corn he certainly can not be trusted to use reliable information.
GavInTucson| 8.31.10 @ 3:33AM
J, there were E85 stations dotted around here in Tucson not too long ago. In 2008, when gasoline prices spiked sharply during the summer, they became all the rage as they were selling E85 at just under $3 per gallon while traditional stations were hitting $4 per gallon.
Well, that fad didn't last long, because engines WERE being ruined (along with other components) and, to add insult to injury, the expenses were out-of-pocket since the folks were technically violating their warranties. The E85 stations promptly went out of business in this town.
I suggest you talk to a mechanic. You'll learn something about ignition timing and why an engine can't really burn both fuel sources (when mixed) well. It's a careful trade off, and unless your timing is matched to your specific blend of fuel, you're going to hose your engine.
Thank God my town has stations (few, mind you) that don't blend ethanol. My car runs much smoother as a result, especially in the winter.
Ray| 8.27.10 @ 12:19PM
If you want to use 30 percent ethanol in our car, there's nothing preventing you from mixing your own blend. If you're serious, take responsibility and mix it yourself. It's not hard.
Old Soldier| 8.27.10 @ 1:10PM
Go for it - start mixing in your own ethanol. The dealership will laugh and laugh at you when you bring your non-running, warranty voided car back in for service.
Redstateboy| 8.27.10 @ 2:09PM
Are you for real??! Did ya not read the article?? 15% will destroy your Eng., or your Exhaust Sys..
Fairbanks99| 8.27.10 @ 2:36PM
I have a 2001 Mercedes ML 320, and it hates E10. It idles rough, and gets 2-3 miles to the gallon less mileage. I've been fortunate to find a chain of stations that are currently ethanol free. When using this pure gasoline, I get a smooth idle and better mileage. My car will probably done for if I have to put E15 in it, as will many, many others.
Patrick| 8.29.10 @ 7:36PM
You aren't alone. Most cars don't run well with ethanol. It collects moisture, has chemical impurities that corrode your engine and lines, has less efficiency and power, burns hot, and pollutes more than petrol per mile.
Ethanol is only for corn whores.
Vic| 8.27.10 @ 11:27PM
I personally wouldn't recommend this unless you are mechanically inclined enough to re-tune your air/fuel mixture. The typical gasoline engine needs approximately a 14/1 air/fuel mixture ratio for proper operation, whereas an alcohol burning engine requires approximately 7/1. If this ratio gets a little lean, your engine will spark knock, burn the exhaust valves prematurely, and if the engine is air cooled, destroy it from overheating. Also the ignition timing will need to be advanced quite a bit sense alcohol burns quite slower than gasoline (higher octane) A typical gas curve is 4-6 degrees before top dead, whereas alcohol needs somewhere around 30-70 degrees before top dead center.
The ignition timing not being changed as alcohol content increases is the reason for the increase in exhaust gas temperature. The combustion process is not complete when the exhaust valve opens. Advance the spark until the exhaust temperature comes back down and it will run fine. Be sure you have plenty of fuel however, as consumption will rise accordingly.
drgene| 8.28.10 @ 12:18PM
Vic:
Thanks for a clear & direct analysis that even a non-mechanic like myself can appreciate.
In a word, a higher E15 would COST the consumer
big time by the harm it does to the engine! But
Obama, if he read this, would immediately fall
in love:another way to screw us all & laugh at us--
as he loves to do.
Terrence O'Donnell| 8.30.10 @ 4:59PM
And wouldn't Obama get a thrill when someone points out (forget it, he won't figure it out himself, he has zero business experience) that if E15 ruins engines and exhaust systems, G(overnment)M(otors) will sell more cars to the dupes in this country?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.27.10 @ 7:49AM
Great article and typical example of failed central economic planning.
Ethanol actually produces more carbon then necessary because it's very inefficient compared to gasoline. It's well documented that some motors fail over the long run due to ethanol and most consumers are not savvy enough to establish a connection between their motors running rough and the usage of ethanol.
The corn farmers have grown rich at your expense but don't expect anyone to care.
In essence ethanol is just another form of redistribution of wealth, and like all collectivist actions, it has it's victims, the consumers.
2Anglico| 8.27.10 @ 8:27AM
What do you expect from a government that runs the largest Ponzi scheme in history? Or the dopes that allow them to stay in office?
BTW, ethanol RUINED my outboard engine, before they started allowing 100% gas sales at marinas.
Ryan| 8.27.10 @ 8:27AM
Not just ethanol, but we're seeing that High Fructose Corn Syrup may not be all that good for you, either.
Rmm| 8.27.10 @ 8:56AM
For those of us who own and love to drive our classic cars, as long as this s**t isn't mandated for aviation fuel, there is an end-around.
Vic| 8.27.10 @ 11:41PM
This idea should also be used with caution. Aviation fuel usually has an octane rating of 140, which is very high compared to what your engine is designed to run. You need a really high compression ratio along with a more advanced ignition timing to resolve issues with burning the exhaust valves.
It is a little tricky to get your compression and timing right in a high revving engine. Most aircraft engines don't turn over 3600 rpm. I tried av fuel once and you could raise the hood at night and see the exhaust manifold glowing red like the eye on a stove!
GavInTucson| 8.31.10 @ 3:44AM
Great stuff, but I was under the impression that AVGas was rated at 104 octane.
russel| 8.27.10 @ 9:13AM
Yep , corn syrup - it's found in any and everything and ADM owns the monopoly . They're sweating popcorn because food giants are dropping the syrup and consumers are consumin' corn crap free .
BackToBasics| 8.28.10 @ 7:30PM
My wife and I refuse to knowingly buy anything with high fructose corn syrup or regular corn syrup either. I hope many others do the same until they stop putting this in the prepared foods.
Patrick| 8.29.10 @ 7:40PM
Soy is also a problem. It's loaded with phyto-estrogens.
Ever wonder why girls are hitting puberty sooner? Ever wonder why boys are more effeminate? Check the ingredients of well, nearly anything.
GavInTucson| 8.31.10 @ 3:48AM
Sort of makes you wonder about virtually everything the government deems as healthy, doesn't it?
Just when I thought I had enough things in life to worry about...
MaximumBob| 8.31.10 @ 9:46AM
Girls are hitting puberty sooner because they're getting FATTER, sooner. When the female body gets fat enough, it starts preparing itself for baby-making. Environmental estrogens and synthetic estrogens have nothing to do with it, and we're seeing this 'phenomenon' all over the world where food is becoming more abundant and cheaper. Even in regions where soy isn't as common.
The puberty argument was also tried with beef, milk and other agricultrual products and none of it has held up to scrutiny.
JP| 8.27.10 @ 9:34AM
According to the USDA the use of high fructose corn syrup dropped 10% (May 2009-May 2010 data). And if one looks around thier groceries stores he will see many alternatives. My wife did a lot of research on high fructose corn syrup and its consumption is frightening. Many of the ailments we've seen spike during the last 30 years can be attributed to this one ingredient. For industrial size food procducers it was a godsend (much cheaper than cane sugar). But for people's health, HFCS is poison. The soda pop industry went to it during the late 70s. And besides, ethanol HFCS is the biggest reason we produce so much corn. HFCS is in almost everthing - even cough syrup.
But, it looks like the US consumer is finally waking up. As I posted above, there has been a huge drop in its consumption. In our household, we no buy soda pop; everything is made from scratch (including ketchup, salsa, and tomato sauce); and we pay extra for cane sugar. It's more expensive, and I am lucky in that my wife stays home and can do all of these things.
Ryan| 8.27.10 @ 9:46AM
From what I saw, the Pepsi and Mountain Dew Throwbacks seemed to have flown off the shelves, and they're planning another run.
I liked them both. They weren't THAT much better than the HFCS product to me, but I think that I preferred them.
One problem is that we also have some sugar protectionism going on - we could get sugar a LOT cheaper from South America if we could change things up a bit.
joli| 8.27.10 @ 2:00PM
I tried the sugar version of Dr. Pepper and didn't care for it, BUT I only drink one a week. I have read (not recently) that one disease that is on the rise in non-alcohol consumers is cirrhosis, because corn syrup is metabolized exclusively by the liver--and a lot of people drink several large soft drinks every day.
That and hydrogenated oils (crisco, margarine, etc) are two of the biggest banes to health in modern times.
MikeBee| 8.27.10 @ 6:05PM
Ryan,
Not only that, but eating cattle that are fed by grazing on grass is infinitely healthier than eating cattle that are fed by corn. Eating grass-fed beef is like eating salmon; eating corn-fed beef is not so good for you.
cookboy| 8.30.10 @ 6:30PM
And eating grain fed farm raised salmon is like eating
grain fed beef. Cattle weren't made to eat grain, neither were salmon. Animals raised in natural environments on their intended food make for healthy eating.
J Rich | 8.31.10 @ 12:29AM
More BS. If you like eating meat you better be glad there is plenty of corn around to feed them because if all the cattle and hogs had nothing but grass to eat you would be very hungry as there wouldn't be enough to go around. It takes a lot longer to get an animal ready for market if it is raised only on grass.
Enjoy you 4 year old tough grass fed beef if you can find it.
JimH| 8.27.10 @ 8:46AM
ADM is the kind of company that gives Capitalism a bad name to some people. Republicans need to get away from the COC and join with Libertarians in denouncing this kind of corporate welfare.
Ryan| 8.27.10 @ 9:46AM
It's NOT capitalism - it's corporatism, but the left doesn't know the difference.
jrjr| 8.27.10 @ 4:59PM
Although the left might not know the difference, it hasn't stopped the Repubs from also throwing us under the bus. ADM is not a new king of monoply it has flourished well among politicians of all breeds.
BackToBasics| 8.28.10 @ 7:32PM
Well said!
Frank| 8.27.10 @ 8:55AM
Ethanol is a significant problem in marine outboard motors. Marinas in many states now frequently advertise ethanol-free gasoline. In states that won't permit this, boaters have learned to buy their outboard fuel at small airports. Aviation gasoline is ethanol-free.
Vic| 8.27.10 @ 11:49PM
I wouldn't use av fuel unless I modified the engine with a higher compression and re-curved ignition timing. A two stroke is more forgiving, but a lot of your power is wasted otherwise even in a two stroke. It goes right out the exhaust.
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.27.10 @ 9:05AM
Mr. Purple,
The exact title of your article is perfection.
Thank you deeply for the research that went into your article.
Steve A| 8.27.10 @ 9:06AM
Frank, 100% correct. I just had an issue with my 50HP Merc outboard & listened to the repair shop owner trash ethanol for 30 minutes. Apparently there is a higher water content in this fuel as it is consumed which just destroys the outboard. I added an H2O separator filter in the gas line & have had no further problems.
George True| 8.27.10 @ 9:17AM
Ethanol is one of the worst disasters ever foisted upon the American people by our government. As Bill said above, it is NOT good for engines. Also, it has only about 70% of the BTU's of gasoline, so that means you need to use more fuel to attain an equivalent mileage compared to unadulterated gasoline. As a result, we end up importing more foreign oil, not less.
Another serious problem that the general public is completely unaware of is that it cannot be used in light general aviation airplanes. More and more single-engine light planes were already using unleaded premium auto gasoline with the blessing of the FAA, instead of the much more expensive 100 octane leaded aviation gasoline. However, the FAA discovered a problem with ethanol-laced gasoline called phase separation.
Basically, all fuel contains some small degree of water, as the fuel pulls moisture right out of the air. It is not a problem because it is a very small amount and it is mixed homogeneously throughout the fuel. But ethanol attracts water like a magnet. And as an airplane climbs to higher altitudes where the air is much cooler, the fuel in the tanks gets cooler and the ethanol/water mixture migrates to the bottom of the tank where the fuel pickups are. This has a high potential to stop the engine, which in an airplane constitutes a real life-threatening emergency.
Thus the FAA, while approving the use of auto gasoline, has banned the use of ethanol-laced gas in airplanes. Since it is almost impossible to find non-ethanol gasoline anymore, this amount to a ban on airplanes using the far less polluting unleaded gasoline.
John Navratil| 8.27.10 @ 12:14PM
Mr True,
To pick a nit, or two, any replacement of the oil-based fuel will result in less, rather than more imported oil. The 70% relative energy content you cite is for pure ethanol, the use of which would result in no oil import. Of course such a thing will not soon, if ever, be economic. E10 has 3.3% less energy than pure gasoline. So we are getting 96% of the gas mileage for 90% of the gas. Still not economic, but it does reduce specific oil consumption, and therefore, imports.
The latest AOPA magazine has a big section on the transition to unleaded aviation fuel. The push is on thanks to the "Friends of the Earth" who now observe that aviation is the largest source of airborne lead pollution even though less 100LL AvGas is produced in the U.S. in a year than MoGas is produced in a day. The AOPA reports that 70% of the piston aircraft fleet (roughly 120,000 aircraft) will run well on MoGas. Unfortunately, the 30% (roughly 50,000 aircraft) who cannot consume 70% of the AvGas. Several new fuel concoctions have been proposed but, to my knowledge, none contain ethanol. As you, correctly point out, the MoGas STCs do NOT permit E10 which is the predominant fuel but (another nit) the FAA hasn't banned it, merely written a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB CE-07-06). All States exempt aviation fuel from the Ethanol requirements, it's just impossible to find.
Like you, I see no advantage to Ethanol at all. But in this great world of regulations you will find that the Tahoe with the Flex-Fuel engine which can burn E85 (75% energy content of gasoline) gets credit for being a 75MPG vehicle in the world of CAFE standards. Only in Washington!
George True| 8.27.10 @ 1:13PM
John Navratil: Thank you for your inputs and corrections to my comments. You are obviously quite knowledgeable.
I remember several years ago there was a small company in South Bend, Indiana that had formulated an experimental batch of 100 octane unleaded fuel that was almost entirely of plant-based origin (not ethanol). It sounded very promising, but I have heard nothing about it since. Even if it does pan out, I suspect it would be even more expensive than 100LL.
More recently, there was a discussion on AvWeb about GAMI working on a practical replacement for 100LL, but again, who knows when it might bear fruit and what the eventual cost might be.
About five years ago I remember hearing about using 96 octane unleaded gasoline as a replacement for 100LL. It was suggested that to produce 96UL would not be all that difficult or costly because it was a matter of just continuing the refining process past the point of what is currently done to produce 92UL auto gas. I don't know how practical this would be in reality, and I have heard nothing about it since. But the postulation at the time was that a substantial percentage of the 30% of aircraft that use 70% of the 100LL could safely use 96UL.
In my own case, the 182 that I fly uses 10-13 GPH in cruise flight. At my home airport (DVT - Phoenix AZ) 100LL is $4.28/gal self serve, $4.78/gal full serve. The aircraft is STC'ed for autogas, but because of the safety concerns of ethanol, and because non-ethanol gas to my knowledge is not available here, I dare not use it. It's a shame, because it sure would help my bottom line if I could.
What a situation! The EPA mandates that gasoline must have ethanol, and the FAA cautions against using it.
John Navratil| 8.27.10 @ 5:09PM
You may be thinking of Swift Enterprises with the biomass generated substitute for AvGas.
cookboy| 8.30.10 @ 6:34PM
My 1997 truck was a consistent 13.3 mpg on gasoline. With 10% ethanol, a consistent 11.1. Do that math. Ethanol is a hoax.
Clinton nee Publius| 8.27.10 @ 9:21AM
The real question is whether or not Washington and liberals will ever run out of dumb regulatory ideas that always seem to result in causing more harm than good.
"Nobody ever went to war over ethanol..."
Tell that to people living in countries where there is a civil war and food has become a weapon.
Petronius| 8.27.10 @ 10:07AM
Are these the countries where farm economies never develop and their produce rots in the fields because Care and Oxfam feed the indigent population with the subsidized crops from here so they do not have to go near the market place?
Clinton nee Publius| 8.27.10 @ 12:31PM
My point was this is poor policy. Your point is to make a point of what poor policies are contained within the poor policy. I think we can agree to agree.
Michael L. Hauschild| 8.27.10 @ 9:32AM
Make it mandatory for all politicians who vote for these subsidies to fly in aircraft with 15% ethanol in the fuel. (then of course make them publish their travel plans so anyone else but the media can avoid those flights)
Ron L| 8.27.10 @ 11:45AM
I've flown in a plane that uses 85% ethanol. It cost $600 to convert it so that it can use AvGas, unleaded premium, or ethanol. Max Shauk at Baylor University has been flying on 100% ethanol for years. He made a transatlantic flight on the stuff 20 years ago.
George True| 8.27.10 @ 12:29PM
Ron L: I am aware of the two RV-3's that fly on 100% ethanol. But are these not exceptional cases? Yes, they prove that it is POSSIBLE to fly on ethanol, but that does not necessarily translate into PRACTICAL.
I question any $600 "conversion" that would allow a Lycoming or Continental engine to run on 15% ethanol. The FAA has for many years allowed an STC (supplemental type certification) for the conversion of lower compression engines to run on 92UL auto gas. These are the aircraft that would have in the old days used 80/87 aviation gasoline. Are you sure that this is not the "conversion" you speak of?
In any case, the FAA's more recent prohibition against ethanol renders it moot, since non-ethanol gasoline is simply not available anymore. And from a safety standpoint, your E15 gasoline/ethanol blend would still present the very real risk of phase separation.
One other problem: Since ethanol has approximately 70% of the energy (in BTU's) of unadulterated gasoline, your experimental 100% ethanol airplanes have 30% less range, and would also have substantially less power available in a pinch. This would especially be problematic taking off in high density-altitude conditions.
Ray| 8.27.10 @ 12:29PM
He made a transatlantic flight on a plane that uses a reciprocating (piston) engine? That's gutsy!
John Navratil| 8.27.10 @ 5:26PM
Ray,
It's done regularly in twins and in single engine aircraft. See http://www.cessna150-152.com/transatlantic.htm for a report of is being done in a Cessna 150 (a two-seater often used as a primary trainer).
You wouldn't want to go down in the North Atlantic without a survival suit, however.
jd| 8.27.10 @ 9:46AM
"Nobody ever went to war over ethanol..." but if you factor in all the millions, mainly in Africa, that will starve as a result of the diversion of corn grown as a foodstuff to corn grown for use as ethanol, I'd say you would have wars. When are failed liberal policies ever going to be held accountable for the death, destruction, and unintended consequences they promote? The main lesson to learn in all of this is that the free market and capitalism truly does work and benefits us all as long as the government stays out of it.
GavInTucson| 8.31.10 @ 4:07AM
JD, when you factor in the fact that many on the Left support "humane and practical" population control in order to "save the planet," you'd see that, from a Leftist's point of view, their policies are not failures but, rather, working as intended.
It's important to think out-of-the-box to truly understand these lunatrons.
Radioman777| 8.27.10 @ 9:50AM
Maybe the big plan is to have the public drink the ethanol, rather than burn it as fuel. That way, everybody'll be too drunk to care how crappy the economy is, or how corrupt and venal the current administration and congress are, sorta like Russia.
JP| 8.27.10 @ 9:55AM
And because Ethanol is just distilled corn, there is a huge amount of water (and energy) that is used to create it. Many rural areas forbade the building permits for newer ethanol plants because of the drain it would cause on local water supplies. Ethanol is a 35 year boondoggle, which is also an enviormental nightmare.
Petronius| 8.27.10 @ 9:59AM
Good one! Here's another dirty deal cut under the table. Bob Dole raided my retirement fund by glomming $26,000,000,000 from the U.S. Postal Service destined for the Office of Personal Management which overseas disbursal of my retirement and medical benefits. That money went to Andreas and others involved in that industry. As a result my retirement is no longer sound on an actuarial basis. I even wrote to George W. Bush after he made that speech about people keeping more of what they earn, while his colleagues were plundering what is rightfully mine for this scam. I demanded my money back, but got no response. The Postal Service now operates in the red. Way to go guys! That 26 billion was enough to maintain my cohort indefinitely. That makes me a parasite like Social Security beneficiaries after they get back what they paid in.
The Big piece of Resistance is the fact that ethanol reduces milage and hurts fuel economy. And government loves that. Filling up more often is a back door tax increase! I beat this whenever I drive beyond Springfield as I can get 100% gasoline from stations without those Californicated pumps. The best break ever was $.22 per gallon below the price here. And I'm sure that Roy has been told it better stay that way.
chuck near houston| 8.27.10 @ 10:02AM
Yep. Ethanol is a real problem in the recreational marine world - especially for those of us who have boats that spend a lot of time in the slip or on the trailer. I spent a *lot* of money last year replacing the fuel lines and getting the injectors cleaned in my 125 merc. Boat shop had NOTHING good to say about it.
MikeW| 8.27.10 @ 10:47AM
Hooray... articles questioning biofuels are all too rare - the mainstream media has a huge blind spot on the issue. Brazil's program is another example: that country consumes about 10 barrels of oil for every barrel of ethanol, yet somehow Americans have the impression Brazil runs on ethanol. Of course Brazil encourages the myth, they're eager to export their heavily-subsidized ethanol to gullible Greens.
Ron L| 8.27.10 @ 11:41AM
Ten barrels of oil for every barrel of ethanol? That is an outright lie. Brazil used 40% ethanol last year. They mandate at least 20% and usually 25% in every gallon sold in the country, and have done so for more than 20 years.
Ray| 8.27.10 @ 12:36PM
How much oil must they used for every gallon of ethanol that they burn? Yes, they use a given percent in their fuel mixtures, but what's the actual numbers? How much oil based fuels are being used to grow, harvest, refine, purify, and distribute that ethanol, as an example?
MikeW| 8.27.10 @ 12:55PM
My bad. The 10-to-1 ratio was correct last time I looked (2005 data), but I see now that 2008 data shows 5.6-to-1. Nevertheless, my point still holds: Brazil runs on oil, not ethanol. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Brazil/Oil.html)
The percentages you quote are are probably referring to ethanol vs. gasoline (i.e. its mandated use in passenger vehicles), not vs. overall oil consumption. Brazil's flex-fuel laws don't apply to diesel vehicles or industrial oil consumers, who probably find biofuels economically or technologically impractical.
JP| 8.27.10 @ 1:41PM
Ethanol depends on fossil fuels for its production. There is absolutely no more efficient way to produce energy than through fossil fuels (with the exception of nuclear energy. And even nuclear energy depends on subsidies to make a profit). Brazil is no different than any other ethanol producer. It takes about 10 barrels of oil (converted in electricity) to produce one barrel of ethanol. It is no different than say the beer industry. Distilling and brewing are both energy intensive operations. And to make matters worse, ethanol consumes very large quantities of water.
Ron L| 8.27.10 @ 4:14PM
It takes zero barrels of oil to make ethanol from corn. Zero. It takes less than 30,000 btu of natural gas power, and 1Kw of electricity to make ethanol (76,000 btu) and distillers grain. Most of the natural gas is used to dry the distillers grain, so, again, you aren't even close in those energy calculations.
Even in David Pimentel's studies, the amount of OIL used to make ethanol is about 1 gallon to 12 gallons of ethanol, and almost all of those OIL products - gasoline and diesel fuel - are used in growing corn - which is not just for ethanol. It's biggest use is livestock feed.
Pimentel's study counts all of the energy - in all of its forms -from cement and steel to make tractors and ethanol plants, to fertilizers, to transportation of fuels to the number of calories in the food the farmer eats - to get to a negative energy balance of about 1 1/4 to 1. That is much better than the energy balance of gas - if you measure it the same way.
But bottom line, again, no way in hell is there ANY way that it takes ten barells of oil to make one gallon of ethanol
Michael L. Hauschild| 8.29.10 @ 7:37AM
"It takes zero barrels of oil to make ethanol from corn. Zero." Having spent my last educator years in an agronomy department based in an ethanol producing state I can assure you that all that fertilizer (soil is simply a matrix now for the components to produce bio-anything), the fuel needed to till all that “no-till” acreage, and the processing needed to transform tortillas into vodka take far more “energy” than you get in return. Only in the eco-loony rarified atmosphere of “renewable energy” can rationality, entropy, and the beltway distorted balance sheets of subsidies can ethanol be considered for any other thing than a recreational drug.
Ron L| 8.27.10 @ 4:16PM
Oh, and water - it takes less than three gallons of water to make a gallon of ethanol. It takes about 50 gallons of water to make a gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel.
A 50-million gallon ethanol plant uses less water in a year than a golf course uses in the summer.
jrjr| 8.27.10 @ 5:11PM
"Distilling and brewing..." Yes, but distilling ethanol and brewing beer are far different animals in that brewing has a higher calling. Just think -- if cars ran on beer, we might never get to grandma's house.
WhiteBikerTrash| 8.27.10 @ 10:53AM
When added all up, the irony of our Government forcing the destruction of the Environment, in the name of Environment, seems like a poor, sad, Marx Brothers movie. You know? Karl and his older brother Friedrich Engels?
Old Soldier| 8.27.10 @ 1:14PM
More like "Idiocracy" - maybe the most prophetic movie ever.
James Truss| 8.27.10 @ 10:55AM
Just take ethanol place it in charred oak barrels for 7 years. Fixes it just fine.
John Navratil| 8.27.10 @ 12:20PM
If you really want to save energy, you have to forgo the ice cubes and drink it neat :)
buckeyeman| 8.27.10 @ 11:47AM
The EPA is now going after 100 LL aviation fuel which is what virtually all piston aircraft now use. There is currently no acceptable alternative, although research continues. One may recall that the removal of lead from automotive gasoline was predicated on the fact that lead degraded the effectiveness of catalytic converters, not on any issues of lead toxicity. The EPA is now questioning the safety of low lead aviation gas based on concerns of releasing airborne lead into the atmosphere. Atmospheric lead levels have decreased by a factor of ten in the last 30 years but the EPA is not persuaded. Also, the "safe" level of lead in human populations has been redefined to a level which is one tenth of the previous "safe" level. It's like lowering the limbo pole so that you can never succeed. (The actual "safe" level of lead in human tissue/blood is not known. The gubmint "scientists" simply make these numbers up).
The EPA is now sending out feelers to use this same crackpot anti-lead argument to ban lead bullets. We gun owners understand all too well that this would amount to a ban on gun use altogether. A clever end-around on the 2nd Amendment, don't you see.
Soooo....... your outboard motor falls apart, your car engine explodes, your airplane engine hoses dissolve in mid-air. And then you won't be able to defend yourself from the GEheime STaatsPOlitzei when they come knocking at your door. Just remember, NONE of this has anything whatsoever with pollution, saving the environment or anything else other than government control over our lives.
dcd| 8.27.10 @ 12:16PM
Get rid of the ethanol subsidies, but don't forget to get rid of the massive fossil fuel subsidies. It would make a good start but it's not going to happen. Republicans, assuming a takeover in the fall, know that their base loves free money a lot more than supposed principles; so there is no way that farm state freebies or petro-lobbyists are going to miss out on their handouts.
http://www.gizmag.com/governme.....els/15907/
Pat| 8.27.10 @ 12:30PM
Overheard recently in the Senate dining room: “Sure, those ethanol guys lose a few cents on every gallon they sell, but they make it up in volume”. Yeah, you heard that right and, no, it’s not the New Math, Washington D. C. style – it’s called a federal subsidy. And, no, you can’t have one too, so don’t even ask. Obviously, one of the critical changes we need come the November elections is more “affirmative action” – no, not that familiar form of swindle, the kind of affirmative action which allows us everyday taxpayers to get in on government subsidies.
Isn’t it time us long suffering taxpayers got a taste? And, just because we can’t afford our own personal lobbyist, should we be excluded from the government trough – er, subsidies? If you have a backyard and live almost anywhere within America, you can grow ethanol corn and be legally entitled to a federal subsidy for your efforts. You too can lose a few cents on every gallon of ethanol you sell, but receive a generous subsidy to compensate for your financial loss, while feeling good about yourself and your efforts to save the environment.
And just because you live in a Chicago high rise apartment or own one of those California condos with a backyard smaller than the restroom in your local 7-11 is no reason to miss out on federal aid. Pick a nearby national park, any park will do, and lay in a crop of ethanol corn. Drug dealers are happily growing unsubsidized marijuana in our national parks, the local deer don’t seem to mind and the Federal Park Service would no doubt like to put a stop to using public land to grow illegal crops – they would too if only they had a larger annual budget. So, lay out your corn crop in a secluded meadow and don’t feel guilty about working toward a generous subsidy. If some well connected taxpayers are currently receiving a federal subsidy to stimulate Alaska’s orange juice harvest, why should you miss out on this important form of national service?
MoeBlotz| 8.27.10 @ 12:41PM
Volatility refers to the ease with which a liquid combines with oygen. Water has low volatility,whilst petroleum based liquids and ethanol have a high volatility. Heat the water and you speed up the vaporisation,or introduce heat to the petroleum based liquid to commence combustion and you get energy that can be converted to reciprocal motion when confined inside a cylinder with a moving piston. Incomplete combustion leaves those nasty hydrocarbons behind for us to huff or burn up in your catalytic perverter.
Steve A| 8.27.10 @ 1:48PM
How bout we just go ahead & decide to grow our own corn, drill our own oil, eat the first & burn the latter & call it a day?? I suppose I am just a simpleton though....
Redstateboy| 8.27.10 @ 2:06PM
Oooo... Nothing fries me more than when I read more about the Ethnol Scam!! I've been railing against this Crock for years! Can we have any more clearer reason do get Government out of our lives?! oh.. and I purchase (when I can) my Gas from an Ethenol free Station. And by the way... when our Car, boat and Motorcycle Engines starting frying... who will we be able to turn to for damages... ADM?
Redstateboy| 8.27.10 @ 2:29PM
Ya think you'd ever see a story like this on any Liber-ul whack-job web-site.. the Environmentalist Left jerks should be made to drink this stuff.
Steve A| 8.27.10 @ 4:29PM
Hey, by the way. Does anyone want to buy my Obama "Change Has Come" used dinnerware set?? Everything I eat off of these plates is just nasty. Tried it on the dog & he has gone on hunger strike. Use these & skip Adkins & South Beach diet. If you want a laugh, check out some of the reviews on these items now for sale online.
Redstateboy| 8.27.10 @ 5:29PM
The EPA is the most dangerous, Lib infested plague and it was Nixon that gave the dadgum thing.
Emma| 8.27.10 @ 11:25PM
The 4 year old ethanol plant near our town that was built in record time is on the verge of bankruptcy. They've defaulted on payments since 2010, and are now in negotiations to try to stave off forced bankruptcy proceedings. Another ethanol plant about 150 miles west (in ND) has been unable to go on line after construction was completed last winter/spring because corn has gotten so expensive, their projected operations costs were not "high enough" to cover the cost of purchasing the corn from which to derive the ethanol with which to destroy the engines of all the pretty cars.
Ain't government run business grand?
Vic| 8.28.10 @ 12:28AM
This ethanol in gasoline crap does more than slowly destroy older engines due to changes in combustion characteristics, demanding a re-tune for proper operation. It also causes all of us to buy approximately 5% more of it, increasing the federal and state taxes all of us pay to ride by 5%.
The ethanol content also makes it possible to make small amounts of water mix with the fuel. Water does not have much push in it!
All the while they demand greater fuel efficiency, and write safety regulations that require autos to be heaver at the same time! I am quite surprised the auto industry has been able to meet such expectations so far.
It is a good way to get all those old cars off the road though. Our engines running leaner combined with the ignition timing effectively retarded reduces the life of exhaust valves in our unmodified engines.
It just goes to show, government bureaucrats are either morons or they think we are! They are looking out for the poor working man you see!
PCP Smoker| 8.28.10 @ 1:08AM
Here in the cornbelt all that we have is E15. It has had no impact on the Camrys I have driven.
Now, I'm not a fan of any type of ethanol, and yes, those farmers love corn prices as close to $5/bushel as possible, and no, I don't use E85 on the grand caravan either as it is about 28-30% less efficient than regular gas. But lets not fear-monger people into the belief that E15 damages cars. It does not.
Best solution, let us in the corn belt vote for pro ethanol conservatives, and all of you vote for conservatives.
JP| 8.28.10 @ 11:27AM
PCP Smoker,
The only reason we were told that ethanol was beneficial was that it would reduce our fossil fuel consumption. Thirty five years later, the same people still make the same promises. As a nation we've spent well over $100 billion in subsidies, tax breaks, and other give aways. We've drained local water tables, sent the price of food artificially high prices, and created a new class of federal bureaucrats who have the authority to impose technical specs on things that have no competency in.
The ethanol industry is a growing federal disaster. It threatens our food supply chain, is destroying our domestic auto industry, and it has failed miserably in its original goal of reducing foreign oil consumption.
Bob K.| 8.28.10 @ 11:29PM
The garage where I get all of my car repairs here in NE Pennsylvania gets its gas from a small local company. The company's sign says that the gas is "ethanol free." The gas station still pumps the gas for you. It has as much business as it can handle and is in it's 3rd generation of ownership. Same for the Oil co.
The garage and the oil company have both been in business for over 60 years.
I remember during the late 1970's when 10% ethanol was being hyped and it ended up ruining your carburator within 6 months. Of course, you could replace one very cheaply then. The one for my 1974 Dodge Dart cost $60.00!
Now the ethanol industry is ruining the drinking water in the mid west in it's quest for profits. Google "drinking water pollution in Iowa." The fertilizer used to grow all this corn has poisoned the water table in many areas. Even the New York Times has written about it.
Arch| 8.29.10 @ 12:01PM
First, ethanol uses much more energy to produce than gasoline. A gallon of gas uses about 12,500 BTUs per gallon to produce. Ethanol consumes about 100,000 BTUs.
Second, ethanol contains only 87,000 BTUs of energy while gasoline has 125,000 BTUs per gallon.
Third, a gallon of 10% ethanol gas has 3.05% less energy than gasoline alone. Energy, is energy. Either you get less performance or less mileage.
Finally, the reason that we have an ethanol mandate con be summarized in two words: Iowa Caucus.
Murcan Dreemur| 8.29.10 @ 12:14PM
I talked with a chemical engineer some years back who told me that corn has a sugar content of only about 3%, making it an extremely ineffient and expensive source of ethanol. He said either sugar beets or sugar cane would be the more logical choice and would not impact world food prices nearly as dramatically as it has choosing corn.
It wasn't clear to me until I read this article why corn is the favored choice for ethanol so I thank the author. As a baby booner I remember the octane wars of the early sixties. America had the best and cheapest gasoline in the world. "Put a Tiger in Your Tank" meant 105 octane, thereabouts, and cost you a quarter in most states. Regular gas was 95 octane and would be considered lovely gas by today's standards. Motors only knocked and pinged when they were in a bad state of tune. Then the government got involved in the energy business, and the rest is history.
Liveaboard| 8.29.10 @ 12:41PM
World Fallout of US Green Fuels Policy - the impact is not limited to corn ethanol. Friends in Malaysia tell that the rainforests and hardwood forests are being cleared at a very high rate to make room for crops conducive to BioDiesel.
Liveaboard| 8.29.10 @ 12:41PM
World Fallout of US Green Fuels Policy - the impact is not limited to corn ethanol. Friends in Malaysia tell that the rainforests and hardwood forests are being cleared at a very high rate to make room for crops conducive to BioDiesel.
Arch| 8.29.10 @ 1:36PM
Transportation is another problem for ethanol. Gasoline is carried to regional distributors by pipelines. Ethanol must be trucked in, another cost and energy consuming factor.
Since corn is also food and feed for livestock, our food prices are also rising. These prices are causing famines in Africa.
My last point is civilization. If we are to turn grain into alcohol, we should drink it as bourbon, scotch, rye, etc., not burn it in cars.
typical white person| 8.29.10 @ 10:17PM
no one mentions how much fuel, water, subsidy and other resources are required to produce a gallon of lousy ethanol. good job for you spectator
Mercutio| 8.30.10 @ 8:14AM
Fantastic article. Thank you.
Nice insight into the political machinations of both parties.
GrainBelter| 8.30.10 @ 9:08AM
All the yappin about volatility, mileage, engine damage, etc. You just don't get it. Let me turn up the volume. In a world fighting to feed itself, and losing, YOU DON'T BURN FOOD! YOU FEED IT TO STARVING CHILDREN! Simple, huh?
ken| 8.30.10 @ 12:04PM
Two points:
ADM is probably the most corrupt company in America and has been for some time. The last batch of senior execs is still in Federal Prison for price fixing.
Second, one of the big problems with ethanol is that it can't be added to real gasoline until the very last moment; just before the gas is put in tankers. If you check out your local rail yard you are likely to see 100s of tank cars lined up. Most likely they are filled with ethanol. Ethanol can not be transported via the pipeline system. So how efficient is that?
Paul Mollon| 8.30.10 @ 12:40PM
The ADM brass have been in bed with the Federal bureaucracy forever, spending millions on lobbyists to promote ethanol and other subsidies. The whole ethanol market is mostly a scam that rips off taxpayers and lines the pockets of ADM. Of course they don't want "further delay". It's their gravy train after all.
Roland| 8.30.10 @ 1:24PM
Excellent article and comments. But you don't need to know anything about engines or hydrocarbons or BTUs or any of that stuff. It really is this simple: Any product that needs a government subsidy to survive is a corporatist scam.
I wish Americans would stop falling for this "energy independence" nonsense. We don't need to be energy independent any more than we need to be titanium independent or banana independent or anything-else independent.
Markets and the division of labor are inherently peaceful, and the only way to allocate resources efficiently. Government can only make things worse.
Alex| 8.30.10 @ 1:27PM
I think if you'll study the statistics, it takes about a gallon of gas or petroleum to produce a gallon of ethanol. Makes perfect sense to me. Why would we worry about growing food?
Christian Gates| 8.30.10 @ 3:50PM
This ethanol crap is a simple outrage. What I fail to understand is how it continues? NO ONE wants ethanol in their gasoline engines - it's more expensive, it damages engine parts in a number of ways - so what gives? This is a representative republic, after all - it seems to me that this should be an easy one to fix. The science, economics, geopolitics and convenience are all clear - and none of them are indicative that ethanol is good for anyone or anything but ADM.
stevew| 8.30.10 @ 5:58PM
No one should believe that all "farmers" like $5.00 a bushel corn. Only grain producers. In fact, ethanol has been a disaster for livestock producers. Dairy farmers in the Midwest were hit particularly hard. Even those that could produce enough corn to feed their own cows were hurt by higher seed prices and the lack of seed supply. If you think this can't be true because the price of food has not increased, think again. Food prices are not market driven in this country. Farmers have absorbed the increased cost and, in fact, the years of high corn prices also coincided with some of the lowest milk prices dairy farmers were paid.
From the USDA
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberW.....Prices.htm
"Record U.S. trade driven by economic growth in developing countries and favorable exchange rates, combined with tight global grain supplies, resulted in record or near-record prices for corn, soybeans, and other food and feed grains in 2007. For corn, these factors, along with increased demand for ethanol, helped push prices from under $2 per bushel in 2005 to $3.40 per bushel in 2007. By the end of the 2006/07 crop year, over 2 billion bushels of corn (19 percent of the harvested crop) were used to produce ethanol, a 30-percent increase from the previous year. Higher corn prices motivated farmers to increase corn acreage at the expense of other crops, such as soybeans and cotton, raising their prices as well."
Nancy| 8.30.10 @ 9:01PM
I never thought I would EVER agree with Fidel Castro but I do on this...he said that when we started using more corn based ethanol in our gas tanks, more people around the world would starve to death. Displacing corn for food with corn for fuel is a dumb and ridiculous idea!
rotorhead1871| 8.30.10 @ 11:31PM
BAILOUT!!!!! wall street, UAW and the farmers..and the consumer picks up the tab...
a.c.d| 9.3.10 @ 5:56AM
This article is factually incorrect. The increase in food prices was atributed to the HIGH OIL PRICES at the time. A world bank, an IMF, a EU and FAO report ALL CONCLUDED THE SAME THING! THAT BIOFUELS HAD A NEGLIGBLE EFFECT ON FOOD PRICES. Which makes sense if you think about it, rice, which is not linked to fuels also went up, along with all foods, not just the ones needed for biofuels. And more importantly, biofuels only use 1,5% of arable land, which means that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for it to have such an effect on food prices. Furthermore, you can modify your car to run on ethanol, which requires new leads and gaskets because ethanol is corrosive to certain rubbers and metals. If you own a car made after 2000 then you are fine, but if you are stupid, dont read the manual and just tank whatever is cheap in your car, then you will have problems.
And for the crux of the argument, ethanol was blended into gasoline because it was a cheaper replacement for MTBE and ETBE, which where the original replacements for LEADED fuel. MTBE turned out to be poisonous to groundwater and ETBE was expensive in relation to anahydrous ethanol. In regards to emissions ethanol has MUCH lower emissions on all counts, including no cancer causing aromatic ring compounds (Volatile Organie Compounds), nitrogen, sulphur and while it also produces CO2, that is neutral because it functions in the short CO2 cycle, which gasoline is not. (CO2 cycle, where oil is carbon trapped for millions of years being suddenly released, while biofuels emit CO2 which is captured by the plants used to grow the fuel, hence CO2 neutral).
Furthermore, the constant drive for second generation fuels will make the need for such great amounts of corn a non-issue, while at the same time injecting a new high tech industry into the US economy, whihc the last I checked you people lack and proper economy. So to the moronic author of this article i say, DO YOUR HOMEWORK. You clearly have NO clue what you are talking about and merely want to paint the American legislative landscape as a place where everything is some evil conspiracy theory which everyone is in on while ruining what is clearly the only real solution in lower America's depedance on oil (biofuels will never replace all fuels, but if anyone actually read these bills they would knwo that is not the intention, biogas, electric, hydrogen and public transport are all meant to be a COMBINED solution to the oil dependancy and environmental issue).
So Matt Purple, why dont you do your homework before you open your mouth?
Mike D. | 9.3.10 @ 2:59PM
That's all well and good a.c.d. I'm glad the World Bank has determined only "marginal impact." But guess what, that's still a knock-on impact of ethanol into other expenditures. What exactly is liberal about a big agricultural conglomerate getting a subsidy that causes a knock-on negative impact to the consumer, even if that impact is marginal?
I see you've also failed to counter the points made by the article and other comments regarding the inefficiency of gasohol (in terms of BTUs/resources to produce AND BTUs available within the compound) compared to 100% gas.
Additionally, you've simply passed off "you can modify your car to avoid problems." Again, no problem passing the buck to the consumer. That's not liberal "help-the-common-man" speak either... correct?
So what homework hasn't been done here? Seems more to me that you'd like to make it appear that the problems associated with ethanol are as mitigated as possible, and apparently have no problems with the consumer picking up the tab in the name of energy progress?
Additionally, why do you (and a number of biofuel defenders) make no mention of the impact of new energy INFRASTRUCTURE? Perhaps wind, water, nuclear, etc. energies all have their shortfalls, often times efficiency. But what happened to "Americans need jobs! Americans need stability!" Well, last I checked, the great depression was ended by a need for immediate infrastructure (in that case WWII military infrastructure) that created a hoard of jobs. So in this tough economic time, why add a few jobs in studying and producing a replacement for what we have rather than building new infrastructure and creating even more jobs and also adding that little bit of benefit to our energy balance?
If we're going to hand out checks to banks, Big Ag, overseas, and everywhere else we might as well stop subsidizing some of these lobbies like Big Ag and hand the checks directly to Americans in the form of paychecks.
pumashoes | 12.26.10 @ 8:24PM
Thanks for an honest and truthful post, I like it very much. And happy new year!
cheap Prada shoes | 5.3.11 @ 11:09PM
welcome to our webside
Joanna | 6.6.11 @ 5:10AM
palm or corn oil or any bio fuel is the way of the future.
UTI Treatment