"End the Ethanol Insanity"

[Morris Minor]

Link: http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/dec2010/bw20101221_927461.htm

End the Ethanol Insanity: Ed Wallace
Ethanol damages engines and is not a viable alternative to fossil fuels, but farmers and lobbyists don't want you to know that

By Ed Wallace

"First-generation [corn] ethanol, I think, was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small." ?Al Gore, speaking at a green energy conference on Nov. 22, 2010

"Ethanol is not an ideal transportation fuel. The future of transportation fuels shouldn't involve ethanol." ?Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Nov. 29, 2010

It is now conceivable that the myth of ethanol as the salvation for America's energy problem is coming to an end. And maybe we always should have known it would wind up in italics, underlined, with the real facts of the damage ethanol can do to gas-powered motors laid out for all to see in a court of law. I say that because this past Monday a group calling itself the Engine Products Group, comprising small-engine manufacturers, automakers, and boat manufacturers, filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to vacate the EPA's October ruling that using a 15 percent blend of ethanol in the nation's fuel supplies would not harm 2007 and newer vehicles.

Each group of plaintiffs in this case has a different reason for objecting to putting more ethanol into America's gasoline. The automakers claim they have no idea whether a higher percentage of ethanol would damage their newer cars?and won't know until their testing is completed next year. The boat manufacturers claim their engines stay in service much longer, and are therefore more likely to be damaged by this fuel. The small-engine manufacturers are positive E15 would severely shorten the life of their products. According to The Washington Post, that's already been happening. The source is Mick Matuskey, co-owner of Power and Lawn Equipment of Gaithersburg, Md., who said, "You're getting half of the life out of the product today [when using E10 ethanol], compared to 30, 40 years ago."

Ultimately this lawsuit stems from one major issue: Manufacturers have to take legal action to protect their customers from the damage higher blends of ethanol would do to their motors, because their warranties generally don't cover it.

Of course, no such lawsuit would be complete without the ethanol lobby trying to obfuscate the facts of the case. Reuters quoted Tom Buis, head of lobbying group Growth Energy, as saying of the new proposed fuel, "E15 is safe for all vehicles on the road today."

That's patently untrue. For years cars nationwide have been damaged when motorists ended up with more than 10 percent ethanol in their fuel. I covered that situation last year in "The Great Ethanol Scam."

But ethanol's newest public-relations problem actually started in the last eight days of November. Having been fervidly pro-ethanol in the last decade of his political career, former Vice-President Al Gore reversed course and apologized for supporting ethanol. Of course, Gore's reason for taking his original position was perfectly understandable?to a politician. As he told energy conference attendees in Athens, Greece, "One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers of Iowa because I was about to run for President."

Translated from politics-speak into English: Pandering to farmers gets votes. But if your claimed position is to plan some sort of smart energy policy for America, then getting farmers' votes shouldn't be the deciding factor.

BOSS' STATEMENT RETRACTED
Curiously, after Energy Secretary Steven Chu admitted on Nov. 29 that ethanol really isn't any sort of intelligent plan for our nation's gasoline supplies, Energy Dept. spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller issued that same day a statement vitiating Chu's comments: "Secretary Chu believes that biofuels can, should, and will vastly expand the economic opportunities for America's farmers today and in the future."

One has to wonder whether Mueller understands that Secretary Chu was talking about the business and energy illogic of using food-based fuel for gasoline, not to mention that ethanol is just another farm subsidy program that the public is being told is our best chance to wean ourselves off Middle Eastern oil.

And with farm incomes already up 31 percent in 2010, according to a Dec. 1 article in The Wall Street Journal, why do we need to continue the ethanol foolishness at all?

If one is to believe all the business reporting on this subject, speculators have returned en masse to the commodities market (including oil); speculation has already boosted the price of corn by more than $2 a bushel since July. Then again, wheat prices showed similar gains from June to November. So it's fair to say that many food crop prices on the Chicago Board of Trade were dynamic. Corn prices will go up whether it's being diverted for fuel or not.

EPA'S BUILT-IN ESCAPE HATCH
Just before this rash of political honesty, in October the Environmental Protection Agency released its own study concluding that vehicles built in 2007 and since could use gasoline with ethanol in a 15 percent blend without doing any noticeable damage. That seemingly was a green light for gas-station owners to pay for yet another tank and pump to handle this new blend of fuel.

For background, "the EPA's study" relied on testing by our Energy Dept., a situation that Representative Michael Burgess (R-Tex.) questioned because the EPA is quite capable of doing these tests on its own. This way, however, if a 15 percent blend of ethanol in the gas supply does not perform as expected and numerous vehicles suffer disabling damage as a consequence, the EPA theoretically could shift the blame onto the Energy Dept.'s tests. Yes, that's the same Energy Dept. whose head said in the last week of November that the future of transportation shouldn't involve ethanol.

Then, on Dec. 20 automobile manufacturers, boat manufacturers, and the makers of small gas engines filed that lawsuit against the EPA for approving this higher level of ethanol in the nation's fuel supplies.

WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH?
Meanwhile, the EPA said testing will continue to determine whether a 15 percent blend of ethanol can be used in vehicles older than 2007 models, but put off making the final ruling on those tests. At this point it should be noted the entire logic for forcing more ethanol on the public is the fact that a congressional mandate will increase the amount of ethanol we use to 13.95 billion gallons in 2011.

According to government estimates of total gasoline usage in the U.S., this means all gasoline in America would wind up with a 7.95 percent ethanol blend next year. But that's based on the assumption gasoline sales will continue to grow as the economy moves slowly toward full recovery, and that assumption may not be valid. In 2010 the low demand for gasoline and the mandate to use ethanol forced an 8.25 percent blend into the nation's gasoline supply.

An ill-thought-out mandate combines with the power of a political cycle, and no one seems to know when to say "Stop, that's enough."

It starts with a bad idea: Putting an energy-inefficient fuel filler into the nation's gas supply and calling that an energy policy. Quickly, engineers and scientists, such as UC-Berkeley's Tad Patzek, discovered that using corn as the base ingredient at best yields zero improvement; energy used to create the product just barely covers the energy the product delivers to the end users, meaning motorists. At worst it's a net energy loser. Yet Congress is not forced to reexamine its mandate based on scientific evidence.

Then too, the head of our Energy Dept. now admits ethanol is not viable as a fuel additive to improve our nation's energy situation. Another well-known retired politician admits the same?and distances himself from a previous position, saying his judgment was somehow clouded by his love for the American farmer.

ACTUAL BIPARTISANSHIP SPOTTED!
Two major governmental agencies are now working to justify the increased use of ethanol in order to comply with the congressional mandate. This can be labeled fixing the facts to justify the policy. But in this case, Congress still held the high hole card on ending this insanity. That's because the 45 cent-per-gallon blending tax credit to put ethanol into our fuel was due to end on Dec. 31. (As was the 54 cent-per-gallon tax on ethanol imported from countries like Brazil.)

And here two diametrically opposed U.S. senators, Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California and Republican John Kyl of Arizona, signed off on a letter asserting that this last major government subsidy needs to end.

Of course, this would put all ethanol into a semi-free-market condition. Refiners would no longer be encouraged to use ethanol because tax credits wouldn't make blending it too lucrative to pass up. And after all, when there already is a hard and foolish mandate that 13.95 billion gallons of ethanol must be used, why would any tax credits for adding a filler to the nation's gasoline supplies be necessary?

THE RIGHT THING UNPOPULAR
Particularly interesting in this debate is the fact that the victors in the last election won on campaign promises they would go to Washington and make the "hard choices" necessary to reduce the federal deficit. Hard choices being political-speak for "unpopular."

One such "hard choice" might have been not to extend the Bush tax cuts, which could again add close to $900 billion to our deficit in the next decade. And the newly mandated 2 percent cut in the payroll tax for Social Security trims that trust fund by $120 billion fairly quickly?just when more and more baby boomers are applying for Social Security. But the newly elected could have made at least a token stab at shrinking the deficit with relative ease: They could have allowed the 45 cent-per-gallon ethanol blending tax credit to expire at the end of this month. That would have immediately saved $6.25 billion in revenue for 2011; it's a small amount, but every little bit helps.

All that's moot now, though, because both the ethanol blending tax credit and the tariff on imported ethanol were extended.

MOVE IOWA'S CAUCUS TO LAST?
It's no coincidence that Iowa is both the state that grows the most corn and the site of the Iowa caucuses, the first and most critical stop on every Presidential campaign. No one running for the highest office in the nation can go there and say what Al Gore or Steven Chu said at the end of November and hope to win the state. And therefore the ethanol insanity will continue until so many cars and motors are damaged by this fuel additive that the public outcry can no longer be ignored.

The older cars owned by those less financially secure will be the first to go. In fact, that's already happened in thousands of cases nationwide. Maybe when it starts happening to those on more solid financial ground, then someone will listen: Adding an expensive, harmful, useless filler to gasoline just to win farmers' gratitude is not remotely the same as having a legitimate national energy policy.

[MX793]

I look back fondly on the days before all of the fuel in this state went to 10% ethanol.  It would be one thing if fuel prices dropped as a result, but seeing as our average price per gallon is the third highest in the US (only a penny behind 2nd-place California), I doubt very much that's the case.  Nothing like paying more for fuel AND get less mileage from it to boot.  And come winter time, I think they put even more ethanol in the fuel.  I didn't even get 20 mpg out of my little Mazda two tanks ago.  And only by virtue of more highway driving did I muster about 22 mpg on my last fill-up.  I used to get 25 mpg in the winter with similar driving habits.

[omicron]

Wait - does premium have ethanol, too?

[MX793]

Wait - does premium have ethanol, too?

Around here it does.  Ethanol has an average octane rating (average of RON and MON values) of 122, so blending it with gasoline helps raise the octane rating of the fuel.  E85 has an anti-knock index of slightly over 100 octane compared to 93-94 for European premium (super premium in the US) or 91 for US premium.

[GoCougs]

Just wait for similar redactions for wind farms, solar farms, electric and hybrid cars, etc.

Fossil fuels are the best objective solution, both economically and environmentally. Gods, just think of the wasted billions $$$.  

[omicron]

Around here it does.  Ethanol has an average octane rating (average of RON and MON values) of 122, so blending it with gasoline helps raise the octane rating of the fuel.  E85 has an anti-knock index of slightly over 100 octane compared to 93-94 for European premium (super premium in the US) or 91 for US premium.

Blecch, so you can't avoid it at all.

[giant_mtb]

Wait - does premium have ethanol, too?

I believe so, yes.

[Madman]

My local Marathon stations have been advertising the fact their gasoline contains NO ethanol.

Too bad all the Marathon stations seem to be on the other side of town! 

[Rupert]

There is only one gas station that I know of in Boise that is ethanol-free.

[WookieOnRitalin]

Just wait for similar redactions for wind farms, solar farms, electric and hybrid cars, etc.

Fossil fuels are the best objective solution, both economically and environmentally. Gods, just think of the wasted billions $$$. 

Fossil Fuels are not the future and they never will be. They arec economically viable because we have built a massive infrastructure to support their use. Without an infrastructure for alternative energy there is no possible way to generate a market for it. Besides, its pretty clear that fossil fuel companies have long held up legislation to increase renewable energy since the 70s. It means the death of their business.

Going beyond that, we need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. In fact, I go as far as saying that America should start building the Green Economy. The stage is set for us to be the energy leader of the world. We can build better, cleaner renewable energy and make it a point of sale for us in a global economy. The future lies elsewhere. Other naysayers have long since conceived this notion that its going to cost billions to create that future. The problem with this argument is that if not now, then when?

Eventually you need to make the investment. Ya, its going to suck in the short term, but it WILL be worth it. How much are these wars overseas costing us right now every damn day? Investing in a greener economy is not and never will be a bad idea. I think ethanol has sucked since the beginning. There is no economic viability in wasting more and more money on fossil fuels. Quite frankly, we are limiting ourselves with our inordinate dependence on it. Are you telling me that we have really FAILED to come up with something better than a 120 yr old technology known as internal combustion?

Look how far medicine has come in 120 years. Why has energy lacked in similar development? We've exhausted the potential of internal combustion. We need to move onto something else. Something that is far more efficient, cleaner, and renewable.

[Mustangfan2003]

A plant in my home county is going to turn wood waste from a nearby sawmill and turn it into ethanol.  Something like that sounds more logical to me than corn. 

[Morris Minor]

When oil becomes scarce, we'll find an alternative. Right now we're drowning in the stuff & the ethanol fad is just a product of an effete society that has nothing important to worry about and politicians bribing farmers for votes.

[AutobahnSHO]

So I vote they put all the welfare recipients on "soylent green" bikes. They get their debit card only if they produce enough energy.

We need to start walking and biking more. I whenever I see people circling the parking lot at WallyWorld to get ONE SPACE CLOSER TO THE DOOR. I park wherever the first spot is open and beat them into the store by 5x the time they spend scoping that perfect spot.

Someday our suburban lifestyle will meet headon with lack of gas.
Right now the rich in Mendoza, Argentina live downtown, the poor out in the scenic hills. It's all about transportation...

[JWC]

One of my sisters and I went to Walmart once and she kept circling the lot.  I asked why she just didn't pick a spot further down and she said that if God opened a spot closer to the building, it was meant for her.  I said, what if it is a test from God to see if you're willing to give up a space closer for someone who might need it more.

She ended up parking in the boondocks.

[hotrodalex]

Like most sane people, I think God tries to avoid Walmart parking lots are much as possible.

[thewizard16]

Like most sane people, I think God tries to avoid Walmart parking lots are much as possible.

It's a vehicular version of Russian Roulette.

[Rupert]

A plant in my home county is going to turn wood waste from a nearby sawmill and turn it into ethanol.  Something like that sounds more logical to me than corn. 

Yeah, that's the beauty in ethanol and biodiesel. It's a waste to grow crops just to make biofuel. (Unless you grow your own fuel, I suppose).

[Mustangfan2003]

Yeah, that's the beauty in ethanol and biodiesel. It's a waste to grow crops just to make biofuel. (Unless you grow your own fuel, I suppose).

Corn based ethanol was the reason for the food price spike a year or so ago.  If we really want ethanol to work you have to remove the tariff on Brazilian sugar cane.   

[GoCougs]

Fossil Fuels are not the future and they never will be. They arec economically viable because we have built a massive infrastructure to support their use. Without an infrastructure for alternative energy there is no possible way to generate a market for it. Besides, its pretty clear that fossil fuel companies have long held up legislation to increase renewable energy since the 70s. It means the death of their business.

Yes, fossil fuels are the future simply because there are no alternatives. There is virtually no infrastructure for fossil fuels. The irony is the "infrastructure" for "green" energy is profound - look at the dams on the Columbia river for example; the untold square miles flooded and the ecosystem and species of an entire region altered for the worst.

Going beyond that, we need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. In fact, I go as far as saying that America should start building the Green Economy. The stage is set for us to be the energy leader of the world. We can build better, cleaner renewable energy and make it a point of sale for us in a global economy. The future lies elsewhere. Other naysayers have long since conceived this notion that its going to cost billions to create that future. The problem with this argument is that if not now, then when?

Eventually you need to make the investment. Ya, its going to suck in the short term, but it WILL be worth it. How much are these wars overseas costing us right now every damn day? Investing in a greener economy is not and never will be a bad idea. I think ethanol has sucked since the beginning. There is no economic viability in wasting more and more money on fossil fuels. Quite frankly, we are limiting ourselves with our inordinate dependence on it. Are you telling me that we have really FAILED to come up with something better than a 120 yr old technology known as internal combustion?

"We" don't need to do anything; or rather "we" can't do anything smart. This call for "we" is a call for stupidity a la special interests, for hype and hysteria, and otherwise the collective irrationality.

Look how far medicine has come in 120 years. Why has energy lacked in similar development? We've exhausted the potential of internal combustion. We need to move onto something else. Something that is far more efficient, cleaner, and renewable.

I don't think is an equivalent analogy. The basics of what energy is was known back in Newton's time. There is nothing more to know.

[AutobahnSHO]

I don't think is an equivalent analogy. The basics of what energy is was known back in Newton's time. There is nothing more to know.

haha

[hounddog]

Yeah, that's the beauty in ethanol and biodiesel. It's a waste to grow crops just to make biofuel. (Unless you grow your own fuel, I suppose).

Not a waste to grow crops for this, it is a waste for the government to subsidize said crops to be used on a product which is forced on the American people.

It is the 90s version of Obamacare.

Remove the ethanol and we will see vehicle mileage go up a little.

[hounddog]

I don't think is an equivalent analogy. The basics of what energy is was known back in Newton's time. There is nothing more to know.

That is a closed minded position.  

We only know what we can explain, and there is much we as a species does not understand about energy and many other things.

For instance, we are not able to fully explain why light acts as both matter and energy.  

[r0tor]

Part of the problem is the damn automakers don't want to embrace it because frankly they don't think it will be around for long.  A boob aftermarket tuner can usually get a turbocharged engine to produce 10-15 percent better power and economy with e85 fuel.  The oems get less power and less economy with e85 because they don't want to create engines that can utilize the extra octane and instead just use a complete half ass flex fuel engine controller that just keeps pouring in fuel to prevent running lean.

[Byteme]

Besides, its pretty clear that fossil fuel companies have long held up legislation to increase renewable energy since the 70s.

Got a cite or two for that? 

Are you telling me that we have really FAILED to come up with something better than a 120 yr old technology known as internal combustion?

Look around you. Do you see anything better in the marketplace?

[GoCougs]

That is a closed minded position. 

We only know what we can explain, and there is much we as a species does not understand about energy and many other things.

For instance, we are not able to fully explain why light acts as both matter and energy. 

Energy, at a fundamental level, is very well known, even fusion.

[thewizard16]

Energy, at a fundamental level, is very well known, even fusion.

By current standards. I think energy is something we have a better grasp on than most things, but there is always more to discover and learn.

[AutobahnSHO]

By current standards. I think energy is something we have a better grasp on than most things, but there is always more to discover and learn.

+1

Anyone who claims we know everything about ANYTHING is a dolt.

[sportyaccordy]

Look how far medicine has come in 120 years. Why has energy lacked in similar development? We've exhausted the potential of internal combustion. We need to move onto something else. Something that is far more efficient, cleaner, and renewable.

No.

[Laconian]

No.

Why not? If technology ________ is efficient, cleaner, and renewable, then it'd be a no brainer, right?

[hotrodalex]

Why not? If technology ________ is efficient, cleaner, and renewable, then it'd be a no brainer, right?

Of course, but we aren't there yet.