EPA’s E-15 ethanol plan rammed though – won't work in many cars

We have the most stupid government of all time. It is official.

This has some relationship to the Tip I posted about the draft National Sustainable Agriculture Standard. http://www.sustainableagstandard.org/ . Just a quick glance thru this will show that it is a strait jacket for farmers and others in the food chain. Obama made it known that he would push his agenda thru regulatory measures, and he wasn’t kidding.

About half of the united States is private land. Even though the Administration restricts
the use of its half, the private sector can get us to 100%, or even to the point of exporting
crude oil, by say 2020. This is because of horizontal drilling and fracking, now really moving
in areas of oil-enriched shale. You know the story on natural gas, the same story. We are
about to export LNG, liquified natural gas. The same story, but 5-7 years earlier.

E15 should be good for the economy, well good if you manufacture gasoline powered outdoor equipment to replace all of the equipment that will barely run on the new fuel

Paul, two missing points…
…when energy prices go up…everything goes up, including rent
Corn for ethanol does not even have the restrictions as feed corn, much less corn for human consumption….that means more pesticides, more fertilizer, more heribcides, and more water…corn is a high water demand crop

ps and a $800 4 barrel carburetor!

Actually I like E10 in the winter time and sometimes go out of my way to buy it. During the winter the highs where I live are sometimes below -20C and the alcohol in the fuel keeps the fuel lines and the carb from freezing up.
Putting a good quality gas preservative into fuel for lawn equipment etc helps to prevent the seals in the carb etc from being eaten away. My lawn tractor was purchased new in about 2006 and needed a new carb the next year, just after the warranty expired, needless to say I was not very happy. Since then I have not had a problem.
DaveW

http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/speech-on-peak-oil-and-us-energy-policy.html?m=0
This discusses why the US must not use up domestic petroleum resources. Scroll down to “Energy Policy”, approximately mid-way through the article.
Roger Sowell

why couldn’t they come up with a replacement for MTBE?

Perhaps this is a backward step to kick starting the economy, a massive repair bill to every company, man and woman who owns a car, truck or gas engine whatever.It’s time to upgrade my automotive skill’s for the next big thing. Obuma you a genius– NOT!

Reblogged this on TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg.

While using corn to make ethanol or ethanol to fuel machines is stupid, the whole corn-ageddon argument seem weak to me. The fact that food price crises always hit when oil prices are high seems far easier to explain by the fact that oil is used to harvest, refine, prepare and transport food. Wheat and rice and barley rise too. And since global pork production is continuing to expand it might be a tad unfair for pork producers to blame all their problems on ethanol.
Drop the fuel mandates, yes, and drop fines against foreign ethanol and let the bio-ethanol/biomass industries transfer to smarter sources and to more lucrative markets like replacing petrochemicals as sources for expensive chemical feedstocks. Then use the fossil fuels *as* fuels. We don’t need to throw out an industry just because government is interfering with it and we don’t need to give it sole blame it for problems which it has little impact on compared to other players.

As GeoLurking pointed out above, this is a double whammy, because the more alcohol in it, the more gallons I have to buy. My 2001 Jeep Cherokee gets 4 or 5 miles fewer per gallon when using gas with ethanol in it. I first discovered that by accident when gassing up part of the time with premium at a little mom & pop station. When we go to Oklahoma these days, I try to be as empty as possible on crossing the border so I can fill up with fine pure gasoline. Wish there were some place closer, I would drive farther to get alcohol-free gas.

I drove a Z-4 for a few years and when they banned MTBE and was forced to use an ethanol blend I definitely noticed a drop in fuel mileage

To Tom Rude,
I think she was just visiting California to push E15.

OH ya…..I also drive my vehicles till the engine stops. 300,000 miles plus on the last 3.
Tell me again how I am suppose to be having so much trouble???????

“rammed through” instead of “rammed though” ?

EPA should not have moved forward on E15 and should not have ignored studies that indicate serious potential problems with this high-ethanol fuel blend.
Never make the assumption that the EPA is anything other than a revenue gathering machine. I dealt with EPA and DEP bureaucrats for five years, and the only connection any of them had with “science” was the Batchelor of Science header on their Business Administration diplomas.

My apologies.
I was so incensed at the blatant screwing of the US economy, that I misspoke.
I stated:
“…With E15, the increase in tax revenue is $96,748,345 over the E10, bringing the subsidized fuel boondoggle to $263,125,848 in taxes over regular gas. With that 25 mpg now only about 23.7 mpg.…”
This is accurate… what I left off was that using those numbers, the total revenue from gas taxes will climb to $5,020,164,136 for Federal State and Local government, as opposed to the $4,923,415,790 that is currently collected.
per month

Conoco service stations do not sell fuel with Ethanol in it.That is why I now avoid all stations that is not a Conoco station.

It hard to conclude other than these loons intend to destroy our existing system one piece at a time.

Thank you mr Driessen for a very informative aricle. I think you ar absoloutely right that it is a huge mistace to use corn for methanol production. But what about the claims that it should be possible to use straw and other non-food resources as source for methanol production?

It appears atheok answered Camburn quite effectively. I have been studying the ethanol debate for several years (and not just the talking points put out by the ethanol industry). Every point Camburn made was either incorrect, misleading or immaterial. Everybody knows that there’s only about a nickel’s worth of corn in a box of cornflakes. Most of the expense is transportation, processing raw corn into palatable ceral, packaging and marketing. The problem is the cost of feedstock to grow meat (the most efficient form of protein for human consumption).
A couple other quick points. The octane rating of a fuel is just an arbitrary measure to compare the fuel to the properties of pure octane (an eight carbon satuaruated hydrocarbon). Fuels with higher octane ratings don’t necessarily contain more energy. High octane fuels are necessary for high compression engines (general aviation engines are high compression). Burning high octane fuel in an engine not designed for it will not produce added performance and may even result in diminished performance.
Ethanol essentially replaced MTBE as an oxygenator in fuel. There was never really anything wrong with MTBE other than it stinks and tastes bad. It’s not particularly toxic. The fact that it ended up in some water tables is not the fault of the MTBE per se but rather old, leaking storage tanks. Most cars on the road today utilize electronic fuel injection. In these vehicles an oxygenator is not really even needed.
Everyone who feeds at the ethanol trough seems to loathe liberty and the free market. End the subsidies and the mandated use and let’s see if this, now mature, industry can survive. If it can’t survive without taxpayer money or government mandated demand, it is a non-viabale technology.

Alvin says:
April 24, 2012 at 5:09 pm
We have the most stupid government of all time.

Never attribute to stupidity what is more parsimoniously explained by malice.

Ethanol attracts water? Then why is the water removal stuff you put in your tank 100% Ethanol? If you took a bottle of 190 proof alcohol and stuck it in a closet for five years, how much water would it attract? Seems to me that the real argument is that Ethanol burns hotter, is corrosive to parts and costs more. Not that it attracts water.

Yet another attack on ethanol riddled with half-truths, unsupported attacks and outright errors. It is at best a political rant, complete with the requisite tear-jerking foreclosure story, absent of all supporting facts or documentation and in my opinion has no place at a science and fact based site like WUWT.
If this was a AGW proponent writing this – a story with wild assertions wholly unsupported by facts – the author would be immediately and strongly taken to task.
LET ME SAY FIRST I AM A STRONG ADVOCATE OF DRILLING FOR AND USING OUR FOSSIL FUELS. I AM CURRENTLY RESEARCHING INVESTMENT IN PROJECTS IN THE BAKKEN OIL REGION.
That said renewable fuels – of all types – are an important part of our future.
As to the unsubstantiated claims:
1.) Older engines – It has been well known for many years that older cars, small engines and older boats are not appropriate users of ethanol based products. Not a thing has changed. Many older vehicles of all types have been running E10 for years with little negative long term effect, nor significant long term maintenance cost. I also find the claims that a 10% ethanol blend destroyed engines, carb’s etc specious. Ethanol CAN damage some, primarily fuel system, components – but they are things like filters, hoses, old fiberglass marine fuel tanks and some old plastic parts – almost always on OLD equipment and vehicles. The majority of the damage is, as several noted, corrected by the initial repairs, when upgrading to newer quality fuel system parts.
And most small engine manufacturers products over the last 5 years ARE fine running ethanol blends – one example: http://ethanol.husqvarna.com/ .
Husqvarna actually recommends using 89, not 87, octane E1o fuel in their equipment – proving false the authors heated rhetoric about “burning” and catching fire.
2.) Subsidies – The blenders credit subsidies were eliminated last year. The authors continued use of this red herring shows a complete abandonment of any attempt to provide factual, relevant, accurate information or insight. The OLD subsidies have NOTHING to do with TODAYS fuels – they no longer exist.
3.) Mileage – more claims that are all but false. Simple science shows the lie:
Straight gasoline = 114,000 btu/gal
Straight ethanol = 76,000 btu/gal
Straight ethanol (E100) has 33% less energy than straight gas
Those are the inflated numbers ethanol alarmists use – but we do not use straight gas or straight ethanol.
The science shows E10 has 110,000 btu/gal (114k*.9+76k*.1) and E15 has 108,300 btu/gal … E10 has just 3.3% less energy and E15 just 5% less energy than straight 100% gasoline.
Many people are extremely surprised to read fear-mongering claims about lower MPG etc, as in the story above, and then find out the difference in E10 is a paltry 3% lower mileage. Which is offset by as the author admits lower prices.
Well then – E85 must certainly be terrible then, being 85% ethanol?
Nope … E85 has 81,700 btu/gal – appx 28% less than 100% gas (and appx 25% less than E10).
I just paid $2.88 for E85 vs $3.68 for E10 – or appx. 21% less. Using straight science – the btu/gal difference – there is a 5% premium for me to use E85 – and that is with the 45 cent blender credit gone.
But in reality my 2003 Tahoe got 15.4 mpg on last tank E10, and 12.3 mpg on last tank E85 – I got 20.13% lower fuel economy but paid 20.82% less.
That ethanol costs more because of lower mileage is in reality largely a fallacy. Using ONLY the science of the energy differential, and not taking into account that many engines perform better than the base science – using ethanol blends uses a few percent more fuel to get the same energy as gas – but ethanol blends, as even the author notes cost less.
The remaining claims are equally misleading and in many cases outright false – as is the claim in a comment about Net Energy balance.
4.) Corn Yields – corn yield increases have made up much of the additional crop use of corn for ethanol – increasing from just over 100 bushels per acre in the early 1990’s to almost 150 bushels per acre today. Yields are predicted to reach 190 bushels per acre by 202 – a further 29% increase. http://www.farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2012/02/the_historic_pattern_of_us_cor.html
We have plenty of corn – over last several years the USDA and EIA reports show we met 100% of the domestic demand, exported all that others wanted and still had excess to add to the reserves.
5.) Poor pig farmer Jim – more untruths yet here. We used 5 billion bushels of corn to make 13.9 billion gallons of ethanol in 2011. As part of that process nearly 1/3 of the corn used was returned to the market in the form of high quality distillers dried grain animal feed – almost 40 million metric tons in total, along with nearly .1.5 billion pounds of corn oil.
Farmer Jim had far, far worse problems on his Texas pig farm than corn prices if he lost the farm.
5.) Subsidies and taxes – a comment makes note of the additional taxes raised on the increased fuel used with an ethanol blend. A whole whopping 3% – 5% more fuel depending on whether we use E10 or E15. But he also ignores that the higher corn prices received by the farmers for their crops has a large positive effect on other government farm subsidies – reducing the subsidy, insurance and other governmental crop protection costs significantly.
6.) Price/Cost – corn is a COMMODITY – it is subject to laws of supply and demand, but also to speculation. The positive side is that many farmers are finally able to make more consistent, modest profits. Having many farmer friends I challenge each person here to stand up and say these hard working people are not entitled to a decent living – which farming often does not provide.
As others have noted the cost of corn is a tiny fraction of the cost of products that use corn. Even with a box of Corn Flakes – the corn cost is little more than 1-2% of the retail price.
I largely agree with the last 8 paragraphs in the article – but by then they have little meaning after the unsupported and inaccurate attack prior.
Ethanol – especially corn ethanol – is only a PART of a renewable energy strategy. Renewable energy should – must – be in addition to a proper fossil fuel program.
Ethanol – including that from corn – is a stepping stone – a gateway to the future renewable fuels that we will eventually need.
It is neither immoral or wasteful – and those that try to make that claim as with this author – especially when they make inaccurate, misleading and wholly unsubstantiated claims – do far more damage than good.
In my personal opinion they are no better than the worst of the AGW alarmists – their actions are much the same.

I would also point out I largely agree with many, if not most of CFACT’s positions and mission statement.
Which I believe is all the more reason that inaccurate, unsubstantiated and often simply false rhetoric as written here is so wrong. It significantly damages other credible work they may be doing.
Ethanol is far from a perfect solution – but it IS a true renewable fuel that is available now. The increasing use of ethanol will see technology continue to improve, and will see the all important distribution system infrastructure built out.
Ethanol is NOT a mature product and certainly not a mature technology. Distribution is limited, and without a mature robust distriibution infrastructure its use and growth will be artificially limited.
Continuing in building out that infrastructure will provide the distribution (and demand) platform for enhanced and improved technologies down the road. Cellulosic ethanol for one, along with isobutanol which is currently showing good promise, with a recent study showing it has benefits of ethanol without many of the negatives. Some ethanol plants are already being converted now.
Little of this activity would be occurring if there was not a foreseeable real demand.

Brian H says:
April 24, 2012 at 11:45 pm
Never attribute to stupidity what is more parsimoniously explained by malice.
Far more appropriate than Hanlon’s original aphorism.

Here in Germany Gasoline is 1.70 Eur a liter at the moment; and E10 (90% gasoline, 10% ethanol) is 4 cents cheaper. So it’s still a rip-off: ethanol contains 30% less energy so the 10% mix contains 3% less energy a liter than pure gasoline; and should cost 1.7*3 = 5.1 cents less.
Well, it should cost even less still due to the possible problems with water accumulation, that could become a problem in winter. Maybe not such a grave problem but an aspect that reduces the competitiveness of the product so should result in less demand and lower price.
The oil companies count on people just going for the cheaper price per liter. The mainstream news don’t report about the energy content.
My car runs on it without problems, but I’m not happy with the price/performance ratio of the product.

I wonder what ethanol tastes like I hope it is good for you because all the farms will be growing corn or suger cane for ethanol

In EPA terms one Iowa size area of ethanol destined corn creates one NJ sized Gulf dead zone.
First wunna youse guys dat sez dat’s an appropriate measurement fer a dead zone gets it inna kneecaps…

Excuse me, but according to Wikipedia ethanol contains only 61% of the energy of gasoline. The more ethanol you put into my fuel, the more watered down it becomes. It will effectively make a gallon of gas even more expensive because I will be buying fuel with fewer btu’s per gallon.
It also means that I will need to put the throttle down slightly further to maintain my speed while driving, thereby burning fuel slightly faster than if I were burning pure gasoline.
The oil companies are going to make more money per gallon with ethanol added than without. This should make them very happy.
I used to think the greenies hated oil companies, but now I think they maybe ‘paid by big oil’.
Read about ethanol here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol

Ethanol is CHEAPER. Does this mean that fuel will be cheaper?. Not at all, that´s the “trick”, the same as “Hide the decline” ( in volume, as ethanol evaporates easily).

Randy says:
April 24, 2012 at 6:08 pm
ONE single tank of E-85 a year ago cost me an entire replacement of a fuel system in my classic ’78 Ski Nautique to the tune of 3 grand!!!!! grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.!!! Let’s double down and go for the rest of the motor next!!!!

While I don’t envy you the repair costs, I’m certainly jealous of the boat. What a gorgeous craft, and nothing better for skiing. As aggravating as the repairs may be, it’s worth it for that boat.
Now get upset at the station or marina that sells the E85 without sufficient warning.

Camburn says
5. Please do research. It costs over 5.00 to raise a bushel of corn. Thank goodness for the ehtanol market. IF we didn’t have one, we would have unemplyment running over 10% in the USA for starters. And I guarantee you your food would be a WHOLE lot more expensive. $3.00 corn means no more farmers. The few that would survive would be CERTAIN to make a profit.

Whatever is not economically viable should not be produced and those who cannot compete should be unemployed. The companies that can produce something the market wants will stay around and prosper. It is absolutely illogical that when you free up all the farm land that is being used to grow “fuel” to now grow food will somehow make the cost of food more expensive. Farmers are not entitled to any price for what they produce beyond what the market decides. If you don’t like it don’t farm. The socialist farmers (CCF) moved to Canada in the 1930s please join them.

I won’t even get into how much per gallon it saves and the effect it has on average retail prices of gasoline.

It doesn’t “save” anything. It makes gasoline more expensive otherwise there would not be a need for a mandate to force it to be blended and sold.

Why do you think gas is cheaper now than diesel? Even tho diesel is cheaper to make??????

It has nothing to do with Ethanol.

A. Scott says:
5.) Subsidies and taxes – a comment makes note of the additional taxes raised on the increased fuel used with an ethanol blend. A whole whopping 3% – 5% more fuel depending on whether we use E10 or E15. But he also ignores that the higher corn prices received by the farmers for their crops has a large positive effect on other government farm subsidies – reducing the subsidy, insurance and other governmental crop protection costs significantly.

There shouldn’t be any government farm subsidies or government involvement in farming at all. All government welfare to farmers should be eliminated. I always laugh at the so-called “independent”
farmer crying about not getting enough government handouts.

6.) Price/Cost – corn is a COMMODITY – it is subject to laws of supply and demand, but also to speculation. The positive side is that many farmers are finally able to make more consistent, modest profits. Having many farmer friends I challenge each person here to stand up and say these hard working people are not entitled to a decent living – which farming often does not provide.

Who cares if it is subject to speculation? Did you fail economics 101, speculation reduces price volatility. No one is entitled to anything they did not earn and if your friends received government welfare then they did not earn it. If someone thinks farming does not provide a decent living then they should not be farmers and those that can farm profitably should do so instead. If that means big agro-businesses, great. I want my food produced efficiently and cost effectively.

I left a comment over on “Global Warming, Science or Politics” about the history and Big Picture (Agenda 21) of this movement. This latest move by the EPA is just another step along the path to force us into the New Feudalism. Neo-Feudalism. Peonage. UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development taken to its logical culmination. Remember, Revolution is bad for business.
WHAT IS UNITED NATIONS AGENDA 21? The United Nations International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, (ICLEI) the local manifestation of Agenda 21 is now running the planing boards of most cities, town and counties. They call it Smart Growth The “Revolution” has already taken place and we have lost all the battles. The poison is now manifest from townhall to Washington D.C.
A key point of Agenda 21 is removing private ownership of land and homes. Instead of attacking ownership directly the attack is on transportation or roads or local building codes. This makes resistance very hard. Without cars and the local roads we drive on to get to and from work “private ownership of land” becomes unattainable by all but the very wealthy who can afford private aircraft.

Your home is their castle in the future if Chris Dodd gets his way with his Livable Communities Act. Senator Dodd says participation in the program will be voluntary but with federal money available to communities who enforce the new standards, it really becomes not so voluntary. Towns will be blackmailed into compliance. http://takingourcountryback.net/issues/agenda-21/what-is-agenda-21/

States get about half their moneys from the Federal government and not directly though tax dollars. This is the hold the Federal government has over the states. Collapse the economy, double the money supply and states and local communities have no choice but to take the bribes from the Feds.
A good video with clips from various speakers. Agenda 21 For Dummies
A video of a Liberal democrat, Rosa Koire talking at a Tea Party meeting is excellent once you are over the shock of a Liberal and the Tea Party agreeing.

Poptech says:
April 25, 2012 at 7:01 am
============
Thanks, excellent comment which lead me to your site. The Skeptical Science article is great.
Looking forward to reading more.

@_Jim, please take the time to read the article. Waste is the proper word.
There is a good reason much of the US is off limits to drilling. Drill Baby Drill is Dumb Baby Dumb.

Bill Wood says:
April 25, 2012 at 7:38 am
Back in the middle of the twentieth century street hot rods often ran 100% alcohol. Converting to alky required and getting the anticipated performance boost meant a significant compression increase or supercharging to make use of the increased octane. The primary requirement was to drill out the jets on your three Stromberg carburetors to greatly increase fuel flow. Mileage was horrible, but performance was outstanding. This did not catch on with the general motoring public.

The modern equivalent is the use of E85 in high performance engines, and this has definitely caught on. There has been a rapid adoption of E85 for use in highperformance applications, and performance enthusiasts who actually have tested the fuel instead of believing many of the bogus misinformation about fuel ethanol love it, and spend their own money out of their own pockets to convert their cars to run on the fuel because it so dominantly superior to even $8.00 – $12.00/gallon racing gasoline.
Hotrod magazine did an article on the fuel several years ago where they did back to back tests using gasoline and E85. (they would not have done the article if there was no demand for the information).
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/hrdp_0801_e85_ethanol_alternative_fuel/viewall.html
A couple quotes from the article:

However, we are not going anywhere near that pie fight. This is HOT ROD. Lucky us: We get to bypass all the left-wing poppycock and right-wing folderol and focus on this issue solely as it relates to hot rodding. The bottom line here is that ethanol looks like a pretty darn good performance fuel.

Just for fun, Urban then bolted up his standard turbocharger combination, a Garrett GT42 blower and Precision Turbo air/water intercooler, to the well-worn test mule. Still running 10.2:1 compression and E85, at 13 psi of boost the engine made an easy 833 lb-ft of torque at 5,000 rpm and 850 hp at 5,900 rpm. You will note there are no comparable test results for pump gas with this combination. “There’s no sense even trying it with this boost and compression,” Urban says. “You just can’t do this with pump gas.” With its knock-stifling 105 road octane, E85 is a pump fuel that performs like race fuel. “I love this stuff,” Urban says. “It’s high-octane fuel for everyone, 105 you can buy on the road.”

I have never met a highperformance car owner who has made the conversion and not fallen in love with the fuel and its higher performance and lower operating costs. When I first made the move to E85 I dropped my cost per mile from 12 cents per mile to 10 cents per mile and got a substantial performance boost, cooler running engine, and a happy wallet. The conversion cost paid for itself very rapidly, as simple conversions only cost about as much as a night out at a good restaurant. In my case I increased my power output by 11% and cut my fuel costs by about 17%.
Larry

@_Jim
The website is here
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml
It makes for some interesting reading.

Poptech says:
April 25, 2012 at 7:52 am
…There shouldn’t be any government farm subsidies or government involvement in farming at all. All government welfare to farmers should be eliminated. I always laugh at the so-called “independent”
farmer crying about not getting enough government handouts….
________________________
Poptech most farmers do not get subsidies. Those are only for “Commercial” products like cotton, wheat, corn, soy. Vegetables, fruit and meat has no subsidies at all. The subsidy money actually ends up in the pockets of Monsanto who supplies the seed and Cargill, ADM… who buy the farm product BELOW the cost of production. ( The grain was then sold overseas and used to bankrupt third world farmers )

A href=”http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/FarmBill101Report.pdf”>Farm Bill 101 Report
Because a few agribusiness and grocery companies control almost all of the power in the food system, they can pay farmers a low price at one end of the food chain and charge consumers a high price for their groceries at the other. Since the mid-1980s, the cost of a typical basket of groceries, adjusted for inflation, has risen relatively steadily…. An updated analysis by USDA found that in 2011, farmers only received 13.9 percent of total food retail sales. Even the U.S. Department of Agriculture has recognized that highly concentrated economic power allows the largest companies to capture the majority of the value from food transactions.

These are the facts no one ever bothers to tell the public.
Agriculture contributes more than $950 billion — 16 percent — to the GNP each year.
There are 2.2 million farms in the USA. According to the 2007 census over half the farms, 1,167,751, reported losses, with an average loss $15,596.
Only 396,054 farms have gains of over $25,000 a year, that means 1.8 million are near or BELOW the poverty threshold.
1,070,668 farms have less than 25% of their income from farming.
Only 4,048 are full time farmers deriving 100% of the income from farming.
The average age is 55.4 years with many farmers beyond or approaching retirement age
According to the USDA, almost 90 percent of the total income of rancher or farmer households now comes from outside earnings. More than 60 percent of US farms are resource, residential or retirement farms.There is a widening gap between retail price and farm value. a USDA market basket of food has increased 2.8 percent while the farm value of that food has fallen by 35.7 percent!
American farmers are working two jobs so YOU can get cheap food and the multinational corporations can make BIG BUCKS and wipe out small farmers in other countries.
References:
Who makes the bread: http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2000/00july-aug/lilliston.html
Freedom to Fail How U.S. Farming Policies Have Helped Agribusiness And Pushed Family Farmers Toward Extinction: http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2000/072000/lilliston.html
Ag Statistics:
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/index.asp
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_063_063.pdf
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_004_005.pdf
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_059_059.pdf

_Jim says:
April 25, 2012 at 8:46 am
…
A crank, and possibly a camshaft change all for the cost of ‘a night out at a good restaurant.’?

No such changes are required.!
My first conversion involved one change and one change only. I replaced the stock 440 cc/min fuel injectors with the Japanese market 550 cc/minute injectors for my model car. It cost me a couple hundred dollars for the new injectors, and the old injectors could be sold for nearly the same price to some one who needed stock injectors.
The only thing you need to do to convert a modern car to run on E85 is to increase the fuel flow between 15% and 30%. A 15% increase will allow the natural tuning adaptability of the modern ecu to use any blend of fuel from straight gasoline to straight E85. It will be slightly rich mixture on straight gasoline and slightly lean on full E85 but the car will run just fine.
A 30% increase in fuel flow rate will fully convert to E85 with the engine management fat dumb and happy at its normal fuel trims.
My 88 and 86 model year cars will run on 30% and 50% blends of E85 with no changes of any kind in warm weather, but need similar modifications if I want to use E85 in cold weather.

Will the vehicle pass the emissions standards for the class and model year? I have to get the L99-engined ’94 Caprice run on the dyno each each year for the emissions test, since it it’s not OBDII equipped.

Yep passed with flying colors on our IM240 dyno test here in Colorado (2001 model year WRX) it still met the ELV emissions limits. With modern electronic engine management the computer will do most of the adaptation itself if you just give it the capability of reaching sufficient fuel flow to get normal mixtures. In almost every car that folks have tried it on, all that was required for a minimum effort E85 conversion was to install higher flow rate injectors (look for an injector of the same type as stock that flows 130% of the stock injector). E85 runs just fine on stock ignition timing curve, although slight tweaks can be made to timing and mixture if you have the means to adjust them to get slightly better fuel economy. The biggest problem folks have with simple conversions is cold starting on E85 in sub-freezing conditions. The simple solution to that is to add 2-3 gallons of gasoline to the tank of E85 when it is cold. The more complex solution is to play with the cold fuel enrichment and such if you have tunable engine management system.
On naturally aspirated engines if you want to build an “optimized” engine for E85 yes it helps to bump the compression ratio to about 12.5 -13.2 compression ratios, no cam changes are “needed” but slight cam timing changes or a different profile might help if you are going for a whole hog conversion. E85 produces more exhaust gas volume than an equivilent gasoline setup so it likes a low back pressure exhaust system and slightly longer exhaust valve open time would probably help in a full conversion.
What no one wants to admit is most modern cars will run perfectly well on a 30% blend of E85 right from the factory with absolutely no problems of any kind. A hand full wil adapt to far higher blends if given a bit of time to adjust. It is the dirty little secret the EPA and the manufactures don’t want anyone to know. I drove the WRX on a 30% blend of E85 for years and both my 88 and 86 Subaru’s on similar blends in the heat of the summer with no modifications of any kind. The two older cars get a bit cranky about cool morning starts on those blends but run just fine once warmed up. That could be easily cured if I wanted to drop in larger injectors or find some other means like bumping fuel pressure a bit to increase fuel flow a bit.
Larry

Agenda 21: its a voluntary effort with some pretty unrealistic objectives like eliminating poverty. If this is one of the goals then its a Fail so far and they’ve poured 20 years of effort into it.
What if anything have they accomplished in the last 20 years?
Gail,
US farming practices are a bit of a Catch 22. Central Midwest farmers have a preference for growing corn and beans even though they know that the value will be diluted by South American imports and regional competition.
There are other crops they could grow but choose not to do it.

@_Jim 4-25 9:17 am
I disagree. I clearly stated proven reserves are increasing. Increases are due to improved technology and in spite of production.
The pie grows. It is suicide to consume domestic oil unnecessarily. Every President has known this. A small but viable domestic industry is required, and this we have.
Drill Baby Drill is Dumb Baby Dumb.

VACornell says:
April 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm
About half of the united States is private land. Even though the Administration restricts
the use of its half, the private sector can get us to 100%, or even to the point of exporting
crude oil, by say 2020….
__________________________
Never underestimate the stranglehold of bureaucracy. You forgot the “Spot Owl” Gambit. (Endangered Species Act)
The hype: http://drake.marin.k12.ca.us/academics/seadisc/endangeredspecies/2008/northern_spotted_owl/why_is_it_endangered.htm
The reality:

“The federal government has wiped out almost the entire timber industry in the northwestern United States in an effort to save the spotted owl only to discover that the endangered owl thrives in land where timbering occurs. Now, years later, the federal government is back trying to wipe out the Barred Owl so it won’t compete for food with the favored Spotted Owl.” http://netrightdaily.com/owl/news/americans-for-limited-government-announces-savethebarredowl-com/#more-56

To show how idiotic this can get. The government even tried to forfeit a farmer’s tractor for allegedly running over an endangered rat….

Jim says:
April 25, 2012 at 7:28 am
Fair point…. I was referring to the predominant automobile fleet situation of fuel injection and computer control…You are correct there are still plenty of carburetors out there with venturies and needle valves and air intake ports… all configured for octane 87.
The ideal gas law makes no provision for the size of the molecule does it!
And SIZE MATTERS!
the volume of 1 mole of vaporized C8 = that of C2….
That has a profound effect on air-fuel ratios.

From the GWPF
“Biofuels will cause food prices to rocket, warns ActionAid ahead of clean energy ministerial”
http://www.actionaid.org.uk/103219/biofuels_will_cause_food_prices_to_rocket_warns_actionaid_ahead_of_clean_energy_ministerial.html
“Cameron’s government must beware ‘clean energy’ biofuels con, as new ActionAid report shows the shocking fallout of EU policy”

Dennis Nikols, P. Geo. says:
April 24, 2012 at 8:25 pm
How the hell else can they get farmers to vote for them. It is crass politics and absolutely nothing else.
___________________________________
Corn farmers are a small fraction of the 2.1 million American farmers. They lost the farmers when they passed the “Food Safety Modernization Act” among other things.

When we are faced with rampant hunger because of the regulatory, financial, trade and foreign policies of the past 100 or so years, those of us who have been crying from the roof tops for people to take an interest in what really sustains them may be very well justified in saying, “Let them eat grass.”Remember, No Farmers, No Food. ~ Doreen Hannes

From Farmer blogs
NoNais: Government is systematically killing the golden goose.

Farm Wars: A Message from Our Criminal Government: “We Got to Get Paid”… The mainstream media also failed to mention that both the Republican and Democratic political parties accepted this fraudulently obtained money as well.
NAIS Stinks: Democrat’s Secret Attack on Agriculture with Food Safety Bill
Food Freedom S 510 is hissing in the grass: S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act*, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US. It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money.
R-CALF USA Issues a Baker’s Dozen List of Why Cattle Producers Should Oppose USDA’s New Mandatory Animal ID Rule ~ November 30, 2011 R-CALF USA, the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America, represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues.
Here are the names of the 73 US Senators who today sold out the American public’s right to grow and sell crops from their own gardens and farms without government oversight, regulation or permission. Here are the 73 Senators who today made it a crime to store and sell Nature-based seeds and grow crops without artificial contaminants, pesticides, and poisons. About one third of them are coming up for re-election in 2012.

Going to assume the carbs on these small engines were re-jetted; as mentioned above, when running my 1500 Coleman these days it takes a small amount of ‘choke’ setting (while running) to make the engine run properly (eliminate surging and stumbling under load), otherwise, it appears to run significantly lean (on E10 even), and that ain’t good as you know …

Yep they replaced the stock fixed metering jet with an adjustable orfice jet for he testing (I presume an ajustable needel and seat setup like most carburetors used to have for the idle mixture etc.
You are correct the simple solution is to just partially choke the air intake, that is the function of the choke in the first place to enrich the fuel air mixture for starting. If the manufactures actually cared about the consumer they would give you a simple means to adjust the mixture (although I would not be surprised if EPA regulations make that illegal).
That said 10% ethanol only leans out the mixture by 3% (added oxygen content of the fuel), if the engine is running so lean that that is a problem the manufacture had the engine running dangerously lean in the first place. That mixture change is about the same change in fuel air mixture that would happen if you went to a 1000 ft lower elevation. Does not sound like a good base tune up to begin with. I wonder if your fuel filter is clogged or you have a bit of dirt caught in your carb jet and are just blaming the problem on ethanol added fuel when there is really some other cause. A well tuned internal combustion gasoline engine should not care much at all about a 3% change in fuel air mixture, it certainly should not push it over the edge into lean surge idle behavior. The change in mixture for an engine that comes up here to Denver is almost 18% and modern engines have no problem with that at all.
Maybe you just need a carburetor clean up. Small engines have always been plagued with problems due to long storage periods and dust dirt, cobwebs, bugs and what have you finding their way into their poorly sealed fuel systems. I would suspect the obvious first rather than just blaming the fuel. I had problems with lawn mowers chainsaws, and other small engines long long before ethanol added fuel came around, and it was almost always a piece of grass or a leaf fragment or a bug that decided to die in the gas tank over the winter.
Larry

Camburn says:
April 24, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Boy….do the folks who posted above need an education.
1. Ever heard of DDG’s? DDG is the by product of corn distilation. IT is a MUCH better feed than corn. The conversion factor, which means weight gain when fed, is higher….
_________________________
No it is YOU who needs the education. DDG is a great boon for ADM, Purina and the other mega corporations but it does the farmer no good.
I just dug into my tax files and here are the prices I actually paid for 50 pounds of feed.
1996 – $5.95
2006 – $6.27
It went up $0.32 in ten years
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
AFTER the 2008 election –
2009 – $7.79
2012 – $10.59
It went up $4.32 in SIX years!!!!

klem says:
April 25, 2012 at 10:45 am
Larry
After readiing the comments here about ethanol, I had completly forgotten that when I was a kid a neighbor converted his rather boring 2-stroke outboard boat motor to ethenol. Once he got it going it took off like a rocket, it was so fast and so loud, it was the hit of the summer, everyone wanted a ride in this really fast beast. He called it his ‘alky’.
I think I’m warming up this ethenol thing after all.

Be very clear here, I am not claiming “better fuel mileage” I am saying the engine produces more useful work from the fuel energy available. E85 contains about 72% the energy content per gallon as gasoline but my fuel mileage only dropped from 24 mpg on gasoline to 22 mpg on E85, that is a drop in actual fuel mileage of 8.3% if the advocates of lower fuel energy meaning lower fuel mileage were correct I should have seen a drop in fuel mileage to about 17.3 mpg. I did not, the difference is due to the secondary effects of fuel ethanol which make the engine more fuel effecient in terms of extracting useful work from the available fuel energy.
High tech direct injection ethanol fueled engines have achieved thermal effeciencies of 40%. That is comparable to the very best diesel engine designs and totally blows away the typical 25%-30% themal effeciency of typical gasoline engines.
The presence of ethanol mixed with the gasoline improves the engine thermal effeciency for many sound and well documented reasons. It in the most literal sense makes the gasoline more useful.
With no other changes engines switching from gasoline to E85 typically make 5% more power and if turbocharged their power potential can go up over 15% (theoretical limit about 20%). This means a smaller displacement engine can do the same work as a larger displacement gasoline engine. It also needs to down shift less often to climb hills or pass, and since fuel mileage is very sensitive to engine rpm keeping the engine in a higher gear longer saves fuel. Drivers also need to spend less time at high throttle settings to get up to traffic speed.
High ethanol blends produce more gas volume on combustion which means even at lower peak cylinder pressures the average cylinder pressure during the useful part of the pistons power stroke is higher (thus more power and torque with the fuel change). The high evaporative cooling of ethanol compared to gasoline, cools the engines intake charge more, giving a more dense intake air charge giving more power for the displacement. The cooling also benefits the intake valves, and reduces heat loss to the cylinder walls during compression. As a result exhaust gas temps drop about 200 deg F compared to equivalent gasoline fuel mixtures. This makes life easier on the engine and lets the tuner run the engine at leaner more thermodynamically effecient mixtures on high ethanol blends without causing heat damage to the engine components.
All these benefits are lost on the folks making over simplified assertions not based on actual testing (that old no emperical data bugaboo we constantly face with the climate crowd). Don’t bother me with the facts this statement sounds logical so it must be true. They are doing nothing more than creating over simplified logical (models) argumets and ignoring the facts, because the facts do not fit their preconceived notions.
Larry

_Jim says:
April 24, 2012 at 9:30 pm
….I’m having trouble with this one … it looks like a variation of the “Broken Window Fallacy” in the way of paying subsidies and redirecting resources…
_____________________________
You are correct.
What every one ignores is the fact there is only one buyer (monopsony) so he gets to set the price. There has been a major concentration in the Ag business and there are only about ten big guys left. They control the USDA and FDA and have the big bucks to lobby. The Tax payer picks up the tab for growing the commodites like corn, soy, wheat and cotton and the Ag businesses get the profits.
Then to make it even more interesting you get the Commodities Futures Trading Commission deregulated futures markets in 1999

Then, in 1999, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission deregulated futures markets. All of a sudden, bankers could take as large a position in grains as they liked, an opportunity that had, since the Great Depression, only been available to those who actually had something to do with the production of our food. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis?page=full

Monopsony in Farming

Most economic sectors have concentration ratios around 40%, meaning that the top four firms in the industry control 40% of the market. If the CR4 is above 40%, a sector is considered “highly concentrated.” Experts believe competition is severely threatened and market abuses are likely to occur in highly concentrated markets.
The CR4 ratios in the agricultural sector are shocking. As of 2007, four companies owned 83.5% of the beef market—more than double the “highly concentrated” cut-off point of 40%. Similarly, the top four firms owned 66% of the hog industry and 58.5% of the broiler chicken industry. In the seed industry, four companies control 50% of the proprietary seed market and 43% of the commercial seed market worldwide. When it comes to genetically engineered (GE) crops, just one company, Monsanto, boasts control over 85% of U.S. corn acreage and 91% of U.S. soybean acreage. http://www.farmaid.org/site/c.qlI5IhNVJsE/b.6097643/k.A9BA/Concentration_in_Agriculture_Forcing_our_Family_Farmers_Out_of_Business.htm

Concentration ratios of the top agricultural firms, 2001 (From Organic Consumers who I do not trust) http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_416.cfm
Beef packers (Tyson, ConAgra, Cargill, Farmland) 81% (JBS Swift is now #1)
Corn exports (Cargill-Continental Grain, ADM, Zen Noh) 81%
Soybean crushing (ADM, Cargill, Bunge, AGP) 80%
Soybean exports (Cargill-Continental Grain, ADM, Zen Noh) 65%
Flour milling (ADM, ConAgra, Cargill, General Mills) 61%
Terminal grain handling facilities (Cargill, Cenex Harvest States, ADM, General Mills) 60%
Pork packers (Smithfield, Tyson, ConAgra, Cargill) 59%
Broilers (Tyson, Gold Kist, PilgrimÂ’s Pride, ConAgra) 50%
Pork production (Smithfield, Premium Standard, Seaboard, Triumph) 46%
Turkeys (Hormel, ConAgra, Cargill, PilgrimÂ’s Pride) 45%

other references
http://www.newschannel10.com/story/8549597/senate-antitrust-blocking-jbs-swift-acquisitions?clienttype=printable&redirected=true
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/testimony/232891.htm
http://www.foodcircles.missouri.edu/coop.pdf
http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/10-04HogBuyerPower.pdf

This video dramatically summarizes all of the concerns expressed in this extended comments queue.
“If I Wanted America To Fail…”
http://youtu.be/CZ-4gnNz0vc

@ DaveG says:
April 24, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Bingo. Also, it should help the banks by forcing more people to go into debt to afford one of those new vehicles that can use the greater proportion of ethanol. Now, let’s see…whose grandmother was the first female vice president of a bank in our fiftieth state?
And what term do the credit card companies use to describe their customers who pay off their balance every month? “Deadbeats?”

In real terms (inflation adjusted dollars) corn is not high.
Current price for corn per metric ton in today’s dollars is $275.58.
Peak corn prices in todays dollars were in August 1983 when corn cost $345.167/ metric ton.
Today’s corn prices in real dollars are 79.8% of the historical peak price for corn.
In real dollars corn has been more expensive than it is now at least 6 times since 1981.
Larry

Roger Sowell says:
April 24, 2012 at 6:23 pm
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/speech-on-peak-oil-and-us-energy-policy.html?m=0
This discusses why the US must not use up domestic petroleum resources. Scroll down to “Energy Policy”, approximately mid-way through the article.
Roger Sowell

Roger, how many years of domestic oil supply do you reckon we have? If we have more than a century’s worth, how much do we need to set aside as a strategic resource?
Also, without the capacity to produce and refine domestic oil, we are still vulnerable to having our oil supply shut off. As you know, it takes years to get an oil field developed and pipelines built to carry the oil to the refineries.

Poptech says:
April 25, 2012 at 7:16 am
Yes, Ethanol can damage engines,
Can E15 Gasoline Really Damage Your Engine? [Yes] (Popular Mechanics, December 21, 2010)
Ethanol Fact and Tip Sheet (PDF) (BoatUS Seaworthy Magazine)
Ethanol fires are also harder to put out,
Ethanol Fuels Fire Concerns (Fox News, February 26, 2008)
The Trouble With Ethanol (Industrial Fire World)

Funny thing – when you actually read your links you find that:
1. The Popular Mechanics story is about OLD engines:

“that antique Evinrude outboard or ’60s lawn tractor you bought at the swap meet might need some upgrading to stay together on today’s gas. That means corrosion-resistant tanks, alcohol-tolerant rubber lines, seals and fuel-pump diaphragms, and plastic fuel-system parts that won’t swell up in the presence of alcohol”

… and the “damage” discussed is largely minor – and resolved with upgrading comparatively inexpensive parts like rubber hoses, filters, and plastic fuel system parts.
2. As to boats – reading your link we find the same thing – mostly minor issues – like:
‘Be ready to change fuel filters more often … problem typically goes away after several tanks’
‘Make sure you upgrade to appropriate fuel hoses’
‘Do not use ethanol in Fiberglas fuel tanks – mostly built before 1980’s – ethanol does NOT effect aluminum, stainless or polyethylene tanks’
‘problems with phase separation are rear – largely affect boats idle for long periods with low fuel in tanks – filling tanks largely addresses issue’
Yep – lotsa terrible thing in that link.
3. Ethanol fires scaremongering – a 2007 and a 2008 story is the best you can come up with? Better yet are what they say:
“Wrecks involving ordinary cars and trucks are not the major concern. They carry modest amounts of fuel, and it is typically a low-concentration, 10 percent blend of ethanol and gasoline.”
In a seven year period the other story shows the extent of the issue they raise:
“Since 2000, there have been at least 26 major fires in the U.S. involving polar solvents, of which 14 were ethanol plant fires and three were ethanol tanker fires. In addition there have been six train derailments, five with fires.
The incidents at ethanol plants are irrelevant – Fire departments are equipped to handle fires at KNOWN fixed locations in their districts.
THREE ethanol tanker fires and FIVE train derailment issues in 7 years – a whopping 8 incidents in 7 years.
Sorry – its never fun when a link doesn’t paint the picture you think and/or want them too.

Poptech says:
April 25, 2012 at 7:33 am
Whatever is not economically viable should not be produced and those who cannot compete should be unemployed. The companies that can produce something the market wants will stay around and prosper. Farmers are not entitled to any price for what they produce beyond what the market decides. If you don’t like it don’t farm. The socialist farmers (CCF) moved to Canada in the 1930s please join them.
I won’t even get into how much per gallon it saves and the effect it has on average retail prices of gasoline.
It doesn’t “save” anything. It makes gasoline more expensive otherwise there would not be a need for a mandate to force it to be blended and sold.
Why do you think gas is cheaper now than diesel? Even tho diesel is cheaper to make??????
It has nothing to do with Ethanol.

More simply false statement unsupported by fact. And your concern for farmers is touching. I suggest you try farming for your food sometime.
The facts are ethanol reduces the cost of gasoline significantly:

The Impact of Ethanol Production on US and Regional Gasoline Markets
Xiaodong Du, Dermot J. Hayes
April 2011 [11-WP 523]
This report updates the findings in Du and Hayes 2009 by extending the data to December 2010 and concludes that over the sample period from January 2000 to December 2010, the growth in ethanol production reduced wholesale gasoline prices by $0.25 per gallon on average. The Midwest region experienced the biggest impact, with a $0.39/gallon reduction, while the East Coast had the smallest impact at $0.16/gallon. Based on the data of 2010 only, the marginal impacts on gasoline prices are found to be substantially higher given the much higher ethanol production and crude oil prices. The average effect increases to $0.89/gallon and the regional impact ranges from $0.58/gallon in the East Coast to $1.37/gallon in the Midwest. In addition, we report on a related analysis that asks what would happen to US gasoline prices if ethanol production came to an immediate halt. Under a very wide range of parameters, the estimated gasoline price increase would be of historic proportions, ranging from 41% to 92%.

_Jim says:
April 25, 2012 at 8:09 am
How much should you pay for E10 and E85? *
If regular gas is $3.00 a gallon you should pay:
. . . . . $2.90 a gallon for E10 (10% ethanol).
. . . . . $2.13 a gallon for E85 (85% ethanol).
Editorial portion of post:
Is paying __the same price__ for a gallon of product that requires a purchase of 1.52 times (as would be close to the case for E85 fuel) as much straight gasoline really ‘cheaper’ looking at this math? (The answer on the surface looks like “no” BTW.)
(_Jim scratches head in wonderment on the economics of all this)

@_Jim: Ethanol DOES cost LESS. And you do not need 1.52 times more fuel using E85 compared to straight gasoline.
One more time – using ONLY the energy difference between fuels (and ignoring that real world examples usually show better performance than the straight energy comparison) these are the numbers:
Straight gasoline = 114,000 btu/gal
Straight ethanol = 76,000 btu/gal
Straight ethanol (E100) has 33% less energy than straight gas
BUT WE DO NOT USE straight ethanol or straight gas – these comparisons are meaningless.
E10 has 110,000 btu/gal (114k*.9+76k*.1) and E15 has 108,300 btu/gal …
E10 has just 3.3% less energy and E15 just 5% less energy than straight 100% gasoline.
E85 has 81,700 btu/gal – appx 28% less than 100% gas (and appx 25% less than E10).
I just paid $2.88 for E85 vs $3.68 for E10 – or appx. 21% less.
In reality I get appx 20% lower fuel mileage on E85 than on E10 … while paying appx 21% less.
In simple terms E85, when considering the lower mileage and lower price costs me almost exactly the same as e10.

I’m not sure how I missed the Agenda 21 issue for all these years. I even missed Willis’s post in February. Are there any other absurd schemes afoot that should be part of the up coming election debates?
Rio+20 meets Agenda 21
Posted on February 26, 2012 by Willis Eschenbach
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/rio20-meets-agenda-21/

John from CA says:
April 25, 2012 at 8:15 am
Gail Combs says:
April 25, 2012 at 7:55 am
Agenda 21
==========
Gail, that doesn’t make sense. The UN can’t dictate jack in the US. Land ownership in the US runs with Allodial Title its related rights. No one has the right to dictate farming practices in the US…
_________________________
OH???
Here is the Gosh Darn LAW!

SEC. 404. <> COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization… http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247548.htm

From FDA website in 2008

International Harmonization
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/int-laws.html
The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions….

That statement happens to be an outright LIE. The US Senate included a clause protecting the then current US laws from any changes dictated by the WTO in the ratification legislation. That is why when farmers raise a dust over WTO’s traceability a new law had to be passed. (Can not find my reference)

TRANSCRIPT OF REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE ED SCHAFER TO THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ANIMAL AGRICULTURE INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/%21ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2008/04/0093.xml
“And one of the best ways to resolve trade disputes is by bringing INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS to bear….We now have harmonized standards for breeding cattle with our two largest trading partners in line with guidance from the World Organization of Animal Health {OIE} ….Along with science-based standards, free trade agreements are another powerful tool for bringing greater access to our animal and our horticultural products abroad….

The World Trade Organization
WORLD TRADE REPORT 2005 C
There are a number of international food safety standards, mainly developed by the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). Observance of international standards by developing countries, while costly initially, is often necessary to maintain market access and reduce the rate of rejection of unsafe or spoiled products in export markets……
…..Already wide-spread in industrialized countries, HACCP has become increasingly popular in other
countries. Adoption of and compliance with HACCP principles constitute a necessary, and sometimes even sufficient, condition for meeting international standards…
CONCLUSIONS
The overview suggests that the standards development process organized by national, regional and international standards institutions is progressively evolving. The role of international bodies has gained prominence. The national standardization infrastructures of most industrialized countries are now integrated into the network of international standardization. In Europe, for instance, adoption of European standards is mandatory for national member bodies and European standards organizations transpose the international standards into European standards.
pg 114 thru 117 http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report05_e.pdf –

HACCP in the USA

The use of a measure incorporating traceability that directly or indirectly affects international trade is permitted under the World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, provided that the measure is applied in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement. These provisions state that the measure must be necessary, scientifically justified, no more trade restrictive than required and consistent with the appropriate level of protection of the importing country….
World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995). – Agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. In The results of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations.
The legal texts. WTO, Geneva, 558 pp.
http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D9067.PDF (Note this is an OIE – United Nations – Document on a WTO agreement)

Animal identification and traceability
The Working Group reviewed the work done by the OIE ad hoc Group on animal identification and traceability and addressed Member Countries’ comments received. It acknowledged that traceability is important for public health, animal health and other managerial reasons. The Working Group agreed that the OIE, in conjunction with the FAO, should prepare a document to assist the practical implementation of future OIE standards on animal identification and traceability. The Working Group congratulated the ad hoc Group for its constructive work and requested it to produce a revised version of Chapter 1.3.7. that takes into account the comments received from Member Countries and the Working Group’s views and written comments. The ad hoc Group met in February and accordingly revised the set of principles and the related definitions. The ad hoc Group addressed the parallel work going on in Codex and welcomed the lack of gaps and contradictions between the OIE and Codex texts. The Terrestrial Code Commission endorsed and finalised the draft chapter on animal identification and traceability.
http://www.oie.int/Eng/secu_sanitaire/Food%20Safety%20Report_74GS_eng.pdf –

Good Farming Practices to Lead the Transition to Sustainable Agriculture: Slide presentation by FAO
Source: http://www.fao.org/prods/PP6401/GoodFarming/tsld001.htm
These are from FAO and OIE (Good Farming Practices)
FAO GAPs (fruits and veggies)

What are Good Agricultural Practices?
A multiplicity of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) codes, standards and regulations have been developed in recent years by the food industry and producers organizations but also governments and NGOs, aiming to codify agricultural practices at farm level for a range of commodities….
http://www.fao.org/prods/gap/ [has links]

This is a University PDF with Links to outside documents or web sites are marked in blue. Good Agricultural Practices. A Self-Audit for Growers and Handlers. http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/filelibrary/5453/4362.pdf
OIE Good Farming Practices: Livestock
GUIDE TO GOOD FARMING PRACTICES FOR ANIMAL PRODUCTION FOOD
Good Dairy Farming Practice.
Short Report of what the S.O.B.s are up to: OIE WORKING GROUP ON ANIMAL PRODUCTION FOOD SAFETY Report to the 77th General Session of the OIE International Committee – Paris, 24–29 May 2009
These are from FAO and OIE (Good Farming Practices)
FAO GAPs (fruits and veggies)
[ex]What are Good Agricultural Practices?
A multiplicity of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) codes, standards and regulations have been developed in recent years by the food industry and producers organizations but also governments and NGOs, aiming to codify agricultural practices at farm level for a range of commodities….
http://www.fao.org/prods/gap/ [has links] [/ex]
This is a University PDF with Links to outside documents or web sites are marked in blue. Good Agricultural Practices. A Self-Audit for Growers and Handlers. http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/filelibrary/5453/4362.pdf
OIE Good Farming Practices: Livestock
[url=http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Food_Safety/docs/pdf/GGFP.pdf]GUIDE TO GOOD FARMING PRACTICES FOR ANIMAL PRODUCTION FOOD .[/url]
[url=http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D7201.PDF]Good Dairy Farming Practice.[/url]
Short Report of what the S.O.B.s are up to:[url=http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Specific_Issues/docs/pdf/Presentation_77SG_En.pdf] OIE WORKING GROUP ON ANIMAL PRODUCTION FOOD SAFETY Report to the 77th General Session of the OIE International Committee – Paris, 24–29 May 2009[/url]
The WTO is hand in glove with the United Nations and with the US Bureaucrats. It is called “Global Governance”.
Pascal Lamy, Director, World Trade Organization (WTO) on Global Govenance: http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/56/
A freedom of Information dump from the CIA: notice what it is called .foia.cia.gov/2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf
Original url: http://www.foia.cia.gov/2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf
Tiny url: http://tinyurl.com/gg2025
backed up a copy of it at CALAMEO: http://www.calameo.com/books/000111790b4dd76a2c850

@ more soylent green April 25 at 1:19,
I hope to persuade you to my thinking.
Please check back in a few hours when I can make a more detailed response.

John from CA says:
April 25, 2012 at 8:15 am
Gail Combs says:
April 25, 2012 at 7:55 am
Agenda 21
==========
Gail, that doesn’t make sense. The UN can’t dictate jack in the US. Land ownership in the US runs with Allodial Title its related rights. No one has the right to dictate farming practices in the US.
_______________________
After thinking it over I realise you do not understand the “Modern Law Making Process” I am going to use the food laws again since that is what I am very familiar with. However the process works with all the laws the international bureaucrats want to see “Harmonized”
1. The United Nations/World Trade Organization comes up with an Idea. (UN Agenda 21/Sustainability)
2. The “Idea” is sent to a “Working Group” For example the FDA states they are part of the following “Working Groups”

International Harmonization
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/int-laws.html
The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials….
Participation in
Codex Alimentarius
Cosmetics International Activities
International Organizations and Standard-Setting Bodies
International Office of Epizootics
International Plant Protection Convention
World Health Organization
Food and Agricultural Organization
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)
Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Microbiological Risk Assessments
Pan American Health Organization
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Those Working Groups come up with Standards, Recommendations, and Guidelines, “Model Laws” if you will. The proposed laws are then brought back to various countries and passed. If there is a public out cry like there was against Animal ID then a “Campaign strategy” is used to get the law passed. In the case of food it was a deliberate increase (Doubling) of food borne disease. See: Shielding the Giant: USDA’s ‘Don’t Look, Don’t Know’ Policy
In addition the United Nations NGOs are mobilized to show “grassroots” support for the proposed bill. With the food bill the fight got rather down and dirty. see google’s HR875 stop the hysteria from the NGO side and A Solemn walk through HR 875 plus a commerce clause lawyer weighing in Trojan Horse Law: The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 Unfortunately Trojan horse NGOs like Organic Consumers, La Vida Locavore and Food & Water Watch did the thinking for many Americans. (All three are connected to the UN, I did the research)
The USDA also used the “Delphi Technique” To “Build Consensus” only farmers were awake and it did not work. (Ain’t the internet great?) USDA employing Delphi Technique: Prepare to be Delphi’d! and “Watch out for the Delphi Technique. “Public meetings” are run by highly trained “facillators” things got uncomfortable enough that the USDA brought armed police to the listening session in Kentucky
USING THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE TO BUILD CONSENSUS: How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of
citizen participation.
Notice US citizens are completely cut out of the loop It is an UNELECTED bureaucracy that is completely in control. Even the NGOs are really Astroturf.

“Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues,” notes Peter Spiro. “Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots.” (The CGG has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations.) http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html

(Organic Consumers get a lot of money from the Rockefeller foundations)

There should be a way for people to buy 100% gas if E15 is mandated. Perhaps make the mandate only apply to regular gasoline, and allow stations to sell premium at 100%? But the problem I see with that is that it’s a tax on those with older vehicles who can’t use E15. (The poor.)

A. Scott says:
And I see you’re still touting the work of Patzek and Pimental ridiculous that has been thoroughly discredited many times over.
And yes the tax credit is gone – yet you’re still using it to base your attacks.

No Patzek and Pimental have not been discredited despite your delusions otherwise. I mentioned the tax credit expired, did you fail to read that?
The Ethanol mandate still needs to be abolished so I am free to choose the fuel I wish to use in my car.

_Jim says: @ April 25, 2012 at 8:22 am
Can you make reference to an actual part, paragraph or sentence in the UN Agenda 21 document that lays all this out instead of a reference to a 3rd party (and possibly misleading and artful) ‘interpretation’? It’s possible that I may have missed where you linked to the primary document in question here today or in the past; I would hate to see a lot of ppl get ‘wound up’ without seeing first-hand the document detailing the purported erasure of personal property ownership.
______________________
Be happy to, but realize it is written in Lawyerez bafflegab and you have to read between the lines. They are not going to come out and say what they actually plan in public documents. I know you can follow the stuff but I worried others could not if they do not know what they are looking for. BTW Rosa Koire, who I quoted works for the government in California in the area of Eminent Domain takings.

Recognizing the global nature of these issues, the international community, in convening Habitat II, has decided that a concerted global approach could greatly enhance progress towards achieving these goals. Unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, particularly in industrialized countries, environmental degradation, demographic changes, widespread and persistent poverty, and social and economic inequality can have local, cross-national and global impacts. The sooner communities, local governments and partnerships among the public, private and community sectors join efforts to create comprehensive, bold and innovative strategies for shelter and human settlements, the better the prospects will be for the safety, health and well-being of people and the brighter the outlook for solutions to global environment and social problems. [Smart Growth is the innovative strategies for shelter and human settlements gc]
…The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development – the Earth Summit – held at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992, produced Agenda 21. At that Conference, the international community agreed on a framework for the sustainable development of human settlements…. The Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000, adopted in 1988, which emphasizes the need for improved production and delivery of shelter, revised national housing policies and an enabling strategy, offers useful guidelines for the realization of adequate shelter for all in the next century. [This is the boiler plate building codes and zoning laws dumped on cities and towns gc]
….involvement for civil society actors, for publicprivate partnerships, [this is International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) gc] and for decentralized, participatory planning and management, which are important features of a successful urban future. Cities and towns have been engines of growth and incubators of civilization and have facilitated the evolution of knowledge, culture and tradition, as well as of industry and commerce. Urban settlements, properly planned and managed, hold the promise for human development and the protection of the world’s natural resources through their ability to support large The Habitat Agenda Goals and Principles, Commitments and the Global Plan of Action numbers of people while limiting their impact on the natural environment. [This is moving people into cities so their impact on nature is minimal gc] The growth of cities and towns causes social, economic and environmental changes that go beyond city boundaries. Habitat II deals with all settlements – large, medium and small – and reaffirms the need for universal improvements in living and working conditions…
http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/1176_6455_The_Habitat_Agenda.pdf
http://www.unhabitat.org/

Agenda21
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

Integrated planning and management of land resources is the subject of chapter 10 of Agenda 21, which deals with the cross-sectoral aspects of decision-making for the sustainable use and development of natural resources, including the soils, minerals, water and biota that land comprises. This broad integrative view of land resources, which are essential for life-support systems and the productive capacity of the environment, is the basis of Agenda 21’s and the Commission on Sustainable Development’s consideration of land issues.
Expanding human requirements and economic activities are placing ever increasing pressures on land resources, creating competition and conflicts and resulting in suboptimal use of resources. By examining all uses of land in an integrated manner, it makes it possible to minimize conflicts, to make the most efficient trade-offs and to link social and economic development with environmental protection and enhancement, [Smart Growth gc] thus helping to achieve the objectives of sustainable development. (Agenda 21, para 10.1)
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/susdevtopics/sdt_land.shtml

….Governments at the appropriate level, with the support of the relevant international and regional organizations, should:
(a) Carry out national policy reviews related to food security, including adequate levels and stability of food supply and access to food by all households;
(b) Review national and regional agricultural policy in relation, inter alia, to foreign trade, price policy, exchange rate policies, agricultural subsidies and taxes, as well as organization for regional economic integration;
(c) Implement policies to influence land tenure and property rights positively with due recognition of the minimum size of land-holding required to maintain production and check further fragmentation… [There is your no more building in rural areas gc]
(h) Formulate and implement integrated agricultural projects that include other natural resource activities, such as management of rangelands, forests, and wildlife, as appropriate; [Complete control of land use sounds like to me gc]
United Nations agencies, such as FAO, the World Bank, IFAD and GATT, and regional organizations, bilateral donor agencies and other bodies should, within their respective mandates, assume a role in working with national Governments in the following activities:….
D. Land-resource planning, information and education for agriculture
Basis for action
14.34. Inappropriate and uncontrolled land uses are a major cause of degradation and depletion of land resources. Present land use often disregards the actual potentials, carrying capacities and limitations of land resources, as well as their diversity in space. [Sure sounds like I just lost the right to my property if I do not control the use gc] It is estimated that the world’s population, now at 5.4 billion, will be 6.25 billion by the turn of the century. The need to increase food production to meet the expanding needs of the population will put enormous pressure on all natural resources, including land….
Objectives
14.36. The objectives of this programme area are:
(a) To harmonize planning procedures, involve farmers [Sop to “Land Owners” gc] in the planning process, collect land-resource data, design and establish databases, define land areas of similar capability, identify resource problems and values that need to be taken into account to establish mechanisms to encourage efficient and environmentally sound use of resources;
Basis for action
14.44. Land degradation is the most important environmental problem affecting extensive areas of land in both developed and developing countries. The problem of soil erosion is particularly acute in developing countries, while problems of salinization, waterlogging, soil pollution and loss of soil fertility are increasing in all countries. Land degradation is serious because the productivity of huge areas of land is declining just when populations are increasing rapidly and the demand on the land is growing to produce more food, fibre and fuel. Efforts to control land degradation, particularly in developing countries, have had limited success to date. Well planned, long-term national and regional land conservation and rehabilitation programmes, with strong political support and adequate funding, are now needed. While land-use planning and land zoning, combined with better land management, should provide long-term solutions, it is urgent to arrest land degradation and launch conservation and rehabilitation programmes in the most critically affected and vulnerable areas.
(b) To establish agricultural planning bodies at national and local levels to decide priorities, channel resources and implement programmes. [Sure sounds like what they did in the USSR doesn’t it? gc]
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_14.shtml

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Public-private partnerships need a special mention. Like “Sustainability” and “Smart Growth” it is one of the key phrases to look for.
Examples:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/innovfinance/Public-Private%20Partnerships/PPP_main.html
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/OIPP/docs/solar_partners.pdf
The Redevelopment Agency connection to “Sustainability” http://www.calredevelop.org/
President’s Council on Sustainable Development: Between June 1993 and June 1999, the PCSD has advised President Clinton on sustainable development and develops bold, new approaches to achieve economic, environmental, and equity goals. http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/
USDA Director of Sustainable Development: http://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainable/index.htm
This newest Biofuel mandate ties into the Policy Resolution on the. 25 x ’25 Initiative.
The 25 by ’25 resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that by the year 2025, at least 25 percent of total U.S. energy will come from renewable, domestically produced sources.
search [“25 x 25” Sustainable Development Resolution] and you will find a lot of info. such as Midwestern governors have been national leaders in the effort to produce more homegrown energy… : http://www.midwesterngovernors.org/resolutions/25×25.pdf
The whole mess is like a can of worms… No make that Cottonmouth Water Moccasins.

A. Scott says:
More simply false statement unsupported by fact. And your concern for farmers is touching. I suggest you try farming for your food sometime.

I have no concern for those who are too incompetent to farm profitably. The competent farmers will gladly take their market share. I am not interested in propping up failure.

The facts are ethanol reduces the cost of gasoline significantly:

This is elementary to test, as those filling stations that continue to sell the ethanol blends should easily put those who sell straight gasoline out of business. You thus obviously support ending the mandate so you can prove empirically how much it really saves!
Why are ethanol supporters so afraid of proving their claims?

Poptech says:
April 25, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Even with the right kind of foam, fighting a polar solvent fire is no cake walk. I remember a burning 160-foot diameter storage tank in Texas City. Even with a foam blanket six to eight feet deep, flames were still visible. It took four days to bring that one under control.“

I am stunned to learn large fires are hard to put out, even with the best equipment they sometimes take days to control. /sarc
I do get a chuckle out of your quoted article where it says:
“Unlike alcohol, it has a red visible flame.”
News flash ethanol is an alcohol, and fuel ethanol which is what we are talking about here is denatured with from 2%-5% hydrocarbon denaturants and has an easily visible flame not the pale flame color of pure technical ethanol.
The same exact problem occurs with large petroleum tank fires. In Nov 1990 Stapleton International airport had a fuel farm fire (JP4) that took 2 days to put out and they were bringing in truck loads of foam from cities within 100 miles of the fire and even eventually contracted with the Red Adair fire fighting team to help knock it down by bringing in specialized equipment and of course their experience.
It is a cost of doing business with large accumulations of any flammable liquid, there is nothing particularly unique about fuel ethanol fires, it is just another chemical fire risk that has its own unique fire fighting challenges just like every other flammable chemical be it petroleum, keytones like acetone, natural flammable liquids like turpentine or alcohol. In many cases the control strategy of choice in these large flammable liquid fires is to let them burn out as even the largest municipal fire departments have difficulty controlling them promptly.
source FAA report
“AVIATION ACCIDENT REPORT
FUEL FARM FIRE AT
STAPLETON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
DENVER, COLORADO
NOVEMBER 25,199O”

Larry

Roger Sowell says:
April 25, 2012 at 2:41 pm
I hope to persuade you. I will have more time to respond more completely this evening.
What must be considered is the US position on the world stage, and the utter futility of waging a war without adequate oil supplies. Both Japan and Germany learned this lesson the hard way, in the early 1940s.
________________________________________
As I recall you do not like nuclear either not even thorium. If you do not want to use oil (I consider it a wast of a great chemical precursor) then you should at least look at the pros and cons of thorium.
E. M. Smith’s comment on Thorium: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/21/the-moon-and-sick-plans/#comment-964024

Here’s what we are up against folks. In the EPA’s own words. Video included in article:
***********************************************************************
Quote:
“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.
“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
“It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/epa-officials-philosophy-oil-companies-crucify-them-just-romans-crucified
*******************************************************************************
Now I don’t know about anyone else, but them’s fightin’ words to me. I don’t give shit about “hyperbole” excuses for this. The EPA and this administration is the enemy. Not because I say so, but because they say so. Treat them as such.

Poptech says:
April 25, 2012 at 4:42 pm

A. Scott says:
And I see you’re still touting the work of Patzek and Pimental ridiculous that has been thoroughly discredited many times over.

No Patzek and Pimental have not been discredited despite your delusions otherwise.

Laughable.

In June 2004, the U.S. Department of Agriculture updated its 2002 analysis of ethanol production and determined that the net energy balance of ethanol production is 1.67 to 1
For every 100 BTUs of energy used to make ethanol, 167 BTUs of ethanol is produced. In 2002, USDA had concluded that the ratio was 1.35 to 1. The USDA findings have been confirmed by additional studies conducted by the University of Nebraska and Argonne National Laboratory. These figures take into account the energy required to plant, grow and harvest the corn—as well as the energy required to manufacture and distribute the ethanol.
Ethanol opponents frequently cite studies by Cornell niversity’s Dr. David Pimentel and Tad W. Padzek, who concluded that ethanol returns only about 70% of the energy used in its production (a net energy balance of -29%). Pimentel’s findings ave been consistently refuted by USDA and other scientists who say his methodology uses obsolete data and is fundamentally unsound. In a detailed analysis of Pimentel’s research, Dr. Michael S. Graboski
of Colorado School of Mines says Pimentel’s findings are based on out-of-date statistics (22 year-old data) and are contradicted by USDA.
Pimentel’s reports have also been debunked by Michael Wang and Dan Santini of the Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, who conducted a series of detailed analyses on energy and emission impacts of corn ethanol from 1997 through 1999.
A recent study by UC scientists, published in the January, 2006 edition of Science magazine, also acknowledges a positive net energy balance for ethanol, placing the energy return at between 4 and 9 MJ/L.
Furthermore, even the most pessimistic assessments of ethanol’s energy balance acknowledge that ethanol is an improvement over petroleum-based fuels. Using the same analytical methods employed by some ethanol critics, Michigan State University’s Bruce Dale calculates the net energy of petroleum to be -45%, compared to the -29% that Pimentel and Patzek find for ethanol. In the worst-case scenario, burning ethanol is still more energy-efficient than burning gasoline.

“Unfortunately, his (Pimentel’s) assessment lacked timeliness in that it relied on data appropriate to conditions in the 1970’s and early 1980s, but clearly not the 1990s…With up-todate information on corn farming and ethanol production and treating ethanol co-products fairly, we have concluded that corn-based ethanol now has a positive energy balance of about 20,000 BTU per gallon.”
– Michael Wang and Dan Santini

Excepting Pimentel & Patzek, the values of [corn ethanol’s return on energy investment] range from 1.29 to 1.65 for current technology, indicating that corn ethanol is returning at least some renewable energy on its fossil energy investment. Pimentel & Patzek’s result of [return on investment] <1 is an exception
– Hammerschlag, “Ethanol’s Energy Return on Investment: A Survey of the Literature,
1990 – Present,” in Environmental Science and Technology 40:6 (2006).

Two of the studies stand out from the others because they report negative net energy values and imply relatively high GHG missions and petroleum inputs…these two studies also stand apart from the others by incorrectly assuming that ethanol coproducts…should not be credited with any of the input energy and by including some input data that are old and unrepresentative of current processes, or so poorly documented that their quality cannot be evaluated
– Farrell, et al, “Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals,” in Science 311
(January 2006).

Dr. Pimentel’s corn yield statistics date from 1992, meaning that the study does not take into account recent advances in the efficiency of corn growing. Corn yields have increased by over
10% since then with significantly lower inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides, etc., per bushel… Dr. Pimentel’s figures for energy used in the ethanol conversion process date from 1979. Today’s ethanol plants use far less energy per gallon of ethanol produced.
– Environmental and Energy Study Institute, October 2003

Pimentel & Patzek’s results [for the energy balance of cellulosic ethanol production] stand out, at nearly an order of magnitude larger values for nonrenewable energy inputs than the other three studies. The reason for the difference is that Pimentel & Patzek assume that industrial process energy is generated by fossil fuel combustion and electricity, rather than by lignin combustion. All well-developed models of cellulosic production generate industrial energy with lignin combustion. The other three research teams, all of whom assume this, are highly credible
– Hammerschlag, “Ethanol’s Energy Return on Investment: A Survey of the Literature,
1990 – Present,” in Environmental Science and Technology 40:6 (2006).

“Patzek worked for Shell Oil Company as a researcher, consultant and expert witness. He founded and directs the UC Oil Consortium, which is mainly funded by the oil industry at the rate of $60,000 to $120,000 per company per year.”
-www.journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

“The finished liquid fuel energy yield for fossil fuel dedicated to the production of ethanol is 1.34, but only 0.74 for gasoline. In other words, the energy yield of ethanol is (1.34/.74) or 81 percent greater than the comparable yield for gasoline.”
– Minnesota Department of Agriculture

“The available energy from ethanol is much higher than the input energy for producing ethanol. In other words, using ethanol as a liquid transportation fuel would significantly reduce domestic use of petroleum even in the worst case scenario.”
– Michigan State University

Corn ethanol is energy efficient…Moreover, producing ethanol from domestic corn stocks achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy. Ethanol production utilizes abundant domestic energy supplies of coal and natural gas to convert corn into a premium liquid fuel that can replace petroleum imports by a factor of 7 to 1.
– Shapouri, Duffield, and Graboski, “Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol,” 1995

Even the most pessimistic estimate of corn ethanol’s [return on energy investment] (Pimentel & Patzek at…0.84) is higher than the [return on investment] for gasoline, so it seems safe to say that corn ethanol reduces fossil fuel consumption when used to displace gasoline.
– Hammerschlag, “Ethanol’s Energy Return on Investment: A Survey of the Literature, 3
1990 – Present,” in Environmental Science and Technology 40:6 (2006).

Just a small sampling from an old report.
Among many issues including using old data, Patzek and Pimentel also failed to include co-products in their calculations – attributing all of the production energy to ethanol.
Both Patzek and Pimentel also really are are in the paid employ of oil companies.
Their work has been repeatedly refuted and show deficient by many sources including the USDA, Argonne Labs, US Dept of Energy, Colorado School of Mines, University of California, Michigan University and many others including in peer reviewed work published in major publications such as Science, environmental Science and Technology, and others.

Curiousgeorge says:
April 25, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Here’s what we are up against folks. In the EPA’s own words.
============
Time to craft some PSAs — this is out of control.

Poptech says:
April 25, 2012 at 5:57 pm

Larry Ledwick (hotrod)
At my local station that pumps E85, last week E85 was selling for $3.49 while regular gasoline was selling for $3.95. At that price spread they are just reaching the break even point where cost per mile is the same for both fuels. In the case of cars that require premium fuel the E85 is an outright steal, as it is a 112 octane fuel for less than the price of regular gas.

Not when adjusted for it’s BTU rating,
E85 BTU Adjusted Price (AAA)
$3.840 – Regular Gasoline (4-25-2012)
$3.298 – E85 (4-25-2012)
$4.341 – E85 BTU Adjusted (4-25-2012)
And yes energy content is related to mileage,
E85 and fuel efficiency: An empirical analysis of 2007 EPA test data (PDF)
(Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp. 1233-1235, March 2008)
– Matthew C. Roberts
It is well-known that ethanol has less energy per unit volume than gasoline. Differences in engine design and fuel characteristics affect the efficiency with which the chemical energy in gasoline and ethanol is converted into mechanical energy, so that the change in fuel economy may not be a linear function of energy content. This study analyzes the fuel economy tests performed by the US EPA on 2007 model year E85-compliant vehicles and finds that the average difference in fuel economy nearly mirrors the differential in energy content.

Showing yet again you simply have no clue about what you are talking. And you refuse to even acknowledge others who provide direct factual evidence to you.

I just paid $2.88 for E85 vs $3.68 for E10 – or appx. 21% less.
In reality I get appx 20% lower fuel mileage on E85 than on E10
… while paying appx 21% less.
In simple terms E85, when considering the lower mileage and lower price costs me almost exactly the same as e10.

I have a 2003 Tahoe. I run everything from staright gas tro E85 and have since new. I use E85 better than 50% of the time. I have had no service issues.
Even with 90,000 miles, I get approximately 20% lower gas mileage in the REAL WORLD with E85 compared to E10. In the REAL WORLD I pay 21% less fpor E*% tah for E10. In the REAL WORLD I get almost identical fuel cost per mile with E85 than with E10.

A. Scott says:
April 25, 2012 at 1:50 am
“Just one little bitty problem. CORN IS CORN!
If you stop using corn for ethanol and use it instead as advocated by the alarmists for food – YOU ARE STILL GROWING THE SAME CORN on the SAME land using the SAME fertilizer, water etc.”
No you are not using the same amount of fertilizer. While crop yields have indeed increased- those yields (bu/ac) remain a linear function of the amount of N added. For corn figure 1 to 1.5 pounds of nitrogen per bushel of corn. Increase yield are obtained with increase fertilizer.
My point above however was focused on the hypocrisy of EPA pushing draconian nitrogen regulations at the same time it pushes ethanol. Maryland under EPA orders will need to spend somewhere in the $100m per year range to remove 10M pounds of nitrogen from the Chesapeake. Corn adds some 20million pounds per year. So EPA pushes corn which increases N allowing the Agency to claim nitrogen pollution and impose nitrogen TMDLs. These TMDLs beside being financially crippling allows EPA to decide not only how much nitrogen we are allowed to use but with the Chesapeake TMDLs- decide what industry sectors get the now reduced nitrogen allocation- what percent goes to agriculture, development etc.
Nitrogen is the new CO2. Control nitrogen and you can control every food, energy and development decision we make. I strongly urge you to read the 2011 EPA report “Reactive Nitrogen in the United States: An Analysis of Inputs, Flows, Consequences, and Management” to get an idea of where this is all going. (And watch how nitrogen “critical loads” will be the biggest hammer yet against coal)
EPA is proposing an across the board 25% reduction in nitrogen for the US and 45% for the Mississippi River Basin. Corn is the largest user of nitrogen fertilizer. EPA is pushing more corn. Go figure.
Additionally, if EPA was truly concerned about the environment they would pay some attention to the potential loss of land from CRP in response to the high corn price.

A. Scott says:
April 25, 2012 at 6:32 pm
….The USDA findings have been confirmed by additional studies conducted by the University of Nebraska and Argonne National Laboratory. These figures take into account the energy required to plant, grow and harvest the corn—as well as the energy required to manufacture and distribute the ethanol…..
________________________________
As I thought the numbers are probably rigged.
No one ever bothers to take into account the energy to mine the ore, smelt the ore, fabricate the parts, build all the equipment and ship all that equipment to the farmer. Do they also include all the energy needed to produce the fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides? Or do they only include the fuel used for a farmer to drive around his fields? Some how given the precision of the numbers I think it is only the amount of fuel.
Do you see how you can get a vast number of different answers depending on how you do the accounting? It is a lot like trying to figure out how much you actually pay in tax.

A. Scott says:
Showing yet again you simply have no clue about what you are talking. And you refuse to even acknowledge others who provide direct factual evidence to you.

Someone’s unsubstantiated comments is NOT “factual evidence”.

I have a 2003 Tahoe. I run everything from staright gas tro E85 and have since new. I use E85 better than 50% of the time. I have had no service issues.
Even with 90,000 miles, I get approximately 20% lower gas mileage in the REAL WORLD with E85 compared to E10. In the REAL WORLD I pay 21% less fpor E*% tah for E10. In the REAL WORLD I get almost identical fuel cost per mile with E85 than with E10.

That is nice rhetoric, lets see what empirical testing actually shows,
Test results: E85 vs. gasoline (Consumer Reports)
“This chart shows how our 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe performed while running on E85 and gasoline in three fuel-economy tests and overall, in four acceleration tests, and in three emissions tests for gasoline vehicles.”
Fuel Economy
14 MPG – Gasoline (Overall)
10 MPG – E85 (Overall)
– 28.5% Decrease in fuel economy.
Lets see, “Larry (HotRod)” and “A. Scott” vs Consumer Reports, hmmm that is a tough call.

@Gail Combs April 25 at 6:10 pm,
‘As I recall you do not like nuclear either not even thorium. If you do not want to use oil (I consider it a wast of a great chemical precursor) then you should at least look at the pros and cons of thorium.
E. M. Smith’s comment on Thorium.”
No, I do advocate using petroleum. I do not advocate using up America’s domestic petroleum reserves when cheap foreign oil is abundant. We will need our own oil at some future day when we are once again at war and foreign oil supplies are cut off.
I do not favor nuclear for electric power production for reasons I have stated many times on WUWT, chiefly it’s extremely high cost compared to almost any alternative except wind and solar, it’s inherently unsafe with catastrophic release of toxic radiation and radioactive particles (see e.g. Japan Fukushima, US Three Mile Island, and Russian Chernobyl — all within 50 years. The world’s reactors are not yet near end-of-life where more accidents are expected to occur), and spent fuel creates a toxic legacy lasting thousands of years.
Thorium power is a pie-in-the-sky future technology. Its advocates praise its positives and completely gloss over all the negatives. Anyone can prove me wrong by building a full-scale thorium power plant, then having it run for 10 years to collect data on availability, maintainabiliy, and costs. Good luck competing with a combined-cycle gas-fired turbine plant, for both initial cost and operating cost. Total cycle cost for a CCGT plant is very tough to beat, with a thermal efficiency approaching 60 percent and natural gas at $2 per million Btu.
As to E.M. Smith’s writings, I agree with his basic conclusion. There is more than adequate uranium in the ocean. There is also many tons of gold dissolved in the ocean. Nobody mines it because they would go broke doing that. E.M. and I agree that nothing ever leaves the Earth (unless in a rocket and escapes the gravity field). Everything, every single atom, is still here ready to be used over and over again. All that need be applied is energy and ingenuity. The molecules may change, but the atoms do not. This also ignores the very small loss of some large atoms into smaller ones via nuclear fission. On a tonnage basis, it is so small that it may be ignored.
Farmers in particular know this, as their crops pull CO2 out of the sky, and convert the carbon to plant mass. Then the farmers burn some of the plant mass after the harvest, or allow the plant mass to rot, converting the carbon back into CO2. Energy is input to accomplish this, primarily from sunshine. There is also energy input via fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals, plus fuel to operate various machinery.