Guest post by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times.
Last week, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and other lawmakers introduced legislation in the House of Representatives calling for major changes in the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The RFS is the reason why most US automobile fuel contains ten percent ethanol. The bill would eliminate the current mandate to blend 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol into fuel by 2022 and ban ethanol fuel content over ten percent. But are ethanol mandates good public policy?
For decades, ethanol vehicle fuel was touted first as a solution to reduce oil imports and second as a solution for global warming. The Energy Tax Act of 1978 established the US “gasohol” industry, providing a subsidy of 40 cents per gallon for ethanol blended with gasoline. President George W. Bush promoted biofuels to reduce dependence on foreign oil, stating, “I set a goal to replace oil from around the world. The best way and the fastest way to do so is to expand the use of ethanol.” Last year the Environmental Protection Agency promoted E15, a fifteen percent ethanol blend for cars and trucks, announcing, “Increased use of renewable fuels in the United States can reduce dependence upon foreign sources of crude oil and foster development of domestic energy sources, while at the same time providing important reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.” But it appears that these two reasons for promoting ethanol vehicle fuel have disappeared.
First, US dependence on oil imports is greatly reduced. Net imports of crude oil peaked in 2005, providing 60 percent of US consumption. In 2012, just six years later, oil imports dropped to 40 percent of consumption and continue to fall. Imports from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries declined from half of US imports in 1993 to 40 percent of imports 2012. Canada is now the largest single-nation supplier of crude to the US, rising from 14 percent in 1993 to 28 percent today. Construction of the Keystone pipeline would switch additional imports from OPEC to Canada.
At the same time, US oil production is ramping due to the hydrofracturing revolution. Oil production from shale fields in North Dakota and Texas led to a boost in US oil production by 30 percent since 2006. Industry experts predict almost all US petroleum will come from domestic and Canadian sources by 2030. There’s no longer a need to force ethanol use to reduce oil imports.
Second, recent studies show that the use of ethanol and biodiesel does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For many years, proponents of decarbonization assumed that the burning of biofuels would be “carbon neutral.” The carbon neutral concept assumes that as plants grow they absorb carbon dioxide equal to the amount released when burned. If true, the substitution of ethanol for gasoline would reduce emissions.
But a 2011 opinion from the Science Committee of the European Environment Agency pointed out what it called a “serious accounting error.” The carbon neutral concept does not consider vegetation that would naturally grow on land used for biofuel production. Since biofuels are less efficient than gasoline or diesel fuel, they actually emit more CO2 per mile driven than hydrocarbon fuels, when proper accounting is used for carbon sequestered in natural vegetation. Further, a 2011 study for the National Academy of Sciences found that, “…production of ethanol as fuel to displace gasoline is likely to increase such air pollutants as particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur oxides.”
Ethanol fuel is no bargain. For example, when gasoline is priced at $3.40 per gallon, the 85 percent ethanol blend (E85) is priced at about $3.00 per gallon. But since the energy content of ethanol is only 66 percent that of gasoline, a tank of E85 gets only about 71 percent of the mileage of a tank of pure gasoline. E85 fuel should be priced at $2.41 per gallon for the driver to break even. According to the US Department of Agriculture, ethanol fuel remains about 25 percent more expensive than gasoline.
World biofuel production has increased by a factor of seven over the last ten years. Corn and soybean prices have doubled over the same period. (US Dept. of Energy, Food and Policy Research Institute, 2011)
Mandates for ethanol vehicle fuel are also boosting food prices. Forty percent of the US corn crop is diverted to produce about ten percent of US vehicle fuel. Global corn and soybean prices have doubled over the last ten years in concert with the growth in ethanol and biodiesel production. Anyone who drives a car or eats food is paying higher prices due to ethanol mandates.
But isn’t ethanol fuel sustainable? Not in terms of water consumption. Studies by the Argonne National Laboratory and the Netherlands University of Twente found that ethanol production consumes twice to dozens of times more water than gasoline produced from petroleum, even from Canadian oil sands.
Gallons of water consumed per gallon of fuel produced for gasoline, ethanol, and biodiesel from various sources, including irrigation and fuel production, but not including precipitation. Variations in water consumption for three US regions and global averages for ethanol and biodiesel are primarily due to amount of irrigation used and agricultural yield. (Argonne National Laboratory, 2009; University of Twente, 2009)
Suppose we return to using corn for food and gasoline to power our vehicles?
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
There is a good reason for Using E10, it improves combustion efficiency because of the extra oxygen thus reducing production of CO and carbon particulate which is a very good thing.
However using food for this purpose is completely wrong. Once algal biofuels come along it would be a viable option as you don’t need to use massive amounts of farm land to produce them!
When a society sees burning food as fuel as acceptable, it’s end is approaching.
Don’t forget, E10 is more dangerous than normal petrol. Ethanol is a potent solvent, which is more than capable of causing catastrophic failure of fibreglass fuel tanks, found in HP sports vehicles and many boats. The ethanol dissolves the fibreglass resin.
It also attacks some plastics used in fuel systems.
http://www.mcia.co.uk/Campaigns/Introduction-of-E10-fuel.aspx
Transport for Ethanol has to be a problem.
I’ve not seen any proper data, but BioDiesel may be better. It IS Diesel, not watered gasoline (E15 is likely to damage existing vehicles). I don’t know why corn is pushed over oilseeds.
There is no need to reduce CO2. Nothing bad is happening because of its increase, and the plants love it. Since the US is the only developed nation that has significantly reduced its CO2 production, thanks to the recession, the burden of feeding the world’s plants has fallen on other nations, like China and India. They are doing a great job, and the plants thank them.
Using ethanol to blend with gasoline is not a good idea. It lowers the energy content of the fuel and burns food. They should concentrate on using coal to produce methanol, a much higher energy content fuel than ethanol.
“Is it time to end ethanol vehicle fuel mandates?”
Yes. If it takes a government mandate to market a product, it’s almost assuradly the wrong thing to do.
I also hate rebates, but… nevermind.
This oxygenated fuel farce should be ended, but won’t be. In fact, we’re in the E15 era now, whatever the consequences. There’s money in that corn crop, pa!
Oxygenated fuel such as EtOH are good for reducing CO and VOC tailpipe emissions UNTIL the catalytic convertor lights off, then it doesn’t do much. The change to 10% ethanol was quite costly in engine damage from it’s corrosivity. 15% ethanol will finish off the older cars. Ethanol should be banned for a number of reasons, but I’d bet the Feds won’t see it that way.
I get crappy mileage with ethanol blended gas. 10% ethanol blend gives me 3-5% less fuel mileage. So I have to buy more. We are not saving 10%…..
I thought the whole purpose was because temperatures were going up….
….who would have thought that burning ethanol would make temps go down
/SNARK
Mandates are not a good policy. Leave it to the market. If the crude price is too high, then people will demand E10 if it is cheaper. It has nothing to do with the government. Government intervention in any realm of life almost always leads to misery and destruction.
This is not because government is a bad idea. It is because the members of governments (all of them, in all parties, in all history, all over the world) are a bunch power-crazed self-centered maniacs who could not care less for other people even if they were paid bonuses specifically to care less. They are worthless beings devoid of decency and humanity who add zero and take as much as they can. They would all sell out their own people for a dime and a vote. Why is that? Why are most members of the government like this? It is because in politics sh*t rises faster than Helium and goodness is like a brick in the Ocean.
Several companies are tooling up to produce ethanol from sugar beets. Ethanol in the gas is NOT that bad an idea from a safety standpoint. Let alone that it helps combine extinguishing detergents and water with the gasoline is also displaces many chemicals that otherwise clog up and damage systems involved in efficiency controls and it increases the moisture content of the exhaust helping to reduce the dry particulate plumes that are so dangerous to lunged carbon life forms.
I agree that the primary point should be the conversion of engines to forms of biodiesel mixtures with one very important exception: Soot.
Lethal to me, I have asthma.
Disruptive to the environment, “global dimming”
In Germany E85 is cheaper compared to Super 95 octane led free car gasoline. My car according to the specs of the manufacturer can handle the E85 but I never fuel up my car with the stuff. Why? 1. I don’t support the concept of burning food. The US and Europe are responsible for the Arab Spring Revolutions which started as a food price protest. Food prices hiked after we decided to process food into car fuel and I simply refuse to play the game. Besides the price hike because of mixing expensive fuel with relative cheap fuel is one. The other aspect is the fact that bio fuel production is subsidized. As a result the rental price of an hectar of agricultural land in North Rhein Westfalen went up from 350 euros per year to 1100 euo per year, As a result no farmer is able to compete with agricultural products on the international markets. Farmers went for the green madness or went belly up. If we count all the costs related to the bio fuel (and biogas) mandate we have to conclude that we are killing the poorest of the poor because they can no longer afford the price of food and we are setting ourselves up for a famin because we are rooting out our farmers. 2. Besides the fact that ethanol is carcinogenic when in touch with bare skin or breathing vapors. It increases the risk of vapor combustion due to static electricity discharges when fueling up the car. 3.E85 has a limited conservation date of 2 months, which means you can have it in your tank when your car is left in the garage for the winter period. 5. Ethanol attracts water in the tank. People in cold frosty area’s have encountered problems like frozen fuel lines and fuel pump. 6. It’s bad stuff for your engine, pumps, engine oil as it promotes engine wear. I am sure therse are some more arguments but 6 on a role should do it. Screw the socialist pack of wolfs who set the Middle East on fire with bloody mandates, because that’s what they are, BLOODY MANDATES.
Rob JM says:
April 16, 2013 at 5:39 pm
“There is a good reason for Using E10, it improves combustion efficiency because of the extra oxygen thus reducing production of CO and carbon particulate which is a very good thing.
However using food for this purpose is completely wrong. Once algal biofuels come along it would be a viable option as you don’t need to use massive amounts of farm land to produce them!”
No there isn’t. Modern cars already filter out most particles and burning ethanol only makes exhaust emissions a tiny bit better. If it was for clean fuel we should use Liquid Petrol gas (LPG) or propane for our cars. This is a great high octane fuel great for your engine.
I think it’s time for dual fueled cars: gasoline and natural gas. Dang near everyone has natural gas piped to their home. All we need in the garage is a compressor to fill our tank. A small 5-7 gallon “reserve” tank of regular 87 gets us by when we need it…..
pyeatte says:
April 16, 2013 at 5:57 pm
Using ethanol to blend with gasoline is not a good idea. It lowers the energy content of the fuel and burns food. They should concentrate on using coal to produce methanol, a much higher energy content fuel than ethanol.
=====================================================
If you want to go blind from driving behind people with a lead-foot, sure. Methanol will also burn the aluminum from your block, erode most fuel gaskets and it has a nasty tendency to run away from the gasoline in the storage tank. It isn’t viable. Even at only 10% it would turn even the simplest accidents into a catastrophe waiting to happen.
The more fuel we replace with alcohol, the more fuel can be made into diesel instead of gasoline.
And another thing! Do you know what we need more than E10 Petrol?
Cheap food and cheap fuel!
People are starving and freezing to death because the price of food and energy is so high. It is SICKENING AND EVIL (excuse capitals, but people *are* dying) that some people are pushing for subsidies to grow crops for fuel rather than for people to eat and pushing for more taxes on top of energy bills.
It does not matter to those who are currently starving and freezing to death that the planet may be a degree warmer in 50 years. They need to eat today. They can worry about how to keep cool later.
Do you know what a compassionate government would do? Failing of course each member doing the honorable thing and swallowing a Cyanide capsule. It would make sure that people do not starve and freeze to death by scraping all tax on fuel, and offer free fuel and food to those who genuinely cannot afford to buy it.
And if anybody tells me that we cannot afford such a policy then I will point you to the $11 Million EVERY DAY that we appear to be able to afford to give Israel in Military Aid with no conditions attached. Any ideas how much Co2 a military jet or tank blows into the atmosphere? Yes, before you say it, we could also use all of the other money we give to other nations in military aid too. That money could be used to stop people starving and freezing to death, and the Israelis and whoever else are free to go and get their own money to fund their military if they so choose to waste their own resources in that way. Perhaps if the Israelis had to pay for their military machine out of their own taxes rather than mine then they would be a bit more critical of the overspending and misuse?
If memory serves me, it takes more energy to create ethellno (misspelling intended) than it provides. Most of that from fossil fuels to boot.
Thank you for the reminder in this post of how unrealistic the use of such really is. Let alone the food problems for 3rd world countries this program has created ………
‘Suppose we return to using corn for food and gasoline to power our vehicles?’
Suppose instead you actually read the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It clearly phases out the use of starch-based fuels for the use of cellulosic fuels.
There has also been a correlating growth in corn production. It jumped 24% in the year this legislation was introduced (http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=us&commodity=corn&graph=production) .
Unless you’re a cow, goat or some other animal which chews its cud you should not be too concerned about food competition from bio-fuels in the future based on the current legislation. Grasses, wood and algae are plentiful.
Using the natural vegetation data is yet another fallacy. They don’t allow for many other factors, like the grazing of native animals, bush fires, perenials vs trees etc etc. It’s another statistical lie. Don’t just accept data because it “proves” your point without ensuring it’s not dodgy or you weaken your argument demonstrably.
I believe ethanol was mandated for oxygenating CA gas because MTB was turning into an environmental problem.
1. Peter Laux says:
“When a society sees burning food as fuel as acceptable, it’s end is approaching.”
Excellent point, and for more than economic reasons. What is the morality of burning food to solve a non-existent problem while wasting billions of pounds of food that could go to help the hungry?
All at the taxpayers’ expense.
2. Adam, hard to find fault with what you say.
Remember the ‘cash for clunkers’ program. Oh, how the Obama misadministration loves to spend money. Other people’s money. First; they paid $4,000 dollars for a any old rotted relic. This was fine for the people who could afford a new car (those who managed to remain employed despite Obama’s scintillating, stimulating, stimulus policies), but for those newbies on the unemployment lines, not so much. That’s because it automatically drove up the floor price for any used car regardless of how crappy it was. Second; among those vehicles that were perfectly serviceable but surrendered to the program, well, they trashed them to insure they wouldn’t return to the road. Some maggot-like compound was poured into the oil with the engine running and these chemical maggots proceeded to eat the engine from the inside out. The internal components and the engine blocks themselves were not salvageable. Memo to people with common sense: This is not creative, capitalistic destruction. It’s simply destruction. (And, the talking heads wonder why the economy’s in the toilet.) And, memo to environmentalists: This is NOT good recycling policy either.
Anyway, maybe it’s just me, but I can’t help escape the notion that the 15% ethanol mandate is the mother of all clunker programs. In disguise. His royal highness in Washington has repeatedly said that he wants to tackle Climate Change in his second term. (Why not the first term, Barry, eh?) One way would be the 15% mandate which is guaranteed to destroy the fuel systems on older cars, getting a whole slew of them off the road. Then Barry just whips out that golden pen and commands those hapless owners to buy electrics, like it or not. Can’t afford one? Take a high speed rail to…
As far as ethanol containing extra oxygen for cleaner combustion? Well, the O2 sensors in the exhaust will tell the computer to recalibrate the mixture anyway.
Ethanol blended gas was supposed to be to save the environment and make everything wonderful.
However, if you run a chainsaw and leave that half tank of ethanol it will do some combination of: 1) eat out all the gaskets and valves in your engine, 2) deposit lacquer throughout the motor ruining it, and 3) draw water and decompose to the point where you can’t run the saw on it.
So, what happens is that operator gets to the end of the day and then dumps the remaining (biofriendly, earth saving, good for farmers) fuel onto the ground so his saw will work tomorrow or next week.
Its funny, if you like farce three steps from tears of rage.
(for those of you that want to say, “but buy clear gas, dude” the answer is, I wouldn’t have to if you didn’t do stupid things administratively, but instead you will make me pay extra to avoid damaging my equipment on your utopian vision. As usual.)