From the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t department”.
More Maize Ethanol May Boost Greenhouse Gas Emissions
From the American Institute of Biological Sciences
Read the full article (PDF)
In the March 2010 issue of BioScience, researchers present a sophisticated new analysis of the effects of boosting use of maize-derived ethanol on greenhouse gas emissions. The study, conducted by Thomas W. Hertel of Purdue University and five co-authors, focuses on how mandated increases in production of the biofuel in the United States will trigger land-use changes domestically and elsewhere. In response to the increased demand for maize, farmers convert additional land to crops, and this conversion can boost carbon dioxide emissions.
The analysis combines ecological data with a global economic commodity and trade model to project the effects of US maize ethanol production on carbon dioxide emissions resulting from land-use changes in 18 regions across the globe. The researchers’ main conclusion is stark: These indirect, market-mediated effects on greenhouse gas emissions “are enough to cancel out the benefits the corn ethanol has on global warming.”
The indirect effects of increasing production of maize ethanol were first addressed in 2008 by Timothy Searchinger and his coauthors, who presented a simpler calculation in Science. Searchinger concluded that burning maize ethanol led to greenhouse gas emissions twice as large as if gasoline had been burned instead. The question assumed global importance because the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act mandates a steep increase in US production of biofuels over the next dozen years, and certifications about life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are needed for some of this increase. In addition, the California Air Resources Board’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard requires including estimates of the effects of indirect land-use change on greenhouse gas emissions. The board’s approach is based on the work reported in BioScience.
Hertel and colleagues’ analysis incorporates some effects that could lessen the impact of land-use conversion, but their bottom line, though only one-quarter as large as the earlier estimate of Searchinger and his coauthors, still indicates that the maize ethanol now being produced in the United States will not significantly reduce total greenhouse gas emissions, compared with burning gasoline. The authors acknowledge that some game-changing technical or economic development could render their estimates moot, but sensitivity analyses undertaken in their study suggest that the findings are quite robust.
Effects of US Maize Ethanol on Global Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Estimating Market-mediated Responses
Thomas W. Hertel, Alla A. Golub, Andrew D. Jones, Michael O’Hare, Richard J. Plevin, and Daniel M. Kammen
@Kum Dollison
‘We’ve got over 30 Million acres of pretty good farmland lying fallow right now.’
There’s countless hundreds of millions of acres of unused farmlands, every year. With already developed farmland it’s because you can’t over use the farmland, unless you want to go crazy with the fertilizers (and only the talibans seem to want to to that these days). Another reason is that not every one is in the same season, or rather not every crop is in the same season, i.e. different crops have different needs, another major issues in some parts, is fresh water issues, or put another way it’s too wet, it’s too warm, it’s too dry, it’s too cold.
‘All you have to do is go farm it, and send the food to the poor children of the world. Good Luck.’
So, no you can’t just go and farm it, and feeding the poor children of the world is an industry even in supposedly civilized country like USA. Child warriors are called child warriors in Africa, and warlords are called warlords, in US everyone call em gangbangers and drugbarons and what not.
@ur momisugly JimAsh (13:19:17) :
“Let us do Natural Gas.
Even with my limited intelligence I can see that we are a mere two technical
innovations ( inflatable Space Tanker, Space elevator) away from exploiting Titan and its oceans of the stuff. We could do this long before domestic
supplies run out, if anyone cared to.
Call me crazy if you like.”
Crazy? Not at all. If all the cash spent on CAGW had gone on spaceflight development, we could be doing just that (in a while). Not now though. The West has stopped looking outward. China and/or India will probably get there first.
Not only increase in CO2 but deforestation in Indonesia with loss of animal and plant species.
Yale University – 19 Jan 2009: Report
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2112
Greenpeace
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/forests/palm-oil
Ahhhhh! The law of unintended consequences.
And for all the warmists who think sceptics are counterproductive or are averse to alternative energy sources may I recommend:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/business/energy-environment/29biofuel.html
And for those who think nuclear as an alternative and viable energy source for the future how about:
“A bath-tub sized nuclear reactor could power 20000 homes”
http://www.physorg.com/news145561984.html
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com
Who would have thought 30 years ago that CO2 would be ranked right up their with nuclear energy? :o)
Correction:
Who would have thought 30 years ago that CO2 would be ranked right up their [there] with nuclear energy? :o)
Bruce,
E85 is 85% Ethanol 15% gasoline
My Impala gives up 20% mileage on E85. Some cars will beat that, some will be more.
But, what do I know, I’m a moron.
Hotrod,
The problems with shipping ethanol log distances in existing pipelines is not as simple as you suggest.
I’m not an expert in pipelines but I do know that it is not economic and nearly impossible to clean the pipelines of years of accumulated deposits in order to ship ethanol. Just look at all the problems that arose in fuel supply delivery when ethanol was added at the blending site. We recently had cars breaking down on the parkway right after filling up with ethanol laced fuel that was not handled properly. Virtually every engine carburator had to be rebuilt or replaced for older engines since corrosion and other deposits in fuel tanks clogged the system. Fuel lines degraded. Similar problems occurred when the oil companies first added fuel injector additives. A lot of fiberglass boat tanks started to dissolve when ethanol was added to marine fuels causing engine failures. Ethanol also absorbes water and causes increased corrrosion rates. Ethanol has a short shelf life. Similarly ethanol can cause degradation of gaskets, valve packings, and rubber hoses, if they are not made of the right materials.
Also keep in mind that a single pipeline is often used to ship different feeds or products using pigs and special care is required to avoid contamination between products.
It is true that ethanol can be shipped by pipelines if you keep the water out and the pipeline is new and dedicated. We have a massive infrastructure and expensive to duplicate system of tanks and pipelines in the system that is impractical to clean for an additive that can be added close to the point of delivery.
As a boat owner I am paranoid that the ethanol in my tanks will turn to sludge over the winter storage due to combining with the moisture in the atmosphere.
Serious doubts about bio fuels,
Serious doubts about wind as well:
Wind Turbines will add up to 015 degree Celsius!
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/wind-turbines-will-add-up-to-015-c-to.html
Here is a Cornell University press release from 2005. These claims by John from MN (09:39:53) : and a couple of others claiming that energy output from Corn ethanol exceeds the required energy input for manufacture need to be put to rest.
July 5, 2005
Cornell ecologist’s study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy
By Susan S. Lang
Chris Hallman/University Photography
Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the resulting fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell University
ITHACA, N.Y. — Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.
“There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel,” says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. “These strategies are not sustainable.”
Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).
In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
* corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
* switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
* wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
* soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
* sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
Read more: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html
Ethanol discussions always bring out lots of disinformation. Listen to John and the farmers, you’re getting it straight without the political spin.
It really is feed corn and the feed is still produced.
Based on comments here you’d think gasoline comes directly from gas stations with zero transportation costs, no energy spent in refining and no costs for drilling or locating the oil. That’s what some oil companies would like you to think. You’d also think oil companies get no subsidies, wrong again.
Ethanol is not the end-game here, but it’s a start at moving forward with bio-fuels that will help reduce dependence on foreign oil (BTW, that’s a good thing). It also helps employment and these otherwise unemployed folks spend their money locally. That helps the GDP of any nation utilizing bio-fuels vs. importing oil.
The unfortunate thing is this topic has been covered before and yet the same disinformation is repeated each and every time.
Just because ethanol is considered “green” does not make it a bad thing. Also, if ethanol production is a bad idea in certain countries does not make it a bad idea everywhere. There are valid regional differences that people should understand before making over-simplistic statements.
Disclosure (I am not a farmer not do I have anything to do with ethanol products). I just like the facts to be understood.
toyotawhizguy (18:15:37),
There are just as many studies showing a positive energy balance. Why would you choose to believe a university study where you have no idea where they got their information? Would you believe an AGW study from Cornell or Berkeley that supported alarmists? Think about it.
Toyotaguy,
Old and bad data, here is a link to get you started…….. http://www.ethanolrfa.org/ John
Don Shaw (17:26:58) :
…
Yes you are correct, very old pipe lines are very difficult to clean out, and the companies have to find some place to get rid of the sludge that they clean out of the pipes. The proper solution is to build an ethanol only dedicated pipe line that would handle only fuel ethanol and clean chemicals that will not leave behind crud like fuel oil, etc. I just wish to correct the misinformation that “ethanol cannot be shipped by pipe line”. It can, but it may not be cost effective to clean old neglected lines to a level that will allow ethanol to be shipped in them. There is a real concern that the cleaning action of ethanol will open up lots of pin hole leaks from long standing corrosion that is currently plugged by all that crud in the lines.
Denver had the same problem 35 years ago when they introduced ethanol added gasahol and then mandated oxygenated fuels. It is a well known problem and the oil companies are criminally negligent for not handling the issue properly. In Denver right after they shifted to ethanol added gasoline Denver police needed to replace fuel filters on all their cop cars. This was due to the ethanol cleaning out all the varnish and stale gas residue in the fuel system from years of running conventional gasoline.
It is actually very very rare that carburetors really need to be replaced or even cleaned due to this sort of problem. In the vast majority of the cases it is automotive repair guys using a simple plugged fuel filter as an excuse to sell the uneducated car owner a lot of stuff they don’t need. Cars sold for American Distribution have had ethanol compatible fuel lines since 1989 when Denver made oxygenated fuels mandatory.
A handful of old cars (pre 1989 ) do indeed have fuel line problems. Mt 1969 VW square back had a fuel line go south a week after they introduced ethanol added fuel here, when the ethanol cleaned out all the varnish that was sealing the leaks in th 20 year old rubber fuel line. Fuel lines, and fuel pumps die all the time due to old age even on straight gasoline. Only after ethanol is added to the fuel, it becomes the whipping boy and (like the AGW folks) the excuse for lots of unnecessary repairs. I know I worked in auto service in that period when Ethanol first was introduced. Most of the legitimate repairs to fuel lines and fuel pump diaphragms etc. would have happened regardless, but millions of dollars in unnecessary carburetor rebuilds and new fuel pumps were sold when all that was really needed was to replace a clogged fuel filter.
True , the boat manufactures designed boats with fiberglass resin that was not compatible with ethanol added gasoline decades after ethanol was widely used in U.S. gasoline. This is an engineering problem. The only boat owners that have a legitimate issue is the ones who had boats built prior to about 1990 when any intelligent boat builder would not have had a reason to use an ethanol compatible resin (and when this issue was unknown). Newer boat owners have a legitimate beef with the boat manufactures that built boats that were not compatible with fuel that was widely available. You have not been able to buy gasoline in Colorado and other areas of the country that was certain to be free of ethanol since 1989 and it first showed up during the Arab oil embargo in the 1970’s when they were trying to stretch gasoline supplies. The boat builders screwed up and there is no excuse for them leaving their boat owners to pay the repair bills for a problem that has been well known for the better part of a lifetime.
Yes wet ethanol absorbs water, and if left in the fuel system may cause corrosion — but that is a two edged sword, once ethanol added fuel is commonly available, water in the fuel never happens as the ethanol pulls all traces of condensation out of the fuel system as soon as it forms. It is only an issue if the fuel system is already contaminated with large amounts of water when ethanol added fuel is first used. This is usually the case with cars that stall immediately after filling up. They already had lots of water in the gasoline and when the ethanol added gasoline hit the tank it stripped all that water out of the fuel and settled to the bottom of the fuel tank. If the water is greater than the amount the ethanol can dissolve and remain mixed with the gasoline the water ethanol mixture will immediately stratify and settle to the bottom of the tank. All you need to do is drain off that water layer and the rest of the gasoline can be used if it is free of rust etc.
Ethanol does not have a short shelf life. I have stored E85 in 5 gallon Jerry cans for over 2 years and used it with no problems. I have also had E85 left in a gas tank of a car for over a year and it fired and ran like it was last run the day before when I took it out of moth balls. Gasoline goes stale due to oxidation, and forms varnish and shellac in the fuel system. That is why they sell fuel stabilizers like “Stabil” to keep gasoline from going bad over the winter. E85 does not go bad if stored in a sealed container. I have seen no sign of degradation of E85 or ethanol added fuel in cars which had modern sealed fuel systems, or tightly sealed jerry cans.
Wet ethanol is only a problem if it has acid contamination or it is contact with reactive metals like magnesium and zinc. Plain steel is used by ethanol manufactures for their storage tanks and they have no problems with corrosion. Even anodized aluminum has very little problem with ethanol if the fuel blender puts the proper anti-corrosion inhibitors in the fuel. E85 is required to be low acid and have corrosion inhibitors in the U.S.. I know hundreds of folks that have run ethanol added fuel and E85 in conversions for years and have yet to meet anyone that has seen an issue with corrosion in a modern cars fuel system.
In fact the issue is so rare, that the engineering department of Walbro fuel pumps came to one of the forums I moderate on E85 and asked for users who were running their fuel pumps to send them in for forensic analysis.
They were puzzled why in the real world folks were having absolutely no problems with their gasoline only rated fuel pumps but their lab testing was telling them there should be corrosion issues. It turned out the lab testing was giving false positive readings. Something about real world applications was passivateing the pumps and we were seeing very little reduction in service life on their fuel pumps in the real world.
I sent in my fuel pump after some 36,000 miles of use on E85 (this was a gasoline only rated fuel pump) and some 1700 gallons of E85 usage. The trace corrosion they found was not significant enough to change the performance of the pump. The only corrosion I found when I pulled the pump out of the fuel system was the electrical connectors on the fuel pump and lost their plating but otherwise were perfectly serviceable. The only pumps they found that had any significant detectable corrosion were pumps used in humid tropical climates like Florida. Even then, the corrosion issues were trivial and the pumps were giving essentially normal service life.
Corrosion issues on ethanol added fuels are over hyped by about 1000%. Yes it is detectable in some cases. Especially in systems which have incompatible metals such as zinc and magnesium which have largely disappeared from modern fuel systems.
There are some gasket materials that do not like ethanol. The rubber cork composition gaskets used in Holley carburetors 35 years ago did not like ethanol added gasoline, but that gasket material has not been used in modern fuel systems since Jimmy Carter was President.
Modern O-ring materials and fuel lines intended for use in the U.S. have no problems with ethanol added fuels. In my 2002 WRX I intentionally left all the original O-rings and fuel lines in the car for 5 years after I converted to E85. Then when I did a turbocharger upgrade I pulled the fuel injectors out. The O-rings looked like new, were supple and firm like new and showed no sign of degradation or stickiness. I also slit open a section of the OEM fuel line and opened it up. It also looked like new, and was firm and sound. I let it dry for 2 weeks then bent it back 180 degrees to check for checking and cracking after the rubber inner liner had completely dried out. It still had no sign of checks, cracking or gummy surface, it literally looked like new.
From my experience (over 30 years running ethanol added fuels) and 8 years running E85 in 3 different cars which were gasoline only designs manufactured in 1986, 1988, and 2001, I have had ZERO problems with ethanol compatibility since 1979 and that fuel line on my VW. I also moderate an E85 web forum and complaints regarding E85 are essentially zero on hundreds of conversions from all over the world.
Problems with ethanol compatibility are as near zero as you can get with any automotive change. There are however a good number of mechanics and service tech’s who are blaming ethanol for everything you can imagine, and scamming their customers out of millions of dollars in unnecessary repair work that they are illegitimately blaming on ethanol.
As you point out, there are a few real issues but they (with the exception of the boat fuel tanks and cheap utility engines that use zinc and magnesium components) trivial and well within the range of normal wear and tear. In the last 40 years of driving I have had 4 fuel pumps fail. Every single one of them were on cars that ran gasoline only, prior to the introduction of ethanol enhanced gasoline. I have had one fuel line leak issue on a 20 year old VW rubber fuel line shortly after ethanol added fuel came into use. Since 1979 (about 400,000 miles of driving in a half dozen different cars) I have had no fuel system problems of any kind due to ethanol.
Larry
toyotawhizguy (18:15:37) :
…
Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley have been turning out crap studies on ethanol for decades. Every few years they trot out a regurgitation of the same mis-information and the media eats it up. They have the same sort of problems and th AGW folks. They use out of date statistics for energy usage required for fertilizer production and crop yields and try to include every bit of energy invested in infrastructure and even the free solar energy the plants store to come up with those numbers. Their studies have been discredited as many times as the hocky stick but the media has ignored that minor problem.
http://egov.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/docs/FORUM/FossilEnergyUse.pdf
http://www.nebiofuels.org/pdfs/Energy%20Balance.pdf
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/final_word_on_e.php
Larry
A couple more http://www.ncga.com/files/pdf/LandUseandSustainability4-09.pdf
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/ethanol_myths_facts.html
My understanding is that it takes more than one calorie of fossil fuel to produce one calorie of ethanol from corn (maize).
First there is the energy required to prepare the field and seed the crop and for weeding, whether by mechanical or chemical means. Energy is required to produce and transport the fertilizer. Energy is required for harvesting and husking and transport. Energy is needed to run the ethanol processing plant.
Finally, what is often overlooked: energy is required to manufacture the equipment and buildings used in all of these processes. The fact that ethanol is so expensive reflects the amount of engery used in relation to the energy output from the fuel itself. The fossil fuel energy inputs generate CO2.
As a solution to CO2 production, biofuels do not make any sense. The research that shows corn is a net consumer of energy was done 50 years ago at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. The research was done by a professor of government, which is appropriate because subsidies for biofuel production are a shameful waste of public money.
PS fellows the out of the energy used to produce the Yellow dent corn and ferment the starch to ethanol and dry the distillers grain for animal feed, only 17% of that energy is gasoline and fuel. 73% of that energy is Natural Gas. So with corn ethanol you get fuel, animal feed and get the energy from the sun and from the consumption of the corn plant using CO2 and most of the energy used is not Gasoline or Diesel fuel. So this beats the hell out of T, Boone pickens plan of converting Natural Gas to car fuel. Corn Ethanol does it and you get the animal feed which is what we grow on our farmland anyhow….John..
Pure ethanol (76,000 BTU) only has about 65% THE BTU’s per gallon of gasoline (115,000 to 125,000 BTUs) so it would produce less MPG.
francisedwardwhite
Everything you stated was false. You need to learn facts or just ignore the subject. But to repeat flase crud when you have not a clue is diservice to me as a hard working farmer or the many employees in the Agriculture, Feed and Ethanol Business…..Way to much crud floats around the Web as you well know……..John…
Interesting thread, but a couple of things have gotten lost in the shuffle. First, the original reason for mandating ethanol in gasoline was to reduce air pollution, not CO2. You know, particulates and the stuff that comes from the nitrogen and sulfur contaminants in refined petroleum products. I don’t think there’s any question that, in that sense, EtOH burns cleaner than gas.
If John can grow corn for cattle feed and make more money producing ethanol into the bargain, then good for him. I’m always happy to see farmers making a profit. However, as a long-term solution for major energy needs I don’t believe biofuels are any kind of solution. Pilot projects are all very well, but scaling up can be a bitch.
With respect to the oil palm comments, it’s also worth noting that a lot of poor Indonesian farmers stopped growing food crops to grow oil palms. Now they can’t make any money and they no longer can feed their families with their own crop production.
The Corn Ethanol Solution is just one more example of a ‘green consensus’ solution leading to disastrous unintended consequences: deforestation, water depletion, rising world food prices and destabilized agricultural societies. It fits right in with:
Smokey Bear – a ‘green consensus’ driven century of intensive (and expensive) fire suppression policies by the USFS. Unintended consequences: fuel buildup in America’s forests have resulted in more extreme wildfires, greater property loss and subsequent soil erosion.
Green Revolution – the ‘green consensus’ awarded a Nobel Prize to the Green Revolution theory, advocating intensive use of pesticides and herbicides, and large-scale crop monocultures, to end world famine. Unintended consequences: soil and water pollution, deforestation, more cancer, displacement of small farmers, and enabling of continued world population growth (and no end to famine).
Now a ‘green consensus’ proposes to “stop” climate change (after 4.5 billion years of climate change) by suppressing anthropogenic CO2 emissions by committing the globe to an untested “bioengineering” experiment!
You have that exactly backwards. Summer blend E85 is nominally 85% ethanol (hence the name) in the winter time the blend changes (just as winter gasoline changes) to improve cold starting and drops down to about 70-75% ethanol.
The switchover is “recommended” not required, local blenders make the switch when climate/weather and their fuel inventory make it most logical.
The fuel ethanol itself is never pure ethanol as it is required to be denatured by law, with an addition of other chemicals to avoid paying liqueur taxes on the ethanol. Most often the fuel ethanol is actually E98, 98% ethanol and 2% natural gasoline or E95, 95% ethanol with 5% toluene. There are several approved denaturent mixes.
Assuming the consumer reports study was done on summer blend that is 10 gallons of E85 (85% E98) and 15% gasoline or about 17% gasoline content and 83% pure ethanol content.
Today’s average national E85 price is $2.25/gallon, and todays national average regular gasoline price is $2.75.
At 14 mpg on gasoline your cost per mile is 19.64 cents per mile
At 10 mpg on E85 your cost per mile is 22.5 cents per mile.
This is in the Tahoe tested which is without a doubt one of the worst FFV’s available on the market today. General motors really has to work hard to get that bad of fuel mileage on E85, back yard mechanics easily beat these numbers with simple no frills conversions.
Let’s look at the economics in my converted WRX.
At 24 mpg on regular gasoline (my car requires premium) = 11.46 cents per mile.
At 24 mpg on premium at $2.85 per gallon = 11.86 cents per mile
At 22 mpg on E85 at $2.25 per gallon = 10.23 cents per mile.
It only costs me 86% as much as gasoline, to drive on E85.
http://e85prices.com/colorado.html
Here where I live the price spread is:
E85 =$2.17/gal
Regular = $2.55/gal
Premium = $2.65/gal
So my personal savings where I buy fuel would be
At 24 mpg on premium at $2.65 per gallon = 11.04 cents per mile
At 22 mpg on E85 at $2.17 per gallon = 9.86 cents per mile.
Running E85 saves me 11.96% on what I would spend on gasoline to go the same distance.
Conclusion — if you know what your talking about, and using real data, the numbers make sense and E85 wins hands down in the real world in real cars doing every day driving.
Larry
To: Steve Schaper, who said: “Rod E. A tax break is not a subsidy paid by you. Read up on American agriculture from WWII to the present so that you don’t look so much like an idiot.”
Leaving aside the insult, a tax break IS a subsidy. When everyone pays their taxes equally, taxes are fair. When the government favors one group’s tax rate over another they are granting them favored tax treatment, i.e., direct monetary assistance. You ordinarily would owe $1,000,000, but hey, because you’re a favored group doing something in the public interest, just pay us $250,000 this year.
Definition of subsidy: “Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.” And guess where the government gets it’s money so it can grant all that “monetary assistance”? That’s right, you and me.
The problem with a subsidy, whether in the form of direct payment or a tax break for that favored endeavor, is that we have these endless arguments about the underlying economics. Drop the subsidy (tax break) and see if ethanol can stand on its own. I doubt that it will, but if it does, fine. Because that would mean that the total inputs are sufficiently exceeded by the total outputs to generate a reasonable profit margin.
Sure, there are other considerations, like keeping smog down, but ethanol subsidization has gone way, way past those considerations and are a political con game, pure and simple.
Also, even though the subsidy is directed to the blenders, competition drives down their profit margin as they bid up the price of the ethanol component until everything balances out. And the farmer benefits from that bidding up process, as does the ethanol manufacturer.
One of my favorite aspects of biofuels is how the government can take our tax dollars and pump it into this industry. In doing so, they create an artificial demand for corn, mais, or whatever you want to call it and drive up the price of food products. So, in a nutshell, they’re using our tax money to make things more expensive for us.
What was it someone said about “I’m from the government and I’m here to help?”