Opponents make compelling case but can’t derail or even slow this well-protected industry
Guest opinion by Paul Driessen
Like most people I’ve spoken with, I have no innate, inflexible antipathy to ethanol in gasoline. What upsets me are the deceptive claims used to justify adding mostly corn-based ethanol to this indispensable fuel; the way seriously harmful unintended consequences are brushed aside; and the insidious crony corporatist system the ethanol program has spawned between producers and members of Congress.
What angers me are the legislative and regulatory mandates that force us to buy gasoline that is 10% ethanol – even though it gets lower mileage than 100% gasoline, brings none of the proclaimed benefits (environmental or otherwise), drives up food prices, and damages small engines. In fact, in most areas, it’s almost impossible to find E-zero gasoline, and that problem will get worse as mandates increase.
My past articles lambasting ethanol (here, here, here and here) addressed these issues, and said ethanol epitomizes federal programs that taxpayers and voters never seem able to terminate, no matter how wasteful or harmful they become. That’s primarily because its beneficiaries are well funded, motivated, politically connected and determined to keep their gravy train rolling down the tracks – while opponents and victims have far less funding, focus, motivation and ability to reach the decision-making powers.
Ethanol got started because of assertions that even now are still trotted out, despite having outlived their time in the real-world sun. First, we were told, ethanol would be a bulwark against oil imports from unfriendly nations, especially as the USA depleted its rapidly dwindling petroleum reserves. Of course, the fracking (horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing) revolution has given America and the world at least a century of new reserves, and the US now exports more oil and refined products than it imports.
Second, renewable fuels would help prevent dangerous manmade climate change. However, with the 2015-16 El Niño temperature spike now gone, average global temperatures are continuing the 20-year no-increase trend that completely contradicts alarmist predictions and models. Harvey was the first major hurricane in a record twelve years to make US landfall. And overall, the evidence-based scientific case for “dangerous manmade climate change” has become weaker with every passing year.
Moreover, the claim that ethanol and other biofuels don’t emit as much allegedly climate-impacting (but certainly plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide as gasoline has also been put out to pasture. In reality, over their full life cycle (from planting and harvesting crops, to converting them to fuel, to transporting them by truck, to blending and burning them), biofuels emit at least as much CO2 as their petroleum counterparts.
Ironically, the state that grows the most corn and produces the most ethanol – the state whose Republican senators had a fit when EPA proposed to reduce its 2018 non-ethanol biodiesel requirement by a measly 315 million gallons, out of 19.3 billion gallons in total renewable fuels – buys less ethanol-laced gasoline than do average consumers in the rest of the USA. That state is Iowa.
In fact, Iowans bought more ethanol-free gasoline in 2016 than what EPA projects the entire United States will be able to buy in just a few more years, as the E10 mandates ratchet higher and higher.
And so this past week, after months of battles, debates and negotiations, President Trump hosted a White House meeting with legislators The purpose was to address and compromise on at least some of the thorny issues that had put Ted Cruz, Joni Ernst and other politicians at loggerheads, as they sought to reform some aspects of the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) system while protecting their constituents.
In an effort to expand the reform agenda, by making legislators and citizens better informed in advance of the meeting, 18 diverse organizations wrote a joint letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, underscoring why they believe broad and significant RFS reform is essential. Signatories included major national meat and poultry producers and processors, restaurants, marine manufacturers, small engine owners, consumer and taxpayer organizations, and conservation and environmental groups. They were especially worried about the prospect that the Congress and Administration might allow year-round sales of 15% (E15) ethanol blends in gasoline, but they raised other pressing concerns as well.
* As large shares of domestic corn and soy crops are now diverted from food use to fuel production, poultry, beef, pork and fish producers (and consumers) face volatile and increasing prices for animal feed.
* Ethanol wreaks havoc on the engines and fuel systems of boats, motorcycles and lawn equipment, as well as many automobiles, which are not capable or allowed to run on E15. Repair and replacement costs are a major issue for marine and small engine owners (as I personally discovered when I owned a boat).
* Consumers and taxpayers must pay increasing costs as biofuel mandates increase under the RFS.
* Millions of acres of native prairie and other ecosystems have been turned into large-scale agricultural developments, because the RFS encourages farmers to plow land, instead of preserving habitats. This endangers ecosystems and species, exacerbates agricultural run-off and degrades water quality.
* Biofuel demand promotes conversion of natural habitats to palm oil and other plantations overseas, as well as domestically. Their life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions rival or exceed those of oil and gas.
* Expanding markets for corn ethanol by increasing E15 sales ignores and exacerbates these problems – while benefiting a small subset of the US economy but negatively impacting far more sectors, including the general public and the industries and interests represented by signatories to the Pruitt letter.
Following the meeting, several signatories expanded on these concerns – and noted that the compromise did increase E15 sales, while reducing the RFS impact on small refineries that were being forced to buy paper biofuel certificates because they weren’t making enough gasoline to need mandated real biofuel.
Requiring every American to buy ethanol gasoline “isn’t good enough” for biofuel companies anymore, the National Council of Chain Restaurants remarked. “Now they want a waiver from federal clean air laws so they can sell high blends of ethanol, which pollutes the air in warm weather months, year round.”
“Arbitrarily waiving the E15 [ozone emissions] restriction and permitting year-round E15 sales, without comprehensive reform of the RFS,” merely boosts ethanol sales and justifies future government-imposed increases to the ethanol mandate, the National Taxpayers Union noted. These “hidden taxes,” damage to small engines, and lower gas mileage are “a direct hit” on family budgets, especially for poor families.
The new year-round E15 policy will “cause serious chaos for recreational boaters,” the National Marine Manufacturers Association stated. Over 60% of consumers falsely assume any gasoline sold at retail gas stations must be safe for their equipment. It is essential that EPA launch “a public awareness campaign, improved labeling standards, and new safeguards at the pump that protect American consumers.”
“Granting a Clean Air Act waiver for the corn ethanol industry … would mean doubling down on a policy that has already been a disaster for the environment,” the National Wildlife Federation said. Congress needs to … reform the ethanol mandate before it does more damage.”
“US farmers are in a severe crisis and millions of people around the world are forced to go without food,” ActionAid USA pointed out. “We need policies that guarantee everyone enough food to eat, fair prices for farmers, and protect our environment. Biofuels don’t do that.” In fact, they make the situation far worse.
Unfortunately, a deal was struck. The noisiest and best-connected warring factions got what they wanted. These other pressing concerns were ignored, as the can once again got kicked down the road.
Refiners will now save hundreds of millions of dollars a year, by not having to buy ethanol that they don’t need to blend into the smaller quantities of gasoline they are refining. Corn farmers and ethanol producers will rake in hundreds of millions more a year. All that is good for those industries, their workers and investors, and the politicians who get their campaign contributions.
But what about the rest of America? The Congress, White House and EPA need to address our environmental and pocketbook concerns, too. When will the next negotiating session be held?
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy and environmental policy.
What is the ethanol rate that removes the need for MBTE in fuel? That is probably the only advantage in real pollution terms as MBTE leakage can do some damage. I am sure it probably less than 5% so nothing to do with these mandates.
I knew at one time, but my aging brain doesn’t retain everything it once seemed to. It is less than the current 10%, however. But, now ethanol does not need that to compete – as long as Big Oil isn’t successful in killing the industry. (Remember the post above about “crony capitalism??)
There is no rate.
MTBE made gas that created less smog forming emissions.
Ethanol from corn does the opposite…it is worse than gas alone.
Pay no attention to Kermit…he is a lying troll.
Menicholas May 14, 2018 at 9:37 pm
There is no rate.
Thereby indicating you don’t know what you’re talking about!
Ethanol is in gasoline as an octane booster, the blending Octane Number of ethanol is 112. To get a tank of gas with an octane rating of 87 you’d have to replace the ethanol with similar octane rated fuel. The base fuel without ethanol has an octane rating of ~81. MTBE had a slightly higher Octane Number so could be used at a slightly lower %.
@Menicholas … If you DISAGREE with what Kermit, myself, or anyone else here states then post an intelligent, credible rebuttal – with your own documented references and sources that support your claims.
That us how it works here at WUWT.
Simply being a dick does not further the discussion in any way.
Where are those environmentalists?
This is what the World Bank paper says about biofuels:
Policy Research Working Paper 5513
Abstract
This study analyzes the long-term impacts of large-scale expansion of biofuels on land-use change, food supply and prices, and the overall economy in various countries or regions using a global computable general equilibrium model, augmented by a land-use module and detailed representation of biofuel sectors. The study finds that an expansion of global biofuel production to meet currently articulated or even higher national targets in various countries for biofuel use would reduce gross domestic product at the global level; however, the gross domestic product impacts are mixed across countries or regions. The expansion of biofuels would cause significant land re-allocation with notable decreases in forest and pasture lands in a few countries. The results also suggest that the expansion of biofuels would cause a reduction in food supply. Although the magnitude of the impact on food supply at the global level is not as large as perceived earlier, it would be significant in developing countries like India and those in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural commodities such as sugar, corn, and oil seeds, which serve as the main biofuel feedstocks, would experience significant increases in their prices in 2020 compared with the prices at baseline due to the expansion of biofuels to meet the existing targets.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/454291468154776919/pdf/WPS5513.pdf
At least one UN organization appears to have at least a tinkle of logical thought processes.
Ethanol distilleries use an incredible amount of water. Most smaller, rural communities now want nothing to do with them. On a market note, ethanol mandates come down to nothing but a huge federal subsidy. If ethanol mandates went bye-bye today, farmland prices would collapse tomorrow in the Corn belt. What we now have is an artificially engineered price set in concrete. Farmers produce way too much corn, ignore other less profitable crops, and use the inflated land prices to borrow.
It should be noted that all of the modern mandates can be traced to Bush43 and the GOP Congress. Big Ag met Big Green, and Crony Socialism did the rest.
BS! To say that rural communities want nothing to do with them – well, I just don’t know what to say about that! What shape do you think those rural communities would be in if ag prices collapsed? Where would the money for the schools come from? The money that drives the local economy?
So, ethanol mandates “come down to nothing but a huge federal subsidy”? Ethanol blended gas being significantly cheaper than regular gas refutes that argument. Consumers CHOOSE the blended gas – because it is cheaper! The mandates are only so that Big Oil cannot freeze ethanol out of the market and force consumers to pay more for pure gasoline.
But, again, the simple question is – do the mandates increase the price or not? In the case of wind towers, government mandates clearly force consumers to pay more. In the case of ethanol blended gas, however, consumers, when given a choice, choose to buy the blended gas. Without subsidies.
Ethanol mandates have their root in the fighting AGW, Global Warming. It has nothing to do with pollution. We are subsidizing a fantasy. The added cost to our economy by these mandates are in the hundreds of billions of dollars. US farmers laughed all the way to the bank when corn rose from $2.50 a bushel in 2003 to $10 a bushel in 2010. Corn prices now mirror oil prices, thanks to the mandates. It’s simply welfare for corn farmers.
No the reason non ethanol gas is more expensive is that the federal government has quotas on the minimum % amount of ethanol that gasoline companies must sell compared to non ethanol gas.The amount is ~ 7%. So because there is 15 times as much ethanol gasoline produced as there is compared to non ethanol gasoline, the economies of scale in the fractionalization gasoline plants mandate a more expensive price for the non ethanol gasoline because of shorter production runs. Everytime a plant has to switch over to produce a product that is miniscule in relation to the other product then the economies of nonscale kick in. Without the ethanol quota the high octane gasoline prices would come down. Here in Canada you cant buy regular gas without having 10% ethanol in it which damages catalytic converters. So I buy premium gas which doesnt have ethanol in it but I pay 11 cents more per litre. That price difference is mostly because of the market disturbing quota on total ethanol sales. Whenever the government intervenes to affect the supply demand curve evetything gets messed up. There should be no subsidies and no quotas of any kind.
The “root” for ethanol (oxygenate) went all the way back before cars had catalytic converters, and it had the effect of reducing carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions. Catalytic converters do a much better job today.
“Consumers CHOOSE the blended gas – because it is cheaper! ”
A pure lie.
Seriously Kermit…you are wasting everyone’s time trolling the thread like this.
This is so far from reality it is stupefying.
Just stop it.
Alan Tomalty May 14, 2018 at 12:02 pm
The amount is ~ 7%. So because there is 15 times as much ethanol gasoline produced as there is compared to non ethanol gasoline, the economies of scale in the fractionalization gasoline plants mandate a more expensive price for the non ethanol gasoline because of shorter production runs.
Non ethanol gasoline will be more expensive because producing 87 octane gasoline requires more cracking than producing the 81 octane gasoline that it now produces to blend with ethanol.
@Menicholas
I have to admit – now you have me laughing. I realize that I’ve been sucked into responding to a master troll.
@Menicholas … no YOU please stop it. Stop taunting with your juvenile denigrating ad hominem attacks devoid of a shred of actual reasoned cogent response or supporting sources and references for your claims.
It is most certainly not “a pure lie” as you claim that ethanol blends are reducing consumer costs.
As I showed above at the wholesale price level, which strips out varying retailer margins and taxes, E10 is 3.26% cheaper than straight gasoline but only has 1.89% lower energy content.
In the bigger picture however, the overall use of ethanol – its providing 10% of our US transportation fuel needs – serves to reduce overall gas costs to the consumer.
In a recent (2011) paper by the Center for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD), economists from Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin found that the use of more than 13 billion gallons of ethanol reduced gasoline prices by an average of $0.89/gallon in 2010 …and further, that for the first decade of the 2,000’s, growth in ethanol production and use helped keep gasoline prices cheaper by an average of
25 cents per gallon.
Real research by highly credible professionals with specific, direct domain experience … I’ll take their scientific expertise over unsourced, unhinged rants every time.
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/103916/2/11-WP_523.Du-Hayes.pdf
Ethanol plants can use a lot of water, but it’s much improved from the initial plants that discharged more of their waste water. Modern plants reuse most of the water for fermentation and other processes, and use less than 2.5 gallons of water to make a gallon of ethanol. Guess how much water it takes to refine a gallon of gasoline? 1.5-2.5 gallons.
There’s a lot of other issues with modern farming practices that I agree with you on.
I know of at least a half dozen rural towns in Indiana that said no to ethanol plants after researching the water use problems ethanol plants put on local supplies.
Ethanol does not reduce gasoline usage, and in fact in all likelihood increases it.
On top of everything else it reduces gas mileage.
It likely takes nearly as much fuel to create the ethanol as the yield.
If it was cheaper, in farm country they would all be driving ethanol tractors and burning ethanol to fuel the distilleries.
It is a lie…just another ho@x, a scheme to extract money from everyone to benefit a few.
If not, there would need be no mandate.
Everyone would be jumping to use it.
@JP … it is another simply false claim that ethanol plants use “incredible” amounts of water.
Early ethanol plants (1990’s) used appx 5.8 gals of water per 1 gal ethanol. A 2010 report by University of Illinois found the average ethanol plant used appx 2.76 gal of water per 1 gal of ethanol …. and returned appx .46 gal of clean water to the watershed. In 2012 POET was down to 2.33 gal of water per gal of ethanol.
Water use has continued to fall in the years since. Today water use has been reduced further – and water is recycled onsite and reused. Additionally plants are turning to treated effluent – “gray water” from sewer treatment plants for water needs.
At 2 gal per 1 gal ethanol a 40mgy (million gal/yr) ethanol plant – assuming ground water (not gray water) use – uses a bit more than 200,000 gallons per day.
A single golf course uses appx 130,000 gals per day.
Yeah, but people LIKE to play golf, and do it of their own free will.
It is not being forced on us all via a wasteful unnecessary and onerously burdensome requirement that costs us all money and hassle.
You can repeat the BS as often as you like…we are used to it here…people by the dozens and hundreds have been refuting one self serving bullshit story after another for a very long time and we will never stop refuting bullshit because WE ARE SICK OF IT!
@Menicholas You have not made one SINGLE intelligent credible rebuttal of anything here. Not a single one of your many comments contains a even one cogent, reasoned rebuttal – with facts and data – and you’ve not provided one single source or reference to support your claims.
Not one … of anything. The ONLY content of your posts is to denigrate and demean others with claims that several have proven to be absolutely false and unsupported.
But go ahead … surprise us … pick a single point you disagree with, write a reasoned, intelligent rebuttal and include documented sources and references that support you claim.
We’ll wait …
I predict … nothing more than a bunch more simple, unhinged, undocumented and unsupported attacks.
At the very margin, raising food prices by using ethanol in fuel will cause more kids to go hungry, somewhere. However, most kids who go hungry, in the US at least, do so due to ethanol being consumed by their parents and/or drugs or simply being idiot parents or nonexistent parents. Most other arguments against using it in fuel as noted here are probably legitimate and the political process involved is well described in this article and posted comments. My 15 year old honda vtx seems to not have suffered from it as well as my riding mower of similar age. But then honda bikes are much more resilient than those oil leaking harleys.
“At the very margin, raising food prices by using ethanol in fuel will cause more kids to go hungry, somewhere.”
No. At least, not noticeably. Increased demand for corn brings on increased production. Price is the incentive for increased production. With that increased production comes lower prices. Currently, we have massive surpluses and cheap prices. We have never had problems producing food. Some people, however, do have problems making enough money to buy it. This is not a problem that ethanol production causes, however. (Actually, ethanol production has a byproduct that is a high protein meal that is very valuable.)
Per my remarks above “The USDA says that if you account for corn everywhere it appears in their food price index, it represents about $.02 out of every $1.00. Labor represents about $.40 out of every $1.00!!”
You don’t remember that Arab Spring uprisings were caused by raising food prices.
“You don’t remember that Arab Spring uprisings were caused by raising food prices.”
Of course. And, where is the price of corn now? (We are talking corn prices here, aren’t we?)
Response to Curious George. Those Arab spring riots were about bread, wheat and rice.
Shortage of one raised the price of all like dominos.
Some harms have repercussions from long hence in addition to the fresh ones being heaped upon daily.
How many dies in Syria since the cost of corn “went down”?
And how about next time?
And what gives anyone the right to force everyone in the country to water down our gas and damage our equipment and waste our money?
You should be ashamed of yourself for defending the indefensible.
You do not even try to deny that this policy you love because you benefit from it has killed tens of thousands if not millions, and caused a mass migration into Europe which might yet cause allied countries to become enemies once the people who hate us multiply sufficiently to take over.
During the Arab Spring riots wheat prices the farmers in the US received peaked at $8.16(monthly average for May 2011). 3 years earlier the price of wheat peaked at $10.60(monthly average for March 2008). Why weren’t there food riots in 2008 when prices were 29.9% higher?
“However, most kids who go hungry, in the US at least, do so due to ethanol being consumed” Per my remarks above “If our government eliminated the ethanol mandate, farmers would only grow enough more food corn to replace the spent grain from ethanol production. They would not grow any more than that because they have no market for it”
Randy,
You did not quote me accurately. Consumed by their parents, not so much in gasoline but in beverages along with drugs etc. Perhaps I was not clear in my intent.
Kermit,
At the margin, when consumption goes up supply takes a little while to follow and at the margin some kids, somewhere will suffer in the food chain. In my significant experience, parents, for whatever the reason, are still the primary problem for their kids’ problems, not always the case but most of the time when it comes to little children. And of course many times it is government right in there with them as a causal variable.
“And of course many times it is government right in there with them as a causal variable.”
Yes, government can have a short term effect on prices. Economics shows, however, that that short term effect has long term effects too, and that tends to be opposite. Make the price of corn higher short term, and the longer term (and more lasting) effect is lower prices than otherwise would have been the case. Similarly, keep the price low, and the longer term effect is supply reduction and higher prices.
The corn market is the perfect example of this. Today, we have huge surpluses and the (real) price for corn is very low.
BTW, a trip to the butcher shop is interesting. Beef is high – relative to what it has been in the past – but that is not due to high corn prices. Beef is expensive to produce, and the best cuts, being the most in demand by people making good money, appear to be high. Pork is cheap. Very cheap. Chicken is unbelievably cheap. Also, we have a huge oversupply of milk (just going on my recollections here). Food – quality food – is very affordable in this country.
Only one reason to use a starch crop in lieu of a sugar crop (cane or beets) – powerful lobby. Topsoil loss for either.
Snow
Oh, there’s more than one reason.
Have you ever tried growing sugar cane in South Dakota?
Or storing sugar beets over winter to feed to cattle?
Corn has some pretty serious advantages as far as weather hardiness, storage and handling.
Mr. Dreissen,
Is it your thinking that Congress should eliminate the oxygenation requirements for motor fuel?
Here is an old link (2002) that reflects how ethanol became the only game in town for California. Problems with the additive MTBE led to California’s request for a waiver on the oxygenation requirement, which was denied by the EPA. Ethanol was all that was left.
https://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-100/issue-2/general-interest/mtbe-vs-ethanol-sorting-through-the-oxygenate-issues.html
The problem is what to do when MTBE is phased out, especially if the phase-out is over a relatively short time, as is clearly the case in California. California’s answer was to request a waiver of the oxygenate requirement, a request the EPA denied in June 2001. Without a waiver, the only way to replace MTBE is with a massive expansion in the use of ethanol….
Apolgies for misspelling your name
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4173660-exxon-mobil-loses-foe-gains-ally
As with all things, change is slow. Ethanol will go…one day. In the meantime, Exxon has gotten a lot of support in Oakland and San Fransisco. Here is a quote from seekingalpha.com author:
“The company also benefited from two developments, one expected and one very unexpected, involving the various climate change investigations and lawsuits that it is defending itself against. The expected (but no less important) development was the filing of an amicus brief by the U.S. Department of Justice [DOJ] that had been requested by the judge hearing the climate change lawsuit brought by San Francisco and Oakland against Exxon Mobil and four of its competitors.
While the Trump administration was always unlikely to file a brief in favor of the plaintiff cities’ claims, the DOJ’s brief ultimately lends heavy legal support to Exxon Mobil. First, the brief makes clear that the lawsuit is contrary to the interests of the federal government, both in the form of a recent Executive Order promoting energy independence and past bipartisan legislation making greenhouse gas emission regulation a federal matter. Lawyers for Exxon Mobil and the other defendants have argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed on those same grounds, so having the DOJ reaffirm that argument lends it additional credibility.
The DOJ went one step further and also answered some of the questions regarding legal precedents invoked by the lawsuit that the federal judge overseeing the case had earlier required the plaintiffs and defendants to both respond to. Not surprisingly, the two sides had opposite answers to the questions given that the judge is currently weighing whether or not to dismiss the lawsuit at the request of Exxon Mobil and its competitors. The DOJ’s response leaned on a heavy body of court rulings at the federal level to show exactly why precedent requires that the lawsuit be dismissed.”
The link is well worth reading, in full. Within the article, there are various links to supporting documents, well.
I see the light at the end of the tunnel. For those in the way, that’s a train. For others, it’s hope this mess continues to crumble.
Cliff
Can someone please explain to me how we reduce CO2 emissions by using E10 or E15 when the 15
– 20% decrease mileage means that you are burning 15 – 20% MORE gasoline? Over the last fifteen years I have carefully kept track of my mileage and MPG. On my annual trips to visit my grandchildren, a 1600 mile round trip on interstate highways the MPG is always 15+% worse when filled with the ethanol blend. (In cruise control most of the trip.) City traffic decreases the MPG to the point it is cheaper to use Premium Grade Ethanol free.
That sounds kind of like the low-flow toilets that are supposed to reduce water usage, but sometimes you have to flush twice anyway to get the job done! And of course flushing twice simply uses as much if not more water….Or low flow shower heads where you have to shower longer because it takes longer to get the soap out of your hair. It is really bizarre (and sad) that some people still believe that there really is such a thing as a free lunch……
usurbrain May 14, 2018 at 8:08 am
Can someone please explain to me how we reduce CO2 emissions by using E10 or E15 when the 15
– 20% decrease mileage means that you are burning 15 – 20% MORE gasoline? Over the last fifteen years I have carefully kept track of my mileage and MPG. On my annual trips to visit my grandchildren, a 1600 mile round trip on interstate highways the MPG is always 15+% worse when filled with the ethanol blend. (In cruise control most of the trip.) City traffic decreases the MPG to the point it is cheaper to use Premium Grade Ethanol free.
There’s no way that E10 should give you that big a reduction in performance, I suggest you get your ignition timing looked at.
My results are about the same with three different vehicles over the last 15 years. Vehicle is filled within 1/2 mile of my home and driven the ~800 miles to my sons home. Where it sits till we drive home and is filled again at the same Gas station. One trip is with Non Ethanol and the next year it is only with Ethanol fuel.
If my timing needs adjusted why do I still get 10% better than the US Government Fuel Economy Estimates.
Also, How do I adjust override the computer auto adjustment?
Have you purposely measured your mileage over a long distance with only one and then only the other? If not try it.
usurbrain May 15, 2018 at 9:19 am
If my timing needs adjusted why do I still get 10% better than the US Government Fuel Economy Estimates.
Also, How do I adjust override the computer auto adjustment?
Have you purposely measured your mileage over a long distance with only one and then only the other? If not try it.
No have not recently. However I ran an engine research lab for over twenty years and conducted research for GM, Ford, Yamaha, Honda, VW and Fiat. There’s no way you should get results that bad, as for adjusting the timing control that would depend on your vehicle. If you’re hitting fuel economy standards with one fuel then a 15% reduction means you aren’t with the other.
The politics of ethanol is more compelling than the science. But – Please let’s SLOWLY undo the mess we have created. You have no idea how disrupted the farm economy would be is you suddenly ended the ethanol mandates. End them slowly – we are turn almost fifty percent of the total corn crop into ethanol.
I spent a ton of money having my motorcycle serviced – to remove algae from the carburetor. This is a direct consequence of corn in my gasoline. I shudder to think of using the new 15% blend. And all for NOTHING!
THEN DON’T USE IT!
It’s called consumer choice. And, if you don’t have a choice, talk to your politicians and make them provide you with a choice.
You aren’t saying, are you, that you expect to purchase pure gasoline at the same price ethanol blended gasoline is offered at? Ethanol blended gasoline is cheaper to produce than pure gasoline with the same octane rating.
Your responses are so naive and childish. TELL YOUR REPS! oh good god, seriously? Again with this horsehockey? What is the last item you “MADE” your politician provide? get a grip man
“TELL YOUR REPS! oh good god, seriously? ”
Yes, seriously – tell them at the voting booth! And don’t blame the ethanol industry for your stupidity in electing people who won’t give you a choice in how you wish to spend your money.
In case you can’t tell by now, I hate Central Planning. I also hate having one industry with so much power that they can refuse to allow competition to their product.
I would strongly suggest that you get your head out from where the sun don’t shine and learn how markets work. NOTHING works as good as the marketplace in allocating resources. If the oil companies had their way and could eliminate ethanol blends from the marketplace, what do you think the price of gasoline would do?? What do you think the net effect would be to our economy – and to countless local economies – if production of ethanol was halted?
Yes, you had better “TELL YOUR REPS” – preferably in the voting booth.
Kermit, you make me sick.
You are really an awful person.
That’s a direct consequence of leaving the fuel stand in the tank for extended periods of time and not having a good seal on the tank. If you’re going to leave the bike standing for long periods then top it up.
Curious George, those Arab spring riots were about bread wheat and rice.
Paul, My pet pieve on Ethanol is that it takes MORE energy to distill it than what we get back in our automobiles. Sad very sad..
@Dennis J Feindel … another completely false claim.
Average ethanol plants generate 2.1 to 2.4 units of energy for every 1 unit if energy expended. In areas with more advanced processes like Minnesota, yields are up to 4 units produced for 1 unit expended.
Upgraded process plants that incorporate corn residue from corn ethanol production and field residue (corn stover) to provide 50% of the power req’d to produce the corn are generating 8 units of energy fir every 1 unit of energy expended in production.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045905/pdf
try storing many thousands of dollars of small engines over the winter then get back to me.
even draining and pouring stabil into tanks does not stop issues.
@Dmacleo … It’s been well understood for more than a decade that ethanol blends were not compatible with older small engines. Why do you continue to use ethanol in them?
because there are NO non-ethanol facilities here, closest is hours away,
Interesting you should write this, as last evening, I just finished un-gumming a picky high-maintenance female carburetor on a generator. Almost certainly the trouble was exacerbated by ethanol in the gasoline. I read several articles on what ethanol in gasoline does to small engines, just 2 days ago. I have a lot of small engines, and some carburetors will eat anything, and a couple others won’t. The pickiest ones are on the generator and on the wood chipper.
The advice of most good mechanics is to use pure gasoline in your small engines, even if it means getting premium gas.
The only damage will be to old engines whose rubber parts arent designed to handle ethanol, the same was true about old engines not handling lead free fuel, parts need changing, time will phase out old engines, so this isnt a valid reason no to use E10.
Old engines also have a lot of crud in them, ethanol is a strong solvent which picks up these residues and can block the jets in the carb. So the problem here is that there is crud in the fuel system that needs cleaning before ethanol fuel is used.
As for “In reality, over their full life cycle (from planting and harvesting crops, to converting them to fuel, to transporting them by truck, to blending and burning them), biofuels emit at least as much CO2 as their petroleum counterparts.”
Compared to discovering oil fields, drilling, transporting the crude oil, refining it, etc to produce petrol I find it hard to believe the CO2 production of planting-harvesting-fermenting-distilling is any higher.
As for transporting the finished fuel by truck, that’s the same for both fuels.
Of course the burning of the fuel produces, per hp, roughly the same CO2, the big difference is that of course as a crop the plant the sugar is obtained from takes up CO2 as part of photosynthesis. This isn’t true of gasoline.
Alcohol is a nice fuel. It can support a much higher compression ration than gasoline so for a given engine capacity can produce much more power. There is a reason it is used as a racing fuel, and this is it.
It also burns more cleanly, since it has oxygen in the fuel (this is why it needs to run richer than gasoline, alcohol needs less air to burn). The result is less carbon monoxide.
All in all alcohol is an excellent fuel for cars, and has been used for a long time in Brazil, where both Fiat and VW have made cars with rubber work suitable for ethanol.
Engine design, handling, and transport are exactly the same, so it is an easy fuel to switch to.
Its production could well be the focus of much genetic engineering, and I believe progress has been made in creating algae that have higher sugar production. Perhaps super yeasts that can live in high alcohol solutions. It is an interesting field.
Thanks for an interesting and informative post.
I actually expected more posts like yours here on this particular forum. It is surprising to me to see the closed-mindedness exhibited here on a forum that (rightly) is skeptical of something like CAGW.
Your comment on alcohol supporting a much higher compression ratio than gasoline is why it is so economical for use in raising octane levels in gasoline, isn’t it? Also, my guess is that if engines were designed to run only on a blend, they could be made to be more efficient than they currently are.
Again, my thought is that if any forum should be accepting of letting the marketplace make the decision about what energy source should be used, this forum should be it. Forget the Central Planning. Insure that Big Oil does not have the power to force consumers to buy only their products. This forum has been fighting the good fight over Central Planning forcing us to pay for pet green research/products for many years. It is discouraging to see that many here are no different than the CAGW alarmists in that they have such a strong bias that they cannot even use logic to think this through.
There is sadly much polarisation in the subject of AGW. 🙂
Puns aside, those who are anti are anti everything, and those who are pro are pro everything, and there is little common ground, which is a shame, and wrong.
CAGW is a crock, the biggest fraud in history, but alcohol is a good fuel.
none of our 35,000 $ worth of small engines are old, oldest one is just now turning 3.
all have had to have fuel pumps and carbs replaced (the 2 strokes mostly on carbs) due to pitting/corrosion on needle valves/jets/float seats.
sadly the nearest place we can get non E10 is about 115 miles away.
ethanol is good for racers, built a few engines using it, but those engines also torn down and rebuilt often.
consumer engines don’t get that and race engines do not see 100 deg F in summer and ALSO -30 deg F in winter.
nor do they deal with, in spring, 50+ deg F temp swings from this last 10 days alone here) temps of 34 deg F at 5am to 84 deg F at 2pm. these temp swings cause lot of performance issues in small engines with E10.
loved using it in the race engines.but higher octane (needed for 14:1 or so compression ratios and NO variable valve timing) is usually actually about 10% less btu per gallon than non E10 and E85 (which I used for race engines) was even bigger difference.
hate it in my cars in winter here, takes longer to heat up engine.
@Dmacleo … small engines with carbs will – IMO _ always be somewhat susceptible. You should not typically have an issue with a couple year old small engines however. At least not from decent credible suppliers. Cheap foreign knockoffs – like generators etc – are going to be hit or miss.
If your problems are with reputable manufacturer – and with equip only a few years old – I would contact them. Those new engines should have no problems with E10 blends.
I have a 2003 Tahoe 4WD 5.3 V8 FFV. I used E85 90% of the time and have never had a problem – and in Minnesota, where it sits outside all winter, we often see -20 deg F real temps.
My cost per mile using E85 ($1.89) is less than using E10 $2.55) …
Jets and seats of plastic? Fuels pumps with rubber diaphragms? If alcohol is dissolving those then you have an old engine, old in design, if not years. VW and Fiat have been making alcohol burning cars for decades. It is a good fuel.
@MattS I’ve never really paid attention … but I suspect the preference of dirt cheap foreign crap with small engines – generators for example that cost a few hundred dollars – when a similar good Honda or similar high end generators is closer to $1,000 … is the culprit.
No one pays attention to quality – no one much cares … all they want is that cheap price.
And no – that is not directed at you dmacleo … its a generalization of our population as a whole these days.
husqvarna and toro commercials running (for the zero turns) either kohler or kawasaki engines. presently all are under 2 years old.
the storage from september to may is really the issue, due to climate (weather) they sit and see temps from -25 F to 30 F for a few months with no run time. pitting happens on carbs and even the fuel injected toros develop lower (primary) fuel pump issues.
think this fall I will advocate to haul a 250 gallon tank down to nearest non e-10 station grab 150 gallons or so and run them through systems ( total of 10 engines right now, multiple diesels not issue) before applying stabil.
The way the consequences are brushed aside is a good illustration of the elitism that is inherent in high-brow greenies.
That’s why I ride a bike. I don’t want to get corn-holed.
Just looking at the points made in the article above (by the 18 “diverse organizations”:
“producers (and consumers) face volatile and increasing prices for animal feed.”
I think this has been shown to be BS. The market adjusts, and the net result of higher prices is increased production and lower prices. I know that is difficult for some to comprehend, but that is the way the marketplace works.
“Ethanol wreaks havoc on the engines and fuel systems of boats, motorcycles and lawn equipment”
No argument here. There must be an alternative to blended gas. Where I live, unblended gas is sold right at the pumps.
“Consumers and taxpayers must pay increasing costs as biofuel mandates increase under the RFS.”
Are the increases in ethanol really mandatory? I wan’t under that impression, but I could be wrong. I read that sales of E15 “may be allowed” – not mandated. Am I wrong?
“Millions of acres of native prairie and other ecosystems have been turned into large-scale agricultural developments”
I don’t know about that. This is not a battle about ethanol, however, it is a land use battle – if true. Yields have about doubled over the last forty years. Grassland HAS been put into row crop production. This, of course, expands the economy – and without that, can we really make everything work? These sound like the same people who desperately want to stop us from developing oil production too.
“Biofuel demand promotes conversion of natural habitats to palm oil and other plantations overseas, as well as domestically. Their life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions rival or exceed those of oil and gas.”
Land use overseas? Is this our business? As far as CO2 emissions – it’s a beneficial gas, and it seems that there is more evidence for it being a good thing than a bad thing.
“Expanding markets for corn ethanol by increasing E15 sales ignores and exacerbates these problems – while benefiting a small subset of the US economy but negatively impacting far more sectors, including the general public and the industries and interests represented by signatories to the Pruitt letter.”
Now, here we finally have it! Who are these “interests” that are being negatively impacted? How exactly is the “general public” being negatively impacted? We had better generate more economic activity here at home – we already send over a half-trillion dollars overseas – every single year – due to the trade deficit! Any person who actually thinks about this has to realize what a ticking time bomb this is.
When these points are really thought about, it’s quite clear who wants to benefit from killing ethanol.
Seriously, you are a reprehensible, lying, vacuous, moronic waste of space.
Now you do have me laughing out loud!
I assume that you are not serious – I assume that you are a master Troll.
Because, if not . . . the only thing I can visualize you as . . . is an educated idiot who has absolutely no knowledge about how the world really works.
But, I prefer to think that I’ve been trolled by one of the best. (VBG)
@Menicholas And you have become a laughable buffoon … obsessed with stalking, denigrating and demeaning someone whose opinion you disagree with … all why NEVER making a SINGLE intelligent, documented and sourced rebuttal.
Truly pathetic … but pretty darn funny …
There is no consumer choice in most areas and there is a financial burden on refiners for RINs that is also passed along to consumers where possible.
@ResourceGuy If there is no consumer choice in some area’s it is because the MARKET in those areas does not support it . There is a significant cost to offer additional blends in many retailers. Which ironically is one of the few, small supports benefitting ethanol …. assistance to add more blender pumps at retailers …. which benefits ALL fuels – and allows retailers to choose just about any blends customers want.
The Friends of Fermentation Society, Vancouver Chapter, advises that it is very much against using the products of fermentation in cars and trucks.
Bob Hoye, President For Life
I generally support CFACT’swriting … Mr. Driessens apparent infatuation with attacking ethanol’ however, crosses far over the line.
His repetition of old, outdated and outright false claims and attacks – not supported by the facts and professional research and data – is not only wrong, but comes across as a vendetta.
Corn used for ethanol does not drive up food costs. It does not take production land away from food production. No one in America or the world is starving because of ethanol grown for corn.
Ethanol does have a lower energy content than gasoline, but also costs significantly less. For modern flex fuel vehicles in many cases the cost per mile is the same or lower using E85 ethanol as compared to regular E10 gasoline.
The 10% of US transportation fuels provided by ethanol IS an important contribution to the US breaking the hold of the middle east oil cartels.
Ethanol is cleaner – with fewer overall net emissions – both greenhouse gases, but most importantly tailpipe emissions …. NOX, CO, particulate and the like… which is why the American Lung Association supports and endorses ethanol.
The net energy balance is 100% absolutely, beyond all doubt positive – and that is based on its entire lifecycle, growing the corn, refining it, and distributing it. In most cases 2.1 to 2.4 units if energy are produced for every 1 unit of energy expended – with up to 4 units per 1 unit expended in certain areas like Minnesota.
Improved, advanced refining methods are increasing this net energy balance substantially. Incorporating corn residue – waste from the ethanol process – along with field residue (corn stover biomass) … for just 50% of the energy required to process ethanol – increased net energy balance to as much as 8 units of energy produced for every unit expended.
As more biomass is incorporated into the process net energy balance increases dramatically further.
The US is, and has been for a century, the worlds corn supplier. We supply 100% of the US domestic demand for food, feed and fuel. We supply 100% of the export demand from countries around the world. And the US corn industry still makes significant contributions to US corn reserves virtually every year.
Countries like Mexico, Guatemala and others import US food corn to LOWER the cost of food in their countries.
Corn prices did increase as corn production for ethanol use was ramping up in the mid to late 2000’s. But correlation is not causation … prices of ALL commodities increased in the same fashion and rates. Inflation, driven by commodities speculators, is what forced prices of corn, and all commodities skyward – not the use of corn for ethanol.
The same with the claims about corn for ethanol driving up animal feed costs. This is simply untrue – on several levels.
First, any increase in feed costs due to increases in corn price fall apart with the fact corn prices have dropped by over half … which means costs for corn used as animal feed have dropped by over half as well.
Second, every bushel of corn used produces nearly 3 gallons of ethanol, some corn oil and corn meal, and 17.4 lbs of Distillers Dried Grain Solids – a high quality animal feed. DDGS are significantly better than the corn itself – to the extent that DDGS co-product replaces nearly half of the corn used for ethanol.
If, as those like CFACT erroneously claim, the increased use of corn for ethanol did actually drive up corn prices and thus food prices, then they have a major problem now … explaining how corn prices have dropped by over HALF in recent years – from over $8/bu down to $3.51/bu today … despite corn for ethanol continuing at the same level of appx 40% of the US corn crop.
More importantly – if high corn prices, driven by corn used for ethanol, were the cause of food price increases – then how do they explain food prices remaining largely unchanged – despite corn prices falling by over HALF …
Ethanol and ethanol blends are bad for your (very) old car, (very) old boat and older small engines. If you drive a 70’s or older classic car, and older motorcycle, and older boat with carburetors and fiberglas gas tanks and similar – it has been well known and widely disseminated you should not use ethanol.
Those users however comprise a tiny fraction of transportation fuel use.
All the rest – vehicles newer than the mid 80’s and similar … can use E10 blends with no significant negative effect. There are also an est. 20+million flex fuel vehicles on the road today that have no problem using E85 blends.
Numerous studies – by credible institutions, not by biased industry sources – have shown the current use of ethanol helps keep overall gasoline costs lower – by 25 to 80 cents per gallon of more.
Just about every claim in the CFACT article is false, incomplete and/or highly misleading.
The two links below provide a recent review of net energy balance of corn based ethanol, and a pretty good detailed history of ethanol use.
We DO have increased reserves of fossil fuels – and I wholly support using them. They are finite however, and we should also look for sustainable, renewable ways to extend them.
And while I agree the entire catastrophic anthropogenic global warming claim is dramatically overstated – we can and should work to reduce emissions, especially tailpipe emissions.
The kind of wildly inaccurate, highly partisan kind of dis-information being disseminated – like with CFACT here – does no one any benefit. As much as I generally support them and their message, in this case they are wrong – in many ways.
https://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2015EnergyBalanceCornEthanol.pdf
https://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/EthanolExamination102015.pdf
Fantastic!! I hope you have read some of my comments above that support everything you have written. Mr Driessen writes similar articles from time to time on this wonderful website. Please chime in again when he repeats his assertions again in the future as he surely will.
A Scott says:
The 10% of US transportation fuels provided by ethanol IS an important contribution to the US breaking the hold of the middle east oil cartels.
Can’t be 10% of the entire transportation fuels if diesel and jet fuel are included, tho it would be interesting what the real percentage is……
beng135 May 15, 2018 at 8:37 am
A Scott says:
The 10% of US transportation fuels provided by ethanol IS an important contribution to the US breaking the hold of the middle east oil cartels.
Can’t be 10% of the entire transportation fuels if diesel and jet fuel are included, tho it would be interesting what the real percentage is……
In US refineries about 20 gals of gasoline is produced from every 42 gals of crude.
@beng135 I should be more accurate I guess … 10% of US gasoline consumption is usually the term used …
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/us_fuel_ethanol_consumption.jpg
I have a boat in Kentucky on Lake Barkley, little river bay.
All the Marina’s there sell only pure gasoline.
People that own a boat know it costs $100 to turn the key…
The cost of fuel is not really an issue for the weekend boater.
Everyone does not have a marina.
Or did that never occur to you?
@Menicholas … and now you’re simply being a jerk to everyone … please grow up.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/10/climate-establishment-hopeful-trump-will-betray-the-trust-of-the-american-people/comment-page-1/#comment-2339712
Re Corn Ethanol
In 1998 I “inherited” a corn ethanol plant in Wyoming that produced fuel-grade ethanol. At that time, this business relied on huge government subsidies to remain profitable.
I understand that ~40% of the USA corn crop now goes to producing fuel ethanol.
I suggest that growing corn for fuel ethanol in the USA is a grave error, because of excessive drawdown of the huge, vital Ogallala aquifer This is a unfolding “real” environmental disaster that need to be addressed, without further delay.
You are pulling too hard on the Ogallala, and you will run out of water for food crops, sooner than you think.
I suggest there are ways Canada could help, if we had governments with any technical and business competence. Regrettably, we have too many uneducated far-left “progressives” in government here, and they are heading over the green-energy precipice that the USA just avoided.
Regards, Allan
References:
2016 National Geographic article: Ogallala Aquifer
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/vanishing-midwest-ogallala-aquifer-drought/August
My posts from 2012: “Told you so, four (now 6) years ago…”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/22/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-38/#more-55226
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/nyt-blames-food-crisis-on-climate-change-hides-plea-to-reduce-government-mandated-burning-of-food-for-fuel/#comment-1072955
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/21/dr-john-christys-testimony-before-congress/#comment-1085677
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/21/dr-john-christys-testimony-before-congress/#comment-1085812
@Allen MacRae
With all due respect … ethanol production in the Dakota’s has a barely perceptible effect on the Ogallala. Additionally water usage in the region has been hugely transformed. In the southwest North Dakota Bakken region large projects like the Southwest Water Pipeline Project use water Lake Sakakawea and supply it throughout the region via pipeline … to greatly limit demands on the aquifers in the area.
The primary problem with the Ogallala is irrigation ….
http://swwater.com/missionvision/
Not to A Scott.
I did not limit my comment to the Dakotas. Good IF you have solved the water problem there. Maybe a big IF. Also, I doubt that 40% of the US corn crop is grown in the Dakotas.
However, I do understand that corn requires a lot of irrigation water, much of which is drawn from the Ogalalla aquifer, which is dropping like a rock and not recharging in our great-grandchildrens’ lifetimes.
@Allen MacRae ….
There is no doubt the Ogallala aquifer is certainly stressed … in 2008 it was being pumped at a rate of more than 1.5 billion gallons per day – for agriculture, municipalities, industry and private citizens. The biggest individual use is irrigation of crops … of all types.
At present water use of appx. 2.2 gals per gal of ethanol a 40 million gallon per year ethanol plant would use appx 88 million gals per year. A tiny fraction of all use.
The ethanol industry continuing to reduce water usage, including treating and re-using water, AND shifting to treated grey water – which reduces potable water use to essentially zero. The ethanol PRODUCTION side is not an appreciable impact on groundwater resources, including in the Ogallala.
The major water use from the Ogallala is on the crop irrigation side. Much of the Ogallala is in historically dry areas where it requires irrigation to grow crops. No mater the USE of the crop, or the crop itself, these lands require significant irrigation.
Whether the land is used to grow corn for food, feed or fuel, the water is is essentially identical. Other crops are similar, offering no substantial savings in water use.
Both officials and the corn industry in the area of the Ogallala understand these challenges and ARE working at addressing them. In one large (100 sq mile) area) users agreed to reduce water usage by 20%. This had a significant effect on reducing the rate of depletion … and farmers actually found when all was said and done they made a little MORE money.
The key point in all this is it is NOT the ethanol industry that is responsible. They have a minor impact, and one they have continued to reduce.
Farm irrigation – which is entirely independent from ethanol is the main culprit and growers along with a bunch of other smart people are working to address these concerns.
http://www.circleofblue.org/2018/world/kansas-farmers-cut-ogallala-water-use-and-still-make-money/
Here is a recently updated paper with a whole bunch of updated information on the Ogallala aquifer as well:
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2013/08/14/1220351110.full.pdf
Ethanol is only good for drinking. E40 is my favorite!
The first line of the article reads:
“Like most people I’ve spoken with, I have no innate, inflexible antipathy to ethanol in gasoline.”
Personally, I agree with you Sir:
“Like most people I’ve spoken with, I have no innate, inflexible antipathy to ethanol in straight malts.”
“A drop of water, to release the serpents.”
Let’s drink to that!
“ Moreover, the claim that ethanol and other biofuels don’t emit as much allegedly climate-impacting (but certainly plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide as gasoline has also been put out to pasture. In reality, over their full life cycle (from planting and harvesting crops, to converting them to fuel, to transporting them by truck, to blending and burning them), biofuels emit at least as much CO2 as their petroleum counterparts.”
The claim that ethanol does not emit (during combustion) as much CO2 as gasoline is also doubtful. Let’s compare heat of combustion for n-octane (main component of gasoline) and ethanol. For the first one it is 5508.9 kJ/mol, for ethanol 1406.8 kJ/mol.
https://www.webmo.net/curriculum/heat_of_combustion/heat_of_combustion_key.html
One mole of octane produces 8 moles of CO2 and 9 moles of H2O, for ethanol these values are 2 and 3. So, when burning octane for each kilojoule of energy 1.45 mmole of CO2 and 1.63 mmole H2O is released. In the case of ethanol corresponding values are 1.42 and 2.13.
Because water vapor is also considered greenhouse gas, then even from the point of view of the theory of the greenhouse effect, ethanol is worse than gasoline.