By Ike Kiefer
With current events stirring up global energy prices, corn ethanol is again being dressed up as if it is a domestic energy source and agent of energy security. The truth is that corn ethanol is an energy sump, and that it takes more fossil fuel energy to make a gallon of corn ethanol than a gallon of gasoline. It is time to face this unpleasant truth and the other perverse outcomes achieved by twenty years of misguided policy.
In 2005 and 2007, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Energy Independence and Security Acts that together created the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. RFS had three stated objectives: to improve U.S. energy security, to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and to support rural economies and agricultural development. Instead, RFS has increased motor fuel prices, increased food prices, put millions of carbon-sequestering acres of land into intensive cultivation, increased GHG emissions and air pollution, and increased water consumption and pollution. As to energy security, the gallons of U.S. gasoline displaced by federal ethanol blending mandates are being exported to Mexico and other nations. The great success of RFS has been the hand of government transferring wealth from motorists to big ag corporations. It’s past time to stop the economic and chemical absurdity of forcing food to be fuel.
The government wanted biofuels bad, and it got them bad. Under Corn Belt lobbying pressure, Congress cynically waived the need for RFS to achieve actual GHG reductions for all existing corn ethanol biorefineries, plus all that could be built by the end of 2010. The bulk of the corn ethanol produced over the past 20 years and still today comes from these waivered plants. The EPA’s specious 2010 prediction that corn ethanol would achieve a 21% GHG reduction by 2022 was immediately challenged by the National Research Council for not properly counting land-use change and not realistically treating food competition and water use. This panel of experts from the National Academy of Sciences even questioned the viability of the entire concept of reducing GHG with biofuels. The most rigorous and honest estimate by a third party in testimony before Congress used the EPA’s own methodology to show that adding corn ethanol to gasoline has increased GHG emissions by 28% over the pure gasoline baseline with no trajectory to ever recover.
As to energy security, the goal was noble, but the method was irrational. Corn ethanol is critically dependent upon fossil fuels at every stage of production—tractor and truck fuel, fertilizer and pesticides, biorefinery energy and chemicals. Biofuels in general are just a way to put a green fig leaf on petroleum by inefficiently re-routing it through a farm field. While corn ethanol production has plateaued at 15-16 billion gallons for the past 10 years—not coincidentally matching the federal subsidy limit—domestic crude oil production has skyrocketed due to technological innovations that have opened up vast new geological formations to economic production. Despite a raft of federal policies and actions as negative for petroleum as they have been favorable for biofuels, the USA is once again energy self-sufficient and the world’s largest producer of crude oil and natural gas. In 2024, the USA exported 100 billion gallons of refined petroleum. Other countries are burning U.S. gasoline in their cars and producing the same CO2 emissions as if Americans were allowed to use it. The energy security objective for RFS is moot, and it was never achievable with fossil-fuel dependent corn ethanol.
On of the great ironies is that RFS was authorized under the Clean Air Act. The EPA’s own 2010 regulatory impact analysis showed it would increase net air pollution and cause up to 245 more U.S. deaths per year. The EPA also granted corn ethanol a perpetual vapor pressure waiver for smog-causing emissions that it has denied to petroleum. Perhaps worse, ethanol in gasoline enables the hydrocarbons to mix with water and thereby increase ground water and surface water contamination from fuel leaks to a far greater degree than the demonized MTBE it replaced as octane booster, yet EPA continues to ignore this risk completely.
A government program that has strayed so far from its objectives should be terminated. The federal agency in charge of protecting the nation’s environment should not be allowed to administer a program that increases air pollution and stresses on water, land, and climate. Fuel should be fuel and food should be food. Surely Congress can find a better way to genuinely promote U.S. energy security and boost rural economies without imposing the highly regressive tax of increased fuel prices, inflicting such harm to the nation’s air and water resources, and promoting global food insecurity.
Ike Kiefer is a Visiting Fellow at the National Center for Energy Analytics and author of the study,Ethanol as Fuel: A Bridge to Nowhere.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Growing corn for fuel in our gas tanks is a crime against humanity.
It’s peak psychopathy and decadence of Malthusian Philanthropy.
Going the highly inefficient way of seedling,spraying and growing food and harvesting and processing it into compatible energy,
while closing down farms and telling people to eat bugs
while abandoning existing easy accessible energy,
is probably the craziest thing they’d ever done besides creating a bioweapon to justify a forced injection of another bioweapon while banning Ivermectin and HCQ to protect the virus.
It’s also a crime against nature. The amount of acres planted for monoculture pork could be supporting biodiversity. The entire scam was inserted into a bill by an Ag senator and never questioned because the feed trough is too big.
Ethanol: Not the Energy Transition We’re Looking For
Ethanol: The Reality Blocker We’re Looking For – in the UK.
All of these fangled green solutions to a wholly imaginary problem/crisis end up with the simple phrase: “the goal was noble, but the method was irrational” Hence it failed and made things even worse – for people.
A tale of two nations, a large body of water and economic suicide.
Ever since the US and Israel attacked the mad mullahs in Iran, UK industry, business etc have been calling for the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields in the North sea to be opened up. The result over the last two months to that has been crickets. Norway is not so bonkers as our mad Ed.
In case of any doubt about Norway’s commitment to maintain – and expand – its production of gas and oil offshore, the energy minister, Terje Aasland, has a pithy response: “We will develop, not dismantle, activity on our continental shelf.” – Grauniad
More… CH3CH2OH required.
Ethanol is an important chemical for many uses. So are various products made from corn starch. As an example, Ethanol is an effective anti-knock gasoline additive, less costly to produce than Methylcyclopentadienyl Manganese Tricarbonyl (MMT), or Ferrocene….and is only one by-product of corn production.
There are economic benefits to producing sufficient quantities of both corn starch and ethanol to keep production costs low, and that economic bar has been set by the laws of supply and demand, supplemented by government subsidies to farmers, with the result that ethanol can be used as a low percentage gasoline supply extender.
The situation is not so simple as just vilifying ethanol because of its fossil fuel footprint, and about that….do you really think that bottle of Everclear under your counter took more gasoline than that to produce ? And if so, how much does a bottle of each cost ?
‘There are economic benefits to producing sufficient quantities of both corn starch and ethanol to keep production costs low, and that economic bar has been set by the laws of supply and demand, supplemented by government subsidies to farmers, with the result that ethanol can be used as a low percentage gasoline supply extender.’
What a nonsensical statement. There is absolutely no way of ascertaining the real ‘economic benefits’ of renewable fuels if their production depends on ‘subsidies to farmers’, or more to the point, government mandates to stuff some arbitrary quantity of ethanol, or any other agriculturally-derived substance, into fuels.
You miss my point entirely…Corn growing is not subsidized by the government because it is a renewable fuel…a deeper dive into supply chains and chemicals that make whole industries competitive is required.
Who cares what a bottle of Everclear costs? One should care about the damage to marginal soils which should be better left fallow, and the fertilizer loads-and erosion- heading downstream after being washed from the marginal soils.
Ethanol is being sold as a replacement for fossil fuels. As such, it is entirely relevant to discuss whether it takes more energy to produce than it contains.
Money represents human effort, so discussing how much effort it takes to produce that stored quantity of energy is what is relevant. Just sayin ‘. Not necessarily disagreeing….And sayin go buy a liter of premixed chainsaw gasoline and a liter of Everclear and ponder that cost comparison…remembering that $=human sweat
If cost to consumer is the only thing that matters, then subsidies and taxes don’t matter.
The first time I learned of Everclear was playing the Commander Keen computer game, Invasion of The Vorticons. It was used a rocket fuel for his space ship.
We shouldn’t be using food for fuel or ripping off taxpayers by subsidizing that disconnect from reality he article clearly explains.
The article is clear that its author is clearly in the anti-ethanol lobby…as a renewable “fuel” his numbers even seem sensible…but when one considers the other 2500 products that are less costly because they use contain corn derived products…even aspirin would cost more because it has a corn starch coating….just the corn syrup sweetener used in soft drinks allows those companies to make more profit than if they used offshore cane sugar…more profit=more gov’t taxes…do you really think they haven’t done the subsidy numbers ? They have multimillion dollar computer programs that simulate the economic effects…
This is false narrative as Ethanol DECREASES the fuel miles per gallon rate and promotes urban ozone pollution.
It has its uses as an additive but not as a main fuel which is irrational and stupid it reduces food growing production by talking out large number of acres.
Adds 15% to the number of liters, while reducing km/liter barely at all…stops emission of weird anti-knock cancer causing and intelligence reducing chemicals entirely….sure not as good of a fuel as gasoline on a per liter basis…but very far from a “false narrative”. Remember that a hillbilly can produce a barrel of moonshine but can’t make a barrel of oil.
The trump regime continues to drive up energy costs to take money from taxpayers and give it to fossil energy companies. The author is paid by fossil energy companies to push this type of propaganda
Do you have verified factual information to back up your claims? Or is your post simply a knee jerk reaction to the article?
Has Mr Trump forced the UK to abstain from utilising its own natural resources and into pursuing a mad Quixotian quest for Net Zero?
No, quite the opposite.
The TDS is strong in this one, Obi-wan.
There is no such thing as fossil energy.
Fossils do not burn.
The TDS is strong in this one.
Care to actually refute anything written, or is making slanderous charges against those you disagree with, really the heights of your intellectual capacity?
Most authors here are or have close ties to them.
Evidence…
You do have some?
You are here long enough – you have seen me post them several times. But everything you don’t like is just “leFtwInG ProPaGandA sIte”, so why bother.
Lies
When the truth does not advance the narrative, you have to get “inventive”.
Poor little socialist, can’t stand that nobody else is buying the propaganda it is paid to distribute.
Then you haven’t any.
You can provide links when you want to.
You are batting zero, that means back down to the little leagues you go.
Lies.
So, you admit you are on the payroll of “fossil energy companies”. Good job, dumbf*ck.
How typical, everyone who disagrees with you is evil.
How soon till you start demanding re-education camps for those who disagree with the party’s wisdom?
I do have ties to fossil fuel energy companies. I pay THEM for diesel for my truck, gasoline for my motorcycles, propane to warm my home, cook my food, and run my backup generator when Nevada Energy fails.
They’ve never given me any kickbacks, though. I can prove I pay them. It’s all on my credit card statements. Do you have ANY proof that anyone on this site gets paid by fossil fuel energy companies?
It appears the article is too rich for you to handle that requires adult maturity to address which you don’t possess.
Most activists-posing-as-scientists have close ties to the taxpayer funded teat of government “grants” which throw orders of magnitude more money at the field of so-called “climate science” than fossil energy companies.
So if your inference is “money corrupts,” then the pseudoscientists that you believe are FAR more corrupt.
“The trump regime continues to drive up energy costs to take money from taxpayers and give it to fossil energy companies.”
The Trump regime lowered energy costs. Preventing “death to America” jihadist fanatics from obtaining nuclear weapons is a small price to pay for energy costs that will quickly drop when the war is over. The administration has put energy companies on notice that they expect gas prices to drop as fast as they went up when that happens. Trump is reducing taxpayer burdens and increasing incomes. The brainwashed left are opposing prosperity.
There is still no prove for the WMD claim.
What Obama negotiated was far better than what trump ever will get – esp. afte he showed the world that the word from the US is next to worthless.
trump is increasing the burden on average citizens and reducing their income with his tariffs, while cutting everything that’s worth paying taxes for to enrich his friends. Ask farmers how alienating US trade partners turned out for them.
Now hit me with a “TroLoLol TDS” while you dance around your new golden calf.
Everything you just typed is the opposite of reality.
Are you high on something today, you are making less sense than usual.
It seems you are some form of emotional masochist, you come here and deliberately say stupid things in order to get people to insult you.
Does being humiliated get you off?
BTW, do you have any arguments to back up your claims, or are we just supposed to accept them because you really, really want them to be true.
Are you saying Tony Blair lied to us?
Colour me shocked.
WMDs and mothballed WMD programs were found. You didn’t hear about it because covering that would not support the agenda the media has been pushing.
You are the one giving money to fossil fuel companies… every time you fill up your car, (even if its an EV)
And every day you live, your existence relies on fossil fuels..
You could not live without the massive benefits they give to society.
WRONG as always…
… he is a Realist, who’s knowledge in the area at least 10 magnitudes more than yours.
Todd “Ike” Kiefer – National Center for Energy Analytics
Not agreeing with Eric on Trump giving money to FF companies but disagreeing with Trump having orders of magnitude more knowledge than any given playboy-cum-politician.
He listens to the thoughts in his head instead of his best advisers and think tanks, most of whom he fired for not telling him what he wanted to hear. Listens to his TV ratings dudes, possibly, as long as they tell him “Sure thing, boss”. Such leadership characteristics haven’t ever proven to be a recipe for long term success in recorded history…
Another fact free hit and run post that amazes no one here.
The Iowa Caucuses are the first major contest of the Presidential nominating process. No further explanation for the rationale behind ethanol subsidies is necessary.
Sadly, there’s some truth to that. I sometimes wonder if some farm state voters might actually fall in with the radical Left if their candidates were willing to offer up even higher subsidies or mandates for biofuels.
No way.
They love not being able to sell their crops because of a trade war. Paying higher prices for everything because of tariffs. Paying more for diesel and fertilizer so the news don’t talk about the epstein files. Seeing a rich nepo baby from new york build his own Versailles while they have to sell their farm for pennies.
Who wouldn’t?
“Seeing a rich nepo baby from new york”
You mean Mandami.. right ??
USA is paying LESS for fuel than under Biden.
New companies are starting up making fertilizer in the USA.
Dow Jones in nearly at 50,000 again.
USA is PUMPING !!
Not only that, but food exports are increasing rapidly
Have you ever bothered to check whether the things you are told to believe are actually true?
No, he/she never does
“The EPA also granted corn ethanol a perpetual vapor pressure waiver for smog-causing emissions that it has denied to petroleum.”
I have just one comment to make about ethanol in gasoline. It works poorly in my lawn tractor. I have a 1993 Cub Cadet 1541 with a flathead Kohler Magnum twin-cylinder carbureted engine. I finally realized that its summertime performance was suffering because of the vapor pressure characteristics of the regular unleaded fuel containing ethanol. Under hot conditions it would keep cutting out momentarily. I switched to premium non-ethanol fuel and the problem went away.
That is all for now.
Ethanol is an additive to remove moisture from gasoline and that is all it has been or ever will be.
That additive costs about 3% in range. Not a great trade.
Precisely why it should be used in small amounts to clear moisture from vehicle and equipment fuel systems.
Yeah, after an increase in quantity of liters of more than 3%….cherry pick much ?
Many in the Outdoor Power Equipment (OPE) have found that Ethanol in fuel creates many more problems than simple poor performance. It corrodes many of the components used to deliver the fuel from the tank to the combustion chamber. This is especially noticeable with 2-cycle engines like chainsaws and other. Many have switched to the Trufuel cans that are much more expensive, but perform much better. A number of manufacturers now specify the Trufuel (or their own type) as part of their warranty for carburetors failing.
I’m rather fortunate that I live in an area where non-ethanol fuel is sold at numerous gas stations. I use non-ethanol fuel in ALL my equipment that uses gasoline, including my F150 truck. The non-ethanol fuel in the truck gives a bit more power and a bit more MPG.
Last motorbike I owned had a very strict instruction in the user manual..
DO NOT USE ETHANOL BASED FUELS
Yup I use 4 cycle TruFuel in my mower and 2 Cycle TruFuel in my leaf blower, chainsaw, and weed Wacker.
Used to use pump gas for the mower, caused lots of starting problems, despite using BOTH fuel stabilizer AND ethanol treatment.
It wouldn’t be the ethanol because it has lower VP than spec gasoline…so it was the basically off-spec gasoline that the refiner chose to mix off with some ethanol to improve its carburetion and anti-knock characteristics….a fairly common practice actually, more noticeable to consumers when it’s hot outside…
On the other hand, there’s this description of why blends up to 10% ethanol increase the vapor pressure.
https://iea-amf.org/content/fuel_information/ethanol/fuel_properties
“Ethanol forms azeotropes with hydrocarbons of gasoline, which impacts volatility. In particular, the vapor pressure and distillation characteristics of ethanol/gasoline blends are non-linear. Blending vapor pressures for alcohols are significantly higher than their nominal vapor pressures. Vapor pressure of neat ethanol is low at only 16 kPa (Owen and Coley 1995). When ethanol is added into gasoline, vapor pressure increases with blending ratios of 5-10%, but then gradually declines (Figure 1).”
I wonder if methanol would be better. It uses natural gas as a feed stock. Possibly more expensive to produce, I dunno. Big Ag would scream bloody murder of course. Too bad.
Methanol is not cheap. Methanex in Canada sell a gallon of methanol for $4.45 USD. Go check out their fancy website and their price schedules for the countries and regions in the world
story tip:
Trump says he’ll move to suspend federal gasoline tax. He can’t do it on his own
https://apnews.com/article/trump-gas-tax-high-prices-iran-war-85313468d583c40b79c59e34d8186ee7
Good or bad idea?
Either way, it’s far cheaper than the UK
Of course everything President Trump does is evil according to media and trolls and if you believe the headlines he is only doing this to get votes for his party in the mid-terms.
Democrats will almost certainly try to stop it. !!
Amazing the media never noticed when Biden tried to buy votes by drawing down the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to reduce gas prices.
Come on Lee Zeldin. Let’s put this expirement, gone bad, to rest forever. My small engine fleet will be much happier.
experiment. Damn it!
expirement might be appropriate as well.
Move all the corn production into the food chain. I’m sick and tired of paying a buck 25 an ear. Meat prices will also drop.
You really think farmers get $1.25 per ear ?…more like a couple of cents….it’s the value-added component that causes the government to look favorably on corn subsidization. Corn is hidden in about 1/4 of all food stuffs, and that ends up selling at a couple of dozen bucks a pound in your shopping cart….the more taxes result from the value-added, the more the gov’t can pay farmers (who are price-takers in the market place) and thus keep the value added gravy train running. Gov’t tax department advisors have big computer programs to optimize all that.
2020 driving through Sweden I saw acouple of gas pumps supplying ethanol. It’s fine by me if some virtue signallers want to drive with that stuff. I just don’t see any point in having it subsidised nor force feeding it to my vehicle.
Would truely free markets without government meddling exist we would have 100% pure gasoline/diesel on one hand and 100% ethanol/biodiesel on the other. The price would “dictate” which one to choose and not some ecoloons living at the taxpayer’s expense.
I know that my old R5 chants “es que me gusta la gasolina” and I sing along.
It makes about as much sense as burning North America’s hardwood forests in Yorkshire to make electricity to also save the planet. These are not serious people.
Seriously deluded people though!
Not an energy “transition” AT ALL.
Just another less efficient way to use fossil fuels to provide the energy we need. Other examples of this include wind turbines, solar panels and EVs.
Oh, and the “goal” is NOT “noble;” it is DELUSIONAL. For there is no benefit to reducing CO2 emissions, nor does corn ethanol reduce emissions in any event.
i was promised switch grass and pond scum. i’ll take ethanol. copious quantities of ethanol.