By Robert Bradley Jr.
“Is” certainly does not equal “ought.” The market has not spoken. The senators do not have an intellectual case for agricultural rent-seeking and crony capitalism. The way forward, as Travis Fisher of the Cato Institute explains, is to abolish the mandate and let a free market determine the right (lower) amount of ethanol needed as an oxygenate.
Apologists for uneconomical, government-dependent energies (a federally mandated ethanol mandate in this case) must use the best arguments they can conjure up, especially any that might appear plausible to the short-attention-span reader. The half-truth can do this, with the truth part setting up the deception. Another ploy is the “is” as if it is “ought.”
Consider the letter published in the Wall Street Journal last month by five farm state senators [1], “The Market Has Spoken: E15 Is a Net Positive” (June 4, 2026). It concerns the federal ethanol mandate that violates natural market choices. My comments follow each paragraph.
“Regarding your editorial ‘An Ethanol Extortion Play‘ (May 11): When we talk with our constituents, we hear about high gas and diesel prices. We have a solution that will bring down fuel prices for Americans: E15 fuel, 15% ethanol, 85% gasoline. Legislation allowing year round, nationwide sales of E15 has bipartisan support in the House and Senate. Opponents, the most vocal of which are a handful of oil refineries, are trying to stop it. Your editorial mirrors their misguided talking points.”
Comment: “We have a solution that will bring down fuel prices” is a sneaky half-truth. The lower price for ethanol is cancelled out and more by less fuel economy versus a higher gasoline blend. As AI states:
“While high-ethanol blends (like E15) frequently cost less at the pump, they do not reliably save motorists money. Ethanol contains less energy per gallon than pure gasoline, resulting in a 2-3% drop in fuel economy for E10 and up to a 5% drop for E15, ultimately erasing the pump savings.”
If ethanol really saves consumers money, other things the same, then there would not need to be a quota backed by the letter’s legislative bodyguards.
“Expanding E15 availability lowers gas prices by 20 to 40 cents per gallon on average. That could mean around $400 per year in savings for a U.S. household—precious dollars that could be spent on other needs.”
Comment: This is flatly incorrect because the authors do not factor in the fuel-economy disadvantage of ethanol–and the opportunity cost of filling up more often. Nor do they bring up the issue of engine damage for small motors and older vehicles from the mandate–or the effect on food prices from the food-to-fuel substitution. The complexity of the Renewable Fuel Standard (the governing name for the mandate) has also been ripe for fraud.
“E15 has been in the marketplace by presidential waiver for eight years. In that time, not one refinery has closed because of E15 availability. And, for all the talk of smog worries, data from Growth Energy shows E15 reduces smog forming pollutants. Likewise, despite concerns voiced in some quarters, existing fuel infrastructure can be used for E15, just as it can for the E10 fuel Americans usually buy.”
Comment: The environmental case for a higher ethanol blend is, at best, ambiguous. Summer usage increases smog in many major cities. CO2 reductions at the combustion stage compared to gasoline are offset by land usage and conversion for corn. Environmental groups generally oppose the ethanol mandate for these reasons.
“The market has spoken: E15 is a net positive. We know E15 will lower prices at the pump, and we’re committed to providing affordable options for families. Securing year round, nationwide E15 is at the forefront of our agenda.”
Comment: “Is” certainly does not equal “ought.” The market has not spoken. The undersigned do not have an intellectual case for agricultural rent-seeking and crony capitalism. The way forward, as Travis Fisher of the Cato Institute explains, is to abolish the mandate and let a free market determine the right (lower) amount of ethanol needed as an oxygenate.
[1] SENS. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R., IOWA), JONI ERNST (R., IOWA), DEB FISCHER (R., NEB.), PETE RICKETTS (R., NEB.) AND ROGER MARSHALL (R., KAN.)
Are there any government subsidies for the farmers for growing the feedstock, and further down for the production and transport of the product?
I recall there was 50 cent federal subsidy per gallon of ethanol to farmers and distillers.
How are smog & CO2 related?
SMOG is smoke and fog. CO2 is not smoke, which is particulate carbon.
Seems like the market could speak if the same customers were given a choice between Ethanol -15 and -0 at the pump. At the moment there is no choice to be made.
“Sales BreakdownRegular (85/87 Octane): ~88% of total volumePremium (91/93+ Octane): ~11%–12% of total volumeMid-grade (89 Octane): ~1% of total volume”
There’s opinion here but the data might indicate that people buy the cheapest option that the car maker told them they could use.
Not everyone does. One of the big arguments on my motorcycle forum is about whether higher octane fuel is better for your bike. You folks seem to understand that the manufacturer tunes the engine for a specific octane. Using a higher octane is not just a waste of fuel – it can actually damage the engine. Higher octanes burn slower – are not as like to detonate on ignition. But because they burn slower, they may still be burning when the valve opens, resulting over time in burnt valves, seats, and stems. The first two conditions result in lower power/lower efficiency. The latter can result in a valve falling into the combustion chamber. That usually results in a broken piston. Expensive!
Ethanol-free fuel not that hard to find in coastal Carolina. All Krogers’ selling gas seem to have it. I get near 37MPG on highway at 80 MPH. 2016 BMW 328i
Another unattributed quote at the beginning of the article. Turns out it’s a “comment” from the bottom of the article? What’s the point?
To establish the context for all that follows is the point.
Corn should be food or feed, not fuel.
It would never be food if the actual market would be allowed to speak.
The reason that they need 5 Clowns to push E15 propaganda,
while thousands of other commodities do neither need PR nor subsidies
is that E15 can not exist on its own.
An artificial thing with 0 demand.
The craziness of using fertilizers,seeding,growing,farming,extracting etc
while you can have the real stuff with less effort is more than just a hint that this stuff is not competitive on any level.
Also interesting that they rather grow fuel instead of real food during a climate crisis they pretend to believe in.
Did you mean to say fuel, not food?
Just trying to help.
I may have read somewhere that USA residents eat only 10 percent of the corn grown here.
Can I get those farm state senators to visit with my left coast senators to ask for the repeal of WA’s Climate Alarm Act. My gas and general cost-of-living would go down. Compensatorly, I will buy more popcorn.
I gave you a plus because I love popcorn. But that’s not the same kind of corn they’re making ethanol with.
The corn might be different but the soil to grow on, equipment, time, energy and fertilizer etc. used are…and that’s the point.
Pursuing the ethanol pipedream you waste precious resources on something that has absolutely no value except virtue signalling.
I too love popcorn, especially on a movie night (buuuh, yes I’m an electric energy waster lol)
Ethanol has the distinction of being worse for the environment and the economy than solar and that’s not easy. If presidential election primaries didn’t start in Iowa (technically a caucus in Iowa), the state with the most ethanol plants, we probably wouldn’t be cursed with the ethanol plague. Even conservative Republicans, who understand the economics, are forced into supporting ethanol or their campaigns will die before the New Hampshire primary.
Water
If you compare full fuel-cycle water consumption — meaning crop growing + processing for ethanol, and extraction + refining for petroleum fuels — the contrast is ugly for ethanol.
The Belfer Center summary says producing a gallon of conventional gasoline requires:
Petroleum gasoline: roughly 3–7 gallons of water per gallon of fuel. [storage.go…leapis.com]
Corn ethanol: roughly 322 gallons of water per gallon of fuel in the 2009 Water Footprint analysis, and described elsewhere as one of the most water-intensive fuels on average. [anthropoce…gazine.org], [storage.go…leapis.com]
Energy – Gasoline
Energy – Ethanol
When you include:
…the total energy input per gallon of ethanol can easily exceed 150,000–180,000 BTU, while the energy output remains ~76,000 BTU/gal. That pushes true EROEI well below 0.5:1, meaning more energy goes in than comes out—a net energy loser.
I once calculated that if you used ethanol for the energy inputs to produce ethanol as a product, you would have to grow 11 acres of corn to net one acre’s worth of ethanol.
Biofuels in any form suffer from the same limitations as wind and solar — low energy density. Regardless of the crop, a parcel of land will produce about the same potential energy output (e.g., BTU/acre). Even if crops could magically plant themselves, fertilize themselves, control pests and disease, self-harvest, and be burned in place for usable energy, the entire arable land of the United States planted in biofuels would not meet motor fuel demand. Where would we then obtain our food, feed, and fiber? Aside from the pure energy argument, the effects of a nationwide monoculture would devastate habitats and wildlife.
Ethanol was not originally blended into motor fuel because of CO2 emissions or the cost of gasoline, it came along as an oxygenate / anti-knock compound to replace environmentally damaging fuel additives, first lead and then MTBE. The needed ethanol blend varies seasonally and geographically depending on local air quality. In many areas, it is not needed at all. Even where and when ethanol is beneficial as an oxygenate, the necessary blend is well below 10%. Anything above that is pure governmental politics.
“Diesel for plowing, planting, spraying, harvesting”
3 gallons per acre here , for 80 bushels per acre corn .
What value are you using in your calculations ?
https://iowarfa.org/ethanol-center/ethanol-co-products/distillers-grains-facts/
2.8 gpb
“One bushel of corn produces approximately 2.8 gallons of ethanol and 18 pounds of distillers grains.One acre of corn produces 475 gallons of ethanol and 1.5 tons of distillers grains.Distillers grains have three times the nutrient value of corn. It is an excellent source of protein, energy and fiber.
The energy value of distillers grains equals or exceeds corn.Distillers grains are typically sold in wet, modified and dry form.Distillers grains values are typically between 75 and 90 percent the price of corn. This relative price difference makes distillers grains a good value for livestock and poultry feeders using the co-product as an energy feed.Distillers grains typically replace corn and/or soybean meal in livestock and poultry rations, providing a measure of price relief on the replaced products and extending feed supplies.Distillers grains can also lower feed costs by reducing the need for some commercial feed additives, such as phosphorus.I do not like ethanol in gas , but it is what it is .
“
The difference in our calculations is tied to production, efficiency, and scale up. Your values are approximately correct in high-yield fuel production of corn on Midwestern prime farm land close to ethanol production plants. First of all, however, these yields do not account for net reduction of ethanol if ethanol were used for every input to the production, transportation and distribution process. Furthermore, if we were to attempt to provide a significant portion U.S. motor fuel demand with ethanol, we would be forced into converting suboptimal and subprime farm land and even rangeland to ethanol production, thus substantially reducing the net energy yield. Using current high yield production figures, ethanol yields approximately 1.8 units of energy per 1 unit of energy input.
As we attempt to supply greater and greater percentages of fuel demand, we will be forced toward suboptimal and marginal land, and this 1.8:1 ratio will decline to something in the range of 1.2:1 to 1.4:1. If we were to convert rangeland to ethanol, the ratio would approach 1:1, with land requirement approaching infinity.
Using the more realistic, 1.3:1 to 1.4:1 ratios in an ambitious attempt to supply motor fuel to meet average annual US motor fuel demand, if we were to convert 100% of arable farmland (not including rangeland conversion) to ethanol, this would supply less than 10% of American motor fuels. To put it another way, for America to obtain 100% of its fuel demand from ethanol-based biofuel would require 4-5 billion acres, but the U.S. has only 350 million acres of farmland.
So getting back to my original premise: using ethanol as an oxygenate in motor fuels where and when needed as a substitute for tetraethyl lead or MTBE represents a cost that may be environmentally beneficial from a pollutant standpoint. The average ethanol content required for this across all our markets and seasons would be far below E10, likely about one percent on average. Politically demanding that all motor fuel be E10 or E15 is a fool’s errand, requiring far more farmland than exists in the United States.
I DO NOT want ethanol in gasoline .
I do know a lot of farmers , and they are far more efficient than a lot of “reports” claim .
Now how efficient Bunge Corp. is at making ethanol is not something I care about .
Farmers are a lot smarter and are more efficient than people give them credit for.
All good points.
Missing is a per gallon comparison of gasoline and ethanol as far as CO2 created when burning in an engine.
Don’t know the extent but ethanol free gas has been sometimes available at greater cost. If they were smart enough Pork Barrel subsidies might give anti-capitalism jokers points. They are not new but one wonders if these sorts of subsidies might encourage more incompetence.
It’s more that it discourages competence, in that it removes the penalties for incompetence. Why go through the trouble and cost of becoming competent, if there is no reward for your efforts.
The Rhodesian government started this 60 years ago producing ethanol from sugar cane. Liquid fuels were heavily sanctioned from 1965 and ethanol was thought to partially reduce the need for imported gasoline. This “enhancement” is still in place today as a massive source of cash for politicians and is a cost to motorists because of reduced fuel efficiency. It is still a political sleight of hand even in America.
After the added more ethanol in the EU I switched from (old name) Super 95 to Super 98 or in some places called premium. I can say I use less fuel per 100 km, but because the price per liter is higher it equals itself out, I just have to fill up less times.
I believe if you count the fuel used to produce ethanol you end up using more fuel, or said different, you need more fuel than you get bio fuel back.
In the UK, when E10 was introduced, I tried E10 for a month – and found that, over my regularly used routes, I lost almost 10% fuel efficiency on my small (but recently bought) Fiat. I now stick to E5 and save money, as well, I suspect, as doing less damage to the engine. I’d go back to E0 if I could!
This is just like the landlord diluting the beer in the pub and reducing the cost by a few pence. Total waste of time, resources etc. They must think we are stupid.
It is too obvious to call out the comment that the “market has spoken” while defending a regulated, subsidized business. But it must be done because the authors must believe we are all idiots.
The Free Market should decide the fate of ethanol, not politicians and their taxpayer-funded subsidies.
Without subsidies Ethanol would not be economically viable, just like windmills and industrial Solar.
Removing subsidies won’t happen while Trump is in office. He’s all onboard with this taxpayer subsidy. Politics.
There are many things wrong in Washington, they can’t be all fixed at once. You have to prioritize.
Is getting rid of this subsidy more important than getting honest elections, or fixing the illegal immigration problem?
Not to me.
I can live with this subsidy if it means Trump is elected. I was just stating the facts.
But, but, but, “it’s got electrolytes.” *random hand waving*
The masses can be convinced of anything if they have no critical thinking skills. A point made quite clear in the movie Idiocracy.
Just a reminder that corn derived ethanol and Brazilian sugar cane derived ethanol are both/all derived from solar energy, as are wind and photovoltaic. Most of Earth’s systems are and always have been driven by solar energy – the water cycle; photosynthesis; global warmth; beneficial weather systems/patterns. Apparently all fossil fuels are solar energy derived too.
Historically, natural free markets determine what works and what doesn’t. Only socialism/communism/Marxism/politics can permanently screw up the invocations and conditions of things that work to the good of all. In America, our Constitutional Republic government was designed to facilitate business and innovation, and to otherwise stay the hell out of the way; primarily engaging when the social and/or environmental order are being negatively impacted (and to also provide the military, roads, and such). <– this process among others has recently become bastardized. America’s gov’t should stop its unwelcome energy diktaks, and go back to facilitating free market businesses when those businesses are not destroying anything. <– this is why the left created the Anthropogenic Manmade Global Warming Scam. If they could get enough people to believe their Big Lie, they could have their sadistic control.
When I was a kid, before ethanol was mandated, I remember Boron/Sohio gas ads that said their gas had an additive to prevent “fuel line freeze up”. I think the additive was ethanol. You could also buy a bottle of it in an auto parts store to put your tank in winter.
But ethanol can attack seals and gaskets not made to handle it.
As I understand it, seals and gaskets in modern cars designed to run 10%, might have a problem with 15%.
(I don’t think either seals and gaskets have a problem with 0%. Added bonus! Your car will get better millage.)