Ethanol

[TexasDave]

July 30, 2014
The problem with many environmentalists is that they have ulterior motives. And those motives often are not protecting or enhancing the environment but rather some other nefarious motive, often as not the collection of political power. No better example is found of this phenomenon than the ethanol boondoggle that has been imposed on the American consumers by the environ-nazis.

Ethanol does not significantly improve the environment. It is, in fact, a detriment to the environment when all things are factored in. But it does drive up the cost of virtually everything to American consumers. However, it also feeds the political agenda of politicians who have learned to scam advantages from it.

Mark Alexander, one of our favorites, summarizes the case against ethanol in a recent newsletter from the Patriot Post. He writes:
"Some are weatherwise, some are otherwise." –Benjamin Franklin (1735)

Here in the mountains of east Tennessee, we distill corn mash to produce a product provincially known as Moonshine – because it is often produced and transported under cover of darkness. Arguably, it is a more useful and beneficial product than that toxic form of distilled alcohol from corn mandated for fuel blends by the Environmental Protection Agency's so-called "Renewable Fuel" Standard.

Now, the word "corny" is an adjective, akin to trite, banal, hackneyed, tired, stale, cheesy, schmaltzy, mushy and sloppy. Those descriptors would be much too kind if applied to the "science" (read: "political calculus") behind the EPA's mandate for producing and converting corn into ethanol and mixing it with fuel. However, the EPA may be ratcheting up that mandate to require a higher percentage of ethanol in fuel, citing spurious claims that ethanol is better for the environment than fossil fuels.

Why?

The topical answer is that the liberal elite wing of the New Democratic Party, along with a few Corn Belt Republican subsidizers, argue ethanol produces less CO2 after combustion than fossil fuels.

And they are correct.

Combustion of ethanol does produce less CO2 than fossil fuel combustion, which proponents of ethanol claim is the primary factor responsible for anthropogenic global warm ... er, "climate change."

So, if ethanol additives reduce CO2 in the exhaust of automobiles, what's the problem?

The problem is that the overall environmental and human impact of producing corn for conversion into ethanol is devastating. And on top of that, there is little net CO2 reduction from fuel/ethanol blends when one considers the net CO2 increases from cultivation of corn, its distillation into ethanol and its transportation to refineries for fuel blending.

In 2008, just before Barack Hussein Obama's election, the decidedly left-of-center Time magazine ran a cover story entitled "The Clean Energy Myth," noting, "Politicians and big business are pushing biofuels like corn-based ethanol as alternatives to oil. All they're doing is driving up food prices and making global warming worse – and you're paying for it."

That notwithstanding, the Obama administration made implementation of ethanol mandates its first objective in appeasement of their "climate change" constituency, regardless of the fact that the evidence for the net CO2 reduction rationale was dubious.

There were and remain significant collateral consequences of the ethanol mandate, most notably the inflated cost of grain (read: food) across the board caused by the diversion of corn for ethanol production and the dire implications this has for starving Third World children.

More than 90% of our nation's corn crop went toward feeding people and livestock in the year 2000, with less than 5% of the crop going toward ethanol. In 2013, however, a whopping 40% went toward ethanol.

To illustrate this grossly inefficient use of our natural resources, the amount of grain required to fill a 25-gallon automotive fuel tank with ethanol is enough grain to feed one person for an entire year.

If you don't think you're paying for this, you haven't been paying attention to your food bill.

In 2009, a Duke University study reaffirmed Time magazine's analysis that growing corn for production into biofuel may produce more CO2 than it saves as an alternative to fossil fuel.

More recently, the Associated Press undertook an in-depth investigation into "The Secret, Dirty Cost of Obama's Green Power Push." The investigation concludes:

"The ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today. As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies... Five million acres of land set aside for conservation – more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined – have vanished on Obama's watch. Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil. Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can't survive. The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact."

Separate studies by Princeton University's Tim Searchinger and Nature Conservancy's Joe Fargione reached similar conclusions.

And in a comprehensive study, "The Ethanol Mandate: Don't Mend It, End It," researcher Nicolas Loris concludes:

"After accounting for land-use conversion, the use of fertilizers, insecticides, and pesticides, as well as the fossil fuels used for production and distribution, biofuel production is quite carbon-intensive. ... The mandate promised less dependence on foreign oil, lower fuel prices, and fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of delivering on these promises, the mandate delivered concentrated benefits to politically connected producers and higher costs to America's energy consumers       Dave

[Klavdy]

You did not write that.
You've cut and pasted it.
It's extraordinarily disingenuous of you to post vast slabs of diatribe and not attribute its source.

[ribbert]

You did not write that.
You've cut and pasted it.
It's extraordinarily disingenuous of you to post vast slabs of diatribe and not attribute its source.

So, who did write it then?

[TexasDave]

You did not write that.
You've cut and pasted it.
It's extraordinarily disingenuous of you to post vast slabs of diatribe and not attribute its source.

You are correct sir. It is from Ed Wallces "Inside Automotive" web site although it does reflect my feelings exactly about ethanol. Ed Wallace worked in the automotive industry for many years. He has a local radio show here in DFW that talks about all things automotive. He has been asked repeatedly to go to a nationally syndicated show but has refused so he is not censored by a network or advertizers for his opinions. He is an authority on the what,why and how oil prices are affected by global events and controlled by governments. He writes for Business Week magazine and several large newspapers on oil and gas prices. He was one of the first to denounce the government mandated MTBE anti pollution additive as being harmful to the environment and not reducing emissions. MTBE has since been removed. He wrote a Business Week article refuting each reason given by the U.S. government for high gas prices using the governments own inter agency reports(what the government lies to us?). Two years ago the U.S. government surreptitiously upped the ethanol content locally to 20% to see what effect it would have on automobiles. Had many adverse effects and cost many people alot of money in repairs. Ed Wallce was the first to discover and report it. If you want to find out whats going on with oil and gas just check his web site.  Dave  

[the fan]

I am certainally not a fan of ethanol fuel (or any bio fuel) and can agree that there are no real benifits in vehicles not designed to run on large concentrations of the stuff.

I do however find some of his arguements to be questionable. Mainly the increase in CO2 emissions and land use. Corn is a very vigerous grower and converts a huge ammount of CO2 into O via a process called photosynthesis. I think I would have to see the data on the land use prior to the increase in corn production to buy his argument. The corn grown to produce the ethanol i sfar different that what we all enjoy on a sunday picnic, but It is very similar to what is used for animal feed so I can buy the increased food costs. 

Its a shame that so many experts resort to scare tactics and fuzzy logic to push thier agenda.

Yes Ethanol fuel is a bad idea, and in hindsight seems like a classic over reaction to a popular problem, but it's not going to end the world. It wll likely fade away just like the Gasahol did back in the late 70's and early 80's that was a response to the fuel shortages at the time.

[Bminder]

My 02 Dodge Ram with the ancient 5.9 gas motor has been gets 11-12 mpg on the ethanol-laced gas we have here Cheyenne.
Last week I filled up in Laramie, Wyo at a station that had stickers on the pump saying "There is no ethanol in our gas."
My gas mileage immediately jumped up to 14 mpg.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[rktmanfj]

My 02 Dodge Ram with the ancient 5.9 gas motor has been gets 11-12 mpg on the ethanol-laced gas we have here Cheyenne.
Last week I filled up in Laramie, Wyo at a station that had stickers on the pump saying "There is no ethanol in our gas."
My gas mileage immediately jumped up to 14 mpg.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Not surprising... there's less energy in alcohol than gasoline.

[skymasteres]

Not surprising... there's less energy in alcohol than gasoline.

That right there is my main point of grief with ethanol.  It has a lower energy density than gasoline,  but a higher octain rating. On an engine strictly designed to take advantage of this)  The power density drop can be mitigated. (Subaru had an engine that would adjust turbo boost pressure when ethonal fuel was used.  Well e85 that is.  On cars without provisions for increasing compression there is a net drop in engine efficiency as the average cylinder pressure drops for the same quantity of fuel burned.

[JoBrCo]

Look, I don't want that crap in my bike either, but the food stuff argument, of feeding the hungry, is just so much BS.  I mean why doesn't the writer just shoot those starving people in the head, better than messing with their DNA, as well as their children's, children's children. In the US of A, as of 2010 86% of the maize was a GMO.  Genetically modified crap, that no one knows, to what extent, it shall affect our biological blueprints. Know anyone that has cancer, the disease that aptly shadowed the industrial revolution, being relatively unknown previously. The truth is that not enough time has been allotted to study such associations.  It's all about money, maximizing profit and nothing more.  I surely won't eat the shit, and don't even get me started on Monsanto, and their one season seeds, trying to patent nature.

Today, all maize is good for is industrial alcohol or some other equally non food stuff application. Like I said, I don't want it in my tank either, but that's for another reason entirely, the ICE wasn't designed to burn it, there's corrosion, clogging and wear and tear!  But it's one way to maximize profits, with crude's dwindling availability, and higher cost.

I think everyone should ride bikes, to cut down on consumption, and clogged highways. 

   

[Pat Conlon]

So, what's worse, the environmental damage from open pit mining for oil shale, or growing corn?

I am not a fan of forced ethanol. If people want to buy it, fine with me.
As a side note: E85 used in a properly tuned track car absolutely kicks ass (higher boost levels, more power, safer, low detonation)

I resent the State of Kalifornia not giving me a choice.

"........imposed on the American consumers by the environ-nazis.

I also resent this weenie's use of the word Nazi ^^ (not you Texas Dave, but the author of the article)
What this guy has done is to trivialize who the real Nazi's were, and what they did to millions of people.

[Flynt]

cancer, the disease that aptly shadowed the industrial revolution, being relatively unknown previously...

Ever heard of "consumption"...  killed roughly the same number of people as the various cancers, just people didn't know what the hell it was.  Of course it wasn't very frequent since people died of other things long before they had a chance to grow old and develop cancer.  The extension of life expectancy is what correlates strongly with death by cancer/consumption, the industrial revolution correlates to longer lives since we stopped working ourselves to death.

I don't argue the world causes death, but I do challenge anyone to convince me life was better by any quantifiable, objective measure in the past than it is now...  bring your data.  We live longer, are fatter (better fed), better educated, better medicated, ...  you name it and we're better off than our grandparents and their grandparents before that.

Frank

[movenon]

cancer, the disease that aptly shadowed the industrial revolution, being relatively unknown previously...

Ever heard of "consumption"...  killed roughly the same number of people as the various cancers, just people didn't know what the hell it was.  Of course it wasn't very frequent since people died of other things long before they had a chance to grow old and develop cancer.  The extension of life expectancy is what correlates strongly with death by cancer/consumption, the industrial revolution correlates to longer lives since we stopped working ourselves to death.

I don't argue the world causes death, but I do challenge anyone to convince me life was better by any quantifiable, objective measure in the past than it is now...  bring your data.  We live longer, are fatter (better fed), better educated, better medicated, ...  you name it and we're better off than our grandparents and their grandparents before that.

Frank

My grandfather died of "consumption".  Fast forward 50 years with what I know now it was most likely cancer.  Most probably what we call prostrate cancer today.  Over the years I have had to endure 2 other family members passing away with the same symptoms.

You can get crazy with data but here is a chart to look at. Would you rather been around in 1880 or today ?
http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US39-01.html
George

[rktmanfj]

Look, I don't want that crap in my bike either, but the food stuff argument, of feeding the hungry, is just so much BS.  I mean why doesn't the writer just shoot those starving people in the head, better than messing with their DNA, as well as their children's, children's children. In the US of A, as of 2010 86% of the maize was a GMO.  Genetically modified crap, that no one knows, to what extent, it shall affect our biological blueprints. Know anyone that has cancer, the disease that aptly shadowed the industrial revolution, being relatively unknown previously. The truth is that not enough time has been allotted to study such associations.  It's all about money, maximizing profit and nothing more.  I surely won't eat the shit, and don't even get me started on Monsanto, and their one season seeds, trying to patent nature.

Today, all maize is good for is industrial alcohol or some other equally non food stuff application. Like I said, I don't want it in my tank either, but that's for another reason entirely, the ICE wasn't designed to burn it, there's corrosion, clogging and wear and tear!  But it's one way to maximize profits, with crude's dwindling availability, and higher cost.

I think everyone should ride bikes, to cut down on consumption, and clogged highways. 

   

AMEN!  But it's kinda hard to get good Mexican food without corn...   

Ever heard of "consumption"... 

Frank

Yeah, otherwise known as tuberculosis.

[Flynt]

Ever heard of "consumption"... 

Yeah, otherwise known as tuberculosis.

Actually a generic term that applied to people the lost weight and died with a wide variety of symptoms.  Tuberculosis was certainly one of the causes, but not the only one.  Like George we've had some "consumption" deaths in our family that were cancers when you look back on them.  Pancreatic cancer is another one that nobody understood, causing extreme back pain and weight loss with sometimes no other symptoms.

While I'm not a big fan of messing with genetic engineering, I was in Bali last year with my family and saw the (relative) prosperity resulting from GMO rice...  The natives tout it as a gift from the gods that gave them 50% more rice per year (3 crops vs 2/yr) solving their own food issues and allowing them to export for additional income.  "Evil corporations" find a need and fill it with pretty extensive R&D dollars usually, along the way creating some kind of value people are willing to pay for.  This is capitalism and is what we stand for pretty much in the US...  sometimes it goes awry, but I'd suggest that is much more common when the govt tries to influence with artificial demand creation...  like Ethanol in fuel.  I sure don't support that!

Frank

[JoBrCo]

cancer, the disease that aptly shadowed the industrial revolution, being relatively unknown previously...

Ever heard of "consumption"... 

Sure enough, now known as tuberculosis, largely caused by the 'mycobacterium tuberculosis,' which has nothing to do with cancer.

The list of known carcinogens, almost exclusively man-made chemicals, including those used on food stuffs, that were created as a result of the industrial revolution's, so called needs, (money making opportunities), are responsible for the majority of cancers.  Sure one could say it's to do with living longer, becoming more frail as you do, amongst all the man-made pollutants, not found in nature.  A potential problem with empirical evidence gleaned from the scientific method, is that one must ensure there are controls, as in double blind tests, placebos and isolation in this case, where the human subjects would have to be held in such isolation in a life long study, highly impractical.  There is no necessary connection between living longer, in and of itself, and getting cancer; merely the posit of those with a money gathering agenda.

Further, to insinuate that it's improper to complain about living a better healthier life, when it's technologically possible to eliminate the adverse effects of the Industrial Revolution, (IR), while still enjoying the technical advantage of the IR, is lazy, foolish, irresponsible, and the making for a mediocre human at best.  Knowledge/technology should always be about application, not placing it upon a shelf to collect dust, because of money, paper, our money hasn't been about gold for quite some time now.  No, I'm not pointing this at anyone here, merely a generalization I came to terms with many years ago.

I mean does anyone really want that million dollar hospital bill, placing their family forever in debt, because irresponsible people are environmentally dirty, if so, now say it to your child dying of cancer, they're surely not very old, as I'm sure they'll smile back at you, such is the innocence of a child.  And a tear ran down my cheek!

Want a cigarette?  Here let me light it for you.  It includes among many others, benzene, a known carcinogen, purposely put there, to behoove only, the tobacco companies bottom line.

Sorry mate, I'm one of those forever stupid individuals that's actually foolish enough to want mankind to actually rise above his current self, as he's actually capable of doing so, through knowledge application, eventually becoming a superman of sorts, not a status quo lover, bowing to a glittering prize, like a throwback simian, fearful of change. (Any similarities to an FJmonkey is purely coincidental, not necessarily representative of the species, of course.)

I'll take a nuclear fusion bike please, that can circumnavigate the universe.  I'm thinking light-speed dangerously close to either the event horizon of a black hole, or immediately off axis of a gamma-ray burst. Although quasars are rather interesting too. Never mind, I'll do the circuit!