Ethanol Another Boondoggle Foisted on Us by the Government

7 Responses to Ethanol Another Boondoggle Foisted on Us by the Government

1. Libby says:

   Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 7:47 pm

   No, ethanol has made the air in Denver breathable again. The subsidies do need tweaking, but you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. You are the most UN-conservative conservatives that ever were.

   Reply
   • Pie Guevara says:

     Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 8:22 pm

     Uh, no, it did not, cretin.

     Reply
     • Libby says:

       Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 3:01 pm

       Uh, yes it did, and does. Ethanol blends have more oxygen in them, burn cleaner, especially at high altitudes. You can’t buy anything but, in Denver, during smog season.

       I might cut a guy with a bad back some slack, but you’ve been an extravagantly rude ignoramus for a long, long time. And we just can’t have you poisoning the well, unchallenged.

       Reply
2. RHT447 says:

   Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 8:24 pm

   Let’s hear it for competition and the open market. Here is just one of several plans currently offered by Reliant Energy (just one of multiple energy companies)—

   Get More Save More 12 (fixed rate for 12 months) 100% wind plan.
   Base Charge $6.95/month
   Delivery Charge (Oncor) $5.25/month + 3.63 cents / KWh
   Energy Charge 0 to 1000 KWh 4.7 cents / KWh
   Energy Charge > 1000KWh 0.7 cents / KWh

   If you use 2000 KWh, your average total cost per KWh is 6.9 cents

   Reply
3. Tina says:

   Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 9:04 pm

   January 2015, AgMag:

   Growing corn to make fuel for your car just doesn’t work. And reversing government policies that require it would ease a world of problems.

   A report released this week (Jan. 29) by the World Resources Institute had this to say:

   Reducing bioenergy demand for food crops would make more food available for human consumption and should therefore lower food costs and benefit the poor. Reducing bioenergy demand for food crops would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help limit further conversion of natural land-based ecosystems to agriculture. … EWG has long pointed out that blending all this corn ethanol into gasoline carries a steep cost. There’s lots of evidence that it drives up greenhouse gas emissions, worsens air and water pollution and lowers your gas mileage.

   EWG:

   The Environmental Protection Agency’s pending proposal to cut the amount of corn ethanol that must be blended into gasoline in 2014 by 1.39 billion gallons would lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 3 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2e) – as much as taking 580,000 cars off the road for a year. It is now clear that the federal corn ethanol mandate has driven up food prices, strained agricultural markets, increased competition for arable land and promoted conversion of uncultivated land to grow crops. In addition, previous estimates have dramatically underestimated corn ethanol’s greenhouse gas emissions by failing to account for changes in land use. In 2012, an Environmental Working Group study found that from 2008 to 2011, more than 8 million acres of grassland and wetlands were converted for corn alone.1 EWG’s new analysis shows that these land use changes resulted in annual emissions of 85 million to 236 million metric tons (CO2e) of greenhouse gases. In light of these emissions, many scientists now question the environmental benefit of so-called biofuels produced by converting food crops.

   December 2014,EWG:

   Earlier this week, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a prestigious scientific journal, published a paper by University of Minnesota researchers Christopher W. Tessum, Jason D. Hill and Julian D. Marshall, which concluded that, “powering vehicles with corn ethanol… increases monetized environmental health impacts by 80 percent or more relative to using conventional gasoline.” In layman’s terms, that means that corn ethanol is worse for the environment and people’s health than we thought. And the more we learn, the more it’s clear it’s not even close.

   Sept 3, 2016Denver Post:

   …as the years have passed it’s become increasingly clear that federal ethanol policy is a bad deal all around. To begin with, it hikes the cost of fuel and reduces gas mileage, although this was always known to be the case. More disturbingly — and unexpectedly — by paying farmers to plant crops for fuel rather than food, the ethanol mandate drives up the cost of food, not only here but in impoverished countries abroad.

   And the mandate induces farmers to plow up fallow land. An Associated Press investigation in 2013 discovered a “cascade of unintended consequences, including the elimination of millions of acres of conservation land.” … And it’s time for the EPA to follow the law and weigh in with its own conclusions regarding ethanol rather than continue to sit on the sidelines.

   Popular Mechanics:

   Most people realize that all of us burn gasohol—a mixture of gasoline and alcohol—in our cars. Just about every gallon of gas pumped today contains as much as 10 percent domestically produced ethanol. Gummed-up fuel systems, damaged tanks and phase separation caused by stray moisture infiltrating fuel systems have plagued many consumers since this mixture debuted, and the problems will only get worse if government policy to increase the proportion of ethanol to gasoline is implemented. Don’t get me wrong: Gasoline diluted with ethanol is a perfectly acceptable motor fuel when it’s stored properly, dispensed promptly and burned in vehicles and power equipment designed to handle it. Which, unfortunately, is not always the case.
   Moonshine It’s Not

   That 90:10 mixture of gasoline and alcohol is referred to as E10, while a different blend of 15 percent gas and 85 percent alcohol is sold regionally as E85. On this scale, straight petroleum-based gasoline is referred to as E0. Most gasoline dispensed from pumps in this country is as much as 10 percent ­ethanol, distilled from corn grown in the Midwest. This alcoholic cocktail was originally mandated by the EPA as a replacement for MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), an oxygen-bearing petroleum-sourced chemical that was added to pump gasoline starting in 1979 to reduce carbon monoxide emissions in some regions that had problems meeting government air-quality standards. The oxygen in the MTBE (and ethanol) molecules can substantially reduce CO emissions in vehicles without modern closed-loop fuel-injection systems, which were introduced ­starting in the ’80s.

   Soon after, MTBE started turning up in groundwater, affecting the taste and smell of drinking water, so ethanol was substituted. (Shockingly, MTBE isn’t considered toxic or even carcinogenic in the concentrations found in groundwater, but still.)

   However: If the beneficial effects of oxygenated fuel have largely been bypassed by modern feedback-loop injection systems, which control the air-to-fuel ratio much more closely, why is ethanol still in your fuel? Because the second President Bush made a decision to offset some of our dependence on foreign oil with domestically produced alcohol, and the Corn Belt senators agreed. Ethanol plants have mushroomed, ramping up U.S. production from 1.77 billion gallons in 2001 to 10.75 billion gallons in 2009. Politics aside, odds are near 100 percent that there’s as much as 10 percent alcohol in the gasoline you’re pumping into your car and that 5-gallon can you use to fuel all your other gas engines.
   Keeping Water Where It Belongs

   The ethanol in your gas tank is uniformly dissolved in the gasoline. Alcohol tends to absorb and hold water, and in concentrations in the tank up to about 0.6 percent, any water remains in solution, presenting no problems. (Yes, there are other problems with alcohol in the fuel system, but we’ll get to them later.) How does water get into the fuel tank? It’s possible that water dripped into the tank at the gas station or ­refueling depot, or a stray raindrop or snowflake made its way into your tank or jerrycan, but most water infiltration is from condensation. As the temperature in a tank changes, air has to be vented in and out or the tank will bulge or split. Incoming air carries moisture. When the H2O in the gas gets above a critical percentage—its saturation point—all of the water and alcohol drops out and settles into the bottom of the tank. This is what chemists call phase separation; the various components of the fuel are no longer a homogeneous mixture. (read on)

   Reply
4. J. Soden says:

   Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:00 am

   The ethanol hoax is similar to the incandescent light bulb hoax. We’ve been told that it’ll be “better for the environment” or “save energy” or other promises that have not been true in order for some to make a potfull of $$ or to get goofernment loans.
   When corn is used for ethanol, feed prices for animals go up and food costs rise. Ethanol has too many problems in manufacture and transportation – extra costs for the consumer – plus it’s detrimental to engines.

   Regarding the light bulbs – fluroescents were supposed to be our savior, yet they contain mercury and are actually a hazard to dispose.

   And both of these hoaxes are a lot like the promises vs the actuality of Obumblecare.

   Reply
   • Tina says:

     Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 4:13 pm

     If I recall we posted an article awhile back that revealed the powers that be had un-banned the incandescent bulbs. Great news for those manufacturers that were put out of business when they banned it.

     I haven’t noticed, are they back?

     Imagine a government that does what works.

     I see a very small image.

     Reply