Posted on 09/02/2016 5:02:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
Since it's been seven months since the Iowa caucuses and it'll be another three-plus years until that hell is fresh again, this is the best time to talk about ethanol.
Just in case you didn't know, ethanol is very popular in Iowa and other corn states, which is why most presidential candidates swear once every four years that they love ethanol so much they'd marry a jug of it if they could. If only for a moment, loyalty to this government moonshine becomes as fraught with political symbolism as a gay wedding in which both grooms refuse to wear American flag pins while declining to stand for the national anthem in support of our troops.
Thankfully, we don't have to worry about that for a little while, so let's tell the truth: Ethanol is stupid, wasteful and bad for cars (because it's corrosive and inefficient), the economy and the environment.
The main case for biofeuels is twofold. It's supposed to be better for the environment, particularly global warming, and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. The assumption was that converting plants into fuel was "carbon neutral," and since we can do that at home, every gallon of oil we replace with corn is one less we have to buy from overseas. The fact that it also lines the pockets of agribusinesses and the politicians who love them is supposed to be a total coincidence and irrelevant to this good and noble policy.
Nope.
A new study from the University of Michigan confirms what pretty much everyone knew all along. Researchers found that biofuels actually create more greenhouse gases than simply using petroleum, because plants only absorb a fraction of the carbon dioxide released by burning the fuels in the first place. Moreover, ethanol production and distribution is energy-intensive, throwing off even more greenhouse gases.
"When you look at what's actually happening on the land, you find that not enough carbon is being removed from the atmosphere to balance what's coming out of the tailpipe," University of Michigan professor John DeCicco said. "When it comes to the emissions that cause global warming, it turns out that biofuels are worse than gasoline."
A study last year by the University of Tennessee found that in the decade since the U.S. imposed the Renewable Fuel Standard -- and after $50 billion in subsidies -- corn-based ethanol "created more problems than solutions" and hampered research on other kinds of biofuels.
But even if you think, as I do, that caring for the environment means more than climate change, ethanol is a horror. Growing corn for inefficient fuel takes up farmland, raising food prices and encouraging deforestation. Science writer Matt Ridley has estimated that if all of our transport fuel came from biofuel, we would need 30 percent more land than all of the existing food-growing farmland we have today.
All of the corn we grow requires vast amounts of fertilizer, which runs into our waterways and out to the Gulf of Mexico. Every year that runoff creates a massive -- and growing -- dead zone that kills sea life in one of our most valuable fisheries. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization, "Habitats that would normally be teeming with life become, essentially, biological deserts." This year's dead zone will be the size of Connecticut, researchers say.
Meanwhile, in places such as Brazil, CO2-absorbing rainforests (among the biggest sources of biodiversity) are being clear-cut to make room for biofuel crops. The Nature Conservancy's Joseph Fargione estimated a few years ago that converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas or grasslands for biofuels releases 17 to 420 times more CO2 than it offsets by displacing petroleum or coal.
One hears a lot about the great jobs that ethanol creates here at home, but this is broken-window thinking. Frederic Bastiat famously explained in his essay on the broken window that it's silly to talk about the jobs created by a broken window -- you've got to hire people to replace it, right? -- unless you also take into account that the money spent on a new window could have been spent on something more productive.
Thanks to the shale oil revolution, America now has greater oil reserves than Saudi Arabia and Russia. Domestic oil production produces far more -- and far better paying -- jobs than ethanol production. Cheaper oil also cascades through the economy, creating more jobs. And we're better at producing oil in an environmentally safe way than most other countries. When we take production offline, we are in effect subsidizing foreign production.
But hey, the Iowa caucuses are important too.
Now? That's because you want to create an enormous distraction to the main issues going on in this country.
By comparison with everything else, ethanol is a nuissance issue. Yes, it's wrapped up in the uniparty/globalist/k-street control of the U.S. Government. But that is the issue, not ethanol.
No one is going to win this presidency taking a strong stand on ethanol, either side of the issue.
You are correct. Cost of fuel per mile would be the goal with these alternative fuels.
If they could actually do that, there would be no need for any kind of subsidy, etc.
I don't disagree with you. I know many who use methanol in racing. It gives more power than gasoline because it runs cooler in the engine, but overall, more maintenance is needed. It's rare that I see motorcycle engines melt down running gas (I've had one or two, because the carb mount rubber broke, and let too much air into my engine and it did damage), but guys running mini-sprints using 250cc motorcycle engines grenade them a lot. They could only run three or four races without problems, where I could run a CR-500 on gas an entire season with no issues (save for the aforementioned broken carb mounts).
Now translate that experience with small engines to a 6 or 8 cylinder auto with all the government mandate bells, whistles and sensors and see what it costs to have an exhaust system O2 wideband sensor (ruined by ethanol) replaced. I KNOW. It’s over a $100 a shot and they all get eventually contaminated (corroded) by ethanol. I’ve had THREE automobiles this happened with: Two Honda Accords and an F150. All three with the same 02 Sensor code failures.
I have a lawnmower, a very large outboard motor, and a generator that all prove your point about ethanol being bad for engines it is not made for. I’ve had to have all of the unplugged and reworked.
However, and I’ve been told by those mechanics that ethanol reacts with the plastics/rubbers in those engines, but that different categories of plastics are just fine.
I have yet to buy one of those newer ethanol accepting engines, so I’m just going on hearsay from mechanics and from my reading.
Yes, the effects vary. On 2 cycles the very thin plastic gaskets, flapper valves and rubber hoses and gaskets tend to degrade. I have extensively researched, replaced and now have rebuild kits for all of them.
I ended up buying a sensor reset tool to stop the O2 engine sensor “warning” lights. Cheaper than replacing one for $100 every six months.
The stuff is real crap. I use a product called Startron in my vehicles that helps to mitigate the effects of ethanol on the fuel systems. I add a couple of gallons of 100 LL avgas per fill up in my 67 GTO.
You treat that “goat” real nice, you hear? :0)
Interesting, I've had none of those problems, and we've had alcohol in the fuel at 10% here for 6-plus years, and I've had the same vehicles for most of that.
I wonder if it has to do with the fact that, except for Monsoon Season here (high desert 5,000-6,000' in Albuquerque), the air is very dry.
I see you're in the southeast, with a whole lot more moisture to pull from the air...
Thanks. It seems to remove some of the harmful ethanol effects like removing moisture. What does it do to mileage efficiency and cost of it with respect to untainted gasoline to start with? Thanks!
If this is for mainly small engines then I could see using it even if it costs more, however.
2004 Honda Accord, 2009 Honda Accord, 2010 Ford F-150....even a 2012 Ford Explorer that’s had the same fault once or twice, here.
I suppose the humidity and moisture could be a factor. Count yourself lucky.
It has its own bedroom in the garage. It really loves a steady diet of avgas.
I bought the car in 89 back when they were affordable.
My dad would like to see that vintage Massey.
He and my uncle have plenty of Massey Ferguson, small to large. Maybe one or two gas burners.
My old Willys jeep gets only ethanol free.
67 is the last model before the radical form change. It’s classic. Ever ride in one brand new fresh off the line?
So far. Don't get me wrong, I know what alcohol does, I just don't understand why it seems to affect some really bad, and others not so much. And humidity is about the only thing I could come up with.
Just one time leaving methanol in my carb for two weeks left it so caked with salts it wouldn't do anything. That's why I know it's crap as anything for normal driving. Racing is okay.
pure-gas.org
click on OH at the bottom
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.