Ethanol, A Terrible Fuel Alternative

The use of ethanol and other renewable fuels supposedly helps gasoline burn cleaner creating less pollution. It also reduces America's reliance upon foreign oil.

Last Monday the Environmental Protection Agency increased the amount of renewable automobile fuels required to be sold in the United States next year from 7.8 percent to 10.2 percent of the 138.5 billion gallons of gasoline projected to be consumed. This mandate mainly directs that higher levels of ethanol be mixed with gasoline.

The higher standard is required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, a law that requires the increased use of renewable fuels each year in order to reach an annual use of 36 billion gallons by 2022. While burning cleaner gas is an admirable goal, the federal government's ethanol mandate has ensured that the American corn industry has consumers and businesses in a stranglehold without producing quantifiable benefits. In fact, some scientists now argue that there are few, if any, environmental benefits to using ethanol.

According to an April Hudson Institute report, "The Case for Ending Ethanol Subsidies," by Diana Furchtgott-Roth, "converting undeveloped land to cropland - in order to grow more corn and facilitate bio-fuel production - releases a massive amount of carbon dioxide. Only if bio-fuels are made from waste products or grown on abandoned agricultural lands does the production process actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

In addition, since ethanol separates from gasoline in the presence of water, the blends of ethanol and gasoline that we put in our cars cannot be transported through traditional petroleum pipelines. Instead, ethanol is shipped by rail, at greater cost than gasoline and mixed with gasoline near the point of distribution. That is why the 10 percent ethanol-gasoline blends are not available all over the country, only in major metropolitan areas.

Meanwhile American taxpayers subsidize the ethanol industry with $3 billion every year. These subsidies are given to corn farmers and ethanol producers no matter what the price of corn is on the market. These are extremely high because of the EPA requirement for biofuel usage. So many corn farmers have become wealthy from this two-tier system of subsidies and federal environmental mandates which inflate the price of corn on the open market.

Food prices around the world have risen dramatically in the last few years because of this system. Corn, beef, milk, butter, tortillas, gasoline and many other basic food commodities have become more expensive than ever because of the artificial government intervention in the market. This increase in food prices has hurt the world's poor more than anyone else but even middle-income American consumers have felt the pinch at the pump and the grocery store.

And then there is the question of energy independence, which is both an economic and a national security issue. Relying upon bio-fuels, predominantly ethanol, to make ourselves independent of foreign oil is a false hope. It has far less energy density than traditional gasoline, meaning nearly twice as much ethanol is required to equal the energy output of gasoline. We simply cannot convert enough of the land required to make ethanol into cornfields. There isn't enough land in America to do so.

Instead of releasing new federal mandates for ethanol consumption, Congress and EPA ought to overturn our artificial dependence on bio-fuels and begin building clean nuclear-energy power and coal plants, drilling for oil and natural gas in Alaska and off our coasts, and building more traditional petroleum refineries. Then we seriously could discuss the possibility of energy independence while working to clean up air pollution.

then why not be truthful about Brazil’s success.
During the same period when you imply that ethanol was responsible for energy independence, they went from being a world laggard in offshore oil production to being a world leader (with our help by the way) and in fact increased production nine-fold. If you chart the BTU increase in Brazil from the two factors the BTU increase from increased oil production is a far steeper curve.

That chart was posted in a thread on this topic months ago.

We are now belatedly coming to grips with the fact that if we increased our offshore and onshore production by drilling in areas there was no good reason not to drill in we too could be energy independent. Certainly we would be if we increased production nine-fold.

Then too there is the factor that Brazil has a combination of land and water to produce sugar cane for ethanol.

We don’t have water in the entire arid West that would make ethanol make sense and we don’t have much land in combination with water elsewhere that makes it make sense. In addition to being bad for engines it does not transport well and does not as claimed in fact make the air cleaner. In fact oil can be burned with much less air pollution but we don’t do it because of boondoggles like ethanol being what we waste resources and tax money on.

Ethanol production also creates wasting of valuable topsoil that we don’t need.

Our ethanol boondoggle has not created an iota of energy independence and never will.

ETOH is but a small piece of the pie—I never stated it would bring energy independence. I also support domestic oil production and other means of using captured solar energy besides ETOH from corn. For the record, most corn is raised dry-land, not irrigated. ETOH has been used since the 1970s and the recent expansion has the oil competitors upset, hence the reason for vilification of farmers. ETOH in the corn belt is generated at the rate of about 400 gallons/acre plus a high protein feed for livestock, plus a great means of carbon addition to the soil left over by the stalks. It seems that urbanites have little understanding of the value of capturing solar energy by annual plants, not to mention agribusiness in general—very sad in my opinion.

Corn is not a dry land crop. In fact I have discussed this at length with legislators in California and the reason that they fought ethanol as the Feds foolishly rammed it down their throats is that they do not have the water. Ethanol works better in Brazil because they have the water. What you are overlooking is that ethanol produces no net gain in energy or but a minuscule gain. It is a giant boondoggle and con job. Without subsidies it fails and has failed for investors repeatedly. FYI i grew up in farming families and have spent time farming. Further, quite apart from subsidies and con jobs a far better gasoline formula has been patented and is available and our government has completely botched paying any attention to it and yet it can increase mileage up to 40% by itself and burns completely cleanly and would be far cheaper to make than present gasoline.

If we had not busied ourselves with cons like ethanol we could have been drilling our way to independence in energy years ago and if we combined that with better oil fuels, better engines and oil mining technology better than that used in Canada, all of which are available and avoided, we would be totally energy independent.

The same sort of obsession with cons has also blocked better, smaller nuclear plants, although it has not stopped the navy and we can realize substantial albeit minor in the overall picture energy production from wind.

To be very blunt about the endless boondoggling with ethanol has helped the other side in this war, not our side, and we need to stop it.

CA is not a big corn state. I have lived in the West too—CA, OR, ID. I know about irrigation. The big corn states are in the Midwest—Iowa, Neb, IL (annual rainfall about 50 inches this year)—and most of it is not irrigated. 400 gallons ETOH/acre with most infrastructure in place is clearly a viable piece of the energy pie and has been since the 70s. HOw many ETOH plants does CA have in place?

What is the alternative energy you refer to but don’t state? Where is the infrastructure for it? You make it all sound so easy. Agribusiness already has well over a trillion in infrastructure.

You’re missing the point. Ethanol does not travel well. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California do not have the water to grow corn or any other crop for ethanol. So that’s a very large part of the country where ethanol makes no sense at all from the get go.

Further, as Professor Pimentel at Cornell and other researchers have shown, ethanol produces very little net energy gain and does not help reduce ethanol pollution.

In response to having Pimentel and others expose the truth about ethanol our D of A has attacked them as Stalin attacked scientists in the U.S.S.R. who would not say what he wanted.

I repeat, stop helping the other side in this war; we can’t win it if instead of becoming energy independent we waste our time on expensive, subsidized boondoggles.

Further, why make a complex fuel that is so destructive and provides so little net energy gain when we can use a better formulated gasoline in our cars as is that would be far cheaper to make, burns cleanly, enormously increases mileage and because it burns stochiometically, enormously reduces engine wear where ethanol does engines great harm?

And how are you going to produce ethanol in the East, by taking back the suburbs you look down on?

We need to win the war, not engage in counter-productive boondoggling.

Pimentel is an entomologist, a field that does not qualify one as an expert in ETOH energetics. Here is Pimentel’s description of his program: The research spans the field of basic population ecology, genetics, ecological and economic aspects of pest control, biological control, energy use and conservation, genetic engineering, sustainable agriculture, soil and water conservation, and natural resource management and environmental policy.

There are many scientists in the field of energy and ag production of crops for ETOH that would heartily disagree with Pimentel. There is about a 20-25% net energy gain with ETOH produced at 400 gallons/acre of corn. And again, all of those vilifying ETOH production conveniently leave out the high protein feed that remains for livestock plus the organic matter from the cornstalks adding carbon to the soil. It isn’t just ETOH that is produced.

I am not helping the other side—the other side is part of the fight against ETOH and the by-products. Please tell me about this cleaner fuel you refer to in a generic sense—I don’t know what you are talking about.

Yes, and has produced studies jointly with those who have the expertise he lacks.

The ethanol boondoggle does help the other side, has not produced an iota of energy independence and is not practical in this country.

Look up Bill Talbert’s patent on E II gasoline. In tests it has been shown to produce zero pollution of THC, NOx, and CO.
It appears it may be developed to produce no more CO2 than is in the ambient air. Because it burns almost completely in the chamber it enormously reduces engine wear. The mileage gain from it was first tested, under EPA hot city driving conditions in 2000 at 7%. It now appears that the outer limit of mileage gain is 40% and that that can be further increased by combining its use with other technology. Because it is a far simpler fuel it can be produced in commercial quantities far cheaper than present gasoline. However it does not have any significant lobby behind it and we have not spent millions in subsidies and tax breaks upon it. So the choice is clear, we can either engage in subsidizing a farm lobby or we can win the war.

Moreover, it can be used as cars as is, although some improvement could be made in knock sensor technology to optimize its use, which would not be expensive. It transports as well as any other gasoline and does not corrode like ethanol or harm engines like ethanol. But hey we wouldn’t want to win the war when we could subsidize ADM and boondoggles, would we?

Let me know when the infrastructure for this mysterious E II is in place and I will listen. I have nothing against viable alternatives. Where is the infrastructure for E II and who can make this mysterious formulation at a cost competitive price?? If it were so easy and cheap it would be in the market now. Small companies and venture capitalists are looking for just such a product.

ETOH does not cause undue engine wear—people in Iowa, Neb, and ILL have been burning it for 100s of millions of miles in all manner of vehicles since the 70s. I burned it in a Datsun truck in the early 80s—sold the truck with 112K miles to a guy that ran it for another 50K and sold it—this is not undue unusual engine wear. You are buying the vilification of the petroleum competitors and I am not. Every industry is subsidized down to the city level—where even small towns pay subsidies to attract industry with 50 employees or more. ADM does not own all the ETOH plants—many are farmer-owned co-ops.

If it were so easy and cheap it would be in the market now. Small companies and venture capitalists are looking for just such a product.

In the same manner, I assume, that against the power of Ma Bell in her heyday, the better and cheaper technology of touch tone dialing vaulted right into the market place. Twenty-seven (27) years it took, despite the fact that Ericaphon, not a small competitor, was pushing it in this country. We suggest you read the well-known book of Dr. Clayton Christensen of Harvard, "The Innovator's Dilemma" and some of his other works.

You can read up on this problem in articles I have done in the past such asThe Real Cost of Enron and Oil, War and Productivity and also The courage to innovate. Just to give you a little update, as we have posted on this forum, in the last six years or so for the first time since America rose to industrial prominence, more IPO's based on breakthrough technology have taken place overseas than here. In the past year there were none on these shores at all.

We can thank companies such as ADM, Cargill and Exxon and their powerful lobbies allied with the tendency of government to head us in the wrong direction when it insists on interfering with markets. See George Gilder's classic "Wealth and Poverty."

You can read the E II patent on the PTO website, like any other patent. Why anyone would care what you think or want to keep you posted on developments is not apparent. I will tell you this: it is increasingly likely that E II deployment will occur first overseas not here, largely because of things such as the ethanol boondoggle. There are many countries that are more interested in its benefits than in pleasing the lobbyists of ADM and Cargill and are quite desperate for the benefits of E II and other breakthrough oil technologies that are being blocked here. Undoubtedly once E II is deployed overseas it will then be deployed here and you can keep on driving on ethanol as long as it pleases you and the market for it lasts, which is not likely to be long after the introduction of E II.

Having wrestled for years with the likes of Exxon on these questions, I don't think that your concern and skepticism (that fatal disease) count for much in the scheme of things, with all due respect. Your belief in the free market is touching but there never is such a market for disruptive technology in markets that are dominated by a handful of very large players. That has certainly been the case in oil and energy for a long time. We recommend that you go see the recent movie about the man from Rockville who invented the vacuum windshield wiper and his treatment by Ford.

Is it barely possible that energy investors see the E-II fuel as a boondoggle or is this just a pejorative term for ETOH? ETOH has been a renewable fuel for more than 35 years in this country and I expect it to continue for many more decades. It has saved the importation of billions of barrels of foreign oil and will likely continue in that same vein. Let me know when I can fill the tank with low-performance E-II. At least I will give it a shot if it is cost-effective. It seems that wind, solar, hydrogen, coal gasification are all making inroads. I don’t see E-II on the horizon and I strongly suspect it has many problems yet to be mentioned.

Don’t forget that corn and food prices went through the roof about nine months ago because:
1.Weak dollar-China was buying all the grain they could get their hands on due to the exchange rate.
2.Fuel prices-at $130/barrell every input cost from fuel to fertilizer increased everyone costs.

Simply put, it was a “perfect storm” for high prices on everything ag and energy related components.

And another thing, nobody talks about the wealth that actually stays here in or own country rather than the Saudi families getting money for the energy we consume.

Ethanol is not perfect, but it sure isn’t as bad as some would like you to believe.

But then again, you obviously know nothing about it and clearly have not read the patent. It is not, like ethanol, a boondoggle.

Then again, also, you are obviously completely ignorant of what I have pointed out to you about disruptive technology and the difficulties that better inventions face when they threaten the way a handful of dominant companies are doing business.

Let me give you another famous example: Sears and the socket wrench. Here’s another quite recent one. Palm and the graffitti language, illustrating that the Silicon Valley model is no better than that followed by the likes of Ford and Sears when they were dominant.

As I say skepticism is not a curable disease and, in the words of Walter Williams, you are not only ignorant, you are arrogant. But stick with your boondoggle and help the other side in this war. You should be proud to be an assister to the Islamists. They have so much to contribute.

See post 100. ETOH is going to be around for many decades to come. I hope the magic formula for gasoline is successful—there is only so much energy in reduced carbon compounds. Can you provide the formula for E II?

Corn is about $4/Bu now. It was $2 in 1950. Dang those farmers for coming up with a profitable venture and dang those who inflated the price of corn to such an outrageous level. I wonder what you will say when the the goal of 600 gallons of ETOH/acre is reached, not to mention the feed-grade protein and cornstalk by-products.

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.