Posted on 02/01/2015 9:50:49 AM PST by Kaslin
Few congressional observers ever expected that U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) would cosponsor the “Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act,” to abolish the corn ethanol Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which requires that increasing volumes of this biofuel be blended into gasoline. Their collaboration again proves the adage that politics often makes strange bedfellows.
The RFS was a mistake when enacted ten years ago. Since then, despite attempts to curtail it, the program has expanded and had more lives than Freddy Krueger. Perhaps the senators are now paraphrasing William Shakespeare and Marc Antony, saying “I come to bury the ethanol RFS, not to praise it.”
Renewable fuels advocates are predictably fighting back. They say ethanol is vital to agricultural sector jobs and revenues, “homegrown fuels” diversify our energy mix and reduce foreign imports, and biofuels help prevent “dangerous manmade climate change.” The claims do not withstand scrutiny.
Ethanol has already “hit the blend wall,” the senators point out. Even current ethanol production mandates result in more ethanol than can be used safely in gasoline. That and fewer miles driven of late means refinery “blend targets” have already been met for E10 (10% ethanol) gasoline. More ethanol would impair automotive engine systems and void warranties. All this results in surplus ethanol, increasing corn grower demands for E15mandates or permits (15% ethanol), and worse market and ecological effects.
And still federal law requires that the ethanol mandate must keep rising: from 9 billion gallons of ethanol in 2008 to 14 billion now and 36 billion gallons by 2022. That would exacerbate all these problems.
America is already plowing an area larger than Iowa to grow corn for ethanol, and turning nearly 40% of all its corn into ethanol. The guaranteed income incentivizes farmers to take land out of wheat and rye, conservation easements, pasture land and wildlife habitat – and grow corn instead. Converting these vast fields of corn into ethanol requires enormous amounts of irrigation water, fertilizers, pesticides, and gasoline or diesel fuel to grow, harvest and ship the corn … and more gasoline, diesel and natural gas to produce and transport the ethanol.
Corn growers make money, since they are protected by annual ethanol blend mandates that guarantee a demand, market and high price for their output. But there is no comparable “renewable protein standard” to guarantee a market for statutorily mandated quantities of poultry, pork, beef, eggs and fish.
Thus U.S. corn prices skyrocketed from $1.96 per average bushel in 2005 to as much as $7.50 in autumn 2012 and $6.68 in June 2013, before dropping in 2014 due to record yields and lower demand for corn and ethanol. Since the RFS was implemented, feed costs for chicken, turkey, egg and hog farmers have been nearly $100 billion higher than they would have been in the absence of the RFS, National Chicken Council president Mike Brown estimates.
These protein farmers have been compelled to subsidize corn farmers by almost $1.35 per gallon of ethanol; beef and dairy farmers have been forced to pay similar subsidies. All these costs have been passed on to American families. Since 2007, high and volatile feed costs forced many meat and poultry producers to cut back or cease production, file for bankruptcy or sell their operations to other companies. Biofuel mandates also meaninternational aid agencies must pay more for corn and wheat, so more starving people remain malnourished longer
Energy per acre of corn is minuscule compared to what we get from oil and gas drilling, conventional and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) alike. Moreover, corn-based ethanol requires 2,500 to 29,000 gallons of freshwater per million Btu of energy, the US Department of Energy calculates; biodiesel from soybeans consumes an unsustainable 14,000 to 75,000 gallons of water per million Btu. By comparison, fracking requires just 0.6 to 6.0 gallons of fresh or brackish water per million Btu of energy produced.
New seismic, deepwater drilling, hydraulic fracturing and other technologies have led to discoveries of enormous new reserves of oil and natural gas – and enabled companies to extract far more petroleum from reservoirs once thought to have been depleted. All these newly abundant oil and gas supplies could easily replace ethanol and other biofuels, and slash U.S. oil imports even further.
This resurgence of hydrocarbons has obliterated the Club of Rome “peak oil” notion that we are rapidly exhausting the world’s petroleum, made Big Green environmentalists apoplectic, and caused resource depletion alarmists to make a 180-degree policy turn on natural gas. Just four years ago the Sierra Club used $75 million from Aubrey McClendon and Michael Bloomberg to finance an anti-coal campaign which insisted that coal-fired power plants could be replaced with natural gas facilities.
Now the Sierrans despise natural gas and want to totally ban the technology that created our newfound abundance of gas: hydraulic fracturing. They disregard the benefits of lower gas prices for families and factories, ignore the need for coal and natural gas-based electricity as backup power generation for wind and solar facilities, and concoct all kinds of fanciful “dangers” from fracking operations.
Meanwhile, the prominent environmental think tank World Resources Institute just issued a new report that concluded: turning plant matter into liquid fuel or electricity is so inefficient that it is unlikely to supply a substantial fraction of the world’s energy demand – ever. Perhaps worse, spending countless more billions on this misguided strategy will result in more millions of valuable, fertile acres being devoted to “growing energy” instead of helping to feed malnourished and starving people.
Adding to the reasons the RFS deserves an F on its report card, ethanol gets 30% less mileage than gasoline, so motorists pay the same or more per tank but can drive fewer miles. It collects water, gunks up fuel lines, corrodes engine parts, and wreaks havoc on lawn mowers and other small engines.
Ethanol production also kills marine life.Much of the nitrogen fertilizers needed to grow all that corn gets washed off the land into waterways that drain into the Gulf of Mexico, where they cause enormous summertime algae blooms. When the algae die, their decomposition consumes oxygen in the water – creating enormous low-oxygen and zero-oxygen regions that suffocate marine life that cannot swim away.
Regarding jobs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics defines “green jobs” as any that make a company “more environmentally friendly.” The BLS even includes people who drive pilot natural gas, biofuel or hybrid buses. The Solar Energy Society includes accountants, lawyers and landscapers involved even part time with making or installing solar panels. One suspects that even burger flippers could qualify as having green jobs, anytime they sell a meal to a truck driver who happens to be hauling corn to an ethanol plant.
That brings us to “climate chaos” as a last-resort rationale for costly Renewable Fuel Standards. However, Climategate and other IPCC scandals clearly demonstrate that the “science” behind climate disaster claims is conjectural, manipulated and even fraudulent. And actual observations of temperatures, storms, droughts, sea levels and Arctic ice have refused to cooperate with computer models and Hansen-Gore-EPA-IPCC disaster hype and scenarios. The catechism of climate cataclysm – what blogger Jim Guirard calls the Branch Carbonian Cult – can no longer be allowed to justify misguided standards and subsidies.
About the only thing “green” about the ethanol RFS is the billions of dollars it takes from taxpayers and consumers – and funnels to politicians, who dole the cash out to crony corporatists, who then return some of it as campaign contributions, to get the politicians reelected, to perpetuate the gravy train.
It’s time to bury the RFS – and stop forcing motorists to buy gasoline that refiners are compelled to blend into motor fuels. Crony capitalist arrangements benefit too few at the expense of too many.
Ethanol bad, Butanol good
Forcing peeps to burn ethanol in gasoline fueled vehicles is retarded.
OK, then: if there is in fact a glut of ethanol, as this article implies, why does E85 cost so freakin’ much? At present, it’s more expensive than gasoline while driving a car only about 2/3 as far.
Don’t mistake my comments above, however, as a defense of the ethanol mandate: it was a bad idea and bad policy from day one, and its principal effect has been to cause skyrocketing land values in Iowa, while transferring money from the pockets of taxpayers and consumers to farmers and big ag conglomerates.
I doubt ADM will allow this bill to see the light of day.
Ethanol can be made from coal 30% cheaper than corn. Ammonia can be mixed with gas, and that can be made with baseload off peak electricity.
Rule #1: Don’t burn your food.
There is only one gas station that has ethanol free gas in my area. The performance difference is amazing. The stupid “check engine” light goes off. I get better gas mileage, better performance, and it doesn’t destroy the seals that were engineered for 100% gasoline. Don’t even get me started on the motorcycles. My Ducati feels like a shopping cart when I am forced to fill with that E10 crap. A bunch of stupid dumb legislators know nothing but decide everything. The corn (ADM has their fingers in every orifice of DC) lobbyists are crooks and cheaters. Ethanol is for drinking and corn is for eating.
Lets just hope that some genius doesn’t find a way to use Beef, Chicken, Pork. Lamb..or Fish.. as automotive fuel.
Aw geeze, I got here too late.
Not only can we feed all of AMerica, we can feed them with food produced at the lowest prices since the beginning of time.
We also exports mountains of all sorts of foods, including grains converted to meat. Boatload after boat load of meat headed elsewhere.
And we still have enough to burn to heat our home, fuel our cars.
AND we still have mountains of it left over.
With the new conversion plant nearby, he made a killing.
He might have to go back to potatoes and peas.
Certainly not a bad guy...just doing what he could to make a buck.
And while every car built since the E10 mandate took effect has been designed with its corrosive and solvent effects in mind, classic cars, motorcycles, boats, etc, are all at risk with the polluted PC gasoline.
I think both of them will look to their bank accounts before that gets pushed.
I just found out from a buddy that temps below 50 degrees will result in problems starting your car if you're running that crap.........
Good for him, and I hold him no grudge, but I certainly have no sympathy whatsoever for him and the thousands of others like him; if you live by the political whim, you can die by the political whim.
Interesting facts about Flexfuel vehicles that use E85 Here
Primarily a puller of end dump trailers, I have days during the winter that require pulling stepdeck and flatbed trailers, some of which is farm equipment related. Recent trips up into Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota have reminded me of the increase of land formerly used for pasture and/or hay that is now used for corn and soybeans. Even with the advancements in minimum tillage technology, soil erosion is still a major problem.
The USDA labels certain ground as ‘highly erodible’, but allows crops if primary tillage practices (moldboard plow, dick harrow) are not used. They even allow the elimination of water ways if those guide lines are followed.
Problem is that when the quick downpours happen, the rush of water cuts underneath the plant residue on the surface, making ever larger ruts and gulleys. Then the farmer is forced to plow dirt into the gulleys to smooth things up again. That is necessary to maintain passage of the equipment as it passes through the field, but it wipes out the plant residue in those areas for the immediate future, making even more erosion possible during the next downpour.
There has been a lot of ground placed in CRP (more landownwer welfare), but ethanol has been a artificial growth hormone to the ag industry. The land is getting the worst end of the deal.
I thought it ironic that the very people who have forced this mandate on the rest of us recognize the effects and try to insulate themselves from it.
CA sees ethanol as a replacement to MTBE, which was used to create their broad range of botique fuels. Not sure what they will do without ethanol. I wish all the CA regulators would just walk off a steep cliff and give us a real break.
Never be misled: at core, the Sierra Clubbies and other green weenies are core are opposed to all human economic activity, and whenever they support one energy mandate (e.g., ethanol fuels, wind, solar, etc.) it's because they think that energy is totally economically non-viable, and will thus simply result in people not driving, not using electricity, etc.
They'll never be happy until we all live in mud huts and ride bicycles for transportation.
In this they're like the so-called automotive safety and emissions mavens, whose real interest is not in cleaner, safer cars but in setting targets so unrealistically high that the cost of meeting them results in unaffordable cars, and we're back to the bicycles thing.
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.