credit: solidprinciples.com
A ritual I engage in weekly never fails to slightly raise my blood pressure: the warning on gas pumps informing me the gas I’m putting in my vehicle contains up to 10% Ethanol. Government mandates of any kind invoke my ire, as I noted in The Joys Of Ethanol in June of 2013:
Ethanol, as you may know, is a fuel that costs more than gasoline, reduces engine horsepower, and also gets less mileage than conventional gasoline. Left for too long in vehicles, it begins to eat away seals and other essential parts of the fuel system and engine and tends to turn into sludge. Its mandated production has greatly decreased the world’s corn supply and contributed to malnutrition and starvation. Other than that, it’s the perfect, green fuel, which is no doubt why the Obama Administration continues to mandate its production and use.
And now we discover that the Obama EPA has been ignoring the law and doing whatever it damned well pleases. I’m shocked, shocked!
The Obama administration has failed to study as legally required the impact of requiring ethanol in gasoline and ensuring that new regulations intended to address one problem do not actually make other problems worse, the Environmental Protection Agency inspector general said Thursday.
The conclusion in the new audit confirmed findings of an Associated Press investigation in November 2013. The AP said the administration never conducted studies to determine whether air and water quality benefits from adding corn-based ethanol to gasoline. Such reports to Congress were required every three years under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
The AP investigation described the ethanol era as far more damaging to the environment than the government predicted. As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, polluted water supplies and destroyed habitat.
The EPA agreed with the inspector general’s findings that it had failed to produce studies as legally required. It said it will produce the first report — on the impacts of biofuels — by December 2017, and investigate whether ethanol requirements made other environmental problems worse by September 2024. That will be 17 years after Congress passed a law requiring oil companies to blend billions of gallons of ethanol into their gasoline.
Golly, what do you suppose the EPA will find? Their usual tactic in such investigations of themselves is to find the EPA is blameless and brilliant in thought, word and deed, but surely, under the enlightened leadership of Barack H. Obama, such dishonesty and lack of transparency will not be tolerated? His is, after all, the most transparent administration in history, and if you don’t believe that, just ask him. And if you believe that, have I mentioned I’m a Nigerian prince in exile, and if you send me your bank account and routing numbers, I’ll deposit millions for safekeeping?
credit: blog.hemmings.com
But hey, it’s not like ethanol is controversial or anything:
Ethanol is hardly without controversy. On the production side it’s been repeatedly shown that it uses up to 300% more water than anyone expected. Vast amounts of land were converted to corn fields in the rush to cash in on the government mandate, causing all manner of environmental havoc. And the resulting fuel has been problematic at best. Consumer Reports has been warning for years that ethanol blends can destroy small engines and boat motors. In fact, this mandate has spawned an entire new industry which produces additives specifically designed to remove the ethanol which the government insists must be added to our gasoline. (There’s an unexpected government stimulus program for you.)
There is hope in that even some Democrats have begun to see the lunacy of ethanol mandates, and there has been some semi-serious—as serious as the Congress ever gets—talk about doing away with them. Consumers would get better, and on-corrosive gas, and an important food staple would once again be available, saving untold lives. Unfortunately, that state of affairs would not provide nearly as many opportunities for graft and political grandstanding.
A Trump presidency and a Republican Congress might be about as close as we’ll ever get to doing away with this particular boondoggle, but as Ronald Reagan said, the closest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on Earth is a government program (or mandate).
UPDATE, 08-27-16, 2030 CST: Oh, this just gets better all the time. From The Telegraph:
Green’ biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel are in fact worse for the environment that petrol, a landmark new study has found.
The alternative energy source has long been praised for being carbon-neutral because the plants it is made from absorb carbon dioxide, which causes global warming, from the atmosphere while they are growing.
But new research in the US has found that the crops used for biofuel absorb only 37 per cent of the C02 that is later released into the atmosphere when the plants are burnt, meaning the process actually increases the amount of greenhouse gas in the air.
Is anyone actually surprised? Take the link and read the rest.
Pingback: The Ethanol Scam Continues: I’m Shocked–Shocked! – Watcher of Weasels
I never understood how mandatory grain alcohol which ended up giving me anywhere from 10-25℅ less mileage, depending on the vehicle, produced less emissions into the atmosphere. Burning more fuel over a given distance means more invisible smoke no matter how you figure the math. And that’s if you don’t consider the fuel burned to produce the grain alcohol in the first place. Alcohol comes from fractional distillation. Anyone who’s run a still before knows this requires heat. Heat requires fuel that burns. It doesn’t matter if your heat energy comes from trees, oil, or those little holes in your wall, something was burned somewhere.
I laugh at those who buy coal powered vehicles like the Chevy Volt. They like to tell you they are doing their part to reduce carbon. When I ask about their solar or wind charger they say they “oh no you don’t need that, you plug them into the wall”. So I say “oh you mean it’s a coal powered car? Your aware our electricity comes from a coal fired power plant, right? The look I get back is priceless.
And what’s more, there is the net loss in transmission from the plant to home outlet to be considered.
Dear Josh in Champaign:
Resistance takes many forms. Welcome to SMM!
“Consumer Reports has been warning for years that ethanol blends can destroy small engines and boat motors.”
Thank you for mentioning this key detail. Lightly used equipment can last a long time, but are less likely to have rubber parts that will stand the ethanol.
I think there’s been a massive, unnoticed wastage of lawn equipment caused by this crooked crony BS. Kind of like when congress caused every dishwasher in the country to stop cleaning very well by removing phosphate from the soap – I bet a lot of unnessesary replacements were made, I know of a few.
I really liked that Ted Cruz had the guts to speak against corn ethanol fuel and still did OK in Iowa. That was a damn fine show of guts and integrity.
A parts man at a local lawn mower shop said the ethanol is killing the small engines.
I got tired of fooling with trying to keep mine running , I have a small yard .I bought a Scotts hand push rotary mover .
Love it ,the whirling clicking sound is very relaxing ,almost hypnotic.
It takes awhile to get the hang of it , you got to know the right speed , but it works great ,take it out ,push ,put away .
No worry about springs ,governors and carburetors.
Its destroyed no telling how many small boat motors here in FL too. There are a few stations around here that sell alcohol free gas. Its the only thing I use for my small motor needs. Plus I add a big dose of Stabil fuel conditioner to the can when filled. Alcohol blends are especially bad in a hot wet climate.
I don’t get the part about Trump will get us off the ethanol mandate when in Iowa he promised to double the amount currently used. Hillary voted against the mandate that Bush signed that created the corn ethanol mandate. I don’t get your thinking here please explain.
Dear Erock:
Hi there. Please note I said a Trump presidency with a republican Congress might make it possible to do away with ethanol mandates. My point is it’s virtually impossible under a Clinton presidency or with a Democrat Congress, but with Trump, it’s at least a possibility. There is at least some indication that Trump hires the best people available and actually listens to them. So, possible, not a sure thing with Trump.
Pingback: Ethanol. | AFlaGunBlog
As long as the Iowa caucuses are treated as the coronation rite of passage for Democrat and Republican presidential candidates, we will have this monstrosity.
Like every other hair-brained scheme of the left, this issue is fraught
with corruption. It is the Obamaphone of the energy industry. By
pissing away billions in taxpayer subsidies, it allows wealthy
campaign donors and politicians who invest in corn farms to become
extremely rich! It is all about crony capitalism.
It was recently discovered that the prices of corn were skyrocketing
in Mexico. So much so, it fueled riots. Corn is a staple with the
Mexican lower class. The increase came because the diversion of
corn from a food crop to fuel additive drove the prices through the
roof!
Here is a classic quote on the subject:
“In 2014, the U.S. will use almost 5 billion bushels of corn to produce over
13 billion gallons of ethanol fuel. The grain required to fill a 25-gallon tank
with ethanol can feed one person for a year, so the amount of corn used to
make that 13 billion gallons of ethanol will not feed the almost 500 million
people it was feeding in 2000.” — James Conca at Forbes 4/20/14
There is also some bad news for beer drinkers like me. Hops are
grown in a lot of Northern latitudes. The farmers are ditching the
production of hops in favor of government subsidized corn. This has
the potential of creating the nightmare scenario in the classic
Married: With Children episode , where Al Bundy stirred up a riot
over a 2 cent per can beer tax.
The problem with socialists is that they are universally corrupt, and
have no freaking clue how a free market economy works. It is not
production or labor costs that have driven industry abroad, it is
high taxes, regulations, mandates, and most of all an INSANE
energy policy that claims we can “conserve” our way to energy
“Independence” in a growing economy. The death warrant for the
most energy dependent industries was signed by clueless liberal
politicians decades ago.
Go to this site Mike and D/L the Excel sheet showing the closures
in my industry (Paper and pulp) from 1990 to 2013. Go to
Pennsylvania and try to find a steel mill. This could have been
avoided by building power plants and refineries:
http://www.pprc.info/html/millclosures.htm
Corn is food, not fuel.