Jack H. Schick

Ethanol Mandate Extended and Increased



Posted: Friday, February 04, 2011

by Jack H. Schick

In John Wayne’s next to last film, Rooster Cogburn, there is a scene where the Duke has had too much to drink.  He has Wolf, his young Indian friend, toss corn dodgers (biscuits), into the air for him to shoot at with his revolver.  His other partner, played by Katharine Hepburn, chastises him by saying something like—“Why are you being so foolish?  You are wasting bullets shooting your own food!” I was reminded of that scene by an article I read concerning a new EPA ruling on the blending of ethanol into gasoline.

Unsure that the “Cap and Trade” initiative, that greatly restricts the amount of carbon that can be introduced to the environment-- particularly as carbon dioxide-- would pass a vote in the Congress, the EPA issued an edict that, in effect, “enacts” the initiative.  An element of this effort to help counter Global Warming (Global Climate Change is the less inflammatory term now used), is the dilution of gasoline with ethyl alcohol.  In October, 2010, the EPA determined that fuel for vehicles manufactured since 2007, should contain 15% ethanol.  On January 21, 2011, the use of E15 was extended to vehicles built between 2001 and 2006.  Prior to October the limit was a 10% dilution.

Supporters of the mandate requiring the burning of the ethanol diluted fuels, claim that the practice will decrease the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere.  CO2, a common gas that makes up about 3 tenths of one percent of the Earth’s atmosphere (0.03%), has recently been declared a pollutant and a major contributor to the projected Climate Change.

In the United States, ethyl alcohol is made mostly from corn.  Tax payer funded government subsidies are offered to grow corn for ethanol production and for ethanol plant operations. Recent studies, including some done for the EPA themselves, calls into question the logic and safety of requiring the use of blended fuel.  Research done by both Dr. David Pimentel of Cornell University and Dr. Tad Patsek of the University of California-Berkeley reveal that it requires 29% more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the product contains. Since the energy used to produce ethanol comes almost exclusively from fossil fuels, our use of oil is actually increased by mandating its production.

A study by Professor Mark Jacobson at Stanford University exposed the fact that the use of ethanol actually makes air pollution worse.  Burning ethanol puts less carbon dioxide, which is relatively harmless to humans, into the atmosphere than burning gasoline, but it releases more of the pollutants that creates smog and endangers human health.  Constituents of smog includes: aldehydes (RCHO), nitrogen oxides, peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN), tropospheric ozone, and volatile organic compounds (VOC’s).  A University of Minnesota study reached the same conclusion.

The Friends of the Earth organization debates the logic of requiring ethanol fuel blends as well.  “Research shows a strong correlation between the rise of corn ethanol production and the growth of the 'dead zone' (in the Gulf of Mexico),” said Kate McMahom of FOE.  “This is because corn production, which requires massive amounts of fertilizers, has expanded rapidly to meet demands for ethanol.”  The fertilizer laden runoff flows down the Mississippi and other rivers into the Gulf.

Another major concern of the required use of ethanol is its effect on our water supply.  It takes an average of 3-4 gallons of water to produce a gallon of ethanol.  If you also count the amount  used to grow the corn, Dr Pimentel argues, it requires 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol.  Most ethanol plants are in the Mid-west where  ground water is usually used.  The Ogallala Aquifer, which stretches from South Dakota to Texas, is being drained at an alarming rate already.  Increased ethanol production will only make the situation worse.

There are also serious economic concerns about the mandated use of blended fuels. The E15 fuel blend will reduce average gas mileage in most vehicles by about 40%.  An automobile getting 20 miles per gallon will be reduced to 12 miles per gallon, substantially increasing the total number of gallons used.  This will increase, not reduce, the nation’s overall oil consumption. Since it costs more to produce ethanol than to produce gasoline, the cost per gallon is substantially increased at the gas pump, as well.  In addition, in response to the mandate, up to 40% of the U.S. corn crop will be diverted from the food industry to ethanol production causing  skyrocketing food prices.

Automakers, soon to be joined by ranchers concerned about water use, and food companies concerned about prices; have filed a law suit against the EPA because of the damage blended fuels do to engines. Older engine parts become brittle over time.  They cannot withstand the effects of burning alcohol.  When ethanol fuel is used, components can disintegrate and clog the engine with sludge and grime. Often the engine cannot be repaired and must be replaced. Ed Wallace said in Business Week, “Since the government forced ethanol use on the country, engine and fuel system failures caused by ethanol are causing major damage to more and more new and used vehicles.  This means the hapless owners are not only paying for snake oil in lower fuel efficiency and more smog, but pay again when it damages their vehicles and lawn mowers.”

Though not approved by Congress, the new carbon emissions standards have been dictated by our Energy Czar to the EPA which has made them law.  This response to the fear of Global Climate Change will be very expensive for the American people and will cause a serious degradation of our environment.  Ethanol production is so harmful in so many ways that even former Vice President Al Gore has said it should no longer be supported.

Despite the preponderance of evidence against it, the lame duck  Congress extended ethanol mandates and subsidies for another year. As one out voted opponent said, “Sadly, when a truly bad idea is exposed today, Washington’s answer is to double down on the bet, mandate more of the same, and make the problem worse.”

I have to ask the same question Katharine Hepburn asked Rooster: “Why are you being so foolish?” I’ll add a few questions of my own: “Are you more concerned about the polar bears than the health, environment, and economic status of your own citizens?  Who’s making the most money off this deal?  When is the next election?”

 
This Article has been viewed 596 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (1 total)
» left by Paroshep
314 days 2 hours ago.
Very well put. Thanks for all the research.
» left by Jack H. Schick 313 days 23 hours ago.
98 fans.
Thanks for reading and commenting
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.