Ethanol: A Tragedy in 3 Acts

Business Week Online ^ | Thursday April 27 2006 | Ed Wallace

[Brian Allen]

Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing ethanol. But that's not such a good idea

During the comment period for the RFG (reformulated gas) program, supporters of ethanol had argued that the volatile organic compound (VOC) emission standards in the program -- 42 U. S. C. 7545 (k) (3) (B) (i) -- would preclude the use of ethanol in RFG because adding ethanol to gasoline increases its volatility and raises VOC emissions, especially in the summertime.

Background The American Petroleum Institute v. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Docket #94-1502 (Heard by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and decided on April 28, 1995)]

If there were ever a time when the truth in advertising standards should be put back into place, it's now -- during the current (third) attempt to convince the public that the massive use of corn-derived ethanol in our gasoline supply will alleviate our need for foreign oil. Ultimately, the answer to just one question determines ethanol's actual usefulness as a gasoline extender: "If the government hadn't mandated this product, would it survive in a free market?" Doubtful -- but the misinformation superhighway has been rerouted to convince the public its energy salvation is at hand ....

[Brian Allen]

A not-bad look at the massive fraud that is the addition of grossly energy inefficient, $3.00-per-gallon to produce, ethonol, to $0.63 Cents per gallon production cost gasoline.

[rellimpank]

--AMEN--and will the ethanol advocates ever jump on this.

Me--I'll be in the middle of corn country in another few weeks and will carefully observe for any evidence of ethanol or bio-diesel being used in the growing, cultivation, or harvest of corn---

[CedarDave]

There is a whole other issue not considered by any of the economists. That is that in most of the Great Plains states, groundwater is used to grow the crops. That water is being depleted and not replaced. Using water to grow crops to produce vehicle fuel is to me a waste. It may make economical sense (then again it may not), but the water is irreplacable for use by individual farms, communities and for use in other crops. Here are some references:

http://www.kerrcenter.com/publications/ogallala_aquifer.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gcp/issues/society/ogallala/ogallala.html

http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2003-1/2003-1-04.pdf (Conserving the Ogallala Aquifer: Efficiency, Equity and Moral Motives)

http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcsupply/3scisay2.html (Scientists say drought accelerating depletion of Ogallala Aquifer)

Read the first page of the first reference for some statistics. Sobering what depletion of the aquifer will mean for our agriculture.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

You've nailed it.

[pikachu]

The author of this article, Ed Wallace, has a show Saturdays 8AM to 1PM on www.klif.com and a website at insidequotmotive.com.

[P-40]

That water is being depleted and not replaced.

It doesn't rain out that way? :)

[Rakkasan1]

I'll be in the middle of corn country in another few weeks

watch out for these guys...

[silverleaf]

And to this travesty may we add the prospect of damage caused by ethanol to automotive/fuel systems? Boat owners are already starting to discover an unpleasant truth as some fiberglass fuel tanks "dissolve" into sludge when ethanol is introduced. Of course there is no provision to exclude marine fuel from this short sighted special interest group driven government-mandated ethanol additive program.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQK/is_1_11/ai_n16019367

[GSlob]

Ethanol is used for powering the driver, not the vehicle.

[immigration lady]

what no one sees is that there is a .51 tax on each gallon of ethynol, thanks to the corn lobbyists. the refining cost is unbelievable because of the greedy hands in the pot. If we could make the fuel from sugar cane, well, that would be different but nothing's going to change until our government decides to quit politicizing the problem and starts focusing on how to get this country independent of foreign oil.

[defenderSD]

What a mess--another disgraceful sellout by congress to special interests, at our expense.

[P-40]

What a mess--another disgraceful sellout by congress to special interests, at our expense.

The article is in Business Weak, cousin to Newsweak. Not exactly what you would call a reputable source. Glancing through it, I see the author uses a study whose authors declared an "oopsy" and revised their work. The previous study lives on, and will for years and years.

[-YYZ-]

Gee, that paints a cheery picture, doesn't it? And I can't see where it's wrong, either - pretty much everyone agrees the aquifers are being drained and polluted. Do you suppose anything will be done about it before they're sucked dry?

[Daytyn71]

Another problem that the Left-Wing Enviroterrorists won't talk about - With the promotion and increased use of alternative fuels, i.e., corn and sugar cane based ethanol, soy bean and palm oils for blended diesel fuels, farmers in South America and elsewhere are clearcutting thousands of acres of pristine forest to meet the demand for these "greener" fuels.

Wouldn't a more sensible and more environmentally friendly solution (for the US) be to drill in ANWAR. So much for saving the Earth.

[defenderSD]

I don't see any rationale whatsoever for the ethanol additive mandate. It actually increases pollution, incredibly, and it takes more energy to produce and distribute it than is contained in the ethanol. This mandate needs to be repealed ASAP. This is another shameful fraud forced on the American people by a corrupt US congress. Repeal of the ethanol mandate is a GREAT position for Republicans to take in the November election, but they have to make sure they explain that ethanol actually increases air pollution (and thus does nothing other than boost the profits of agri-business).

What study are you saying is incorrect and was later revised?

[P-40]

What study are you saying is incorrect and was later revised?

The very one you use that says it takes more energy to produce ethanol than you get back.

[defenderSD]

OK, how is that study incorrect?

[P-40]

Another problem that the Left-Wing Enviroterrorists won't talk about

They have no interest in "green" fuel. If there is fuel, there will be roads.

[defenderSD]

Don't forget the energy used to transport the ethanol to blending plants, because it can't be mixed in at large refineries and shipped through pipelines as blended gas. This looks like a completely uneconomical mess to me.

[P-40]

OK, how is that study incorrect?

It is a dated study but I remember the rate of application of lime was the biggest error. Not taking into account that corn is grown differently in different areas was not addressed that I know of.