Posted on 09/14/2022 8:58:11 AM PDT by george76
In 2007, the U.S. Congress mandated the blending of biofuels such as corn-based ethanol into gasoline. One of the top goals: reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
But today, the nation´s ethanol plants produce more than double the climate-damaging pollution, per gallon of fuel production capacity, than the nation´s oil refineries, according to a Reuters analysis of federal data.
The average ethanol plant chuffed out 1,187 metric tons of carbon emissions per million gallons of fuel capacity in 2020, the latest year data is available. The average oil refinery, by contrast, produced 533 metric tons of carbon.
The ethanol plants´ high emissions result in part from a history of industry-friendly federal regulation that has allowed almost all processors to sidestep the key environmental requirement of the 2007 law, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), according to academics who have studied ethanol pollution and regulatory documents examined by Reuters. The rule requires individual ethanol processors to demonstrate that their fuels result in lower carbon emissions than gasoline.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with writing the regulations .. the agency has exempted more than 95% of U.S. ethanol plants from the requirement through a grandfathering provision
...
considering all phases of the fuel´s life cycle, ethanol produces more carbon than gasoline - not less. A study published by the National Academy of Sciences in February, for example, estimated that ethanol produces 24% more carbon.
...
The grandfathered facilities produced 4.8 million tons more carbon emissions
...
ethanol, industry and governmental claims of a major climate benefit are dubious, said Rich Plevin, an environmental consultant and former researcher at the University of California-Berkeley who has studied biofuels emissions.
Did the policy achieve anything? I think it´s really hard to claim that it did for the environment,"
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
They also allow wind farms to “genocide” bald eagles and condors
I drive by ethanol only corn crops all the time. Not edible either.
On top of that, ethanol only has 60% of the BTUs of gasoline, so the pollution per BTU is far worse.
Anything that burns our food supply is something that bureaucrats are all for. Food is the preferred weapon to control the citizens.
I remember the descriptions of the horrors of great depression.
The worst was that, while people were starving, the ruthless capitalists were burning grain in locomotives.
Now, we are burning grain in cars!
A lot more of it.
“On top of that, ethanol only has 60% of the BTUs of gasoline, so the pollution per BTU is far worse.”
And that fact is never discussed, same with Bio Diesel fuel.
Corn ethanol can mess with small engines, carburetors, and ..
It reduces gas mileage to the same extent it reduces emissions.
So, the pollutants per mile remain unchanged AND it costs more.
“Corn ethanol can mess with small engines, carburetors, and ..”
Yep, it evaporates and spoils much faster. Any long term storage is a huge problem.
Part of Brandon's push to increase the ethanol mandate from 10% to 15% (though I think he backed down from that) was to increase this bullcrap carbon tax.
Refiners offset some of this fee by buying bullcrap carbon credits "created" by Dim companies like Tesla. This is why Tesla gets more profit from selling "carbon credits" than from selling anything else. It's also why Musk is still pushing for more carbon taxes while also saying the west needs to keep using oil and natural gas (hey gubment: allow energy to thrive and punish them harder for it so they have to buy more indulgences from Tesla).
I read that the RIN carbon tax translates to about 75¢ extra in the price of gas per gallon paid at the pump, and that if Brandon had succeeded in making the ethanol mandate 15% it'd be $1/gallon. And that's before the other taxes per gallon paid when you buy gasoline.
YES! And further adding to the cost of replacement parts.
And... Once it spoils what do you do with it? They have not provided collection centers for proper disposal. And there would be additional fuel use and emissions to go properly dispose of it. So it is ending up down the drain or in the ditch across the street. This is better?
When real world cause and effect is considered, it is much worse than if they had just left it alone.
How carbon friendly is the manufacturing, delivery, and use of this product we should not need except in extreme circumstances?
I remember when you could store gas over the winter with no problems at all for using the next spring.
I don’t care about carbon emissions. That’s a complete distraction from fundamental critical thinking. Ethanol causes so many other problems. It’s a scam.
A lawn mower repair guy told me if I used Stabil I wouldn’t have problems with it not starting in spring.
“And...Once it spoils what do you do with it?”
PRIG restores old gas.
The government makes everything it touches worse.
With respect... You missed the point. There was a time when it was not needed at all. Now because it is needed they have added more to the carbon footprint because it is needed. Making, delivering, and using this product is not carbon neutral. These by themselves create additional emissions because it is needed.
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.