Posted on 02/06/2016 9:42:01 AM PST by upchuck
The results of the Iowa caucus proved that even Iowans-long seen as fervent proponents of ethanol-don't view Washington's favoritism to it as necessarily still required.
Much like many campaigns out there, the Renewable Fuel Standard that mandates the use of biofuels in our gasoline has been full of empty promises. When Congress passed the Renewable Fuel Standard in 2005 and expanded the mandate in 2007, policymakers promised reduced dependence on foreign oil, a new source of cleaner energy to lower gas prices, a stronger economy, and an improved environment.
This was certainly wishful thinking, as none of it has come true.
Instead, the policy has resulted in adverse effects to the economy and the environment and demonstrated the folly of the government attempting to centrally plan America's energy future.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 first mandated that renewable fuels be mixed into America's gasoline supply, primarily using corn-based ethanol. The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act increased the quotas significantly.
By 2022, there must be 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol and a total of 36 billion gallons of biofuels blended into the nation's fuel supply, including soybean-based biodiesel. The program does not end in 2022, however, but grants the Environmental Protection Agency authority to set yearly targets.
The mandate has harmed Americans in a number of ways. Ethanol has only two-thirds the energy content of petroleum-based gasoline, so drivers pay more. In addition, the Renewable Fuel Standard has not delivered on the promise of reducing dependence on oil and protection from high prices.
Because ethanol contributes such a small percentage of the overall transportation fuel market (a mere 5 percent in 2014), it has failed to tamp down prices, which mostly continued to climb from 2002 to 2012 despite increased mandated ethanol use and high oil prices allegedly making ethanol more competitive.
Supply and demand (largely of crude oil) will determine the price at the pump, and the contribution of the Renewable Fuel Standard as a transportation fuel is a mere drop in the bucket against the nation's entire fuel use.
The Renewable Fuel Standard also artificially diverts food to fuel, driving up prices at the grocery store.
A few years ago, 40 percent of America's corn crop went to ethanol production. In 2012, the amount of corn used to produce ethanol in the U.S. exceeded the entire corn consumption of the continent of Africa and in any single country with the exception of China.
Now, if market forces drove corn production away from food use and toward transportation fuel because it were more profitable, there would be no problem. But that's not what is occurring here. Producers are diverting food to fuel because of the government-imposed mandate, and since corn is a staple ingredient for many foods and an important feedstock for animals, families are hit with higher prices from a wide range of food products.
Policymakers hailed biofuels as the green solution to dirty oil. But, in its first of three reports to Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency projected that nitrous oxides, hydrocarbons, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, ground-level ozone, and ethanol vapor emissions, among other air pollutants, increase at different points in the production and use of ethanol.
A study by Iowa State University researchers concluded that incentivizing more biofuel production with government policies leads to more adverse environmental consequences caused by farming, the use of fertilizers, and land-use conversion for agricultural production, resulting in increased soil erosion, sedimentation, and nitrogen and phosphorus runoff into lakes and streams.
Though the mandate benefits a select few in the Midwest, the Renewable Fuel Standard spreads the cost to the rest of Americans, including many in the agricultural community. The biofuels mandate gives preferential treatment to the production of corn and soybeans at the expense of other agricultural products and artificially eliminates the risk and competition necessary to drive innovation and economic growth.
The problem with the Renewable Fuel Standard is not the use of biofuels themselves, but rather that it is a policy that mandates the production and consumption of the fuel.
Having politicians centrally plan energy decisions best left for the private sector distorts markets and demonstrates the high costs and unintended consequences of government control.
Congress should admit that the Renewable Fuel Standard is costly to the economy and the environment, benefiting a select group of special interests. Importantly, Congress should recognize that the federal government has no business determining what type of fuel we should use and how much of it we should consume each year.
The only viable solution to this broken policy is to repeal the biofuels mandate altogether.
I know now,I did some research.That would be a LOT of 80 proof whiskey!
Technically, it would be vodka! Every Russian’s dream: 200 proof vodka at $1.50 a gallon.
I hate ethanol in my gasoline.
By the way technical point, Nitrogen fertilizer.
Hangovers at a price everyone can afford.Now that’s progress!
The trick is keeping the tanks FULL.
Tanks that are less than full, tend to attract condensation within the space above the fuel itself, and the condensation then runs down into the fuel.
When the fuel-water ratio gets beyond a certain level, the water, which dissolves in the ethanol but not in the gasoline, then causes the now ethanol/water solution to go through the phase separation, and being heavier than the gasoline fraction, settles on the bottom of the tank.
“So a “renewable fuel†ethanol/gasoline blend has to be turned over on a pretty rapid basis. Sixty days or less.”
And that’s why I now have to buy “clear” non-ethanol bearing fuel for my generator and my two cycle power tools at a cost of about $7.00 a quart! Specialty fuel makers (like VP) have built a pricey market around the ethanol in gasoline business, but even at that price, it’s a bargain because stuff that you don’t run every day, does run when you need it. VP says that their clear fuels are stable w/o a fuel stabilizer for at least a year. See, the goverment screws up virtually everything it get’s it’s hands on.
Heck, that’s DEATH at a price everyone can afford!
Hear that.
I don’t tend to top off my non-ethanol supplies, just ‘cause (with absolutely no evidence) I figure the premium gas will hold up till I finish the tank.
So far it has worked out fine, except that I took on six hundred gallons a couple months ago, just before the price began to tumble. Oh well....
‘Wonder how many hog and beef farmers have been ruined by the higher prices of feed.’
Not to mention users of starch, a material used extensively in the paper industry.
Ethanol plant by-products, DDGS, are relied on by hog (and chicken/egg) farmers as cheap, high-protein feed.
The effect on beef cattle is indirect as high corn prices tempt farmers with marginal land to raise corn on land that would otherwise be used for hay or pasture. However, corn prices are hovering around cost of production now, and have been for some time.
It’s not just ethanol, it’s sugar (Rubio in their pocket) and a lot of other things. Corporate welfare needs to end (I’m including Planned Parenthood in that)
Thank you for the correction - Nitrogen fertilizer
and Tom Vilsack, former Governor of Iowa, who was awarded a governor of the year award by a biotech industry organization and flies or is flown often in Monsanto jets, for which he is criticized, and is by Obama’s appointment Secretary of Agriculture - recently sought to bring home more bacon to Iowa by endorsing legislation of an INCREASE of gasoline’s ethanol content - and that’s not good when an operative of the Executive Branch initiates or promotes or influences the Legislature - and an EPA study is the basis of the argument
You’re right! I forgot about the paper industry. I raise and breed specialty potatoes. There are potatoes specifically raised for their ultra-high starch content for the manufacturers.
I had no idea what the conversion ratio was, but I figured it had to be fairly high, or the price of bourbon would be astronomical.
Bull. I’ve talked to plenty of farmers about sweet vs field corn and where it’s going and who’s buying it.
I’d have explained it differently.
Corn is FOOD, not fuel!
The Federal government has no business subsidizing Corn to make it a fuel.
Corn as a fuel:
-screws up engines,
-reduces gas mileage,
-costs more to turn into fuel than petroleum,
-passes that cost on to consumers,
-does NOTHING to control pollution because with the reduced mileage the
“pollutants per mile” don’t improve!
Politics often trumps physics.
That’s why I boiled down the Daily Signal article to a few bullet points.
With petroleum prices now so low, the ethanol is actually raising the price of the blend.
Wholesale ethanol - $1.43/gal
Wholesale gasoline - .99/gal
Yep.
E85 around here is is something like $1.38/gal. That’s likely a money-losing proposition.
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.