Can the US Be Weaned Off Ethanol? 330
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Matthew Wald reports in the NYT the the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed reducing the amount of ethanol that is required to be mixed with the gasoline supply, the first time it has taken steps to slow down the drive to replace fossil fuels with renewable forms of energy. The move drew bitter complaints from advocates of ethanol, including some environmentalists, who see the corn-based fuel blend as a weapon to fight climate change and was also unwelcome news to farmers, coming at a time when a record corn crop is expected, and the price of a bushel has fallen almost to the cost of production. "Boy, my goodness, are the oil companies going to benefit from this," says Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association. "We're all just sort of scratching our heads here wondering why this administration is telling us to produce less of a clean-burning American fuel." But the EPA says that a big part of the problem was that automobile fuel systems and service stations were not set up to absorb more than about 10 percent ethanol. Most cars on the road are limited to the current mixture, called E10, and there has been little demand by consumers for more. Reasons for the turnaround are many: The boom in domestic oil drilling has dimmed the urgency to find other alternatives to Mideast petroleum. Demand for gasoline has slumped. And criticism of the environmental impacts of corn ethanol has dimmed its luster nationally. The chill on ethanol will certainly affect the industry's powerhouse, corn ethanol. But the risk is far greater for smaller sectors of the industry still struggling to get out of the gate — those aimed at producing next-generation biofuels like "cellulosic" ethanol, made from ingredients like switchgrass and corn stalks. "I don't know if the EPA is aiming for uncertainty, but they may inadvertently create it," says Jan Koninckx, the global business director of biorefineries for DuPont. "The impact could be that another country will lead this rather than the U.S.""
Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Couldn't we just buy the corn (Score:5, Insightful)
The real cost... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people are unaware that they already pay for ethanol, in the form of subsidies, before it is even added to gasoline.
Everyone I've spoken to about ethanol did a 180-degree reversal of opinion when I mentioned to them that not only have they already paid for that ethanol, but that it is also genetically-modified corn developed by Monsanto that is used to produce that ethanol, as are the pesticides used on those crops.
Funny, how people change their opinions so quickly when provided factual information.
Rent seekers and graft (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason we still have corn ethanol is because there's so much money involved. It's a great way to get paid a lot of money without actually going to the trouble to earn any of it.
- It's never really been about "the environment", but now they're not even pretending any more.
- "Energy independence" was always a cheap slogan to fool the rubes into paying more for an inferior product, but that's not working either now that the US is set to become the world's largest oil producer in 2015.
Like many government programs, graft is all that's left. The ethanol producers and the farmers feel entitled, and the politicians were bought off a long time ago.
Re:Corn is FOOD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:corn vs algae (Score:5, Insightful)
corn fields are cheap to operate
They also promote monoculture farming and depletion of soil, which in turn requires huge inputs of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and also makes GMO attractive.
The US corn policy is exceedingly damaging to the economy, the environment, and public health.
Re:Environmentalists? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be careful with how you word things. Ethanol is not in an of itself evil and purely political. Ethanol derived from renewable biological processes has merit in as much as it closes the carbon loop. The trouble comes when politics steps in and subsidizes source material whose production is every bit, if not more harmful than the petroleum the ethanol is supposed to be replacing.
If you want to make actual progress against environmental destruction you need to capture the external costs in the price people pay. Innovation will then be driven to that which costs the least.
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm hoping ethanol gets dumped.
LoB
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:3, Insightful)
Democrats are dumb enough to give all power to the government, even when it could mean that Republicans (or someone much more terrible [wikipedia.org]) may inherit that power.
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:5, Insightful)
Only because they didn't get a chance to vote it back then. The evidence is clear that Republicans were perfectly okay with pretty much every single provision that makes up Obamacare, up until the point where it became known as Obamacare.
I honestly don't know why I'm ever bothering to argue with you, really, because anyone seriously claiming that Republicans are a "small government party" is either insane or blind - their track record for the last 30 years is anything but.