Savings Experiment: Snow Removal
Why Your 2012 Tax Bill May Jump By $8,000
Regarding the alternate fuels for vehicles project, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has slow-tracked the proposal to mix larger amounts of ethanol with gasoline, commonly known as E15, or 15% alcohol/85% gasoline, The New York Times reported. Currently, the maximum blend is 10% and is common in many regions of the U.S.The EPA has sent the E15 idea back for more study. What would be the best decision? Not a slow-track, but a 'no-track' for E15. E15 should be abandoned outright. Here's why:
Ethanol from corn is not achieving its environmental, energy, or conservation goals.
First, the scientific community is divided as to whether corn-based ethanol results in less or more greenhouse gas emissions. Some studies have shown that when one considers the energy required to grow corn, harvest it, load the trucks, and process it, corn-based ethanol emits more greenhouse gases than it, in theory, would save from not using oil-based gasoline.
Second, corn-based ethanol is causing environmental distortions. Farmers are switching from growing traditional, regionally-appropriate crops to growing – you guessed it – corn, because the profit margins are higher. That's causing environmental degradation.
Third, diverting corn to fuel production from food is forcing up the price of food: anything that uses corn or corn syrup is going up. Livestock farmers are paying considerably higher prices for feed because of current E10 programs: these prices would only rise under E15.
Fourth, and perhaps most damaging from a mechanical operations standpoint, older U.S. cars probably would not be able to burn E15 safely: E15 may cause damage to emission control systems, and gas pumps.
Finally, ethanol can be produced from other sources: it's best to concentrate on those, rather than divert corn to fuel use.
Energy Analysis: The corn lobby is huge and powerful in Washington, and it's going to try to intimidate the EPA to switch to E15. What should the EPA do instead to increase U.S. vehicle efficiency? Force automakers to build lighter cars. A 20% reduction in weight through use of aluminum, plastics, and composites will save more barrels of oil than E15 ever could. Also, imagine the public reaction when many typical citizens – forced to drive used cars because they can't afford to purchase a new one in these difficult economic times (or because they can't secure an affordable auto loan) - suddenly see their cars sputter or become damaged due to E15. Like E10, E15 is an idea whose costs outweigh its benefits. Ash-can E15.
Goldman Earnings Sink After Buffett Dividend
Johnson & Johnson's Income Falls 23%
Burberry Shares Leap on Sales Update
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-07-2009 @ 4:44PM
GreenLIFE said...
What about our independence from foreign oil? Fact is that ethanol burns cleaner than petroleum. Farmers are producing more crops each year with less land which enables us to use a percentage of our crop for ethanol while still feeding our population. Also, nobody ever seems to bring up the byproduct of ethanol called distiller grains, which is a high protein product used to feed livestock. What about the benefits to the American Economy? Buying ethanol puts that money right back into the United States of America instead of shipping billions of more dollars to terrorist countries.
According to North Dakota State University, a movement to E 15 would create 136,000 new jobs. E 15 would replace 900,000 barrels of oil per day. The use of E 15 would remove emissions equivilent to more than 4 million vehicles from the road each year. As EPA itself indicated, the scientific data to date has demonstrated no ill-effects of increased ethanol use in any vehicle currently on the road.The increase in ethanol in conventional fuel will help create a market for future generation biofuels.
12-07-2009 @ 5:20PM
william lindblad said...
Joe, you missed reason #5 - and it is the most important one. If you think that I am joking - please do check.
Reason #5.
It takes 2 gallons of WATER to produce one gallon of ALCOHOL. Considering that one must first WATER the corn crop and than use WATER to produce the fuel, one will find that the WATER usage is quite high. Because of sugars that are in the crop and their deterioration due to time, the processing plant and crop must be in close proximity.
What do you do when there is a drought?
The concept of alcohol as a major alternative fuel will never be and it is a bad investment. The amount of fresh water on this planet is now the same as in the time of Moses - roughly 10%, the other 90% is salt water. In only the last 50 years the human population has doubled and humans require water to exist.
While we are quite a way from a "soylent green" situation we are not too far away from major water shortages and since this is really an investment page I think that it is fair to plug GE. They are one of the leaders in R/O aka reverse osmosis, a method of extracting fresh water from our 7 seas.
That time is not far in the future and I am hardly what would be considered in the environmental camp. Our current usage is depleting the Oglalala at a rapid rate and if it is not naturally replenished, the corn issue will be settled in less than 20 years. There will be enough for food, no less alcohol manufacture.
Be my guest - check.
12-07-2009 @ 5:26PM
william lindblad said...
Oh, I forgot to add. High alcohol concentrations in older autos would destroy most of the fuel system seals. Other than that, you can burn it straight, but it does raise hell with the engine valve seats. You need sodium seats. It was tried back in the 30's. That's what I heard, and since I have never checked?
Thats opinion - and as the wise man said - worthless without fact.