The Washington Times: Stop 'Big Corn'

[Phenomanul]

The Environmental Protection Agency wants to dump more corn into your fuel tank this summer, and it's going to cost more than you think.

The agency is expected to approve a request from 52 ethanol producers known collectively as "Growth Energy" to boost existing requirements that gasoline contain 10 percent ethanol to 15 percent. The change means billions more in government subsidies for companies in the business of growing corn and converting it into ethanol. For the rest of us, it means significantly higher gasoline and food prices.

It's time that this shameless corporate welfare gets plowed under.

In 2007, members of Congress joined with the Bush administration in mandating by government fiat the annual sale of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022. To meet the ambitious sales targets, the EPA has little choice but to approve the 15 percent ethanol fuel blend. Big Corn's advocates claim that forcing Americans to use this renewable fuel would reduce dependency on Mideast oil and lead to cleaner air. It's just as likely, however, that they want to get their hands on the $16 billion a year from the 45-cent-per-gallon "blender's tax credit" - in addition to the various state and federal mandates giving us no choice but to pump their pricey product into our fuel tanks.

The benefits are overstated. According to the EPA, reduction in foreign imports will result in $3.7 billion in "energy security benefits" at the expense of $18 billion in increased fuel costs by 2022. Environmental testing has proved inconclusive, as certain types of pollutants increase when ethanol content increases. It should be noted that the EPA's track record on "environmental" gasoline additives includes Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), a possible carcinogen whose once-mandated use has contaminated groundwater across the country.

Ethanol's environmental credentials are further weakened by its inefficiency as a fuel. Higher ethanol concentration will reduce the gas mileage of America's cars across the board by 5.3 percent. In addition to the pain that adds at the pump, repair bills will mount when engines not designed to handle 15 percent ethanol run lean and suffer increased wear and misfires. Because vehicle warranties specifically exclude damage from the use of unapproved fuels, the additional price for this boondoggle will fall on drivers.

The same problem hits gas stations where pumps and underground storage tanks are not certified for use with elevated ethanol levels. The cost of replacing perfectly good equipment will, once again, be passed on to the consumer.

Even those who do not own automobiles will begin to feel the pinch as more and more farm land is shifted towards taking advantage of government-subsidized ethanol production instead of food. Groups as diverse as the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the National Chicken Council and the American Meat Ins ute realize that this policy is distorting the market for food prices.

According to the University of Missouri's Farm and Policy Research Ins ute, the ethanol tax credit increases corn prices by 18 cents a barrel, wheat by 15 cents and soybeans by 28 cents. That means higher prices for most food items at the grocery store and restaurants.

There simply is no justification - environmental or otherwise - for this interventionist scheme. With the economy reeling, consumers can no longer afford to bankroll the politically connected agricultural lobby. The EPA should reject the 15 percent ethanol requirement and Congress should send Big Corn's rent seekers elsewhere with the repeal of all ethanol subsidies.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-stories-today

15% ethanol for gas engines? Are you kidding me!

[ChumpDumper]

I agree. Corn is horribly inefficient. Sugar is where it's at. We need to invade Cuba.

[Stringer_Bell]

I thought this thread was about the Corn Syrup lobby that makes us use Corn Syrup instead of real sugar in our sodas and fruit juices.

Let's not waste time with converting for Ethanol, we've got the whole Eastern coastline ready to open up for real oil!

[baseline bum]

Not surprising, as long as bribing politicians is legal.

[boutons_deux]

Nearly all US corn and soybeans are now genetically modified, which is completely for the benefit of the corps, esp Monsanto, not in any way for the benefit of the consumers.

Corps are feeding us, and their animals, pathogenic , and shipping their all world, killing local agriculture.

[SnakeBoy]

Corps are feeding us, and their animals, pathogenic , and shipping their all world, killing local agriculture.

Shouldn't that read - Americans are such gluttons that they'll eat the nastiest a corporation can put in front of them as long as it's cheap and loaded with enough fat and/or sugar.

[TeyshaBlue]

15% ethanol for gas engines? Are you kidding me!

LOL...I occasionally run M85 in my van. 85% Methanol. It's ridiculously cheap..usually .75 to $1 cheaper than unleaded.
The kicker is, my mpg is almost cut in half.

[RandomGuy]

I agree. Corn is horribly inefficient. Sugar is where it's at. We need to invade Cuba.

I heard once that modern agriculture could pretty much be defined as "the conversion of oil energy into food".

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.php

Look at the table "approximate EROEIs [6] for different energy sources" about halfway through the briefing.

Ethanol offers somewhere between a negative EROEI, that is it takes MORE energy to produce than you get out of it, to about an 8.

Now, the most pertinent bit is the briefing on biofuels, that has some rather good data in it.

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/biofuels.php

There is a good particular chart that shows the amount of energy/fuel in a given hectare (unit of area), but it does not show any of the "cellulose based" ethanols, but the briefing does talk about them in a pretty balanced and fair-minded way.

The end result is that it would, even with the best technology and efficient distillation processes, probably not be very efficient to get fuel from such sources. It would require VERY large amounts of crop land to replace more than a tiny fraction of our needs from it.

It is mostly likely a dead-end for most countries. Brazil manages to get a good chunk of their transportation energy needs from sugarcane, the most efficient of the sources given in the graph and almost twice as efficient per unit of land as corn. Brazil still uses oil, however, and it remains to be seen if the ethanol economy can be sustained over the long term due to concerns about long-term farmland soil depletion.

We are not Brazil however. The amount of farmable land in the US that could sustain sugarcane is much, much less to start with, and we consume much more energy in our transportation sector.

[balli]

I thought this thread was about the Corn Syrup lobby that makes us use Corn Syrup instead of real sugar in our sodas and fruit juices.

Soda and fruit juices? I wish only that. I think you meant everything.

[RandomGuy]

LOL...I occasionally run M85 in my van. 85% Methanol. It's ridiculously cheap..usually .75 to $1 cheaper than unleaded.
The kicker is, my mpg is almost cut in half.

A litre of ethanol provides about sixty-five percent the energy of a litre of petrol/gasoline.

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/biofuels.php

Converting that into actual figures:

Assume:
Regular gasoline price: $2.80
85% ethanol price: $1.80

MPG regular gasoline: 18
MPG 85% ethanol: 9

The price is dollars per gallon or $/g
The MPG is miles per gallon or m/g

Since both have a common denominator, you can actually calculate the MPD, or miles per dollar, m/$

18/2.8= 6.42 miles per dollar for regular gasoline
9/1.8 = 5 miles per dollar for 85% ethanol.

You can subs ute your own actual figures for my estimates, but the end result should be fairly close in terms of scale.

This is why one must always remember that you cannot subs ute a gallon of ethanol for a gallon of gas.

They are NOT identical in the way that really matters: the amount of USABLE energy. That is the ultimate measure of any energy source.

[LnGrrrR]

Talking off-the-cuff with no evidence here, but I think the majority of people will agree that ethanol is a failed idea.

[desflood]

I thought this thread was about the Corn Syrup lobby that makes us use Corn Syrup instead of real sugar in our sodas and fruit juices.

Soda and fruit juices? I wish only that. I think you meant everything.

Everything is right. It's in practically all bread products, meat and nearly every condiment you can think of. It's also in many alcohols.

Go to any fast food chain and order any meal combo - there's corn in every bite. The meat (in addition to being unnaturally corn-fed) usually has some sort of corn product added to the beef or chicken. The soda, bun and condiments all have HFCS and the fries have probably been fried in corn oil. It's also in practically everything you buy during your weekly grocery trip, so unfortunately "just don't eat out" isn't as simple a solution as it should be.

[Wild Cobra]

How about this. Everyone... Call your congress[wo]man. Voice an opinion.

The corn farmers no longer need a subsidy to [not] grow corn. I lost track of the truth over the matter with corn, but if it's tax break, OK. If there are subsidies, I say eliminate all corn related subsidies. With the mandated 10% ethanol in fuel, there is a known demand for corn.

[Wild Cobra]

Interesting read, look who's names are on it:

Letter to Growth Energy

[Wild Cobra]

Another:

Ethanol Industry’s 15% Solution Raises Concerns

[MannyIsGod]

Subsidies and tax breaks are the same ing thing in the end. Whether you pay less taxes or get money and pay higher taxes it ends up as the same god damn thing in the end. I'm not sure why you're so persistent to act as though one is better than the other.

[TeyshaBlue]

Subsidies and tax breaks are the same ing thing in the end. Whether you pay less taxes or get money and pay higher taxes it ends up as the same god damn thing in the end. I'm not sure why you're so persistent to act as though one is better than the other.

*WTF It's the wrong thread!* post.

[symple19]

ethanol is a failed idea.

this

[MannyIsGod]

*WTF It's the wrong thread!* post.

No, read 3 posts above mine.

[SnakeBoy]

Subsidies and tax breaks are the same ing thing in the end. Whether you pay less taxes or get money and pay higher taxes it ends up as the same god damn thing in the end. I'm not sure why you're so persistent to act as though one is better than the other.

A tax break is allowing one to keep money they earned, a subsidy is giving someone money that someone else earned. There's a difference.

[Wild Cobra]

A tax break is allowing one to keep money they earned, a subsidy is giving someone money that someone else earned. There's a difference.

I stopped trying to explain the difference. I just chock it up to another reason why I call them "lib s."

[TeyshaBlue]

No, read 3 posts above mine.

*WTF. I'm an idiot post*.

[coyotes_geek]

A tax break is allowing one to keep money they earned, a subsidy is giving someone money that someone else earned. There's a difference.

What difference does it make if the end result is still the same?

[Wild Cobra]

Doesn't matter. The end result is still the same.

No, it matters.

With a tax break, your money can be no greater than your earnings. With a subsidy, your money can be greater than your earning.

My God....

Why am I trying to explain this again.... I must be insane. Afterall, one definition of being insane is doing the same thing over, expecting a different result....

[TeyshaBlue]

No, read 3 posts above mine.

No, it matters.

With a tax break, your money can be no greater than your earnings. With a subsidy, your money can be greater than your earning.

My God....

Why am I trying to explain this again.... I must be insane. Afterall, one definition of being insane is doing the same thing over, expecting a different result....

and you ain't got it right yet.