EPA finally admits ethanol mandate is causing environmental damage

Jim_S

Spammer Hammer
GOLD Site Supporter
August 5, 2018
EPA finally admits ethanol mandate is causing environmental damage
By Thomas Lifson
A
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo..._mandate_is_causing_environmental_damage.html

The federal requirement to blend ethanol into gasoline on the theory that it will reduce the hypothetical global warming that hasn’t appeared yet has been a joke from the start. By adding a huge amount of demand for corn, it did push up prices for that commodity, and made vast swaths of the rural Midwest prosperous, though it has injured poor Mexicans and others who depend on corn for a substantial portion of their nutrition and driven up the rice of feed used for animals, raising meat prices.

The net energy balance of ethanol production – subtracting the amount of energy necessary to grow he corn, transport it to refineries, and then transport the ethanol to gasoline producers has been controversial. But owing to improvements in cultivation techniques (which have caused increased agricultural runoff – see below), the US Department of Agriculture estimated in 2015 that the balance is positive:


Ethanol made the transition from an energy sink, to a moderate net energy gain in the 1990s, and to a substantial net energy gain by 2008.

Unlike oil, which is produced in large amounts at the wellhead, corn production is widely dispersed, so pipelines can't be used to transport it. Corn is trucked to the ethanol refinery, and then the ethanol is normally shipped in tank cars to oil refineries, where it is blended into gasoline. All of this transportation uses energy and imposes a cost from accidents, including derailments. Pipelines are more efficient and safer.

Now, the EPA has finally issued a new report, one that it is requited to issue every 3 years but which has been delayed by 4 years, and admits that the ethanol mandate comes at a considerable environmental cost. The Public News Service summarizes:

Federal law requires the EPA to assess the environmental impact of the fuel standard every three years, but the new report, issued in July, was four years overdue. According to David DeGennaro with the National Wildlife Federation, the report documents millions of acres of wildlife habitat lost to ethanol crop production, increased nutrient pollution in waterways and air emissions and side effects worse than the gasoline the ethanol is replacing.
"In finding that the Renewable Fuel Standard is having negative consequences to a whole suite of environmental indicators,” DeGennaro said, “the report is a red flag warning us that we need to reconsider the mandate's scope and its focus on first-generation fuels made from food crops.”

Jaz Shaw points out at Hot Air:

Some of the negative effects aren’t specific to ethanol, such as the loss of wildlife habitat from expanded corn production. That would happen no matter what you were growing or building in formerly forested areas. But the increased runoff of nutrients and chemicals used in this type of farming are impacting water supplies far beyond anything caused by the occasional oil spill from a tanker car or pipeline.

The bigger surprise is the fact that ethanol production and combustion significantly increases the production of nitrous oxides (Nox). This combines with oxygen in the atmosphere when exposed to sunlight, producing ozone. Now, when we have ozone far up in the atmosphere it helps shield the planet from the sun’s natural radiation, which is a good thing. But ground-level ozone produces no such benefit and actually contributes to the formation of smog and leads to respiratory ailments for many people.

Those vehicles that feature cuddly images like a new leaf and righteously proclaim themselves to be “flex fuel vehicles” are actually aggravating some people’s respiratory problems, far more than gasoline powered vehicles.

None of this speaks to the excessive costs that ethanol forces on drivers and auto manufacturers.

Alas, the mandate is so popular with corn farmers in Iowa, home of the first round of presidential nominations, that President Trump (and other politicians) that they not only maintain the mandate, President Trump just last week “told an audience in Iowa that he was "very close" to having EPA issue a waiver to the Clean Air Act to allow year-round sale of E-15.”

The madness continues.



Photo credit: Jeff Egnaczyk via Flickr
 

Attachments

  • E66B8D24-08C1-44FA-869A-3D82B993F1B8.jpeg
    E66B8D24-08C1-44FA-869A-3D82B993F1B8.jpeg
    116.2 KB · Views: 51

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
And yet it looks like President Trump is pushing for MORE ethanol use and may raise the mandate from 10% to 15%. He was stumping in Iowa last week.

I am not in favor of the Ethanol mandate. I know it helps our corn farmers. But it is not good policy. Increasing the mandate is moving in the wrong direction. If we cut the mandate to ZERO it will cause a lot of economic chaos for our farmers, but maybe we can have some sort of phased out plan over a decade?

https://www.publicnewsservice.org/2...ethanol-causing-environmental-damage/a63554-2
...
Right now, most gas is E-10, containing 10 percent ethanol. But despite the EPA report's findings, DeGenarro pointed out there is political pressure to raise the biofuels mandate of the Renewable Fuel Standard.

"Just last week, President Trump told an audience in Iowa that he was "very close" to having EPA issue a waiver to the Clean Air Act to allow year-round sale of E-15,” DeGenarro said.
...
 

pixie

Active member
SUPER Site Supporter
I've read several places that a person should not use anything over 10% ethanol in a vehicle that isn't made for it which is about 90-95% (?) of the cars in use today.

So the Feds are going to ruin most of the cars on the road today? Who thinks this is a good idea besides new car manufactures ?
 

rugerman

New member
The ethanol in gas has destroyed untold numbers of small engines, to combat its bad effects you have to use a additive which cost more money, it also plays hell with older vehicle engines turning rubber tubing to mush and clogging the internals. More negatives than positives.
 

Jim_S

Spammer Hammer
GOLD Site Supporter
The ethanol in gas has destroyed untold numbers of small engines, to combat its bad effects you have to use a additive which cost more money, it also plays hell with older vehicle engines turning rubber tubing to mush and clogging the internals. More negatives than positives.

EXACTLY!

I lost several small engines when they first started with the ethanol. Now all it takes is keeping everything topped off with additives. I don’t want to know how much extra thats costing. :hammer:
 

Catavenger

New member
SUPER Site Supporter
With people starving all over the world I've never been in favor of turning food into fuel.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I've read several places that a person should not use anything over 10% ethanol in a vehicle that isn't made for it which is about 90-95% (?) of the cars in use today.

So the Feds are going to ruin most of the cars on the road today? Who thinks this is a good idea besides new car manufactures ?

  • Environmentalists favor elimination of fossil fuels and favor ethanol as a way to hurt fossil fuel producers.
  • The farm lobby generally favors an ethanol mandate because it helps raise and stabilize demand for corn.
  • The Biofuels Association is a lobby for products like ethanol that is supported by the ethanol producers, those who transport ethanol (truck drivers), etc.

While many farmers favor the Ethanol Mandate, there is plenty of economic evidence that shows that elimination of the mandate would not cause harm to the overall economy, even if it lowers the demand for corn, which leads to somewhat lower corn prices, which does could hurt corn farmers who are heavily invested in corn production.
 

mla2ofus

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
Instead of sending foreign aid in the form of money let the gov't buy the excess corn and send foreign aid in the form of corn.
Mike
 

Bamby

New member
I fear E15 is already here, the local Sheets is selling it and unfortunately it is so heavily subsidized it is priced below E10 by a nickle or more. Let's face it we're stuck with it the farmers love corn, it's one of the least labor intensive crops they can produce and sell and they have the government mandates that ensure corn remains profitable. Are you also aware of the Sugar tariff? It helps support the price of corn syrup.
 
Top