This is a serious issue mostly fueled by rising energy prices. I wish our politicians could think of better solutions than what's going to be proposed like expanding ethanol use in gasoline, when it will actually make matters worse. See tweet https://mobile.twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/15113297700...
Any reason Biden can't use the war time production act to force American oil producers to up production (which is still short sighted) instead of making matters worse?
Something Conservatives and Democrats can agree on: Ethanol sucks. There is a rare moment where both sides could see past their differences to accomplish something here.
* It makes muscle cars slower
* It is terrible for engines, no matter what the lobbyists tell you
* Ethanol plants smell
* Corn uses a ton of ground water, depleting the Ogallala Aquifer and destroying habitats
* Using diesel fuel to harvest corn which makes ethanol... is just stupid. You'd be better off just burning the diesel in cars.
* The EPA was successfully paid off to implement Ethanol. They should be held accontable.
I think the only sharp resistance is going to be Nebraska, but generally, everyone hates it and it needs to go.
Even midwestern farmers continue to shill for corn ethanol to hold on to their subsidies as EVs destroy demand for gasoline and the corn ethanol additive. It's entrenched interests all the way down.
The corn lobby is very powerful. Nobody else thinks ethanol is a good idea, especially from corn (one of the worst crops you could use). The carbon inputs to make the ethanol are around the same as if you just burned petroleum in the first place. Once you burn the ethanol as well, it's much worse than just gasoline. It also encourages expansion of farm land into virgin land and increases food prices. Not to mention it is horrible for engines, especially in older vehicles.
Hilariously, gas sold for non-highway use (like farms) is not required to contain ethanol, and usually doesn't. They'll push it on all of us, but won't use it themselves.
One of the things worse than burning petroleum in cars is burning corn ethanol in cars. It has essentially all of the downside, only amplified through energy inefficiency and politics.
If I had any political power, I'd end the ethanol subsidies. That would be the simplest change to save ~$20b or so ($6b in direct costs, higher corn prices, corn subsidies, use of fossil water and other limited resources, less fuel efficiency)
It's not a democrat or republican thing, I am very liberal and progressive and I think this ethanol use is a complete scam. So do many others on both sides.
Now if it was made from switchgrass, maybe as much as 5% would not hurt and E85 for specially designed cars would be fine. But ethanol from other sources is years away and the subsidies for corn seem to be as permanent as the lack of gun control in this country.
But they have laws designed for 2020 in effect now, which is asinine.
Oh and it's not just America, E85 is big in Europe too.
> Rest assured, however, that we will give more money to corn farmers for ethanol, despite the fact that it is neither environmentally or economically sound as an energy source. Obama comes from a corn state.
Cue the Corn Cartel. Did you know you can use corn syrup to melt snow and ice on roads? No need for salt. No more salt-induced auto body rust. All praise for corn.
But seriously, now. I do hope corn ethanol does not get promoted.
We should stop growing corn for ethanol since it's worse for the climate than gasoline[1] and instead use all that land and machinery to grow wheat instead.
This comparison completely ignores a glaring counterpoint: corn.
It's not the Democrats shoving through corn subsidies, then cramming ethanol requirements into the system. It's not Republicans either. It's universally bipartisan, despite ethanol being a terrible fuel source.
This is quite interesting, thanks for sharing. I had written off ethanol because of how gunked up it got with the American corn industry and the stupid fact that Iowa votes first in the US primary elections. Maybe there's something to this.
Corn ethanol _is_ an inefficient biofuel. It uses more energy to produce than it generates, but thanks to the federal government there's a mandate to include it in gasoline, so we keep producing it.
We also turn the corn into ethanol and force everyone to add it to their auto fuel, and they want to increase that amount. Which is, in essence, forcing everyone to burn corn.
Corn welfare must END (and I am very liberal/progressive if that matters).
But considering it's Iowa we are talking about, most politicians if they want to be president won't touch it with a 10-foot pole.
Ethanol is destroying small engines (generators, lawn mowers, etc) and most definitely reduces mpg by 10%
a gallon of ethanol costs approximately 17 percent less than that of a gallon of gasoline
That is why gas distributors love it - they not only get goverment welfare for using ethanol, it allows them to dilute the less profitable gasoline (to 'cut' it).
(and yes, I use "subsidies" and "welfare" interchangeably because it's corporate welfare)
Researchers at U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory
Let's get INDEPENDENT scientists not funded by the oil industry or government to write an article and I'll trust it.
reply