backtop


Print 53 comment(s) - last by freedom4556.. on Jul 5 at 4:15 PM

"Dirty" corn ethanol could soon be on the chopping block

Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy -- a pro-corn ethanol lobby -- cheered a recent Supreme Court victory over automakers and petroleum lobbyists who looked to block the sale of E15 blends.  He comments, "Now that the final word has been issued, I hope that oil companies will begin to work with biofuel producers to help bring new blends into the marketplace that allow for consumer choice and savings."

Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) -- another top corn ethanol lobbying group -- echoes these sentiments.  Even as automakers warn of dire engine damage, he comments, "This is another example of oil companies unnecessarily scaring people, and it’s just flat-out wrong."

I. Corn Ethanol -- Good News or Bad?

But basic science suggests there may be more to it than that.  In order to handle higher ethanol blends, engine and fuel system parts made of rubber, plastic, metal, and other materials in engines must be coated with special sealants to prevent permeation of ethanol and degradation.  Older vehicles do not have that sealant -- so Mr. Dinneen appears to be basing his perspective on the fact that newer vehicles do, and thus will not be affected.

But aside from the engine life issue, there's other major concerns about corn ethanol.  First, after years of government subsidies for the use of corn as a sweetener, the commercial food industry is deeply dependent on corn syrup -- and by proxy corn crops.  Corn ethanol and corn syrup both compete for the same crop -- the most sugary breeds of corn.  And even when corn ethanol producers ferment with lower sugar feed corn, they still raise prices of livestock feed, bumping meat prices higher.  As a result, the corn ethanol industry has been shown to elevate food prices in multiple ways, according to experts.

E15
The issues with corn ethanol run far deeper than engine damage. [Image Source: Digital Trends]

Further, while ethanol is more efficient (per cost) in single-mode engines, in dual-mode engines (using blends), it's been shown that the customer gets less fuel economy when using various blends than if they went all ethanol or all gas.  In many cases this makes blended fuels more effective on a per-mile basis than gas.  Ethanol proponents insist the market will adjust, but it's yet to be seen if that actually happens.

Lastly, there are questions over whether corn ethanol is greenwashing.  When only emissions at the pipe are considered corn ethanol appears to cut emissions.  But when the entire life cycle -- from plough to pipe -- is considered, it appears that corn ethanol actually increases emissions (unlike a number of alternative biofuels).  Further, some have claimed the entire production process of ethanol has a net loss of energy, meaning that the industry uses more fuel to grow, harvest, and ship corn ethanol than it gets out.

But for all the criticism, the fact remains that ethanol increases are currently the law of the land.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed this year raising blending targets 16.5 billion gallons, up 8.5 percent from a year ago.  By 2022 production will double.  If those targets remain in place, it will be virtually impossible for refiners to sell anything but E15.  Refiners obtain a certain amount of credits for blending in ethanol; and if they don't blend enough they face stiff fines.

In fact, under the current rollout, it would be unsurprising to see E20 or E25 mixtures being forced into service to keep pace with the doubling of production quotas.

Many new vehicles -- including those from Chrysler Group LLC, Toyota Motor Corp. (TYO:7203), Nissan Motor Comp., Ltd. (TYO:7201), Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW), and Volkswagen AG (ETR:VOW) still do not support E15; using E15 in them will void your warranty, according to the automakers, regardless of what the federal policy mandates.  But this situation may worsen in years ahead, as even automakers like Ford Motor Comp. (F) who support E15 do not support E20 or E25 in most of their models (some "E85" capable vehicles are sold, but they remain a minority).

In other words, even if your vehicle can use E15 without damage, you may be in the same position Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, and Volkswagen owners are in today, just down the road.  When higher blends arrive, you may be just a fillup away from voiding your warranty.

II. Is it Time to Reform or Roll Back the Energy Act of 2007?

Amidst that backdrop, there is some growing momentum in Washington D.C. to roll back the 2007 Energy Act, which was signed by President George W. Bush.  Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee is quoted by The Detroit News as saying that a bill to reform that 2007 law is incoming, with the aim of passing it by the end of this year.

Much of the debate in the House currently centers on whether the best option is to kill the original law altogether, or whether it'd be better to modify it in some regard scaling back targets.  Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) proposed killing it, but his colleague Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Kentucky) is fighting to simply rework it, commenting, "We want is an RFS (renewable fuel standard) that can work for everyone involved, be it farmers, renewable fuel producers, refiners, and automakers. And most importantly, we want a policy that benefits the American driving public."

These stands represent largely who the representatives received their money from.  Rep. Barton is funded/sponsored by the likes of Pickens Comp., and Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) [source].  Rep. Whitfield is funded/sponsored by Koch Industries, who owns ethanol plants, and Caterpillar Inc. (CAT) who makes machinery used harvest corn [source].

The big question is what will happen if a repeal or reworking makes it to the Senate floor.  The Democratic controlled Senate has shown very little interest in trimming back corn ethanol blending targets.  The blame cannot be pinned solely on Democrats; both Senators from both parties have been more heavily funded by "big corn" than their House colleagues.  That said, the Democrats are leading the push to protect corn ethanol at present, with the likes of Senators Tom Harkin (D-Iowa); Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota); Amy Klobuchar (D/"Farmer-Labor Party"- Minnesota); and Al Franken (D/"Farmer-Labor Party"-Minnesota) fighting rollbacks.
 
corn profits
Big corn has won over politicians with via its friend "bill". [Image Source: Agriculture.com]
 
In fact these Senators proposed increasing ethanol quotas via the trickily worded Biofuels Expansion Act of 2011.  Thus it remains to be seen whether an effort to scale back targets can survive, amidst heavy lobbying from the corn industry (even as the other side lobbies hard as well).

Meanwhile the E15 mass rollout creeps closer.  Currently only a handful of stations in the Midwest carry the blend, as most refiners have not yet started its mass production.  But with the Supreme Court refusing to hear appeals on the standard, it seems just a matter of time before E15 is pouring out the pump across the nation -- even if that fuel damages your older vehicle, RV, boat, or motorcycle.

Sources: Growth Energy, The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Stupid
By Rukkian on 7/2/2013 10:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Department of Education collects data and kind of set the minimum standard. Their biggest role is helping fund the poor areas. Since education budget is based on property taxes, the poor areas will barely have any money. One local community is only going to care for their school district and not their neighbors. That is when the Dept of Education steps in to subsidize some of that difference and try to give those poor kids a more equal chance of education.


Why is that the federal governments job? Shouldn't that come from the individual state? Every state has poor and rich areas. Some spend more of their budget on education and care about it, others do not. My taxes should not fund not only the schools in my state, but the schools in some other state that doesn't think funding their schools is important.

I think this is one of the fundamental flaws in how the federal government has gotten too big and out of control.


RE: Stupid
By BRB29 on 7/2/2013 11:29:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why is that the federal governments job? Shouldn't that come from the individual state? Every state has poor and rich areas. Some spend more of their budget on education and care about it, others do not. My taxes should not fund not only the schools in my state, but the schools in some other state that doesn't think funding their schools is important.

Ask your state. The Dept of Ed was formed because some of our states does not think education is important. On the state level, counties/cities don't really share their education funds because everyone wants what's best for their kids/communities.

The Dept of Ed actually has very little control over education regs and policies. Its main job right now is helping the underfunded schools. The standards of teaching are state regulations.

quote:
I think this is one of the fundamental flaws in how the federal government has gotten too big and out of control.

Suggest a better way to give everyone an adequate education so they have an opportunity in the job market. Our biggest problem is the huge disparity between the poor and wealthy areas. The states isn't doing much about it. The federal government can't overstep a state government's function. All they can do is subsidize some of the cost of the really poor schools.

For example, Florida is supposed to spend all of its lottery money in education. I would be surprised if just half of it gets there.


RE: Stupid
By Rukkian on 7/2/2013 1:51:00 PM , Rating: 1
Shouldnt that be a problem for the local government of Florida? I live in a state that spends alot on education, but still has room to improve. It is not my problem that another state doesn't have their shit together and should not be a problem for the federal government either in my opinion.

Get rid of the Dept of Education (amoung other departments) to actually make the federal government smaller, and let the states figure out how to educate (or not) their people.


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki