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 Servicesummarizes:
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.”
"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.
