Biofuel Mandates Are a Bad Idea Whose Time May Be Up

[Dashinka 24,769]

Full disclosure, this is an OpEd, but it does contain some good information.

 

By

Thomas Landstreet

March 11, 2018 4:30 p.m. ET

 

The political tide may be turning against the corn ethanol mandate. The Renewable Fuel Standard, which forces oil refiners to mix corn-based fuel into gasoline, is one of history’s great policy boondoggles. Even ex-Rep. Henry Waxman of California, a key sponsor of the original legislation establishing the standard, said Thursday that he favors phasing out the mandate.

There’s bipartisan support in Congress for such a move. Sen. Tom Udall (D., N.M.) and Rep. Peter Welch (D., Vt.) have introduced the Greener Fuels Act, and Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) is said to be working his own legislation altering the mandate, in response to the recent closure of a Pennsylvania refinery.

The corn ethanol mandate was created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Two years later, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which expanded the program by providing generous tax credits and subsidies to corn growers and ethanol blenders. It also established ambitious targets, increasing annually, for biofuels in the national fuel mix. The mandate soon diverted 40% of America’s corn crop away from the food supply.

 

The government-imposed shortage caused corn prices to float from long-term mean levels of about $2 per bushel to more than $8 per bushel in 2012. This extraordinary price surge prompted a range of harmful responses in the farming industry. Farmers planted 17 million new acres of corn at the expense of soybeans, wheat, hay and cotton, driving prices for those crops to all-time highs as well. Cattle farmers, unable to afford corn gluten feed, culled their herds to levels not seen in 60 years, causing beef prices to rise an incredible 60% from 2007 to 2012. Over this five-year period, the IMF food price index rose 42%.

 

The stress on the economy was intense. The mandate became untenable until the Environmental Protection Agency announced in August 2013 that it was weighing freezing the annual ethanol blend mandate at 14 billion gallons (it ultimately followed through). This caused the bubble to burst in a spectacular fashion. The new blend level was rightly viewed as a cut in future demand, and corn prices collapsed in subsequent months.

The country has endured a startling amount of economic disruption for what is clearly an inferior source of energy. Ethanol produces 34% less energy per volume than conventional gasoline, reducing cars’ fuel economy. As for its effect on the environment, a 2010 Congressional Budget Office study found that corn-based ethanol subsidies are terribly inefficient, with the government spending an estimated $754 per metric ton of avoided emissions—an astronomically high price tag compared with other policies. (The economics of climate change literature estimates the “social cost of carbon” at far lower levels, meaning the program is inefficient even on its own terms.)

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biofuel-mandates-are-a-bad-idea-whose-time-may-be-up-1520800220

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Ethanol is a horrible waste.  I can't believe it's still being manufactured.  It takes something like three gallons of water to distill one gallon of fuel.  And that doesn't take into account the water needed to grow the corn - about 70-75 gallons of water for each gallon of fuel produced.

 

In addition, ethanol is very corrosive, and as such cannot be pumped in our current oil pipelines; it has to be trucked, which is more costly.

 

It might be worth it when distilled for human consumption, but it is very cost prohibitive as fuel,  and is still only in use due to government subsidies.

[Dashinka 24,769]

22 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Ethanol is a horrible waste.  I can't believe it's still being manufactured.  It takes something like three gallons of water to distill one gallon of fuel.  And that doesn't take into account the water needed to grow the corn - about 70-75 gallons of water for each gallon of fuel produced.

 

In addition, ethanol is very corrosive, and as such cannot be pumped in our current oil pipelines; it has to be trucked, which is more costly.

 

It might be worth it when distilled for human consumption, but it is very cost prohibitive as fuel,  and is still only in use due to government subsidies.

It is like almost all "green" things.  When a complete lifecycle analysis is done, they usually fare quite poorly.  I saw a presentation from a Berkley prof. last week that showed gasoline (non-hybrid) vehicles are still the best CO2 reduction bet with traditional diesels close behind when a complete life cycle is conducted.

[TBoneTX 46,067]

More and more tempted all the time to get the bumper-sticker that says "Nuke the Whales"...

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

7 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

More and more tempted all the time to get the bumper-sticker that says "Nuke the Whales"...

Don't give the president any new ideas.

[Dashinka 24,769]

7 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

More and more tempted all the time to get the bumper-sticker that says "Nuke the Whales"...

So you do want some big sausage shaped space probe to come looking for the whales, so Captain Kirk needs to go back in time to find some humpbacks?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

10 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

It is like almost all "green" things.  When a complete lifecycle analysis is done, they usually fare quite poorly.  I saw a presentation from a Berkley prof. last week that showed gasoline (non-hybrid) vehicles are still the best CO2 reduction bet with traditional diesels close behind when a complete life cycle is conducted.

Going back to the VW DieselGate thing... I get why VW did what they did, and it was wrong to lie.  But think about it for a minute.  Do you honestly think that all the TDIs in the world put out anywhere NEAR as much bad stuff as the millions of diesel rigs delivering foods and goods, or the tens of thousands of diesel generators running 24/7 on the oil rigs out in the Gulf of Mexico?  Anywhere from 6 to 24 cylinder jobs, and they never stop running.  What about all the jets in the world, with zero emission restrictions like cars?  One flight from NY to FL probably puts out more noxious gases than a VW car in its lifetime.

 

And hybrids?  Sounds great today.  What about all the batteries used?  The mining needed to make them, as well as the toxic waste when they are no longer used?  

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

3 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Going back to the VW DieselGate thing... I get why VW did what they did, and it was wrong to lie.  But think about it for a minute.  Do you honestly think that all the TDIs in the world put out anywhere NEAR as much bad stuff as the millions of diesel rigs delivering foods and goods, or the tens of thousands of diesel generators running 24/7 on the oil rigs out in the Gulf of Mexico?  Anywhere from 6 to 24 cylinder jobs, and they never stop running.  What about all the jets in the world, with zero emission restrictions like cars?  One flight from NY to FL probably puts out more noxious gases than a VW car in its lifetime.

 

And hybrids?  Sounds great today.  What about all the batteries used?  The mining needed to make them, as well as the toxic waste when they are no longer used?  

Musk is already using electric trucks to get batteries from the Nevada factory to Fremont and they out perform anything deisel 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Musk is already using electric trucks to get batteries from the Nevada factory to Fremont and they out perform anything deisel 

Uh huh.  And what of those strip mines and discarded batteries?  Not an issue today, but 20 years from now?

 

And outperforming diesel?  Where’s your source for that?

Edited March 13, 2018 by IDWAF

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

3 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Uh huh.  And what of those strip mines and discarded batteries?  Not an issue today, but 20 years from now?

 

And outperforming diesel?  Where’s your source for that?

Have you ever been behind a deisel truck trying to climb a mountain pass? Tesla Trucks will pass you.

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Have you ever been behind a deisel truck trying to climb a mountain pass? Tesla Trucks will pass you.

 

 

Uh huh.  And then 40 miles down the road, the diesel will pass them as they stop to charge up.  And then keep going for another 600 miles.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

3 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Uh huh.  And then 40 miles down the road, the diesel will pass them as they stop to charge up.  And then keep going for another 600 miles.

Source?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Source?

Real life.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Real life.

Tesla trucks have a 500 mile range. I am sure with spare tanks deisel will get 1000 miles, in the flat. If you have a 500 mile trip there is not really a point to make.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

12 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Tesla trucks have a 500 mile range. I am sure with spare tanks deisel will get 1000 miles, in the flat. If you have a 500 mile trip there is not really a point to make.

Wrong.  Battery trucks can go 200-300 miles on average.  Diesel, 1200-1800.  

 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/24/16199522/tesla-truck-range-miles-big-rig

Edited March 13, 2018 by IDWAF