• Jun 21st 2010 at 1:43PM
  • 39
Following news that the EPA has once again not made a decision about increasing the ethanol content of gasoline sold in the nation's pumps, the ethanol industry is kind of peeved. The Renewable Fuels Association has issued a press release lashing out at the Environmental Protection Agency for "dropping the ball ... for no scientifically justified reason" on the E15 issue, saying this second punt is "a dereliction of duty."
At issue here is just how much ethanol cars on the road today can handle. Currently, most gas contains up to ten percent ethanol (E10). The RFA and others want that level bumped to 15 percent (E15). The EPA agreed to consider raising the level, but is not moving fast enough for the RFA, which wants at the very least for E12 to be immediately approved to sell more ethanol and to avoid hitting the blend wall. The EPA is considering a plan that would allow E15 to be put into vehicles from model year 2007 and newer while taking a pass on deciding what will be OK in older cars. RFA president and CEO Bob Dinneen is not happy with this, and said in the statement that:
While initial plans to approve the use of E15 for only 2001 and newer vehicles were bad, this plan borders on shameful. Confusing the market as EPA seems intent upon doing likely will lead to little if any additional ethanol being sold.
[Source: RFA]

PRESS RELEASE

RFA: EPA "Dropping the Ball" on E15

(June 17, 2010) Washington – News that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is further delaying a decision on approving the use of up to 15 percent ethanol blends is as much disappointing as it is a dereliction of duty, said the Renewable Fuels Association.

Adding insult to injury, EPA is preparing to approve E15 use for only model year 2007 and newer vehicles in September while waiting to approve E15 for model year 2001 and newer vehicles later this fall. The RFA has repeatedly challenged EPA to provide any justification for such a decision, but the agency has yet to do so. This proposed trifurcation would further and unnecessarily confuse the issue.

"EPA is dropping the ball, and for no scientifically justified reason," said RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen. "While initial plans to approve the use of E15 for only 2001 and newer vehicles were bad, this plan borders on shameful. Confusing the market as EPA seems intent upon doing likely will lead to little if any additional ethanol being sold."

Dinneen continued, "President Obama this week rallied the nation to an Apollo-like program to end our dependence on oil. By pursuing this path, EPA is failing to answer the President's charge."

Allowing up to E15 blends, up from current 10 percent limits, would mean a potential increase of 6.5 billion gallons of new ethanol demand, displacing more than 200 million additional barrels of imported oil.

Equally frustrating as the current plan is EPA's failure to consider calls to immediately approve the use of 12 percent ethanol blends. Existing oxygenate stacking rules would allow for it. Specifically, current "stacking" rules allow for the addition of up to 2 percent MTBE on top of currently allowed 10 percent ethanol blends. As ethanol and MTBE are both oxygenates, this additional 2 percent volume could be ethanol. In practice, a vehicle engine would not recognize if the oxygen content was from one fuel or two
.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 39 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      The EPA is right to move slowly to make sure that this will not cause more harm then good. However, raising the maximum ethanol will do little good if few people choose it and subsidies will just pass on the cost to the taxpayer. It would be better if all the rural fly-over states that will benefit most from this policy would be mandated to have alcohol-based RFG (banning MTBE), rather than just big cities. I posted this on the last topic, but it fits here too (I corrected it as RFG is really only 5.4% ethanol, I found out it is the majority of ethanol consumption- more than Gasohol and E85 combined):


      How about is rather than increasing allowable ethanol to 15%, we just make 5.4% alcohol-based RFG 50 state mandatory- rather than just the places on this map.

      http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg/whereyoulive.htm

      Remove MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), which is toxic and only allow ethanol and methanol to oxygenate fuel. 5.4% ethanol reduces emissions, whereas 15% may cause engine damage that would increase emissions. Even if you make all vehicles flex-fuel capable, few people would choose to use it. Make one national RFG rule and you would see more of an increase in ethanol consumption. And since you just dramatically increased domestic demand, you don't need all those subsidies that prevent us from being able to sell ethanol to other countries.
        • 5 Years Ago
        No RFG, thank you. It lowers MPG and doesn't improve emissions. It's a waste of money.
        • 5 Years Ago
        +1 +1 +1 +1

        While we're at it, how about federal-level smog controls? there are so many states / counties where you can just straight pipe your catalytic converter and create 9x the pollution.

        Why's it okay for one guy and not the other...
      • 5 Years Ago
      What a bunch of children...
      I do like the idea of burning more corn though... maybe less of it would end up in all the drink and food products available here.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Damn Middle Way... you tricked me into agreeing with you.

        ---

        @ Peter

        You know, I have to spend 20 minute extra every time I go grocery shopping looking at labels to find items that don't have corn products in them. High Fructose Corn Syrup is in everything sweet. And Aspartame is in everything diet.

        The RFA (sounds official doesn't it) is just another "special interest group". Many would like to think they are made up of Mom and Pop Farmers... but they are big Agrobusiness.

        I don't care to line their pockets.

        Everybody wants to be the new oil barons. Shell, BP, and Chevron pushing Hydrogen. Agrobusiness pushing corn.

        Can't wait to get my EV, the electricity in my home state is diverse enough that nobody gets to be my baron. And I can pay another 2 cents per kwh to get my juice from renewable Wind or Solar.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Or we could just stop subsidizing corn. That would solve the problem too.
        • 5 Years Ago
        @Joeviocoe too right, sir...
        Even in the health food sections, gotta watch out for that corn; it's in everything these days.
        • 5 Years Ago
        With obesity becoming an increasing threat to our health... and the resultant heart disease and diabetes in America... you may have a point.

        I wouldn't say they are, "trying to kill as many of our civilians as possible". They may not be TRYING but they are succeeding nonetheless.

        How many Americans would NOT have died from health problems over the last few decades if corn was not a primary staple of our diets? I don't know, but it might be close or even more than 3,000 civilians.

        But agrobusiness is not the "only" ones to blame, advertisers, and ourselves mostly.
        • 5 Years Ago
        At least agribusiness and corn farmers aren't making violent war on us, trying to kill as many of our civilians as possible. On that basis alone they're a huge improvement over OPEC.
      • 5 Years Ago
      At issue here should be the long term effect on food crops and prices. As I've posted before:

      "The World Bank says the massive diversion of corn to produce ethanol in North America was a trigger for the rise in food prices."
      http://www.oxfam.ca/news-and-publications/news/the-global-food-crisis

      I'm not willing to trade an energy-crisis for a food-crisis.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Middle Way, there will never BE a hydrogen highway.

        http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
        • 5 Years Ago
        There was no "diversion" of corn! Even while ethanol corn production went up several fold, food corn production went up too, as did other staple crops like soybeans.

        Is Oxfam threatened that the world charity and foreign aid budget would be totally dwarfed, and Oxfam made irrelevant, by the enormous development that would be made possible if the world spending on OPEC oil (over $1 trillion in 2008) went to tropical ethanol instead?
        • 5 Years Ago
        @Carney

        Excellent article on hydrogen. But I'm not convinced about ethanol.
        • 5 Years Ago
        letstakeawalk, you said: "...for irrigation of crops to produce ethanol?"

        Ethanol corn IS NOT IRRIGATED.

        In fact only 16% of all corn is irrigated.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "Here's another puzzler... where are we gonna get all that clean, drinkable water..."

        ...for irrigation of crops to produce ethanol?

        (For a moment there, I thought you were asking a sensible question)
        • 5 Years Ago
        DITTO..

        Here's another puzzler... where are we gonna get all that clean, drinkable water for our hydrogen highway in 2015, when our population would have grown 10-20-30 million?

        Resource battles, here we come.
      • 5 Years Ago
      skierpage, not all greenhouse gas emissions are the same. Yes, ethanol emits CO2, but that's not adding any new, net additional carbon to the system that would not have been there; it's already part of our carbon cycle and biosphere. That's hugely different from fossil fuels, where the carbon was sequestered underground safely away from the air for basically forever in human terms, and would have stayed there if we hadn't dug or drilled it up and thrown this new extra carbon into the air.

      As for cellulosic ethanol, it's expensive and awkward. Methanol can be made from the same inedible biomass feedstock for much less. That's why the standard for all new cars needs to be FULLY flex fueled, able to run not just on gasoline but also on ethanol AND methanol.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I live in a state that uses a "summer blend" of gasoline that contains ethanol for six months a year. That blend costs more and produces poorer gas mileage. Gas stations just across the border make a fortune from people filling their tanks before crossing to prevent using this crap as long as possible.

      Ethanol is a joke. We can't grow enough to make a difference and people don't stop eating just because their food is being turned into fuel, so it increases food prices.

      The only reason we're wasting time and money on this is because, in the U.S., farmers are the largest contributors to politicians and the ethanol subsidy is their reward.

        • 5 Years Ago
        The usual villain in anti ethanol scare stories is the agribusiness Archer Daniels Midland, so let's look at that:

        "Between 1989 and 2006, ADM was the 85th-largest political donor in the U.S. (I am not making this up.) If that doesn’t scare you, consider this: over the 16-year period in question, ADM contributions to its top recipient, Illinois Democratic senator Dick Durbin totaled $57,350, while GOP Illinois congressman Dennis Hastert raked in some $38,500 — with average ADM yearly contributions to the two of them coming to $3,584 and $2,406, respectively! (Again, I am not making this up.)"

        No doubt ethanol is popular in corn states, but its broader popularity obviously has something more going for it than contributions from the industry.

        On mileage, are you really going to whine that you have to fill up a teeny bit more often if you're going to divert some of your fuel dollars away from the death cult that's trying to kill you?

        As for the food vs. fuel myth, see my post below dated 10:06am.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Ethanol also seems to cause more tank rust in winter climates. I replaced both a filler pipe and fuel tank on my ZX2.

      You get condensation in the cold and the water ethanol separate out of the gas and are super corrosive.

      So hell no to E15. I want E0.
        • 5 Years Ago
        You need a lot of water to seperate both fuels.
        this is a great benefit of ethanol. it gets the water out of your tank easily.

        there is always condensation. here it gets as low as -22F... no problem. Use E70 Winterblend and preheating.
        The Ethanol can be corrosive it does not matter wether is is separated or not.

        maybe your tank was not topped of properly? I'd bet 1000$ id did not rot due to the Ethanol
      • 5 Years Ago
      Food is not Fuel.
      DARN ma horse eats a lo of hay. mabe i'd shoot it.
      b4 there where cars there wehere horses. a horse eats not only hay, but food to. stupid horses right...


      btw Ethanol does not harm the engine.

      Now the US is acting like germany did before.
      The EU forces the countries to switch to E10 as "premium / regular".

      Germany was first but all of a sudden all the carmakers, that sold E10 capable vehicles with the same parts in the US, France, etc BUT NOT IN GERMANY said switching from E5 to E10 will damage yout engine immediately.

      The drivers assiciation (paid by Shell) said the same thing without testing E10 in the lon term. Later all carmakers said E10 ist no problem, even a 15 Jear old banger can rund with it. Even in Brasil they run with E30 withlout any problems.

      I have used several mixtures in several cars with fiends for years.
      1995 VW Passat (E70), 2004 Toyota Prius II (E75), 2000 Ford Fiesta (E40) , 1994 Toyota Corolla (E45) 1996 Mercedes E320 (E45) ...

      It depends on the ECU, but the fuellines won't be damaged.

      btw
      instead of using corn, which is inefficient it would be far more useful to grow sugar cane. th the warm regions of the us it is no problem. or use HEMP, it is much better for the soil then growing corn.
        • 5 Years Ago
        No it is not "toxic". The Problem is the ethanoic acid if I remember it right and the electric condictivity. (some fuel pumps that are not properly insulated tend to rot)

        But most cars from the 90s on have plastic tanks and plastic fuel lines.
        I have checked the supplier sheets. no problem with ethanol. only some tanks and fuellines are affected, but not with e15.
        Even the injectors work very fine with Ethanol. Very old cars with carburators need special ones.
        if a fuelline fouls after 25 yearsd or after 24 years who can tell whose fault it is?
        this is pure BS.

        in an german forum there are ongoing tests with E85! not only E15 for 10 years. so nothing fouls, no car broke down...


        So Brazil uses Sugarcane to produce ethanol and does it at a lower cost.
        Why can't the us use better crops like sugarcane or hemp?

        why has it to be corn using lots of pesticides, herbicides or even worse genetically modified corn?
        I'd rather pay a Brasilian farmer than middle eastern oil Sheik (sorry dude)
        • 5 Years Ago
        Ethanol is toxic to anything made of iron, which is why is can't be shipped or stored like gasoline and why some cars have to be retrofitted.

        Brazil actually makes ethanol out of sugar, which is why they can produce it at a lower cost. This is also why U.S. farmers had Congress impose a 50 cents per gallon tariff on ethanol from Brazil.
      • 5 Years Ago
      This ethanol BS has to stop. Food is not fuel, and it takes more energy to produce ethanol than what is returned. My fuel economy is ruined as it is on E10, and I'm not interested in seeing it drop any more.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Cars need to eat too!! you insensitive clod!
        • 5 Years Ago
        It also causes early wear on a lot of engine parts leading to... poorer emissions. But the government subsidized ethanol lobby doesn't care. This is literally nothing clean, renewable, or sustainable about ethanol, yet it's still getting an undeserved reputation as a viable alternative to gasoline.

        Replacing gas with ethanol is the equivalent of replacing natural gas power plants with energy produced from the open burning of garbage and calling it the 'clean', renewable alternative to natural gas.

        It's just sad that ignorant morons like Carney still promoting this inefficient, environmentally destructive and dirty fuel source.
        • 5 Years Ago
        evnow said, "The amount of corn used now can feed 300 million people for a year."

        Once ethanol corn has its starch removed to make fuel, the remainder, a high-protein byproduct called distiller's grain, is used as an animal feed for meat livestock, so it helps feed us anyway. In fact, since those animals needed to be fed regardless, using the starch for clean-burning renewable non terrorist funding fuel is a brilliant use of available resources.

        More broadly speaking, there is no world food shortage. Quite the contrary, there is already huge surplus production, with unsold food rotting, governments buying up and warehousing it to prop up farm income, governments paying farmers NOT to farm to prevent a total price collapse that would destroy family farmers, etc. The Third World complains bitterly that we and the EU dump massive surplus output on the world market and underprice and undercut their less efficient farmers.

        Hunger is not caused by lack of food, but by violent conflict, extreme repression, or gross mismanagement keeping the food out, or by extreme poverty exacerbated by those factors and by OPEC's brutally regressive tax on the world. Poor fishermen and farmers have to pay OPEC prices for their boat or tractor fuel and/or fertilizer, and then again to have their wares trucked or barged to market. WeWe Americans rightly complain about OPEC sending oil prices from $10 a barrel in 1999 to $140 in 2008; but when you make $3,000 a year instead of $30,000 the effect is near-genocidal.

        And you're whining about ethanol?? If the world switched to ethanol we would break OPEC, and those poor farmers could grow ethanol crops without that brutal tax, and earn some hard currency to enter modernity.

        "This blatant subsidy needs to stop. Wasting top soil and water in this manner is absolutely insane."

        Topsoil and water are renewable resources. Ethanol corn is not irrigated, and we have staggering amounts of spare cropland. Only half our arable land is farmland, and less than half of that is even cultivated.
        • 5 Years Ago
        ^--- not just you, a lot of hypermilers have noticed this too.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Steve said, "[Ethanol] also causes early wear on a lot of engine parts leading to... poorer emissions."

        For the most part, cars made in the last 20 years or so can handle E15, or even E20, just fine. An antique or jalopy with old, inferior materials will have problems, yes, but in general for most people these fears are exaggerated. It's hard to dispel irrational fears with calm explanations of facts, though - some people just tune out information they don't want to hear from people they've been carefully taught to dislike.

        That's why I'm critical of the corn lobby pushing E15, which risks a sweeping anti-ethanol backlash from easily-scared, easily-stampeded ignoramuses. Instead, the lobby should be spending its finite funds and political capital on making it a required standard that all NEW cars from now on be fully flex fueled, able to run on any alcohol fuel in any mix, including E85, E100, M100, etc. In general people respond better to having a new choice given them (like all new cars being able to run on a wide variety of liquid fuels) rather than having something forced on them, even if would do them good.

        "This is literally nothing clean, renewable, or sustainable about ethanol"

        Sure there is.

        Taking the second first, ethanol is renewable, because you can just grow a new crop of it each year, and within a certain consumption rate, NEVER run out. That's the definition of renewable, not having a fixed supply that you just draw down, like oil, which you will eventually run out of no matter how low the consumption rate is.

        As for clean, some facts.

        Unlike gasoline, burning ethanol emits no soot, smoke, or particulate matter (SSPM) when burned. SSPM causes smog, which is the real leading air pollution problem in the world, fouling the skies of sprawling car-dependent cities like Houston and L.A., and which killls 40,000 Americans a year. In fact ethanol burns so clean and smoke free firemen have had to be re-trained to spot burning ethanol, since they're used to billowing black smoke. (By the way ethanol is harder to ignite and is safer in crashes).

        Unlike gasoline, burning ethanol emits no sulfur, the cause of acid rain.

        Burning ethanol emits significantly less NOx than gasoline, and ethanol vapor reacts to atmospheric NOx at less than a tenth of the rate of gasoline vapor. Meaning far less ozone smog and other problems.

        Unlike gasoline, ethanol needs no carcinogenic or mutagenic aromatics like beneze, toluene, or xylene.

        Unlike gasoline, ethanol, when spilled, dissolves readily in water on its own (no need for dispersants), dissipating in our vast hydrosphere to trace levels. And unlike gasoline, ethanol is readily biodegradable, and is rapidly broken down by naturally occurring bacteria into harmless components. A tanker spill of ethanol solves itself within days if not hours - no need for massive cleanup. Meanwhile the Valdez is still killing wildlife, as sea otters eat contaminated shellfish.

        "Replacing gas with ethanol is the equivalent of replacing natural gas power plants with energy produced from the open burning of garbage and calling it the 'clean', renewable alternative to natural gas."

        Quite wrong, as I've shown above. Ethanol is far more clean burning overall.
        clipsinite
        • 5 Years Ago
        "Food is not fuel" ... Wow, you must stupid. If food is not fuel, then why do we measure the energy content of our food in calories (i.e. the energy value of foods equivalent to the energy need to raise the temperature of water 1 degree C)?
        • 5 Years Ago
        So much ignorance is just a few words.

        "Food is not fuel"

        A mindless, and false, slogan. Food is the fuel of all living organisms, and what "food" is depends on the organism. Combustion happens in different ways in our bellies or in engines, but many things can be used either way. Since there's no world food shortage (quite the contrary), there's no problem using our enormous current surplus or our massive unused slack agricultural production capacity to make fuel.

        Ethanol is an excellent, clean-burning, renewable, high-octane vehicle fuel, and already is half the vehicle fuel in Brazil.

        "and it takes more energy to produce ethanol than what is returned."

        Completely false. The only writers claiming this are Pimentel and Patzek. Patzek is a former Shell executive, and Pimentel is a crank who wants to reduce the US standard of living by half, cut world population by two thirds by government action, stop modern agriculture and pesticides, wildly claims 40% of all world deaths are due to pollution and related issues, and even opposes pet dogs and cats. The two are isolated and totally refuted in the refereed literature, but their junk papers are spammed all over the debate by oil-funded think tanks.

        The definitive study on energy in vs. energy out for ethanol was done in "Science" magazine, one of the two top peer-reviewed journals in the world, in Jan. 2006, which looked at the entire existing body of published research on the subject, and found that even with Pimentel's fatally flawed data and assumptions you get at least 5 gallons of ethanol for each gallon of petroleum expended to make it, and with current, factual data and mainstream rational assumptions you get at least 10 and even 20 gallons of ethanol for each gallon of petroleum expended to make it. And yet this stupid, stupid mind-virus keeps spreading and infecting more people, spread by the oil cartel, eagerly accepted by the gullible.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Burning food for fueling gas guzzlers is criminal. The amount of corn used now can feed 300 million people for a year.

        This blatant subsidy needs to stop. Wasting top soil and water in this manner is absolutely insane.
        • 5 Years Ago
        @Carney,

        From the abstract of that 2006 study: "Studies that reported negative net energy incorrectly ignored coproducts and used some obsolete data. All studies indicated that current corn ethanol technologies are much less petroleum-intensive than gasoline but have greenhouse gas emissions similar to those of gasoline. However, many important environmental effects of biofuel production are poorly understood."

        People have to parse your claim "mainstream rational assumptions you get at least 10 and even 20 gallons of ethanol for each gallon of petroleum expended to make it" carefully. Michael Wang at Argonne in http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/419.pdf slide 19 (for free) puts 0.1 btus of petrol in to get 1 Btu of corn ethanol BUT it also takes 0.6 Btu of coal and natural gas as well — less petrol than making gasoline, but more from other fossil fuels. And to get 1 Btu of cellulosic ethanol, he requires tiny amounts of petrol, coal, and natural gas, but a lot of biomass.

        My semi-uninformed take is corn ethanol is good for getting off oil but worse for greenhouse gases, while cellulosic ethanol has real potential. But current production of 3M gallons of cellulosic vs billions of gallons of corn ethanol means USA is promoting 99.9% the wrong stuff. We don't need subsidies for corn or ethanol, we need a carbon tax.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Hypermiling, and fuel economy, are IRRELEVANT.

        This mentality developed in the context of a perception that we are permanently stuck with petroleum fuel, with all its attendant problems, so that all we can do is mitigate the damage by minimizing our fuel consumption.

        But that ignored, and ignores, the existence of alternatives, the most practical and easiest to transition to being alcohol.

        Alcohol fuel burns more cleanly (no soot for example, the cause of smog which kills 40,000 Americans a year), is (when based on bio sources) is renewable, can't have its market cornered by a price-hiking economy -crushing cartel, and doesn't fund death cults that seek to murder as many of us as possible.

        With all that being true, WHO CARES if with methanol you have to fill up once a week, or three times a month with ethanol, when you currently fill up twice a month with gasoline?
      • 5 Years Ago
      What does the RFA have to say about the children around the world that go to bed hungry because of the food taken out of circulation for the purpose of fueling our cars. Food is fuel but it should be reserved for human consumption not cars, by using up farm land for fuel the cost of food has risen world wide and the poor have become more so. So many will suffer for a program with questionable benefits pushed through by special interest groups for selfish purposes.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Nobody, child or adult, is going to bed hungry because of corn ethanol. SO many reasons this oil cartel pushed myth is bogus...

        In the first place, even while ethanol corn production has gone up severalfold in the last decade, "food corn" production has gone up too, as has production of other staple crops such as soybeans. So even MORE food corn is around now, not less.

        Second, once ethanol corn has its starch taken out to make fuel, the remainder, a high-protein byproduct called distiller's grain, is used to make animal feed for meat livestock. So even ethanol corn helps feed us. In fact, we'd have to grow that animal feed anyway, so finding a way to use some of it for renewable clean burning non terror funding fuel is a brilliant use of available unused resources.

        Third, there's huge unused slack capacity in US, EU, and world agriculture. Only half of US arable land is farmland, and less than half of that is cultivated. Rural areas are losing young adults because jobs are scarce, in part because rising efficiency means fewer farmers can make more produce. Per acre corn yields are up over 17% since 2002 alone, and Iowa now produces more than the entire 1940s USA. Thus we can massively expand agriculture for biofuels without lowering food output levels.

        Fourth, there is no world food shortage. In fact there's a huge surplus; produce rots on docks unshipped and unsold, or is bought by governments and warehoused to prop up farm income. In fact the US and EU pay farmers NOT to farm to prevent adding to the surplus and collapsing prices so much they bankrupt the remaining small and family farmers. Third World countries complain that we flood their markets with our dumped cheap produce that undercuts their local inefficient producers

        Fifth, world hunger is not caused by not enough food being made. It's caused by violent conflict, extreme repression, or gross mismanagement keeping the food out, or by extreme poverty exacerbated by those above factors and by OPEC's tax on the world, which is brutally regressive on the poorest. Poor tropical farmers and fishermen suffered way more than we did when OPEC raised the price of oil from $10 a barrel in 1999 to $140 a barrel in 2008. If we switched the world to ethanol, we'd break OPEC, prevent such price hikes (caused by OPEC reducing production to raise prices on purpose), and create much more demand for produce that we'd be able to drop our tariffs walling out Third World agriculture. The world's poor could abandon subsistence and inefficiency to farm cash crops with modern techniques, earn hard currency, and enter modernity.

        But ethanol WOULD cause SOME starvation. Namely, the death cult and various klepto-tyrannies that fund world wide conflict would be starved of the only thing keeping them going, our money, and would collapse.
      • 5 Years Ago
      It surely must be a concern to ot the worry-wart Cassandras that the industrialized world already synthetically manufactures about 15% of the fuel that it needs. If and when the world's auto fleets are EREVs and PHEVs and EVs, all the fuelle required for them will already be available without resort to fossil fuels at all.

      MyY oh my. What will we we worry about then?
      • 5 Years Ago
      Who is eating all this fieldcorn? We feed it to cows pigs and chickens. I eat tomatos, lettuce, peppers ,carrots, apples, oranges,pears,bannannas, olive oil ,bread that is made from wheat, oatmeal made from oats, baked beans made from beans, and lots of other stuff but I don't eat field corn. Oh yeah I eat lots of peanut butter and tofu they're not made from fieldcorn. I usually drink coffee tea or water. Who the heck is eating all the fieldcorn?
    • Load More Comments