June 25, 2006
The Case Against Ethanol
- The first alleged benefit is, in my view, routinely overstated. There is no "oil weapon" because Middle East oil producers must sell their oil somewhere. In a world market any refusal to sell to the U.S. is irrelevant.
The second and third alleged benefits are also likely emphemeral. Given that ethanol production requires substantial energy use, any reduction in pollution or greenhouse gases has to be minor.
So who benefits from ethanol subsidies? Corn farmers in the Midwest and the politicans who have caved to their interests. Taxpayers and the economy are the losers.
The greater Philadelphia area has recently had a 10% Ethanol blend introduced into the system. What does that mean?
Gas is still about $3.05 for the cheap stuff. In neighboring Berks County, but "outside" the area, I paid $2.83. I've always attributed the discrepancy due to the boutique blends, but it's never been so large.
Not to mention since the switch, our Mini Cooper has had trouble on it's first start in the morning. So much so that we switched from Premium to Midgrade on recommendation from Mini. I'm also convinced that my highway mileage in the Magnum has dropped from 27-ish to about 24.
Oil and Energy Posted by AlexC at June 25, 2006 12:25 PM
For a couple of decades, the Colorado Front Range counties have had an "oxygenated blend" of at least 10% Ethanol or MTBE mandated in the winter months.
When it was enacted, my mechanic begged me not to put “that stuff” in my 1979 280Z. But driving 100 miles to refuel is a losing proposition.
I didn't test mileage or anything but after a lot of fear, I don't remember anyone having troubles. Are we paying more? Hell yeah, but that's government intrusion fer ya. (And I'd've dreamed of 24 mpg in that Z...)
Posted by: jk at June 25, 2006 4:18 PM"Given that ethanol production requires substantial energy use, any reduction in pollution or greenhouse gases has to be minor."
I've always been a believer in market-driven technology. At some point, demand for ethanol will produce:
1 - A sensible network of delivery, similar to the oil pipelines in place now
2 - Higher-yielding corn strains, capable of producing more ethanol per pound
3 - A more efficient method of converting the corn to ethanol.
Just a reminder, Brazil, which is swimming in sugar cane, has a mandate to go all-ethnaol by 2011.
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at June 25, 2006 10:11 PMOr, in a free market:
4 -- It will be shown to be non viable considering the climate at his latitude and the opportunity costs for arable American farmland.
Sadly, #4 will be not be given a chance. The Greens and the Ag lobby have both parties too frightened to concede that.
Posted by: jk at June 26, 2006 10:49 AM | What do you think? [3]