You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
EPA finds ethanol is environmentally damaging
2018-08-05
Show of hands. Who could have predicted this?
[HotAir] Amid growing demands from the corn lobby that the government mandate even more ethanol be blended into the nation’s gasoline supplies, new finding call such proposals into question. One of the chief claims of the corn lobby is that ethanol is a more "green" type of energy because it’s renewable. From there, the argument is extended to claim that it’s better for the environment all the way around. But the conclusions of a study underlying the latest EPA report on the environmental impact of ethanol (seven years in the making, dating back well into the Obama administration) concludes that the opposite is true. Ethanol produces significant negative impacts on the environment, in some cases worse than the gasoline it’s supposed to be replacing. (Public News Service)

A long-delayed report from the Environmental Protection Agency finds that requiring ethanol made from corn and soybeans to be part of the nation’s gas supply is causing serious environmental harm.

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."

President Donald Trump and senators from agricultural states are urging the EPA to allow an increase in the mandated ethanol content of gasoline.

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.

This information comes along at the same time that the President has been unwisely promising corn growers in Iowa and surrounding states that he would push to expand the use of E-15 blends year round. This is a bad move from all but the angle of political calculation. The Renewable Fuel Standard needs to be scaled back (preferably eliminated), not expanded. And if basic considerations of the damage it does to marine equipment and small engines, on top of burning too hot and producing less energy by volume than gas isn't a good enough reason, perhaps the damage to the environment will convince you.
If you have wondered why, like I have, the ozone alerts and levels have gotten so bad when this hasn't been an issue in the past.... now ya know.

Your government at work.
Posted by:DarthVader

#9  Need we mention the rampant starvation in Africa and South America created by diversion of food production to ethanol production?

No, no need.
We don't care.
Posted by: Skidmark   2018-08-05 18:46  

#8  It may cost a bit more to remove the expensive ethanol from gasoline, but the increased cost will be worth the benefits to the environment.
Posted by: gorb   2018-08-05 15:05  

#7  The left playbook. 1. Define or make up a problem, 2. Mandate a solution if in power and roll some RINOs if needed to pass, 3. Get rich off of insider info, books, going on talk circuit talking about the "sky is falling," start start-up companies funded by the government selling snake oil, etc.
Posted by: JohnQC   2018-08-05 13:24  

#6  I think we could all see this one coming.

All of the known issues with ethanol were swept under a rug and those that were not were ridiculed by talking heads and internet smart asses hired by various green groups.

Need we mention the rampant starvation in Africa and South America created by diversion of food production to ethanol production?

So ethanol fuels produce more NOx huh? After years of air pumps and injectors, catalytic converters and billions in research to reduce NOx in gasoline powered engines, we have to buy gasoline that INCREASES NOx???

This is right up there with that additive the green Nazis in Californicate mandated to be put in gasoline as an oxygenator to reduce NOx. After about five years of rapidly increasing asthma rates and upper respirator problems with children some brave souls decided to fly in the face of the green machine and determined this wonder additive was the cause and was far deadlier than anything gasoline could produce...I think it was MBTE or something like that and various entities are spending millions to clean up sites polluted by the stuff...a hazardous material used to fight air pollution. Can you go any further into environmental wonderland and fantasy than that?
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2018-08-05 12:10  

#5  Being sort of rural, we still have a few stations around here that sell 'No Ethanol', but usually as 'Premium-Grade' only.

It's all I'll use for my small engines (mower, whacker, power-washer, etc.).

Folks drive from metro areas and out of state to fill their containers.
Posted by: Mullah Richard   2018-08-05 09:20  

#4  Corn likker's bad?
Posted by: Skidmark   2018-08-05 03:07  

#3  2018/08/05 @ 00:05 SUN

E85MNDAT.TXT

Disgusting mandates!
Why can't we buy pure gasoline?
If green aho's want to buy gasoline contaminated with alcohol let that be their choice.
Avgas is the only place I know of where one can buy unperverted gasoline.
Can't risk water or alcohol in an aircraft engine.
But with airport security and tax on Avgas, it is not a practical to buy Avgas to get pure gasoline.

Many pilots cheat Avgas tax by buying gas for their planes at normal gasoline stations.
I remember my dad doing that in the 1980's.
Even at my young age I asked my father if it was worth it to risk transporting 60 gal of gas in plastic gas cans in a van.
What if we are hit by a drunk or the van rolls?

Mandating alcohol in gasoline is idiotic just like banning the great GE tungsten filament light bulb.
One day I hope GE will reopen there light bulb manufacturing plant that was closed down so we can buy good light bulbs again at a cheap price.

God never gave an eleventh commandment,
"Thou shalt save the planet through your own 'green' initiatives."

So my hope is there will be no green aho's in heaven.


Posted by: boomerc   2018-08-05 03:01  

#2  "Damaging" to my Stihl weed eater for sure.
Posted by: Besoeker   2018-08-05 01:59  

#1  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.

Report left over from the Obama regime? Still got the DS operating in the ranks of the EPA?
Posted by: JohnQC   2018-08-05 01:49  

00:00