As you know if you’ve followed ethanol in the last decade, the federal government requires a certain amount of ethanol in gasoline.
Glen Whitman, a friend on Facebook, posted the following and gave me permission to post on EconLog.
He wrote:
My dad, a chemical engineer, wrote the following back in 2011, the last time ethanol mandates were in the news:
· It takes more energy to make ethanol from corn than you get from the ethanol.
· Corn requires a whole lot of fertilizer, and the runoff goes into the Mississippi River and runs down to the Gulf of Mexico, where it creates a dead zone the size of New Jersey.
· A gallon of ethanol has only about 2/3 the energy of a gallon of gasoline; hence, your miles per gallon will decrease if you use gasoline containing ethanol.
· Making corn into ethanol for our cars is tantamount to burning our food, and it is driving up the cost of the food left to eat. Corn is a staple food for hogs, cattle, sheep, and chickens, so the cost of all meat and poultry are going up, along with the cost of corn itself.
· Ethanol loves water and soaks it up from its environment, so it can’t be shipped in long-distance pipelines with gasoline, because the water will corrode the piping and pumping machinery. The ethanol will dry out pump seals. Consequently, it has to be transported in trucks at a higher cost and mixed with the gasoline near the end-use consumer market.
· The only good reason for making corn into ethanol is for whiskey.
READER COMMENTS
bruce
Mar 25 2019 at 8:50am
Not to mention the what it does to small gas engines:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/9/ethanol-industry-small-engine-manufacturers-clash-/
Alan Goldhammer
Mar 25 2019 at 8:51am
Though not a fan of energy tax preferences and mandates, the ethanol one is the worst of the lot for the very reasons outlined in the post. It’s the same for bioconversion of plant materials other than oils that can be converted to biodiesel (even that process tends to ignore the agricultural inputs). Wind and solar have lower input costs than ethanol.
Fred_in_PA
Mar 25 2019 at 12:07pm
Perhaps it’s just too obvious, but . . .
Converting corn into ethanol buys a politician lots of votes from all those first-in-the-nation Iowa Caucus corn farmers.
David Seltzer
Mar 25 2019 at 5:46pm
Ethanol in fuel cost me $6000. I restored a 1941 Hollywood Graham. The cost of the project over several years is $90,000. I used a modern GM small block engine with an Edelbrock carburetor. I experienced spark knock, which can quickly damage an engine, and heat soak in hot weather. I tried several remedies to no avail. I purchased an electronic fuel injection system to replace the carburetor. Ethanol holds water and of course the fuel tank and attendant lines had to be replaced. Eventually the problems were eliminated. Finally. I use non-ethanol gas if I can find a station that dispenses it. Of course, the price per gallon his higher than the corn infused stuff.
Henri Hein
Apr 12 2019 at 12:00am
There are some gas stations where you can get ethanol-free gas, and I always fill up at one when I am passing by. One thing that is often omitted from the arguments against ethanol is that not only is it not cost-effective in dollars, it is also not cost-effective in time, from my perspective. Because of the overall reduction in mileage, I have to fill up more often. I get 5-10% further on a full tank of ethanol-free gas, which would mean 5-10% fewer trips to gas stations in a year, if I could use it consistently.
PS: Nice story, David Seltzer. It’s a beautiful car.
Comments are closed.