Why am I not surprised. Everything that comes out of Washington is a lie on some level, so now we have this. I don't doubt the validity of this study. And of course will anything be done to change course? With the amount of money and influence involved, not a chance.

Link

Feb 14 (Reuters) - Corn-based ethanol, which for years has been mixed in huge quantities into gasoline sold at U.S. pumps, is likely a much bigger contributor to global warming than straight gasoline, according to a study published Monday.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, contradicts previous research commissioned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) showing ethanol and other biofuels to be relatively green.

President Joe Biden's administration is reviewing policies on biofuels as part of a broader effort to decarbonize the U.S. economy by 2050 to fight climate change.

“Corn ethanol is not a climate-friendly fuel,” said Dr. Tyler Lark, assistant scientist at University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment and lead author of the study.

The research, which was funded in part by the National Wildlife Federation and U.S. Department of Energy, found that ethanol is likely at least 24% more carbon-intensive than gasoline due to emissions resulting from land use changes to grow corn, along with processing and combustion.

Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol trade lobby, called the study "completely fictional and erroneous," arguing the authors used "worst-case assumptions [and] cherry-picked data."

Under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a law enacted in 2005, the nation's oil refiners are required to mix some 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol into the nation's gasoline annually. The policy was intended to reduce emissions, support farmers, and cut U.S. dependence on energy imports.

As a result of the mandate, corn cultivation grew 8.7% and expanded into 6.9 million additional acres of land between 2008 and 2016, the study found. That led to widespread changes in land use, including the tilling of cropland that would otherwise have been retired or enrolled in conservation programs and the planting of existing cropland with more corn, the study found.

Tilling fields releases carbon stored in soil, while other farming activities, like applying nitrogen fertilizers, also produce emissions.

A 2019 study from the USDA, which has been broadly cited by the biofuel industry, found that ethanol’s carbon intensity was 39% lower than gasoline, in part because of carbon sequestration associated with planting new cropland.

But that research underestimated the emissions impact of land conversion, Lark said.

USDA did not respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the nation's biofuel policy, is considering changes to the program. Under the RFS, Congress set blending requirements through 2022, but not beyond, giving the EPA authority to impose reforms. EPA plans to propose 2023 requirements in May.

The world is playing chess and is predicting what happens 10 moves later but our gov can’t even predict what will happen after their next move in checkers.

Being an engineer, growing up in a generational farming family and having worked for the Govt for the past decade+ I can tell you in my opinion, this is all lobbyist fighting for Congressional control so the winning side can manipulate the law of the land. Period! Lobbists run D.C. Those with the biggest pile of cash win.

I don't know which side is "correct" and honestly don't care. I just want a "pure fuel" with the highest BTU content possible. The more BTU the more energy I get per gallon of fuel, whatever it is.

As for land conversion, etc. I think the article is completely full of BS. Farmers "convert" land all the time. We use to have 600 head of cattle and a feeding operation. My dad got rid of 99% of that 25+ years ago because with the low cattle prices we kept taking it on the chin and couldn't break even. Several of the pastures we had were converted to "productive" land. Guess what, in another 20yrs, they may be converted back for more grazing land for the pure breed Red Angus my dad has now. Things change all the time, they are not stagnant.

Another aspect of using corn to make alcohol is in states that mandate it.

At first alcohol used a lot of lower grade corn and distillers bought it as dirt cheap as possible. Farmers were buying the corn off the market and then using their own distilleries to sell the end product on the bulk market. The final process to get more than 170 proof IIRC was intensive in equipment costs and avoided.

Add a mandate for fuel sold in the state to contain ethanol and the market is manipulated. When you are guaranteed sales, then improving yields and increasing proof is underwritten by higher profits. The distillers started buying better grade corn, competing with the feed market, which raised prices on beef. When you are mandated to pump cattle feed into your tank, you are also mandated to pay more for the food you eat.

And now a steak at the restaurant runs $$$ so we eat more chikin. You will not have beef on your table and you will like it.

Maybe a review of electric and hybrid cars should be on the review list too.

Even before that, the Biden shutdown of some oil and gas sources and delivery in North America. Beyond the environmental effects, the economic and world political damage done should be included.

quote:

Originally posted by Tirod:
And now a steak at the restaurant runs $$$ so we eat more chikin. You will not have beef on your table and you will like it.

Which seems strange since the main ingredient in chicken feed is corn. Seems like chicken should be up too.

quote:

Seems like chicken should be up too.

It is. Big time.

Wings are expensive, used to be $9 for a dozen to look at the gals in Hooter shirts and shorty shorts, Now $20...

One thing about E85, you can make a ton more power in your V8 running that stuff, runs a lot cooler, more power output than even high octane 110 raci'n fuel..

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

One thing about E85, you can make a ton more power in your V8 running that stuff, runs a lot cooler, more power output than even high octane 110 raci'n fuel..

For the other 99.9% of us that aren't concerned about maximum power output, the stuff is more expensive, less efficient and corrosive and shouldn't have ever been mandated by law.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Seems like chicken should be up too.

It is. Big time.

Yep, it's 20-25% higher in our neck of the woods.

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

One thing about E85, you can make a ton more power in your V8 running that stuff, runs a lot cooler, more power output than even high octane 110 raci'n fuel..

For the other 99.9% of us that aren't concerned about maximum power output, the stuff is more expensive, less efficient and corrosive and shouldn't have ever been mandated by law.

Some of us are 10mm and 44 Magnum guys, others, 22LR and 380 people

Every time subjects like this comes up, EV vs ICE, ethanol vs regular gas, just reminds me of all the arguments over history for and against new fuels or forms of propulsion...

Theres always something that's problematic and over time we tend to solve that problem.

Me, I'll take more HP and E85 costs less than regular unleaded, E10/E15, and a ton less than Sunoco 110 Racin Fuel...

Although racing fuel has a great smell....

Land-use considerations aside: I've long suspected that, if we added-up all the energy costs of corn-based ethanol we'd find it's a net "carbon footprint" increase.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Wings are expensive, used to be $9 for a dozen to look at the gals in Hooter shirts and shorty shorts, Now $20...

One thing about E85, you can make a ton more power in your V8 running that stuff, runs a lot cooler, more power output than even high octane 110 raci'n fuel..

Only if you have power adders… re: Turbos, supercharger, advanced timing, higher compression.

E 85 has much less “power“ in the fuel than regular gasoline. All you’re doing is reducing the chance of knock with the power additions.

Your 110 is less combustible than 87 octane… that’s the whole point. Avoid pre-det

I bet a fair amount of money that a standard V-8 on a dyno is gonna run less powerfully on E85 versus regular mfg specified gasoline. Even if the ECU is adapting to knock conditions in the cylinder. (I have a car that will advance timing and boost if I put 110 octane in it.)

Just another in a long, long list of liberal causes "for good" that are complete and total horse shit. I am sure plenty of people got rich though and since that was probably the goal all along we can call it a success.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnCourage:
Just another in a long, long list of liberal causes "for good" that are complete and total horse shit. I am sure plenty of people got rich though and since that was probably the goal all along we can call it a success.

Amen. Can you say Chuck Grassley (R)?

Bur, but, but...ethanol is "natural," not like that nasty greasy stuff that comes out of the ground!

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

One thing about E85, you can make a ton more power in your V8 running that stuff, runs a lot cooler, more power output than even high octane 110 raci'n fuel..

For the other 99.9% of us that aren't concerned about maximum power output, the stuff is more expensive, less efficient and corrosive and shouldn't have ever been mandated by law.

Some of us are 10mm and 44 Magnum guys, others, 22LR and 380 people

Every time subjects like this comes up, EV vs ICE, ethanol vs regular gas, just reminds me of all the arguments over history for and against new fuels or forms of propulsion...

Theres always something that's problematic and over time we tend to solve that problem.

Me, I'll take more HP and E85 costs less than regular unleaded, E10/E15, and a ton less than Sunoco 110 Racin Fuel...

Although racing fuel has a great smell....

It also nets abysmal MPG, in stock form.
We had a guy being his Silverado, sometime around 08-09, in the shop complaining about 8MPG, or something significantly lower than average.
He'd filled up with E85 (in an E85 compatible truck) & while he saved a bit at the pump, the MPG dropped severely.

I'm sure with a tune & prepped to run E85, it's not as bad, but most aren't going to go the warranty voiding route to net better MPGs on E85.

quote:

Originally posted by P250UA5:

It also nets abysmal MPG, in stock form.
We had a guy being his Silverado, sometime around 08-09, in the shop complaining about 8MPG, or something significantly lower than average.
He'd filled up with E85 (in an E85 compatible truck) & while he saved a bit at the pump, the MPG dropped severely.

I'm sure with a tune & prepped to run E85, it's not as bad, but most aren't going to go the warranty voiding route to net better MPGs on E85.

Agreed.

My SO had a Ford Explorer that was E85 compatible. At that time I believe the price per gallon was about 20% less, but the drop in mileage was almost 30%.

I don't remember who said it but paraphrasing basically we used to be a country that suffered from problems. Now we are a country that suffers from solutions.

quote:

Originally posted by P250UA5:
It also nets abysmal MPG, in stock form.
We had a guy being his Silverado, sometime around 08-09, in the shop complaining about 8MPG, or something significantly lower than average.
He'd filled up with E85 (in an E85 compatible truck) & while he saved a bit at the pump, the MPG dropped severely.

I'm sure with a tune & prepped to run E85, it's not as bad, but most aren't going to go the warranty voiding route to net better MPGs on E85.

My 20 year old Ford F150 gets about 1.5 miles per gallon better fuel economy on pure gas over the ethanol enhanced stuff. Seems to also run smoother with ever so slightly better performance (it is a truck after all). If it weren't so much more expensive, that would be all I'd use in it.

The point of posting this is that there is now some evidence that ethanol is not at all what we were sold it was (cleaner for the environment). 'If' that is indeed true, then there is no justification to continue to mandate its use in gasoline.