Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Credit Unions – Helping families in times of need
Next Post: Federal judge sends lottery case to settlement talks
Posted in:
* You may have seen ads on social media lately about ethanol. Here’s a video ad…
* Illinois ag is not amused…
Kenneth Harman, Jr., Illinois Corn Growers Association President; Richard Guebert, Jr., Illinois Farm Bureau President; and Raymond E. Defenbaugh, Illinois Renewable Fuels Association President issued the following joint statement today regarding the anti-ethanol campaign currently underway in Illinois.
“The anti-ethanol smear campaign currently underway in Illinois is heavy on rhetoric and short on facts. The timing is suspicious, as we’re just about ten days away from the deadline that requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s release of its final rule making on the Renewable Fuel Standard RVO requirement. Such a desperate, expensive spend on advertising reflects the precarious position of Big Oil. They don’t have a leg to stand on.
“We know that the Renewable Fuel Standard has been one of the most successful energy policies ever enacted. It has rejuvenated rural economies, created jobs nationwide, and lowered prices at the pump, all while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
“EPA recognizes that corn ethanol provides a significant reduction in greenhouse gasses. In fact, global ethanol production and use is estimated to reduce those emissions by 100 million metric tons. That’s like taking 20 million vehicles off the road. U.S. ethanol production each year displaces the gasoline equivalent of 512 million barrels of crude oil. That’s more than we import annually from Saudi Arabia.
Illinois is the second largest producer of ethanol in the country, so we’re talking big bucks here.
* But the ethanol opponents have released a new poll of Illinoisans…
How familiar are you with a federal law on the books called the Renewable Fuel Standard, which mandates certain amounts of biofuels to be added to the nation’s fuel supply?
TOTAL FAMILIAR 37%
TOTAL NOT FAMILIAR 63%VERY FAMILIAR 4%
SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR 33%
NOT VERY FAMILIAR 29%
NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR 34%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSEDQuestion 8
Let me give you some information about the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS. The RFS is a federal program established in 2005 and expanded in 2007 that requires biofuels, such as corn ethanol, to be blended into your gasoline. The RFS requires more and more biofuels, particularly corn ethanol, be blended added to the nation’s fuel supply each year.
Based on what you know, do you agree or disagree with the RFS and the increased use of corn ethanol in our nation’s fuel supply each year?
TOTAL AGREE 53%
TOTAL DISAGREE 38%STRONGLY AGREE 17%
SOMEWHAT AGREE 36%
SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 16%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 22%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 9%Question 9
Now, let me tell you a bit more about the RFS. When the RFS was created, Congress included specific targets for how much ethanol should be added to the fuel supply each year, with the numbers going up each year. But earlier this year, EPA said that those congressional targets were too high, in part because demand for gasoline has actually gone down. That’s something Congress never predicted, and which wasn’t included in the original models.
Knowing this, would you be more or less likely to support the existing RFS and the HIGHER ethanol mandate targets?
MORE LIKELY 32%
LESS LIKELY 59%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 9%Question 10
And, which of the following statements comes closest to your view?
ETHANOL LEVELS SHOULD FOLLOW THE PRE-EXISTING TARGETS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE RFS IN 2007, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE DEMAND FOR FUEL CHANGES 30%
THE EPA SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE MANDATED ETHANOL VOLUME NUMBERS IN RESPONSE TO FLUCTUATIONS IN THE FUEL MARKET 61% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED 8%
And then it all goes downhill from there.
* From the narrative…
After being presented with the key findings of the Princeton study, which found that corn ethanol production nearly doubled greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over 30 years, compared to conventional gasoline, 78 percent were less likely to support the RFS and higher ethanol targets. As the survey continued, 73 percent of voters believed that the ethanol mandate has an overall negative effect on the environment. 83 percent told us they were less likely to support the program once they learned of the Environmental Working Group study that found ethanol production in 2014 resulted in 27 million more tons of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere. 72 percent of Illinoisans were less likely to support the RFS and higher ethanol targets after learning that scientists at the Sandia National Lab, a federally funded research institution, found that producing one gallon of ethanol from irrigated corn could require up to 880 gallons of water. And 83 percent believe mandating that more corn ethanol be added to the fuel supply could decrease the country’s water supply.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 10:21 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Credit Unions – Helping families in times of need
Next Post: Federal judge sends lottery case to settlement talks
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
While I don’t necessarily disagree with the objectives of the group that ethanol requirements as written are bad public policy, this is a perfect example of the kind of flimsy polling that the media generally eats up without any effort to examine the statistical validity of the number given the bias of the poll methodology.
Comment by Adam Smith Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 10:25 am
I have a relative in the ethanol production business, so I understand the positive impact of ethanol subsidies to rural economies. But it’s no secret that using corn to make ethanol is an inefficient way to do this.
The subsidies, in my view, are more about protecting economic benefits than environmental benefits. Generally speaking, I’m opposed to government subsidies but I sure understand the political appeal of having them for a variety of things, not just ethanol.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 10:33 am
A lot of newer vehicles are not equipped to handle E-85. My wife got a new car recently and - surprise! - it can’t handle anything stronger than E-15. I think auto manufacturers are shying away from the E-85 craze. And, just looking around Springfield, most stations that sell E-85 have a very minor price differential between regular unleaded and E-85. A few months ago, that chasm was much bigger.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 10:37 am
Worse for the environment, worse for engines & mileage, more expensive, a corrupt pay-off to the connected few, a total rip-off for citizens… Cap Fax commentators are sure to support it.
Comment by Robert the 1st Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 10:40 am
It’s good for the small farmer.
Comment by tobor Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 10:40 am
Ethanol is really tough on small engines, the mandate, relaxing the requirements, at least somewhat, might give consumers more choice. Sangamon county has ethanol free fuel at exactly 1 gas station (Hy-Vee) and in 1 grade (Premium).
Comment by AC Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 10:44 am
I fully support ethanol production … as beer, wine, bourbon, vodka etc.
Comment by Huh? Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 10:44 am
The energy balance for corn based ethanol alone suggests that continued use of the fuel as a part of a national energy strategy is foolish and short sighted. That poll isn’t really a great poll, but when it comes down to science, the energy balance for ethanol simply isn’t efficient and when you consider the miles per gallon lost when using ethanol, it’s even less efficient.
The United States was sold on a bad alternative fuel in the 1980s and 1990s that promised to do things that the fuel simply cannot do.
Can ethanol be a part of the solution? Sure — but corn based ethanol should be abandoned for feed stocks that consistently produce a more efficient energy balance. If we were serious about fuel policy and over all impact on global warming, we’d be using switch grass or a fuel with a better return on it’s investment in terms of energy used versus energy created.
PA has done something very interesting, which is they’ve created an ethanol blending mandate for cellulosic ethanol in the state only after the state reaches a specific level of annual cellulosic ethanol production (I think the figure might be 500 million gallons).
Corn based ethanol is bad policy. Period. The net social benefit of ethanol policy might even be negative.
Comment by Anon Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 10:45 am
I wonder how the poll would like if they were informed about this:
http://smarterfuelfuture.org/blog/details/unsettling-bee-colony-collapse-linked-to-ethanol-mandates?utm_campaign=environment&utm_content=111715_EthanolEnvironmentalImpacts&utm_source=newsroom&utm_medium=social-media-fb
And if true, doesn’t this put the enviros in a bit of a quandary?
Comment by Todd Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 10:45 am
Worst energy policy ever enacted by congress. And that’s saying something.
In the world of tesla and plummeting NG prices, why on earth would we subsidize an industry that is a) already subsidized b) competes with our food supply and c) serves to increase GHGs, not reduce them.
The dems pandered to a powerful constituency and they should be called out for it.
Comment by Abe the Babe Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 10:46 am
Right now we need economic health.
Until we get back on track, don’t pull anything away from us we depend upon.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 10:46 am
===Sangamon county has ethanol free fuel at exactly 1 gas station (Hy-Vee)===
Hy-Vee is Iowa owned. At many gas stations in Iowa it’s still possible to find both E10 and mostly ethanol free fuel. When traveling through Iowa I can generally see a high way mileage performance improvement of close to 5 or 6 mpg depending on what I am driving.
Comment by Anon Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 10:47 am
We can fix our roads with additional MFT by eliminating the ethanol fuel tax break. The ethanol subsidies just move $ from my pocket to ADM.
Comment by anon Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 10:49 am
Environmentalists would be right to admit the failure of the ethanol effort. I think the politics make is such where green-minded folks might be scarred that if they do, the non-environmental folks will use this as an example to be applied to every new green idea moving forward.
Comment by NixonHead Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 10:54 am
Ethanol has NEVER been an environmental solution. Sure it’s been billed as such, but in reality it has never been an environmental positive. It HAS, all along, been a gift to Ag. Which, ok, if that’s what it’s for, say so and see what the people think. So, it’s not at all surprising that people could be led to oppose it when they hear details about it.
Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 10:57 am
I would have more sympathy for the agricultural and ethanol interests if they moved from corn to other, more environmentally friendly inputs. The continued use of corn tells me this was always intended to maintain the market for corn and not benefit the environment.
Comment by Sir Reel Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 10:58 am
I tried ethanol and at the time there was a significant price differential, however, when I compared the mpg to the mpg of gas, it cost more to run on ethanol.
Comment by burbanite Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 11:01 am
Robert the 1st - nice kick to the front of the pants. Thanks for my late morning chuckles.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 11:01 am
The opposition to ethanol from “enviros” goes back to at least a decade ago. Off the top of my head, I remember enviros raising a huge stink when GW Bush wanted to use ethanol to reduce our gasoline consumption back in 2007. Ethanol has always been an Ag subsidy
Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 11:03 am
Ethanol mandates result in a transfer of wealth from the fuel users to the agricultural industry. I support the free market establishing demand as opposed to the government unless government intervention is required to prevent a tragedy of the commons effect. I don’t see that effect here.
Comment by Pelonski Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 11:05 am
The point of ethanol was as an additive to oxygenate fuel. It makes fuel burn cleaner, not give better gas mileage or use less gas. http://www.oregon.gov/energy/P-I/Biomass/docs/FORUM/Whitten2004.pdf
Comment by NoGifts Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 11:05 am
Sugar ethanol would be much better.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 11:06 am
===Until we get back on track, don’t pull anything away from us we depend upon.===
The ethanol blending mandate may actually be slowing economic growth and worsening our economic situation in the long run due to the net impact on the environment and the drive to put a lot of land into agricultural production of corn that might be better suited for other crops.
That same argument was used as to why the blending tax credit should be continued, even though the net economic impact of the blending tax credit and a mandate co-existing was that it effectively served as a subsidy to gasoline rather than ethanol.
So, no, we shouldn’t apply hyperbolic discounting to our policy choices for ethanol. It’s a bad policy now, and it will be in five years. The blending mandate can be ended and can be given either a phase out or a hard end in the future to allow the industry to readjust.
People like to complain about the government creating market inefficiencies and ethanol is a prime example of an alternative fuel that never should have been.
Comment by Anon Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 11:06 am
===Sugar ethanol would be much better.===
Let the market choose the feedstock. The energy balance on switch grass in every study I’ve reviewed has at least a 4 to 1 ratio of energy gained to energy input. Saying “sugar” ethanol would be better kind of ignores that sugar isn’t really grown in Minnesota, Iowa, or Illinois.
Our proud corn farmers could add crop diversity and still produce the same amount of ethanol using a quarter of the land they have devoted to corn production and become proud farmers.
Comment by Anon Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 11:11 am
The reason why ethanol took off ten years ago is because it was pulled into the fuel blend as an oxygenate to replace a chemical that is a carcinogen.
The ag industry has pushed the % of the blend because doing so flattens out volatility of corn prices….bad for the CME but good for farmers. That’s really the only way farmers have profited (and it’s not insubstantial).
The vast subsidies have gone almost entirely to supporting new infrastructure controlled by big oil that allows ethanol market access.
Truth be told, not a drop of ethanol makes it to the marketplace unless BP says so. That’s why there are millions of flex fuel vehicles that can’t find an E85 pump in their neighborhood.
Consumers voted with their pocketbook and bought “ethanol cars.”
Comment by Chicago PR Guy Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 11:14 am
Ethanol isn’t an alternative fuel. It is a fuel additive to oxygenate gas and make it burn cleaner. It is an air pollution issue, not an alternative fuels issue. http://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei13/modeling/vitale_pres.pdf
Comment by NoGifts Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 11:15 am
In addition to the BTU difference between ethanol and gasoline, the point I’d like to raise is the inefficiency of the policy to begin with, as well as the lack of urgency to change course once realized. It is yet another example of policies that become law and stick around wasting time, energy and money rather than allow the market to determine an outcome.
Technology and entrepreneurial spirit and risk takers create solutions to problems…and lobbyists pay for cronies to get paid with bad laws.
Lastly, talking about market distortions, EPA should also take away all of the boutique blending mandates, which raise the cost of refinement and create artificial supply glitches every spring.
Comment by Captain Illini Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 11:24 am
Blending mandates are in place to reduce air pollution. Even with more vehicles and more vehicle miles traveled, our air quality is much better than it was 50 years ago. Federal mandates pushing technology changes can be thanked for that. I suppose the EPA could set fuel combustion standards, and not specify how they are achieved.
Comment by NoGifts Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 11:41 am
Industrial single crop farming, to provide chemical output, is a tragic waste of Illinois’ exceptional resources — soil and water. Not that anyone will take that long-term view.
Comment by walker Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 12:05 pm
For the last 5 years my organization has been fighting the spread of E-15 until our Federal Gov has preformed a “comprehensive” “unbiased” test of it on the engines.
Not just the the emission controls,tail pipe, and catalytic converters but the real engine and all parts of it.
They have refused this for 5 yrs! If they would have done this we wouldn’t be talking about this right now.
What are they hiding? What are they afraid of?
The National Marine Manufacturers Association did their own testing on several different sized boat motors including 300HP Supercharged boat motors using E-15 and E-0 (no ethanol) fuel.
The E-15 cracked, broke,melted, pistons,valves,bearings and deteriorated gaskets.
The E-0 fuel had no ill effects on the motors
Most cars and trucks on the road today can’t safely burn this fuel.
I use the E-0 I get from the Hy-Vee on my lawnmowers and motorcycles and you wont believe how much cooler they run on E-0 vs E-15.
E-15 is ALL Heat and NO Power
Comment by Bob Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 12:26 pm
It’s pretty clearly a “push” poll, set up to tilt the responses in a certain way.
Too bad, because on the science and the merits, they’re correct.
Comment by Harry Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 12:40 pm
They have left out a bunch of the science and merits.
Comment by NoGifts Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 1:42 pm
Anon 11:06 - we may never know. The corn and ag lobbying groups are powerful enough to push back, and Brazil’s own economic policies may make investors back off.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 2:26 pm
And here’s the smoking gun - especially now that gas is under $2 a gallon.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 2:27 pm
I’m a green minded folk, and this is a dumb policy.
It is a funds transfer from gas buyers to corn farmers and ethanol producers.
If you want to reduce green house gases - tax carbon and use the proceeds to offset other taxes.
This is corporate welfare in a green suit.
Comment by Any Mouse Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 2:47 pm
Can’t see congressional reps from IL supporting any change in this, since IL has so much money-based-ag interests to protect them. Did support gasohol as well as bio-diesel, but the only advantage to gasohol is that you don’t have to add “Heat” in the winter. And as anon@ 10:15 pointed out, the alcohol blends are given a tax break that impacts our roads.
Comment by downstate commissioner Friday, Nov 20, 15 @ 4:03 pm