Fueling The Myth

I want to dedicate this post to three people back in Minnesota - my dear friend Andy Aplicowski (AAA from Residual Forces), my former state Representative Mike Beard and Governor Pawlenty. To two of these people, the information attached, while not new, confirms what they already knew - to the other hopefully a revelation!

More than one major transportation-based industry in America besides Detroit is on the ropes. For the fourth time in our history the ethanol industry has come undone and is quickly failing nationally. Of course it's one thing when Detroit collapsed with the economy; after all, that is a truly free-market enterprise and the economy hasn't been good. But the fact that the ethanol industry is going bankrupt, when the only reason we use this additive is a massive government mandate, is outrageous at best....
the primary job of the Environmental Protection Agency is, dare it be said, to protect our environment. Yet using ethanol actually creates more smog than using regular gas, and the EPA's own attorneys had to admit that fact in front of the justices presiding over the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995 (API v. EPA).

Second, truly independent studies on ethanol, such as those written by Tad Patzek of Berkeley and David Pimentel of Cornell, show that ethanol is a net energy loser. Other studies suggest there is a small net energy gain from it.

Third, all fuels laced with ethanol reduce the vehicle's fuel efficiency, and the E85 blend drops gas mileage between 30% and 40%, depending on whether you use the EPA's fuel mileage standards (fueleconomy.gov) or those of the Dept. of Energy.

OK - those of you who have read these pages or the pages of RF already know who is who in this little contretemps. Andy and I have long been railing against mandates promoting corn ethanol over all other alternative fuels and Rep. Beard, being the ranking Republican on most House Public Utilities committees and all around Public Utilities and energy policy wonk, has been a strong advocate for allowing the market to find alternatives that work. Governor Pawlenty, on the other hand.....

Fourth, forget what biofuels have done to the price of foodstuffs worldwide over the past three years; the science seems to suggest that using ethanol increases global warming emissions over the use of straight gasoline. Just these issues should have kept ethanol from being brought back for its fourth run in American history.

But, but, but....wait.....

The author's last point is one that has been pooh-poohed by corn ethanol proponents but the facts say that they are dead wrong.....

Last July was bad enough for motorists on a budget—gasoline prices had shot up to more than $4 a gallon. But for some the pain in the pocketbook was about to get worse. At City Garage in Euless, Tex., for example, the first of numerous future customers brought in an automobile whose fuel pump was shot. A quick diagnosis determined that that particular car had close to 18% ethanol in the fuel. For that unlucky owner, the repairs came to nearly $900. The ethanol fun was just beginning.

City Garage manager Eric Greathouse has found that adding ethanol to the nation's gasoline supply may be a foolish government mandate, but it has an upside he'd rather not deal with. It's supplying his shop with a slow but steady stream of customers whose plastic fuel intakes have been dissolved by the blending of ethanol into our gasoline, or their fuel pumps destroyed. The average cost of repairs is just shy of $1,000.

But wait - it gets BETTER!!!!!!

On Jan. 16 of this year, Lexus ordered a massive recall of certain 2006 to 2008 models, including the GS Series, IS and LS sedans. According to the recall notice, the problem is that "Ethanol fuels with low moisture content will corrode the internal surface of the fuel rails." In layman's terms, ethanol causes pinpoint leaks in the fuel system; when leaking fuel catches your engine on fire, that's an exciting way to have your insurance company buy your Lexus. Using ethanol will cost Toyota (TM) untold millions.

Finally the last piece of ethanol justification is skewered.....

But until this massive economic slowdown, as Gusher of Lies (PublicAffairs, 2008) author Robert Bryce pointed out, even while the ethanol mandate was being ramped up we were increasing our imports of foreign oil.

Translation: The entire politically stated purpose of using ethanol had already been proven to be a false one before the program even got fully under way.

No surprise there. The premise that ethanol could give America the freedom to one day stop importing oil has always been fraudulent. Another fun fact: If we outlawed gasoline and diesel, thereby removing every last car, truck and SUV from our highways—no vehicles anywhere on any road in the country—America would still have to import oil because we would still use more crude than domestic production can supply.

Why is that? Crude oil is also used to make fertilizers, aviation fuel, home heating oil, and many other products. Not to mention polyester suits for car salesmen.

So in summation, ethanol pollutes more, reduces fuel efficiency, ruins the fuel system in your car to the point of being dangerous, takes tillable acreage away from food production and does not reduce our foreign dependence on oil one iota?????

Can someone please tell me again why government should be mandating that we use this stuff?

Fueling the Debate Over Alternative Fuels

My partner in internet radio "crime", Jazz Shaw, spent the last half of last week at the New York City Auto Show (his field dispatches can be found here and here). However, the story that he brought back from Manhattan that interested me the most was this one (courtesy of Green Dreams).

“We need a simple way to store and carry hydrogen energy and a simple process to produce hydrogen, said Y.H. Percival Zhang, assistant professor of biological systems engineering at Virginia Tech.

Using synthetic biology approaches, Zhang and colleagues Barbara R. Evans and Jonathan R. Mielenz of ORNL, and Robert C. Hopkins and Michael W.W. Adams of the University of Georgia, are using a combination of 13 enzymes never found together in nature to completely convert polysaccharides (C6H10O5) and water into hydrogen when and where that form of energy is needed. This “synthetic enzymatic pathway” research appears in the May 23 issue of PLoS ONE, the online, open-access journal from the Public Library of Science.

Here is an exciting practical alternate fuel that does not use foodstuffs (a la ethanol) in it's generation and yet we have politicians who are stuck on dictating which form of "alternative" energy we can use (Governor Pawlenty and former President Bush with corn ethanol and current President Obama with electricity). Both of the current, politically popular alternatives have their disadvantages - ethanol with it's dependence on foodstuffs and electric fuel cells because....well where do you think the electricity comes from (hint coal fired and nuclear POWER PLANTS).......

Rather than governement deciding which alternative fuel will be the "winner" in the free market, how about we let the smart folks (like the smart folks at Virginia Tech) do their thing and figure out the best way to make alternative fuels that are easy to produce, easy to convert existing cars to and (most importantly) easy for the country to convert to. It is the common sense thing to do...

Take This Cob....

The "impossible" has happened.

A Sanpete County (UT) turkey processing plant is shutting down and nearly 400 employees are being laid off.

Officials at the Moroni Feed Co. say the plant will go idle at the end of the day Thursday.

The 60-member turkey cooperative is hoping to reopen March 16.

Brandon Olson, the company's chief financial officer, says the rising cost of corn -- driven by government subsidies for ethanol -- has driven up feed prices for raising turkeys.

Commissioner of agriculture Leonard Blackham said, "Corn hit $8 a bushel, and generally it's down to about $2.25."

The company says fresh turkeys will still be available for Thanksgiving.

Moroni Feed Co. processes about 5 million turkeys a year. The turkeys are sold under the Norbest brand.

Emphasis mine.

But how can that beeeeeeee. After all - Governor Pawlenty and the rest of the corn ethanol evangelists assured us that this was not going to happen.

Governor Pawlenty (and the rest of the corn ethanol evangelists) ignored the warnings that people like Mr. Olson raised all summer long and now the chickens are coming home to roost (pun very much intended). So when does AAA get to say "I told you so"?

What A Huge Surpirse...

Two years ago, Governor Pawlenty announced an ambitious plan to force (via government fiat) the market toward more and more use of corn ethanol. At that time, AAA and I (among many others) wrote copius posts about why forcing market acceptance of corn ethanol (at the expense of other fuels including gasoline). However, the Star Tribune reports that the market bit back at Governor Pawlenty.

It was announced with fanfare -- Gov. Tim Pawlenty's plan in 2006 to make highly concentrated ethanol fuel available "everywhere" in Minnesota within a few years to reduce gasoline consumption.

But now, with gas prices a torrid issue for voters, the number of Minnesota service stations installing pumps for E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, is far off the pace needed to reach the goal set by Pawlenty.

In a recent interview, the governor tempered his longstanding enthusiasm for corn-based ethanol, a politically potent product in a farm state, but one also blamed for increases in the cost of food.

Tepid consumer demand and perceived roadblocks to wider access to the fuel have been cited as reasons why many station owners are reticent to install E85 pumps, despite the incentive of state subsidies. The shortcomings demonstrate the fragility of any bold predictions on energy.

The Governor forgot rule one of a market economy - supply and demand. The demand for E85 is just not there YET. Ethanol can not be burned for long in a regular gas engine. Many mechanics have reported fuel pump and fuel injector problems as a result of burning E85 in a regular gasoline engine and there simply are not that many E85 flex fuel vehicles on the road right now. Under the current economic situation flex fuel vehicles are simply unaffordable for the vast majority of the population. Plus there is the growing uncertainty as to whether E85 is going to be the "final" answer.

Most service-station owners remain uncertain about E85's prospects, said Lance Klatt, executive director of the Minnesota Service Station Association.

"They're waiting to see what ethanol really's going to do," he said. "Is it really the future, or is hydrogen the future? They don't want to invest a lot of money and time in something that may be a fad."

Either way, sales of E85 is not what the Governor expected.

There's no sure answer for the owners of T&M Express, which installed E85 pumps in 2007 at stations in Nevis and Park Rapids. E85 volume has increased from 1 percent to 2 percent of their sales.

"People just don't have the vehicles for it," said Nancy Lewis, who manages the stores for her parents.

Emphasis mine. People don't have the vehicles, not necessarily because the automobile manufacturers aren't making them (as our esteemed Junior Senator testified) but because they are too expensive for most drivers.

I know that this is a radical thought for some people, but how about we let the market decide what alternate fuels are going to work best for retailers and consumers? We are never going to experience "energy independence" until we make it affordable for everyone. However, forcing consumers to go into debt even further just so we can meet some government imposed "green standard" is the wrong way to go.

Unintended Consequences

I have made no secret of the fact that I am not a fan of ethanol mandates. Most of my objections come from the fact that it is the GOVERNMENT directing the direction and not the market. Well Logical Lady Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison had an editorial in the Wall Street Journal and IBD last week that looks at the unintended consequences of the government interference in the market.

When Congress passed legislation to greatly expand America's commitment to biofuels, it intended to create energy independence and protect the environment.
But the results have been quite different. America remains equally dependent on foreign sources of energy, and new evidence suggests that ethanol is causing great harm to the environment.
In recent weeks, the correlation between government biofuel mandates and rapidly rising food prices has become undeniable. At a time when the U.S. economy is facing recession, Congress needs to reform its "food-to-fuel" policies and look at alternatives to strengthen energy security.

Today's Wall Street Journal has an article today that looks at the "80 by 50" targets (80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050) that Senator's Clinton and Obama and a score of environmental groups are pushing.

We all ought to reflect on what an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 really means... Begin with the current inventory of carbon dioxide emissions – CO2 being the principal greenhouse gas generated almost entirely by energy use. According to the Department of Energy's most recent data on greenhouse gas emissions, in 2006 the U.S. emitted 5.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, or just under 20 tons per capita. An 80% reduction in these emissions from 1990 levels means that the U.S. cannot emit more than about one billion metric tons of CO2 in 2050.
Were man-made carbon dioxide emissions in this country ever that low? The answer is probably yes – from historical energy data it is possible to estimate that the U.S. last emitted one billion metric tons around 1910. But in 1910, the U.S. had 92 million people, and per capita income, in current dollars, was about $6,000.

What does this mean for the average American household? I'm glad you asked...

Consider the residential sector. At the present time, American households emit 1.2 billion tons of CO2 – 20% higher than the entire nation's emissions must be in 2050. If households are to emit no more than their present share of CO2, emissions will have to be reduced to 204 million tons by 2050. But in 2050, there will be another 40 million residential households in the U.S.
Today, the average residence in the U.S. uses about 10,500 kilowatt hours of electricity and emits 11.4 tons of CO2 per year (much more if you are Al Gore or
John Edwards and live in a mansion). To stay within the magic number, average
household emissions will have to fall to no more than 1.5 tons per year. In our current electricity infrastructure, this would mean using no more than about 2,500 KwH per year. This is not enough juice to run the average hot water heater.
You can forget refrigerators, microwaves, clothes dryers and flat screen TVs. Even a house tricked out with all the latest high-efficiency EnergyStar appliances and compact fluorescent lights won't come close....

The author then gets to the real point of the "80 by 50" movement.

The clear implication is that we shall have to replace virtually the entire fossil fuel electricity infrastructure over the next four decades with CO2-free sources – a multitrillion dollar proposition, if it can be done at all.
Natural gas – the preferred coal substitute of the moment – won't come close. If we replaced every single existing coal plant with a natural gas plant, CO2 emissions from electric power generation alone would still be more than twice the 2050 target. Most environmentalists remain opposed to nuclear power, of course. It is unlikely that renewables – wind, solar, and biomass – can ever make up more than about 20% of our electricity supply.
Suppose, however, that a breakthrough in carbon sequestration, a revival of nuclear power, and a significant improvement in the cost and effectiveness of renewables were to enable us to reduce the carbon footprint of electricity production. That would
still leave transportation.
Right now our cars and trucks consume about 180 billion gallons of motor fuel. To meet the 2050 target, we shall have to limit consumption of gasoline to about 31 billion gallons, unless a genuine carbon-neutral liquid fuel can be produced. (Ethanol isn't it.) To show how unrealistic this is, if the entire nation drove nothing but Toyota Priuses in 2050, we'd still overshoot the transportation emissions target by 40%.

Emphasis mine. What this means is that our country would have to go back to living back in a pre-Industrial Revolution economy. Are you ready to give up every convenience you have now in order to save Mother Earth? Because that is exactly what this movement will require from you.

The author then gets to the million dollar question...

... However, claims on behalf of alternative energy sources – biofuels, hydrogen, windpower and so forth – either do not match up to the scale of the energy required, or are not cost-competitive in current form.
How on God's green earth will we make up the difference? Someone should put this question to the candidates. And not let them slide past it with glittering generalities.

How indeed. These are questions that Governor Pawlenty, President Bush and the candidates from President all need to consider before they start mandating these drastic, draconian cuts in energy output.

Food For Fuel

AAA and I have long written about some of the problems with corn based ethanol. Over a YEAR ago, I wrote about the tortilla shortages in Mexico. The shortages have finally gotten so bad that the UN talking about stepping in. Yet our Governor insists on boosting our corn ethanol mandates! Well I hope all of the corn ethanol acolytes are happy seeing this.

For most Americans, the rising prices at the supermarket are definitely an annoyance, but hardly a threat to life and health. It's a different story in countries like Haiti, where food inflation has led to real hunger and, last week, to riots.
News reports say the poorest Haitians are trying to get by on cookies made with dirt, vegetable oil and salt. Food riots also have roiled Egypt and led to a general strike in Burkina Faso in West Africa. The high cost of corn, wheat, soybeans and other basics of the world's diet could soon start bringing down governments.

Emphasis mine.

I am all for finding alternative fuel sources. However, not at the cost of the poorest of the poor in the world. We need to quit burning food in our cars....it's that simple.

Paging Governor Pawlenty

That is all.....

Unintended Consequences part deux

Here is another example of what happens when you try to make policy off of feelings rather than fact.



"The biggest emissions-cutting projects under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have directly contributed to an increase in the production of gases that destroy the ozone layer, a senior U.N. official says.
In addition, evidence suggests that the same projects, in developing countries, have deliberately raised their emissions of greenhouse gases only to destroy these and therefore claim more carbon credits, said Stanford University's Michael Wara."



Curbing emissions is not the flaw....the flaw is allowing "carbon credits"...



"At the heart of the clash is a carbon trading scheme under Kyoto, worth $5 billion last year, whereby rich countries pay poorer ones to cut greenhouse gas emissions on their behalf, called the clean development mechanism (CDM)." (emphasis mine)



Carbon offsets is nothing but a scheme....a scheme designed to line the pockets of people like Al Gore who are invested in carbon offset trading companies. It really does nothing for the environment.



"CDM projects which destroy HFC 23 are especially lucrative because the gas is 12,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2), although its overall contribution to climate change is far less because CO2 is much more common.
As a result, destroying HFC 23 spawns far more money-spinning carbon credits than any other way of curbing greenhouse gas emissions."



All of this is being done in the name of curbing something that may or may not be factual. Rather than do more harm to the environment, we really need to find out first if global warming is man made and the what (if anything) can be done to curb it.

What is LESS green than gasoline?

Well, well, well....this IS an interesting turn of events. (HT AAA)



"It sounds counterintuitive, but burning oil and planting forests to compensate is more environmentally friendly than burning biofuel. So say scientists who have calculated the difference in net emissions between using land to produce biofuel and the alternative: fuelling cars with gasoline and replanting forests on the land instead.
They recommend governments steer away from biofuel and focus on reforestation and maximising the efficiency of fossil fuels instead.
The reason is that producing biofuel is not a "green process". It requires tractors and fertilisers and land, all of which means burning fossil fuels to make "green" fuel. In the case of bioethanol produced from corn – an alternative to oil – "it's essentially a zero-sums game," says Ghislaine Kieffer, programme manager for Latin America at the International Energy Agency in Paris, France."



Gee - I think at least one or two of us have been saying that for some time now.



I wonder if this will make any difference to those that are addicted to the "green" vote?



Governor Pawlenty...Senator Coleman....science calling for you on line 1!

Red Tides

Red tide and the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone (aka the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone) are conditions caused by toxic algal growth in the Gulf of Mexico. According to the Tulane University website (linked to above) these conditions are caused when "greater quantities of dissolved nutrients" are carried from the Mississippi River and the Atchafalaya Rivers into the Gulf of Mexico. What are these "dissolved nutrients"?

"The Mississippi River Basin covers forty-one percent of the continental United States, contains forty-seven percent of the nation’s rural population, and fifty-two percent of U.S. farms. The waste from this entire area drains into the Gulf of Mexico through the Mississippi River. Included in this agricultural waste are phosphorus and nitrogen, the primary nutrient responsible for algal blooms in the Dead Zone. Nitrogen and phosphorus were first used in fertilizers in the United States in the 1930s. Concentrations of nitrate and phosphate in the lower Mississippi have increased proportionately to levels of use of fertilizers by agriculture since the 1960s, when fertilizer use increased by over two million metric tons per year. Overall, nitrogen input to the Gulf from the Mississippi River Basin has increased between two and seven times over the past century."

The majority of the 41% of the Continental US that dumps into the Mississippi River basin is corn country. States like Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas and Nebraska - to name a few. For a while, these algal blooms only took place every 2-5 years. Now however, it is a yearly event. What has changed to cause this? Some say ethanol production...

"What has caused this sudden ecological catastrophe? The culprit is believed to be the sharp increase in ethanol production in the Midwest -- 19% more corn in 2007 than in 2006."

Now I don't know if I am ready to go this far. This problem HAS been building for 30 years. However, there is no doubt that if ethnol production goes up, the use of phosphates and nitrates in fertilizers will go up. If that goes up, the run-off will end up in the Mississippi River and eventually it will end up in the Gulf of Mexico causing the Dead Zone to grow and last longer. That is not what I would call "conserving" the environment.

Investing in America

A long, long time ago - when the Logical Husband and I were relative newlyweds, we had to roll over an 401(k) plan and a employee stock purchase plan. The Logical Husband had only been employed by his employer a little over a year when he was offered a better job, in the same industry, for a larger salary. Because there were only a years worth of contributions into the 401(k)/ESOP the roll over was not that big. Thankfully, for us, there was Chuck.

"Perhaps no one on the globe has come to symbolize the rise of the investor class in America in recent decades more than Charles Schwab.
When Mr. Schwab, or "Chuck," as nearly everyone calls him, opened his first brokerage office in 1971, the stock market was pretty much the exclusive sandbox of the richest 5-10% of Americans. Today, thanks in no small part to his company's financial market innovations, investing has been thoroughly "democratized," as he puts it, with more than half of working class adults now owners of stock.
Creating wealth is what Mr. Schwab has come to regard as his "life's pursuit." He's accomplished that not just for himself--his stake in the company is estimated at $4 billion--but also for the millions of small investors who first came to be owner-capitalists by opening a Schwab account. So who better to discuss the future of financial markets and investing than the man who revolutionized the brokerage business? "

The premise of business was simple.

"...He replies that the stock market today is "an open tent for anybody to come into." Ever the salesman, he adds: "For as little as a thousand dollars, you can open an account at Schwab. I mean, it's not a big barrier to entry."

With that first minimal roll-over, the Logical Husband and I became investors. At first we really didn't know what we were doing, but with a lot of patience and a couple of financial advisors who really wanted to teach us about the market (thanks PZ) we have learned and have managed to put a tidy sum into a college fund for the Junior Logician and a retirement fund. Today that is all in danger.

"Hillary proposed a simple idea to help end the cycle of dependence: put some of the oil industry's windfall profits into a fund that would help develop practical new sources of renewable energy."

Oh sure it sounds nice - take those "windfall profits" and put them into renewable energy, but where do you think those "windfall profits" normally go? They GO to the share holders. They go to toward growing YOUR 401(k) plan and mine. Those "windfall" and "excess" profits are your retirement fund.

Senator Clinton will tell you that she is doing this to reduce the price of gasoline, however, if she really wanted to do that, she would help make it easier for oil companies to build refineries. That way the next time that a hurricane or a flood comes around, the price would not jump thirty cents a gallon becaue of a shortage in supply.

Not so settled science

For something that is supposedly settled science there sure are a lot of important scientists that are coming out against global warming.

"NASA administrator Michael Griffin is drawing the ire of his agency's preeminent climate scientists after apparently downplaying the need to combat global warming.
In an interview broadcast this morning on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" program, Griffin was asked by NPR's Steve Inskeep whether he is concerned about global warming."I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."
"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

There is not a whole lot to add there. Other than maybe the comment (again) that global warming is something that needs a whole lot more study before we go making any more drastic changes.

But it makes me feel good....

The same folks that are pushing for more ethanol production and $4.00 a gallon gas are at it again. The same folks who are spouting the "reality" of man-made global warming are now decrying President Bush's agreement with Brazil for sugar cane based ethanol. Their reason.....rainforest depletion. However, as this IBD column points out, that is not a "reality" either.

"Instead, we hear how sugar production for ethanol is trashing the otherwise forgotten rain forest and now adds to global warming. The United Nations stepped right up with this new warning. Others are blaming ethanol for everything from poverty to floods.
The argument doesn't even get the facts right. For one, Brazil is not growing sugar for ethanol production on rain forest land but in the southern grasslands, making environmentalists' renewed interest in cuddly rain forest creatures irrelevant.
And on the grasslands, ethanol production has barely started. Brazil's entire agricultural production is done on only 8% of the nation's arable land. Clearly there is room to expand.
Environmentalists, however, are trying to sell Brazil as one big rain forest in need of 'saving' instead of a diverse, rapidly industrializing country whose development is critical to conservation."

WAIT A MINUTE!!!!!! What happened to the "concensus" that man made global warming had to be stopped AT ALL COSTS????? What happened to doing something "now"? Well if you look at the Democrats running for President, you would swear that there was an unlimited supply of oil and no need to reduce carbon emissions. Robert F. Kennedy and Al Gore, both very vocal advocates of everyone else cutting back both fly private jets to all of their global warming speaking arrangements! They live in mansions that use more electricity in one day, than my humble abode uses in a year. Yet we peons are supposed to only use compact fluoroscent lights (regardless of the fact that they are considered hazardous waste if broken) and drive hybrids and do without air conditioning and electric appliances....all so some can feel good about "doing something now". People in Mexico are starving because corn prices have shot through the roof - so Democrats (and some squishy Republicans) can feel good about "doing something".

It has never been about the environment...it has always been about dictating a specific lifestyle on everyone else. Which is a hallmark of socialism and that is NOT what a free society is about.

Worse than petroleum

Well, well, well.....I really hate to be a broken record and say I told you so, but.......

"Switching from gasoline to ethanol — touted as a green alternative at the pump — may create dirtier air, causing slightly more smog-related deaths, a new study says.
Nearly 200 more people would die yearly from respiratory problems if all vehicles in the United States ran on a mostly ethanol fuel blend by 2020, the research concludes. Of course, the study author acknowledges that such a quick and monumental shift to plant-based fuels is next to impossible.
Each year, about 4,700 people, according to the study's author, die from respiratory problems from ozone, the unseen component of smog along with small particles. Ethanol would raise ozone levels, particularly in certain regions of the country, including the Northeast and Los Angeles."

Ethanol.....the green solution to our dependence on foreign oil, the green solution to our global warming problem ACTUALLY MAKES THINGS WORSE!!!!!

"It's not green in terms of air pollution," said study author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University civil and environmental engineering professor. "If you want to use ethanol, fine, but don't do it based on health grounds. It's no better than gasoline, apparently slightly worse." (emphasis mine)

Sigh.......can we NOW get off of the corn based ethanol train Governor Pawlenty? Senator Coleman? ANYONE??????

The full study can be found here if you are interested in reading all of the technical details.

H/T the Logical Husband

The Ethanol Lies are coming 'round to bite its supporters

Now some may think that this is beating a dead horse, however as long as the ethanol mandates are in place, it's not.

"The enormous volume of corn required by the ethanol industry is sending shock waves through the food system. (The United States accounts for some 40 percent of the world's total corn production and over half of all corn exports.) In March 2007, corn futures rose to over $4.38 a bushel, the highest level in ten years. Wheat and rice prices have also surged to decade highs, because even as those grains are increasingly being used as substitutes for corn, farmers are planting more acres with corn and fewer acres with other crops.
This might sound like nirvana to corn producers, but it is hardly that for consumers, especially in poor developing countries, who will be hit with a double shock if both food prices and oil prices stay high. The World Bank has estimated that in 2001, 2.7 billion people in the world were living on the equivalent of less than $2 a day; to them, even marginal increases in the cost of staple grains could be devastating. filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn -- which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year. By putting pressure on global supplies of edible crops, the surge in ethanol production will translate into higher prices for both processed and staple foods around the world. Biofuels have tied oil and food prices together in ways that could profoundly upset the relationships between food producers, consumers, and nations in the years ahead, with potentially devastating implications for both global poverty and food security."

WCCO ran a story last night that talked about how the cost of corn is causing the cost of staples such as eggs to go up (30% so far according to the televised report). Back in February, I posted about how the cost of corn (for tortillas) has gone up a resounding 400% in Mexico.

Then Kevin over at Eckernet found a story that blows up all the reasons why ethanol is supposedly better than gasoline.

"Scientists at Environment Canada studied four vehicles of recent makes, testing their emissions in a range for driving conditions and temperatures.
"Looking at tailpipe emissions, from a greenhouse gas perspective, there really isn't much difference between ethanol and gasoline," said Greg Rideout, head of Environment Canada's toxic emissions research. (emphasis mine)

Oh snap - that's gonna leave a mark.

I think I will email this to Governor Pawlenty and to Senator Coleman. Maybe this will get them off of the ethanol train finally.