From the New York Times:
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is asking the Environmental Protection Agency to temporarily waive regulations requiring the oil industry to blend ever-increasing amounts of ethanol into gasoline. A decision is expected in the next few weeks. […]
His request for an emergency waiver cutting the ethanol mandate to 4.5 billion gallons, from the 9 billion gallons required this year and the 10.5 billion required in 2009, is backed by a coalition of food, livestock and environmental groups.
Farmers and ethanol and other biofuel producers are lobbying to keep the existing mandates.
And from Reuters:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Tuesday it will not meet a July 24 deadline for ruling on Texas’ request that the government reduce the federal mandate on how much ethanol must be blended into gasoline this year.
“Rather, additional time is needed to allow staff to adequately respond to the public comments and develop a decision document that explains the technical, economic and legal rationale of our decision,” said EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, who added he now expects a final decision on the Texas waiver request in early August.
Congressional candidates Colleen Callahan (D) and Aaron Schock (R) oppose cutting ethanol production or subsidies. Candidate Sheldon Schafer (Green Party) has a different view. The Journal Star quoted the candidates in June:
“Ending the federal incentives for corn growers would completely destroy an emerging industry that has repositioned itself to meet the world’s growing demand for renewable alterative energy sources,” said Democratic candidate Colleen Callahan. “That’s just a slap in the face to Middle America and particularly the farmers in Illinois and other corn-growing states.”
[…] Steve Shearer, Schock’s campaign manager, said he believes ethanol and bio-fuels are one vital component of increased energy independence.
[…] Green Party 18th candidate Sheldon Schafer argues corn-based ethanol isn’t as efficient as cellulose-based and switchgrass-based ethanol, the latter from a fast-growing variety of prairie grass, which he said have higher energy yields. “We should be looking at the highest efficiencies. Corn-based isn’t giving us those efficiencies,” Schafer said.
While the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) blames corn-based ethanol for rising food prices, others dispute this claim. GMA hired a PR firm to change public perception of ethanol by linking ethanol production to higher food prices. But experts, such as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer, say those claims are overstated:
About six weeks ago, US Department of Agriculture researchers analyzed the problem and reported that rising energy costs, decreased crop production around the world because of bad weather and increased worldwide consumption were among the factors contributing to higher food costs.
“That analysis found that ethanol and the increased use worldwide of other biofuels were both contributing factors but not major ones,” Mr Schafer said.
“The USDA shared its report with Congress and invited board members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association — which has been critical of ethanol’s impact on food prices — to discuss the findings. He said those invitations were declined.
“The grocers are targeting ethanol because they think they can change ethanol policy more easily than larger energy policy.
Whether or not ethanol leads to higher food prices, the bigger question is whether ethanol is a sufficient strategy for energy independence. That’s still up for debate.
How about a totally different take – the US can reduce it’s consumption of High Fructose Corn Syrup? HFCS is in just about every freakin’ thing you can think of that isn’t in the produce aisle. And studies indicate that it is what makes us all fat and/or diabetic. Actual sugar is not as fattening as processed HFCS, but it’s more expensive, so food manufacturers of course use it. You need less of it to provide the same amount of sweetness.
The wikipedia pages addresses some of this controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup
If we consumed/used less HFCS that could free up some corn for other nations and/or ethanol and/or cattle feed, I suppose.
It’s more complicated that this, of course – but it’s kind of a win-win. Farmers can keep growing what they’re growing, more of it will be available for ethanol or food, and we might all be less fat and diabetic. No one loses!
you need less HFCS to provide more sweetness, that is
Regarldess of the primary product produced from corn, whether it be ethanol or corn syrup, animal feed is produced as a by-product. There is no shortage of animal feed, unless farmers prefer unprocessed corn to feed their cattle and hogs (which is true in some cases).
Well at this point we are driving a 1994 Ford 4 wheel drive pick up and we have installed one of those water4gas systems on it and its working. We are getting great mileage on the truck. It runs smoother, quieter and has better pickup than ever before. So only time will tell if it works all the time and is good for the truck and our pocket book.
SD – how much did you pay for the water4gas system? I have a 1996 Ford Windstar and would love to try it. I was kinda figuring those kits were a scam of some kind, since they’re popping up all over the nets.
here is a link to information on corn and how much is directed towrds food for humans vs feed for animal operations.
http://www.ncga.com/news/OurView/pdf/2006/FoodANDFuel.pdf
A sure way to avoid High fructose corn syrup is to choose the organic alternatives that are becoming more prevalent every day in the supermarket.
Cost $97 for the book with all the blue prints and about $38 for the parts. I can check with Charlie and get the exact cost. But it is working and I was very skeptical at first too. We have to figure out how to put in on the Caddy since that has no spare room in the engine compartment. So we are considering putting it in the trunk and running conduit to the engine. Same with the little Mercury we have. There are a lot of scams out there and some of the prices are ridiculous. But for less than $150 we figured it was a good deal to try it. After we run a couple of tanks full of gas through it we will see how it really pays off.
Ethanol was never a solution to anything but filling bank accounts in Decatur.
lol… water4gas….
Back in the 70s, unscrupulous gas stations would mix water into their gas lines in order rip people off. Then there was the damage to the engine. The damage usually wasn’t immediate but it did shorten the life of the engine significantly.
Last Fall I took the Kids to the Farm Bureau breakfast. While there, we struck up a conversation with a farmer who told us that corn and ethanol were NOT the solution to our energy problems. I figured if a Farmer himself was telling us that it must be true.
Mahkno sez: “Back in the 70s, unscrupulous gas stations would mix water into their gas lines”
I sez: I think this is BS. Please cite a reliable source.
How would you mix the two? Gasoline (a petroleum product made from crude OIL) ‘floats’ on water. Any water added to a gasoline storage tank immediately falls to the bottom.
Yes, you can get condensation in your tank and water in the lines, but I do not believe your story.
Ethanol is not a very good long-term solution to high gas prices. It requires too much energy to produce and uses a lot of corn for a relatively small yield. It will, over time, raise food prices some, but will also lead farmers to practice poor farming practices in pursuit of the profits of planting corn year after year.
It is, however, a reasonably good stop-gap measure.
It is too bad that conservation hasn’t been brought up more often. Living sustainably requires less consumption, no matter what resource is in question.
anon e. mouse. Google water 4gas and read it yourself. We are not mixing water and gas. We are taking the hydrogen out of water and adding it to the manifold and causing the gas to burn better and save on how much gas we use. It just simply makes gasoline burn more efficiently.
“How about a totally different take – the US can reduce it’s consumption of High Fructose Corn Syrup?”
Unfortunately because of some “Free Trade” agreements, sugar cane and sugar beets are have been limited to how much U.S. growers can produce. Both of these alternatives are much better on the human body than corn syrup.
Also, IF ethanol is the answer, and “Free Trade” is so good for America, then someone please answer why imported ethanol has one of the highest tariffs of any imports? Especially ask out Congressional candidates, I bet you’ll see a funny dance.
If America’s goal truly is to increase ethanol consumption the high tariffs on Brazilian ethanol would have been eliminated. Ethanol from Brazilian sugar cane is produced much more efficiently than ethanol distilled from corn.
Until we drop those tariffs our ethanol program will continue to serve primarily as a handout to large agribusiness and corporate farming interests. Even without the tariffs growing world demand for food should sustain corn prices at a profitable level for farmers.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070823/AUTO01/708230405/1148
The one thing we can do is to continue to support the ethanol industry. To cut the mandates would be to go against the main premise.””lessening our dependency on foreign oil imports.” We need to continue and move forward with as much ethanol as we can possibly use. We subsidize everything else in the country and around the world..not supporting the industry just takes us back 10 years…We are making so much headway, why change now……ethanol is grown in our own backyards….not in some foreign bound country…sending Americans to keep waterways open for oil to flow through. Mandates are for the “good of the country” and mandates will help keep our boys and girls out of harms way….for more on this subject go to http://www.fieldstofuel.org. Cheers, Jeff Zeiger, Executive Director of the Alternative Fuels Institute.