Wisconsin Senate Bill SB18 Requires Ethanol in Gasoline Statewide
Except for a few instances such as aviation fuel, recreational vehicles and high octane gas (among others) all gasoline sold in Wisconsin will have to have between 9.2 and 10% ethanol according to SB18, which is currently in the committee of natural resources and transportation.
Ethanol, once reported to be the great environmental fuel, maybe isn’t so great after all. Even the Sierra Club and the Madison Audubon Society have come out against ethanol as an environmentally friendly fuel. There is plenty of debate about whether or not there is a net gain of energy from ethanol production, as well as about the amount of and kinds of air-borne contaminants its production puts into our air. Go here for a number of links to articles on ethanol production.
My question is this: if ethanol really gives yields of up to a 34% positive energy gain, then why does the industry need to be so heavily subsidized by Wisconsin and the Feds?? Maybe because ethanol is not a 1:1 substitute for gasoline; it’s an inferior fuel. It must be or market forces would push ethanol production through the roof, subsidies or not.
But alas, that’s not going to happen, so Gov. Doyle has two million dollars of ethanol subsidies in his proposed budget, the joint finance committee added another 2 million to that, and the Federal Government paid out approximately 7 billion dollars in subsidies between 1979 and 1997 (I couldn’t find current subsidies by the Feds, but there is no reason to believe they have been reduced). This article by the Heritage Foundation spells out many of the arguments against ethanol.
Ethanol production basically takes one form of fuel energy (petroleum) and converts it into another (ethanol). Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, one must assume that 100% of the net gain in ethanol production must come from the sun, which is free energy to all. I find this dubious at best, and wonder if there really is a net gain.
Regardless though, if we are really concerned about the environment with all this wouldn’t it be better to just pay the farmers to not grow ethanol destined corn and save all the petroleum energy that is required to: plant, fertilize, sanitize (weed and pest control), harvest, ship, process into ethanol and then ship again to the gas station?
Think of all the acres we could plant back into trees which require no additional inputs, improve the soil and ground water, can be harvested sustainably, and provide homes for all our furry & feathered friends. A corn field can’t do any of that…
Ethanol, once reported to be the great environmental fuel, maybe isn’t so great after all. Even the Sierra Club and the Madison Audubon Society have come out against ethanol as an environmentally friendly fuel. There is plenty of debate about whether or not there is a net gain of energy from ethanol production, as well as about the amount of and kinds of air-borne contaminants its production puts into our air. Go here for a number of links to articles on ethanol production.
My question is this: if ethanol really gives yields of up to a 34% positive energy gain, then why does the industry need to be so heavily subsidized by Wisconsin and the Feds?? Maybe because ethanol is not a 1:1 substitute for gasoline; it’s an inferior fuel. It must be or market forces would push ethanol production through the roof, subsidies or not.
But alas, that’s not going to happen, so Gov. Doyle has two million dollars of ethanol subsidies in his proposed budget, the joint finance committee added another 2 million to that, and the Federal Government paid out approximately 7 billion dollars in subsidies between 1979 and 1997 (I couldn’t find current subsidies by the Feds, but there is no reason to believe they have been reduced). This article by the Heritage Foundation spells out many of the arguments against ethanol.
Ethanol production basically takes one form of fuel energy (petroleum) and converts it into another (ethanol). Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, one must assume that 100% of the net gain in ethanol production must come from the sun, which is free energy to all. I find this dubious at best, and wonder if there really is a net gain.
Regardless though, if we are really concerned about the environment with all this wouldn’t it be better to just pay the farmers to not grow ethanol destined corn and save all the petroleum energy that is required to: plant, fertilize, sanitize (weed and pest control), harvest, ship, process into ethanol and then ship again to the gas station?
Think of all the acres we could plant back into trees which require no additional inputs, improve the soil and ground water, can be harvested sustainably, and provide homes for all our furry & feathered friends. A corn field can’t do any of that…
Besides, proponents of ethanol like to call it a “sustainable” energy source. I ask you: How can it be sustainable if it relies on petroleum to produce it?
posted by Paul | 10:20 AM
1 Comments:
Also studies show that fuel efficiency decreases about 3 percent with ethanol. That could cut Wisconsin fuel efficiency by more than 1.5 billion miles a year.
Besides that Milwaukee GM service managers are reporting fuel injector foulding with ethanol, but that may be a GM only problem.
Post a Comment |
<< Home