Ethanol is a canonical government program. Concentrated benefits, diffuse costs. Leading to eager advocates and unmotivated opponents.
Steve, to respond directly to your point:
From Business Week article "Ethanol: A Tragedy in 3 Acts"
Just a few months later, Brazil -- which had worked toward energy independence since the mid-'70s oil crisis and had already mandated that the percentage of ethanol in its fuel be raised to 24% -- was forced to import ethanol refined by the Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM) when the nation's sugar-cane crop suffered a devastating drought. Brazil understood that a year of poor crops was just as damaging to its national fuel supply as Iran taking its oil off-market would be to the rest of the world.
Benefits are concentrated in the Midwest farming area, particularly Iowa. US automakers use the fiction of E85 fuel to inflate their MPG numbers for CAFE reasons: only the 15% real gasoline is counted in the fuel estimates leading to the bizarre result that massive SUVs get 33 MPG credits. (See the July Car & Driver article)
Costs are diffuse, every gasoline consumer in the country, well actually just some states include ethanol in gasoline. In addition, everyone living in areas with smog are also losers as ethanol increases smog with increased VOC emissions.
(ibid)
...The ensuing lawsuit was argued before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on February 16, 1995.
The EPA took the position that it had been given a mandate to find ways to conserve the nation's fossil-fuel reserves, so it needed a renewable fuel -- and ethanol neatly fit that bill. But there were problems with that argument, not least of which was the fact that the judges could find no charter or mandate from Congress that gave the EPA the statutory right to do anything about fossil fuel, reserves or otherwise.
Even more damaging, the EPA's own attorney admitted to the judges that because of its higher volatility, putting ethanol into the nation's fuel supply would likely increase smog where it was used. One of the judges, on hearing that the EPA was actively promoting a substance that could in fact diminish air quality, wondered aloud, "Is the EPA in outer space?"
My own measurements with 10% ethanol vs. pure gasoline has shown around a 10% reduction in MPG. Three percent of this is explained by the reduced heating content of ethanol. The remainder is explained by the closed loop control of air fuel mixture in automobiles adding fuel to get to a desired oxygen level just prior to the catalytic converter. Certainly the control system could be enhanced to also check the oxygen content post-converter but it would take quite a while to change out the existing cars.
With this real world measurement it is impossible for ethanol to show any benefits in an energy balance equation, it provides 0 effective energy in the cars where it is used.
businessweek.com |
