Corn prices too high? EPA says too bad.
Posted on August 7th, 2008 by bile Tags: energy yield, Environmental Protection Agency, ethanol, food, food producers, gas, Rick Perry, Stephen Johnson, Texas, United StatesThe Environmental Protection Agency today denied Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s request to reduce federal ethanol requirements this year.
The decision dealt a blow to Perry and a broad consortium of industry groups that claim rising U.S. ethanol output is inflating corn prices, hurting livestock and food producers and boosting grocery bills.
But in a noon conference call, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said the federal Renewable Fuel Standard that sets the ethanol requirement isn’t causing “severe economic harm,” which would be required to justify a waiver, and is improving national security and benefiting farmers.
In a statement, Perry said he was “greatly disappointed with the EPA’s inability to look past the good intentions of this policy to see the significant harm it is doing to farmers, ranchers and American households.”
“For the EPA to assert that this federal mandate is not affecting food prices not only goes against common sense, but every American’s grocery bill,” he said.
- National security claim: bullshit
- Helping farmer claim: obviously true, the government is subsidizing the manufacturing of the ethanol and forcing gas companies to include it into their fuel.
- Helping the environment claim: From Wikipedia “Combustion of ethanol in an internal combustion engine yields many of the products of incomplete combustion that are produced by gasoline and significantly larger amounts of formaldehyde and related species such as formalin, acetaldehyde, etc..[40] This leads to a significantly larger photochemical reactivity that generates much more ground level ozone.[41]” At an 34% energy yield it’s far less efficient too when compared to sugar cane ethanol with an 800% yield.
2 Responses to “Corn prices too high? EPA says too bad.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Careful with that last statistic as I’m pretty sure they’re talking about burning pure ethanol. Most ethanol is used as an additive, in which case it actually reduces ground level ozone. You might want to check into E85 though, that ratio may cause more ground level ozone. I’m thinking about the 10% ethanol mixture most of us use now.
Also, don’t forget to take into account the horribly inefficient way corn is distilled. You’ve got to separate the germ, convert starches to sugars with enzymes, and keep a decent amount of heat on it. Currently the process is really only worth it if you really like the taste. If I had to back a fuel for an ICE, it would be cellulosic ethanol with the provision that genetic engineering of microbes will advance significantly in the following years. Despite this, in the future I’d prefer not to use an ICE.
Oh also, why do you think the national security claim is bullshit? I’m no mathemagician, but wouldn’t making us less dependent on foreign oil (or anything for that matter) give other nations less leverage to use against us?
August 7th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Burning pure ethanol is something a section of the alt fuel crowd wants. Even as an additive I’ve read that ozone smog in LA has gotten worse as a result of certain percentages of ethanol used. Perhaps that’s been resolved but for a time mayors were asking the EPA to allow them to have the ethanol mix cut back during the summer.
As I pointed out briefly in the last sentence.
National security:
Problem 1: your assumption that “energy independence” = national security. History and economic theory shows that isolationist policies lead to less safety. Free trade promotes division of labor, increases efficient use of resources and as a result leads to a natural interdependence. Aggression in that scenario is more expensive then trade is therefore individuals become incentivized not to do so.
Problem 2: your assumption that the government is actually concerned with national security. Noting 1 the government is doing all it can to isolate itself. Invading countries, threatening to invade countries, threatening blockades of countries, supporting dictators, having troops stationed all around the world and ’spreading democracy’, refusing to allow an open market in energy production; nuke regulations, ethanol subsidies which have lead to food price inflation which is pissing off Indians, Chinese, Mexicans, etc. Debasement of the currency destroying the middle class and causing people to consume rather then accumulate capital.
If national security was a real goal there are obvious ways to go about it. They don’t. They move toward tyranny and conflict.