I generally dislike government subsidies for most any business but farm subsidies are different. But I still struggle with it.
The US has loads of farm-able land. We export loads of foodstuffs to the rest of the world and with technology, we are very efficient at it. Subsidies support the profitability of our farmers.
Strategically, in the event of a conflict, especially a global one, we’d need to feed ourselves first and our allies second. Feeding ourselves and our friends allows the US to weather that storm. Blocking food shipments to our enemies allows us leverage to get them to put down their arms. Ethanol subsidies helps create a farm-to-fuel infrastructure that provides us with a liquid renewable fuel source in case of attack or embargo. Less an issue now with coal sands production but still valid.
Look to history to explain some of the fuel situation issues. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor to cripple the US so they could capture south pacific oil fields with little resistance. Japan’s oil reserves greatly affected their ability to continue that attack when the US was able and willing to respond.
Preserving that land with farm subsidies and not sell to developers helps keep that land available in case we need it.
No law, @db4690 but car makers are (or were, not sure if they still do) granted some serious CAFE improvement by offering E85, or flex fuel vehicles. The CAFE allowance was based on E85, which few use, not E10. There are about 18 million or so flex fuel vehicles on the road in the US. Considering how much oil we are producing now, an embargo from the Middle East or South America would have limited effect. Maybe even enough to be covered by using E15 or E20 in a pinch. Many cars could tolerate that for a while.
The military, however, do have mandates to use a lot more renewables making a better business model for ethanol. Not as good a case as bio-diesel, in my opinion, considering how much of the military relies on diesel fuel.
Lots of disaster relief subsidizes people who don’t mitigate. Albuquerque has an extensive drainage system and an independent flood control authority that prevents flooding. We pay for it with a separate tax as well as holding land out of development as catchment basins and flood channels. But we also pay federal tax to pay for the flooding of places that don’t do the same, including paying people more to re-build than merely buying them out and leaving the land undeveloped. The same is happening for fires: people building near forests and not making their perimeter defensible. I’m for dealing with disasters only if we get the disastered to mitigate future damage at least to the cost of repairing afterwards.
Profitable businesses don’t need subsidies.
Does corn ethanol do this? What’s the yield: how much energy does it take to produce a joule output?
Thermal depolymerization turns any organic matter (organic in the chemical sense: plastics as well as wood, paper, yard waste…) into diesel fuel. It also works on sewage. http://www.changingworldtech.com/ is doing this. I imagine a plant on the edge of town that separates all the metals and glass from the waste stream, mixes it with the sewage, turns the whole mess into diesel and somewhat-clean water: no more land fill. It recovers the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium for fertilizer too.
Controlled [and planning] economy against marketing economics and proved it did not work since before WWII. Ethanol and non ethanol fuel should be free in competition in the market. I dont know much about legislation requiring these fuels. I agree E fuel is not best quality for engines.
Will you explain more and if it is a potential major problem then what are your suggestions for a solution?
Apathy seems to be the greatest political force in this country and second to apathy is agenda driven news. “We don’t know and we don’t care” when it comes to so many issues that affect the vast majority of US. And I don’t see a solution to that situation.
I know I’m late to the party here - was out of town.
Here’s the thing - no one gives a flying hoot about racing fuels except the racing teams. You could fuel your race car with Count Chocula-dyed milk for all we care.
We’re driving street cars. We do not look at race cars and say “Oho! That’s got ethanol in it! And so does my street car! My street car must be as fast as a race car!”
If ethanol is advantageous to race car drivers, that’s great. Nitromethane is also advantageous to race car drivers, but you don’t see the government forcing us to dump ever-increasing amounts of that fun-brew into our tanks. Probably because the gas industry already has plenty of outlets to sell propane (and propane accessories?) and doesn’t need to foist it on us in cars.
No one has a problem with fueling a race car with ethanol. But we do have a problem with being forced to dump gallons of ethanol in the tank of a car that wasn’t designed to run it. That E15 is going to unnecessarily degrade the fuel system in my 1993 MR2, and my 1991 CRX, and my 1988 Mitsubishi truck, and the 1996 Avalon that we bought for our niece. And it’s going to gob up the carburetor in my Honda mower and my Noma snowblower. It’s going to cost me time, money, and hassle, all so some corn farmer can sell his corn overage instead of, like, growing something else which would not only give him something to sell to people who actually want to buy it, but would also be better soil management than planting corn in the same field for 30 years straight.
This thread made me go an find CRC research on the topic of E15/E20 impact on the cars not designed for that, and it is much more involved than “are your fuel line elements and valves good enough to resist exstra ethanol?” test.
#1 thing I learned is that SOME (not all) fuel pumps demonstrated early failure on E15/E20 when compared to E0 and E10 they were designed to tolerate - no surprises here, can be countered by “bad species gonna die out, good genes will prevai” mantra, although consumers will have to pay $$$ for this “evolution experiment”
#2 some test vehicles demonstrated valves and valve seats pitting - same here
#3 wide fleet assessment demonstrated that E10 is showing a detectable bias on air/fuel ratio sensors accuracy, resulting in engine getting out of intended operating ranges, leading to lean condition reported as normal in some cases, or normal conditions reported as rich… it has direct effect on engine and catalyst longevity as one can imagine
they drew conclusion that on E15/E20 this bias will be even higher, just a predictable chemistry thing
based on that, I think manufacturers are telling “not to exceed 10%” for some good technology reason, which makes me not to trust politicians/appointees telling “hey, come on, it is only 5% more, it has to work just fine”
Agree with your research. Ethanol is a darn good solvent. Even fuel lines and seals designed for lower concentrations (5-10%) can have problems with 20 or 30 over time. E85 flex fuel cars were tested with E85 for long periods so manufacturers can deal with it. Their experience in Brazil (E100) confirms that. But it doesn’t mean you non-flex-fuel 1999 Corolla won’t have issue with E20 over the long haul.
Great perspective. I will include some of your sentiments. The racer I met with and spoke to is not a NASCAR type racer. His cars begin as production Mazda and Porsche vehicles with engines that are identical to the ones in street cars. He modifies them from there and had some interesting data about reliability. I share the concern about power equipment. Before this post I wasn’t aware of the strong anti-corn-farmer feelings. I plan to include those too.
To be clear, it isn’t an anti-farmer sentiment. It’s an anti needless welfare to farmers sentiment. I’m all for government assistance to people in need, but please, take my tax dollars and use them to feed and shelter the poor.
Don’t take my tax dollars and use them to fund legislative sessions in which you mandate that I buy engine poison for my car derived from government-subsidized crops to enrich midwestern farmers who are not actually in need of welfare.
Even if some farmers are in need of government assistance (most aren’t; stop individually buying millions of dollars worth of short-term-use equipment like combines and start forming coops to own them jointly and you won’t be in such financial strife), I’d much rather the government just give them the money rather than “pay” them to grow a crop we don’t need and then mandate that I pay them a second time to turn that unneeded crop into bad whiskey and further mandate that I pour it in the fuel tank of a car that was never designed to be gassed up with moonshine.