The corn ethanol scam is baaaaa-ack . . . and if you are driving an older-model car, van, or light truck, you should prepare for the worst. An ethanol lobbying group, Growth Energy, has petitioned the EPA to raise the ethanol content of gasoline to 15 per cent, and the EPA has decided to take public input on the issue.

The EPA comment period for public input ends on May 21, so if you want to have a say in the matter, the time is now. Follow this link to the EPA Docket. Click on the “Add Comments” link for the Public Comment and Submissions Form. You don’t have to be a representative of an agency or organization to comment.

This information is from the Wall Street Journal’s April 17 issue:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has opened the door to allowing higher mixes of ethanol in gasoline, a potential boon to farmers and the struggling ethanol industry, but opposed by auto makers whose consumer warranties typically are tied to the current EPA standard.

The agency Thursday said it is seeking comment on whether to allow ordinary gasoline to consist of as much as 15% ethanol, an additive that has been heavily promoted by farm states … The EPA’s move came in response to a petition filed last month by the trade group Growth Energy to allow motor fuel ethanol blends of as much as 15%, citing an Energy Department study that found “no operability or driveability issues” with blends as high as 20% ethanol.

Most car warranties, however, have followed the 10% standard, which means consumers who use blends with greater than 10% ethanol could get stuck paying the bills if there’s damage to fuel lines or other components unless auto makers agree to shoulder the costs.

Auto makers offer so-called flex-fuel vehicles designed to accept up to 85% ethanol fuels. But many current and older model cars aren’t designed for ethanol concentrations above 10% … Earlier this year Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. recalled 214,500 Lexus vehicles sold in the U.S. that were vulnerable to corrosion problems in their fuel-delivery pipes when some ethanol fuels were used.

See EPA Considers Higher Ethanol Mix. Growth Energy obviously is well-funded; it has hired former General-turned-influence-peddler Wes Clark to lobby for the increase in the proportion of corn ethanol in motor fuel and has armed him with carefully-worded “studies” produced in corn-growing states which paint a rosy picture of corn ethanol’s future while ignoring its adverse impacts in the here and now.

As usual in Boondoggle World, the agencies of Federal Government are at the base of the problem. The Growth Energy petition to EPA claims that without the increase, the U.S. won’t be able to meet a congressional mandate requiring some 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into the domestic fuel supply by 2022. See Industry Seeks To Raise Ethanol Levels In Fuel. An unfunded mandate, as usual, because the cost of this will fall on the shoulders of American citizens, many of whom will have to repair or replace otherwise serviceable vehicles which are damaged or impaired by corn ethanol.

Another corn-industry lobby, the National Corn Growers Association, claims that corn farmers, facing difficult times, need all the demand outlets available to them. In other words, a bailout. According to a report published by Reuters, the group advocates “higher blend rates based on sound science.” In case you’re not familiar with interest-group doublespeak, “sound science” means “results we paid for, scientific or not.”

The claim that corn ethanol presents no operability or driveability issues is nonsense. Presently, most of us are required to purchase motor fuel that is 90% gasoline, 10% corn ethanol. The Growth Energy lobby wants to raise that to 15% corn ethanol. There are problems with corn ethanol — it is at best fuel-inefficient, raising the cost of fuel needlessly, and at worst will damage your vehicle.

Because my wife and I live in the middle of nowhere, we were at the bottom of the list for having the 90% gasoline 10% corn ethanol brew at our local filling stations. This mandate did eventually find us, however, and because I keep records of car mileage and fuel purchases, I saw that the gas-ethanol mix does reduce fuel mileage.

For my sedan, the mileage is down from 31 mpg to 30 mpg, about 3 per cent. For the CRV, it looks like a 5% to 7%. The sedan has a high-compression engine that requires high-octane fuel — that makes a difference.

So let’s calculate. The btu output-to-input ratio of corn ethanol is about 1.3 to 1, meaning that it takes 7.7 gallons of petroleum fuel to produce 10 gallons of ethanol. The 90-10 brew is thus equivalent to 97.7 gallons of petrofuel. If I simply used the 97.7 gallons of petrofuel, my sedan would run for 97.7 x 31 = 3028.7 miles. The 90-10 brew yields 30 x 100 = 3000 miles. That’s less!

Driving is usually goal-oriented. Teenagers may drive around until the tank is empty, but most adults drive for specific purposes — to get to work, to go to the store, and so on. The number of miles the average driver rolls each year is fairly predictable.

Let’s use the sedan again — about 1,200 miles per month, 14,400 per year. To go 14,400 miles at 30 mpg requires 480 gallons of 90-10 gas-ethanol brew. That’s equivalent to just over 468 gallons of petrofuel. To go the same 14,400 miles at 31 mpg on petrofuel requires slightly more than 464 gallons

Looks like I’m saving the environment at the rate of using an additional 4 gallons of high-test per annum. And in the process, causing hunger in third-world countries because of increased grain prices.

BUT IT GETS WORSE. Corn ethanol is corrosive, and damages vehicle components. After I published an earlier article on this subject, I heard from numerous correspondents who had experienced problems using 90-10 corn ethanol. Such things as fuel sensors, fuel gauges, and fuel line components tend to suffer. Note the 214,000 vehicle recall by Toyota due to fuel line corrosion.

Some correspondents reported more drastic drops in fuel mileage efficiency, in the range of 1o to 20 per cent, and there are studies consistent with these reports. One of the problems is that corn ethanol is a high-octane fuel. The popular conception of high octane being a more potent fuel is incorrect; octane is a measure of resistance to ignition. High-compression engines require higher octane to prevent the premature ignition of the fuel-air mix, which causes “knock” and serious engine damage. But low-compression engines burning regular 87-octane gasoline don’t need as much octane in the mix, and for many older models it appears that the 106-octane corn ethanol simply doesn’t ignite during the power burn — it’s like it’s not there at all. So you get a 10 per cent drop in fuel mileage simply because your engine is using the 90-percent gasoline portion in the power burn, while the corn ethanol burns too late. Other problems with ethanol — it has a high water content, for example — may further draw down fuel mileage.

The damaging of older motor vehicles is not an unintended consequence. It is exactly what the environmentalist left wants to happen. See Retiring older motor vehicles helps economy, environment.

Corn ethanol is quite simply a bad idea. See Ethanol bubble pops in Iowa. But it is a bad idea that has become entrenched in Federal policy, and the current administration is committed to keeping this idea going.

The alternative-fuels program in Brazil is highly touted by the global-warming crowd, but Brazil doesn’t use corn ethanol; instead, it uses sugar cane ethanol. The output-to-input ratio of the sugar-based product is 8 to 1. That’s a huge difference. Using a 90-10 mix with sugar ethanol, I would save the environment 26 gallons of gasoline per year.

Any sane government would chuck corn ethanol and start rewarding folks for growing sugar. So why aren’t we promoting sugar? The corn lobby, obviously, which has enough friends in Congress that we are actually SUBSIDIZING the production of corn ethanol. The set-aside in this year’s budget is $6,000,000,000.00.

The bailout sought by the corn industry will be indirect — you and I will pay the price for a product which we don’t need or want and which at best provides us with no benefit, because the government will give us no option. We need to monitor the process and try to educate the public on its problems and costs — or prepare to bend over once more for a Federally-mandated “solution” which makes the problem worse.

EPA INFORMATION:

EPA Public Involvement

EPA Laws, Regulations, Guidance & Dockets

LINKS OF INTEREST:

U Study: Corn ethanol no better than gas

New study tallies corn ethanol costs

Grass Makes Better Ethanol Than Corn Does

Corn Dog: The ethanol subsidy is worse than you can imagine

Getting Conned By The Ethanol Lobby