Happy Independence Day! This past weekend we drove up to Virginia's northern neck to see my aunt, uncle, cousins, and their new pug puppy. When we stopped for gas before the trip, I had to snap a shot of a sign on the pump, "Contains up to 10% ethanol." Originally, I thought this was to feed off of recent somewhat positive media exposure, but it seems more is involved. If you want a good read, follow my link to this PDF from the Virginia Petroleum, Convenience and Grocery Association. By the way, my Treo 700p's camera seems to work quite nicely outside. Read on for more info and another photo.

I'm not sure for how long, but Virginia has a law requiring the labeling of all pumps with blends greater than 1% of ethanol. Earlier this year, it seems there has been a huge push to rid the state of MTBE, an oxygenate that has been banned in many states. Ethanol blends serve to replace MTBE to meet octane requirements in gasoline. For those of you who have not heard my ethanol speech, I mentioned how the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act mandate oxygenate requirements for many areas with higher air pollution. Various regions selected different oxygenates, but these days they all seem to be moving to ethanol. Virginia is moving to ethanol not because of law, but because of the lack of liability protection for MTBE use by oil suppliers. Again, review this PDF from VPCGA and this info regarding reformulated gasoline (RFG) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

I can only hope alternative ways to producing ethanol develop very quickly, or we will find ourselves in a pickle with the corn based junk. Also, it is worth noting that currently ethanol costs nearly a dollar more per gallon than regular gasoline. That is after government subsidies and for pumps in the Corn Belt states. It would be even more expensive with smaller subsidies and for states farther from ethanol plants. In other words, that "up to 10% ethanol" content is contributing to the high gas prices across the United States.

Here's another shot of the pump:

I'll be completely honest with you and say the Popular Mechanics guys seem to know what they are talking about, and the U.S. News & World Report article is a load of crap as far as I'm concerned. The U.S. News guys just seem to do what really pisses me off with a lot of the media that covers ethanol. They just take a brief look at its use as a fuel and say its only downside is the current cost per gallon. Then they go to say something like this:

"So why would I want to use ethanol?
For the greater good of the planet and your conscience. Ethanol produces fewer tailpipe emissions than gasoline. Some people use ethanol because they feel it may help the United States become less dependent on foreign oil. And if ethanol were to become widely used, prices might fall as energy companies increased production."

What these pitiful people fail to realize is that:

1. They are lucky the price of ethanol isn't even higher than it is.
2. Huge ethanol production from corn is not sustainable or efficient.
3. Just because burning ethanol is clean does not mean producing it is.

Let me address the second and third points first. As the Popular Mechanics article states, farmers would need to dedicate "71 percent of the nation's 938 million acres of farmland" in order to produce enough corn and other raw material for ethanol production. That's a whole lot of land! I arrived at similar figures when researching for my speech. As for the third point, farming is a dirty business. Corn depletes nutrients in the soil, commercial fertilizers are very harmful to the environment, and the facilities that would process this stuff would use lots of energy themselves. It takes a lot of effort to grind up the raw materials, ferment it, and distill the result to nearly pure alcohol levels.

The reason I addressed the second two points first is that I believe they are the weakest arguments. Alternatives to corn based ethanol have come a long way. Many well funded efforts are seeing results producing ethanol from things like switch grass and other high-cellulose material in an energy efficient manner. What really ticks me off is that the United States is seemingly rushing in the direction of ethanol. I better start a new paragraph for this one…

You see, our government spends an unbelievable amount of money yearly to subsidize everything from growing corn to producing ethanol to designing vehicles that use ethanol. Huge agricultural corporations like Archer Daniels Midland have major sway in what our government thinks of ethanol. Do you think smaller farmers are seeing much of this subsidy funding? Don't think I'm just angry at the current White House administration. This subsidizing has been going on for years. There is a reason you see corn fields all over this country. I do see value in fuels like ethanol, and especially biodiesel, but the government is spending the big dollars in all the wrong places. The money needs to be aimed more at cellulose ethanol research and more creative alternative fuels that break away from the traditional "burn it up" methodology. Ethanol has its place, but there is no way it will completely replace fossil fuels. Keep this in mind the next time you hear people praising the virtues of ethanol.

I feel much better now

By the way, if you want to see a copy of my senior speech, feel free to contact me.