Ethanol, the cure for reduction of oil, or is it? Ethanol, the fuel that helps the environment, or does it? Even the man who said it was a Very good idea. Al Gore had to admit the failure of one of the grand schemes of environmentalists: ethanol in fuel:
Al Gore stated, “It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first generation ethanol…first-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.”
How could this be? The God of “Global Warming” making a statement that contradicts himself with a fuel he fought to have “subsided” by the government?
It has been reported on Patriot, the EPA wants to increase the ethanol fuel mandate from 10% to 15%.
Now let me make a statement here as was described so very clearly in an article by Nathaniel Davidson on March 30, 2011, Mr. Davidson showed the following in his article titled; Ethanol: Environmentalists and Special Interests Rob Americans;
Mr. Davidson wrote;
The chemical formula for ethanol is C2H5OH, and for gasoline something like C8H18(octane). Both of them burn to form CO2 and H2O (carbon Dioxide and water vapor) But there the similarity ends.
1. Energy is released when chemical bonds are formed. But in Ethanol, there is an oxygen atom in the molecule, bonding to both a carbon and hydrogen. This energy that can’t be released by burning. So a gallon of ethanol has only about 66% as much energy as a gallon of gasoline
2. We’ve all heard that oil and water don’t mix. Gasoline is like oil in this respect. But ethanol has the –OH group, and this means it mixes very well with water, as any beer or wine drinker would know-any alcoholic drink is basically a flavored water-ethanol mixture. And even worse for a fuel, ethanol is hygroscopic, meaning that it sucks in moisture from the air. This means it can’t be piped long distances without picking up moisture, so fossil fuels must be used to transport it. It also can’t be stored in barrels for long periods unless they are totally tight.
3. Water in fuel is obviously harmful, and even damages most engines, but it can’t be avoided when making ethanol. So what about distilling it, as moon shiners did to fortify their liquor? Actually, ordinary distillation will never get rid of the last 4% of water (the fancy science term is azeotrope, from Greek meaning “Boiling without changing”). Chemical labs make a purer ethanol by adding benzene, but surely environmentalists won’t like that because it is highly carcinogenic. (Then again, they have replaced harmless, cheap and bright Edison bulbs with mercury containing dim, expensive fluorescent ones).
4. Ethanol also has other reactions. Think of wine turning into vinegar, which is due to ethanol turning into acetic acid. And there is a nasty intermediate called acetaldehyde. So not surprisingly this is a product of ethanol-powered engines. This leads to much more ground-level ozone. (Allow me to insert here that everyone has at one time or another been advised of high “Ozone” levels due to high temperature during the summer, most weather stations will give this “Ozone” alert and this is due to the EXTRA burning of “ETHANOL” which causes the elevated levels of ground-level “OZONE!!)
Given these items explained by Mr. Davidson, one has to consider if Ethanol is worth the cost at all and even if it is a good alternative to fuel as an additive. Consider the problems that Ethanol brings forth by mixing and burning with gasoline. The largest problem is the ground-level OZONE which causes health problems by affecting persons with breathing problems, so much so that some times people with breathing problems are asked to remain inside due to the high “OZONE” levels and this is directly related to the burning or rather lack of burning of ALL the Ethanol! Now one has to ask just why are we placing ourselves, and our loved ones in the sights of breathing problems coming directly from the use of ETHANOL? Although we burn gasoline, this does not produce as much low level Ozone as Ethanol does, so in this respect, Ethanol needs to be taken off the market before we destroy our health from burning this chemical that does more harm to the environment then just burning gasoline itself!
Economist Dr Walter Williams points out:
Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn’t make it in a free market. That is why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsides, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there’s a double tax – one in the form of ethanol subsides and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 Billion in 2005 alone!
Wait, was it not an issue that the oil companies got some 2 or 3 Billion dollars in subsides, that President Obama yelled about? Now why did he NOT yelled about the huge amount of subsides that go to the making of Ethanol? Why do we as a people not questioned this? It all comes down to information, the facts about this process and the side affects of the use of Ethanol. In all cases, the people are told that this helps to bring the United States off the use of foreign oil, meanwhile the people suffer from breathing and environmental problems all because the Ethanol subsides keep thousands of people working and Congress does not want to shut down these jobs. Like the failed ideas of Solar and wind power, Ethanol has yet to be exposed as the most damaging problem for the environment yet. If we do not wake up and see that Ethanol is bad for not just the environment, but for people and animals, then we will all become problems due to health related problems brought on by the use of this Ethanol which gives the environment a dose of ground-level “OZONE” that has a negative affect on people on the whole.
Another part of Mr. Davidson’s article is below and it brings out even more questions.
And Dr Williams points out another problem with government meddling in the economy: special interests will always be able to steal from taxpayers with government help. This is because of concentrated benefits v diffused costs:
It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there’s a large benefit for them — higher wages and profits. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. After all, who do you think a politician will invite into his congressional or White House office to have a heart-to-heart — you or an Archer Daniels Midlands executive?
Now with this statement alone one begins to wonder just who is Congress working with or for? Is Congress really worried about those who went to the polls and voted them into office? Does Congress really know what Ethanol does and that it is not of much real value due to the toxins it allows in our atmosphere? One has to ask these questions once the truth about Ethanol is known. Many people would seek out gasoline stations that sell gasoline without Ethanol if they knew that Ethanol has an environmental impact on them as well as their children and family and friends.
Given just this brief discussion about Ethanol, one MUST question the use of it and if it is really doing any good at all! Costs are further discussed in a detail that I cannot show here at; The Ethanol Boondoggle by the Cato Institute. This study was done by a certified Institute and the costs. ALL of this must be considered and the use of Ethanol should be banned due to the production of ground-level OZONE production by the burning of this type of fuel additive. Is it right to stop the use of any substance that is Harmful to the environment and people? Many would state that yes it should be stopped from production since it causes HEALTH problems to people with breathing problems, not to mention that this also contributes to “SMOG”!
Given all these FACTS, a “reasonable” person would tend to say stop the use of ETHANOL because it causes ground-level Ozone, which causes problems with breathing. It should also be banned because it uses government subsides to sustain the business. Here it should be allowed to just stop work since it cannot survive without taxpayer subsides. If it can survive by itself, then it needs to be stopped due to the side affects it produces by not burning all of the chemicals used to make it and it produces more pollutants then it stops.
Ethanol is not a good fuel, it does not help decrease the use of gasoline since if it is used, it takes more gasoline to burn the Ethanol then just plain gasoline does. If we look at it given the FACT that only 66% is used, that means that people need to use MORE gasoline to burn ETHANOL!! This by itself is a reason to stop the production of ETHANOL. But when the health problems brought about by the burning of this ETHANOL, then it becomes a health question also. Combined, it would be most logical to stop the use of ETHANOL due to all the additional costs and health problems the fuel itself causes! It is your decision and one more point is that miles per gallon INCREASE when Ethanol is NOT used as a fuel! This all shows that the production and use of ETHANOL is nothing more than a huge PONZI scheme perpetuated by the federal government and lobbyists.