Should Ethanol Be Required in Fuel? Point/Counterpoint

Point by Paul E. Olsen

Ethanol is a clean, high-octane high-performance fuel for your vehicle. Ethanol contains 35 percent oxygen by weight, making it burn more cleanly and completely than gasoline. It therefore reduces carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon tailpipe emissions. Many areas of the country are using ethanol in order to meet EPA clean air standards and are seeing great results.

Ethanol had been used as the major vehicle fuel source in the United States prior to WWI I. Until the early 1980s, ethanol was 190- proof and contained 5 percent water. The new technology in distillation has made it possible to produce 200proof with no water content. Ethanol can be made from any starch source, such as grain, wood and even garbage. Today, the majority of ethanol is produced from corn. To make ethanol, corn is ground very fine. it then is mixed into a mash and cooked. Next, enzymes and yeast are added. it is then fermented for approximately 50 hours. The beer is then run through a distillation process that evaporates the alcohol from the corn mash. This alcohol is 190-proof. It is then run through a molecular sieve that removes the last of the water content. You then have 200-proof ethanol, which is blended with 2 percent gasoline (making it undrinkable). Two very important by-products come from ethanol production. Corn distilled grain is a high-protein, high- energy feed for livestock and poultry. Liquid carbon dioxide, or CO2, is also produced. This is used in food packaging, dry ice and in many manufacturing processes.

Currently, approximately half the fuel sold in Wisconsin contains up to 10 percent ethanol. Why not 100 percent? According to the USDA, if ethanol was not in the market today, fuel prices would be over 28 cents per gallon higher. Up to a 10 percent blend of ethanol is covered under warranty by every auto manufacturer that sells vehicles in the U.S. for every make and every model of vehicle.

The consumer needs the current Wisconsin Assembly Bill-15 legislation to force petroleum companies to blend ethanol. We have the supply and infrastructure to meet these requirements. There are many benefits of using ethanol besides the price at the pump and improving the environment. Every plant that produces ethanol creates jobs and increases the tax base. These plants support the local economy and community. Today’s ethanol plants are very efficient and environmentally friendly. It actually takes less energy to produce a BTU of ethanol today than a BTU of gasoline. Ethanol is a “homegrown” renewable fuel that helps our country to be more energy independent. In using ethanol produced locally, we help decrease our federal trade deficit and our dependence on foreign oil. As my Granddad says, “We’ll drink our 200-proof ethanol and let the oil cartel drink their gas!”

It’s time for each and every American to use an ethanol blend in their vehicles. In purchasing a new vehicle today, consumers should took at purchasing a flex-fuel vehicle. These vehicles can use E-85 fuel which contains 85 percent ethanol. At today’s prices, E-85 fuel is approximately 60 cents per gallon less than unleaded gas. These vehicles will get approximately the same miles per gallon as using unleaded gas. E-85 fuel has the highest oxygen content of any fuel available and contains 80 percent fewer gum-forming compounds than gasoline.

Just think of the potential in the United States of America if all vehicles used E-85! We can use our natural resources and byproducts to produce a fuel source and not rely on oil from a foreign country Our building and trade companies could be put to work locally and not be in harm’s way in another country.

Ethanol – America’s renewable resource – its time is now!

Counterpoint by Dan Gunderson

When legislators mandate the choices that can be made by citizens, they must do so only when the mandate clearly benefits everyone. For example, government mandates the use of seatbelts because it has been shown conclusively that seatbelts saves lives and the alternative puts lives at risk. Similarly, proponents of legislation mandating ethanol in all gasoline state that there will only be winners and no losers in Wisconsin.

There are three types of gasoline sold in Wisconsin: Straight gasoline, E10 (ethanol) and reformulated gasoline (RFG). RFG is a specialty refined “boutique” fuel containing refined petroleum and alcohol distilled from corn. it is also the most expensive fuel to produce.

RFG is required by the Environmental Protection Agency in the city of Milwaukee and the six adjacent counties, because this area is in “non-attainment.” Non-attainment means the air is not what it should be, contaminated with, among other things, too much ozone, otherwise known as smog. Straight gas is derived from refined petroleum. E10 is nine parts straight gas with one part alcohol derived from corn. These two fuels are available to consumers as a choice at various octane levels (87, 89, 90, 92, 93).

Proponents of an ethanol mandate make the following claims:

* Ethanol is good for the environment. Ethanol has lower carbon monoxide emissions, benefiting cities with that problem (i.e. Minneapolis), but E10 has higher ozone and NOx emissions. Yes, E10 emits more ozone when it evaporates, the very environmental problem that plagues Milwaukee. On the other hand, Milwaukee and surrounding counties do not have a carbon monoxide problem.

So, let’s say that you live in a county bordering the Milwaukee area that is almost in “non-attainment. An E10 mandate could push that county over the limit, forcing the EPA to require RFG, the more expensive “boutique” fuel. Also, emissions from the E10 mandate won’t just float over the counties where E10 is sold, likely exacerbating the non-attainment problem in Milwaukee. In that case, there is only so much benefit that RFG can provide and the EPA, working with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, could be forced to implement local controls on industry. Citizens could also be required to curtail activities like mowing lawns during “ozone action days.”

* Ethanol is good for farmers, making it good for all of us. My experience in Minnesota, where E10 is mandated, revealed that some farmers do benefit from E10 production. Those farmers who are shareholders in an ethanol cooperative that has a contract to sell ethanol have usually benefited. However, simply mandating ethanol does not guarantee a contract for ethanol plants. And, corporate conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland produces and sells almost 50 percent of the ethanol sold in the United States. (In Wisconsin’s free market, fuel containing alcohol from corn already has over 40 percent of the market.)

* Ethanol will reduce our dependence on oil imported from the Middle East. Most, if not all, of the oil refined and sold in Wisconsin as gasoline originates in North America. The future for oil production on our continent is even brighter when we factor in the Oil Sands of Canada. Virtually untapped, the petroleum reserves here are on par with the entire Middle East.

Regarding petroleum consumption, compare the mileage difference for vehicles in Minnesota under an E10 mandate with Wisconsin. According to the Wisconsin Petroleum Council, with data compiled from the respective state transportation and revenue agencies, in 2003 Minnesotans had 600,000 fewer vehicles, drove 5 billion fewer miles and consumed 200 million more gallons of gas than motorists in Wisconsin. Once fuel mileage loss with E10 exceeds 10 percent (which it did in Minnesota), you are burning just as much petroleum as you would without the alcohol.

* Consumers don’t need a choice (between straight gas and E10) because it works in any engine. Engine manuals for all sorts of engines state flatly that ethanol is not recommended. Granted, these engines are often older and brand new engines run on EIO. However, folks own older engines for a reason they are satisfied or they can’t afford a new engine. Ethanol interests have attempted to provide a choice (acknowledging the problem) by exempting small engines from the mandate. In practice, however, Minnesotans have found this exemption almost meaningless, as gas stations can’t afford to dedicate one of their two or three 10,000-gallon storage tanks for boat motors, motorcycles and street rods.

When a democracy removes a choice from its citizens, it is saying that no better alternative exists and that no one will be harmed. Weigh the facts about an ethanol mandate yourself and see if it meets this test.

Dan Gunderson, coordinator for Citizens against Government Gasoline Mandates, is senior partner witb Gunderson-Yde Communications, Middleton, which represents petroleum marketers, community groups, retail mercbants and citizens concerned about the environment.

Copyright ADD, Inc. May 17, 2005