If You Say It Enough They Will Believe You

June 2nd (originally written here)

Or some semblance of those words. This comes supposedly from one of our current leaders as I'm told. Well luckily every piece of actual evidence can not be destroyed. I found this at Reuters and Planet Ark. I had trouble highlighting to show the differences between the pros and cons. You may wish to go to the original site that I published this on. To do so, just click on the date link above.

This article is in its entirety.

WASHINGTON - Supporters of ethanol like to describe it as a cleaner-burning fuel additive that helps keep the air clearer, but critics say its environmental drawbacks may outweigh some of the benefits.

While ethanol made from corn gives a boost to the incomes of American farmers, the alternative fuel poses complex trade-offs for US oil refiners, environmental groups and federal regulators trying to find cleaner gasoline to curb pollution.

"The short answer is ethanol is both good and bad for the environment," said Daniel Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global warming and energy program.

Ethanol is in the spotlight because Congress and the administration of President George W. Bush are grappling with US energy problems, and supporters of ethanol tout the fuel as one of the solutions.

Unlike other fuel additives, ethanol does not contaminate ground water supplies but it produces more smog in some circumstances and tiny amounts of sulfur result when it is blended into gasoline.

"The benefits are that ethanol does reduce carbon monoxide when used in the winter time, but it increases smog when used in the summer," Becker said.

That's because a key drawback to ethanol is that it evaporates more quickly in certain conditions, which results in higher emissions of smog-forming compounds, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

When compared to conventional gasoline, ethanol yielded lower emissions of carbon monoxide than motor gasoline but higher emissions of nitrogen oxide that causes smog, EIA said.

"We are more concerned about solving the smog problem than about solving the carbon monoxide problem," Becker said.

Ethanol is a renewable resource that the Bush administration wants to help reduce US dependence on foreign oil imports. It also can raise octane in gasoline and prevent annoying engine "pings."

Ethanol is one of the main so-called "oxygenates" or oxygen booster added to reformulated gasoline to meet federal clean air requirements. The extra oxygen helps the fuel burn cleaner.

The Environmental Protection Agency requires most major US cities to use the cleaner-burning gasoline with more oxygen by weight during the hot summer months to reduce smog and air pollution.

Ethanol is the second most popular oxygen booster for fuel among refiners - ranking only behind MTBE, which is now used in almost 9 out of every 10 gallons of reformulated gasoline.

However, Ethanol use will soon soar now that a dozen states have decided to ban MTBE because that fuel additive can leak from underground storage tanks into drinking water supplies.

ETHANOL AND SULFUR PROBLEMS?

Separately, finished fuel-grade ethanol contains small amounts of sulfur, between 2 and 8 parts per million, to help distinguish it from drinkable alcohol, according to EIA.

This could become a problem for refiners when they begin meeting new federal low-sulfur requirements in a few years, EIA said. Beginning in 2006, the sulfur content of gasoline must be reduced to an average 30 parts per million.

In addition to environmental concerns, ethanol blended gasoline is more complicated to transport to markets.

The additive poses logistical problems because gasoline containing ethanol cannot be shipped in the nation's vast network of multi-fuel pipelines.

Moisture in pipelines and storage tanks causes ethanol to separate from gasoline.

As result, the petroleum-based gasoline components must be shipped separately to a terminal and then blended with the ethanol when the product is loaded into trucks.

Those higher shipping costs, which would likely be passed on to consumers, are a major reason California sought a federal waiver from having to use ethanol after the state banned MTBE.

The Bush administration denied the request last month, even though environmentalists insisted the White House decision would spew additional smog-forming pollution into the state's air.

"This will mean dirtier air and price hikes at the pumps in California," said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust.

The ethanol industry defends the environmental benefits of its product.

The Renewable Fuels Association, the industry's trade group, acknowledged that when ethanol is blended with gasoline it slightly raises the volatility of the fuel that can lead to increased evaporation of smog-forming emissions.

However, blending ethanol reduces carbon monoxide tailpipe emissions that are responsible for 20 percent of smog formation, the renewable fuels group said.

TRADE GROUP SAYS ETHANOL CUTS OZONE

In addition, ethanol-blended fuel cuts tailpipe emissions of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, that form ozone in the atmosphere, according to the trade group.

"Thus, the use of ethanol plays an important role in smog reduction," the association said.

However, some of ethanol's VOC reduction benefits have been scaled back.

Last week, the EPA finalized a rule allowing ethanol-blended gasoline sold in Chicago and Milwaukee to contain larger amounts of VOC pollutants.

The VOC standard was raised to 0.3 pounds per square inch Reid vapor pressure - a measurement of the volatility of fuel - from the previous 0.2 pounds. The EPA move was intended to reduce the cost of gasoline in the two cities, which depend almost exclusively on ethanol-blended motor fuel.

Environmentalists are also concerned over the amount of energy, and therefore the pollution, needed to make ethanol from processing corn.

The industry's trade group said ethanol generates more energy than used during production, and cites an 1996 Agriculture Department report that found ethanol contains 34 percent more energy that is used in the production process.

Story by Tom Doggett

Story Date: 16/7/2001

P.S.
Thats just 34 percent or barely over 1/3 more energy than that used to produce the product. So in other words, we must additionally continue to create a significant debilitating carbon footprint in the production of a product they are saying is better than say: electric vehicles or versus another bio-fuel which can produce far more energy than this from corn which produces only 34 percent.