Ethanol folks call out Ed:
---------------
From:
http://growthenergy.org:
Today, Ed Wallace posted
a column to BusinessWeek.com about Growth Energy's Green Jobs Waiver. In his column, Mr. Wallace fails in his journalistic duty to provide readers with the facts. He relies on anecdotal evidence in support of his erroneous claims while completely ignoring the large body of scientific literature that supports the use of higher blends of ethanol in vehicles.
There are many myths being propagated in the online comments about these issues. See below the claims that Ed Wallace makes and the truth of the matter. Here are the facts. We encourage all eTeam members to set the record straight in instances such as these.
Click here to post your response to the original article on BusinessWeek.com.
Ed Wallace says:
“[T]he primary job of the Environmental Protection Agency is, dare it be said, to protect our environment. Yet using ethanol actually creates more smog than using regular gas, and the EPA's own attorneys had to admit that fact in front of the justices presiding over the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995
(API v. EPA).”
Truth:
There is strong evidence that increased use of ethanol has led to a decrease in ozone emissions. Since the wider use of ethanol in the fuel supply, ground-level ozone pollution has decreased throughout the United States. According to the U.S. EPA, ozone levels have decreased by 5 percent from 2001 to 2007.
In the latest “State of the Air” report issued by the American Lung Association, it notes that most cities made progress in decreasing ozone levels from 2004-2006, compared to its last report examining ozone levels from 2001-2003. According to California's Air Resources Board, since ethanol replaced MTBE in its fuel supply, the air quality has improved in the most South Coast Air Basin with the days of ozone exceedances dropping from 152 days in 2004 to 134 days in 2008 (based on 8-hour observation). Both New York and Connecticut had fewer smog days after they replaced MTBE with a 10 percent blend of ethanol in 2004.
Ed Wallace says:
“[T]ruly independent studies on ethanol, such as those written by Tad Patzek of Berkeley and David Pimentel of Cornell, show that ethanol is a net energy loser. Other studies suggest there is a small net energy gain from it.”
Truth:
Today, each gallon of ethanol produced delivers one third or more energy than is used to produce and this positive energy balance is constantly increasing with new technologies. According to the Congressional Research Service, ethanol produced from corn provides 67 percent more energy than is used during production compared to a net energy loss of 19 percent in the production of gasoline. Over the last 20 years, the amount of energy needed to produce ethanol from corn has significantly decreased because of improved farming techniques, more efficient use of fertilizers and pesticides, higher-yielding crops, and more energy-efficient conversion technology.
The studies Wallace refers to are not “truly independent.” The 2005 study by David Pimentel, an insect ecologist at Cornell, and Tad Patzek, a former oil company employee who is now director of the University of California Oil Consortium, has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community and a growing body of government and academic research. Peer-reviewed studiesover the past 12 years find exactly the opposite of Patzek and Pimentel's findings. More than 40 percent of the references listed in the 2005 report were from the 1980s and 1990s, and it failed to meet internationally accepted standards for conducting life cycle studies.
Ed Wallace says:
“[F]orget what biofuels have done to the price of foodstuffs worldwide over the past three years...”
Truth:
Study after study has shown that ethanol has minimal impact on food prices, including a recent report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which showed the key driver in higher food prices was energy prices. The price increase attributed to ethanol was one-half of one percentage point. Other factors contributing to rising global food prices include increased demand as emerging economies grow and their populations consume better diets and more meat, increased fertilizer, harvesting, and transportation costs, excessive unregulated commodities speculation, and bad weather and drought leading to poor harvests in some parts of the world.
Ed Wallace says:
“...the science seems to suggest that using ethanol increases global warming emissions over the use of straight gasoline.”
Truth:
The most recent literature in Yale's
Journal of Industrial Ecology states that the ethanol industry currently is producing a fuel that is as much as 59 percent lower in direct-effect lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline. That's two to three times the reduction reported in earlier studies that did not take into account recent advances in corn-ethanol production. Newer corn ethanol plants are applying the latest technology to produce ethanol that is cleaner, greener, more energy efficient and reduces GHG emissions through the use of improved technologies, smarter planning, and increased corn yields. According to DOE's Argonne National Laboratory, ethanol plants since 2001 have seen a 21.8% reduction in energy use, and 26.6% reduction in water used, despite a 6.4% yield increase.
Ed Wallace says:
“The new push to get a 15% ethanol mandate out of Washington is simply to restore profitability to a failed industry. Only this time around those promoting more ethanol in our gas say there's no scientific proof that adding more ethanol will damage vehicles or small gas-powered engines.”
Truth:
Right now there's an artificial government-imposed regulatory cap that suppresses the use of ethanol based on decades-old science. Current government regulations, which date back to the 1970s, restrict the ethanol blend to 10 percent. Ethanol producers have hit that cap, producing more ethanol than can be used under current restrictions. This threatens to block research and development into cellulosic and future generations of biofuels. American farmers and ethanol producers are asking the EPA to lift the arbitrary limit on ethanol because the science overwhelmingly supports the use of a 15 percent blend. In addition, we support green-collar job creation, increased energy independence, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions immediately.
Ed Wallace says:
“A quick diagnosis determined that that particular car had close to 18% ethanol in the fuel. For that unlucky owner, the repairs came to nearly $900. The ethanol fun was just beginning.”
Truth:
Again, this is anecdotal evidence that runs contrary to a large body of established science. The studies that that show no impact to engines from E15 show similar results for E20 and in many cases higher percentages of ethanol. Furthermore, it is impossible for one tank of gas to have that kind of an impact on vehicle parts.
Ed Wallace says:
“On Jan. 16 of this year, Lexus ordered a massive recall of certain 2006 to 2008 models, including the GS Series, IS and LS sedans. According to the recall notice, the problem is that "Ethanol fuels with low moisture content will corrode the internal surface of the fuel rails." In layman's terms, ethanol causes pinpoint leaks in the fuel system; when leaking fuel catches your engine on fire, that's an exciting way to have your insurance company buy your Lexus. Using ethanol will cost Toyota (TM) untold millions.”
Truth:
These auto makers' warranties certify blends of ethanol up to 10 percent. Ethanol producers and American farmers shouldn't take the blame for an auto maker's faulty product. There is a large body of science that Ed Wallace conveniently ignores. Americans can be confident their vehicles will run on increased blends of ethanol. In the past two years, multiple comprehensive studies involving over 100 vehicles, 85 vehicle and engine types, and 33 fuel dispensing units have been completed to evaluate the affects of ethanol-gasoline blends above 10 percent ethanol, from E15 to E85. These studies include a year-long drivability test and over 5,500 hours of materials compatibility testing. The research includes studies done by Rochester Institue of Technology, the state of Minnesota, and the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
=================
By the way- Ed Wallace makes his living on a radio talk shows based in Fort Worth Texas, where his show's major sponsors include petroleum based industry advertisers.
In the search for truth, always question EVERYTHING.
P.S.- I am not aware of any vehicle since 1982 that can't handle E10 just fine. It was, after all, a U.S. mandated design requirement for all vehicles since then.
Or apparently Country-Boy too! :laugh:
