Is Ethanol a Giant Hoax?

When the Legislature convenes in January, it will begin dealing with about 90 bills that have been carried over from the first session. One of them, LD 1320, might serve as a good starting point for a debate about something that few Mainers like – the ethanol in our gasoline.

This bill is sponsored by Sen. Lisa Marrache, a Democrat from Waterville and the assistant Senate majority leader. I had sponsored a similar bill and have signed on as a cosponsor, along with 57 other legislators of both parties. The speaker of the House and the president of the Senate are on board. With that level of support, this bill will receive careful legislative treatment.

What would LD 1320 do? It would require gasoline retailers – gas stations – to offer “non-ethanol-blended unleaded premium grade gasoline.” In other words, gas stations in Maine would have to sell ethanol-free, high-test gas. Right now, 10 percent of the gasoline that fuels our vehicles consists of ethanol, an alcohol-based liquid derived from corn. It’s moonshine for your car. In 2012, that proportion will rise to 15 percent.

The use of ethanol in gas stems from a congressional directive to reduce our reliance on oil. As we’ll see, this is another dubious idea from Washington, because it does not lower overall fossil fuel use and has an adverse impact in other areas. We already know that it has done damage to some gasoline-powered motors, especially older ones not designed to burn ethanol. The problem is that ethanol bonds with water and separates out from the gasoline. Ethanol also is about 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, increasing the cost of every mile you drive.

Private pilots have their own concerns. At certain altitudes, so-called phase separation occurs, where the ethanol splits off from the gas and the engine stops running. Due to the obvious danger, the Federal Aviation Administration will not allow ethanol fuel in aircraft, so small planes in Maine, such as those flown by private pilots, run on low-lead fuel trucked in from Canada, which has no ethanol mandates. Pilots can buy it at certain airports around the state.

I worked with Sen. Marrache over the last session to explore non-legislative solutions to achieve our objective – offering ethanol-free gas to motorists. Nothing in the congressional mandate says that gas stations can’t sell ethanol-free gasoline. But the issue is problematic because oil dealers don’t want to have to dedicate fuel tanks for it, and the supply of non-ethanol gas is nearly nonexistent..

On a positive note, there are legislative negotiations with one major Canadian oil company to build a storage facility in Maine for non-ethanol gasoline for marinas and airports. That would help solve the problem for boaters and pilots, but it will leave motorists stuck with the current system.

Before drivers could get serious relief, Congress would have to come to its senses and gather the courage to go up against Big Corn and its army of lobbyists. Chances of that happening are close to zero. Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn’t make it in a free market. That’s why Congress has so far provided about $25 billion in subsidies to such huge ethanol producers as Archer Daniels Midland, the Midwest conglomerate. Big Corn returns the favor by showering politicians with campaign money. In such a mutual-enrichment arrangement, the average American is road kill.

It would take a book to explain all the problems with ethanol, but let me mention several. With ethanol being 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, your mileage declines and you have to buy more fuel. It takes take 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. Incredibly, it takes at least one gallon of fossil fuel – oil and natural gas – to produce one gallon of ethanol. The corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers, all of which consume fuel. Farmers use 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol.

If Congress says we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, why did it impose a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on ethanol from Brazil, which comes from sugar cane and is far more efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce? Corn-based ethanol has driven up prices of corn-fed livestock, making beef, chicken and dairy products more expensive. It also has driven up prices for cereals and other corn-based products. As a result of higher demand for corn, prices for other grains, such as soybean and wheat, have soared. That’s why bread has become so expensive, and why we’ve seen more food riots in poor countries.

On top of this, emissions from ethanol-fueled cars are no better for the environment. According to studies at Stanford University, ethanol fumes may actually be worse for public health than gasoline fumes. That’s why the Sierra Club and other environmental groups oppose ethanol. When a fuel source is expensive, bad for the environment and does not reduce our reliance on fossil fuel, there is no reason to force taxpayers to foot the bill for producing it.

When LD 1320 goes before the Legislature, we might not get ethanol-free gasoline, but we can at least start the conversation and inform our citizens that Washington politicians and ethanol producers are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. Real reform of this fiasco must happen in Washington, but it can start right here in Maine.

Rep. Strang Burgess (R-Cumberland) serves on the Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee.

###