KCRG-TV reports that the Iowa legislature is getting ready to roll out the pork barrel for the ethanol industry. Previewing the Tall Corn State's upcoming legislative agenda, the TV station foreshadows the tax breaks to come, and makes it seem as if there's a passel of pistonhead demand for E85, motorists just itching for a local E85 station. "Lawmakers also expect to talk about ways to make it easier for drivers to pump ethanol into their vehicles. 'There's tens of thousands of vehicles in Iowa right now that could run on E85, but they really don't have access to the infrastructure where they can go buy it,' Rep. Kraig Paulsen (R) said." Could or would? (We sure as Hell don't recommend Iowans try and find one of 69 state stations with an E85 pump via Iowacorn.org's "E85 finder;" the Adobe player crashes your browser.) Iowa already pays 50 percent of the total cost of an E85 pump. Question: if one of the nation's top E85 producing states– a state without large ethanol transportation expenses (E85 can't go down a standard gas pipe)– needs more subsidies to convince gas stations to provide E85 pumps, what does that tell you? 

Ethanol is all-around more expensive than gasoline. You don't need to do the math to prove it– because Professor Emeritus Don Elliott of the University of Northern Colorado did it for you. In a letter to the editor of The Tribune, he refutes their misleading claim that ethanol is less expensive and produces less pollution per gallon than gasoline. Using a more realistic measure of cost per miles driven, he shows that a vehicle running on E85 needs 40 percent more fuel to go the same distance as one burning gasoline, and E85 would cost 9.6 percent more per mile driven. On the pollution issue, he figures in the emissions from the fossil fuels used to produce the ethanol as well as the greenhouse gasses E85 produces. When looking at the total pollution produced by each fuel, he computes E85 produces 15.5 percent more greenhouse gasses per mile. How's THAT for an inconvenient truth.

KY3.com reports that that Missouri Governor Matt Blunt is so deep inside the ethanol industry's pockets that he's using the lint for a pillow [paraphrasing]. The Gov wants The Show Me State's legislature to craft some new E85 pork barrel filler: $2m worth of tax credits for gas stations to re-equip with E85 pumps. As we've heard that it takes $200k to convert a gas station to E85itude, Blunt is either trying to fly under the radar or doing some symbolic showboating to appease the ethanol lobby. But wait, there's more! "Another of the governor’s proposals is for state income tax credits for people who buy E85. The credits would be 25 cents per gallon in the first year, 20 cents per gallon in the second and third years, and 15 cents per gallon after that, with a maximum of $500 per taxpayer per year." Blunt reckons that little deal would save Missouri's theoretical E85 [only] users an average of 70 cents per gallon over regular gas. Which  is just as well, considering that the corn juice is some 28.5 percent less efficient than non-E85 gas. 

First there were rumors of "tortilla riots" in Mexico. Then, as the price of corn-based feed skyrocketed, meat and egg prices rose. As hops farmers switched to corn, beer prices followed suit. And now MSNBC reports the booming corn-for-ethanol market is expanding the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico. As farmers plant more corn and use more nitrogen-based fertilizer, they're increasing the amount of run-off that ends up in the Gulf via the Mississippi River. The nitrogen surge is leading to heavy algae growth, which depletes the water of oxygen (as it dies and decays), which suffocates shrimp, crabs, oysters and other sea life. Environmentalists say if something isn't done, the ethanol industry's knock-on effects threatents the Gulf's entire ecosystem and the livelihood of thousands of fishermen along the coast. Not to mention the escalating price of shrimp gumbo and oyster po'boys.

Do this job long enough and your BS detector gets quite the workout. But rarely does an article telegraph the discrepancy between PR plans and the incipient rush of cold reality in such obvious terms. Lisa Taylor is the testy spinmeister in question: spokeswoman for the Kansas Department of Agriculture. Or the U.S. Department of Transportation. Either way, she's promoting a pilot project that will allow Kansas gas stations to install pumps that dispense a variety of ethanol blends and "let consumers choose what blend they want." Yup, you heard right; a Sunflower state motorist will be able to choose between E10, E20, E30, E50 or E85 depending on, well, who the Hell knows? Anyway, as the Kansas City Star rightly reports, it's just a theory. The state is simply lowering regulatory hurdles, rather than subsidizing the "pour your own" ethanol pumps. In fact, only 28 stations in Kansas sell E85, and not a single one of them is a deep-pocketed nationally-branded franchisee. So, as you might expect, The Star reveals that "so far no sites for the test have been announced." Which triggered Ms. Taylor's ire. We're betting she doesn't get the last laugh on this one.

Ward's Auto reports Panda Ethanol Inc. is planning to build a new plant in Muleshoe, Texas. They plan to process 38m bushels of feedstock-grade corn per year, producing an estimated 115m gallons of ethanol. What makes this plant different from other ethanol plants? Yup. The energy source used to generate the steam in the refining process ain't gonna be electricity or natural gas. The Muleshoe plant will use gassified manure– a projected one billion pounds of cow shit per year, to be exact. The company estimates the b.s. will save the plant a thousand barrels of oil per day. If Panda (Panda?) could find a way to transport bullshit directly from Washington D.C. to Muleshoe, they could more than double production.

Schmaltz: it's not just for matzo balls any more. Consurmeraffairs.com reports that researchers at the University of Arkansas have developed a method of converting chicken fat into biodiesel, with a yield in excess of 89 percent. Most biodiesel is produced from vegetable oils. With the exception of home-brewed biodiesel made from used fast food fry oil, vegetable oils are more expensive to produce than petro-diesel because of the high cost of farm production (including petro-chemical based fertilizers). The new process converts chicken fat, a byproduct of Arkansas' thriving poultry industry, into biodiesel in one step, using methanol under high temperatures and pressures. So far there's no talk of turning it into a commercial process, but it may not be too long before your exhaust smells more like your Bubbe's kitchen than a truck stop. 

The Great Ethanol Boondoggle continues to evoke the law of unintended (if not unanticipated) consequences. The Economist reports that American farmers in the Pacific Northwest have switched from hops and barley production to corn. The federal tit sucking has sent the price of beer's basic ingredients skyrocketing. "Hit by price increases and shortages, many breweries, particularly the small 'craft brewers' and the even smaller microbreweries, are being forced to raise prices, make do with modified recipes or shut off the spigots altogether." Vanilla Java Porter and Salvation IPA fans aren't the only ones dreading their next trip to the cash register. "Industry giants like Anheuser-Busch and Miller are better off, thanks to long-term contracts. But even Anheuser-Busch has been forced to raise prices for its six-packs." Fuel or beer? Could this be the beginning of the end for ethanol? [thanks to chanman for the link]

Even (or especially) as the Prez prepares to sign a bill increasing ethanol production to biblical proportions, The New York Times follows the Economist's lead and raises the alarm over ethanol production's impact on food prices. On the uh-oh side, Scott Faber, lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, says E85 has the same “magical effect” on politicians as the tooth fairy and Santa Claus has on children. To which the vice president of government affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association adds "We think there will be a day when people ask, ‘Why in the world did we do this?’” In the interests of balance, the Times points out that "experts with no stake in the argument" say ethanol is only one cause amongst many for rising food prices– and then fails to provide a single such expert. Ethanol baron Mark Leonard says nothing of E85's effect on food, only that “This is a national security issue more than anything else. We need to quit sending money to people who want to blow us up.” And [unnamed] researchers for the Renewable Fuels Association "contend that the link between corn prices and grocery prices is weak." I'm going with the guy from the National Grain and Feed Association. David Fairfield attribues "virtually all" of the increase in the price of corn– up 25 to 30 percent so far this year– to the demands of the ethanol industry. Put that in your corn cob pipe and smoke it.

We've been reporting on the insanity of growing crops to feed SUVs since the ethanol industry first appeared on the media radar. Aside from the fact that developing nations are cutting down rain forests to plant crops to provide fuel for western nations obsessed with global warming, there's GM Car Czar Maximum Bob's whole "taco riot" conundrum. Why use food crops for fuel when people need food more than fuel? The Economist analyzes the issue in their usual dry, authoritative manner, and it's scary stuff. "The demands of America's ethanol programme alone account for over half the world's unmet need for cereals. Without that programme, food prices would not be rising anything like as quickly as they have been. According to the World Bank, the grain needed to fill up an SUV would feed a person for a year… According to IFPRI [International Food Policy Research Institute], the expansion of ethanol and other biofuels could reduce calorie intake by another 4-8% in Africa and 2-5% in Asia by 2020. For some countries, such as Afghanistan and Nigeria, which are only just above subsistence levels, such a fall in living standards could be catastrophic." It's time for the fruited plain to stop. [Thanks to starlightmica for the link.]

On the very day that congressional leaders (in some sense of the word) are squabbling over the next gen Corporate Average Fuel Economy ethanol loopholes, USA Today repeats a study's declaration that "Anything's better than ethanol blend E85, even ordinary gasoline." The Pardee Rand Graduate School's analysis of alternative fuels calculated the individual and societal costs and benefits of gasoline-powered vehicles, gas-electric hybrids, high-tech diesels and flex-fuel vehicles (running on E85). "Unless gasoline prices, averaging $3.10 a gallon now, rise above $4 and average $3.50 or more the next few years, or ethanol prices drop a lot, diesel's the best overall solution; E85's the worst." Pardee Rand reckons a (theoretical) E85 driver could spend as much as $1,600 more than a gas-powered comrade, while a diesel driver could save as much as $2,300. Hey, guess who helped fund the research? General Motors and Ford Motor. "They aren't crazy about the results," researcher John Graham admitted. Neither are we, until we hear what the researchers meant by "societal costs."

A recent article in BusinessWeek (BW) investigated the reasons behind the "shortage" of E85 pumps down at your local gas station– a situation which displeases Detroit's Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) compliance-seeking automakers no end. Apparently, Big Oil's to blame. Shell spokesperson Anne Bryan Peebles admitted her employer is not exactly chomping at the bit to install ethanol spigots. Peebles says E85 requires separate pumps, trucks and storage tanks. All in, it costs some $200k to set-up an E85 pump– whilst satisfying the farrago of local, state and federal health and safety regulations surrounding its installation. [Hence almost all of America's E85 pumps are run by independent gas stations. ] Why not just switch-out a standard pump? The American Petroleum Institute says its pilot programs reveal that many flex fuel consumers fill up just once– after clocking E85's 25 percent hit on their fuel economy. So E85's business case is dubious. Just don't expect much sympathy from automakers. "'Big Oil is at the top of the list for blocking the spread of ethanol acceptance by consumers and the marketplace,' says Loren Beard, senior manager for energy planning and policy at Chrysler. What's more, oil company "foot dragging" is set to worsen the current ethanol glut– which could lower prices to the point where E85 becomes profitable enough for oil companies to accommodate with new pumps; providing federal subsidies continue to prop-up ethanol production. [Thanks to starlightmica for the tip.]

[RF interviews the Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America on Big Oil's anti-ethanol conspiracy] 

Mind you, there's plenty of ethanol action in The Land of Hope and Glory. As just-auto [sub] reports, the UK is now home to its first sugar beet-based ethanol factory. In a light reworking of a breathless press release ("Last week, British Sugar was proud to announce…"), just-auto's crack editorial team revealed that BS' new Norfolk plant will produce some 550k tonnes (70 million litres) of bioethanol per year. At the opening of same, their intrepid reporter asked The Minister for Sustainable Food and Farming and Animal Health– working for the Government's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)– whether the UK gov would do its part to bolster British sugar's bottom line– I mean, "incentivise further UK production of biofuels." Lord Rooker's reply: not on your Nelly [paraphrasing]. So what about offering some kind of "help" for manufacturers peddling E85-compatible vehicles? "'There shouldn't be any reason to do this,' was Lord Rooker's rather surprising answer. 'As long as the motoring public has absolute confidence in the fuel and sees other cars and buses running on these new types of fuels such as bioethanol E85, there won't be any problem transferring over.'" Ah, another refreshing free market eccentric buried deep within the British government's bowels! Look for that policy to change. 

Iowa. Corn. Ethanol. Federal subsidies. Presidential primary. You don't have to be a professional political pundit to connect those dots, but you'd have to be a pretty brave pol to look Iowans in the eye and say "no" to their federally-funded ethanol dreams. As The Boston Globe reports, that would be John McCain, whose low standing in the Tall Corn State's polls may have a little something to do with this statement: ""I trust Americans. I trust markets. And I oppose subsidies." This despite the fact that a "recent poll" (nice attribution there Globe) showed 92 percent of Iowans consider ethanol essential to the state's economic future. No wonder The Hunt for Red States' Fred Thompson changed his tune from anti to pro-ethanol a few weeks ago, declaring ""It's a matter now of national security." (Now that he needs the votes.) The Big Three Dems are all on board the ethanol express, which already pumps $2b of your hard-earned federal tax dollars into Iowa's ethanol industry. 

The New York Times reports that local residents' "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY) attitude towards ethanol plant construction is slowing the industry's once inexorable expansion into the American heartland. "In Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota and even Iowa, the nation’s largest corn and ethanol producer, this next-generation fuel finds itself facing the oldest of hurdles: opposition from residents who love the idea of an ethanol distillery so long as it is someplace else." The article cites a grass roots campaign in Sparta (uh-oh) Wisconsin, where locals worry about a proposed plant's aesthetics (it would mar golfers' views), tainted milk and smell ("like beer but with a metal smell mixed in"). Plant opponents have printed T-shirts reading “Good idea. Bad location.” Citing the economic benefits of ethanol plants, Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, had little time for such sentiment. "“There are some people who would rather see their town dry up and blow away than change the status quo." Yes, well, as the article points out, the bloom is off the ethanol industry rose. Despite– or because of– federal subsidies that would make a sugar grower smile (even more than usual), an ethanol glut has driven down prices. And the chattering classes are waking-up to the effects of ethanol production on water and food supplies. In other words, the battle lines are drawn.