CO2

Ethanol reduces fuel efficiency, per admission by estimated mileage ratings for vehicles. So, we are forced to add something to gasoline that makes the vehicle's efficiency lower, thereby causing the total fuel gallons burned to increase. How many fewer gallons would we burn if we didn't add something that doesn't really want to burn in the first place? How much less pollutant would enter the atmosphere if we skipped the ethanol and therefore burned fewer gallons of non-E fuel to begin with? (This line of thinking takes advantage of today's clean-burning engine technology that functions regardless of ethanol.)

Once the difference in gallons of non-E vs. E-laced fuel is determined, consider the additional energy/pollution to manufacture, transport (think tanker truck), store, and pump those gallons. Is there really any savings at all?

Monsanto!!!! Nothing else needs to be said.

exactly, when you have to consume more energy to make something that lessens the energy produced by your fuel you lose on both counts.

ethanol is and always has been a huge boondoggle on the american people.

food prices have gone up due to ethanol, crops have been replaced with the corn that carried a price guarantee.
the carbon footprint for production is likely more than the savings gained with use of ethanol.
cost of vehicles has increased due to the technology needed to produce ethanol compatible engines/fuel systems.
small engines have been ruined, boat engines ruined, maintenance is increased due to ethanol.

the list is long.

ethanol sucks!

Actually, if you think Monsanto is the root of all evil you're really not analytical as much as "follow the crowd 'cause is sounds good".

Here's a quick test to see if I'm right. GMOs are bad! True or false? Go!

There is no need for alternatives. It is proven more green house gas is produced in the production of ethanol than it saves from exhaust in a car.
The alternative is exactly what is happening, cars are being built that get 25 to 50% better gas mileage and that cuts the carbon emissions. Having a mandate on ethanol in gas only props up an industry,(corn farming) it does not help the environment at all. Why use something that is just a trade off?
Yes it does make gasoline burn cleaner in a gasoline combustion engine but EVERY piece of machinery used to produce it runs on diesel. So why use something that is just a trade off.
It is just like every other EPA regulation or environmental law passed. There is no gain or even at times a loss for the environment.

some fun facts.

* Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel said. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price."

* An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.

* Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 Btu are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 Btu. "Put another way," Pimentel said, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 Btu."

* The average U.S. automobile, traveling 10,000 miles a year on pure ethanol (not a gasoline-ethanol mix), would need about 852 gallons of the corn-based fuel. This would take 11 acres to grow, based on net ethanol production. This is the same amount of cropland required to feed seven Americans.

* If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States.


https://www.organicconsumers.org/scienti...ethanol-cornell

I already know you're not analytical Metal Man. You're like the poster child for "get on the bandwagon despite lacking evidence.

Monsanto is the root of the problem!!!
This has nothing to do with gmo's.
I suggest you do a little research on that company.

EPA is the real enemy. Get rid of some of the douchebags behind them and let our petroleum producers drill and refine.

We could put the Middle east out of business and the American economy could once again rule.

We will NEVER put the Middle east out of business. Unless you'll be happy paying $5/gallon-$10/gallon for your gasoline.