In a Sept. 2 McClatchy news service article, "Rising corn prices renew food vs. ethanol fuel fight," it was stated the Obama administration's decision "is complicated by the fact gasoline prices would be higher without the ethanol being added into the nation's fuel supply." This is convoluted logic and a political sham.
First, ethanol has less than two-thirds the energy content of regular gasoline; thus E10 (10 percent ethanol) results in a 3 to 4 percent decrease in energy content. Using recent wholesale commodity prices for ethanol ($2.59 per gallon) and regular gas ($3.08 per gallon), ethanol costs $3.89 per gallon on an equivalent energy basis, which is 27 percent more than gasoline.
Second, it takes as much energy to produce grain-based ethanol as it releases when burned and the quantity of greenhouse gases is about the same as just burning regular gas. Sugar cane ethanol would be far better if ethanol is to be used. That will also minimize the impact on foods in this country and the starving people in impoverished nations.
Third, ethanol burns at a higher temperature and is detrimental to engine exhaust systems, gaskets and oil, particularly small air-cooled engines.
This program is just another rip-off of the American public to gain political support, a tactic employed in 2004 by President George W. Bush and now by President Barack Obama.
Thomas J. Donohue
Donohue Energy Consulting
Niskayuna