it is one of the things they used to destroy americas econimee all you have to do is look at feed and food prices every year since since this disaster was started not to mention all the motorized devices thwere destroyed by this garbage it was just a well planned ateack................

"New markets" = rent$eeker$ being accomodated by the usual suspects

Im so confused by this video in what he doesn't say, partly in line with your comment. We have massive amount of corn syrup and corn sugars in all our food because of governemnt incentives to the corn belt, right? This pre-dates the 2005 date he mentions by like 20 years, ie we were already overproducing corn, and as you sggest, were looking for new markets for it...

correct!! votes.............

"We have too much corn at too low a price" = "How can we scam people into using the excess corn for pointless things"/

Yup. It’s unfortunate how much of our society is chained to their paycheck. Makes enacting change incredibly difficult.

Was just going to say - we knew this in the 90s during the height of “reducing our reliance on foreign oil” days. It’s the Iowa place on the presidential nominating calendar… hard to win if you don’t win Iowa

Anything the govt promotes always is wrong and not their true intentions. Example fuel additive mtbe. The list is long.

Yup. Dick Cheney and the energy policy act of 2005 really screwed America.

This could also be big oil lobbying against the corn ethanol

Yes. Also, now brazilian gasoline has 30% alcohol in it.

Brazil’s cane ethanol program is based on several lies. Lie #1: there is an 8:1 EROI for cane ethanol. I did the math and it is no better than 2:1. Petrobras doesn’t want to count the burning of bagasse as an energy input because it is “free”, but it is energy that could be used for other purposes if not for corn ethanol, so it must be counted as an input. When properly computed, the EROI of Brazilian cane ethanol is about the same as USA corn ethanol. And we got the same 2:1 EROI growing cane ethanol in the USA when we have tried it. Only the difference in subsidies between the countries guides why one is a cane agriculture empire, and one is a corn agriculture empire. Lie #2: Brazilian cane is farmed sustainably. Reality is the land is slashed, burned, overfarmed, and rapidly depleted, requiring new acreage all the time. The new land is forcibly acquired from indigenous people, who are also used as quasi-slave laborers in the fields. The land and water resource and environmental damage footprints of cane ethanol is much higher than those of the onshore or offshore crude oil to gasoline lifecycle. Lie #3: Cane and corn ethanol reduce polluting and GHG emissions. Ethanol increases emissions of pm2.5 particulates, ozone, and volatile organics compared to straight gasoline. USA and German Academies of Science have also found their lifecycles also have increased GHG emissions. The whole premise of bioethanol is false. Whatever the feedstock, making fuel-grade ethanol is completely dependent on huge inputs of fossil fuels and the lifecycle produces excessive emissions of GHGs. The finished fossil fuel energy used to plow, plant, fertilize, burn, harvest, transport, de-water, ferment, distill, dehydrate, and transport ethanol and blend it into the petroleum fuel supply would be much better spent and yield a manifold higher EROI adding new petroleum fuel to the fuel supply.

USA been using E10 for long time. Can still find 100% gas at a few gas stations. US has too many gas stations! Lol

​@JuanGonzalez-hf6jc Not good for engines. If you can buy Ford Ranger trucks there..they use excellent gen2 - GTDI engine can use any fuel + trucks last 20yrs if cared for.

I learned to drive outside Campinas on dirt roads between sugar cane fields.... I feel like Earnest Hemingway 😂

Most corn(>85%) is not irrigated and of the top thirteen states who do irrigate only Nebraska is known for corn. The US and even dry Nebraska used MORE irrigation water before the RFS existed than after it was law: National Totals Irrigation, in Bgal/d 1950 89 1955 110 1960 110 1965 120 1970 130 1975 140 1980 150 1985 135 1990 134 1995 130 2000 139 2005 127 2010 116 2015 118 Irrigation, Total self-supplied withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d Nebraska 1985 7265.09 Nebraska 1990 6097.64 Nebraska 1995 7549.78 Nebraska 2000 8793.76 Nebraska 2005 8460.43 Nebraska 2010 5660.12 Nebraska 2015 6090.6 In other words, ending ethanol would not change irrigation use even one iota. It is impossible for ethanol to have caused land to be broken up since US cropland acres have declined since ethanol. The corn belt actually grew more corn acres in 1980 before ethanol than in 2018, the year of most ethanol production ever. One reason water tables are going down is that the land is not infiltrating the rainwater so it is running off to the rivers creating more flooding along the way. Years of acid rain made the calcium in the soil go down faster than normal so the magnesium tightened and compacted the soils without the calcium there to keep it flocculated. It also damaged our forests losing the calcium. We need to increase soil health and infiltration rates to rebuild the water tables and reduce flooding.

Without the subsidy for ethanol, KS would probably be a wheat or alfalfa state. Corn does best in tallgrass prairie rainfall further east. (Though I wish we still had some prairie left, tallgrass and shortgrass.)

Many decades at best if not a lot longer to replace the water maybe never

Iowa is the number one corn producer. They rely on rainfall

87% of corn is rain fed. Of the top states who do irrigate only dry Nebraska is known for corn. There were no grasslands or forests broken up for ethanol. Quite impossible since US cropland acres have been declining. Census data shows corn producing states (including Kansas) increased grassland/range, forest, and wildlife areas since ethanol came. The corn belt actually grew more acres of corn in 1980 before ethanol than in 2018, the year of most ethanol production ever. Erik Johnson, the corn ethanol subsidy ended back in 2011.

You are correct... it's political BS.

Nailed it. It is called Political Money Laundering. Also known as Corruption. Nuff Said

@@terrycannon570 that stunt has snow balled into a nightmare for marinas and other small engine industries,where do you think those industries do with the bad gas? Yes, they dump it on the ground, it also has increased the demand for fuel injection systems and carburetor system cleaning labor, actually economic pluses . Just name a few problems political lobbyists cost us daily

In all probability 'environmentalism' was founded by Vladimir Lenin at the Chelyabinsk Commune in the early Sovient; and, was simply a land grab by the then newly risen and entitled communist elites. Over time 'environmentalism' has most probably been a disinformation entity, continually 're-hatched' by the Kremlin, in order to gain complete world hegemony of fuels, fertilizer; hence, world food production (including bio-fuels).

@@richh1576 lmao care to cite any sources? this sounds like complete rubbish. have you ever even read an actual scientific journal article on these topics?

@ChrisLammTweets, we can/have it's just the politicians and big business who are using it as an excuse for the power/$$$. Talking about "land changing", "elitist" Bill Gates came to mind as he owns the most farm land I believe of anyone in the country nearly a quarter million acres he has bought up in the U.S. Now why would a "computer geek" buy up a couple hundred thousand acres of farm land. Ironically in an article he claimed he hadn't bought it for anything related to "climate/emissions" but said his "investment team bought it" and then he said "We need to grow more robust SEEDS....This will help with biofuels...." which obviously is about "climate/emissions" but then he went on to suggest "Poorer countries are not likely to consume unnatural sources of meet but rich countries like the U.S., we should definitely be eating 100% synthetic beef...." What an absolute nut-job.

funny how the "right thing to do" is dictated by which group is donating the most money to politicians...🤔🤔🤔🤔🤑

@@oldrrocrALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY

First of all, he did point out the advantages of ethanol in increasing the octane rating, reducing engine nocking and providing oxygen (it can be done in other ways) to reduce carbon monoxide. So it's not ethanol that's bad but corn based ethanol produced in the way that most American farms grow corn. It's been known for a long time that about 2% of the world's carbon footprint is spent on the Haber process needed to make ammonia needed to make fertilizer. And no, the Solvay process to make nitrates was even more energy intensive. But there are renewable ways of powering the Haber process, pretty fancy green ways of making ammonia and frankly it may not be a bad thing if at least a good portion of farmers reverted to growing things more organically and rotated crops. Ethanol can be made from lots of other plant material. My own grandfather was doing so on an industrial scale, enough to light the homes of a million people, from sugar beginning in 1906. And I know researchers now who are perfecting doing this from algae again on vast scales.

@@oldrrocr Capitalism goes brrrrr

Ubikuitous

Don't get me started on Standard Oil

I was worried it was a waste of food

And don't forget the huge petrochemical industry that benefits as well, through the massive amounts of diesel, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc needed to grow the monsanto-sourced corn in heavily abused and depleted soils. The vast majority of the corn being raised is #2 field corn, which is not food grade; it's used for cattle feed and ethanol. and most of it is being diverted to ADM, while the preferred cattle food is shifting to soybeans.

What these studies don’t consider is that all of the byproduct of ethanol is distillers grain. All of this is being used as animal feed. If the corn wasn’t used for ethanol it would be grown for feed anyway. Some of these studies say that the ground is being broken up for ethanol. That’s not entirely true. None of the distillers grain is being wasted. So it also is being broke up for just ethanol. It’s needed for food production. By feeding animals. By making ethanol out of it first you get both. With close to the same carbon footprint. Not to mention that the same ground also raises other crops. Corn is just a rotation crop. Soybeans are also used to feed animals. We as farmers would still brake up land for other crops. And there are millions of bushel of corn in grain bins that could be used for food if it was needed. But it’s not. Ethanol is great for farmers and for so many other things. It’s being used as race fuels. Because of its high octane. It’s a 100 octane fuel when using E85. Us gear heads use it for our race cars instead of oil based fuels. Recap. The carbon foot print to make ethanol also makes animal feed. Not one bit of the corn is t used. So ethanol makes very little carbon over what would be made for animal feed anyway. And yes it takes energy to make the fuel. But then it’s animal ready. Without making into fuel the rancher has to run it through a grinder or roller mill. Which takes fuel and creates carbon as well.

@@wademills1616 Ontop of higher octane and higher knock resistance, using Ethanol also runs cooler in the combustion chamber, an cleans it out a lot better than gasoline. An I love how it smells.

With what's going on in the Ukraine and how that affects the supply and price of crude oil, I doubt any big efforts are going to currently be made to lessen the production of any kind of ethanol, corn made or not.

@@wademills1616 Sounds like the graduates of higher class coastal institutions that don't like meat or combustion engines realized a bunch of fly over country is making money off of corn.

No kidding. It really got me! 😂

if switchgrass is cleaner why ethanol then which is so dirty in comparison?🤣

9:43 Will corncob fit in gastank? 😂

@@raven4k998bc people actually grow corn

@@jmasterc32_f76 and eat it with yummy butter melted on it mmm does your mouth not water just thinking about it?🤣

The only problem with it is that there were no grasslands or forests broken up for corn. Quite impossible since US cropland acres have been declining since ethanol. US Census data even shows corn producing states increased grassland, forest, and wildlife areas since ethanol as well. Believe it or not, the corn belt grew more corn acres in 1980 before ethanol than they did in 2018, the year of most ethanol production ever and ethanol plants everywhere. 2018 Iowa 13,200,000 acres of corn with record ethanol production 1980 Iowa 14,000,000 acres of corn before ethanol 2018 Illinois 11,000,000 acres of corn with record ethanol production 1980 Illinois 11,600,000 acres of corn before ethanol 2018 Indiana 5,350,000 acres of corn with record ethanol production 1980 Indiana 6,450,000 acres of corn before ethanol

Just under half of our corn planted is value added into ethanol and distillers grains. 100% of the fertilizer and things in the soil still get fed to livestock in the distillers grains. Ethanol comes from only things of the air: solar energy, CO2, and water with the latter two recycled once burnt. 100% of the protein, minerals, vitamins, fats, etc are in the triple concentrated distillers grains. It is not a waste, indeed corn ethanol would be far too uneconomical to even produce otherwise. But with its feed factor, few other sources (even though they may make more ethanol per acre) can compete with it. The Federal subsidy on corn ethanol ended back in 2011. There still exists a Federal subsidy for generation 2 ethanol which switchgrass would qualify for, and this subsidy is over twice as much as what corn ethanol's (generation 1) had been. There was a generation 2 ethanol plant almost built that was to use corn stover in Nevada, Iowa but this was never completed and was since repurposed. It is hard and expensive to make ethanol from cellulose which is why all the drinkable spirits we have been made from sugars and starches. Switchgrass requires a dedicated acre of land whereas corn ethanol comes from already existing feed production acres but as a source, we can only economically just over double our current production from it.

Corn has no nutritional value, Its roughage until you turn it into corn fructose a sugar additive they put in soft drinks and use instead of cain sugers open a bottle of karo syrup its corn syrup its thick think what that dose in your blood stream. Its banned in European country's as a sugar substute because its not healthy. Your better off plowing it into the soil.

I also know sugar cane is about 12x more efficient. Since there is an already perfected system of production of extremely cheap ethanol in Brazil, why was not that copies into sunny and wet places like Florida or the golf cost states?

@@fmilan1 Bing copilot says we do a little, but the vast majority is (value-added) from corn. I imagine they make more money for sugar production. Hawaii imports expensive diesel to make dirty electricity, they could use their abandoned sugar cane fields to make pollution free cheap fuel and electricity for a fraction of what they spend on other renewables. Bing states sugarcane make 560 gallons of ethanol per acre on a 35 ton/acre crop. Sounds a little low to me but that is what it said. Value-adding corn into ethanol produces not only >500 gallons per acre but also 1000 lbs. of protein (& other things) per acre. This feed factor is why it can economically outcompete even sugarcane. So much so that Brazil put an import tariff on US ethanol in 2017. Went up to 18% this year. Brazil is also using corn for ethanol. It is a good fit because unlike cane, corn stores well so they are able to more efficiently run their ethanol plants all year-round in-between cane harvests.

@@deltalimaactual Switch grass is fine and there exists a Federal subsidy if anyone wanted to make it of $1.01/gallon. Corn ethanol's subsidy which had been $.45/gal. ended back in 2011. Switchgrass requires a dedicated acre of farmland and dedicated fertilizer. Cellulose ethanol plants are expensive to build and it is harder to get ethanol from which is why spirits like whiskey, rum, gin, vodka, saki, etc. are made from sugars and starches, not cellulose. Corn ethanol is value-added from already existing feed production acres which preserves the feed in a healthier and more productive form called distillers grains. There were no grassland or forestland broken up for corn ethanol. US cropland acres have been declining so it is quite impossible. Most corn grown is fed to livestock though there is nothing stopping us from eating distillers grains. 100% of the fertilizer and everything from the soil still gets fed to the livestock in the distillers grains. Ethanol is made only of things of the air: solar energy, CO2, and water with the latter two recycled once burnt. Cattle cannot digest starch well and waste it out their backsides as methane gas and carb rich manure which turns into methane later. I personally try to eat grass fed beef so if everyone ate like me, corn ethanol would not exist as it would become too uneconomical to produce without its feed factor (distillers grain).

And they have to keep us fat and sick to maintain the big Med and big Pharma machine. Follow the money, it's a deep... Deep rabbit hole.

@@paulsto6516 Part of the problem is our system in the US that gives the ag states way more influence for the size of the population. Think of the Senate where Iowa, Nebraska, ND, SD, Montana, Kansas and Wyoming have 7 times the votes as CA with about 30% of the population of CA. The electoral collage also give these states undue influence. A screwed up system unique to our country!

Well, GMO's are VERY bad. Corn is not alone in causing health issues. Any company changing less than 1% of a Seed then claiming that they own the rights to ALL varieties of the original Seed? 100% EVIL

@@gregkramer5588 that's by design. Different things are important to people in different population densities, but if you didn't have the Senate disproportionately representing low population states you'd have every vote determined by residents of New York and California alone.

@@arcanondrum6543 That is basic capitalism, change a very small percentage of something that already exists and claim it is your invention, has been going on for many hundreds of years.

The subsidies also increase CO2 emissions - if CO2 emissions were a Bad Thing, which is arguable - as those subsidies are taken from the wealth created by private business which might well have used that taxed away cash to increase the efficiency of their own production. See Bastiat, what is seen and not seen. The whole CO2 / Ethanol thing is a racket.

First of all the Co2 hysteria is scam just like the corona hysteria! Methanol and Ethanol in fuel is good not because of Co2 but because it reduces actual harful emmisions other then Co2. On my 1991 2 Liter Mercedes 190E I had to run it on 40% Ethanol fuel to pass the emmission tests here in Norway and when running that the test result was 0 emmision (lower then they could measure?). Without the Ethanol it had no chanse of passing the emmissions tests. . . .

What's more important is usually how energy is produced (or caught) rather than transported. Cultivating is a quite inefficient and pollutive way to get energy.

Co2 is an issue, just a complicated issue. Let’s just say that you could pump an unlimited amount of Co2 into the atmosphere and it would not effect climate in anyway. That completely ignores what it does to acidifying the ocean. More Co2 = more acidic oceans, less co2 = less acidic. It’s a pretty black and white. So why is acid water an issue. Well because it’s destroys habitat that is the base for almost all ocean life. Fun fact the reef off of the coast of Florida has had 90% die off of the reef build species. Which has let to a collapse of the fishing industry in the area.

Hemp makes biofuel cost almost noting to grow dosnt require water or fertilizers or herbsides pulls co2 out of the air and basically has more then one use, and im not talking about it as a drug. The plant has many uses. We should also look at suger crops as a fuel then your motor will really rummmm along. Might even smell sweeter.

All the energy it takes to produce and deliver a product to the consumer is reflected in the price of the product. Today the NYMEX spot cash delivered price of ethanol is $2.19/gal. An unusable sub-grade of gasoline (RBOB) is $2.74/gal. To turn RBOB into usable E0 costs even more and unfortunately becomes even more toxic and dirtier. Ethanol is distilled at far lower temperatures than petroleum. Also, ethanol producers have been switching to using waste steam from natural gas electric plants. The largest ethanol producer has at least half their plants this way so the price of ethanol has room to remain low. Waste steam = free energy. Ethanol producers are somewhat insulated from the price of corn for if corn is low in price, then so too are the prices of the distillers grains and byproducts. If corn is high in price like it was most of this year, they kept ethanol low with making it up with high prices of their distillers grains. Corn ethanol is a value-added product of already existing feed production which leaves 100% of the protein and other things still available for feed in a healthier, more digestible/efficient, and more concentrated form called distillers grains. Iowa State University measured all the energy it takes to produce an acre of corn into a "diesel fuel equivalent" This included machinery, fertilizer, chemicals, tillage, planting, harvesting, drying, trucking etc. They found it takes 34 gal of diesel to produce one acre of corn. What do we get from those 34 gallons of diesel? We get >500 gallons of ethanol. But wait, that is not the kicker. The kicker is we still get 100% of the protein from that acre of corn still available for an even better feed. A win, win.

All the costs incurred in producing and delivering a product are NOT reflected in the price. Certainly not in the world of American agriculture. Taxpayers heavily subsidize agriculture whether they like it or not, to the tune of US$30 Billion. Since the government is so secretive about this, some experts think the true figure may be closer to US$40 Billion. Over 600,000 American farms receive regular handouts. These subsidies artificially lower commodity prices, distorting the free enterprise system.@@danafletcher2341

Unfortunately, Monsanto has more money than all the rest of us combined.

I was thinking when watching this video all the facts do not matter. The narrative has been set, the politicians have been paid (and are still being paid) and the EtOH will continue. It will take deeper pockets to change the narrative. FACTS and TRUTH DO NOT MATTER.

@@redbarond1 : yes, Monsanto even had a ride in Disneyland!

Yep, that sounds about right for US politicians. It won't be like that forever.

Money buys votes self interest buys votes. Voted into office who wants to loose their job. No use complaining when you need to realize the basic reality of political science.

Not everyone has what it takes to throw corn cobs at the wall, but I’m willing to put in the time to learn.

This. Lol … and SWEET CORN which is not like the field corn that is used for ethanol production

Nooo! I found the corn bit distracting and disrespectful of the white board. Once was ok but was way overdone. I suppose it’s entertaining for some, likely the same crowd that would start a food fight in grade school.

@@EngineeringExplained As an Iowan, them's fightin' woids!

@@EngineeringExplained All (negative emissions, Hydrocarbons & Nox) come directly from the moisture (H2O) that is 'baked into the cake' of all fossil fuels. As the fuel passes through the combustion process, the water turns to steam, and because water is a solvent, it attracts unburned carbons (HCL) and burned carbons (Nox), creating negative emissions. A catalytic converter is 'supposed to' reheat the exhaust enough to 'burn' the water enough to release the carbons (burned and unburned) lowering emissions. However, not until the engine temp gets hot enough to make the catalytic converter hot enough to do it's job. Now, just imagine, if there was a way to disassociate the hydrogens from the oxygen molecules in the combustion process. If those hydrogen atoms could be released, they could then be burned with the fuel, raising the BTU of the fuel, making it more powerful (more power= more efficient), as well as adding oxygen to the combustion process (kind of a little shot of nitrous oxide, increasing the oxygen level of the ambient intake air charge). And once the water has now been 'burned' (disassociate H2 from O), there are zero emissions, and no catalytic converter necessary. Now imagine IF no catalytic converter is necessary, One could lower the engine water temperature, back to say 160-185 for maximum fuel burn efficiency, and oil viscosity life, one could increase efficiency even more. Ironically, I know how to do the process of burning (disassociating H2 from O), simply by imparting a specific frequency into the fuel, before it reaches combustion chamber. The process of imparting a frequency upon the fuel changes the dynamic structure of the water in the fuel, changing it from H2O to H3O2 (known as Hydronium, Structured Water, or EZ water, depending on what discipline of science you are accustomed to) The end result is (depending on driver) up to a 20% increase in fuel efficiency, as well as a drastic reduction in both HCL and Nox. In my experiments, the emissions measure in an algorithmic fashion, depending on how humid the intake air is that the engine is running in. That indicates that the moisture that the air is holding, is the factor that changes the emissions. I haven't quite figured out how to 'treat' the intake charge with the frequency I speak of.... Yet.... Now, to go one further, I am experimenting with adding MORE water directly to the gasoline and getting even more positive results. I'm currently adding 16oz. of tap water directly to 5 gallons of 87octane gasoline, and getting another 10-15% increase in fuel efficiency, with negligible effect on exhaust emissions. I've tried numerous times to demonstrate my discoveries with gas companies, auto manufacturers, and politicians (concerned with environment). NONE of them will communicate with me, once I reveal how I do what I do... I've figured out it's not about the environment, it's about maximizing profit. Follow the $$$.

The more CO2 in the air the better plants grow which in turn puts more O2 in the air for people/animals to breathe.

Its called follow the money. Thats all its about.

@@billkeithchannel We are way beyond the sweet spot. And the added heat by the increasing greenhouse effect is a detriment to plant growth.

@@Sturzfaktor2 Are we actually, though? And if we were, couldn't we just put more trees(such in in those fields used for fuel crops), or, better yet, spread out the exhaust instead of concentrating in into megacities? We do have a year and a half or so of environmental data from people being forced to mostly stay at home to consider as well.

Can you give me a few examples of such emissions equipment? The ones I know of are only costly or unable to be repaired because car manufacturers use them for profit.

Teh increase in food prices are justthe harbinger warning - even at few % of fuel this actually supplies. Did you ever look at it from the wide picture - biochemical/ sun / photosynthesis energy harvest pointt of view. My understanding is that to fuel a billion cars more and more with *any* plant crop it means that more and more of the 7 billion people on earth starve. Ultimately the total area of arable land needed to produce all fuel requirements - even via more efficient sugar beet - exceeds the land we need to feed humans. If we have a spare Earth to grow these crops on then sure- otherwise this seems the dumbest idea ever.

As a Im a Physical Chemist and Mech. Engr. (thermo). Why would anyone NOT see that 10% EtOH is a net loss ... simply because of lower energy density of EtOH; and which also lowers the energy density of the combined fluids when mixed with 'normal' gasoline. Why are the so-called environmentalists, politicians, and Lobbyists attempting to change & disinform the (inviolate) laws of thermodynamics ????? If you really want to have your eyes opened, do a 'back of the envelope' estimate calculation of exactly how much of the 48 contiguous US states' surface area would need to be ***covered with SOLAR PANELS*** in order to equate to the approx. 100 'quadrillion' BTUs/yr. of energy presently consumed in the US.

@@richh1576 Most folks in Maryland hadf small farms or had a relative with one until the early 60's anyhow as gasoline ended up being gasahol we let each other know make sure you run it dry because condensation

Or use Dry Gas once in awhile

I believe. And have suspected for decades.

Corn ethanol is non-toxic, very cheap, and 100% of the CO2 produced by the fermentation and burning of it is not newly added CO2. About the complete exact opposite of MTBE. This study's claim that virgin land and forests were broken up to plant corn is utter horse hockey. US cropland acres have fallen since ethanol so it is impossible. In fact, the corn belt grew more corn acres in 1980 before ethanol than in 2018, the year of most ethanol production ever.

I'm by no means an expert but the use of MTBE caused noticeable environmental problems just a couple years after it was introduced. There's a reason we switched to ethanol so soon after we switched to MTBE and it's not because MTBE was fantastic. I'm not a huge ethanol fan (except in higher performance forced induction engines) but it's the best octane additive we have so far. I just wish the US used switchgrass or cane sugar to make it instead of corn but that's never going to happen with all the corn lobbying and subsidies

You'd be more than a little drunk if you lived off nothing but 10%!

It can and does reduce emissions, it's the method we're using to make it at scale which is horribly inefficient. Question is, do we want cheap gas, or do we want cleaner gas? Can't have both, yet. A solar reflector array and a highrise hydroponics tower... Energy, heat, and a gravity battery, built into one facility. that'd do it. Nobody is going to front the cost of construction though.

OIL refining also burns tons of natural gas and electricity, to distill gasoline. It actually takes more energy to make gasoline than the amount of energy that gasoline will produce. Also ethanol is only bad in the US, because the US can only grow corn to make ethanol. In brasil, where they make it out of sugar cane, the amount of ethanol obtained by mass, and by land area, is WAY much higher. Like 6 times more i think. And corn is actually one of the worst crops for ethanol, but it's the only thing that the US can grow for it. Because of soil and climate.

@@gdxd7956 what about switchgrass?

You mean coal fired?

@@fieldlab4 Really. what are you a fifth grade teacher .talk to text does not always work

AMEN brother!

It is not efficient, but there is ways to make it so. Cars are still using metal body, but several cars have been using some form of synthetic material, it is widely used in races. Lighter exterior materials is one way. Battery reduction is being researched continuosly. That is higher density batteries. The lighter the car the more effivient and the samaller battery. ICE cars had 100 years to evolve but they ended up with very large SUV's and huge pickups that are never used for heavy work, they are used as a large lxury car for a family, but both SUV and pickups are used mostly to cary a single person during week days. Just plain terrible EV's are the right way to go, but they will go a fast evolution since so many large companies are putting billions in their development.

Yeah but the lighter the car the less safe it is in a wreck. That's why we can never have flying cars, they would absolutely fail any crash test standards.

​@@trey2735 just don't crash the car

​@@trey2735 any safety gained by driving a heavier vehicles comes at the cost of people outside of the vehicle which creates an incentive for others to drive heavier vehicles which creates a feedback loop that leads to heavier and heavier vehicles

Yes and thank you.

Why are we wasting accumulating biomass that builds up along our streets, or after a flood or tornado. All the material that is organic can be processed with a wood still, and generate methanol alcohol. Now the argument is that you have to use energy to create energy. You can extract the alcohol the from filtering cooking oil and 10-20 %alcohol to the oil for fuel to create the methanol alcohol. You can process methanol alcohol from many organic sources, down tree limbs, grass clippings, manure from animals, and scraps from building materials ect. In fact we may want to rethink how we process sewage in our country.

It really is all about input vs output when it comes to biomass. Which is really why ethanol isn't as big of a benefit as expected. It's a lot of fuel (and carbon release from soil) to collect and transport organics to a processing facility. New data from a broader analysis, apparently, has shown this. For any new processes It really comes down to tonnage of material. General cleanup would not provide the amount of material needed to offset the output in my opinion. After a disaster a lot of the arguments against the collection is negated because it needs to be cleaned up anyway. Manure processing is in place and works well in larger feeds lots to my knowledge. I do not have first hand experience with these systems and need to look into them. Processing of sewage is a whole other issue. Lots of chemicals and heavy metals involved from what I've seen and read. The biggest potential net gain is altering an already established process. Disaster cleanup, manure processing, household trash pickup, and possibly sewage all have some of that potential. That all said - I don't think we should completely ignore carbon but I do agree that methane collection and use would better suit our needs and efforts.

Would cut in to to may profits. The sell them seed ,fertalizer,weed killer,pesticides, and fuel every year. The grass would only take fuel and time so to much money loss to let that happen. Oh and cows don't need corn to survive either.

Hunter and Joe do not make money off Switchgrass.

When we take organic material from the field we must return it in some form. Fertilizer is usually the form chosen, but even then we tend to take more than we return. Eventually, that becomes a problem.

@Elias Håkansson Yep. Cars in ethanol are the worst in the winter too :) There is a channel about an Brazilian that bought a Brazilian car and try to use the USA ethanol in his car. Less power, and smells like a very drunk person. Besides, they sacrifice crop fields that could produce FOOD. E que bom!! Mais um brasileiro que fala as verdades sobre a cana, combustível etanol e os impactos ambientais que o governo INSISTE em falar que não acontece!!!

If sugarcane is destroying the soil in your property you're doing something VERY wrong. We already have the technology and management techniques to avoid that. Source: am brazilian agronomist.

US restricts sugar cane and sugar cane ethanol imports - again due to lobbying by a strong US sugar cartel. This keeps US prices high and sticks us with worse tasting foods and poorer quality ethanol. Thanks politicians.

@Elias Håkansson we had that problem in Brazil as well, since some regions do get cold here. Initally (1st gen Flex - up to ~2010) cars had a cold start which basically injected a small amount of gasoline (separate tank, with 1-2liters), when the weather outside is below 15ºC. Around 2010, Bosch and Magneti Marelli developed a heating coil (2nd gen flex) that heats the ethanol before injecting it in the engine. Currently, some cars have direct injection (3rd gen flex) so that is no longer needed. I believe there isnt any car being produced today that is still 1st gen flex, that need the extra tank of gasoline for cold start.

@@Kiyoone here in Brazil we may have an advantaged vs. the US since sugar cane ethanol is used as fuel for cars since the 70's. Also, we are the 2nd largest producer of sugar in the world, so there was not the need to convert soil for sugarcane, when it began being used for fuel. All gasoline has ethanol here since the 90's, when we dropped lead and added ethanol in its place. All ethanol/flex cars here produce more power than when used with gasoline, for a few decades, specially those that were E100 only (no longer produced).

The corn slapping really ties it all together.

Jason slowly become how to basic..

Oh yeah. I totally understood the inward depth of the corn slapping. Top notch.

There was at least one banana in there!

I agree, very corney.

Yeah and I’m sure Monsanto had something to do with the choice of using a crop that relies heavily on their seeds and pesticides.

@@darylSKYTZOwillis Yes - Monsanto is the ignored elephant in this video.

You can thank the Obama administration for that one.

The central and key argument here is wrong on its face. There were no grasslands or forests broken up for more corn. Quite impossible since US cropland acres have been declining. Census data shows grassland, forest, and wildlife areas have been increasing in corn producing states since ethanol came. The renewable fuel standard does not specify corn has to be the source. Gen2/cellulosic ethanol which switchgrass qualifies for even has a $1.01/gal. subsidy available if such a plant were built. Gen1 ethanol which corn qualifies as had a $.45/gal. subsidy which expired back in 2011. Believe it or not, the corn belt grew more corn acres in 1980 before ethanol than they did in 2018, the year of most ethanol production ever and ethanol plants everywhere. 2018 Iowa 13,200,000 acres of corn with record ethanol production 1980 Iowa 14,000,000 acres of corn before ethanol 2018 Illinois 11,000,000 acres of corn with record ethanol production 1980 Illinois 11,600,000 acres of corn before ethanol 2018 Indiana 5,350,000 acres of corn with record ethanol production 1980 Indiana 6,450,000 acres of corn before ethanol Corn ethanol is a value-added product of already existing corn feed production acres which preserves the feed in a healthier and more productive form called distillers grains. With this feed factor, few other sources can compete with it even though they make more ethanol per acre.

@@danafletcher2341 Interesting. Thanks for the precisions. It remains hard to get reliable data on those topics, so just trying to figure things out.

They're cookin' the books again to make EV's look wonderful.

@@ichoppabroccoli3670 The lifetime carbon cost of EVs is lower than ICE and more to the point can be reduced with decrabonisation of electricity production. Yes, I know renewables can't come close to fill the hole that removing "burning stuff" creates in energy utilisation - but they're a stepping stone in reducing carbon emissions until nuclear power gets better Hint: ORNL MSRE, SINAP TMSR-LF1 - if the Chinese rebuild of Oak Ridge's 1960s work validates the results of 55 years ago, then nuclear power just got 80% cheaper to build/operate and waste output was reduced by 99%, whilst the reactor temperature got high enough to efficiently generate power and substantially reduce maintenance costs in the non-nuclear side (superrcritical steam production, instead of wet steam as is currently produced in nuke plants - which causes massive levels of blade erosion in steam turbines) If nuclear energy is cheap enough, then hydrogen for Haber-bosch processes is carbon-neutral (current carbon emissions from fertilizer production are higher than the world's transport fleet) and you have enough energy available to tack on atmospheric carbon and make portable synthetic hydrocarbons - which gets around the massive costs and dangers of trying to use raw hydrogen as a transport fuel. Yes, it means fuels will be more expensive than electricity (joule for joule), but in cases such as longhaul aviation, it's a cost that will be eaten (air transport will return to being something for the rich and public transportation _will_ rise again as fuel costs pass $10/gallon)

Worse than employees they are indoctrinated into a broken farming system and forced into debt

Just another Jimmy Carter failure. Remember when he was going to force the US to go to the metric system ?

​@@ichoppabroccoli3670 at least with EV, the thermodynamics checks out, unlike ethanol. A properly supported EV network will produce double the distance a car can produce using the same amount of gasoline as fuel for their generators. Cars simply suck at converting fuel to motion and cogeneration makes fuel stretch significantly

also, it's making it harder for manufacturer's to hit their mpg standard, which makes the buyer pay more at purchase of the vehicle.

It costs less to make ethanol than gasoline when you end up buying the gasoline from people who hate you and spend YOUR MONEY on weapons to attack you with. The geopolitical situation changes the economics.

You are right. It is not a secret. What people forget is that we have MORE corn than we need. It would get wasted. We 100% want to grow more food than we need, to account for problematic years. So we ALREADY have the corn. Ethanol is a way to use up that buffer when we don't need it. Now, certainly, the ethanol and corn industry lobby to get every advantage they can. Every industry is guilty of that though. Still, having a food buffer and finding ways to use the excess is a good thing. As noted in the video, causing an even greater corn growth increase. Which should not happen. With electricity becoming renewable, obviously that is now the better choice. We still are going to want excess food; converting it to ethanol is likely a solid use. I normally agree with Engineering Explained, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want us to live on the brink of starvation, and also wouldn't want us to let that already grown corn go to waste.

@@legonut78 it's not corn that humans can eat. They wouldn't be wasting a crop they would plant something else. You can't plant corn year after year in the same field.

@@RJL612 I’m not following you. Are you saying that the corn used for ethanol is inedible? I assure you, it’s the same corn humans eat. Field corn (dent corn) is what we eat and it is used for ethanol. It is also our animal feed. So yes, corn is where our food comes from including most of the interior supermarket isles and all of our meat and dairy. Without corn, we die. Also. You certainly can grow corn in the same field year after year. It’s cheaper to rotate it with legumes however, to reduce nitrogen costs. That problem is being solved however and someday soon corn will fix its own nitrogen. Several folks are working on it, which would be a huge win for Mother Earth.

The fermentation and burning of ethanol releases no new CO2 so they needed to find a release of CO2 somehow, so they fictitiously claim virgin soils and forests were broken up for ethanol. This is simply impossible since US cropland acres have been falling since ethanol came to be. Believe it or not, the corn belt grew more corn acres in 1980 before ethanol than in 2018, the year of most ethanol production ever. 100% of the fertilizer applied to corn still goes to livestock in the distillers grains. Ethanol is only made of things from the air: solar energy, CO2, and water. What logic is it to assign all the CO2 from fertilizer to ethanol and none to the distillers grains?

There were no new lands broken up for ethanol. It is simply impossible since US cropland acres have declined since ethanol came to be. Believe it or not, the corn belt grew more corn acres in 1980 before ethanol than they do today with record ethanol production and ethanol plants everywhere. 2018 Iowa 13,200,000 acres of corn with record ethanol production 1980 Iowa 14,000,000 acres of corn before ethanol 2018 Illinois 11,000,000 acres of corn with record ethanol production 1980 Illinois 11,600,000 acres of corn before ethanol 2018 Indiana 5,350,000 acres of corn with record ethanol production 1980 Indiana 6,450,000 acres of corn before ethanol The US used 11,160,933 tons total fertilizer on corn in 1980, before ethanol. In 2018, the year of most ethanol production ever, the US used 10,521,850 tons total fertilizer on corn. 100% of the fertilizer and things in the soil are still fed to livestock in the distillers grains. Ethanol is made only of things in the air: solar energy, CO2, and water with the latter two recycled once burnt. What logic is it then to assign fertilizer and CO2 all to ethanol and none to feed, i.e. the distillers grains?

The combined age of the people who did this "study" was about 50 years old. I cant seem then doing it "for 14 years".

Anyway, this is a discussion with the CO2 religion that is false from the ground up.

Is that not methane?

Methane is 38 times as "warming" as CO2.

@@fredschnerbert1238 which is why they put it into the natural gas to burn it into CO2 instead of having it leach into the atmosphere from rotting in a landfill. Pretty smart if you ask me!

Wood produces methanol.. (MeoH) not ethanol..

THANK YOU!

You're about the 100th person commenting on this video about how wrong this study was (it was clearly agenda driven IMO), and yet our esteemed presenter ran and hid when people began calling him out for presenting this nonsense as fact. I'm no fan of subsidies (nor of high fructose corn syrup), but fuel ethanol is pretty damn useful, even when it's made from corn.

I can drive you around in a 50mi radius and show you lots of new fields were there were once fencerows, county roads, mature woods, homes, barns, pig-sheep-cattle-goat-horse farms, pastures, prairie grasses, etc. It is COMMON to see a 50a woods one day, and piles of trees burning for a week. I watched a 10a woods completely returned to farmground in 3 days...with a smoldering dirt covered hole for a week. They rarely log before dozing & burning. It is common to see very recently occupied houses & barns bulldozed for 2a of farm ground. I cannot tell you of a single fence row that I know of in a one hour radius of me...unless it is actively holding beef cattle or horses. Wildlife of any kind has no way to dodge predators or habitat to flourish/survive. There is no urban sprawl because landowners will not give up an acre....unless it is to lease a windmill....and I will get off the soapbox before I get going on that.

@@bradleywatt9769 That's an anecdote. Meaning it happened, but it isn't representative of the whole. The amount of land in the US being used for agriculture has dropped precipitously since the ethanol mandates. That's total amount of land.

@@bradleywatt9769 BS your a zrussian.

Actually he doesnt and the sad commenters on here vilify farmers. Its like they dont eat or anything...oh wait there AI bots!

Navíc v Americe máte genově upravenou kukuřici. Kapitalisté už nevědí, kde nahrabat stále více. (Plus you have genetically engineered corn in America. Capitalists no longer know where to dig more and more)

AND the soil destruction, AND the increased use of dwindling fertilizers, AND the increased dead zones in coastal waters from excess nutrient runoff, AND the use of marginal land that was previously wildlife habitat-

Agree! And I think the new study referenced in the beginning of this does actually take this into account, along with a whole bunch of other factors that were ignored/never considered in the original equations... in order to give Ethanol a great big push and a shove into profit-land

Not to mention that the transportation cost is usually double. Oil tanker ships are super efficient. Shipping high volume corn in trucks only to throw most of it away is super inefficient. Then you refine them and still have to ship both to the pumps.

Also, something really important that nobody mentions is that forests probably absorb more co2 than corn fields. Then factor in that producing ethanol runs a net energy loss (it takes more energy to produce than you get back from the fuel) The growing global food demand while we are decreasing corn production for consumption... And the fact that ethanol is actually MORE EXPENSIVE to produce and only costs less because of tax funded subsidies... And you'll see the ONLY benefit is the increased price of food (corn) for the corn farmers union. They poured unbelievable sums into getting the laws changed to require ethanol knowing full well it was worse in just about every way. Then look at the consumers side. It's less energy dense so you get less mpg. It absorbs water out of the air so it goes bad quickly and can damage your vehicles. It dissolves standard rubber fuel lines. And a lot of older vehicles with carbs really struggle to burn it. I used to think it was great, but it turns out it's a worse scam than the prius. It doesn't improve anything but tax revenue and profits for Monsanto.

Welcome to the world of politics where nothing makes sense but sure makes cents.

The ethanol conversion on switchgrass and all other cellulose based system is horribly inefficient.

Finally someone who gets it

@@bowez9 what does Brazil use?

@@Iahusha777Iahuah sugar cane. But this video isn't about Brazil.

Switchgrass and most other cellulose sources are worse than corn. They are too bulky to transport. Most take more energy to process. Crops like switchgrass are single use. Unlike corn which produces ethanol plus acre for acre as much feed as soybeans. Corn ethanol has another benefit for human security. We depend on corn not only for food but also many manufacturing processes. If there is a severe drought for example, ethanol production could be reduced. Thus, saving corn for other uses. I'd guess a 20-30% buffer against really dramatic consequences. Can't do that with your other sources.

Cutting down Borneo's rainforest was a big mistake.

This isn't regarding ethanol, it is regarding corn based ethanol. Like he mentioned, other sources of ethanol production result in far better numbers.

@@rdizzy1 Sorry, I guess I should have been clearer - I was referring to corn-based ethanol, as it was the subject of this video.

Did you factor distillers grains into your conclusions? Every study that I've looked at that results in a negative for corn ethanol fails to get even the most simple facts straight. The one in this video is no different.

@@rdizzy1 They only result in better numbers because they are flawed. Switchgrass and most other cellulose sources are worse than corn. They are too bulky to transport. Most take more energy to process. Crops like switchgrass are single use. Unlike corn which produces ethanol while at the same time acre for acre as much feed as soybeans. The protein and fiber in corn is not converted to ethanol. Corn ethanol has another benefit for human security. We depend on corn for many things. If there is a severe drought for example, ethanol production could be reduced. Thus, helping ensure enough corn for other uses. I'd guess it provides a 20-30% buffer against really dramatic consequences.

Iowa State University measured all the energy it takes to produce an acre of corn into a "diesel fuel equivalent" This included making the machinery, fertilizer, chemicals, plus tillage, planting, harvesting, drying, trucking etc. They found it takes 34 gal of diesel to produce one acre of corn. What do we get from those 34 gallons of diesel? We get >500 gallons of ethanol. But wait, that is not the kicker. The kicker is we still get 100% of the protein, fiber, fat, vitamins, and minerals from that acre of corn still available for an even better feed called distillers grains. A win, win.

@@danafletcher2341 Now look at who paid for that study. Guess what.

@@thomashockman4972 I could say the same thing for you. We don't need a study. We know that all the energy it takes to produce and deliver a product to the consumer is reflected in the price of that product. As such note that the spot cash delivered price of ethanol on the NYMEX is $1.48/gallon. The price of an unusable sub-grade of gasoline (RBOB) is $2.76/gallon. It takes more energy to produce sub-grade gasoline than ethanol. To turn RBOB into usable E0 fuel costs even more for the very same reason premium costs more. Unfortunately, it becomes even more toxic and dirtier. Or, simply splash in >10% ethanol to RBOB and the resultant usable fuel becomes less toxic, far cleaner burning, and cheaper/cheaper per mile to drive with. Who can be against that? The bushel of corn gets dried whether or not it gets ground directly into feed or if it gets ground and value-added into distillers grains and ethanol. Cattle feeders who now use distillers grains would have to find an alternative source of protein if we had another Prohibition. That would be simply feeding the less healthy and less concentrated corn straight. 100% of the fertilizer and everything from the soil still gets fed to livestock in the distillers grains. Ethanol comes from only things of the air: solar energy, CO2, and water with the latter two recycled once burnt. Ethanol C2H6O = no fertilizer Distillers grains = all the fertilizer What logic is it to then assign all the energy and CO2 of fertilizer to ethanol and none to distillers grains?

@@thomashockman4972 All the energy it takes to produce and deliver a product to the consumer is reflected in the price of that product. As such note that the spot cash delivered price of ethanol on the NYMEX is $1.48/gal. The price of unusable sub-grade gasoline (RBOB) is $2.76/gal. To turn RBOB into usable E0 fuel costs even more for the same reason premium does. Unfortunately it becomes even more toxic and dirtier. Of splash in >10% ethanol to RBOB and the resultant usable fuel becomes less toxic, far cleaner burning, and cheaper/cheaper per mile to drive. Who can be against that? Whether the corn gets dried and ground directly for feed or ground and value-added into distillers grains and ethanol, the same amount of drying will happen. The US used 11,160,933 tons total fertilizer on corn in 1980, before ethanol. In 2018, the year of most ethanol production ever, the US used 10,521,850 tons total fertilizer on corn. 100% of the fertilizer (& everything from the soil) still get fed to livestock in the distillers grains. Ethanol comes from only things of the air: solar energy, CO2, and water with the latter two recycled once burnt. Ethanol C2H6O = no fertilizer Distillers grains = all the fertilizer What logic is it to then assign all the energy and CO2 of fertilizer to ethanol and none to distillers grains?

I hope you got an F in whatever class you did that study for. Because ethanol is not using feedstock. Ethanol allows us to get both food and fuel from every kernel of corn.

@@jeffp6786 ethanol fuel divert corn from food production. Making food more expensive. ethanol is a crime against poor people.

@@jeffp6786 still need to produce increasingly more corn as more cars started using higher ethanol contents not to mention how variable seasons can be with droughts

@@Brandon_letsgo That is not true in the slightest. Corn is not diverted from food to fuel. Once the ethanol is extracted, DDG (dry distillers grain) remains. That DDG is then fed to livestock thereby creating food.

@@austinh1028 No. The vast majority of corn used for ethanol would be grown regardless for animal feed. With ethanol, we extract the fuel from the corn leaving protein dense distillers grain to feed to livestock. The reason this study is bogus is because it assumes the land growing corn would go back to idle if not for ethanol. That's simply not true and skews the study results.

Even with just 10% ethanol added to E0, the Swiss Federal Laboratory for Materials Science and Technology found that the especially health devastating ultra fine or nano particulate emissions were lowered by 97%, carbon monoxide lowered by 81%, carbon dioxide lowered by 13%, aromatic hydrocarbon emissions lowered by 67-96%, and genotoxic emissions lowered by 72%.

@@danafletcher2341 I looked up that study and found it referenced from 2016. It's interesting that it specifically only applied to direct injection engines, which are engineered for better efficiency/lower emissions to begin with. Those engines come with their own problems, but regardless, suffer from the same reduced fuel mileage using ethanol products compared to pure gasoline, thus still burning more fuel per mile driven. Fuel that's still 90% gasoline. I'm not remotely sold that a 10% change in fuel type reduces emissions by 13%, much less 72-97% of anything. If it's true, the study can be replicated by others. And should have been. But if that's the only study showing reduced emissions since 2016, and others that show a net increase, I'm not buying it.

Clay you're spot on and it should have been touched on in this presentation. 5-8% increase in consumption with E10 vs non-ethanol gasoline in my personal vehicle. Nascar switched over to 15% ethanol and saw a 10% increase in consumption or reduction in efficiency. However you want to look at it. How is that "green"? I'm just a simple man with some common sense. But then again I don't have a vested interest in corn, ethanol production or its subsides..........

except the efficiency of a otto cycle is dependent on the compression ratio. Without the octane enhancer your engine would be forced to run at a compression ratio of 7.4/1 vs running an engine at 11/1 . And that is what happened in the early 70%, Ethanol was forced in as a oxygenating agent to reduce hydrocarbon emissions. It was never there to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. MBTE was its competitor but was taken out (cancer causing) And a engine with E10 at 11/1 will far outdo an engine at 7.4/1 running on E0. This is the octane effect of adding ethanol.

There's not only that consideration, but the issue with so much land being turned to corn production for ethanol. This has caused a decrease in other food crops, particularly rice, as farmers around the globe are not in farming for their health but to at least break even financially. This has had devastating effects upon world food supplies. I know that the green crowd thinks that it's a win to kill off large swathes of the Earth's population because it will be "good for the planet", but it's a bit less of a positive if you are one of those who starves.

We will grow the same amount of corn with or without corn ethanol. Cattle feeders who now feed distillers grains would have to find an alternative source of protein if we ended corn ethanol and that would be simply switching back to feeding the corn straight. Almost happened during the covid shut down. There were no forest or virgin lands broken up for corn ethanol. US cropland acres have declined since ethanol so such a thing is impossible. Indeed the corn belt grew more acres of corn in 1980 before ethanol than in 2018, the year of most ethanol production ever. Because corn ethanol is a value-added product of already existing feed production which leaves 100% of the protein and other things still available as a healthier and better feed, not many things can compete with it, even if they produce more ethanol per acre and this includes sugarcane. So much so that Brazil put an import tariff on our ethanol.

...and it'll never be undone.

Farmers have historically been supported by government in America because food production and the ability to feed ourselves is considered a part of national security.

Not just a farm subsidy but a subsidy for agriscience giants promoting their seed/fertilizer/herbacides and the petroleum companies that get to sell you about 15% more gallons when you look at the 14/9 split in stoichiometry.

@@76horsepower Unfortunately the ethanol subsidies aren't going to the small farmers but rather to the farming giants such as ADM as Jim Urrata pointed out below. These folks spend millions in lobbying to keep ethanol subsidies in place and they won't be interested in moving to switchgrass . And Jim's also right when he points out that ethanol "enhanced" gas is less efficient and causes us to use MORE fuel than would be necessary with alcohol-free fuel. This is the government working for big industry and against its citizens.

@@jimurrata6785 It is mostly for farmers but I think it is over done also. And I come from a farm family that still farms.

Cane ethanol would be even better than that. Much higher energy potential. But corn has very little energy in it, even for the biological machines it's been tailored to power (our stomachs) being more of a filler than a nutrient, so there's no surprise there.

@@1SqueakyWheel Again, this decision had nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with political grift to an important primary state.

@@1SqueakyWheel That's why Brazil uses for their ethanol which yield more higher output while short growth cycle to produce sugar canes

@@Astroinmotion Exactly. I remember my Dad and I discussing the use of sugar ethanol in South American countries for all these reasons, when he was still healthy. (he's been gone almost a decade now).

Seems like the government gets in its own way a lot of times. They always talk about looking for a better solution and lowering emissions and hear a solution is staring them right in the face (switchgrass) but they won't do anything with it. The politics get in the way of doing what's actually better.

There is an unpopular variety "Oaxaca Green Dent" and I am partial to the white "Silver Queen" because I heard corn smut likes it. Smutty (huitlacoche) quesadillas are tasty.

Remember. All models are wrong. Some models are occasionally useful

I doubt that "family farms" are clearing new land: They do not have it. But the small farmer, the "family farm," seems to be a disappearing entity. They are useful to exploit when justifying legislation, and convincing voters that a program is "for the people." However, increasingly the farming is done by large corporate farms (I liked the term in the book, "Wind Up Girl:" the "Calorie Companies."). Increasingly, the "family farms" produce to contract for the mega-corps. The mega-corps commonly till their own land (as opposed to contracted land) as well. Mega-corp exists to expand. Indeed, stagnation is death. Thus, mega-corp must acquire more contractors (a diminishing resource), acquire smaller/vulnerable/available industrial agriculture firms, or expand their own tilled acreage. Here is where I expect that you will find the land use conversion.

Ethanol is made and there is a byproduct that is fed to cows. Ethanol makes sense. Not to mention the U.S needs 10% less fuel from Arab countries.

@@billharm6006 - "Mega-corp exists to expand. Indeed, stagnation is death" - BUT our planet is finite! So I guess these "superior idiots' ( by which I mean while they may have a "higher" education, they have a poor grasp of reality! ) see planet extinction as just another "externality" they can continue ignoring???

@@deshaunjackson8188 Ethanol makes no sense on any sort of large scale. It is all about energy density. You have to burn more Ethanol to get the same or similar performance among other things.

Hasn't helped the monarch butterfly either. The only thing they brood on is milkweed and that has all but disappeared with the use of glyphosates.

Thanks for sharing your perspective!

Because that is the primary purpose of the corn ethanol program. It's welfare/gov cheese for big agro. EVERYTHING in America is a RACKET. It is now not that unusual to hear about police robbing people on the side of the road and now, they are even robbing armored cars (YES, this happened). EVERYTHING is a RACKET in the United States. Even our wars are RACKETS. There is NOTHING we do that is not a racket.

That is sadly the problem with almost all human land-use. I belive we need to adress this very soon if we want to stop the biodiversity losses.

@@EngineeringExplained It gets a little more interesting. This is a larger problem across the entire corn-growing region of the US, which is far larger than just Iowa. The loss of habitat for species in the Phasianidae family (pheasants, etc.) and the Odontophoridae family (quails) has so reduced bird populations that more and more Americans of all political affiliations are starting and joining conservation groups, if for no other reason than to hopefully be able to hunt them again at some point in the future. For example, the bobwhite quail has been all but extirpated from several US states. They're just canaries in the coal mine, though. There are even bigger underlying problems...

It was also a political move to buy off the ag lobby.

Corn based ethanol is a good idea in one, and only one, case. Makes a damn fine whiskey. Although even there, it's inferior to barley or rye.

@@SimuLord You can keep the corn. I’ll take the single malt thank you.🤣👍🥃

isn't corn genetically modified, therefore the big guy who owns the patent is collecting his greedy share

@@johndrew6730 Buy off the ag lobby? You mean they get favors from Congress and we pay them ? Both? Pretty sure the lobby does the buying in exchange for beneficial legislation.

Iowa has the worst water ways in the Nation because farmers now plant right to the edge. The govt subsidizing ethanol is woven into many aspects of life there, it won't be easy to take that away. Farmers are never going to return crop land into native grass lands, without, you guessed it, massive subsidies.

@@9023gregb If it became legal to sell non-ethanol fuels again, it might not take that long.

Same where I live in

@@9023gregb you got it! The environmental damage done to the land in the quest for more corn for more ethanol, has caused loss of erosion controls that had been in place since the 1930s. Much of that was habitat for wildlife that has decreased in population. Which is another in planned negative effect driven by the unsuccessful attempt at reducing carbon with corn based ethanol.

Keep asking the right questions, Mike. Tier 5 for offroad.... folks be crazy.

Yeah, why do so many people forget that the majority of European Cars and Trucks used to be DIESEL until oil companies imposed "green" laws through governments in order to drive up profits. :/

@@mouseblackcat5263 It wasn't oil companies. It was the populace of Europe.

@@christianlibertarian5488 Not any that I ever spoke to. They hated going to Petrol from Diesel. Diesel is Safer, Cheaper, and more Useful for as more than just Fuel.

@@christianlibertarian5488 lol what? If they start banning euro 5 diesel and let go euro 3 gasoline emissions it’s by law that they want to kill diesel.

Yeh but the genetically modified corn's patent owner needs his cut, and he has more political clout

@@natchan5076 Monsanto and Cargil will be sending out their hit squads.

The switchgrass lobby isn't as powerful as the corn lobby.

You guys are on crack if you think they will be piles of switchgrass 100s of feet high in bales at the local processers. 95% of the land was already in production, so that great carbon kill is taken out of the equation. No word on cheap feed for livestock was talked about. Sure, go to 60% switchgrass across millions of acres, whats the corn price going to do? where's that put the livestock industry. All in the tank where these egg heads want it.

@@tjfarmer9380 Any way you slice it, using land for biofuel means less land for food production, whether it's corn or grass.

Ok, I'll bite. What engine parts deteriorate faster on pure ethanol?

@@ChurchAutoTest If I remember correctly it degrades rubber and plastic parts such as gaskets, seals and hoses. Being a racing team with a car running only on ethanol is what they found, however it occurred to me later that I saw the video at least ten years ago and that car companies have probably increased the resilience of modern parts to accommodate these issues.

@@garethbaker5179 Any car sold in the united states since 2000 has ethanol tolerant fuel lines so no issue anymore. I really don't consider fuel lines engine parts but I'll grant that old rubber may not have liked ethanol, just like old engine seals didn't like synthetic. Price we pay if we want to keep old cars on the road.

You're absolutely right. Keep fighting. This stuff was obvious to me when I was a kid too. Now I'm 50 and too old and tired to do anything about it. Nobody does anything today unless it will net a profit, and that needs to change if we want to remain a viable species.

It’s the same with 90% of pharmaceutical drugs. The side affects far outweigh the intended benefit but yet the FDA approves this crap

Oh the government does care. About the corn lobby.

The government dosen't care...in more ways than one.

@@stickyfox Existentially speaking, what is our ‘purpose’ in the universe anyway? The viability of the human race is irrelevant. In the big picture, it makes NO difference if we make it or not as a race.

Yea true, I recall reading (somewhere, multiple places) that E10 UL will reduce economy by about 3-4% vs E5 UL

@@Assimilator1 Spot on, recent MCN dyno tests of motorcycles

Ethanol fuel is a scam.

That IS correct. Ethanol has about 70% the energy density of pure Gasoline. So with 10% added you will see around 3% worse MPG. Ethanol does allow higher compression ratios and If an engine is designed to take advantage of that you can reduce this defict.

@@rgrigio Even turn it into a benefit. It's not fair to judge an engine that has had 100 years of fine tuning to one type of fuel to the same engine running a different fuel and then blame the fuel for a lack of efficiency. There's sort of a conflation of two issues though, one being the energy density of the fuel and the other being the efficient extraction of that energy. They aren't related. Ethanol is less energy dense, but what matters is the net energy put into useful work. In a gasoline engine less energy is converted into useful work even at best design efficiency as a ration of gross to net. Ethanol is able to extract more effective work meaning the ration of net to gross is HIGHER in an engine DESINGED FOR ETHANOL. The question is how those factors fit into the larger puzzle of tradeoffs. For a gasoline engine 10% ethanol is about as high as one can go before you increase fuel consumption for the same amount of work. Unless you go to 95% Ethanol in an engine designed for it, in which case you are getting a lot of benefits and MORE efficient extraction of energy. The main reason they put ethanol in fuel though is not for environmental reason, but to help keep it dry, blended, and at the appropriate octane.

detail question, what makes you say it's bad especially for small engines? don't oxygen sensors and stoichiometric EFI operating/control strategies correct it to lambda=1 which is say 14.7 for 0% Eth gas and 14.3 or whatever respective point (i forget) it might be for E10 gas etc?

Imagine having a carburetted motorcycle and leaving it for some time without starting it. Gunks up jets, clogs the fuel bowl etc Makes startups after winter a pain in the back Yes. I did use fuel stabilizer, didnt do jackshit

@@renizer not on lawn mowers/ lawn equipment and carbureted motorcycles. Anything without electronics to compensate. Seems like you’re nit picking and missing the bigger picture…

The best results would be reached if gasoline cars were turned into flex-fuel (or bi-fuel, whatever the name) cars. I installed a small box to my previous car and that basically monitors the data from lambda and increases the time the injectors are open. So it stands between the car's own computer and the injector. Of course it also monitors the alcohol concentration. E85 contains about 85% of ethanol and my 2001 Audi A6 was running like a charm with it and also with any mixture of that and gasoline. Only cold starts in the winter are a problem, below -5 celsius needs some gasoline mixture. Pure E85 consumption was about 30% bigger than 98 octane (Europe standard, don't remember the RON vs whatever differences) that has 5% ethanol in it and can be used without any modifications to your car. But also, the ethanol should be made out of waste, not turn land and grow food for that. In Finland ST1 produces it's ethanol from wood industry's waste and some common waste too. So they're using the leftovers that wouldn't be used elsewhere. CO2 isn't of course the only emission difference, ethanol burns much cleaner too. And a bit cooler.

@@someguy9520 yes. I spent hours attempting to clean a carburetor on a motorcycle that had sat for an extended time. It never fully regained its original performance. At least not with the time I put into it.

I concur: Follow the money.

Using ethanol to bring down the price of gas is like buying a new refrigerator, then selling it used on ebay to pay your mortgage payment. Ethanol is government subsidized because it takes more energy to make than it produces (thanks ADM)- and it will drive up the cost of corn- which we need for our food supply! More democrat dumbfuckery. FJB LGB 🤡🤡

Yep...gov't funneling money to farmers is the problem. So corrupt.

I followed it! Archer Daniels Midland.

There is no subsidy anywhere for ethanol look it up

Your data is very old, today the US turns 2.9 bushels of corn into one gallon of ethanol while preserving 100% of the protein and other things for feed as distillers grains and other byproducts. 2023 corn yield was 177.3 bu./acre so this equals to about 514 gallons of ethanol per acre. The five-year average US corn yield is 173.3 and this equals to 502.6 gallons per acre. Iowa State University measured all the energy it takes to produce an acre of corn into a "diesel fuel equivalent" This included making the machinery, fertilizer, chemicals, plus the tillage, planting, harvesting, drying, trucking etc. They found it takes 34 gal of diesel to produce one acre of corn. What do we get from those 34 gallons of diesel? We get >500 gallons of ethanol. But wait, that is not the kicker. The kicker is we still get 100% of the protein and other things from that acre of corn still available for an even better feed called distillers grains. A win, win.

They also use less steel in car bodies nowadays. Neither aluminum nor fiberglass resin will rust, even if the paint is bad.

I hope more people look at this. You should NOT run gasoline with ethanol in your small engines (look for premium without ethanol). In the long run, its not good for the engine.

This is key.

Ethanol is higroscopic, it attracts water. E10 gas can be stored for 2-4 months before it hoes bad. E0 gas lasts for 4-6 months.

the smell of VP small engine fuel

Nothing wrong with using ethanol gas in small engines, just finely store it in them. For something that a gallon of gas lasts a year then premium ethanol free gasoline is the only way to go. For something like a generator the cost of that would be less then desirable. My solution is I run both, I’ll run regular gasoline for the week and bring a can of premium as well. The premium is the last tank that gets ran before putting it away. Of course this only works for something that goes through a sufficient amount to make it worth the effort.

Nice to hear perspective from those with experience on the field! I suspect this has a lot more to do with corn than ethanol itself from what I gather though :/

If ethanol producers gave away their distillers grains, they all would lose money as well. The feed component is what makes corn outcompete most any other source even though they make more ethanol per acre. John Deere and Cummins just dropped a chunk of money into a company named ClearFlame who converts diesel engines into pure ethanol burners. So clean it eliminates the need for the costly and unreliable exhaust particulate filters and DEF. Henry Ford's dream of ethanol tractors may come true. The US actually used more fertilizer and chemical in 1980 before ethanol than after. Everything from fertilizer and from the soil is still goes to the feed, the only thing that goes to the ethanol is solar energy, CO2, and water with the latter two needed for the new gallon of ethanol. Here is how the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act affected food/feed prices (not counting inflation): 2007 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$4.20 WITH 4 .7B GAL MANDATE 2008 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$4.06 WITH 9B GAL MANDATE 2009 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE=$3.55 WITH 10.5B GAL MANDATE 2016 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.36 WITH 15B GAL MADATE MAXED OUT 2017 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.36 WITH 15B GAL MANDATE MAXED OUT 2018 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.61 WITH SAME 15B GAL MANDATE MAXED OUT + RECORD PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL Wheat 2007...............$6.48/bu 2008...............$6.78/bu 2009...………$4.87/bu 2016...………$3.89/bu 2017...............$4.72/bu 2018...............$5.15/bu Soybeans 2007..............$10.10/bu 2008..............$ 9.97/bu 2009...……...$9.59/bu 2016..............$9.47/bu 2017..............$9.33/bu 2018..............$8.48/bu

Govern = CONTROL Ment = MENTAL The WORD GOVERNMENT IS MIND CONTROL ! We can't vote our way out of it ! Any where in the world ! If you have any doubt in 20 22 Look up the word politics ! Parasites always kill their host !

@@crazydragy4233 NO IT'S ABOUT THE PARASITES ! That controls our MINDS ! Check out the Arab spring ! And how ethanol base fuel caused it ! Then ask Al Gore why did he lie ?

Solution is simple, let petrol carry the full cost of the pollution it causes. That said, making ethanol out of corn might not be optimal...

The fact they grow corn for the express purpose of turning it into ethanol when there is so much food waste that could be used instead tells you all you need to know about the corruption involved in this

Yeah cause Exxon has been soooo honest right?

@@michaeld4861 And this has to do with what? The OP is talking about their wife's uncle - I THINK they might be credible as a family member. Exxon, sure think what you want, youre probably not wrong.

@@michaeld4861 Honesty has nothing to do with chemistry.

@@highestqualitypigiron Ethanol plant near me had little to no waste. All of the corn is used to its full potential

@@benchoflemons398 incorrect, it was in fact due to lobbying by big ag. There were increasingly more countries producing their own corn and relying less on imported American corn, thus dropping prices. It was intended to create a new, domestic market for corn that would increase prices and be less susceptible to increased production globally. No one gives enough shits about voters of any demographic to make a policy like this purely to placate them.

@@benchoflemons398 No it has nothing to do with farmer votes. They are literally the smallest voting block in America, that would be political suicide. The reason for it has to do with American food policy. Farming is heavily meddled with by our federal government.

@@benchoflemons398 That only proves my point. It has nothing to do with placating farmers OR placating people who marry young. It’s about overall energy policy / cultures where dating/marriage isn’t just a means for using someone for sex.

@@benchoflemons398 A quick Google search shows me that the ethanol requirement was passed by Congress in 05, which wasn't even a voting year so them doing it for the Iowa caucus damn near 3 years in the future just doesn't hold up. It sure wasn't farmers who read the study referenced in this video and started a lobbying campaign to get this passed, and Congress sure wasn't thinking of a caucus 3 years in the future. A lobbyist or an employee of big ag read the study and saw an opportunity. A quick Google search confirms this. My god man, the information is out there at the tip of your fingers. Look it up before so boldly stating such opinions based clearly on nothing more than gut feelings.

Farmers have been supported historically by the government in America because the ability to grow our own food and feed our population is considered a part of national security.

Stick with the liquid stuff!

Plants are very efficient at making carbohydrates which ethanol is made from and why ethanol is so low in price, far cheaper than petroleum. Plants are not as efficient at making oils which is why sustainable diesel fuel is more expensive, up there or even a wee bit more than petroleum. Human beings should not be consuming seed oils, so I have nothing against making biodiesel or renewable diesel from them. Cattle should not be consuming starch since they waste it out their rear ends anyway and it makes them unhealthy which is why it is better to remove it by making ethanol and feeding the corn as distillers grains instead.

@@danafletcher2341 Great info. Unfortunately, as Jason pointed out, ethanol production is a net carbon gain. Yes, it is cheap for consumers, good for farmers wallets, is sustainable and adds to energy security, but until we have a more efficient means of production, it's kind of "meh." Oh and it's good for a nice race tune on modern muscle cars! Haha.

@@DeltaSierra426 The study used is wrong, there was no virgin or forest land broken up for ethanol production. In fact, since ethanol, US cropland acres have fallen so such a thing is impossible. The corn belt in 1980 before ethanol had more corn acres than in 2018, the year of most ethanol production ever. Here is how the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act affected food/feed prices(if at all) and farmers' wallets: 2007 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$4.20 WITH 4 .7B GAL MANDATE 2008 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$4.06 WITH 9B GAL MANDATE 2009 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE=$3.55 WITH 10.5B GAL MANDATE 2016 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.36 WITH 15B GAL MADATE MAXED OUT 2017 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.36 WITH 15B GAL MANDATE MAXED OUT 2018 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.61 WITH SAME 15B GAL MANDATE MAXED OUT + MOST ETHANOL EVER PRODUCED Wheat 2007...............$6.48/bu 2008...............$6.78/bu 2009...………$4.87/bu 2016...………$3.89/bu 2017...............$4.72/bu 2018...............$5.15/bu Soybeans 2007..............$10.10/bu 2008..............$ 9.97/bu 2009...……...$9.59/bu 2016..............$9.47/bu 2017..............$9.33/bu 2018..............$8.48/bu The spot cash delivered price of ethanol on the NYMEX is $2.19/gallon. The price of an unusable sub-grade of gasoline (RBOB) is $2.73/gallon. To turn RBOB into usable E0 fuel costs even more. Unfortunately for humanity is also becomes even more toxic and dirty. Or simply splash in >10% ethanol to RBOB and the resultant usable fuel becomes less toxic, vastly cleaner burning, and cheaper/cheaper per mile to drive. Who can be against that?

@@DeltaSierra426 There was no virgin or forestland broken up for ethanol. Impossible since US cropland acres have been falling since ethanol came. Believe it or not, the corn belt grew more corn acres in 1980 before ethanol than they do today with record ethanol production and ethanol plants everywhere. 2018 Iowa 13,200,000 acres of corn with record ethanol production 1980 Iowa 14,000,000 acres of corn before ethanol 2018 Illinois 11,000,000 acres of corn with record ethanol production 1980 Illinois 11,600,000 acres of corn before ethanol 2018 Indiana 5,350,000 acres of corn with record ethanol production 1980 Indiana 6,450,000 acres of corn before ethanol Here is how the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act affected food/feed prices(if at all) and farmers' wallets. 2007 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$4.20 WITH 4 .7B GAL MANDATE 2008 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$4.06 WITH 9B GAL MANDATE 2009 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE=$3.55 WITH 10.5B GAL MANDATE 2016 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.36 WITH 15B GAL MADATE MAXED OUT 2017 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.36 WITH 15B GAL MANDATE MAXED OUT 2018 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.61 WITH SAME 15B GAL MANDATE MAXED OUT + MOST ETHANOL EVER PRODUCED Wheat 2007...............$6.48/bu 2008...............$6.78/bu 2009...………$4.87/bu 2016...………$3.89/bu 2017...............$4.72/bu 2018...............$5.15/bu Soybeans 2007..............$10.10/bu 2008..............$ 9.97/bu 2009...……...$9.59/bu 2016..............$9.47/bu 2017..............$9.33/bu 2018..............$8.48/bu

@@DeltaSierra426 There were no virgin or forestlands broken up for ethanol. It is simply impossible since US cropland acres have fallen since ethanol came to be. Here is how the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act affected farmers' wallets: 2007 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$4.20 WITH 4 .7B GAL MANDATE 2008 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$4.06 WITH 9B GAL MANDATE 2009 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE=$3.55 WITH 10.5B GAL MANDATE 2016 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.36 WITH 15B GAL MADATE MAXED OUT 2017 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.36 WITH 15B GAL MANDATE MAXED OUT 2018 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.61 WITH SAME 15B GAL MANDATE MAXED OUT + MOST ETHANOL EVER PRODUCED Wheat 2007...............$6.48/bu 2008...............$6.78/bu 2009...………$4.87/bu 2016...………$3.89/bu 2017...............$4.72/bu 2018...............$5.15/bu Soybeans 2007..............$10.10/bu 2008..............$ 9.97/bu 2009...……...$9.59/bu 2016..............$9.47/bu 2017..............$9.33/bu 2018..............$8.48/bu

Thanks, didnt no about it.

This is never forgotten about, and is taken into account in all studies of ethanol, including the one Jason mentioned. Without taking that into account (and it is usually overestimated), ethanol is _severely_ carbon positive.

Cows should be eating grass anyway, not corn nor waste from it.

@Kswa S Are willing to pay the outrageous prices for beef to have grass-fed cattle? A rough estimate would be around $40.00 a pound for the cheapest cuts of beef. There isn't enough pasture space for the cattle. 3 head of cattle per acre.

Now if we captured all the methane emissions from those cows and converted that to fuel also.

I thought it was interesting how he conveniently left out the fact that a high percentage of farmers use no-till AND cover crops. That fact doesn't fit his narrative.

@@paulschmidt3624 Ok so 20% of farms are no-till. Does that affect the numbers that much? No. But that doesn't fit your narrative.

@@joecoolioness6399 The USDA Farm Census data disagrees with that. The 2017 census puts no-till at 37%, conservation (partial) till at 35%, and 28% of land in conventional tillage. This is from the 282 million acres covered by the census, however, this covers all field crops(not tree crops) which can be drastically different in soil prep. Cereals and cover crops are much easier to go no till, whereas vegetables require more soil preparation. This can be seen in the census data, states with high percentage of cereals/cover (IA,Il,KS) have more no till versus states with more percentage of vegetables (CA, MN).

Poet, the largest ethanol producer now has half their plants using waste steam from natural gas electric plants to make ethanol. Waste steam = free energy. Thus, the already low price of ethanol has room to remain low for soon all plants will be like that for who can compete with free energy. You do realize the crude oil and tar sands require huge amounts of fossil fuels to distill into gasoline? Tar sands require the pipeline and rail cars to be heated from Canada to even move it.

@@danafletcher2341 what's wrong with letting the rail car get cold during the trip and melting it at load/unload time?

Oil refining takes energy too

@@TheRealPlato They would have to or probably mix in natural gas distillates in the cars to prevent it from setting up like a rock and then redistill them out.

@@danafletcher2341 thank you for answering that question

The USA should be buying ethanol from Brazil instead of growing corn.

Very interesting! but the corn lobby here is SO strong - it was a huge cash-grab for wannabe farmers and investors, so they just ran with it. As others have stated, all the evidence pointed to corn-based ethanol being a joke from the start.

82.5+27.5 greater than 100 percent

@@ajl9491 you are right, wrote on a hurry and made the most basic math error. The ethanol rate is 27.5% so the gasoline must be 72.5%. Thanks for your observation.

@@hotcoffee5542 🤣America is already buying ethanol from Brazil. I'm a little fuzzy on the numbers, but I think that we're buying 20% of our ethanol from Brazil due to the requirements set forth in the Clean Air Act, where we can't get all of our ethanol from one source (corn). There's a small problem, however: While American is theoretically getting ethanol from Brazil, it's not that we're buying it outright...we're simply trading our corn-based ethanol for the sugar-based variety: The ships that haul this similar product back and forth pass each other in the night.

And while a 5% reduction in fuel economy doesn't sound that bad on an individual level, try multiplying it by tens of millions of vehicles having their fuel economy reduced every day.

British Thermal Units in the combustion process of making energy is the factor. Hard to believe that the same factor happens our side of the pond and with the same name! 😎

Yup. Basically ethanol provides zero net energy to gas .. Ethanol absorbs h2o, and there is enough in any gas station tank to make every drop of ethanol worthless... Methanol, although nasty, actually produces usable energy in an ICE

that is only because the engines are made for gas, engines made for ethanol are more efficient the Indianapolis 500 is now ethanol,,

I remember earlier when they were all over M85 in California in the 90's. Pumps were popping up in Ventura and L.A.. Price per gallon was good, about 75¢, but my goal was HP. I was looking into modding my car back then. It's pretty corrosive and hard to select materials that are resistance to both gasoline and methanol. Needed bigger injectors to keep up with the flow and higher compression to take advantage of the octane. Ideally, a bigger fuel tank to maintain the range. One thing that was nice was the vapor pressure was high enough that the tank didn't need to be foam-filled like with neat methanol. Still too much effort.

Even the muscle car magazines got on the bandwagon - it was like someone flipped a switch and it was being promoted everywhere overnight. Vanished about as quickly!

e85 is going strong where I live in the west. Almost $1 less per gallon than unleaded. Without modifications to increase compression ratio, it doesn't give much of an advantage to run ( e85). Late model vehicles now include turbocharging, which allows a big boost to performance. With e85s high octane rating, this is the perfect setup. My 2016 Ford Focus gets nearly identical mileage (36 mpg) whether e85 or unleaded fuel. It runs a 12 to 1 compression ratio. A big Thank You to Ford for finally seeing the light. Check gasbuddy for e85 locations around the country . They are in the thousands.

E85 was pretty close to payola - the government deciding to give money away and creating a phony premise for doing it. E85 was never possible without subsidies, and wasted billions of your tax dollars, did not hing to help the environment, and made a lot of freinds of politicians wealthy. It was shameful.

You think its about money for the government? Its because you are big oils plaything just like all the governments on earth.

There were no extra acres for corn grown for ethanol, there were no grasslands or forests broken up. Quite impossible on its face since US cropland acres have been declining since ethanol. Census data shows that grassland, forest, and wildlife areas increased in corn producing states since ethanol came to be. There is no diverting food. Corn ethanol is a value-added product of already existing feed production acres which preserves the feed in a healthier and more productive form called distillers grains. During the Covid shutdown when ethanol plants were idle, cattle publications wrote articles about feeders running out of distillers grains. If it had prolonged, they would have had to get their protein from the less concentrated and less healthy corn straight. 100% of the fertilizer and things in the soil still get fed to livestock in the distillers grains. Ethanol comes from only things of the air: solar energy, CO2, and water with the latter two recycled once burnt. Ethanol C2H6O = no fertilizer Distillers grains = all the fertilizer What logic is it to then assign all the energy and CO2 of fertilizer to ethanol and none to distillers grains? The US used 11,160,933 tons total fertilizer on corn in 1980, before ethanol. In 2018, the year of most ethanol production ever, the US used 10,521,850 tons total fertilizer on corn. Believe it or not, the corn belt grew more corn acres in 1980 before ethanol than they did in 2018, the year of most ethanol production ever and ethanol plants everywhere. 2018 Iowa 13,200,000 acres of corn with record ethanol production 1980 Iowa 14,000,000 acres of corn before ethanol 2018 Illinois 11,000,000 acres of corn with record ethanol production 1980 Illinois 11,600,000 acres of corn before ethanol 2018 Indiana 5,350,000 acres of corn with record ethanol production 1980 Indiana 6,450,000 acres of corn before ethanol

Corn is barely food 😂

Except on a BBQ

Corn syrup is the worst. Cane sugar is so much healthier. But the “flyover states” in the Midwest “lobbied” aka bought our senators to hand the corn industry billions every year.

@@rowanparmiter7622 Yeah, I like to burn a steak pretty good on both sides while it's still bleeding in the middle.

@@rowanparmiter7622 you beat me to it by 1hour! 😆