6 ms·

Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?

73 points by terio 15y ago

wccrawford 15y ago
As much as I'd like to see us move away from oil, everything I've seen has pointed to corn ethanol not being very good for the task.
- Ronkdar 15y ago
  A very promising technology I've had the chance to work with is called SwiftFuel. It's based of switchgrass, which is far more sustainable. The FAA, due to pressure from the EPA, is looking to switch the entire aviation industry to SwiftFuel from low-lead fuels. More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#Swift_fuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#Swift_fuel SwiftFuel has the advantage of being able to run, in theory, in most/all aircraft engines without modification. (Fuel pumps need to be replaced, however)
  - shareme 15y ago
    One problem, land that is ready to grow such crops is finite in supply not infinite..ie same land that corn was used..which will also impact food supplies..
    - hirenj 15y ago
      Biofuel researcher here: The nice thing about switchgrass is that it's a much hardier plant, meaning that you can get it to grow on marginal lands, which means land that wouldn't otherwise be used for crops. Getting people to grow anything for biofuels is a bit of a double-edged sword, as you want the feedstock to be as cheap as possible, but you also want it to be profitable for the farmers to actually produce so that you can get enough of the biomass. If you improve the yield of viable biomass from the plants that'll go part of the way to solving this.
      - ericd 15y ago
        If the stuff is efficient enough as a source for gasoline replacement generation to be worth making gasoline from, subsidies shouldn't be necessary to ensure a sufficient stock. If it requires subsidies, that indicates a big problem with that plan. Unless the main goal is to reduce foreign oil independence. But I'm skeptical that that goal is remotely feasible with biofuels without making serious compromises in food-generating land. We should be spending this effort and funding on improving battery tech and creating business models that make electric vehicles appealing (swappable leased batteries, for example), as well as improving nuclear power tech to feed those vehicles. EDIT: Algae seems like it could be promising, assuming we could find a way to mass farm it without disturbing ocean food cycles.
    - lutorm 15y ago
      I think the problem is less the amount of land than the energy intensity of the crop.
jrussbowman 15y ago
"But even setting subsidies aside—after all, every energy source in use in the U.S. today continues to receive federal tax benefits, among other incentives—there's the simple economic cost of building all those corn mills, stainless steel fermentation tanks and other infrastructure needed to churn out ethanol on the tremendous scale of transportation fuels." Maybe the subsidies should go there, to promote job creation in those areas for the infrastructure buildup.
BenSS 15y ago
A million times yes, there needs to be more awareness of how ridiculous corn ethanol is. Corn ethanol is more an indirect way of converting coal to something your car can run on. There are many other more efficient plant sources that do not require large doses of fertilizer and herbicides, usually drawn from coal energy.
- cfgvjkljhgfb 15y ago
  Corn ethanol is an indirect way of converting farming subsidy into electoral college votes.
- lutorm 15y ago
  I'm not going to defend corn ethanol, but I do think this debate is misguided. The problem is not the corn ethanol, the problem is the corn. Corn is an indirect way of converting oil into sugar. It is just as inefficient at making food as it is at making fuel (though that's less obvious because the end product doesn't have the same units.) There's a great article in an old issue of Harper's called "The oil we eat" (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915 http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915). I find it amazing that people are complaining that diverting corn to make ethanol raises food prices, when you can make the same argument that diverting corn to feed cattle raises food prices. Making beef via corn is an extremely inefficent method that's only viable because of cheap oil. If the real concern is feeding people, you eat vegetarian. From a food supply point of view it's pure waste to feed cattle food that humans can eat directly. (Letting cattle eat grass on land not suited for agriculture is different.) The only reason it's sustainable to raise cattle the way it's done in the U.S. is because of an abundance of cheap corn due to cheap oil.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    you can make the same argument that diverting corn to feed cattle raises food prices As far as I can figure out, diverting corn to feed cattle raises corn prices and lowers beef prices. Since beef eats up a much larger fraction of my grocery budget than corn (and is, additionally, far more delicious) I'm cool with this.
molecule 15y ago
american biofuels: subsidized food burning.
- Alex3917 15y ago
  To be fair, most Americans consume way too many corn-derived calories already.
WalterSear 15y ago
I tried the foreign stuff: It also gave me a hangover in the morning.
jasonzemos 15y ago
Ethanol itself is far superior to petroleum distillates for internal combustion engines, especially small displacement turbocharged ones. This point needs to be made /extremely/ clear to everyone before pursuing the political end of the discussion.
- simonsarris 15y ago
  I don't see why that needs to be extremely clear for this discussion. But regardless: Where the octane number is raised by blending in ethanol, energy content per volume is reduced. Gasoline has an energy density of almost 10,000 Wh/l and pure Ethanol only 6,000. Ethanol is inferior compared to basically any combination of gasoline + non-ethanol octane booster.
  - lutorm 15y ago
    Energy/volume is irrelevant (at these levels). What really matters is the usable energy coming out the engine compared to the engine coming in. Because of its higher octane, ethanol could in principle be run in ICUs with much higher compression ratios than engines designed for gasoline use have, giving higher efficiency (like diesel engines have higher efficiencies). The problem is that no engines actually are tuned for maximum ethanol efficiency, since that makes them unusable with gasoline. (Turbocharging somewhat offsets this, which is why I assume the grandparent specified this, but only partially.)
  - jasonzemos 15y ago
    Volumetric energy density isn't the only consideration for fuels though. Ethanol burns cooler, faster, and with more stability. When you raise the octane rating to reduce detonation you also reduce wear on the internals, allowing the manufacturer to use cheaper components. The same is true for the lower exhaust gas temperatures with exhaust values and turbo inlets. Current mileage standards have also caused manufacturers to jack up cruise-area ignition timing to extract a more complete burn before TDC from gasoline, which risks increased knock, and isn't as much an issue with ethanol. I also can't fail to mention the disgusting layer of grease and soot that covers the inside of engine, gas tank, and exhaust components (and the rear end of your car) from gasoline. Again, not much of an issue with ethanol. These strengths are almost never written about or discussed. I agree with many of the points of the article in terms of the production efficiency issues, and corn being a weak production candidate, but I can't stand if/when this becomes an ethanol-substance bashing bonanza. I also can't stand (in the overall discourse on the matter) when the article's points are used against the adoption of ethanol over petroleum. These aren't reasons against ethanol, they're reasons to work towards optimizing the means of production.
00joe 15y ago
Some counterpoints to the article http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/06/five-ethanol-myths-busted-2/ http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/06/five-ethanol-myths-bust...
- gojomo 15y ago
  That reads like an industry press release designed to confidently befuddle. For example, addressing the concern that ethanol production crowds out food production, it simply states that a different kind of corn is used... ignoring that the same land and other inputs could be used for food crops. Addressing the concern about greenhouse gases, it mainly talks a bunch about 'vehicular gaseous hazardous air pollutants' and carbon monoxide – not the same as 'greenhouse gases'. The only reference to "life cycle analysis" is a sentence-fragment quote from an unnamed study with unclear context. And 'myths' #4 and #5, that ethanol takes more water to produce and results in lower gas mileage? Well, this 'debunking' actually concedes both those 'myths'. Not an impressive ethanol defense.
  - hirenj 15y ago
    Yeah, I kind of agree on this. That said, the guy is a mechanical engineer at ANL, so I wouldn't take it as a sanctioned response from ANL. Claiming that the other corn isn't used in food production is disingenuous by the guy, since it is being used, but just via animals. If you look at the lab biofuels splash page (http://biofuels.es.anl.gov/ http://biofuels.es.anl.gov/), you'll see they're working on things like water, nutrients and algal biofuels to improve the process. There's a lot of work going into making 2nd generation biofuels actually viable, using cellulosic biomass and crops that can grow on marginal land. People are even working on producing fuel molecules that aren't ethanol (e.g. butanol). We have a saying at work: Ethanol is for drinking, not for driving.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
ck2 15y ago
Corn welfare must END (and I am very liberal/progressive if that matters). But considering it's Iowa we are talking about, most politicians if they want to be president won't touch it with a 10-foot pole. Ethanol is destroying small engines (generators, lawn mowers, etc) and most definitely reduces mpg by 10% a gallon of ethanol costs approximately 17 percent less than that of a gallon of gasoline That is why gas distributors love it - they not only get goverment welfare for using ethanol, it allows them to dilute the less profitable gasoline (to 'cut' it). (and yes, I use "subsidies" and "welfare" interchangeably because it's corporate welfare) Researchers at U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory Let's get INDEPENDENT scientists not funded by the oil industry or government to write an article and I'll trust it.
- younata 15y ago
  > Ethanol is destroying small engines (generators, lawn mowers, etc) and most definitely reduces mpg by 10% Yes it does. I took a trip cross country (florida to california) this past may. Ethanol infested gas killed MPG by at best 10%, at worst 20%. It wasn't even that much cheaper, too.
- starwed 15y ago
  > Let's get INDEPENDENT scientists not funded by the oil industry or government to write an article and I'll trust it. Err... who the hell do you think would fund such a study? I doubt there is any bias from taking government money.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Ethanol is destroying small engines Not because ethanol is bad, but because they weren't designed for it most definitely reduces mpg by 10% This is because it has lower energy density. But before you make a big deal, it has a higher octane rating, so cars designed to run on high-ethanol can run leaner/more compression, and recover economy. it allows them to dilute the less profitable gasoline (to 'cut' it) Despite your paranoia, there are good reasons to add some ethanol. As I mentioned, it is a cheap octane booster, which is good for your engine. Additionally, being an alcohol, it absorbs water. This helps prevent rust and therefore sediment build-up in gas station holding tanks and the gas tank of your car. Ethanol is a very good fuel. It is quite safe, relatively harmless as fuels go, burns very clean, has respectable energy density... Economics of producing it aside, it is perhaps one of the best fuels for small heat engines. It just doesn't look good when compared to gasoline, because gasoline is freakishly energy-dense, and all modern gasoline engines were designed to run on gasoline, giving gasoline the "home field advantage".
sigzero 15y ago
I don't know. I do know that upping ethanol levels in gas will not make all the motorcycle riders out there happy.
- lutorm 15y ago
  Because they will require tuning? I guess this is one benefit of the cat requirement for cars, the lambda sensor takes care of that problem.
  - sigzero 15y ago
    A potentially serious problem with ethanol is that it can be incompatible with older rubber compounds. Also in higher concentrations it can cause corrosion to steel and aluminum that is a part of older motorcycle fuel systems.
    - lutorm 15y ago
      I know that US regulations for cars have required ethanol-resistant materials for fuel for quite a long time, like several decades IIRC. Do you know if motorcycles are exempt from those regulations? If not, it seems the issue should be the same as with (ie no more serious than) old cars.
      - sliverstorm 15y ago
        In general, motorcycles trail the automotive world by about 10-20 years in all respects.
  - sigzero 15y ago
    http://www.motorcycle-accessories-wiseguy.com/ethanol-motorcycle.html http://www.motorcycle-accessories-wiseguy.com/ethanol-motorc...
joev 15y ago
That reminds me; the saison I've got going in the secondary needs to be bottled this weekend. (Didn't read the article)
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
NatW 15y ago
The article and its implications is worth reading in its entirety. Corn-based ethanol is a farm subsidy, an inefficient energy solution, and it's bad for the environment (corn is grown as a monoculture) and its growth takes up a lot of water. Corn just grown for ethanol (with 10% in our gas) takes up 115,800 square miles -- or more than the entire state of Arizona! Imagine other things we could do with that land. With talk of increasing it from 10% to 15%, that's another half a state of Arizona dedicated to corn. It increases the cost of land. Growing corn involves adding nitrogen fertilizer, tractors, transportation, and the net yield of energy is barely more than the energy put into growing it. And yet our dysfunctional country can't seem to get enough of this terrible idea. How do we stop it?
- lutorm 15y ago
  How do we stop it? If oil prices reflected the true cost of using it, it would disappear by itself. Without cheap oil it's not cost efficient.
  - NatW 15y ago
    Minnesota signed into law that cars should require 20% ethanol (I think federal law requires 10%): Source: http://www.mnsu.edu/news/read/?paper=topstories&id=old-1115755777 http://www.mnsu.edu/news/read/?paper=topstories&id=old-1... Anyone here good with changing laws? :)
- olentangy 15y ago
  > its growth takes up a lot of water I'm sure there are a few places that irrigate corn, but here in Ohio the water that grows the corn falls from the sky.

73 points by terio 15y ago

As much as I'd like to see us move away from oil, everything I've seen has pointed to corn ethanol not being very good for the task.

Ronkdar 15y ago
A very promising technology I've had the chance to work with is called SwiftFuel. It's based of switchgrass, which is far more sustainable. The FAA, due to pressure from the EPA, is looking to switch the entire aviation industry to SwiftFuel from low-lead fuels. More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#Swift_fuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#Swift_fuel SwiftFuel has the advantage of being able to run, in theory, in most/all aircraft engines without modification. (Fuel pumps need to be replaced, however)
- shareme 15y ago
  One problem, land that is ready to grow such crops is finite in supply not infinite..ie same land that corn was used..which will also impact food supplies..
  - hirenj 15y ago
    Biofuel researcher here: The nice thing about switchgrass is that it's a much hardier plant, meaning that you can get it to grow on marginal lands, which means land that wouldn't otherwise be used for crops. Getting people to grow anything for biofuels is a bit of a double-edged sword, as you want the feedstock to be as cheap as possible, but you also want it to be profitable for the farmers to actually produce so that you can get enough of the biomass. If you improve the yield of viable biomass from the plants that'll go part of the way to solving this.
    - ericd 15y ago
      If the stuff is efficient enough as a source for gasoline replacement generation to be worth making gasoline from, subsidies shouldn't be necessary to ensure a sufficient stock. If it requires subsidies, that indicates a big problem with that plan. Unless the main goal is to reduce foreign oil independence. But I'm skeptical that that goal is remotely feasible with biofuels without making serious compromises in food-generating land. We should be spending this effort and funding on improving battery tech and creating business models that make electric vehicles appealing (swappable leased batteries, for example), as well as improving nuclear power tech to feed those vehicles. EDIT: Algae seems like it could be promising, assuming we could find a way to mass farm it without disturbing ocean food cycles.
  - lutorm 15y ago
    I think the problem is less the amount of land than the energy intensity of the crop.

jrussbowman 15y ago

"But even setting subsidies aside—after all, every energy source in use in the U.S. today continues to receive federal tax benefits, among other incentives—there's the simple economic cost of building all those corn mills, stainless steel fermentation tanks and other infrastructure needed to churn out ethanol on the tremendous scale of transportation fuels." Maybe the subsidies should go there, to promote job creation in those areas for the infrastructure buildup.

BenSS 15y ago

A million times yes, there needs to be more awareness of how ridiculous corn ethanol is. Corn ethanol is more an indirect way of converting coal to something your car can run on. There are many other more efficient plant sources that do not require large doses of fertilizer and herbicides, usually drawn from coal energy.

cfgvjkljhgfb 15y ago
Corn ethanol is an indirect way of converting farming subsidy into electoral college votes.
lutorm 15y ago
I'm not going to defend corn ethanol, but I do think this debate is misguided. The problem is not the corn ethanol, the problem is the corn. Corn is an indirect way of converting oil into sugar. It is just as inefficient at making food as it is at making fuel (though that's less obvious because the end product doesn't have the same units.) There's a great article in an old issue of Harper's called "The oil we eat" (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915 http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915). I find it amazing that people are complaining that diverting corn to make ethanol raises food prices, when you can make the same argument that diverting corn to feed cattle raises food prices. Making beef via corn is an extremely inefficent method that's only viable because of cheap oil. If the real concern is feeding people, you eat vegetarian. From a food supply point of view it's pure waste to feed cattle food that humans can eat directly. (Letting cattle eat grass on land not suited for agriculture is different.) The only reason it's sustainable to raise cattle the way it's done in the U.S. is because of an abundance of cheap corn due to cheap oil.
- hugh3 15y ago
  you can make the same argument that diverting corn to feed cattle raises food prices As far as I can figure out, diverting corn to feed cattle raises corn prices and lowers beef prices. Since beef eats up a much larger fraction of my grocery budget than corn (and is, additionally, far more delicious) I'm cool with this.

molecule 15y ago

american biofuels: subsidized food burning.

Alex3917 15y ago
To be fair, most Americans consume way too many corn-derived calories already.

WalterSear 15y ago

I tried the foreign stuff: It also gave me a hangover in the morning.

jasonzemos 15y ago

Ethanol itself is far superior to petroleum distillates for internal combustion engines, especially small displacement turbocharged ones. This point needs to be made /extremely/ clear to everyone before pursuing the political end of the discussion.

simonsarris 15y ago
I don't see why that needs to be extremely clear for this discussion. But regardless: Where the octane number is raised by blending in ethanol, energy content per volume is reduced. Gasoline has an energy density of almost 10,000 Wh/l and pure Ethanol only 6,000. Ethanol is inferior compared to basically any combination of gasoline + non-ethanol octane booster.
- lutorm 15y ago
  Energy/volume is irrelevant (at these levels). What really matters is the usable energy coming out the engine compared to the engine coming in. Because of its higher octane, ethanol could in principle be run in ICUs with much higher compression ratios than engines designed for gasoline use have, giving higher efficiency (like diesel engines have higher efficiencies). The problem is that no engines actually are tuned for maximum ethanol efficiency, since that makes them unusable with gasoline. (Turbocharging somewhat offsets this, which is why I assume the grandparent specified this, but only partially.)
- jasonzemos 15y ago
  Volumetric energy density isn't the only consideration for fuels though. Ethanol burns cooler, faster, and with more stability. When you raise the octane rating to reduce detonation you also reduce wear on the internals, allowing the manufacturer to use cheaper components. The same is true for the lower exhaust gas temperatures with exhaust values and turbo inlets. Current mileage standards have also caused manufacturers to jack up cruise-area ignition timing to extract a more complete burn before TDC from gasoline, which risks increased knock, and isn't as much an issue with ethanol. I also can't fail to mention the disgusting layer of grease and soot that covers the inside of engine, gas tank, and exhaust components (and the rear end of your car) from gasoline. Again, not much of an issue with ethanol. These strengths are almost never written about or discussed. I agree with many of the points of the article in terms of the production efficiency issues, and corn being a weak production candidate, but I can't stand if/when this becomes an ethanol-substance bashing bonanza. I also can't stand (in the overall discourse on the matter) when the article's points are used against the adoption of ethanol over petroleum. These aren't reasons against ethanol, they're reasons to work towards optimizing the means of production.

00joe 15y ago

Some counterpoints to the article http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/06/five-ethanol-myths-busted-2/ http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/06/five-ethanol-myths-bust...

gojomo 15y ago
That reads like an industry press release designed to confidently befuddle. For example, addressing the concern that ethanol production crowds out food production, it simply states that a different kind of corn is used... ignoring that the same land and other inputs could be used for food crops. Addressing the concern about greenhouse gases, it mainly talks a bunch about 'vehicular gaseous hazardous air pollutants' and carbon monoxide – not the same as 'greenhouse gases'. The only reference to "life cycle analysis" is a sentence-fragment quote from an unnamed study with unclear context. And 'myths' #4 and #5, that ethanol takes more water to produce and results in lower gas mileage? Well, this 'debunking' actually concedes both those 'myths'. Not an impressive ethanol defense.
- hirenj 15y ago
  Yeah, I kind of agree on this. That said, the guy is a mechanical engineer at ANL, so I wouldn't take it as a sanctioned response from ANL. Claiming that the other corn isn't used in food production is disingenuous by the guy, since it is being used, but just via animals. If you look at the lab biofuels splash page (http://biofuels.es.anl.gov/ http://biofuels.es.anl.gov/), you'll see they're working on things like water, nutrients and algal biofuels to improve the process. There's a lot of work going into making 2nd generation biofuels actually viable, using cellulosic biomass and crops that can grow on marginal land. People are even working on producing fuel molecules that aren't ethanol (e.g. butanol). We have a saying at work: Ethanol is for drinking, not for driving.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

ck2 15y ago

Corn welfare must END (and I am very liberal/progressive if that matters). But considering it's Iowa we are talking about, most politicians if they want to be president won't touch it with a 10-foot pole. Ethanol is destroying small engines (generators, lawn mowers, etc) and most definitely reduces mpg by 10% a gallon of ethanol costs approximately 17 percent less than that of a gallon of gasoline That is why gas distributors love it - they not only get goverment welfare for using ethanol, it allows them to dilute the less profitable gasoline (to 'cut' it). (and yes, I use "subsidies" and "welfare" interchangeably because it's corporate welfare) Researchers at U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory Let's get INDEPENDENT scientists not funded by the oil industry or government to write an article and I'll trust it.

younata 15y ago
> Ethanol is destroying small engines (generators, lawn mowers, etc) and most definitely reduces mpg by 10% Yes it does. I took a trip cross country (florida to california) this past may. Ethanol infested gas killed MPG by at best 10%, at worst 20%. It wasn't even that much cheaper, too.
starwed 15y ago
> Let's get INDEPENDENT scientists not funded by the oil industry or government to write an article and I'll trust it. Err... who the hell do you think would fund such a study? I doubt there is any bias from taking government money.
sliverstorm 15y ago
Ethanol is destroying small engines Not because ethanol is bad, but because they weren't designed for it most definitely reduces mpg by 10% This is because it has lower energy density. But before you make a big deal, it has a higher octane rating, so cars designed to run on high-ethanol can run leaner/more compression, and recover economy. it allows them to dilute the less profitable gasoline (to 'cut' it) Despite your paranoia, there are good reasons to add some ethanol. As I mentioned, it is a cheap octane booster, which is good for your engine. Additionally, being an alcohol, it absorbs water. This helps prevent rust and therefore sediment build-up in gas station holding tanks and the gas tank of your car. Ethanol is a very good fuel. It is quite safe, relatively harmless as fuels go, burns very clean, has respectable energy density... Economics of producing it aside, it is perhaps one of the best fuels for small heat engines. It just doesn't look good when compared to gasoline, because gasoline is freakishly energy-dense, and all modern gasoline engines were designed to run on gasoline, giving gasoline the "home field advantage".

sigzero 15y ago

I don't know. I do know that upping ethanol levels in gas will not make all the motorcycle riders out there happy.

lutorm 15y ago
Because they will require tuning? I guess this is one benefit of the cat requirement for cars, the lambda sensor takes care of that problem.
- sigzero 15y ago
  A potentially serious problem with ethanol is that it can be incompatible with older rubber compounds. Also in higher concentrations it can cause corrosion to steel and aluminum that is a part of older motorcycle fuel systems.
  - lutorm 15y ago
    I know that US regulations for cars have required ethanol-resistant materials for fuel for quite a long time, like several decades IIRC. Do you know if motorcycles are exempt from those regulations? If not, it seems the issue should be the same as with (ie no more serious than) old cars.
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      In general, motorcycles trail the automotive world by about 10-20 years in all respects.
- sigzero 15y ago
  http://www.motorcycle-accessories-wiseguy.com/ethanol-motorcycle.html http://www.motorcycle-accessories-wiseguy.com/ethanol-motorc...

joev 15y ago

That reminds me; the saison I've got going in the secondary needs to be bottled this weekend. (Didn't read the article)

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

NatW 15y ago

The article and its implications is worth reading in its entirety. Corn-based ethanol is a farm subsidy, an inefficient energy solution, and it's bad for the environment (corn is grown as a monoculture) and its growth takes up a lot of water. Corn just grown for ethanol (with 10% in our gas) takes up 115,800 square miles -- or more than the entire state of Arizona! Imagine other things we could do with that land. With talk of increasing it from 10% to 15%, that's another half a state of Arizona dedicated to corn. It increases the cost of land. Growing corn involves adding nitrogen fertilizer, tractors, transportation, and the net yield of energy is barely more than the energy put into growing it. And yet our dysfunctional country can't seem to get enough of this terrible idea. How do we stop it?

lutorm 15y ago
How do we stop it? If oil prices reflected the true cost of using it, it would disappear by itself. Without cheap oil it's not cost efficient.
- NatW 15y ago
  Minnesota signed into law that cars should require 20% ethanol (I think federal law requires 10%): Source: http://www.mnsu.edu/news/read/?paper=topstories&id=old-1115755777 http://www.mnsu.edu/news/read/?paper=topstories&id=old-1... Anyone here good with changing laws? :)
olentangy 15y ago
> its growth takes up a lot of water I'm sure there are a few places that irrigate corn, but here in Ohio the water that grows the corn falls from the sky.