By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Board
As a mouthpiece for the ethanol industry, Gov. Matt Blunt made a big mistake last week: He underestimated the intelligence of Missourians.
In an audacious press release, Blunt touted a new study that showed the state's drivers were allegedly saving money by using a 10 percent ethanol blend of gasoline.
But the new study that Blunt embraced was fatally flawed.
Fact: Gasoline blended with ethanol delivers less energy than normal gasoline. In other words, ethanol-blended fuel delivers fewer miles to the gallon.
National experts peg the mileage reduction at around 3 percent a gallon.
In other words, ethanol-blended fuel has to be about 3 percent cheaper than normal gasoline to produce the same mileage.
The study was done by John Urbanchuk, director of LECG, a consulting firm in Wayne, Pa. He told the newspaper that the loss of energy by using ethanol was insignificant.
But as The Star's Steve Everly wrote, "At current pricing, though, that energy loss more than wipes out the savings that the study says consumers will reap by using ehanol-blended fuel."
It would be nice if Blunt issued a mea culpa for being so easily misled by the ethanol industry. Don't count on it, though.
Delicious
Digg
Ethanol not Satan
It's obvious the KC Star is going after ethanol and corn farmers in general. Heck we can't blame you--farmers might make a small profit this year and that is just wrong. But my goodness, while you are hanging us farmer readers out to dry (yes, we can read), can you be a little nicer about it? And also, maybe check your facts instead of just spewing rhetoric and baseless factoids.
Please consider:
1. You were using ethanol blended fuels before the Missouri mandate. Your cars ran fine on ethanol before the mandate.
2. Ethanol industry adds about 7 billion gallons of fuel to the nation's supply every year. The only refineries built in the last 25 years in the U.S. are ethanol refineries.
3. What about the MASSIVE subsidies oil companies receive? What about the MASSIVE profits THEY are making right now? It appears to me that you are pointing the finger at the wrong people.
I'm sorry the KC Star doesn't support one of the biggest local industries in Kansas and Missouri--agriculture.
I respect a paper's right,
I respect a paper's right, or even its obligation, to take a stance on issues. However, I resent it when a newspaper attempts to galvanize the public with politically motivated rhetoric such as this editorial from Mr. Abouhalkah.
Suggesting that the Governor thinks Missourians are "stupid" only undermines the Mr. Abouhalkah's credibility. I expect more from a editorial contributor published by this city's newspaper. Comments such as his are radically one-sided as they are basely unintelligent and unuseful. I will not make the same mistake as Mr. Abouhalkah by calling him "stupid", as I suspect that to have received the opportunity to write for the Star he must have demonstrated better editorial aptitude than expressed in this piece.
I was going to use this space to suggest some ways in which the biofuels debate is not as clear cut as Mr. Abouhalkah suggests, however, I will abstain until I see more a reasoned approach to his column.
On a general note, I am constantly amused at the vehement criticism of biofuels expressed by the editor's of this newspaper. It amuses me because they portend to speak as if they are experts on the subject, when most of the material I read proves otherwise. There are many people even within Kansas City who could educate your staff, yet it seems that this paper is content to blindly take potshots on an issue the know very little about.
Ethanol
If the Feds would remove the subsidy from ethanol production, which only goes to rich investors and agribusinesses anyway, the true cost of ethanol would be seen by the public and this whole charade would come to an end. As it stands, we get to pay for ethanol twice, once to make it and once to use it.