By Edward Niedermeyer
February 26, 2008 -
California's leaders are dreaming of a biofueled future, and they see E85 ethanol as a step in the right direction… for their campaign war chests. The LA Times reports that California wants to increase the availability of the 85 percent corn-based biofuel, by earmarking $25m in grants to set up 34 new E85 refueling stations. Unfortunately for those Californians who value clean air and energy efficiency, E85 takes more (fossil) fuel to refine than it offers, actually decreases fuel efficiency and increases emissions. Pretty ironic considering that the plan is justified by the California Environmental Protection Agency's Air Resource Board as a crucial component of the state's Climate Action Plan. So why is the state of California subsidizing the infrastructure of such a short-sighted fuel product? So that people in the fuel business don't have to actually pay for it themselves, of course. Installing an E85 pump costs about $50k. As Chevron spokesman Leif Sollid puts it "our marketers and retailers have not expressed a widespread desire to install E85 at their stations." Well, of course they haven't… because they know the only way to sell an unpopular product is to get the government to subsidize it. They also know that their $50k buys a lot more value as campaign campaign contributions.
Subscribe to New Content Alerts13 Comments on “ E85 Boondoggle of the Day: CA to Subsidize E85 Stations ”
Leave a Reply 
Back to Top
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BlinkList
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Furl
Google
Live
NewsVine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
POWERED
February 26th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Wiki has a definition for exactly what this is:
Mission creep is the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes.
The term often implies a certain disapproval of newly adopted goals by the user of the term.
Mission creep is usually considered undesirable due to the dangerous path of each success breeding more ambitious attempts, only stopping when a final, often catastrophic, failure occurs.
The term was originally applied exclusively to military operations, but has recently been applied to many different fields, mainly the growth of bureaucracies.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I would say the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Air Resource Board is just as reliable as the New York Times. There should be more studies into the true effect of E85 on the environment. If it in fact used more fossil fuels to refine, would it not cost more?
February 26th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
California, for the good of the country, needs to float away.
February 26th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
It does cost more. That’s why the feds (and probably some states) have to subsidize it.
February 26th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
“P71_CrownVic :
California, for the good of the country, needs to float away.”
The feeling is mutual.
February 26th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Ahhh California - the place where science and facts play second fiddle to feeling good about yourself. Here, we trade intellectual curiosity for whatever makes us feel like we’re doing something good.
That should be the new state slogan.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:15 am
California has a renewable fuel standard that obligates the oil companies to sell more biofuel. That’s a good thing, because there is a strong incentive for 2nd generation biofuel that helps much better than corn ethanol to reduce greenhouse gases.
So, over time more biofuel will be adopted in California, probably mostly blended as E10 in regular gasoline.
Am I in favor of subsidized E85 pumps? It could be helpful. There needs to be a plan, though, to make sure they will be really used. That requires offering E85 that is sufficiently cheap to make it a sensible buy for consumers.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Wheat inventories at lowest level in 60 years wheat prices at highest level ever and the government subsidizes making our food into fuel. Only the government could do something so economically idiotic.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7264239.stm
February 27th, 2008 at 2:51 am
In the editorial post Mr. Niedermeyer uses a badly out-of-date myth that ethanol is “energy negative”, that is that it takes more fossil fuel to produce ethanol than the ethanol returns. The most well known (and since debunked) study to claim this was by David Pimentel, a well known ethanol critic, back in 2005. Various studies since then have proven Mr. Pimentel wrong, including one in the journal Science in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance
So Mr. Niedermeyer is using a three-year-old debunked study on ethanol to rail against it.
Also, there’s the claim that ethanol “increases emissions”. Care to elaborate and show some evidence, Mr. Niedermeyer? Because from everything I’ve read on the subject states ethanol actually REDUCES emissions.
Lastly, and this is directed at the commenters here as well: don’t blame your living situation on California. Every state has the right to govern itself. California, if it were a country of its own, would be the world’s SIXTH-largest economy. California provides a disproportionate amount of wealth to the rest of the country. Don’t go hatin’ on California because you’re jealous. Why not try making your backwater state a little better instead of trying to tear down a state that should be a model for yours.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:35 am
There is much evidence that burning ethanol in your vehicle will increase certain pollutants, and it does increase smog over gas. Plus a whole nother level of industry is added and all that diesel farm equipment pollutes like what, a hundred times the level of a modern car not to mention the product must be trucked in and out and large amounts of energy are required to produce it which produces more pollution. Then the taxpayer subsidizes ethanol at 51 cents to the gallon, foreign ethanol has a tarriff imposed on it and we use our food as fuel. Resulting in high food prices which the citizens are stuck paying for.(double whammy) Sounds more like the USSR than the USA.
Then the facts that it requires huge amounts of land and water, evaporates at an incredible rate and absorbs water. It is a fuel only a government could love, and that is only because it is not their money they are wasting.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:14 am
I like some of Hollywood’s movies. If California slips away, can I still watch Batman 6?
February 27th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
My gripe with this type of article is that it seems to imply that E85 is not a practical alternative because it is “government subsidized.”
Do you honestly think the petroleum industry is not government subsidized? The fact that the subsidy may not be paid directly to the industry doesn’t mean the industry isn’t being subsidized. How much of our trillion dollar military spending is dedicated to protecting the world’s oil supply or fighting the secondary effects thereof? E85 couldn’t begin to reach that level of subsidation in a hundred years.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
E85 couldn’t begin to reach that level of subsidation in a hundred years.
Hang in there, Martin, ethanol may get there rather quickly…
So, over time more biofuel will be adopted in California, probably mostly blended as E10 in regular gasoline.
Considering some basic, scientific facts (such as ethanol’s properties), that no amount of federal subsidies (”your tax dollars at work”) or research, will change, it is highly unlikely that the eventual workable biofuel will be ethanol. So, enough subsidies already.