And they all lived... happily ever after?

The Minnesota House approved a measure that would mandate a doubling of the current content of ethanol currently in gasoline in Minnesota. Family farmers, now on the brink of bankruptcy, will have a new market and be able to line their pockets; the environment will improve as a result of reduced fossil fuel burning; we'll have cheaper energy since we won't have to rely as much on middle eastern oil; automobile performance will benefit from the higher octane content, resulting in better-running and more fuel-efficient cars; politicians will enmass more votes in their vest pockets, and everyone will live happily ever after, right? Well, maybe not everyone. Well, maybe not most people. Let's start off with family farmers(from Newfarm.org):

Campaign contributions, says Hollis, have rallied the eloquent spokespersons of agribusiness to make it seem that the very survival of Midwest farmers rides on the shoulders of the subsidies program. And so, he says, the votes are cast according to the candidate who promises to keep federal dollars flowing into the subsidies. But, as Hollis points out, the reality of the subsidy program is very different from the rosy picture painted by the politicians. Farmers have had their lands consolidated by large corporations, the local waters and overall physical and social landscapes of their communities desecrated by corporate agricultural practice, and their tax aid swallowed up by about the wealthiest 7 percent of the industry.

Protecting ethanol subsidies in the new Energy Bill is a major issue now on the table for ADM’s political partners (conspicuously absent has been any major media coverage—between ADM advertisements—of any opposition to ethanol). ADM-formed groups like the Renewable Fuels Association and National Corn Growers continue to stir up plenty of support among farmers for their cause. These groups, along with Daschle et al., make the case that the biofuels market presents an important economic opportunity for family farms. However, the subsidy program cloaked as financial aid to farmers has actually crushed thousands of corn farmers under the foot of ADM and other top agribusiness corporations.(emphases mine)

So much for the family farm. But how about an improved environment?

The most blatant argument against the biofuels industry in its current form, from a sustainability perspective, is that it does not represent good farming. Maximizing profits under a subsidized program dictates large-scale, monocropped farms. This lack of crop integration is a leading cause of soil erosion and invites pests and disease. Heavy fertilization is used to replenish the soil. This leads to non-point source pollution that has been the root of incalculable environmental degradation rendering a vast majority of the waters of the Corn Belt states unsuitable for drinking or swimming. The wanton application of petrochemical pesticides and herbicides is leaving a legacy of toxic and non-biodegradable residue in the watersheds of our amber waves of grain. The seeds for a large majority of the corn and soybeans grown in this country are genetically engineered and are threatening the integrity of the crops throughout the continent.

In sharp contrast, carbon dioxide (the number-one greenhouse gas involved in fuel combustion) is constantly recycled in biomass fuel life cycles. Each year, the fuel crops remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during photosynthesis (whereas petroleum fuels release carbon gases sequestered tens of millions of years before animal life was even possible on the planet). Ethanol, when used to oxygenate fuel, is a great alternative to using methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). MTBE, the only other oxygenate used in this country, is known to contaminate both ground and surface water. But the main case against ethanol still stands: It takes as much or more energy to grow and process the crops as is returned in burning the fuel.(emphasis mine)

Well, okay.. under this plan family farmers will go under, the environment will be toast, and we'll actually be burning more fossil fuel. But it will be cheaper to put in our cars, right?

For either biodiesel or ethanol, land mass necessary to satiate a portion of oil consumption would compete with other food crops and translate to big bucks at the gas pump(emphasis mine). “Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning" Dr. Pimemtel states in his findings on the ethanol industry published in the September 2001 issue of the Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology. Dr. Pimentel calculates that an acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol.

Well, okay.. under this plan family farmers will go under, the environment will be toast, we'll actually be burning more fossil fuel, and it will be just as expensive at the pumps in the long run; BUT cars will run better, more efficiently, and have higher gas mileage on the higher-octane fuel, right? Well, let's go to simple physics:

From Mark's Handbook for Mechanical Engineers:

* Gasoline yields about 20,260 Btu's/lb of thermal energy from combustion
based on its HHV. On a volume basis that becomes 124,800 Btu's/gal.

while..

* Ethanol yields about 12,770 Btu's/lb of thermal energy from combustion
based on its HHV. On a volumetric basis that becomes 83,910 Btu's/gal.

So, if I did my math correctly, one would need 32% more ethanol per volume than gasoline to obtain the same amount of energy. Additionally,

E85 has always been priced below gasoline, partly because it delivers fewer miles per gallon. Studies show as much as 10-15 percent less(emphasis mine). Sudenga says the price gap has widened as gasoline prices have increased.

In addition, Current automobiles will need to undergo costly renovations:

The concern here is that un-combusted ethanol (especially during rich cold start conditions) may migrate past the piston ring resulting in cylinder wall washing, which reduces cylinder wall lubrication and could run down into the crankcase, diluting the engine oil. Alcohols are corrosive. Therefore, any part that comes in contact with the fuel has been upgraded to be tolerant to alcohol. Normally, these parts include a stainless steel fuel tank and Teflon-lined fuel hoses.

Okay... so family farmers go under, we'll be burning more fuel, the fuel will ultimately become more expensive, the environment will still be polluted (if not more so), cars will run less efficiently, and current ones will need expensive renovations. If all these people will be unhappy after this legislation is passed, then just who will live happily ever after under this legislation?

I guess that just leaves the corporate farmers and the politicians, doesn't it?

****UPDATE*****

triple_A at Residual Forces has some great additional comments on this issue.