The Ethanol Papers - Paperturn manuscript - Flipbook - Page 469
events surrounding the invention of leaded gasoline (gasoline with tetraethyl
lead added to boost the octane and eliminate engine knock), and the oil industry
conspiracy to keep ethanol out of the picture.
This land underestimate argument continued to be used against ethanol right
up to, and through, the Pimentel-Patzek 2005 study and Robert Bryce's 2008
book "Gusher Of Lies." The land underestimate established a land-wall position similar to the blend-wall position that has been evoked to try and keep
ethanol production down. The presumption behind the blend-wall is this: Since
internal combustion vehicles can only safely use E10 (10% ethanol/90% gasoline), and that national fuel usage has dropped to such low levels because of
modern engine MPG efficiency, there's no reason for ethanol production levels
to be increased. This spurious proposition resulted in investments in new ethanol plants being withdrawn, along with the premature demise of several operating ethanol plants.
However, the blend-wall was a fictional blend-wall. As major studies showed,
the vast majority of passenger vehicles on the road in America could safely use
E15 and E20. This effectively increased the opportunity for 50% to 100% more
ethanol to be produced. In addition, several independent experiments - including the personal long term experiments I conducted with high-level ethanol-gasoline blends in a variety of non-flex fuel vehicles - proved that ethanol-gasoline
blends ranging from E25 to E50 and higher could be safely and routinely used
by the same vast majority of passenger vehicles on the road. These experiments effectively increased the opportunity for 200%, 300%, 400% and more
ethanol to be produced.
In the same manner, David Blume (author of "ALCOHOL CAN BE A GAS") and
others have correctly identified the true amount of American land that could be
used as about 200% more than the acreage previously thought capable of
growing energy crops. Moreover, as David Blume and others rightfully point out,
there are a number of other crops that can be easily and efficiently grown in the
U.S. that permit ethanol yields that are 2X, 4X, 6X, 8X greater than the corn per
acre yield. In fact, with kelp it's possible to attain up to 100 times per acre more
ethanol than corn - with no irrigation or fertilizer needed.
All that is needed for this to come to pass is to drop such anti-ethanol pretenses
as yours, Bill, and to encourage significant financial investment in next generation ethanol production.
Bill, you also write: "Ethanol per se is not the problem, however; Washington's
lack of common sense is the problem."
