OMG, WHAT Are You Driving, Again?

 Congress sometimes acts in a manner that's ... shall we say... ill-advised.

Right now, in terms of powering cars, specifically, there are two major "alternatives" to petroleum; ethanol and biodiesel. The differences between them are rather profound, but Congress didn't do the research- or even use Google- and thus we're stuck with the corn-for-ethanol program.

But it's never too late to send Congresss letters pushing for repeal. So, it's time someone spelled out the differences between ethanol and biodiesel. The fact that you're here means I'm gonna take first crack at it.

First, ethanol is corrosive; unlike gasoline and biodiesel, it cannot be run in a standard engine without a very low admixture ratio with gasoline. A typical admixture ratio - ethanol to gasoline - is 1:9. This means that anything significantly over 1/10th ethanol in your tank requires a special engine, so that the ethanol doesn't corrode the seals and gaskets internal to the engine. So-called "E85" cars have those redesigned engines, but their cost is quite high.

By contrast, biodiesel can be run in a standard diesel engine with as high an admixture ratio as 4:1 with petrodiesel; this means use of biodiesel can greatly reduce our usage of petroleum products with no other investment in infrastruture for the end user.

Secondly, ethanol is only about 65% as fuel efficient as gasoline; a car will require far more pricey ethanol to travel the same distance, even with an enhanced E85 engine.

By contrast, biodiesel, for all intents and purposes, is petrodiesel in terms of fuel efficiency - and diesel engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline engines to start with.

Third, both are equally clean-burning; the contaminants in petrodiesel are not present in biodiesel, and thus both ethanol and biodiesel are essentially pollutant-free.

Fourth, ethanol can be made - thus far anyway - from corn, sugar, or switchgrass (called 'cellulosic' ethanol). Corn and sugar are both food crops and using either for ethanol takes not only the crops themselves, but the acreage as well, out of food production. Demonstrably, this causes cascading increases in food prices. Switchgrass, while 5 times as efficient in ethanol production as corn, takes acreage again, to produce.

By contrast, biodiesel can be produced from essentially any organic source, including byproducts of the food manufacturing process, organic wastes, hay, used cooking oil - basically anything organic. This can actually affect food prices positively, as disposal costs for organic waste from food production can be replaces by turning those wastes over to biodiesel producers, allowing food manufacturers to actually make a profit on their wastes. This in turn lowers costs and food prices drop accordingly.

Fifth, production of ethanol is a process that, itself, pollutes; since mandating ethanol production Congress has had to order the EPA to give concessions to the ethanol producers, since they are basically all in violation of the Clean Air Act.

By contrast, biodiesel reactors are sealed; the only atmospheric byproduct is water vapor. Interestingly, since the chemical reaction is exothermic, the addition of a steam turbine can transform a biodiesel reactor into an electrical generator, as well, allowing biodiesel production to contribute to the other half of the energy crisis at the same time.

The facts simply don't speak in Congress' favor. Biodiesel is clearly the superior alternative fuel service, as a few minutes with Google would have told them.

Accordingly, I'd like to start an email compaign advocating the repeal of the mandoatory ethanol standards, and development of biodiesel instead.

Here's how this works: below, there is a complete email stating the case against mandatory ethanol. Feel free to use it, or use it as a guideline; simply copy, past, and put in your Senators' and Representatives' information.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Senator / Representative :

The energy crisis is steadily growing. Your constituents are finding it more difficult each day to pay the growing cost for fuel. As such, alternatives are needed. But more important than simply acting, is choosing the correct alternatives to support.

Biodiesel, as an alternative fuel, is far superior to ethanol. Unlike ethanol, it can be made from any organic waste; this allows production of biodiesel without raising food prices and limiting crop acreage.

Also unlike ethanol, which is corrosive to engine parts and thus requires significant reinvestment by the consumer, biodiesel can be run in conventional diesel engines in far higher admixture ratios, even up to 80% biodiesel in an unmodified engine.

As well, biodiesel productions can address other aspects of the energy crisis. Biodiesel reactors, which run much more cleanly than do ethanol production facilities, can produce electrical power during the production of biodiesel, which can assist in lowering the load on our power grid.

Making the right choice now is crucial to the future of our nation. We owe it to our children, and the nation they will inherit from us, to give them the tools to build a more enviroment-friendly, energy independent future.

As your constituent, I am asking you to repeal the congressional mandate for ethanol production, from corn, and the requirement for the blending of ethanol with gasoline for retail sale and I am asking you to sponsor legislation giving tax incentives to companies producing biodiesel.

This will allow the market to innovate, and result in the advancement of the superior biodiesel technology as a means of partially replacing our reliance on petroleum-based fuels. Help our children live in a world where our economy is no longer dependent upon petroleum.

Thank you for your time,

------------------------------------------------------