ETHANOL fuel always smelt like a scam.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Masquerading as an environmental godsend, E10 petrol muscled its way into the market with the help of eager politicians who made the stuff mandatory.
But the more the pollies made laws to favour the ethanol industry, the more I – and many, many other motorists – were determined to avoid the stuff.
Even if it meant paying more at the bowser, I made it a point of principle to boycott E10, just as I also protest against our supermarket duopoly’s power by shunning their petrol stations.
I don’t like ethanol because I object to good farmland being used to produce vehicle fuel. In a world full of hungry people, that seems like a dismal travesty.
And I must admit I’m also always suspicious of industries that make big donations to our pathetically susceptible political parties. I’m sure the ethanol industry is only trying to support democracy, but its financial contributions only serve to fuel my prejudice against political donors.
And the way I figure it, if the government really cared about reducing greenhouse gas emissions it would provide incentives to switch more vehicles to natural gas, a policy that would also stimulate local industries and cut expensive petrol imports.
Some people claim E10 harms their cars, and it seems beyond doubt that ethanol-diluted petrol gives slightly poorer mileage than the real thing.
And now the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change has published a report that finds that biofuels made from corn waste apparently emit more carbon dioxide over their life cycle than United States federal standards allow.
Prompted by US government subsidies farmers have moved into ethanol corn in a big way. The amount of corn product going to fuel jumped from five per cent in 2000 to 45 per cent last year.
But the study found that corn biofuels released seven per cent more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than ordinary petrol, wiping out the claimed environmental benefits from this form of ethanol, at least.
Fairfax Media reported this week that a Texas Tech University study of the NSW ethanol market found the government’s attempts to bully people into buying E10 has cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars.
The government introduced a mandate in 2007 insisting that six per cent of all petrol sold in NSW must be ethanol.
Since E10 contains 10 per cent ethanol, the mandate demands that E10 should account for 60 per cent of all unleaded fuel sales in the state. In fact, the mandate is practically impossible to meet, especially since so many motorists avoid E10.
Instead of switching from standard unleaded fuel to E10 as the government intended, people have flocked to expensive premium grades of petrol, lining the pockets of retailers who put a much fatter profit margin on those products. And also helping the democracy-minded ethanol industry along, just a bit.
So it’s a policy failure and an environmental failure, but how does it rate as a fuel?
One motorist reported keeping careful logs on standard unleaded, E10 and 95 premium.
‘‘Distance per litre: 95 wins, followed by 91, then E10,’’ he wrote.
‘‘Bang for buck, 91 is the best, followed by 95, followed by E10. Paying the extra dollars for 95 isn’t worth it over 91, but it is over E10. Especially now as E10 isn’t the discount to 91 that it once was.’’
So, will the government repeal its ethanol mandate? I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for that one, if I were you. Even if ethanol fails every meaningful test I’d predict the mandate remaining for some time, what with all the investment the industry has made – and plans to make in future.
I read recently, for example, that a big Korean concern is thinking of investing $90million in an ethanol plant near Deniliquin.
Australia’s free trade agreement with Korea has helped the maths on the project, with the Koreans apparently keen to use Aussie raw materials to make 110,000 kilolitres of ethanol a year for both export and local consumption.
Wouldn’t want to shift the goalposts now, would we?