The return of Donald Trump to the White House, along with certain State and local actions (thank you Gov Landry for the moratorium on carbon capture projects in Louisiana), has led to the reappearance of energy realism: favoring reliable, efficient energy sources like hydrocarbons and nuclear fission over unreliable, inefficient sources such as solar and wind.

Some problems remain, however. The federal government is still giving subsidies for utterly useless and potentially harmful carbon capture and storage projects. And the tax credit for notoriously inefficient corn-derived ethanol still exists. Midwestern representatives in DC want to push further with the latter: They are trying hard to pass a law that would allow ethanol-blended vehicle fuel to be used year-round (it isn’t used in the summer months under the current system).

Other green energy sources and technology (wind, EVs, etc.) have been the focus of a good deal of criticism lately, but renewable fuels like ethanol seem to have gotten a pass. That shouldn’t be.

Corn-derived ethanol now consumes somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% of the corn crop grown in the United States. That is a tremendous displacement of productive agricultural land from food production to energy production. People are rightly incensed when farm land is covered with solar cells and no longer able to supply communities with food; they should be just as angry at this irresponsible use of farm land that likewise removes food from stores, kitchens, etc.

The ethanol biofuel subsidy (which reaches into the billions each year) distorts that market for corn, leading to more acres devoted to the artificial cash crop of corn being planted. This in turn causes an increase in fertilizer use, whose runoff eventually reaches the Gulf of America where it increases the dead zone:

‘According to the new study, the states with the largest expansion of corn cultivation, between 50 to 100 percent, were North and South Dakota, western Minnesota, and other states further to the south in the Mississippi alluvial plain. The increased fertilizer use caused by more corn acres likely contributes to the nutrient pollution that causes the annual dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2021, more than 6,300 square miles of Gulf Coast waters, the equivalent of more than 4 million acres of fish habitat, were starved of oxygen—over three times larger than the 2035 target set by the task force working to shrink the dead zone’ (Virginia Gewin, ‘How Corn Ethanol for Biofuel Fed Climate Change,’ civileats.com).

This is not the only health concern that comes from corn ethanol. In the town of Mead, Nebraska, neonicotinoid-coated corn used to produce ethanol has caused numerous problems, from sick dogs to bee die-offs to polluted waters.

There are other concerns as well, less urgent but still significant, such as corrosion of engine parts:

‘Cars of model year 2001 or newer tolerate blends up to E15 (15 percent ethanol) well, but it can corrode metals and rubbers in engines that weren’t designed to handle its presence. This is because each ethanol molecule sports a troublesome oxygen atom. That oxygen (and its little hydrogen friend) can bind to metal or rubber, and it can break down lubricants’ (Kate McAlpine, ‘We’re Doing Ethanol Wrong,’ umich.edu).

Storage problems:

‘Ethanol-blended gasoline also doesn’t store as well because its oxygen atoms are magnets for the hydrogen atoms in water, forming somewhat casual chemical bonds known as hydrogen bonds. When ethanol absorbs water that has condensed inside a gas tank, for example, it creates a low octane gasoline resting atop a layer of ethanol and water. And that water can do some major damage if it gets into the engine’ (Ibid.).

And energy density problems:

‘Even in tolerant engines, ethanol has its critics. The big problem is energy density – a gallon of ethanol has only two-thirds the energy density of pure gasoline’ (Ibid.).

Energy realism in the United States is a very welcome development after the disastrous Green New Deal of Biden and others. Corn ethanol, as part of the latter, should no longer be supported by federal subsidies. If individual States in the Great Plains or other regions want to offer subsidies, they are welcome to do so. But federal support for farmers ought to go to those who are wisely and responsibly utilizing their land to raise crops and livestock that will be used for actual human or animal consumption, not for inefficient energy production (whether wind, solar, biofuel, etc.).

If the Midwestern representatives are able to convince the federal legislature to approve their expanded use of corn ethanol in vehicle fuel, they will be deserving of a new name: Cornhucksters rather than Cornhuskers.