If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now
corn

McDonald’s, White Castle to EPA: Cut Corn Ethanol Mandate

cornThe National Council of Chain Restaurants has urged the EPA to further reduce the levels of corn ethanol mandated under the Renewable Fuel Standard.

In response to concerns about the RFS, the EPA last year proposed cutting corn ethanol levels for 2014 to 13.01 billion gallons from 13.8 billion gallons. NCCR members, including McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Domino’s Pizza, White Castle Food supply chain stakeholders, say the corn quota is still too high.

In comments submitted to the EPA, the NCCR says the ethanol policy distorts agriculture and commodity markets, artificially inflates the price of corn, and sharply raises food costs and prices for restaurant owners, operators, franchisees, small business owners and the general dining public.

The American Frozen Food Institute has also warned that EPA that because corn and soybeans are critical ingredients in a range of frozen foods, higher biofuel targets will raise cost and prices for food makers and shoppers.

Meanwhile the American Soybean Association has urged the EPA to increase the biodiesel targets. In its comments submitted to the EPA, the ASA urged the agency to amend its proposed 2014 and 2015 RFS volume requirements for biomass-based diesel. The proposed biomass-based diesel and total advanced biofuel levels “are unnecessarily low, will stifle the growth and job creation potential demonstrated by the biodiesel industry, and squander an opportunity for greater emissions reductions and energy diversity,” the association says.

The ASA has asked the EPA to adjust the requirements to be consistent with production levels in 2013, which exceeded 1.7 billion gallons. The ASA says there are more than 2 billion gallons of biodiesel production capacity already built and operable, and sufficient feedstock available to produce above the 1.28 billion gallons proposed by EPA.

Last week, the EPA said it will reconsider its 2013 cellulosic ethanol target.

Photo Credit: corn via Shutterstock

The EHS Guidebook: Selecting, Implementing, and Using EHS Software Solutions
Sponsored By: EtQ

  
Planning for a Sustainable Future
Sponsored By: Dakota Software

  
Right On Time
Sponsored By: Gensuite

  
Six Steps to Navigating EHS & Compliance
Sponsored By: UL EHS Sustainability

  

3 thoughts on “McDonald’s, White Castle to EPA: Cut Corn Ethanol Mandate

  1. Can not believe you guys wrote this. It is soooo incorrect.
    Time Magazine called E85 “The Clean Energy Myth.”
    Al Gore called corn based ethanol fuel “a mistake” & confessed that he fell so hard for it because he “had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa.”
    Why? To make 1 gallon of E85 it takes:
    1) It takes more than 1 gallon of diesel fuel (plow, plant, cultivate add fertilizer & pesticide, & harvest,
    2) 1,400 gallons of potable water,
    3) Natural gas to distill the mash several times to remove water,
    4) To haul, via truck (not pipeable), to CA requires more energy that it contains,
    5) E85 dispenser costs $140K,
    6) E85 use drove corn prices up 375%,
    7) E85 reduces mpg 27%
    8) E85 reduces hp 17%,
    9) Vehicle running E85 range reduced 32% vs gasoline, so cars need to be refueled more often, wasting time & fuel,
    10) E85 produces aldehyde emissions, which cause CANCER!
    Dougie Troll, said ethanol from cort did NOT increase corn prices. Hear that McDonalds?
    Read quickly, E.L. editor will not like being corrected.

  2. Have you ever noticed how CO2good is unable to back up any of his statements and claims with references to objective and reliable sources? And since they are free of any reliable references, his so-called ‘facts’ are almost always suspect – as is the case here.
    Can anyone actually swallow his overall implication: that ethanol costs more energy to obtain than it delivers? Are ethanol developers, investors who finance ethanol development, and regulators of ethanol development; all really so stupid as to pursue such a losing proposition? After all, if it really cost more than one gallon of diesel to produce one gallon of ethanol; then developers and investors would actually be losing money on every gallon produced (after all, they have to buy that gallon+ of diesel that is supposedly used). Is anybody buying CO2good’s bridge here? Or how about this one: “To haul, via truck (not pipeable), to CA requires more energy that it contains”? Anybody willing to believe that lie? Ethanol contains nearly an equivalent amount of energy per gallon as does gasoline, but CO2good doesn’t blink an eye when contemplating the everyday occurrence of gasoline being trucked around the country (1 gallon of E85 has about 78% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline – source http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf). Or this one: “E85 use drove corn prices up 375%”? It didn’t – have you noticed that corn is costing you nearly 4 times as much as it did in the past? You haven’t, have you – because this is nothing more than another CO2good lie.
    I could go on to debunk nearly every item in this new (but still sad) list that CO2good has crafted.
    This whole CO2good post is just another example of the depths he seems willing to sink to; in order to continue his attacks against all things that represent potential alternatives to the fossil-fuel-conglomerate business-as-usual approach. His unthinking diatribes must be sincerely appreciated by ExxonMobil and others. But surely, CO2good, you can do better than this. Can’t you?

Leave a Comment