Study: Wisconsinites have mixed views on ethanol

September 13, 2011

A majority of Wisconsinites support the use of ethanol blends if it keeps dollars and jobs in the United States and reduces air pollution, according to a new study by University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers.

But that support dropped substantially if those surveyed were told that ethanol could harm their engine or reduce . About two-thirds said they would not support ethanol under these conditions. It is generally believed that ethanol will not hurt newer engines, but studies have shown that it will cause minimal reductions in mileage compared to gasoline.

"Understandably, this poll indicates mixed attitudes toward the pros and cons of ethanol," says Bret Shaw, assistant professor of life sciences communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and environmental communication specialist for UW-Extension.

Respondents' actual knowledge about ethanol was also mixed. While ethanol does, in fact, burn cleaner than gasoline, only 53 percent believed this to be the case, while 41 percent thought the two were about the same and 6 percent believed ethanol burns dirtier that gasoline.

Asked about ethanol's impact on the environment, 41 percent believed that it causes less damage than , 15 percent thought ethanol was more damaging and 44 percent believe the two were about the same. There is debate among scientists and industry groups on this question. Although ethanol burns cleaner, detractors argue that its environmental benefits are overstated because demand for crops needed to produce it may accelerate the conversion of forests and other natural, carbon-absorbing to .

The survey found considerable doubt about ethanol's . Only 43 percent believed domestically produced ethanol increases U.S. jobs, while 46 percent thought it would have no effect and 10 percent believed ethanol use would decrease jobs. Similarly, relatively few respondents thought ethanol would decrease their own . Thirty-one percent thought it would boost the price at the pump, 41 percent said that it has no impact and 28 percent believed it lowers pump prices. Ethanol blends are generally thought to decrease fuel prices at the pump for Wisconsin consumers.

Overall, support for ethanol was highest among people who were younger, more educated, Democrats and those living in a county where an active biofuels plant was located.

Respondents were interviewed in June and July as part of the most recent UW-Madison Badger Poll. Data was collected from 556 persons chosen at random within households with landline telephones. The overall response rate for the survey is 39.6 percent with a 4.2 percent margin of error. The analysis was conducted by Bret Shaw and Michael Cacciatore, doctoral student in the UW-Madison Department of Life Sciences Communication.

Explore further: Fuel ethanol cannot alleviate US dependence on petroleum

More information:

Related Stories

Fuel ethanol cannot alleviate US dependence on petroleum

July 1, 2005

A new study of the carbon dioxide emissions, cropland area requirements, and other environmental consequences of growing corn and sugarcane to produce fuel ethanol indicates that the "direct and indirect environmental impacts ...

Ethanol production said increasing erosion

July 6, 2005

Large-scale farming of sugar cane and corn for ethanol fuel is increasing erosion and reducing biodiversity, Washington State University researchers say.

Ethanol's agricultural impact is mixed

October 19, 2005

Purdue University economists say converting more corn into ethanol might profit many interests, but not all in the agriculture industry would benefit.

Economist: 'Blending wall' stands in way of ethanol growth

December 22, 2008

( -- Ethanol production opened the door to the renewable fuels industry. The industry now must get past an imposing wall of federal regulations and market conditions if it hopes to grow, said a Purdue University ...

EPA: ethanol crops displaces climate-friendly ones

May 5, 2009

(AP) -- The Environmental Protection Agency says that corn ethanol - as made today - wouldn't meet a congressional requirement that ethanol produce 20 percent less greenhouse gas than gasoline. But the agency said it is ...

Recommended for you

The dark side of Nobel prizewinning research

October 4, 2015

Think of the Nobel prizes and you think of groundbreaking research bettering mankind, but the awards have also honoured some quite unhumanitarian inventions such as chemical weapons, DDT and lobotomies.

How much for that Nobel prize in the window?

October 3, 2015

No need to make peace in the Middle East, resolve one of science's great mysteries or pen a masterpiece: the easiest way to get yourself a Nobel prize may be to buy one.

Search for Egypt's Nefertiti gains new momentum (Update)

September 29, 2015

The search for ancient Egypt's Queen Nefertiti in an alleged hidden chamber in King Tut's tomb gained new momentum as Egypt's Antiquities Minister said Tuesday he is now more convinced a queen's tomb may lay hidden behind ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Sep 13, 2011
Ethanol costs more per unit than gasoline to produce, and has less energy per unit than gasoline. Those two facts mean that you'll get worse gas mileage and will, over time, spend more money on fuel costs.

Ethanol is also corrosive to conventional plastics, which means that if those plastics are in your fuel line, they will degrade over time. These parts can be replaced (a Flex-Fuel conversion) but it costs a few hundred dollars.

Ethanol does release less particulate matter and less CO2 per unit burned when compared with gasoline, but it releases more NO2. Since NO2 is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, the environmental benefits are debatable.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.