Can the US Be Weaned Off Ethanol? 330
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Matthew Wald reports in the NYT the the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed reducing the amount of ethanol that is required to be mixed with the gasoline supply, the first time it has taken steps to slow down the drive to replace fossil fuels with renewable forms of energy. The move drew bitter complaints from advocates of ethanol, including some environmentalists, who see the corn-based fuel blend as a weapon to fight climate change and was also unwelcome news to farmers, coming at a time when a record corn crop is expected, and the price of a bushel has fallen almost to the cost of production. "Boy, my goodness, are the oil companies going to benefit from this," says Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association. "We're all just sort of scratching our heads here wondering why this administration is telling us to produce less of a clean-burning American fuel." But the EPA says that a big part of the problem was that automobile fuel systems and service stations were not set up to absorb more than about 10 percent ethanol. Most cars on the road are limited to the current mixture, called E10, and there has been little demand by consumers for more. Reasons for the turnaround are many: The boom in domestic oil drilling has dimmed the urgency to find other alternatives to Mideast petroleum. Demand for gasoline has slumped. And criticism of the environmental impacts of corn ethanol has dimmed its luster nationally. The chill on ethanol will certainly affect the industry's powerhouse, corn ethanol. But the risk is far greater for smaller sectors of the industry still struggling to get out of the gate — those aimed at producing next-generation biofuels like "cellulosic" ethanol, made from ingredients like switchgrass and corn stalks. "I don't know if the EPA is aiming for uncertainty, but they may inadvertently create it," says Jan Koninckx, the global business director of biorefineries for DuPont. "The impact could be that another country will lead this rather than the U.S.""
corn vs algae (Score:5, Interesting)
The real question to me is why corn is used for Ethanol instead of say algae?
I know people who live in the midwest (Score:2, Interesting)
I do sales in high end luxury industry type stuff. The people who are buying stuff are bigger corn farmers. They have money to spend. Food prices go up, gas goes up, they profit. We pay. Our cars get lower mpg with even 10% ethanol. The effect is big enough that if you could seperate the 90% gas from the ethanol, you'd be better off throwing the ethanol completely away.
Americans would do alright without ethanol but the special interests will cry, as always.
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:5, Interesting)
Notice how consumers aren't given the choice of buying "pure" gas, as opposed to E10. I'm pretty sure that if we had the choice we'd be buying the good stuff, not the corn crap.
+1
I'd really like to find a place I could get pure gasoline. I don't care so much for my road vehicles (one of which is an EV anyway), but I really hate putting ethanol in my boat. The alcohol is terribly corrosive if it ends up sitting for an extended period of time. Cars and trucks generally get driven enough that's not a problem but recreational vehicles may go months -- or occasionally, years -- between uses. I had to spend $600 on a complete carburetor rebuild for my boat last year because it had sat unused for two years and the ethanol had really screwed up the carb.
The mechanic said that in the future if I'm going to use ethanol and might be leaving the boat to sit for more than about six months, that I should ensure that every drop of fuel is cleared out of the carburetor and fuel lines. Fuel stabilizer that keeps the gasoline from separating doesn't prevent the alcohol corrosion. His recommendation is not to use ethanol, but about the only places I can find pure gasoline are boat fuel stations on lakes (where the gas is $5+ per gallon).
I'm all for reducing petroleum consumption, but ethanol is the wrong way to do it, for all sorts of reasons.
DuPont is such a sterling example (Score:5, Interesting)
"I don't know if the EPA is aiming for uncertainty, but they may inadvertently create it," says Jan Koninckx, the global business director of biorefineries for DuPont. "The impact could be that another country will lead this rather than the U.S."
Oh boohoo. Cry me a river. Let's have a look at DuPont's financial statements, shall we?
In millions of USD
2009 2010 2011 2012
Net Income
After Taxes: 1769 2745 3155 2493
If DuPont wants to lead in biofuels, DuPont should pay for the research to lead in biofuels. "Another country could lead this" is code for "give us free taxpayer money because $2 billion or $3 billion annual profit isn't enough for us."
How about do your fucking jobs and develop your own new markets. Start selling pure ethanol as fuel. Need to drive demand? How about Ellen Kullman goes and has a golf game with Alan Mulally. Ethanol-only F-150s should do the trick, especially if DuPont decides to sell mini-bioreactors suitable for farms.
But I forgot, Ellen Kullman has already had a golf game with Ryan Lance, so that isn't going to happen, is it.
Re:fun trivia (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:corn vs algae (Score:5, Interesting)
Or are the algae too hard to crush to get them to release the oils?
Yes. The algae are small, individual cells, with tough, flexible membranes. You start with 99% water, then you separate the algae with filters or centrifuges. Then you need to thoroughly dry the algae to weaken the cell membranes. Then you need to use enzymes or heat to break them down further. Then you need to press or chemically extract the lipids. This can be done. But it is an expensive, energy intensive process. It isn't even close to being cost competitive with petroleum derived diesel, or even soybean oil. There is no "vast conspiracy" keeping algae oil off the market. The real reason is far simpler than that.