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.""
Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Democrats are dumb enough to give all power to the government, even when it could mean that Republicans (or someone much more terrible [wikipedia.org]) may inherit that power.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you dumb enough to think that giving the government the power to keep poison out of your food is the same thing as the government spying on you illegally? Get past the nonsensical absolutes and slippery slope nonsense, you might notice that both parties are willing to sell out everyone and everything to monied interests.
Re: (Score:3)
Socialism is not rooting in a centrally mananged economy, but the belief that all production should be done for a common good("worker owned" the means of production)
While there are certainly many types of socialism where this is the case, its NOT a defining feature (anarcho-socialism for one, and even pure marxism, in the never achieved end state has no government).
There are other highly oppressive big state types of governence than socialism.
Facism and the so called National "Socialism", and integralists,
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:5, Informative)
Is that why the republicans voted to stop obamacare which centrally manages 1/5 of the nations economy?
No, that's why they voted to approve it [ivn.us].
The reason why they voted to stop "Obamacare" in particular is because it was suggested by Obama, not because they actually have any ideological stances on economic freedom (Tea Party aside).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For anyone too lazy to look at the link provided by shutdown, the link shows that some republicans at some time or another supported the idea of an individual mandate. No references are given and there is no mention of a vote.
The fact is that every republican in the house voted against it with 34 democrats joining in. The senate voted 60-39 for obamacare with the 60 being democrats and independants. Not one democrat voted against.
Shutdown - you are full of crap.
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't the only time they've declared war on something they had previously supported just because Obama said, hey, that really is a good idea. There have been 3 proposals/bills I know of since Obama won that their authors, republicans, did an about face on the moment Obama voiced support for it.
The republicans opposition towards anything that is supported by Obama has no meaning other than the old white boys thinking,"Not gonna let that darkie do nuthing".
(Or at least I'm assuming that's the main reason behind their lack of reasoning, racism and stupidity, because it's on the whole, completely irrational.)
By the way, my guesses about their thoughts are based both on their actions and statements. (They've done everything except call him by a racial epithet. Correction, some of them have used racial epithets to refer to President Obama. So you can bet that since they are pretty much in lockstep, the others are thinking the same thing the others haven't yet publicly stated.)
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't really inconsistant with their guiding principles. The reform doesn't actually socialise medicine - there are still no new government-run hospitals, and no promise that your expenses will be met out of tax money should you suffer illness or injury. The finances of healthcare provision are still being handled by private industry - insurance companies. There are really only three things the reform changes of any note:
- Individual mandate: Everyone needs health insurance.
- Tightening of industry reg
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:5, Insightful)
Only because they didn't get a chance to vote it back then. The evidence is clear that Republicans were perfectly okay with pretty much every single provision that makes up Obamacare, up until the point where it became known as Obamacare.
I honestly don't know why I'm ever bothering to argue with you, really, because anyone seriously claiming that Republicans are a "small government party" is either insane or blind - their track record for the last 30 years is anything but.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:3)
What does not go into cars will feed the starving in this world of ours.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
If you have a marina or airport close by, you can get the real deal. Cheaper as well since you don't pay federal highway taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
Oops, didn't read you post completely. You're getting taken for a ride on your lakes. Not only are they charging you more, but you should get about a .25 / gallon break from Federal taxes. I guess you have to move somewhere more maritime.
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:5, Informative)
Fuel stabilizer that keeps the gasoline from separating doesn't prevent the alcohol corrosion.
There are however fuel stabilizers on the market which claim to inhibit the alcohol corrosion. I believe these may be relatively new, since I can't recall ever seeing them before last year. FYI, here [baileysonline.com] and maybe here [baileysonline.com].
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).
Use whatever gas you want to all season. At the end of the season run it dry, put in a gallon of the good stuff, run it dry, repeat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And in the process .... drop 10mpg (Score:5, Informative)
So, by replacing 10% of the gasoline with ethanol, you lose 20% of the energy? Man, ethanol really sucks! Does E85 reduce a flex fuel vehicle's mileage by 170%, then?
Since "anonymous coward" clearly doesn't know the answer, I'll help. People typically report losing about 20% of the mileage with E85 v/s gasoline, assuming no other changes (it's actually closer to 34%, but E85 is only 85% max, and then only in the summer; it's way less in cold weather, so that's probably why people see an average of 20-ish percent). Running E10 costs around 3% of your mileage, which is 1MPG in a 30 MPG car - or about the difference you'd see if you accelerate briskly from a couple more stoplights than usual.
Re: (Score:3)
A friend of mine has a pickup that can burn E85 and he tested mileage with different blends.
His conclusion was that although E85 was the cheapest per gallon, the most expensive blend was the cheapest per mile.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah not really true, I saw premium in Iowa two years ago that had a statement at the pump that said "all blends may contain up to 10% ethanol, premium may contain up to 5%" We see it in Canada at some stations too, Shell is one of the few where you can buy 91 and 93 without ethanol in it.
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:5, Informative)
I understand what you're saying, but the pedant in me wants to point out that there's no such thing as "pure gasoline." Gasoline(tm) is a cocktail of many different hydrocarbon molecules, usually consisting of between 4 and 12 carbon atoms in their chains. And different companies' products contain differing ratios of the common components of petrol.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Out of curiosity: at what point is it better to just sell something that you're not "really" using, and put they money towards something else?
Oh, in general I use the boat plenty. But I changed jobs, relocated to another state and generally had a lot of life upheaval for a while which prevented me from using the boat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The cost of the ethanol exceeds the cost of gasoline, especially when you consider the 10% (minimum) milage hit you have to put up with.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:5, Informative)
The ethanol boosts the octane and improves burning.
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Where the octane number is raised by blending in ethanol, energy content per volume is reduced.
Ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline. It slightly improves the "smoothness of burning" (octane rating) but reduces the energy of combustion. It also, in some cases, reduces the percentage of fuel burned. "Octane rating" is not a measure of fuel efficiency or energy content.
A modern computer-controlled engine using software that adjusts the timing to reduce ping is probably a better and more efficient solution than adding ethanol.
Re: (Score:3)
The octane only helps to stop the fuel from predetonating, allowing a higher compression ratio which should burn more efficiently, probably helping me as I had shaved the head down after a head gasket failure. The smoother burning comes from the ethanol being an oxygenator, allowing more complete burning. This is probably less important with a recent computerized fuel injected engine but was quite important at one time. A little googling does seem to agree that having an oxygenator added to the fuel is not
Re: (Score:3)
Yes these are small detuned engines. Using E20 I assume makes running at higher throttle plate opening possible which reduces pumping loses on the engine . Personally I would try a hot air intake first.
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:5, Informative)
'pure' gas... 'corn crap'... 'good stuff'...
Humbug.
Corn is not a good stock for producing fuel ethanol, that much is true. Not that there is something wrong with the ethanol itself, it is just a rather inefficient way to get there.
'pure' gas and 'good stuff' is just what you'd expect to hear from someone who read a flyer written by a stakeholder to incite the masses. The product coming from the refinery is neither 'pure' - and a good thing that is as your engine would not run that well on 'pure' petrol - nor 'good stuff'.
Ethanol can be a good fuel for internal combustion engines. It burns clean, tolerates high compression ratios without problems and - in contrast to what many sources state - stores well. Its energy content per litre is lower than that of petrol, which in turn has a lower energy content per litre than diesel. This in itself is not a problem but it does lead to higher specific fuel consumption rates and with that more fuel for the petrol lobby.
Modern cars - at least those from Europe and Japan - have no problems with higher ethanol ratios. The real limit is often the maximum capacity for the fuel injection system: as ethanol has a lower energy content per litre, more fuel is needed for the same load. Injection systems in engines tuned for petrol simply can not supply enough fuel per combustion stroke for higher ethanol ratios. This can be adjusted though, eg. by raising the injection pressure. The often-heard problem with ethanol dissolving seals and gaskets might apply to old vehicles but it is unlikely to be a problem when talking about more recent (say, made in the last 20 years) engines. If the car has been running on petrol for many years the ethanol will dissolve the crud left behind so you'll want to change the fuel filter more often in the beginning.
As to my personal experience with this I can state that, other than the ethanol dissolving some coating from the inside of the fuel tank on my soviet-era Ural motorbike - which runs on E85 (85% ethanol) - I have yet to see a single problem caused by ethanol while we use it in various ratios - from 45% to 85%, depending on the application - in many engines, from a '92 B&S lawn mower to a 2003 Skoda. I've used it in 2-strokes as well but this has been less of a success as it is hard to keep the fuel and oil mixed. As soon as I find a good (and inexpensive) lubricant which stays mixed I'll use in the chain saws as the exhaust gases are less noxious than those from petrol.
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need any changes related to corrosion because they're made with those changes already included - it's mostly picking the right kinds of rubber for the seals and hoses. That doesn't mean an old motor boat engine will have been designed for that, and as the earlier poster said, there's also the problem that boat engines often sit unused for half a year, with the fuel evaporating away.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the US, most new cars have fuel systems which are just fine with E85 (or more) as well. They just lack the appropriate sensors to identify the varying ethanol mix, and like the parent noted, lack adequate injector flow to handle the increased volume needed - 'cause that stuff costs money. :)
Re: (Score:3)
Ethanol can be a good fuel for internal combustion engines. It burns clean, tolerates high compression ratios without problems and - in contrast to what many sources state - stores well. Its energy content per litre is lower than that of petrol, which in turn has a lower energy content per litre than diesel. This in itself is not a problem but it does lead to higher specific fuel consumption rates and with that more fuel for the petrol lobby.
It can be a good fuel... but not when used in engines designed for gasoline (petrol).
As you point out, it has a lower energy density, thereby reducing your mileage and likely leading to the burning of more gasoline, rather than less. But it also reduces ignition efficiency... a bit less of the fuel actually burns when ignited. Further reducing efficiency.
Add that to the fact that corn-derived methanol is just plain energy inefficient, and the only reasonable conclusion is that we have better things to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep... however, an engine designed to run straight ethanol is a beautiful thing. Compared to the average gasoline burner, you'd have higher compression ratios and lower displacements.
Higher C/R equates to longer stroke, which increases torque and fuel efficiency. Higher torque and fuel efficiency means we can downsize the engine to maintain the same power to weight ratio for our vehicle.
Thus... take two identical cars but one with an engine designed for ethanol. They'll both turn in about the same number
Re: (Score:3)
Just a minor quibble. Adding ethanol to gas does not increase of gasoline you burn, it decreases it.
It increases the volume of fuel you have to burn, but that fuel is only 90% gasoline.
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:5, Informative)
Ethanol can be a big problem with certain modern cars.
Toyota and its luxury devision, Lexus, have this problem with models up to 2008. For example, the 2008 Lexus IS (built during calendar year 2007) is not E10 compatible. In areas where E10 fuel was legally mandated, lexus noticed a high rate of warranty replacements of the fuel injection pump and fuel injector failure, as well as fuel leaks from the fuel injection manifold. This was found to be ethanol induced corrosion of the metal alloys used in the injection pump and manifolds. Oxidation and debris from the corrosion would also clog injectors or cause them to leak.
These cars were recalled in the US, but were not recalled outside of the US. Customers with these cars who are now out of warranty are potentially SOL, if they live in an area where E10 is expected to be mandated shortly.
It's not just recent Japanese cars that have problems with E10. Recent european cars also have major problems with E10. Mercedes-Benz vehicles built between 2002 and 2005 are not E10 compatible, as are numerous post 2000 Fiat vehicles, Audi/Volkswagen/Seat/Skoda vehicles with direct injection systems built before 2006, etc. The list of non-compatible cars is very long.
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:5, Informative)
"If you fill a car with 100% gasoline and park it for 20 years, it'll start right up."
Bullshit!! You will be cleaning the varnish and other settled crud out of the jets/fuel bowl, injectors/lines, pumps, and the fuel tank. I've got a fifty year old combine out back that's been sitting for twenty years in 2014 with just such a problem along with two cars and a tractor that were in the same boat that had been sitting for even less time.
Re: (Score:3)
Oklahoma is the only state I've found that commonly has ethanol-free gas available (but good luck finding anything higher than 91 octane).
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:5, Funny)
Look for Gas Throwback at the pump.
Re: (Score:3)
Pure E0 gasoline is available here and there. It's usually branded as "Amoco Silver" sold at one specific pump and costs maybe 5% more than 93-octane E10 depending on the station.
http://puregas.org/ [puregas.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You can buy it, you just can't put it in your car to drive on the highway. You can buy it at specialty fuel paces that sell to race car folks and at cardlock type places. You have to sign that you won't put it in your car. I buy it at my local CFN dealer to use in my chainsaw, lawnmower, etc. Definitely worth the extra cost to run it in your small engines; more power and none of the damage you get from ethanol.
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm hoping ethanol gets dumped.
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
If I want E0 gas here in Texas, I have to pay for a fuel company to set up an above ground tank on property and pay in increments of hundreds of gallons.
I would love E0 gas. E10 doesn't help generator or small engine life in any way whatsoever. It also kills gasoline life because the ethanol sucks water from the air, which causes gas to get bad quicker. Preservatives like Sta-Bil help, but even with that, one really can't store E10 past 6 months without risking fouling up carbs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ethanol is a crock nobody wants (Score:5, Informative)
We are offered the choice here. Half the gas stations in town have big banners advertising "100% Real Gas". There's a difference in price per gallon, but I and several others I know have seen the hit to mileage when using ethanol gas and the small savings for ethanol gas is more than offset by the mileage hit.
Not everybody is so lucky. States have a certain amount of leeway to come up with their own ways of staying within EPA requirements regarding smog in their urban centers. The result is that in most states, 10% ethanol is an absolute requirement, with no gas station anywhere being allowed to sell 100% gasoline.
corn vs algae (Score:5, Interesting)
The real question to me is why corn is used for Ethanol instead of say algae?
Re:corn vs algae (Score:5, Informative)
Ethanol requirements are corporate welfare for Big Corn.
It has nothing to do with renewable fuels or dependance on imported oil. The second the US has large scale ethanol production not using corn, any requirements for ethanol use will disappear.
Re:corn vs algae (Score:5, Informative)
Ethanol requirements are corporate welfare for Big Corn.
The corn lobby is a big part of it. There is no algae lobby. But there is much more to it. I remember reading about "fuel from algae" back in the 1970s. There were some major hurdles back then. Four decades hence, we have the exact same hurdles. There are huge problems with "fuel from algae", and these problems are not being solved. It is easy to make ethanol from starch, and much harder to make it from cellulose. Algae contains no starch. Most "algae fuel" schemes focus instead on making bio-diesel from lipids, which some algae do contain in significant amounts. The problem is that when algae is bred to produce more lipids, it is out produced by invasive species, and feasted on by predators such as paramecium and rotifers. This problem can be solved by growing algae in enclosed containers rather than open ponds, but that vastly increases the cost. Even if you manage to grow algae with enough lipids, you still have to separate them from that water, break up the cell walls, and separate the fuel from the other cellular debris. We are not even close to doing this cost effectively.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm far from an expert, but I would have thought that separating the lipids from the water was the easy part. Is there something about the way the algae store the lipids? Or are the algae too hard to crush to get them to release the oils?
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.
Re: (Score:3)
The process you describe is the traditional approach and it is a problem.
Having done considerable googling on the subject I have come up with a potential alternative:
Remove most of the water with a hydrocyclone.
Crack the cell walls with ultrasonics and/or microwaves.
Transesterify the still-wet goop with super-critical methanol.
Recover the excess methanol with a flash drum.
Separate the biodiesel, glycerol, remaining water and algae residue with another hydrocyclone and settling tanks and filters.
None of this
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You are essentially right, and the effects are felt in many sectors of the econemy.
Bio fuel corn is exactly the same as livestock corn, and often the same mills turn out the same product (distillers dried grains, or DDGs) for both uses. The farmer isn't put in a box of having to sell only to one market.
But what does happen is the price of beef and pork rises, to the point where feedlots can't survive [nationalreview.com] meaning cattle ranchers have to resort to more costly means of feeding a herd longer on range land.
Governme
Re:corn vs algae (Score:5, Informative)
I think PBS Frontline is a fairly non-biased source of information:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/interviews/pollan.html [pbs.org]
So most people think of a cow as something that's out grazing, and then is taken to the slaughterhouse. ... No, not true. Cows see very little grass nowadays in their lives. They get them on corn as fast as they can, which speeds up their lifespan, gets them really fat, and allows you to slaughter them within 14 months.
The problem with this system, or one of the problems with this system, is that cows are not evolved to digest corn. It creates all sorts of problems for them. The rumen is designed for grass. And corn is just too rich, too starchy. So as soon as you introduce corn, the animal is liable to get sick.
It creates a whole [host] of changes to the animal. So you have to essentially teach them how to eat corn. You teach their bodies to adjust. And this is done in something called the backgrounding pen at the ranch, which is kind of the prep school for the feedlot. Here's where you teach them how to eat corn.
You start giving them antibiotics, because as soon as you give them corn, you've disturbed their digestion, and they're apt to get sick, so you then have to give them drugs. That's how you get in this whole cycle of drugs and meat. By feeding them what they're not equipped to eat well, we then go down this path of technological fixes, and the first is the antibiotics. Once they start eating the [corn], they're more vulnerable. They're stressed, so they're more vulnerable to all the different diseases cows get. But specifically they get bloat, which is just a horrible thing to happen. They stop ruminating.
Re:corn vs algae (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't just that other food can't be grown on farmland, unused land perviously set aside for conservation is being tilled to plant corn, which releases stored CO2 from the soil. Massive amounts of additional fertilizer are being applied -- fertilizer is made from natural gas [wikipedia.org]. This fertilizer is increasing the size of the Gulf Dead Zone [wikipedia.org].
source: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/11/5902607/the-secret-dirty-cost-of-obamas.html [sacbee.com]
Corn is not sugar cane. Brazil can get away with ethanol because sugar cane is 6x more productive [wikipedia.org] than corn: favorable corn estimates have an energy return about 1.3x energy expended while cane returns about 8x energy expended. If we were to have a rational ethanol policy, we'd make friends with Cuba and buy rum for our cars.
Re: (Score:2)
corn fields are cheap to operate, due to cheap fossil fuels and ease of growth(as indicated by how cheap corn is), so if you have corn fields and a saturated market it's pretty useful if you can have the government mandate to other people to use your produce...
and nobody really has working algae production in the scale that would work, this use of ethanol has much more to do with surplus corn than anything else - it's a farming subsidy and a jobs program. the thing is, the ethanol isn't there to save the en
Re:corn vs algae (Score:5, Insightful)
corn fields are cheap to operate
They also promote monoculture farming and depletion of soil, which in turn requires huge inputs of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and also makes GMO attractive.
The US corn policy is exceedingly damaging to the economy, the environment, and public health.
Re: (Score:3)
corn fields are cheap to operate, ..
Actually, without government subsidies, corn-based ethanol would not be economically feasible fuel.
Re:corn vs algae (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Big Corn
Environmentalists? (Score:5, Informative)
complaints from advocates of ethanol, including some environmentalists
There are environmentalists advocating ethanol fuel from corn?
If they are referring to the Renewable Fuels Association [wikipedia.org] they've made a mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically, the efficiency of a heat engine increases with the hot temperature (which increases with compression ratio). In piston engines this is limited by knocking, which in can be prevented by mixing in various things, some of the horrible or hard to produce, and among these ethanol seems a fairly good choice, it being availab
Re: (Score:3)
There are environmentalists advocating ethanol fuel from corn?
It was sold [nytimes.com] to the public as "clean energy." Some of the most culpable are apologizing [nytimes.com] for their advocacy.
If it was all a front for Big Corn or whomever — the otherwise noble green agenda co-opted to serve narrow interests — one must wonder which parts of our contemporary `green' agenda are also misplaced.
Or not. When the policies prove a mistake the enviro-statists will assign blame to someone else while advocating the next bad idea.
Re:Environmentalists? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be careful with how you word things. Ethanol is not in an of itself evil and purely political. Ethanol derived from renewable biological processes has merit in as much as it closes the carbon loop. The trouble comes when politics steps in and subsidizes source material whose production is every bit, if not more harmful than the petroleum the ethanol is supposed to be replacing.
If you want to make actual progress against environmental destruction you need to capture the external costs in the price people pay. Innovation will then be driven to that which costs the least.
I stopped sucking ethanol teats years ago (Score:3)
I kinda miss it.
Couldn't we just buy the corn (Score:2)
Re:Couldn't we just buy the corn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Couldn't we just buy the corn (Score:5, Informative)
There is a lot of debate over weather or not its such a great thing to just give food away to poor countries. It lowers the price of domestic farmed goods, depressing the local economy. Its often argued that its a better idea to support the local farmers as much as possible and only giving away food in famine situations.
Re: (Score:2)
well if their country is in the toilet they could usually use more booze though.
Isn't that a good thing? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We could produce ethanol from the corn and give that to the poor people. Lots of them around these parts are major consumers already.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
The real cost... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people are unaware that they already pay for ethanol, in the form of subsidies, before it is even added to gasoline.
Everyone I've spoken to about ethanol did a 180-degree reversal of opinion when I mentioned to them that not only have they already paid for that ethanol, but that it is also genetically-modified corn developed by Monsanto that is used to produce that ethanol, as are the pesticides used on those crops.
Funny, how people change their opinions so quickly when provided factual information.
Rent seekers and graft (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason we still have corn ethanol is because there's so much money involved. It's a great way to get paid a lot of money without actually going to the trouble to earn any of it.
- It's never really been about "the environment", but now they're not even pretending any more.
- "Energy independence" was always a cheap slogan to fool the rubes into paying more for an inferior product, but that's not working either now that the US is set to become the world's largest oil producer in 2015.
Like many government programs, graft is all that's left. The ethanol producers and the farmers feel entitled, and the politicians were bought off a long time ago.
Short answer: No (Score:5, Funny)
I, at least, am unlikely to be weaned off ethanol.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to forget that the US tried that with the prohibition and it didn't work out either.
GASP! (Score:3)
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.
Ethanol fuel is a boondoggle (Score:3)
Fuel from corn, and the subsidy for it, was a giveaway to Archer Daniels Midland. The subsidy expired a few years ago, but the requirement that corn be converted to fuel ethanol [motherjones.com] drove the price of corn up.
Ethanol from corn is probably a net energy lose. Ethanol refineries don't burn their own product for their own process heat. (Oil refineries do.)
Ethanol for cellulose, if it ever works commercially, has real promise. There's so much excess cellulose in the world produced as farming waste, from corn cobs to straw to wood chips. The first big ethanol from cellulose plants [japantimes.co.jp] are coming on line in 2014. But they need subsidies to survive.
fun trivia (Score:2)
The ethanol used for fuel is made from industrial grade corn syrup. Because the corn syrup used is not food-grade, it is usually made using a process which uses mercury. So, the combustion of fuel with ethanol is actually putting mercury into the environment.. Mercury is considered a worse toxin than lead but it's arguably at much smaller quantities.
Re:fun trivia (Score:4, Interesting)
other benefits of less ethanol (Score:4, Informative)
I live in Iowa. We grow a lot of corn here. But there are other crops, things like soybean and sunflower. You know what happens when the demand for ethanol goes up? The price of corn goes up. And then what? People stop planting as much soybean and sunflower because corn is making them more. And then what? The price of soybean and sunflower goes up because there's a drop in supply.
And that's why a large bag of sunflower seed for my birdfeeder darn near doubled in price a few years ago, everyone was pulling out their sunflower and replacing it with corn. You don't really notice all these effects until they start hitting you.
Farmers will hedge their bets, plant multiple kinds of crops in case one of them tanks due to weather, but the ratio they mix in varies, to balance return and risk. When return on their main crop goes up, they can take bigger risks by pulling more of the less profitable crops out.
Drive a diesel? (Score:2)
Not sure if US diesel fuel contain ethanol.
why would we want to? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the original claim can be true and still have more expensive corn than in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
The price of the raw materials is really just a fraction of the cost that goes into producing most foods.
When corn prices dramatically shot up, there wasn't a corresponding spike in food either.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130921775 [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Because people can eat other things than corn. I do remember some farmers in the US feeding sweets instead of animal feed a couple of years back because it was cheaper though.
Re:Corn is FOOD (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. (Score:4, Funny)
Corn is what FOOD eats.
Re: (Score:2)
find a marina, most of the ones around here sell uncut gas, or puro if you will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Clean Burning Vehicles (Score:4, Informative)
replace there rubber fuel lines every year
How about replace them once with ethanol-resistant fuel lines. I can't even find rubber fuel lines anymore. Even the OEM parts (1970 Mercedes fuel hose, custom dimensions) aren't available in rubber anymore. I asked. The dealer parts guy said safety regs won't let them sell rubber parts.
Re:Ethanol Is a bad choice (Score:4)
Given that the corn ethanol EROI is so bad, and most people seem to know, I'm kinda wondering who would be desperate enough to try it anyway. The problem is definitely not laughable however.
Re:Ethanol is simply not good enough (Score:4, Informative)
True, but that doesn't mean that (certain) food isn't more expensive than it otherwise would be, but for so much corn going to ethanol production. For example, as to corn itself, while the commodity price has dropped dramatically over the last year, it's still twice as high as it was in the early 2000's.
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=corn&months=240 [indexmundi.com]
Moreover, the cost of corn is the primary cattle feed in the U.S. As a result, the price of beef largely tracks that of corn, and has likewise more than doubled since 2000.
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=beef&months=240 [indexmundi.com]