Slashdot Mirror
The Great Ethanol Scam
theodp writes "Over at BusinessWeek, Ed Wallace is creating quite a stir, reporting that not only is ethanol proving to be a dud as a fuel substitute, but there is increasing evidence that it is destroying engines in large numbers. Before lobbyists convince the government to increase the allowable amount of ethanol in fuel to 15%, Wallace suggests it's time to look at ethanol's effect on smog, fuel efficiency, global warming emissions, and food prices. Wallace concedes there will be some winners if the government moves the ethanol mandate to 15% — auto mechanics, for whom he says it will be the dawn of a new golden age."
It's next to impossible to find a gas station that does not have Ethanol in it's fuel. It doesn't help that two huge ADM plants are with in 90 minutes of where I live. Regardless, there is a single Shell station in the area that has 93 octane V-power that is without ethanol. The cost different of $0.30/gal is offset by the noticeable decrease in fuel consumption, increased power, and smoothing the idle. Yes, my car is tuned to require at least 91 octane.
"There might be intelligent beings created by God in outer space even if there are none here on Earth." -Anonymous
E85 is garbage. Why do you think the government has to subsidize it by about 40 cents per gallon? If it was that good of a fuel, it could stand on its own. Corn / Farm lobby + enviro wackos = total failure.
According to TFA, in many cases fuel lines or fuel pumps have been destroyed by fuel with increased ethanol content.
This seems credible because similar problems are known with biodiesel (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Material_compatibility). But there are materials that can handle the ethanol, they just need to be used in new cars and eventually most cars in existence will have them.
The real question is how large the net energy gain from using ethanol actually is. If TFA's assertion that it is a net energy loser are correct, that would be a far bigger problem.
C - the footgun of programming languages
The part I loved most about the steaming biased crock of crap that is the article is the comment that E85 (15% Ethanol) means a 30% drop in mileage.
So E0 (100% ethanol) would be a drop of 200% in mileage? Does that mean you fuel with Ethanol and your car goes backwards?
Hate to burst your bubble, but E85 is 85% ethanol. And it's quite apparent that you know nothing of math or energy density. The energy density of ethanol is about 26 MJ/kg whereas the energy density of gasoline is almost twice that at about 45 MJ/kg. So to answer your last quesion, you'd most likely get less than half the mileage out of your car if you used E100 (100% ethanol). BTW E0 is 0% ethanol, ie pure gasoline.
You can't buy gas without ethanol in California due to the CARB requirement that all gas meet oxygenation requirements. Ethanol was chosen as a substitute for MTBE due to the less-than healthy effect of ground water contamination from MTBE runoff.
There are numerous problems with ethanol as an additive, and it starts with the alcohol being corrosive to many plastic and rubber hoses and connectors. Aside from that, boat fuel tanks are comprised almost universally of FRP, and E10 will dissolve the tank and then the engine ingests the dissolved plastics. Not only does it corrupt the engine, but the exhaust products are pumped into the water behind the boat, leading to another environmental pollutant.
Of course there is the issue of stored energy as well. E10 contains about 15% less energy than E0. So, more trips to fill up, and more CO2 from distribution.
The big problem is, there are no other choices for oxygenate additives in California, and by extension MA, NY, NJ, OH, NH, VT, etc.
While I agree with your general sense of the article, your math needs work.
Although the writer appears to be a respected journalist (see the brief bio at the end), the article is little more than disconnected anecdote. IF the big manufacturers are on the hook for multi thousand mile warranties and IF increasing ethanol concentrations from 15% to 18% routinely trashed engines within the warranty period then I would suspect that the manufactures would be complaining about this. Big Time. Yes, I read about ethanol induced damage not being a warranty repair, but having thousands of annoyed customers even more pissed off because of the fine print makes little long term economic sense.
And this is aside from the point that it can't really be that hard to devise plastics that are ethanol resistant. The stuff isn't hydroflouric acid. And fiberglass gas tanks? WTF. Never heard of them.
Sounds a bit hyperbolic to me (and thus perfect for a discussion here....).
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I'm sorry, but your argument is bullshit.
At first, ethanol in Brazilian fuel is nothing more than a subside for northeastern Brazilian farmers, just like it is a subside for US corn farmers. It's not economically friendly. It's a more like a farming sweat shop. Northeastern Brazil is, by far, the country more backwards place. Workers live in substandard conditions and slavery is not really uncommon in poorest places.
At second, it's not environmentally friendly. Sugar cane is burned before being harvest. Particulates and smoke are really bad for neighbor population. Lack of crop rotation impoverishes the soil.
I'm a Brazilian myself and, obviously, new exports are always welcome. But not sugar cane. Let it die. It's just a way for the the country semi feudal elite to keep exploiting poor people, like it's being doing since 1500. Let the soil grow food. It's not a solution. It never was.
English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
Drag racers aren't going to let their ethanol sit for long periods.
Here's some info (note the comments!) on how ethanol affects small and legacy engines:
http://poweretblog.com/2008/12/industry-officials-nrel-federal-ethanol-engine-study-inconclusive/
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
But it's not Fuel vs. Food. The corn companies are not taking Corn that can be used for food, and the price of corn is not going up because of the production of Ethanol. Sugar cane, for instance, is being turned much more effectively into Ethanol.
The problem with Ethanol is that it doesn't work. It takes more Oil to produce and distribute Ethanol.
This is a clear case of lobbying on both sides. The scientific facts need to be gathered, which a commenter said above. I would argue that not pushing Ethanol R&D is destroying our chances for alternative fuel sources. Clean coal and clean air is the real solution, but destroying any R&D, even for a temp-solution, is definitely not a solution.
People in California were driving electric cars every day ten years ago. They were fast, quiet, clean, and reliable. They were also accessible to the everyman, unlike the Tesla roadster.
I don't give a fuck about corn or other combustibles. We could all be driving electric cars today if not for big oil colluding with government regulators.
Give me my electric car!
Every energy system that is used as fuel ultimately loses energy as a transport. It's just a question of how much. When sunlight is converted to coal and oil, over millions of years, energy is lost. When biodiesel is created, energy is lost. This is simple physics.
The reality is, whether or not ethanol is a "net energy" gainer is a red herring frankly cooked up by people who are pro-drilling. The only reason ethanol is taking a beating now is because gas prices are low again, but if they go back up to $4 a gallon, and they will at some point, then, ethanol will be roaring back into demand.
Whether or not engines are destroyed from it, only means that we need better engine designs.
This is my sig.
Other types of biofuel may be better than corn, but they have their problems too. According to a shocking report by "Time Magazine", "if the world gets even 10% of its energy from these new kinds of crops, most tropical forests will probably disappear."
Not surprisingly, lobbyists for American agribusiness are angry as hell about the conclusions of the EPA study.
Really, the best way to partially fix this nonsense is to make Iowa (and its corn farmers) the last state to participate in both the Republican primary and the Democratic primary. Due to the importance of Iowa as the first state in the presidential primaries (including caucuses), Iowan agribusiness has a stranglehold on American politics, and its politicians do stupid things (like supporting corn-based ethanol) in order to cater to Iowa.
Also, has anyone noticed that no one has mentioned the #1 reason for the growing energy problem and its associated pollution problem? The #1 reason is overpopulation. If we reduced greenhouse-gas emissions by 3% over 10 years but increased the population by 3% over the same period across all nations, then we effectively accomplished nothing.
Can anyone guess why overpopulation is never mentioned by American politicians? Could the concept of overpopulation be too closely tied to illegal immigration?
...Mt Dew now has "Throwback" to make use of the now-cheaper cane sugar....
if Coke would just get rid of that crappy high fructose corn syrup trash. It's been ages since you could make a good rum and Coke. Sometimes "real sugar" Coke is available at the local Kosher supermarket but it would be nice to just get rid of that high fructose corn syrup. BTW, has anyone else noticed how the obesity issue in the US has tracked so closely with the introduction of that HFCS poison (just Google "high fructose corn syrup obesity")?
The Prez wants to fix health care? Start by "encouraging" the demise of HFCS in people food and ethanol in automobiles.
Yes, I know, and it costs more to make clothes here than it does to buy them from sweatshops in China. But is it the right thing to do?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Is it this? Discovery Channel's "Modern Marvels: Secrets of Oil".
I wonder if someone at Slashdot is taking money to post links to junk articles with hidden agendas. Alcohol is fine for cars. See, for example, Brazil's alcohol cars hit 2 million mark. Cars that use alcohol for fuel are completely reliable. Their exhaust is much better-smelling, too, because the unburnt hydrocarbons are sweet-smelling alcohol.
The article linked by Slashdot discusses problems with the bad design of fuel systems, not problems with engines.
I understand that the main problem with alcohol in the U.S. is that it is made from corn. In Brazil it is made from sugar cane, a more efficient method, and one that fits Brazil's climate.
You are, of course, completely forgetting that unless you drive a race car to work, the compression ratio is set to work with gasoline, not alcohol. And it makes no economic sense for any car company to make a vehicle that runs only on ethanol because of the scarcity of ethanol infrastructure.
Now if you're a tuner, drive a turbocharged car, and don't mind fiddling with programming a waste gate, you can raise your effective compression basically by letting the turbo spin a bit more before opening the waste gate. But I'd posit that there are very few gas-power turbo cars out there right now (most are diesel), and an even smaller number of those care to fool around with tuning for ethanol.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I don't have to pay for the free market's mistakes. If a company creates a horrible product I don't have to buy it, I don't have to support that company. Whenever the government creates a product thats horrible I still have to pay for it even if I don't use it.
The free market is perfect in the fact that everyone gets what they deserve*. If I feel like releasing a product no one wants, fine, but then I go broke. If I don't feel like doing anything but eating potato chips thats fine, I just will soon be making friends with Bob the three fingered hobo out on the street. If I make a groundbreaking invention I can sell it and make a bunch of money.
There really are no flaws for the average person in the free market economy. So long as the government protects from fraud and force, everyone gets what they deserve. Its fair.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The article mentions a handful of cases where the tanks of some failed cars had more than 10% ethanol. One of the cases was cited as a station screw up, but how many were the owners fault for pumping E85 into a non-flex-fuel vehicle? It happens far more than people admit.
Your argument sounds great on the surface - but if Microsoft were left alone with no government interference they would have solidified their monopoly and people could never, ever, have sold computers with other operating systems on them without losing their ability to sell Windows. That wouldn't have been good.
If there was no government interference there apparently would be no corn farmers in the US anymore. I know if seems stupid and counterproductive to pay these folks to not grow corn - but it is probably better than the alternative.
I do believe that in order for "stuff to work" we need to have government and the free market moderate each other to ensure neither can cause enough evil to make things really bad.
The one type of biofuel that has a realistic potential of having a large impact on climate change is made from salt water algae. The idea would be to farm these algae on land based farms using sea water. The precise nature of the mechanics of the farms is still up for debate. One possibility would be to grow them in transparent pipes or bags. The algae would undergo photosynthesis, fixing CO2 and producing oxygen and sugars. The algae, along with their sugars could be easily refined to make diesel.
Researchers have actually discovered a type of algae that refines into diesel with very little processing. The refined fuel even comes with its own natural octanes!!! The advantages of this system would be that it would not use up arable land, and that it wouldn't consume fresh water. The biomass per acre for algae would be at least an order of magnitude more than the best current biofuels.
The problems with this method are primarily ones of technique. Algae farms would have to act to prevent foreign species from entering the system, and the conditions for growth would have to be maintained. But I do not see any insurmountable obstacles. I strongly believe that if we devote our technological expertise to this problem, we will be able to make it work. This technology has the potential to supply a very large portion of our energy needs.
(I first heard of this from a NASA scientist on the CBC radio program Quirks and Quarks)
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
In Brazil, you can buy your alcohol cheap!
On a more serious note, all this ethanol scare tactics are BS. The problems that ethanol cause with food prices are because the US is using corn as a base source. If they used a more sensible crop like sugar cane it'd be better.
I've been to Brazil, I've seen how well their ethanol infrastructure works. To all you ethanol haters/fear mongers I have only this to say:
It works, bitches.
I hate printers.
but the main reason we use corn is that the price of corn is below the cost for the farmer to grow it... and we have square miles of it piled up lying around, that's why it's subsidized. Farmers see ethanol as a way to sell their crop at a PROFIT... imagine that.
The original Model T was designed to run on Ethanol, the idea of Ford was that the farmers could still their own from their own crops. It wasn't until Rockefeller got involved that the political tables turned to oil.. and because of the higher temps of gas engines, they had to use Lead additive as a buffer (which they already knew was poisonous) versus ethanol, which ran cooler but wasn't "flashy".
It's not clear to me that sugar cane is a sustainable crop.
Still, the wikipedia article about Brazilian ethanol from sugar cane is enlightening, although we might not be able to replicate this in the US.
And, in any case, the Brazilian experience does show that the "ethanol ruins engines" canard is not to believed- 95% ethanol apparently doesn't ruin engines in Brazil.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The free market does a piss-poor job of dealing with external costs (those not paid by the consumer), and the government is the appropriate mechanism for connecting the costs back to the people who create them. The problem, in this case, is that the government is imperfect and got more or less hijacked by the farm lobby (and this is hardly the only time this has happened).
A better approach would simply be to impose a GHG tax -- taxes on the various gasses, for the various industries that produce them. According to the work I've read by Pimentel, that would probably kill corn ethanol, because fertilizer would get much more expensive. There's a chance they could thread the needle by using the sugar-depleted byproducts to feed cattle, which would in turn be less gassy, and which would reduce their GHG tax.
For some discussion of food production (which gives some idea of the GHG production of farming corn), see Eschel and Martin, Diet, Energy, and Global Warming
Government, on the other hand, has no such failsafe. Inefficient, ineffective, insufficient programs are the norm, not the exception. Why?
Because they are run by Americans.
I assume you're an American, posting about your own experience with your own government, and I agree: your government sucks.
To conclude from this that ALL government sucks, and is inherently unresponsive to people and unable to change, is not logically justified.
I'm a Canadian, and while our government has loads of problems, they are of the "the free market doesn't always work perfectly" kind, not the "everything the government touches turns to shit" kind.
The most important difference between Canada and the US in this regard is due to our more flexible constitution and our more independent judicial system, as well as the smaller number of relatively powerful provincial governments, all of which serve as strong Darwinian checks on our federal government. Add to that very significant regional differences, with the West throwing up an entirely new political party every few decades (and Quebec chiming in now and then) and we have a vastly more dynamic political discourse, which despite the combined efforts of the two major parties has never been captured by a single, monolithic political elite the way the American political system has.
The US government runs things badly because it is answerable to the parties, not the people. And the parties are run by the same type of people, who see the world is essentially similar ways, and who are far more interested in maintaining the dysfunctional, corrupt system you have in the face of any evolution or change that would allow the needs of ordinary Americans to be served.
So don't blame governments as such for the failings of the American government. Canadian governments, for all their astonishing failures, still manage to deliver health care more cheaply and effectively than the American government does (and yes, I mean the government: the US government pays more public dollars per capita than all levels of government in Canada do, and we get better outcomes as measured by longevity, infant mortality and morbidity than you do.)
The problem is not "government." Is it "American government." And the rest of the world would absolutely love you guys to fix it. Americans do many things brilliantly, but your government is broken, and that's hurting everyone, you most of all.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
But short of going belly up entirely and leaving people in anarchy, government never has to worry about going out of business.
Solution: move to Somalia. Government free since '92.
First, suggesting that government is less efficient than private industry is not suggesting that government be removed. It is a strawman to imply otherwise.
Second, anarchy is exactly what he is referring to when government fails.
Third, you just proved his point. Somalia has a significantly higher per capita GDP than four other African countries with governments.
In Brazil, ethanol production is a bright star in this world of diminishing petroleum reserves. Alcohol exports reached a record of nearly 1.4 billion gallons last years. Most ethanol is produced from sugar cane. Most sugar cane is cut by hand. It is hard, arduous labour. The "cortadores de cana" (workers) are paid directly based on the quantity of sugar cane they cut - so there is no such thing as holiday pay, sick leave, or coffee breaks. Time not cutting cane is money lost. Now that is the best scenario. Often, slave labour is employed on farms and in sugar cane fields in Brazil. Every month there it seems workers are rescued from another slavery operation. It makes one wonder how much is not discovered. If it is not slavery, it is sugar cane cutters who are paid in drugs. Once addicted to crack cocaine, they'll keep on working for that next fix. Now, the president of Brazil is a very enlightened man, and on the side of the common workers. In fact, his party is called the Workers Party. He is very concerned about the sugar cane cutters - Not at all! One would think the cutters would be the first to benefit from record sugar cane profits, but they are forgotten once they burn themselves out cutting cane. Meanwhile, the big producers get richer off the sweating backs of the workers, and the politicians get richer off the backs of every one. This is what I have heard, anyway. In Brazil, it is best not to say things like this - wiser to post anon.
The free market does a piss-poor job of dealing with external costs (those not paid by the consumer), and the government is the appropriate mechanism for connecting the costs back to the people who create them.
True enough but it's government who's given businesses the power they enjoy. For instance the city of New London, Connecticut used their power of eminent domain to take away people's homes so a business could redevelop the land.
A better approach would simply be to impose a GHG tax -- taxes on the various gasses, for the various industries that produce them.
If you haven't heard of it perhaps you'd be interested in a proposed net zero gas tax. The idea is to raise fuel tax but cut income tax. Then the better your mileage or the less you drive the more in your pocket. If you get a Prius and only drive 100 miles a week, you'll pay less tax. And those who drive their SUVs 200 miles a week will pay more. I was surprised to read this proposal by Charles Krauthammer in the conservative "Weekly Standard"
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The problem with "external costs" is, how do you assign a $ value to GHG emissions that isn't ultimately pulled out of someone's ass? Especially if we're talking about the garden variety CO2.
Cap and spend is just another scheme to fleece the taxpayer. But considering 45% of the working public no longer has a net positive Federal tax obligation and thus no longer have any sort of stake in tax hikes, I guess it doesn't matter all that much. Responsible government has gone the way of the do-do bird.
Personal experience: I recently shipped a nice piece of hardware to CA from the US. There was far too much paperwork, and when it finally arrived, there was a CA tax or duty or something that was MORE than the int. shipping cost. That's ridiculous. I really like the cheapness of trade in the US.
The government can't save you.
I am Brazilian, an engineer and was also an early adopter of the Ethanol technology, having Ethanol cars since 1982. I converted three of my family's cars from Ethanol to Gasoline in 1990 - due to a extreme short supply of Ethanol at that time - when I learn by practicing how different were the cars.
Some information about the Brazilian experience:
- Early on the Brazilian automotive industry realized the alcohol fuel (mostly Ethanol plus some water and other impurities) corroded standard fuel systems. Every part of the fuel system had to be re-engineered, in particular metallic alloys. Note that the players in Brazil at that time were GM, Ford, Volkswagen and Fiat. It strikes me the US automotive industry has not warned consumers about this fact.
- Ethanol packs less energy per mass unit or per volume unit. Nevertheless engines can have higher compression ratios, compensating in part the gross energy deficit by converting more thermal energy into kinetic energy. In fact the addition of Ethanol to gasoline has the positive effect of "elevating its octane index". Pretty much as lead additives used in the past. Overall, similar models prepared to burn alcohol were quicker but they also spent more fuel per mile - other conditions being the same. Which was mostly perceived as a nice trade-off. So in the shot term you will have an engine with less pre-detonation.
- Sugarcane is damn efficient in converting solar energy into sugar. Moreover most sugarcane crops are be located in tropical (by definition) ares. Compare the solar power received in Latitude 36 with Latitude 23. The US Ethanol energy output is double handicapped, both by a low quality crop (for the purpose of producing alcohol) and by a lot less solar power.
- Ethanol fuel generates different pollutants. In particular it generates aldehydes. There is smog after all, although of a different quality.
Besides, the fuel consumption in Brazil is a fraction of the US. There are less cars there and they tend to be a lot smaller - and more economical. The Brazilian Ethanol program success cannot not be remotely considered to be a model for the US. The US have other energy sources that make a lot more sense, such as coal and natural gas.
I have believed the US Ethanol program is a lot wishful thinking fueled by quite questionable agendas. As the article says.
I have a flexifuel Volvo. ( I have 20 km to work, no traffic jams)
At 95 Octane fuel (with 15% Ethanol mix in) I use 7.6 Liters of fuel per 100 km mixed driving
With E85 (Ethanol with 15% Gasoline mix in) I use 11.1 Liters of fuel per 100 km mixed driving
Many, many engines on the road cannot be converted to ethanol at all: Truck engines, high performance engines, bike engines, etc. Also, many older engines ("older" as in 15-20 years, still otherwise perfectly viable vehicles, not to mention all of those even older than that) cannot be converted at all.
Huh? ANY gasoline engine can be converted to E-85 without a lot of difficulty; the older the vehicle is, the EASIER it is to convert. All that's need are special fuel lines and filter. Carbed engines need a specially built carb and EFI engines need larger injectors and an updated tune. Contrary to your opinion, E85 is being well received amongst the gearhead/hot rod community, due to its higher octane and evaporative cooling properties which allow a properly built engine to make MORE horsepower than with gasoline. It's also significantly cheaper than gasoline in most areas, which helps compensate for the lower mileage.
Compared to, say, NY State?
401 per km^2
France 117 per km^2
Even California has 217.
France would be ranked 22nd by population density. The UK (at 246) would rank 11th.
Out of 50 states (and the UK being one of the more populous ones in the EU), that's pretty low.
I have believed the US Ethanol program is a lot wishful thinking fueled by quite questionable agendas. As the article says.
That is right. The US should be focused on improving the Fischer Tropsch process to produce synthetic liquid fuels, including pure and high quality gasoline, from our tremendous natural coal reserves. Unfortunately, as other posters have pointed out, the corn growing states have powerful Senators and lobbyists and they tend to vote early, especially in the case of the Iowa caucuses, in the presidential caucuses which means that anyone wishing to run for President of the United States must appease the corn farmers or their presidential bid will be over before it even begins.
And today ALL new cars come equipped with 'flex' engines, that run on any mixture of gasoline and ethanol - from 100%-0% to 0%-100%. The result is that brazilians can choose which one is best whenever we go to the station, depending mostly on the mileage and price of each of the fuels. My car, for one, has never seen gasoline.