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."

Comments

Don't blame me,

[Ethanol-fueled]

I just like to drink boooze!

Re:Don't blame me,

[MrNaz]

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.

Re:Don't blame me,

[MrNaz]

"all this ethanol scare tactics are BS"

Holy crap, I'm becoming a real Slashdotter!

Re:Don't blame me,

[mabhatter654]

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".

Re:Don't blame me,

[313373_bot]

In Brazil, ethanol fueled cars reached parity with gasoline-fueled ones still in the 1980's. Brazilian gasoline has about 24% ethanol, and properly designed engines work flawlessly. Nowadays, most cars are flex-fuel, i.e., can take ethanol, gasoline or anything mix of both.

The kind of fear-mongering from TFA = not invented here syndrome + troll.

Re:Don't blame me,

[alberion]

Yeah, I am Brazilian and we have our ethanol program (Pro-alcool) since the 70s. It is true that the Engine needs to be specially prepared to handle ethanol. You can't just put ethanol on a regular gas powered car. In Brazil today, almost all cars run on both Gas and Ethanol. It really does work, and has been working for almost 40 years. Making ethanol out of corn? Newbies!

Re:Don't blame me,

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Don't blame me,

[Lorien_the_first_one]

I don't know. I think Car and Driver did a pretty thorugh debunking ethanol as a viable gasoline here. In short, it takes more energy to make ethanol than it creates. Food shortages and engine damage aside, I don't think this is the way to go.

It's just a huge tax subsidy, and always will be unless and until there is some huge genetically engineered solution. And once that happens, the fun part comes when they make a mistake and wipe out a good part of the food chain. Try containing a successful genetically engineered mistake! I dare ya!

I suppose it could work in an economy 1/14th the size of the US. But here, we're going to need a much better, bigger solution. Syngas could be the answer. This is the idea of taking all of our organic waste, you know, plastics, food scraps, whatever, cook them and then turn it into ethanol. But that would have to be a lot of syngas.

I'd include a good citation on the syngas, but I'd have to search for the article I read, which would take time - sleep is a higher priority at the moment.

Re:Don't blame me,

[Zero_DgZ]

The problems with ethanol as a fuel are twofold, though neither problem is insurmountable.

First, ethanol will damage and eventually destroy engines that are not designed to burn it, full stop. It deteriorates rubbers and plastics, notably fuel lines, filters, pumps, etc. but also causes lubrication problems with piston rings, valves, and so forth. Most "late model" cars in the US (the cutoff point for "late model" is sort of nebulous at the moment) are designed to handle up to 15% ethanol content in their fuel. It is a safe bet to assume that any vehicle that does not explicitly state in the manual or marketing literature that it is compatible with higher ethanol concentrations (E85, etc.) is not, in fact, compatible. E85 capability is a huge marketing bullet point these days, and aside from a few very new model vehicles from Chevy and especially Ford, American engines will be damaged by high ethanol concentrations. Full stop. No argument allowed, nor required. Many engines can be converted to run somewhat satisfactorily on ethanol, but most of them do not have a factory conversion and must be converted using third party parts with the usual gamut of quality problems that this often entails. 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.

On the topic of destroying engines, I can provide experience for a sector nobody's thought much about: Small engines. Lawn mowers, chain saws, weed trimmers, and everything else related. In the small engine shop run by my store, we have seen a marked increase in failures of nearly every fuel related part in the power equipment we service. Fuel lines rotting out within a year of purchase, seals going bad, rings seizing, pistons scoring, and filters clogging. I have personally pulled lawn mower fuel filters from units filled with E15 fuel just packed with fibrous gunk the likes of which I had never seen before the ethanol-laden fuel became popular in my area. I guarantee you that if any piece of gasoline powered equipment runs at all on high-ethanol fuel, it will not do so for long.

The second caveat is that ethanol has lousy energy density compared to gasoline. You get less heat and less energy out of ethanol per gallon than gasoline, and there's no way around it. Converted vehicles will get reduced mileage on ethanol as compared to gasoline. Ethanol-only vehicles will have to have larger tanks or just suffer with less range per tank than comparable gasoline vehicles. If ethanol prices closely follow gasoline prices, even in the short term, it will become a much more expensive proposition than most people anticipate. Likewise, our "barrels per day" number will not be directly transferable from gasoline to ethanol - A considerably larger amount of ethanol will have to be produced, pumped, shipped, and sold compared to gasoline today. This will incur additional cost and add additional complication.

In time, these problems will be solved. But it's going to cost a lot, and the one thing Americans have been known to get sore about in a hurry is some government type coming along and demanding that they get rid of their stuff/spend money/buy a new lawn mower/mothball their classic car because of the Ethanol Revolution. Under the theoretical argument that the whole country goes ethanol eventually, I predict a LOT of resistance to the idea, rallied under banners of "taking away our freedom," "admonishing tradition," "from my cold, dead fingers," and so forth. Some of which, admittedly, will be justified. (Though I'd doubt regular old gasoline will go away any time soon, or indeed at all until we run out of crude oil entirely. Motorheads are die-hard types, many of them are willing to spend lots of money, and someone will crop up to meet that demand. On it goes.)

Re:Don't blame me,

[Gerzel]

Do you know how labor intensive sugar cane is? Or what kind of soil/weather conditions are required?

It might be viable in Brazil, but it isn't really an option in the US.

Re:Don't blame me,

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

 

Re:Don't blame me,

[lintocs]

Of course, the Model-T had no plastics to contend with. I sincerely doubt the veracity of some of the assertions of this article. The 10% ethanol that's currently in gasoline has no appreciable impact on fuel economy, and the alcohol content dries the fuel, which is helpful in damp/cool climates to offset condensation. I think we all know ethanol from corn is a money loser. The "net energy loss" argument is spurious, however. Charging a battery is a net energy loser, but is anyone suggesting batteries are a bad idea? We need a portable form of energy for the internal combustion engine, and we have to pay a "tax" in order to change the state of that energy from something we have to something we need. Brazil runs all of their cars (a lot of old vehicles, I might add) on 100% ethanol. The problem here is finite-life engineering; Parts, like plastic fuel pumps, that are designed to fail after the warranty runs out (5-8 years). Detroit used to rely on rust to make people buy new cars (remember the 70s?), but people quickly realized that a paint + patch was cheaper than replacing the car, as long as it was mechanically sound, and no-one pays a dealer to do that. Now they charge you 900$ for 6$ worth of plastic...

Re:Don't blame me,

[matt20102]

Of course, to do this today a farmer would need to file applications with the government for the 'right' to distill fuel for his own use from his own crops. To distill alcohol for personal use without a fuel permit or to, gasp! drink it , would be a federal offense.

Re:Don't blame me,

[Anonymous Coward]

"Brazil runs all of their cars (a lot of old vehicles, I might add) on 100% ethanol."

*Cough* Bullshit *Cough*

According to Wikipedia:

There are no longer any light vehicles in Brazil running on pure gasoline. Since 1976 the government made it mandatory to blend anhydrous ethanol with gasoline, fluctuating between 10% to 22%.[12] and requiring just a minor adjustment on regular gasoline motors. In 1993 the mandatory blend was fixed by law at 22% anhydrous ethanol (E22) by volume in the entire country, but with leeway to the Executive to set different percentages of ethanol within pre-established boundaries. In 2003 these limits were set at a minimum of 20% and a maximum of 25%.[13] Since July 1st, 2007 the mandatory blend is 25% of anhydrous ethanol and 75% gasoline or E25 blend.[14]

Re:Don't blame me,

[donaldm]

Thank god the "bio-oil" craze didn't take off, where they tried to fuel cars with canola seed oil. The whole car smelled like you dumped week old McDonald fries in the trunk.

You are joking right, bio diesel is much more viable than alcohol. Actually diesel bio or fossil is cheaper and more economic to produce than petrol even with ethanol added. When you look at haulage trucks you normally see diesel and if the price of diesel goes up then haulage costs go up and so does the cost of living. Why would haulage use diesel? Well there are numerous reasons and the best are it's cheaper to run and the engine is very very reliable.

I run a diesel car and I get better fuel economy and produce less green house gases than the equivalent petrol engine. Smell? what smell, noise? what noise. Surprisingly even though the power of my engine is much lower than it's petrol equivalent it torque is so much higher that I have to be careful not to spin my wheels when I take off and this usually surprises many people when I out accelerate them by 3 to 4 car lengths in a 60 kph (35 mph) zone (no I don't exceed this although the pissed of driver does just to overtake me) without really trying. Of course a direct shift gear box does help.

Re:Don't blame me,

[tgd]

You're sort of right -- I assume you're peripherally involved with the use of E85 in the hot rod community, but haven't done it yourself.

From experience, its a pain in the balls to convert an engine to run on it. You lose a lot of horsepower, and you have to basically replace all the fuel lines, rejet the carb (if you can use the carb at all -- E85 is corrosive to aluminum, too).

Where it becomes interesting is when you build a new motor -- you can run a higher compression without having to run 100+ octane fuel, on smaller engines you can turbocharge with higher boost, but you have to do one of the two to get around the fact that you're producing a lot less power.

And you'll never EVER produce more power than gasoline with Ethanol. You can build an engine to burn more of it at a higher compression than you can with standard gasoline, but gallon for gallon you simply can't get more power with it. Gearheads prefer it to 100, or 110 octane because its not $7/gallon, so even if they burn 50-100% more of it, they still come out ahead.

Re:Don't blame me,

[Markspark]

yeah, and you got it completely backwards, what he says is that all cars run on some degree of ethanol mixed gasoline, but some cars run on pure ethanol. Nowhere does the wiki article refute his claim.

Re:Don't blame me,

[BubbaDave]

E10 indeed drops mileage 5 to 10%, and you are MORE prone to having water problems in the fuel system, as moisture can come into your system via the fuel (in solution in the alcohol).

Not to mention that any engine with an open loop control system (mowers, weedwackers, 90% of all motorcycles) will have their fuel mixture leaned out (the more ethanol, the more fuel-rich the mixture needs to be). This need for a richer mixture is what drives the mileage decrease.

This causes poor running, overheating, stalling, and on engines that are already running excessively lean from the factory to meet emissions requirements there is a real risk of engine damage.

I lived the transition from E0 to E10 back in connecticut, so not only does thermodynamics say there is a mileage loss, so does experience.

Dave

Re:Don't blame me,

[CodeBuster]

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.

Re:Don't blame me,

[BubbaDave]

My single-cylinder XR650L is quite sensitive to the difference between E0 and E10, what's interesting is your bikes were old enough that they were not jetted quite lean like modern street-legal bike engines are.

Yeah, for two-strokes there is even a whole other world of hurt than can be encountered with the mix oil compatibility with the alcohol.

Dave

Re:Don't blame me,

[plague3106]

One would expect that Brazil's poorest and most exploited people - agricultural workers and sugar cane cutters - would be among the first to benefit from the new wealth sugar cane production has brought to Brazil

Um, why would anyone expect that? It's not that there is no demand for workers to cut cane... it's that any idiot can cut sugar cane all day. THAT'S why they still make dirt money... because they have no skill whatsoever and are easily replaced.

Re:Don't blame me,

[lt.cyx]

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.

Ethanol is just stupid

[cyberspittle]

Instead of using corn (worse than sugar cane), soy beans and bio diesel would be beter. I always thought that diesel engines get better mileage.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[gringofrijolero]

Yes, it is stupid. But it's very well connected politically. Like always, it's about bringing home the bacon. The farmers thought they had a winner.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[WheelDweller]

Engines with super-refined fuel always get worse gas mileage.

See, the crude oil is heated in a stack; the tar-like parts stay at the bottom, the lighter fuels find their way up. The thicker stuff at the bottom is MUCH more densely packed with energy- that's where the diesel is. It's 'cruder' (notice it almost doesn't WANT to burn) but it actually carries nore BTU-power per drop. Refine it more, to where it almost wants to burn when ya touch it, and it won't have so much power anymore.

Oil is neat stuff; you might find the Discovery Channel's "Modern Marvels: Oil" episode to be an eye-opener.

And BTW: Rush Limbaugh has been noticing this same thing with ethanol. It's messing up the corn market and Mt Dew now has "Throwback" to make use of the now-cheaper cane sugar as an alternative.

Isn't life wonderful when we just let the government do things? :

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[sreid]

love to mod you up on the diesel rant but no mod points.. btw using corn will affect Fritos prices so not a good idea

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[gringofrijolero]

You can extract ethanol from bacon?

Dunno.. But you might do better to extract and burn the grease. Porcine liposuction will be the next big thing.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[blahplusplus]

"Isn't life wonderful when we just let the government do things? :"

Just because the government makes mistakes does not mean the free market doesn't, there's plenty of mistakes both of them make and I wish the anti-government types would realize just how many free market failurs there out out there.

Nothing is perfect, the idea that there is some ideal perfect system or ideology is bullshit.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[digitalunity]

Refined corn sugars(LFCS, HFCS) were only ever cheaper because of tariffs on cane sugar, FYI.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[Hadlock]

Ethanol is a politician's dream agenda item. Especially if you are running for, or plan to run for president. Why? What state has the first presidential caucus, potentially the most important point in the presidential race*? I'll give you a hint: they grow corn
 
Ethanol is the great green hoax of politics. It's clearly not the best solution, but by god, it will help you hugely when it comes time to run for president. The price of corn has what? Almost doubled? Since we forced Americans to use 15% corn fuel (ethanol) in our gas for cars and trucks. Now that the flyover states are entitled to all this extra money coming their way, do you think any politician would ever dare take that away from them, effectively removing them forever from presidential candidacy. That's like admitting you're openly gay or like to club baby seals in political circles.
 
*selecting insane, hunting moose from a helicopter female governors as VPs exempted

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[Werkhaus]

Dunno.. But you might do better to extract and burn the grease. Porcine liposuction will be the next big thing.

There is a massive environmental downside to this. The exhaust fumes will smell of frying bacon and as a result, city centers will be awash with drool.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[Loadmaster]

And let's not discount the soda makers trying to take advantage of the current public backlash against HFCS. When the corn producers have to put up ads promoting HFCS you know there's a problem there. Or, for the soda makers, an opportunity.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Isn't life wonderful when we just let the government do things? :

Umm, the American Ethanol Debacle is not a product of government, as much as it is a product of government corrupted by private interests, in this case the mid-western corn lobby.

Corn Ethanol in general is an OK fuel, if you use it within a short distance of where it was made. It's Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI) is so low that you end up burning up all your energy profit transporting it. IIRC, it has an EROEI of (at best) 1.5 to 2. Many studies show it has a negative EROEI. (Pimentel et al)

Other forms of ethanol require technologies that don't exist yet (algae etc.) or massive amounts of land to be cleared for energy crops (viz sugar, soybeans) that would better be used FEEDING PEOPLE rather than schlepping fat suburbanites in their SUVs three blocks to go pick up a pack of smokes and some beer.

Ethanol IS a scam.

And not even a very smart one.

RS

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Just because the government makes mistakes does not mean the free market doesn't, there's plenty of mistakes both of them make and I wish the anti-government types would realize just how many free market failurs there out out there.

The problem with your reasoning is that when a free-market entity produces an inferior product, service, or solution, it will eventually fail. This is actually a good thing, as it weeds out (most of) the idiots, making room for others with better ideas to flourish. There is no permanent winner, as even today's top of the heap must innovate and compete or risk being dethroned tomorrow. Even Microsoft, for all its seeming omnipotence and monopolistic behavior, would have failed long ago had it not finally gotten off its duff to address -- however imperfectly -- things like Linux, OS/2, WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, and so forth. It's not perfect, and such "market evolutionary pressure" doesn't always happen quickly, but if left alone (i.e. free of government interference) it will always self-correct and product a superior situation.

Government, on the other hand, has no such failsafe. Inefficient, ineffective, insufficient programs are the norm, not the exception. Why? Government is the only state-sanctioned monopoly that can have no real competition, short of a voter revolution. If government fails to make its budget, it does not go bankrupt, it merely raises taxes until the numbers meet up again. Or prints money and waits for hyperinflation to effectively shrink a multi-trillion dollar debt while utterly destroying the life savings of its citizens. Or both, as we're eagerly doing today under Obamanomics. But short of going belly up entirely and leaving people in anarchy, government never has to worry about going out of business. It just has to worry about getting 51% of the voters to force the other 49% to pay more taxes to support them. And unlike a free market, government can legally use force to make you participate in their shoddy products and Ponzi schemes like Social Security. Free markets must convince you to voluntarily consume their products instead of a competitor's.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[Afforess]

I wish the anti-government types would realize just how many free market failurs there out out there.

The free market's whole point is to kill failures, so no doubt there is many. The parent's point was when the government leads a "helping" hand to failures that it only hurts consumers in the end.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[Afforess]

Umm, the American Ethanol Debacle is not a product of government

Sure it is, the only reason the industry had a chance was because of big government subsidies. It was always a money loser, but the government saved them.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[gringofrijolero]

...that would better be used FEEDING PEOPLE...

Yeah, instead of livestock..40%

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[The_Quinn]

the American Ethanol Debacle is not a product of government, as much as it is a product of government corrupted by private interests, in this case the mid-western corn lobby.

The way to avoid government corruption by private interests is to have a complete separation of state and economics, just as - and for the same reason - as the separation of church and state.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[alchemist68]

I remember reading quite some time ago that some cars, specifically with turbochargers, and the right computer programming can reap some benefit of using alcohol. Saab, where most if not all of their cars are turbo charged, in the last few years has a smart computer that can tell what type of fuel being burned and adjusts the boost accordingly. Don't know if the extra boost required to reap the benefits of EtOH causes more wear and tear, but I would suspect so. Diesel and bio-diesel are better alternatives to gasoline, especially since diesel is made differently now. The Volkswagon Jetta with a 4-cylinder turbo diesel (2.0L) can accelerate as fast as a V6 and it doesn't produce all of the black exhaust that diesels of yesteryear did. Diesel engines are more expensive to build because of the high heat and torque they produce.

I think the American auto industry needs to wake up and start engineering its vehicles for the highest mileage possible by using diesel and hybrid and stop reducing the amount of plastic and sound insulation in cars. It's easy to reduce weight by cutting plastic and sound insulation, which leads to interiors falling apart prematurely and driving the public to foreign vehicles.

I own a 1999 Saab 93 and really like the car - low maintenance, but service is expensive. Also, it's not rusting anywhere. Recently Yahoo recommended Saab and Volvo as excellent cars to own long-term because, well, they last a long time and are built well. YouTube has a few videos of some suped-up Saabs in drag races. One, is a recent All-Wheel Drive 2000-year body style that fries all 4 tires most spectacularly - and it's done with a 4-cylinder turbocharged engine.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[sortius_nod]

Actually, no, using any food crop for fuel is a bad idea. This ensures that the 3rd world are always starving by removing food crops for consumption and replacing them with crops that go into rich 1st world nations' cars.

Case in point, I recently visited south western Thailand, while flying into the area and driving around you notice that there are NO rice fields, vegetable patches, or even grazing land for animals. It has all been converted into palm plantations for bio fuels. The palms are unable to be used for food due to being bred purely for the oils - no fruit, nothing.

On top of this, the amount of workers drops to almost 0 when running a palm oil farm - you only need workers at harvest and planting time which can be up to 5 years between. You do not need anyone to tend to the plantation at all during the growing cycle. So you end up with one person/family owning and profiting from the land while the rest of the village/region starve and/or live in poverty.

I am an environmentalist myself, but I will never agree with ANY bio fuels being used. This doesn't solve the issue at hand, which isn't the supply of fossil fuels, but the effect of any combustion fuels. Driving the price of food up in under developed nations to satisfy your own desire to feel warm and gooey inside is inexcusable.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[MillionthMonkey]

The problem with your reasoning is that when a free-market entity produces an inferior product, service, or solution, it will eventually fail.

Like the private health insurance industry, which works so well that half the American public wants to replace it with socialism.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[BeaverCleaver]

Hydrocarbon fuels from soy are no more of a "magic bullet" than hydrocarbon fuels from corn-derived ethanol. As a crop, soy is no better for the land and soil than corn. Do some research about the huge increase in GM RoundUp-Ready soy crops, owned of course by Monsanto. Then have a look at what these crops are doing to to the Argentinian ecology.

There is no single solution to our fuel woes, and no one crop to supply all our biofuel. As any ecologist knows, mono-crops are generally Bad in a multitude of ways. Ethanol itself is not the problem, but the source of the ethanol should not be tied to one crop, or group of crops, that happen to have a strong political lobby. Note that this crop will vary from country to country: Corn in the US, sugar cane in Brazil and Australia, soy in Argentina.

Biofuels can potentially also come from non-food crops, as has been mentioned on SlashDot many times in the past. For example, algae, cellulose (everything from lawn clippings to paper waste) and hemp.

And of course YMMV but I have found ethanol blend to have no ill-effects on any vehicles I have driven, which are mostly high-mileage Japanese and European cars, from 2 to 20 years old. I actually make a point of running a tank of ethanol-blend through my car if it has been in storage for over a month, in order to dissolve any water that has condensed in the fuel tank.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[10101001 10101001]

The problem with your reasoning is that when a free-market entity produces an inferior product, service, or solution, it will eventually fail.

People, good or bad, eventually die. Companies, good or bad, eventually bankrupt. Governments, good or bad, eventually collapse. In the mean time, murderers run free, inferior (potentially lethal) products reign, and corrupt governments loot the pulic. It is idealistic to believe that free markets are some magically solution to the ills of any field. People are not always rational, they lack perfect information, and even rationality (as part of game theory) isn't reasonable, at times, to one's own self-interest. Simply put, free markets can't exist with humans, and they don't really want them; they want a magical panacea that fulfills various contradictions. Such a thing obviously can't exist. But, mixed markets do at least approach the ideals of the vast majority of people. Not everyone truly understands the free market concept well enough to know that, though.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[artor3]

Yeah, the free market has worked out so well over the past several months. It certainly hasn't had an adverse affect on the entire population of the first world. No-sir-ee.

Newsflash: All society is linked. If someone over there fucks up bad enough, it'll hurt you over here. Shutting you eyes and praying for the invisible hand of the free market won't save you.

Regulation is essential. The ethanol subsidies are idiotic and should end, but making the free market out to be some sort of panacea is childish.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[Miseph]

Solution: move to Somalia. Government free since '92.

Best of luck.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[duffbeer703]

Can you say, "Amtrak"?

Clueless people always trot out Amtrak as the poster child for government waste. But let's think about this for a second...

Hmm... Amtrak consolidated failing passenger rail companies after...
- The government spent trillions of dollars building a "free" interstate highway system with features like 30,000 bridges that need to be replaced within 35 years of construction. (ie. now)
- Tax policy encouraged and subsidized suburban development at the expense of the cities and close suburbs best served by mass transit
- Local government invested billions to build airports in those suburbs

Amtrak does an amazing job at providing a service giving the funding challenges and the political maze that they have to traverse to continue operating. Amtrak is only an example of "hurting consumers in the long run" in the same sense that the highway system and resulting sprawl is.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[HangingChad]

The problem with your reasoning is that when a free-market entity produces an inferior product, service, or solution, it will eventually fail.

Ironic you pick Microsoft as an example. The most non-competitive products in the IT world.

The problem with that argument is that what we have is not a free market. It's series of cartels. That's why we spend more than twice as much on health care as other industrialized countries and get treatment closer to the bottom of the scale. Because there are so many entrenched cartels in the health care industry. It's why we have the worst cellular service outside of Nigeria and why banks and credit card companies still run Washington.

New industries might start out competitive but once they get to a certain size, they start bending the rules in their own favor. Using unfair practices to freeze out competition, getting sweetheart legislation pushed through Congress, buying influence.

You free market preachers are just naive. The only free markets are also fair markets. And if you think what we have today is a fair market, you need to pass the bong. Government is the only entity that has the ability to groom a competitive marketplace. What we have today is what happens when government stops doing that job for 10 years. The rich get richer and there's no accountability for cheating. Economic collapse follows right after.

Inefficient government programs are the truism, not necessarily the reality. With some notable and widely publicized exceptions. But the fact you ignore is that without government, without a referee to control the game, our economic system has a very short lifespan. And yet you keep on with 30 year old economic theory in the face of economic meltdown while your 401K loses 65%. I don't think I want advice on government or managing markets from you.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[TarrVetus]

Free markets must convince you to voluntarily consume their products instead of a competitor's.

To paraphrase: Free markets make business ventures. Governments make binding laws.

One is voluntary, and is not legally required to continue. The other will hit you with a fine or send you to a prison if you try to violate it.



The ugliest scenarios are when government starts mingling with, controlling, or becoming business. Then it's just an illusion of free choice in a wrapper with a smiley face. The corruption is not only rampant, but can be buried so deep in the system, itself, that you can't tell what is corruption, and what is the real government, anymore.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[timmarhy]

you don't make any point in your ramblings, you merely give another example of government waste - the highway system with failing bridges.

government blows money because they won't run out as a result of poor decisions - they just tax us more. government departments ALWAYS spend their full budget even if it's wasted, because next year it will be cut if it's not all spend, no incentive to be efficent (see above, no risk of going otu of business)

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[dr2chase]

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

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[Cerebus]

A free market does have a point: to set prices. That's it. The 'invisible hand' is a delusion, and the anyone who thinks such a system inevitably maximizes efficiency needs to (a) define his terms, and (b) google the phrase 'local maxima.'

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[dtfusion]

power = energy/time Tell the jet pilots their highly refined fuel is less powerful. Diesel engines get better mileage because the diesel has to be burned at a higher temperature than gasoline engines -> higher Carnot efficiency. That said, bio energy advocates should consider that photosynthesis is generally 1% efficient at making sugars from the sun, and that is BEFORE you dry it and convert it to your fuel stock of choice.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[Ralph Spoilsport]

No no no. It was not a money loser, if you're making something of value. But if you're making fuel, it's not super profitable. The corn lobby saw the "good press" the Brazilians were getting with sugar ethanol, and saw an opportunity to buy off the government to fork over huge sums to their pockets.

The U.S. govt is owned and operated by large corporations who are in the process of looting the treasury by insisting on subsidies: corporate welfare. The govt didn't "save" ethanol - the ethanol lobby simply got on the gravy train. Given the political importance of Iowa in presidential elections, and the over-representation of low population rural states in the Senate, (Wyoming gets the same as NY, CA, TX, etc.) and the importance of certain politicians from those states on key committees, the ethanol lobby had an easier time pulling money than a crackhead could stick up a 7-11 for twenty bucks and a bigGulp.

You have it exactly backwards: Govt didn't save the ethanol industry. the ethanol industry simply muscled their way in and grabbed the cash. Government isn't the problem here - it's the LACK of government that's the problem. It's the spinelessness of the Democratic party that's always on its knees blowing their donors, and the corruption of the Republicans doling out billions to their frat brothers.

RS

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[radtea]

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.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[jedidiah]

> The problem with your reasoning is that when a free-market entity produces an inferior product, service, or solution, it will eventually fail.

Ok, when's Microsoft going to die?

How about American Airlines?

When do I get to celebrate the passing of GM?

Did Jack-in-the-Box or Odwalla go out of business when they killed people?

The best selling widget is usually not the best widget. It's
usually the one with the best salesmen. This is the dirty
little secret of capitalism. Consumers aren't perfectly
rational, nor do they have perfectly good information.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[DrgnDancer]

And in fact when you look at the similarly government subsidized railroad systems in Europe, where the other factors you mention either don't exist or are mitigated by geography, they are largely successful. Free market purists always seem to portray Europe as some sort of example of the failure of limited socialism and mixed markets, but frankly I've never understood this. Germany, France and Britain are all lovely countries with economies just as strong (though obviously not as large) as the US. If I had to pick a place to be rich, I'd totally chose the US, that's true. If I had to pick a place to be poor or middle class though I'd probably pick one of the stronger European economies. Since the vast majority of us are not rich, why should we chose a system that clearly favors the people already most privileged?

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[feepness]

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.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[DigiShaman]

You have it exactly backwards: Govt didn't save the ethanol industry. the ethanol industry simply muscled their way in and grabbed the cash. Government isn't the problem here - it's the LACK of government that's the problem. It's the spinelessness of the Democratic party that's always on its knees blowing their donors, and the corruption of the Republicans doling out billions to their frat brothers.

Wha, hold on their cowboy!

The government most certainly failed *because* both parties who run it are a bunch of money grubbing grab asses. But you want to know who's really at fault? The voter. Some how in some places, we collectively keep voting these bastards back in office.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[bit01]

The problem with your reasoning is that when a free-market entity produces an inferior product, service, or solution, it will eventually fail.

No it won't. If it has the means to compete negatively, by bringing the competition down, rather than positively, by bringing it's own product up, it can easily last indefinitely.

You are implicitly pushing the myth of the "pure free market". That's simply warlordism, might makes right. All functioning, good markets need law, both written and unwritten, to stop all the negative ways that people can compete (e.g. deceptive advertising, monopoly rents, incomplete information, excessive transaction costs, externalities etc.), while still allowing the positive ways that people can compete (e.g. improving product, reducing prices etc.).

Or to put it another way for some things one person, one vote, works better than one dollar, one vote. Both are accountable despite what you claim. And you think tyranny of the majority sucks? Perhaps so but it's better than the only alternative, tyranny of a minority.

---

You communist! Breathing shared air!

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[rah1420]

our more flexible constitution

and our more independent judicial system

the smaller number of relatively powerful provincial governments, all of which serve as strong Darwinian checks on our federal government

very significant regional differences,

Wow, that sounds an awful lot like the America that used to be. Trust me, it's not that we intended it to be the Federal Government of America, it used to be the United States of America. Then we had a whole lot of people who decided that Statism was a whole lot juicier idea to ram down our throats; they began to put in judges that would rule in favor of the Federal government over the state's rights, and once the school system had enough drones to all chant that More Government is Better Government, well, the devil hasn't had a day off since.

But not for lack of trying. We ever rail against the machine hoping that we can reverse course.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[Dravik]

In a free market, there is no bailout.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[Xonstantine]

The difference is, when a government program fails, the solution is never terminating the program, but instead giving the program more money.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[bendodge]

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.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[bendodge]

Newsflash: Freddy and Fanny are Government-Sponsored Enterprises, not free market entities!

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[TheLink]

"Third, you just proved his point. Somalia has a significantly higher per capita GDP than four other African countries with governments."

From your link Somalia is fourth from _last_ in estimated GDP (USD600). Zimbabwe is last at about USD200 per capita.

If anarchy only does 3 times better than Mugabe, I don't see how one can responsibly recommend anarchy.

Anyway, anarchy is usually a very temporary state. Anarchy (and violent revolution[1]) in most cases ends up creating dictatorships. In a state where lots of people are being violent to each other (or there's no ruling entity stopping people from doing that), the one who can exert and control the most violence, will rise to the top. It takes a rare person or group to freely relinquish that power once they have it by that means[2].

[1] Like those proposed by Marx and friends.

[2] There are lots of people who would give up power, but they're are rarely the sort who'd go get power in the first place by getting lots of people killed.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[Lunzo]

First, Whoosh! Second, Free market libertarianism if it ever got into power would set up the government to fail by stripping it of almost all its power to govern. Third, 5th last in the world on GDP still isn't a good place to be. Hardly a convincing argument for free market economics.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[Drishmung]

Germany, France and Britain are all lovely countries with economies just as strong (though obviously not as large) as the US.

Except that we need to compare with Europe as a whole, not just the states within the community.

According to Wolfram (this seems the sort of question it works well with), GDP for USA is $13.78T and Europe is $17.95T

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[ScottBob]

Actually, the U.S. military has switched to burning JP-8, which is somewhere between diesel fuel and kerosene in everything that rolls or flies, from tanks, bulldozers, generators, humvees, and transport trucks to helicopters, cargo aircraft, bombers and jet fighters. Previously, the military used JP-4 in aircraft and no. 2 fuel oil for ground use. JP-4 is a wider "cut" than kerosene, and is similar to naptha or lighter fluid in its consistency and flammability, and can't be used in some diesel engines. One demonstration I remembered seeing when I was in the Army was when a match was thrown in a pan containing JP-4, Whoom! The fuel burst into flame as if it was gasoline, but when a match was thrown in a pan of JP-8, it went out. The reason for the switch was not just for safety, but to simplify logistics- everything drinks from the same tap. JP-8 was the compromise that would burn in any engine, turbine or diesel. JP-8 can also used in heaters. (BTW, most diesel engines will burn civilian Jet-A jet fuel without modification, and with no ill effects.)

Re: Ethanol is just stupid

[LaerKH]

I've heard these arguments for most of my life, and from my experience, it's always been BS and unsupportable by facts. All you're selling is fear. The difference in efficiency between government and business is minimal--they operate in much the same manner. The difference is that businesses have to pay dividends to shareholders; governments must make a positive difference for their people.

I have never seen business make a drastic change for the better for an entire population. I _have_ seen governments do so, repeatedly. To better understand the situation, I recommend reading this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1576754634/ Flame away conservatives!

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[anss123]

And that half happens to be the 51% that are being paid for by the 49%.

From what I've heard those 49% are already paying more health care tax than us evil socialist Europeans HA HA HA *Twirls mustache*

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[19061969]

Or in the UK, they could file some papers at Companies House, pay the fee (all this can be done online btw) and they have an incorporated business. Having tried both, the UK is far easier. Not as easy as New Zealand mind. As for employees - in the UK, many businesses just go to an agency and take temps. It's ingrained into the culture now. Many of what should be permanent jobs are farmed out to agencies. And of course, staff can be sacked with a moment's notice.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[An dochasac]

Whoah, in one breath midwesterners are stupid luddites and in the next you advocate the core political views beneath the Hollywood smear campaigns. You and those dumb would agree that the day the government mandates this kind of market meddling is the day things went wrong. But then, is corn the first time the government has attempted this? What would be the price of coal, oil or highways without government micromanagement? Ever since my grandfather told me about running tractor engines on a blend of ethanol and more than 50% water (steam injection) I suspected that it should play a part in our fuel mix. Yes, steam injection was hard on engine, but think about ceramics and other technology we have now. If Detroit had put its mind to it. The same is true of the negative energy balance, the use of corn instead of cellulosic ethanol... To paraphrase Reagan, Ethanol isn't the problem, the government is.

Thankfully those of us dumb enough to believe in the possibilities of ethanol fuel were spared the MTBE fiasco our more environmentally enlightened oil industry friends in California and elsewhere had to go through. My part of the midwest has sold up to 10% ethanol since the 1980s if not earlier and I've run everything from late 60s V8 engines not even designed for unleaded (150k miles) to high compression Mazdas (>200,000 miles) on this mix. Maybe someone is trying to cover up a QA problem with American cars by using ethanol as a scapegoat.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[Rogerborg]

No, no, see, you've got it all wrong. Calories from chemically sounding foods are much, much more fattening than calories from friendly sounding foods.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[Jedi Alec]

Um, how are we at fault when we have a choice of voting for a candidate in bed with big oil or a candidate in bed with big media? Would you prefer that we alternate our special interest groups/corporate masters more frequently?

And that attitude is what I predict will lead to the downfall of the US as a superpower within the next 25 years.

So take your pick. There's 3 options:

1. Your government is rotten to the core and has the "free" press in its pocket, so there is no way any party or even an individual politician can make an entry on the playing field and start turning things around. If this is the case isn't it about time people start exercising that 2nd amendment they keep blathering about? And while you're at it, change the system around so that it isn't "winner takes all" anymore but leaves room for debate on issues that matter outside the campaign period? The whole gun laws/abortion/gay marriage crap is getting a bit old, and it distracts so much from the other stuff.

2. Given enough effort, a 3rd party can in fact start making an impact, hopefully for the better. Start voting for them. Get your friends, family, fellow ./ers, etc. to vote for them. Either your vote matters or point 1 applies.

3. Sit around, complain, and watch the place fall apart. Who knows, maybe China and India will learn from your mistakes as they take over.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[Cerebus]

You're right, they aren't. But under a truly 'free' market as defined by our libertarian friends, you have no recourse if any of them happen.

The issue isn't free markets it's, *fair* markets. Only the gov't keeps markets fair. Free markets are like anarchies; they immediately devolve into strong-man rule--in market terms, that's cartels and monopolies. The history of abuse by business in the absence of gov't enforced rules is long, and at this point should be obvious to anyone.

Re:Ethanol is just stupid

[MillionthMonkey]

I've worked in the pharmaceutical industry for ten years in several different capacities, and I've seen the effects of regulation firsthand. Health care is actually surprisingly cheap to provide, and the regulation isn't too costly to contend with, even though it does regularly generate stupid anecdotes.

When I get a bill the "cost" is $500... which they "negotiated" down from "$4000" or whatever... and whoopee, I get to pay $300 of that. Some people would think that the insurance company is offering me a product worth $3700. It's like saying the Mafia is offering a product worth whatever it costs to get surgery to fix kneecaps.

In reality the insurance company is providing a service to the health provider, not me. The hospital sees a market with artificially high prices for healthcare services, because of a protective, separate industry that surrounds it and controls access. Doctors basically figure they don't have time to organize a cartel and so they hire people to do it for them. Although it charges you premiums, the idea that your insurer is offering *you* a service is a pretense.

The standard talking point about the high cost of "inefficiencies" and "regulation" certainly helps. They've done their job so well that people have actually been convinced that health care is genuinely this expensive to provide than it really is.

But what do *we* need these people for? The government could afford to pay directly these obnoxious amounts that hospitals and doctors are actually currently getting, and we would still save money by sidestepping these parasites who skim off half the money first. I have to laugh when I hear people say we can't afford to get rid of worthless extortionists committed to annual profit growth.

Living in Iowa...

[GilliamOS]

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.

Re:Living in Iowa...

[jd]

I have mentioned this before, but it strikes me as wasteful in modern car engines that the engine is run hot enough to cause the burning of nitrogen. This takes in more energy than it releases, so you lose energy by doing this.

There would appear to be two solutions to this: try to reduce the temperature in any given cylinder, or alter the oxygen/nitrogen ratio.

(Oxygen ionizes easier, for example, so you can use a magnetic field or a static charge to separate the two gases. This probably wouldn't work as a practical solution in a car, but it does suggest a practical solution may exist.)

If you could get more power out of an engine AND consume less fuel in the process, albeit only up to a certain point, additives would become less attractive.

Re:Living in Iowa...

[ScrewMaster]

I have mentioned this before, but it strikes me as wasteful in modern car engines that the engine is run hot enough to cause the burning of nitrogen.

The greater the thermal differential between the input and output sides of a heat engine, the more energy you can extract from the fuel. Run the engine significantly cooler, and you may decrease some emissions (and increase others) but you'll lose some conversion efficiency.

Average

[olsmeister]

"Does the average citizen understand what this means?" No. Does the average /.er?

Re:Average

[jd]

/.ers are fractal, so the average is undefined.

May be the beginning of the end..

[DavidHumus]

..if this NY Times editorial is a sign of the times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/24sun2.htm .

Basically, it says that the ethanol lobbyists are fighting back against the EPA attempting to do its job by actually measuring the effects of ethanol as fuel.

Fuel vs Food

[lobiusmoop]

More than anything, this cartoon puts me off the whole ethanol idea. It still creeps me out seeing it again now.

Re:Fuel vs Food

[spydabyte]

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.

Re:Fuel vs Food

[Xabraxas]

No one thinks the corn they use for ethanol could be used for food instead but the land that it is being grown on could be growing food instead. Subsidies for ethanol brings in more money than growing food. This means there is less food being grown and sold. A lower supply with the same or growing demand is going to drive prices up.

Re:Fuel vs Food

[chimpo13]

People don't starve to death because of lack of food in the world. Yes, that makes no sense. They starve because of lack of infrastructure to get them food.

Local failure means no easy to access food, but warlords and other people out for a buck, hold up food in ports to distribute it at a profit. Without the profit they want, they let it rot at the dock.

Still, the cartoon is good but misleading.

E85

[ensjoeski]

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.

Re:E85

[DarrenBaker]

E85 is actually a great fuel... For cars designed to run on it. The Koenigsegg CCX, for example, will run at 806 bhp in standard gasoline tune, but when you fill the tank with E85, you get 1018 bhp, no foolin'!

Ethanol is a really high octane fuel, which makes engineers quiver with delight, because they can predict, with much higher certainty than low-octane fuel, when and how much of it will detonate. Perfect for those tight tolerances in highly-strung engines.

Re:E85

[Anonymous Coward]

Honorary mention to the sugar lobby. By blocking sugar imports, a few jobs are saved, and many more are lost as virtually all candy is now manufactured in Canada or Mexico (where sugar is only half as expensive). Other food manufacturers switched to corn syrup, which is subsidized thanks to the farm lobby.

Given the shenanigans that go on in washington DC, I don't know why anyone wants them more involved, in healthcare, banking, wallstreet, automobiles, or anywhere.

Re:E85

[eln]

I don't think the bone of contention with ethanol has anything to do with how good a fuel it is. The issue is what the trade-off is. Because we are using so much corn for ethanol, we have less corn to sell as food, which mean corn prices go up. Increases in food prices, and especially scarcity, tend to hurt the poorest among us first. As a result, we have food shortages where none existed before, and people that were just barely getting by are now starving.

In this month's National Geographic there's a lengthy story on food shortages, particularly how our ever-increasing population already demands more food than we can produce, and the problem is only getting worse. Without a revolution in food producing technology, we could be facing regular and ever more severe famines. Given this, is it really in our best interest to use our food crops to power personal automobiles?

There are better ways to produce energy in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way. Ethanol was an idea that sounded okay at first, but clearly doesn't scale, and we need to stop screwing around with it and put our focus into things that show more promise.

Re:E85

[Anonymous Coward]

It would not be a problem if the government were not messing with the economics of it all. I have no problem with a corn farmer selling his crop to the highest bidder.

In this case the highest bidder should be the food industry not the energy+government industry.

Obama should know better than most what the high price of food is doing to Africa. (I lived for any years in Africa myself)

Re:E85

[daemonburrito]

The ad hom aside, I've never met an "enviro wacko" who supported corn ethanol.

In fact, anyone who's given any thought to it at all, and subscribes to the wacko idea that our civilization can't handle environmental upheaval of the scale predicted by real scientists... is against the idea of using our topsoil to power our craptacular personal transport. No "enviro wacko" supports an energy infrastructure that damages topsoil that is already in trouble (guess what black gooey stuff is the raw material for organics re-introduced to soil overworked to sterility?) and probably makes the GHG problem worse. And what functional human being wants to use food resources to power Cadillac Escalades?

In other words, you can't blame those of us who think the biosphere of our planet is required for our continued survival (wacky, right?). However, feel free to blame jingoists who marketed this monstrosity as "energy security".

just tax carbon

[gravesb]

Stop the subsidies, tax carbon to account for externalities, and then let the market decide. The negative effects of biofuels have been on display ever since the Dutch dropped palm oil. Instead of the government pushing this obviously failed product, they should make sure that consumers bear the entire cost of their decisions and let companies develop a way to reduce fossil fuel consumption. And less biofuels means the price of my beer goes down, dammit! Won't someone think of my beer?

Re:just tax carbon

[fm6]

Sound economics, but it's still a non-starter. Two big problems.

First, taxing carbon would have huge economic impact. I think it would work out in the long term, since it would encourage the new technologies we need. But in the short term, it would cost ordinary people a lot. Worse, it would cost them more to drive. Any politician who proposes that is simply saying "I don't ever want to be elected to anything again, ever."

Hey, California booted a governor out of office just for trying to restore a pretty small car registration fee. And you think you can get people to support a measure that would raise gas to $10/gallon? Not gonna happen.

Another problem: reducing carbon emissions only works if everybody does it. If we rely on every nation to tax carbon, they'll say "sure!" and then corrupt officials will make a fortune from that-smokestack-is-invisible bribes. And when we complain about it, they'll accuse us of cultural arrogance or whatever.

The next best solution, economically, is the cap-and-trade approach trying to get through Congress right now. (I should hate the idea, since evil Republicans invented it, but what can I say, I'm a sucker for logic.) You decide how much carbon you can allow to be omitted this year, then your divvy up the permits among the emitters, who are allowed to sell them to each other. Everybody has an incentive to cut back as much as possible, because they can sell their leftover permits to somebody who's less creative. Then you play musical chairs with the permits, so that less and less carbon gets emitted every year.

It's just possible that rewarding inventiveness in this way could create new technologies that makes energy cheaper. That sort of thing does happen when people start rethinking their methods.

The only problem is that the same politics that makes carbon taxes undoable are causing the cap-and-trade bill to be shot through with loopholes. Oh well, guess we're doomed!

it's not ethanol itself

[Knux]

it's not ethanol itself, it's just the way US produce it... none of those arguments would apply to sugar cane. about the engines, brazil is using pure ethanol for quite sometime and it just doesn't destroy the engines the way tfa implies. if it's happening on US, maybe you should take another look at the auto industries.

Re:it's not ethanol itself

[Anonymous Coward]

My car runs on both gas with 15% ethanol and pure ethanol. Our ethanol is made from sugar cane.

It used to decrease the life of some parts, engine and others, but now cars manufactured in Brazil simply have parts prepared to deal with the extra strain.

Most extremist arguments are just wrong. This is the case.

Re:it's not ethanol itself

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhmm the REASON it's destroying engines is because of design decisions that work for gasoline that DON'T work for E85. 85% ethanol as far as I've been lead to understand REQUIRES Stainless fuel system/valvetrain parts in order to avoid excessively wearing an engine (in addition to being conductive, something that may not be appreciated in fuel-cooled fuel pumps.) This, along with differing fuel maps is the reason ford/gm had seperate vehicle packages for 'flex fuel' vehicles for so many years, and why even nowadays not all cars can/should be run on it.

It's not simply a matter of being 'inferior' fuel for automobiles, it's a matter of inferior engines being forced to use a fuel they can't handle (much like trying to retrofit a gas engine block for diesel instead of building a much more robust diesel oriented engine from the ground up...)

Re:it's not ethanol itself

[couchslug]

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/

He's right, ethanol is a scam

[ifdef]

Everything I've been reading suggests that ethanol has no advantages, other than for the subsidized corn producers. It takes more energy to grow the corn to be converted to ethanol than what you get out. You get lower mileage from running on a gasoline-ethanol mix than on pure gasoline. You produce less quantity of pollutants per amount of fuel burned, but this is pretty close to offset by the larger amount of fuel that you have to burn to go the same distance.

Maybe I'm wrong. I drive a diesel car that I run on biodiesel made from used restaurant oil, so I'm definitely not against biofuels in principle, but everything I've ever heard or read makes it seem like ethanol does not actually do anybody any good. Its only purpose is to make it SEEM like somebody is doing something, to make us feel good. But it raises the price of corn, and now, it appears, it destroys your car's engine as well.

Sugar cane not corn

[Metapsyborg]

The only thing wrong with ethanol is that big corporate farms are subsidized to make corn ethanol. If the U.S. just allowed the importation of sugar cane ethanol from countries like Brazil, then it would be a great thing.

If you've spent any time in Brazil, you will see that ethanol is just fine for internal combustion engines. They've almost exclusively used ethanol for the last ten years. Now maybe there's an argument about "flex fuel" but that is just a transitional fuel type. Once we can import environmentally and economically friendly sugar cane ethanol it won't be a problem any more.

Re:Sugar cane not corn

[vbraga]

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.

Re:Sugar cane not corn

[hagnat]

At first, ethanol in Brazilian fuel is nothing more than a subside for northeastern Brazilian farmers

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Re:Sugar cane not corn

[roc97007]

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?

Re:Sugar cane not corn

[scamper_22]

I just find your wording quite fascinating.

"The only thing wrong with ethanol is that big corporate farms are subsidized" really means... GOVERNMENT is the problem for subsidizing
"If the U.S. just allowed the importation of sugar cane "... really means GOVERNMENT is the problem for preventing free trade.

Yet somehow you manage to make your point without using the name of the entity to blame.

Re:Sounds like a crock ...

[DarrenBaker]

It doesn't have to be a linear curve, dude. It could be 30% at 15%, and 50% at 90%.

Not saying anything about the veracity of the article, just sayin'.

Engine damage due to cars that are not prepared

[Lonewolf666]

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.

Ethanol

[Neon Aardvark]

It doesn't matter that bio-ethanol always was so utterly bone-headed from a thermo-dynamic and food-price point of view (and now this as well) - utterly wrong, right from the start, with back of the envelope calculations.

Some people can make vast amounts of money out of it under cover of doing the "right thing" morally (much like the war on drugs), and hence it gets government support.

Re:Sounds like a crock ...

[the_humeister]

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.

Not news.

[rabiddeity]

Oh, so using a fuel different from the fuel specified by the manufacturer can destroy your engine. I don't think that's news. Ethanol is corrosive to plastic and rubber. If the pumps are spitting out higher than 10% ethanol, the chain of responsibility is pretty damn clear. Sue the gas seller.

Anyone who has done ethanol conversions for internal combustion engines (ICEs) can tell you that the conversion requires replacement of plastic and rubber hoses in the fuel system with stainless braided hose. Obviously if the system isn't originally designed for more than 10% ethanol there will be problems.

But the problem isn't with ethanol per se. While it doesn't contain as much energy per liter as straight gasoline, that never stopped gasoline from taking off in favor of diesel's increased energy per liter. Ethanol makes fuel octane ratings go through the roof, which means you can tune the engine to run leaner under acceleration. Even running under boost you can often run leaner than 12 AFR with E85.

I don't agree with the subsidies from the corn lobby, but attacking ethanol because "it destroys engines which weren't designed to run on ethanol" is frankly a stupid tack.

Makes a decent turbo fuel

[DG]

Actually, the increased effective octane of E85 means that it is much more detonation resistant than pure pump gas. That means you can run a lot more turbo boost than you'd normally be able to get away with on a "street" fuel.

You have to increase injector size quite a bit to offset the lower energy per volume, but with all the extra air crammed into the motor at high boost values, the net result is a metric assload of power from a freely available fuel.

Making 500 HP out of a turbo 2 litre street motor is entirely doable running this fuel. I had to run 118 octane C16 race fuel (at $10 US / gal) to get similar performance.

DG

Re:Sounds like a crock ...

[ColdWetDog]

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....).

Alcohol as fuel source.

[Volanin]

Here in Brazil we have been using alcohol as a fuel source for years. When you go to a gas station, it is guaranteed that you will find both a gasoline pump and an alcohol pump. Most cars developed here since 2003 accept both fuels, using an engine technology called FLEX. The only difference is that the alcohol we use is called "Anidro", and it is 99.3% pure, while Ethanol is 96% pure (the rest being mostly water).

Based on this, to subsidize the price of the gasoline here, the government sets an alcohol mandate of 22%. So even if you have a gasoline-only car, you are really using 3/4 gasoline and 1/4 alcohol when you fill the tank. Since the alcohol does attack all parts of the engine that are in contact with it, engines produced for the brazilian market have a special protection layer. And indeed, owners of imported cars here usually fill their tanks with a special "premium" gasoline, that is basically pure and high-octane, to avoid damage. (Guess I don't have to say that gas stations rip you off for that)

I'm a bit skeptical...

[YesIAmAScript]

Not of ethanol, I'm really skeptical of it. It takes so much energy to make, I'm not sure what the point is.

I'm more skeptical of the other things listed. An E85 vehicle typically will run on E100 with no damage. The only real issue is that if you let the engine cool down, it won't start since ethanol won't vaporize properly in a room temperature engine. But it won't cause any damage, and merely putting 100% gas in the tank (assuming there is room, pumping out ethanol if necessary) until the percentage gets high enough to start the engine is all that is needed.

Also, ethanol doesn't reduce "gas mileage" (the words used in the article) 40-60%, it reduces FUEL mileage 40-60% by volume. This is because ethanol contains less energy per gallon. So consumption goes up, but what you really want to measure is energy efficiency, and burning ethanol isn't significantly less energy efficient (note, I'm not speaking of the energy required to make the ethanol, merely the combustion in the engine). So as long as the fuel is priced correctly and you have the space for the ethanol needed, it isn't an efficiency issue.

I do have problems with E10 ("standard gas") more than E85. With E85 at least you know what you're getting into. With E10, we are made to pay regular rates (or even more!) per gallon for the fuel even though it contains 4% less energy than straight gas.

For the record, I'm against a move to E15. We'll end up paying the same amount again (per gallon), while getting another 2% worse economy (per gallon). And it doesn't seem to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, since the corn used to make it is generally grown using nitrogen fertilizers made from petroleum.

I still like the idea of flex-fuel, but we need to find better wats to make alternative fuels before they represent a real viable alternative.

Re:Sounds like a crock ...

[chaboud]

Oh, sweet Jesus that's a moronic post.

Let's spell this out:

1. Ethanol damages fuel systems.
2. Our current methods for producing ethanol are not efficiency winners.
3. Ethanol has lower energy density than gasoline.
4. The pro ethanol lobby is unnaturally strong.
5. You are posting at below-average quality ***for slashdot***.

Re:Sounds like a crock ...

[couchslug]

Crock, eh?

Mechanics have been WELL aware of the problems caused by ethanol (particularly in boat, small engine, and commercial engine applications) for many years, but mechanics don't make public policy.

The 30-percent mileage drop appears to be worst-case, but the mechanical and corrosion problems are very real. I don't own a boat, and I can refit my older rides with ethanol-compatible carb (Holley for the trucks and S&S for for the Harleys) kits , but the MILLIONS of people who own engines too complex to easily refit with pumps, lines, seals and injectors will be screwed if the ethanol content goes up.

I'll make enough dough wrenching on the side off this to update my late model vehicles.:P

Example problems:

http://boatingsailing.suite101.com/article.cfm/ethanol_fuel_problems_for_boaters

Re:Sounds like a crock ...

[Killer Orca]

but having thousands of annoyed customers even more pissed off because of the fine print makes little long term economic sense.

Long term economic sense, something that every U.S. automaker has since when now?

Re:Sounds like a crock ...

[pjabardo]

That is not exactly true. The power output of an internal combustion depends not only on the energy content of the fuel but on on other factors as well, such as, *VERY IMPORTANT* compression ratio. The higher the better and ethanol allows the use of considerably higher compression ratios without detonation. It doesn't compensate the lower calorific power of the ethanol (25% less mileage) but for the same engine, ethanol usually has a little higher rated power (it can operate on higher RPMs).

Re:Sounds like a crock ...

[Smallpond]

Since gas is measured and sold by volume, it only makes sense to talk about energy density in those terms. Ethanol is 23.5 MJ/L while 87 octane gas is 34.8. Fuel use of E100 seems to be growing. The most widely documented cases of damage due to use as an additive is when it is added to the driver.

True sustainability

[copponex]

I think our society needs to begin to understand that all of the dense, useful energy they are pulling out of the ground took hundreds of millions of years to create. Wasting such a valuable finite resource is useful if and only if it is used to transition to an energy system that uses that day's sun energy to do that day's tasks.

The energy problem is quite simple. Stop zoning cities for cars. As soon as the economy is back in swing, slowly raise the gas tax and funnel all of that money directly into solar and battery technology research. Raise electric consumption taxes for all fossil fuel burning power plants to fund the construction of solar and wind. Build some trains that run off of solar energy sources on main highways. Connect those to neighborhoods with short range electric buses, bikes, and small sugar cane burning scooters.

Re:True sustainability

[Darkness404]

There is a massive amount of oil still left. Whenever we start to get close to running out of oil we will find alternative energy sources. To date, there is no energy source that is cheaper, more efficient and profitable other than oil. Government funding only go so far, and most of the time it ends up wasting tax dollars for an undefined goal and leads to many dead ends. Let the free market do it and you will have a solution. Let the government do it and you will end up with even more wasted tax dollars and a broken "solution".

Government projects only work with a defined goal. Just think of our space program, there was a definite goal of putting a man on the moon within a few years. It was quickly accomplished. On the other hand projects with little to no goals such as the war in Iraq end up wasting money, time and lives.

Public transport also raises a lot of other questions. Not only the general pain of having to deal with the hobo who is sitting in his own pee, but also disease transmission. If swine flu had been a real lethal pandemic and we had mostly public transportation it would spread and wipe out a lot of the population much more quickly than most people being confined to cars for day-to-day travel.

The free market will always, always, always, always come out ahead. Government funding ends up with a lot of wasted money and time. If nothing else at least private corporations are not stealing from your paycheck.

Re:Sounds like a crock ...

[xianthax]

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.

there are more important factors than energy density here, for instance pure ethanol has an octane rating of ~116 allowing much higher combustion chamber pressures prior to detonation netting a power gain over what can be achieved with gasoline. granted the car needs to be designed for this, through higher compression piston, higher boost levels, and/or modified ignition timing.

theres a reason that ethanol is used in some drag leagues, and its not because of lower power output :)

Just give me an electric car

[77Punker]

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!

Re:Just give me an electric car

[QuantumG]

Ya know why they were affordable? Because they were leased, at a loss, from the manufacturer.

Re:Just give me an electric car

[CodeBuster]

They were also accessible to the everyman, unlike the Tesla roadster.

I wouldn't go that far. I seem to recall that in Who Killed The Electric Car they mentioned that the EV1 was leased , but NOT sold, for $500-$700 dollars per month which is substantially higher than what "everyman" can afford to pay. If you can afford to pay that much for a lease then you can afford to lease a luxury car such as the BMW, Mercedes-Benz, or Lexus. The "everyman" lease rate is more in the $200-$400 dollar range and generally in the lower part of the range or around $300 per month. Also, look at the owners they interviewed in the movie: Tom Hanks, Mel Gibson, Ed Begley, Jr. (i.e. big money Hollywood actors); hardly the "everyman" you say the car was accessible to.

The "energy loss" is a red herring.

[tjstork]

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.

Re:The "energy loss" is a red herring.

[tjstork]

People concerned with corn ethanol are worried that the liquid ethanol that comes out of the process contains less energy than the liquid petroleum that goes into the process

Yeah, but corn ethanol isn't where the future is. It's cellulosic ethanol. Besides, the vast amount of energy for corn ethanol is in distillation and you don't need petroleum to do that. You could make a still out of solar power, or gasp, coal.

Dangerous is worse than stupid.

[reporter]

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released a study indicating that "when the E.P.A.'s scientists counted these indirect effects, corn ethanol emitted more greenhouse gases than gasoline over a 30-year period."

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?

Re:Dangerous is worse than stupid.

[maxume]

Aspiration to and the living of Western styles of life are a much bigger problem than over population. America uses much more energy than the 5% of global consumption that would be more reasonable if you want to make population the biggest problem.

That doesn't make population growth a non problem.

Re:Dangerous is worse than stupid.

[daemonburrito]

Can anyone guess why overpopulation is never mentioned by American politicians? Could the concept of overpopulation be too closely tied to illegal immigration?

Way, way off. And scary that you think that way... You should read about the waves of xenophobia throughout the United States' history. This one is not significantly different than the others (Irish, Asians, Germans, etc).

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_Policy.

It was Ronald Reagan and the Moral Majority people that decided that population policy was off the table ("A billion more consumers for American products"!). In addition, the nativist wing of the Republicans frequently encourages Anglos and other white-skinned people to "out-breed" the "aliens" to preserve America (QuiverFull, anyone?). Most of the evangelical movement subscribes to "dominion theology", which takes the Genesis 1 literally (especially the "be fruitful" bit). That worldview pretty much forbids thinking about environment conservation generally.

Not that it's novel... Breeding wars are common in history, and there's several going on right now.

The primary opposition to population control is religious/nativist, followed by Cold Warriors.

Re:Dangerous is worse than stupid.

[sorak]

Could the concept of overpopulation be too closely tied to illegal immigration?

That's where you lost me. Illegal immigration may make us look bad on paper, but the environment doesn't care if a Hispanic is driving a car in Texas or Mexico.

And, if you're using that reasoning, then why stop at illegal immigration? Granted, we probably couldn't revoke green cards and work visas from people already here, but, if you think that illegal immigrants are harming America by increasing its' numbers, then why would someone who filled out the correct paperwork be any more eco-friendly?

Personally, I can agree with your assessment that the world needs a lower population. All the food in the world won't help as much as a few crates full of condoms, well distributed.

As for why effective birth control plans are never mentioned, you can blame the religious right for that.

Re:Dangerous is worse than stupid.

[daemonburrito]

Funny you should say that. The evidence seems to suggest that you are wrong. Mere access to health services for women seems to go a long way towards stabilizing population (and reduces horrible deaths from witch-doctor abortions). No draconian, gender-balance-altering, infanticide-encouraging policy needed.

And as for any sort of "selection" regarding humanity: That horse left the barn 12,000 years ago. We're all human, and astonishingly similar. The "weakest" of us have made huge contributions to our civilization. We tend to see the difference between a 130 IQ and a 90 IQ as vast, but it's a matter of perspective. An alien new to our planet probably wouldn't immediately make such a distinction.

My original point stands, I think. Rapid population growth is largely an artifact of ethnic and religious conflict, and responds well to public policy. In context, "being fruitful" isn't even dumb; up until this last century, it was perfectly rational for a group to multiply as much as possible (with some exceptions, for local resource constraints).

Personally, I think the raw intelligence of any given human being is indistinguishable from others, barring a condition like cretinism or Down's Syndrome. And even with such a condition, our decision to take care of members of our groups who couldn't survive on their own has paid off in a huge way; it may be one of the most successful adaptations in our planet's history.

Take any human being, give them nutrition and access to health care, a little math and logic, some history; add a dash of rhetoric to give them immunity to marketing, PR, propaganda (which was the real culprit in Idiocracy, not genetics). Et voila, another "genius".

Additive

[unixan]

Sorry, the ending is ambiguous. Let me fix that for you...

... when it is added by the driver.

Makes sense.

... when it is drunk by the driver.

Makes even more sense.

Now ...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Re:Now ...

[dr2chase]

You Canucks don't know fat from freedom fries. Obese? We're at 31%, and you polite national-health-plan hockey-playing doofuses aren't even half that. Yee haw, my ass.

(See http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity )

There are problems with ethanol.

[das3cr]

Ethanol attracts moisture. A stabo additive is required.

It attacks fuel lines. This spring I had to change out the fuel lines in all my lawn equipment. The line trimmer had (was cheaper) to be replaced.

It's a nightmare for the marine industry. Not only attacking the fuel lines, but the internal fuel tanks also.

Needless to say, I've learned my lesson. I go out of my way to purchase fuels that don't have ethanol mixed in.

Maybe in the future everything will be ethanol tolerant. But that day isn't today.

bogus claims

[TRRosen]

Farmers in europe have run there equipment off home grown ethanol for decades no problem.

Energy density has nothing to do with efficiency. Its not really relevant that gas has more energy in it, Its how much you can get out of it.

Oh and by the way it is possible to make ethanol from things other then corn.

Modern Marvels: Secrets of Oil. Another junk story

[Futurepower(R)]

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.

Re:Sounds like a crock ...

[prisoner-of-enigma]

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.

Re:Ethanol is mandate in CA

[Hadlock]

The big problem is, there are no other choices for oxygenate additives in California, and by extension MA, NY, NJ, OH, NH, VT, etc.

And Texas. Only interesting because we're the third largest state by population and the largest producer of oil. Also the 9th largest economy if California (8th largest) and TX were their own independent nations (again).

We need to drill for oil here.

[blindseer]

If the goal is to stop importing energy then we need to start drilling for more oil here in the USA. The article points out how ethanol can destroy an engine not designed for it, which is a good reason to not put ethanol in an engine not designed for it but a bad reason to stop putting so much ethanol in our gas tanks.

A good reason to not use ethanol as a fuel is because it has a very poor return on energy invested. The fact that people are debating whether or not one actually gets a net energy gain is a good enough sign for me. Even poor performers like solar power has a energy return on investment (EROI) of 5 to 1. Most energy sources in common use have an EROI somewhere around 10 to 1, such as coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, and geothermal. Petro-fuels like gasoline and natural gas have an EROI that is even higher on average, it varies from well to well and will go down over time as the good wells are used up but still remains well above 10 to 1.

Fuels like diesel fuel, gasoline, and kerosene are very useful because they remain liquid over a wide range of temperatures at atmospheric pressure, have a relatively high energy density, are able to lubricate the pumps and engines they run through, and most of all it is cheap and plentiful.

The USA can be energy independent. If the yahoos in California would allow drilling off of its coast and the yahoos in DC would allow drilling in Alaska we would have a good start. Then those yahoos in DC need to stop holding up the building of more nuclear power plants. We need coal, uranium, natural gas and oil. We have it we just need the politicians to stop changing the rules and get out of the way so capitalism and commerce can meet the supply and demand naturally.

The meat of all this is that this is a problem of politics. We can't drill for oil because some tree hugger would rather think of the fish than people freezing to death. This is also ignoring the fact that the oil is seeping out of the ground and washing up onto California beaches. If we drill for that oil the it won't end up killing the fish. The majority of oil spills have been from oil shipped over the sea. There has been very little lost when pumped through pipes and shipped over land. If the tree huggers want to see fewer oil spills then we need to stop shipping it from other nations.

Some of those tree huggers might just rather we not use any oil at all. That's fine while your riding your bike through southern California but those of us in the Midwest need diesel fuel to harvest the corn and wheat those tree huggers like to eat. Those bike tires had to come from somewhere you know, like perhaps crude oil shipped on diesel trains and trucks.

There may come a time when the EROI of drilled oil might not make it worthwhile to use for fuel any more. We will still need oil for chain oil and bicycle tires. At that point it may make sense to synthesize hydrocarbons. The energy to synthesize those hydrocarbons has to come from somewhere. At that time, likely many decades from now, we will have to use things like nuclear power to create the hydrocarbons we need. Given the many desirable properties of hydrocarbons as a fuel we may still use hydrocarbons as a means to store and transport energy.

Ethanol is a scam. We have better alternatives. We need to stop subsidizing ethanol and put our efforts into something sustainable for our energy needs. In fact the federal government should stop subsidizing all energy and let the market figure things out. If you think the government is the solution then you do not recognize the problem.

How many folks destroyed their own cars with E85?

[fluffy99]

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.

Algae Based Biofuels are the Ultimate Answer

[catchblue22]

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)

Re:Modern Marvels: Secrets of Oil. Another junk st

[fermion]

Here is the problem with the WSJ. It is going to go with whatever bit of misinformation that is currently in vogue. This is to force a switch of policy to help with whatever doll payments those in powers wish. This si different from innovation because innovation might not show a profit for 5-10 years, while such bit of misinformation are meant to show a profit, at least to some of the players, immediately.

Take ethanol from corn. This makes large conglomerates lots of money in terms of short term profits. It does not help the small farmer or the small processor as the good times do not last long enough to pay for the capital costs.

Such talk also helps solidify the corn culture of the United States, a culture that has cost the tax payer maybe 5 billion a year in doll payments to the conglomerates and farmers. This means that even though corn may not be the choice that a free market economy would make, it is the choice that the command driven economy is forced to make. Therefore alternatives like sugar cane, which the US used to grow, and maybe even switch grass is priced out of the command economy.

So what is next. Getting oil from shale, something that business would like to invest in, if only there was some stability and possibility of profit. So what does the business press do, publish stories about how the ethanol is a scam and we need to go back to oil, which we have plenty of if only the government would stop regulating the corporations so they will be able to innovate. We are told that it is cost effective to extract the oil at current prices, but we just need a push. Maybe move dole payments from corn to shale? Not likely. Probably ask for new dole payments for shale

I'd vote for a gay seal-clubber

[microbox]

I'd vote for a gay seal-clubber - if only because he's probably comfortable enough with himself to go his own ways.

Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[Geoffrey.landis]

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.

Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[DrgnDancer]

I think there might be some truth to "Ethanol ruins engines not designed to burn ethanol", but since most cars built in the last 10 years or so are designed around at least partial ethanol fuels, that's only going to affect a (fairly small) subset of people. Whether it's entirely fair to screw around with the people who have older cars is another question, as is how much damage ethanol fuels actually do to those engines.

Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[Anonymous Coward]

Ethanol ruins engines if you're trying to shoehorn ethanol into gasoline based systems.

Here in Brazil we actually had 20 years to advance ethanol based engine technology. It works. Even Flex engines that take both gasoline and ethanol(and even both at the same time) work.

Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[poetmatt]

Apparently there is some difficult understanding here; allow me to provide the information that you seemed to neglect.

95% ethanol doesn't ruin cars designed to run it. However, 15% ethanol will ruin cars designed to run 10%.

See the difference here? If we go all ethanol, fine, do it. This wishy washy crap is just horrible and suckling up to the gas needs of countries which hold us by the balls due to gas dependency.

Brazillians seem to have a good climate for cane sugar, some of the US may or may not as well. I am not an agricultural specialist.

Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[TiberSeptm]

None of the 4 cars I've owned that have been built in the years 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2004 respectively are built to run on E85. These cars aren't exactly unpopular models as they include 2 corollas, 1 Taurus, and one accord. You are very much wrong if you think that "basically all" US market cars sold in the last decade have been made for E85.

GM has comitted to, by 2012, having it so 50% of the vehicles they sell can accept E85. They haven't reached anywhere near that goal. Honda does not even offer ANY flex fuel vehicles for the US market. The other automakers do, but its still a small minority. Only about 7 million (wikipedia article) out of the what... 100 million or so cars in the US are flex fuel capable.

So it's not even that the "basically all" part of your statement is wrong. It's almost the opposite of the truth. I'd say it's more like "basically none" of the US market cars sold in the last decade are flex fuel vehicles. Only even a minority of those sold this year are.

Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[The Grim Reefer2]

Uh, haven't basically all US market cars for the last decade or more been designed for E85?

No, they have not.

I know even my 1998 Windstar had filters and seals that were E85 compatible, it's not like it adds much cost to make a car E85 compatible.

Great, now are your sensors and injectors? What about the EFI computer? Do you know if the fuel tank and lines were also? E85 is more reactive so basically everything that the fuel comes in contact with has to be corrosion resistant. Your EFI computer also has to know to inject more fuel into the cylinders because E85 has a lower energy density than that of regular unleaded.

Heck here is the midwest winter mixes probably go to 15% ethanol already to combat fuel line freezup.

Fuel line freeze up is a diesel only issue. The freezing point of gasoline is around -120 F, possibly as "warm" as -97 at best depending on the the water content. Gasoline has winter and summer blends due to the change in atmospheric pressures and regulation by the EPA to maintain a specified Reid vapor pressure (RVP) for gasoline. If the RVP of a liquid exceeds the atmospheric pressure it will boil. Obviously this would not be a good thing. Since the atmospheric pressure is lower in the summer the RVP must be as well. In the winter the RVP can be higher, which also tends to make gas much cheaper to produce, with a higher RVP, and is why winter gas prices tend to be lower.

Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[budgenator]

it's not the gasoline that freezes, it the water that contaminates it. If you drive on a warmer day, air with more moisture is drwan into the fuel system, at night the moisture condenses out of the air and accumilates in the fuel tank and lines, if it below freezing it turns to ice and can easily occlude the fuel line. Having EtOH in the fuel lowers the freezing point of the water-ethanol mixure and solves the problem; many people in cold weather will add dry gas, methanol, to absorb the water.

Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[Tubal-Cain]

Uh, haven't basically all US market cars for the last decade or more been designed for E85?

Rebutals from other responders to you post aside, there are still a lot of multi-decade cars on the road. My mom's car is 18 years old, and my brother's is 24.

Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[morcego]

I will have to comment on this one, since I enjoyed it.

You are right on your account there. Here in Brazil, when we first started wide scale ethanol use, the first ethanol engines would have trouble pretty soon. Lets say a regular gas engine would require maintenance every 5000Km, an ethanol engine would require maintenance every 2000Km. These are, of course, some wide numbers I took from my head, but they do give a good picture of how things WERE.

These days, all engines here are designed to run a mix of gas and ethanol. They are called Flex (flexible fuel) engines, and you can mix gas and ethanol whatever way you want. Or run on whichever is cheaper at that given station. And engines give no problems at all. Technology evolved a lot in the past 20 years.

I will, however, agree that corn is not a viable solution for producing ethanol, although I can totally understand the reasons USA wants to use it. Corn simply doesn't produce the same quality (energy etc) of ethanol as you get from sugar cane. Then again, I'm not really sure how much of an option sugar cane is for the USA. I do believe there are other options that might be as good as sugar cane, or at least better than corn. Sugar beat maybe ?

One thing that worries me (by looking at the Wikipedia page), is the low Greenhouse-gas savings for corn. While sugar cane based ethanol is listed as having 87-96% savings, corn is listed as 10-20%.

Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[Gordonjcp]

it's not the gasoline that freezes, it the water that contaminates it.

Just as an aside, I ran my '88 Citroën CX on about 75% ethanol to dry out water contamination in the fuel tank and lines (some of you in the UK may remember the news stories a couple of years ago about a huge batch of contaminated petrol). I needed to start and warm up the engine on ordinary petrol from a boat can, then before setting off switched the fuel lines back to the car's own tank. After a couple of hundred miles the fuel filter was *filthy* but the car was running well. If anything it ran better, but that could just be because I was used to it running badly with wet fuel.

Of course, the fuel lines and seals are suitable for alcohol anyway, like most European cars made in the last 20-odd years.

Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[Hadlock]

I was under the impression that Tauruses (Taurii?) built after 2002(ish) were all E85, along with the F150, Ranger and a few other "fleet" vehicles that Ford makes. I know the F150 I rented from U-Haul was E85 compatible, and was actually one of the reasons I went with that model - when you have to refill the tank back up to 3/4 full or whatever, especially two years ago when we had $4/gal gas, it was way cheaper to top it off with E85 than it was regular "petrol".

Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[Fahrvergnuugen]

Honda doesn't build inefficient engines, which is why they haven't built a flex fuel vehicle. Since you can't dynamically change the compression ratio of a motor depending on the octane of the fuel in the tank, there is no way to make an efficient "flex fuel" engine.

Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[drinkypoo]

Brazil has been deforesting to grow food because already-cleared land has been converted to sugar cane production for Ethanol. The Amazon may already be past the point of collapse. Ethanol is a major source of ecological destruction in Brazil.

The big problem with corn is that most corn is grown continuously without crop rotation. That means that not only is it fertilized with oil (so any energy not coming from sunlight is coming from dino juice anyway, and it has a carbon debt) but it also destroys the soil. So it's all bad. Also, many people depend on that corn for food. Making corn fuel feedstocks raises the price of corn for food, because less food corn is produced.

IF you RTFA you'd see that it's not engines being ruined by ethanol, it's fuel pumps and pickup lines. Running alcohol requires a major refit, and many of those vehicles no longer even have their original engines.

Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[Geoffrey.landis]

I agree with the first point you made. However, although it does take energy to produce fertilizer, note that plants do not get their energy from fertilizer, they get it from sunlight.

IF you RTFA you'd see that it's not engines being ruined by ethanol, it's fuel pumps and pickup lines.

Direct quote from the slashdot article: "there is increasing evidence that it is destroying engines in large numbers"

So, basically, you're saying that the slashdot summary is wrong. Well, well.

Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[drinkypoo]

I agree with the first point you made. However, although it does take energy to produce fertilizer, note that plants do not get their energy from fertilizer, they get it from sunlight.

Sorry, I meant expenditure of energy. It takes energy to make poop, too, but that is a natural consequence of eating. Making artificial, oil-based fertilizer is not a natural consequence of anything. More energy than sunlight most certainly does go into the process of producing crops.

Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[cdwdwkr]

Not exactly true. Most flex fuel vehicles are just the normal gasoline optimized engine with sufficient excess capacity in the fuel injector size and trim settings to allow the larger volume of ethanol needed for their operation. However, it is possible to optimize a flex fuel engine for ethanol fuels. Saab has done this for several years now:
http://www.greencar.com/articles/saab-9-5-biopower-gasoline-ethanol-flexfuel-vehicle.php
This Saab is a turbocharged engine and adjusts its turbo settings to provide more boost when it senses it is running on the much higher octane E-85 fuel...effectively increasing the compression ratio in the cylinder. First semester Thermodynamics tell you that the higher compression ratio offers more theoretical efficiency. This Saab puts out more horsepower and torque running on E-85 than on gas, and it gets approximately the same mileage in town and 15% better mileage on the highway.

Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[RingDev]

Correct, but how many of GM/Fords US brand "Flex Fuel" vehicles have forced induction?

Most of them rely on fuel mappings, spark timing, and (some of them) valve timing. So even if they maintain the correct Air:Fuel mixture, they have no means of increasing compression to improve efficiency.

In vehicles designed to run on Ethanol, it's not a bad fuel. But in the current crop of US Flex Fuel vehicles, we're left with crappy designs that get mediocre gas mileage and horrendous Ethanol mileage.

-Rick

Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]

[The_K4]

Yes, but the cars in "the last 10 years or so are designed around at least partial ethanol fuels" mean 10% ethanol. My 2004 vehicle manual specifically says that they fuel should not contain more then 10% ethanol and any more "could cause serious damage to engine components" and that just putting something higher then E10 in the tank would void my warranty on my power train. So if I go to a station like those in the article that's higher (intentionally or accidentally) it could damage my engine because it's not designed for it. If the government raises the percentage to 15% what do I do? Run it an hope I don't get damage? Spend $$$ to upgrade/replace components? Replace the car? Do you consider a 2004 an "older car"?

Pros and Cons

[olddotter]

While there are many reason's why the US approach to ethanol as a fuel is misguided, I'm hesitant to jump on this bandwagon yet. I'd like to see some independent research on the issue. Ethanol collects water which can cause all kinds of problems in a vehicle where the fuels just sits (read isn't used often). But I wonder how Brazil has managed to use Ethanol for so long without all of the fuel pumps dieing if this problem hasn't been solved somewhere.

Ethanol exhaust kills most engines

[bubbageek75]

The biggest problem with Ethanol in/as a fuel is the fact that it produces and increased amount of H2O in the exhaust that causes damage to the pistons, cylinders, and exhaust system. The only way to avoid that damage is to have the insides of everything ceramic coated which is an expensive process for most engines.

I hate Ethanol (E10)

[barzok]

E10 costs the same per gallon as straight gasoline, sometimes more - yet I get at least a 10% drop in fuel economy.

The station closest to my house switched from Mobil to Sunoco a couple months ago. My "winter mileage" never recovered (always get worse mileage in the winter; in April, it comes back up about 20%). Then I quit that station and started filling up at Hess. Immediately gained 2 MPG, because I didn't get E10.

We always hear stories about all gas stations getting "the same gas" but the gas at this station most definitely changed when it went from Mobil to Sunoco - my gas mileage this spring at that station was definitely lower than at the same station last spring.

Sunoco in my area always sells E10. Mobil & Hess don't.

The Great Ethanol Scam

[falconwolf]

After reading all the articles linked to, I noticed not one mentioned one part of the scam. Business Week and Chicago Tribune said the ethanol was corn based. However the same amount of land would produce more ethanol if sugarcane was used instead. With the world's largest biofuels program Brazil uses sugarcane. And switchgrass produces even more. Another benefit of using switchgrass to make ethanol is that it will grow on marginal land other crops aren't grown on.

Falcon

Re: The Great Ethanol Scam

[taustin]

That's the scam. It's not about making ethanol, it's about pork dollars for the corn lobby. There is no switchgrass lobby.

misleading

[swordfishBob]

Some good points, but most of the cited evidence of damage relates to either:
- concentrations of ethanol greater than they were supposed to be
- putting ethanol-blended fuel into something that wasn't designed for it

That's not a good argument against all use of ethanol blends, but does go against mandating all octane-ish fuel be blended.

free markets and government

[falconwolf]

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

Turbo benefit - not so

[LenE]

I have a 2006 VW GLI. It has a 2.0L turbo-charged, direct injected engine in it. While driving across the country a few years ago (before the federal mandate hit), I averaged 34 mpg while driving in non-ethanol states. Once I hit states that had already started adding ethanol to the gasoline, my fuel economy dropped to 27 mpg.

I was shocked! Changing the fuel to 10% ethanol resulted in a drop in fuel economy by 21%. I couldn't reconcile the drop, as it didn't make sense that ethanol would drive my economy worse by an amount greater than the percentage of ethanol added.

I don't drive like a maniac, and discovering this caused me to reform my driving habits to get better fuel economy. The best I have been able to manage since the mandate is 29 mpg. Again, I was getting 34 mpg on straight non-ethanol gasoline, while driving more aggressively.

I did some further research, and found that Volkswagen's stance on ethanol is to absolutely not use it, ever. My engine uses a new technology (gasoline direct injection) that is emerging in just about every high-efficiency gasoline engine that is on the current or near horizon. All of them will have the same detrimental performance with ethanol blend fuels.

This will set up a situation where the non-government controlled auto industry, attempting to meet the new aggressive CAFE standards will be fighting against the government castrated companies and the ethanol lobby. I hate to admit that we will all be losers in the end, as the former winning will increase fuel economy, but probably cause fuel taxes to rise to make up for lost revenue from increased mileage. The latter's win will also increase the cost of fuel, while further decreasing mileage on new direct-injection engines.

-- Len

Re:government and freemarkets

[anss123]

Is the freemarket the reason Canadians have the come to the US for surgeries [nejm.org]?

I read a several years old study on that. It concluded that the number of Canadians that got health care in the US was quite small and the majority simply was in the US at the time of need. If you go by anecdotes you'll find cases of people coming to and leaving the US for health care so one can't draw conclusions from a handful of cases, otherwise people would still practice homeopathy... oh wait :-)

Culturally homogenous?

[jotaeleemeese]

Oh golly.

We have different languages every few hundred of kilometres and people from North, South, and East European descent, who have arrived at different times from different places.

Just Spain recognizes several autonomous entities, with a seizable heritage (800 years) of Arabic culture and, naturally, DNA interchange, the UK is divided in 4 distinctive countries (with 2 recognized languages) and we know the disaster of the former Yugoslavia (where Muslims and Christians could not live together).

What about Sweden, Norway and Finland? Where several groups with different languages mix in each country? (for Linux nuts: Torvalds is not a Finnish last name).

As for Italy, tell a North Italian that they are pretty much like their compatriots in the South and he may reply to you, in German, that he politely chooses to disagree.

I could go on, but I think my point has been made.

/.er ignorance and shortsightedness

[crmarvin42]

First, pointing out the flaws in a system is an integral part of refining that system (and a favorite past time of most /.ers).

Second, none of the critisizm you are railing against are unrealistic. The majority of the US fleet is not compatible with Ethanol and cannot be made compatible with ethanol without being replaced outright. Buring E85 fuel in engines not designed for it is a slower equivalent to draining all of the oil out of the engine block and then driving cross country, it's guaranteed to kill the engine. The US not only lacks the appropriate climate for sugar cane, it also lacks the requisit infrastructure for the large scale production necessary to replace corn-based ethanol production.

Third, most of the posts I've read above are of the opinion that corn-based ethanol is the problem, not ethanol itself. We can gradually shift the US fleet to 100% E85 compatibility solve the fleet problem. We can find alternative substrates to corn (sugar beets, celullosic biomass, etc.). Hell in the near-term we can improve the efficiency of corn-based ethanol production by fractionating corn prior to fermentation, which has been claimed to increase yeild per batch by 30% (less non-fermentable substrate taking up space inside the fermentation apparatus).

As to the planting of sugar cae in the dessert with the massive irrigation that would require, that's not really an option. We are already having to deal with the fallout of excessive aquafer depletion in the western US where the desert is located. There are already fairly high profile disputes between California and the states East of there over who exactly has the right to use the water from the rivers that flow into California.

Vested interests may or may not be a problem for the burgening ethanol industry in the US, but that doesn't make any of the critisizm I've seen above invalid or inappropriate. In the absence of debate we are left with despotism.

Replace oil fields with Corn fields?

[Jerry]

Some research and calculations I did in 2005 ...

Replace oil fields with Corn fields?

Dr. Bartlett, retired Univ. of Colorado Physics professor, wrote that "Farming is merely a way of using land to convert oil into food". People either have forgotten or never realized the food IS energy. It takes 7 TIMES more petroleum energy to put a slice of bread on your breakfast table than you get by eating it. And, oil is used for many other things besides transportation. How long would squirrels survive if they spent more energy collecting nuts than they get from eating them? We are the squirrels, and we are about to find out.

One measure of how much oil we may still be able to find is the "Barrels Per Foot Drilled" metric. In 1946 oil companies recovered 45 barrels of oil for each foot they drilled. That metric, which is an aggregate measurement, has been showing a steady decline since 1946. It was obvious that at some time in the future it would take the same amount of energy to drill a well as the energy that is in the NEW oil produced by that well -- the "break-even" point. That time is now. The "Barrels Per Foot" value crossed below the break-even point in 2005. During the last 10 years only 38 billion barrels of oil have been discovered. All the cheap oil and most of the expensive oil has been found. Now we, and the rest of the world, are draining the bottom half of the world oil barrel and are beginning to cast about for other high density energy sources to replace oil, something we should have been doing 30 years ago when the current problem was accurately predicted. We will need oil to help us build an alternative energy resource before our oil resources are totally exhausted. Have we waited too long to act?

What else is available? Wind and tidal energy can't even replace 5% of our oil needs. Geothermal energy is not widely available and is usually located in unstable geophysical areas. People are rightly afraid of radioactive contamination from nuclear power, besides the fact that it takes more energy to make, maintain and decommission a nuclear plant than it delivers in its lifetime. Cold Fusion was an illusion and Hot Fusion has been a 50 year old multi-billion dollar pipe dream that experts say will take another 50 years of research and billions more before we'll see fusion power plants, if ever. That leaves solar energy as the only remaining source of renewable energy which could be harnessed in sufficient capacity to replace oil. One way of extracting solar energy is with Solar Power Tower II devices, developed in the USA but being installed by other countries. Another way to utilize solar energy is to utilize photosynthesis. That is why, in the USA, Corn is receiving considerable attention.

Initially, Ethanol from Corn was added to gasoline in small amounts to replace toxic fuel additives used to prevent pinging. As percentages increased farmers began to see Ethanol plants as big customers for their Corn. The Ethanol Industry set up front organizations to lobby Congress for subsidies and publicize Ethanol as a substitute for gasoline. Ethanol import tariffs and Federal subsidies support Ethanol production at slightly over $1 per gallon. Now that politicians have jumped on the bandwagon they are presenting an illusion that Ethanol is the answer to our energy problems. One politician had a campaign ad that suggests "corn fields may replace oil fields". One interesting aspect in the Ethanol dynamic is that demand for Ethanol has increased considerably over the last 5 years, but the price of Corn had remained essentially the same, about $2.55/Bu, for the last 50 years (but recently -6/2007- has risen as high as $4.04/Bu). Concerning the price of corn, what is interfering with the laws of supply and demand? The role of the multi-national agri-corps in annually suppressing the price of Corn just when farmers bring their product to market is a topic for another investigation.

Ethanol industry sponsored studies report that Ethanol p

This again?

[GlobalMind]

Ethanol isn't the problem. How we're making it, is.

It cracks me up how quickly some folks want to dismiss it. Like it has to be 100% perfect the first time out. Gee, gasoline has what a 100 year head start?

You don't have to mod the whole engine. Just from the injector rails on back. Mainly the supply feed. Otherwise it'll run it fine. And I anticipate the 10 vs 15% thing is BS too, other than the supply side of it.

I talked to the Chevy engineer who worked on the Corvette pace car at Indy last year. It ran E85. I asked him what all needed to be changed and that was it. Injector rails on back. Things that would have direct contact with the fuel for extended periods of time. They happened to use neoprene to get the job done.

And oh by the way, methanol has been an additive in gasoline for years. Also an alcohol based product. It would have the same "issues" - or not - as ethanol as a fuel additive.

Oh and the stuff you put in your tank to eliminate fuel line freeze up? Alcohol based.

alcohols / ethanols reduce gas mileage

[rwa2]

Lots of people have been playing with various gasoline additives. Alcohol does not come out high on the list.

Essentially, by adding ~10% ethanol to gasoline, people have measured reductions in gas mileage of around 10%. So it's a great way to create agricultural subsidies without really impacting OPEC all that much at all. Big win for everyone but the consumer.

This article about using acetone as an additive has always stuck out in my mind... too bad the guy's tone kinda veers towards sounding like a quack. But as an engineer, I commiserate with his exasperation in the face of stupidity.
http://pesn.com/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/