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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[Miseph]

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

Best of luck.

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

[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?

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.

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.

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.

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)

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: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 ...

[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.

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: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: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".

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.

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]

[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.