Slashdot Mirror
Can the US Be Weaned Off Ethanol?
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Matthew Wald reports in the NYT the the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed reducing the amount of ethanol that is required to be mixed with the gasoline supply, the first time it has taken steps to slow down the drive to replace fossil fuels with renewable forms of energy. The move drew bitter complaints from advocates of ethanol, including some environmentalists, who see the corn-based fuel blend as a weapon to fight climate change and was also unwelcome news to farmers, coming at a time when a record corn crop is expected, and the price of a bushel has fallen almost to the cost of production. "Boy, my goodness, are the oil companies going to benefit from this," says Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association. "We're all just sort of scratching our heads here wondering why this administration is telling us to produce less of a clean-burning American fuel." But the EPA says that a big part of the problem was that automobile fuel systems and service stations were not set up to absorb more than about 10 percent ethanol. Most cars on the road are limited to the current mixture, called E10, and there has been little demand by consumers for more. Reasons for the turnaround are many: The boom in domestic oil drilling has dimmed the urgency to find other alternatives to Mideast petroleum. Demand for gasoline has slumped. And criticism of the environmental impacts of corn ethanol has dimmed its luster nationally. The chill on ethanol will certainly affect the industry's powerhouse, corn ethanol. But the risk is far greater for smaller sectors of the industry still struggling to get out of the gate — those aimed at producing next-generation biofuels like "cellulosic" ethanol, made from ingredients like switchgrass and corn stalks. "I don't know if the EPA is aiming for uncertainty, but they may inadvertently create it," says Jan Koninckx, the global business director of biorefineries for DuPont. "The impact could be that another country will lead this rather than the U.S.""
Notice how consumers aren't given the choice of buying "pure" gas, as opposed to E10. I'm pretty sure that if we had the choice we'd be buying the good stuff, not the corn crap.
The real question to me is why corn is used for Ethanol instead of say algae?
The current fuel economy standards are for fuel with the energy density of gasoline. Switch to ethanol and you suddenly find yourself getting much less mileage but still using the same amount of fuel. Manufacturers also argue that switching to ethanol overnight will require complete redesign of all gasoline internal combustion engines currently in use (the parts do not like running into a solvent as powerful as ethanol). Since farmers use things like fertilizer, pesticides and massive amounts of water and diesel to grow the feedstocks (primarily corn) for ethanol production, one might argue that simply using petroleum at this point is massively more efficient than going through all this effort to make a fuel that takes more energy to produce than the fuel produces in combustion.
Let's not forget that market manipulation due to federal subsidies for corn (which, for various reasons, is currently the cornerstone of all food production in the US), food prices have skyrocketed since the focus on ethanol production from corn began.
complaints from advocates of ethanol, including some environmentalists
There are environmentalists advocating ethanol fuel from corn?
If they are referring to the Renewable Fuels Association they've made a mistake.
Corn ethanol subsidies and use requirements raise the price of corn ethanol to the point where it is profitable to produce, even if more fuel went into production than is produced. When that is the case, using it is even worse than burning gas, since its worse for the environment, raises food prices, and wastes tax dollars.
If you want to help the situation, instead remove the government hand outs from the oil companies to level the playing field. Even when we were locked out of government lands during the shutdown, all the oil companies still had their free access to tons of areas which they use commercially. Remove this, and the government makes a lot more money, and alternative energy sources are much more competitive. Sure the prices on oil and gas will go up a bit, but taxes and/or debt will also lower accordingly (since it will lower government spending the same amount as the price increase).
If you support this reduction you want children to starve. How are farmers in Iowa (home of the first presidential primaries) supposed to feed their families if the price of corn isn't artificially inflated by this government mandate?
Then stick in barrels, age it a bit and sell it as bourbon!
If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
I kinda miss it.
Sent from my ENIAC
and use it to feed poor people? It's not like there's any shortage of them...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I do sales in high end luxury industry type stuff. The people who are buying stuff are bigger corn farmers. They have money to spend. Food prices go up, gas goes up, they profit. We pay. Our cars get lower mpg with even 10% ethanol. The effect is big enough that if you could seperate the 90% gas from the ethanol, you'd be better off throwing the ethanol completely away.
Americans would do alright without ethanol but the special interests will cry, as always.
Thanks to the fact that it is impossible to purchase gasoline that has not been polluted with ethanol; me and thousands of classic car owners now have to replace there rubber fuel lines every year or risk our beloved toys going up into flames... (or pay a fortune for custom made metal fuel lines)
Most people dont realize but since we started putting corn in our fuel, thousands and thousands of older cars have gone up into flames since it dissolves the OEM fuel lines after a relatively short time.
Lets up it to 25% so I have to do this every other month.... /sarcasm
Keep in mind that with higher prices, land which has higher cost of production is used. And oil is roughly four times as expensive now as it was in the 90s. Finally, they could be coming off of an unusually high price from supply not meeting demand (as more farmers grow corn).
So the original claim can be true and still have more expensive corn than in the past.
Most people are unaware that they already pay for ethanol, in the form of subsidies, before it is even added to gasoline.
Everyone I've spoken to about ethanol did a 180-degree reversal of opinion when I mentioned to them that not only have they already paid for that ethanol, but that it is also genetically-modified corn developed by Monsanto that is used to produce that ethanol, as are the pesticides used on those crops.
Funny, how people change their opinions so quickly when provided factual information.
The price of the raw materials is really just a fraction of the cost that goes into producing most foods.
When corn prices dramatically shot up, there wasn't a corresponding spike in food either.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130921775
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
The only reason we still have corn ethanol is because there's so much money involved. It's a great way to get paid a lot of money without actually going to the trouble to earn any of it.
- It's never really been about "the environment", but now they're not even pretending any more.
- "Energy independence" was always a cheap slogan to fool the rubes into paying more for an inferior product, but that's not working either now that the US is set to become the world's largest oil producer in 2015.
Like many government programs, graft is all that's left. The ethanol producers and the farmers feel entitled, and the politicians were bought off a long time ago.
I, at least, am unlikely to be weaned off ethanol.
Breakfast served all day!
Corn is solar power. The Republicans will subsidize solar, so long as the aristocracy gets its cut.
Learn to love Alaska
Ethanol is a great idea, but it doesn't contain the energy density that gasoline has, therefore, it requires much more to produce the same power. Most vehicles get about 1/2 to 2/3 of their fuel economy when running E-85 as opposed to E10 or E0. E0 is the most efficient use of the fuel we have, as it contains all the energy it needs and the vehicles can be better tuned to operate on a consistent product, whereas Ethanol is very inconsistent with energy it produces.
For a moment there i thought proibitionism was making a comeback. Get your dirty hands off my booze!
Given that the corn ethanol EROI is so bad, and most people seem to know, I'm kinda wondering who would be desperate enough to try it anyway. The problem is definitely not laughable however.
Je me souviens.
Ethanol is just a way to dump to excess produce, much like corn syrup instead of "true" sugar cane, or corn feeding livestock. It makes economic sense.
It would make environmental sense if all the wasted corn+vegetable matter were to be converted into full bio-fuels, not just blends - as long as one consider it a "waste", and not something that affects the price of foodstocks or arable land. Algae or hemp would probably be more efficient than corn, but they bring their own problems, such as water consumption in the case of hemp, or contamination in the case of algae...
"I don't know if the EPA is aiming for uncertainty, but they may inadvertently create it," says Jan Koninckx, the global business director of biorefineries for DuPont. "The impact could be that another country will lead this rather than the U.S."
Oh boohoo. Cry me a river. Let's have a look at DuPont's financial statements, shall we?
In millions of USD
2009 2010 2011 2012
Net Income
After Taxes: 1769 2745 3155 2493
If DuPont wants to lead in biofuels, DuPont should pay for the research to lead in biofuels. "Another country could lead this" is code for "give us free taxpayer money because $2 billion or $3 billion annual profit isn't enough for us."
How about do your fucking jobs and develop your own new markets. Start selling pure ethanol as fuel. Need to drive demand? How about Ellen Kullman goes and has a golf game with Alan Mulally. Ethanol-only F-150s should do the trick, especially if DuPont decides to sell mini-bioreactors suitable for farms.
But I forgot, Ellen Kullman has already had a golf game with Ryan Lance, so that isn't going to happen, is it.
Fuel from corn, and the subsidy for it, was a giveaway to Archer Daniels Midland. The subsidy expired a few years ago, but the requirement that corn be converted to fuel ethanol drove the price of corn up.
Ethanol from corn is probably a net energy lose. Ethanol refineries don't burn their own product for their own process heat. (Oil refineries do.)
Ethanol for cellulose, if it ever works commercially, has real promise. There's so much excess cellulose in the world produced as farming waste, from corn cobs to straw to wood chips. The first big ethanol from cellulose plants are coming on line in 2014. But they need subsidies to survive.
Obama's green energy drive comes with an unadvertised environmental cost. This isn't what is advertised as a ""green"" solution.
Don't think it's the leader as it stands right now. Might want to look at Brazil on that front.
100% of them will decrease the millage you get from the fuel.
E10 by itself will cause you to lose no less than 20% of your average MPG. This is why (contrary to ignorant believe) big oil companies LOVE ethanol. It causes you to buy more gas, not less. And in the end, that extra burn completely negates any environmental impact.
if a country's so poor their entire economy is farm based isn't the goal to get the price of food (and other necessities) low enough that people start having disposable income? The 'Big Mac Index' I think it's called.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Can the US be weaned off ethanol? That's like asking if nerds can be weaned off swirlies. They didn't want it in the first place!
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Because people can eat other things than corn. I do remember some farmers in the US feeding sweets instead of animal feed a couple of years back because it was cheaper though.
The ethanol used for fuel is made from industrial grade corn syrup. Because the corn syrup used is not food-grade, it is usually made using a process which uses mercury. So, the combustion of fuel with ethanol is actually putting mercury into the environment.. Mercury is considered a worse toxin than lead but it's arguably at much smaller quantities.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
I live in Iowa. We grow a lot of corn here. But there are other crops, things like soybean and sunflower. You know what happens when the demand for ethanol goes up? The price of corn goes up. And then what? People stop planting as much soybean and sunflower because corn is making them more. And then what? The price of soybean and sunflower goes up because there's a drop in supply.
And that's why a large bag of sunflower seed for my birdfeeder darn near doubled in price a few years ago, everyone was pulling out their sunflower and replacing it with corn. You don't really notice all these effects until they start hitting you.
Farmers will hedge their bets, plant multiple kinds of crops in case one of them tanks due to weather, but the ratio they mix in varies, to balance return and risk. When return on their main crop goes up, they can take bigger risks by pulling more of the less profitable crops out.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Not sure if US diesel fuel contain ethanol.
Even if ethanol provide a 1-to-1 substitute for oil (1 gallon of ethanol produced from 1 gallon of oil), it becomes a potential for curtailing future global warming. Corn can be engineered to have long roots thus trapping more CO2 in the soil. Since this corn is not going to be consumed (only processed into gasoline), it's not a food safety problem. And it is a solution to a potential AGW problem.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Corn is what FOOD eats.
fossil fuels create the fertilizer, they run the tractor and trucks. eliminating corn as a bio fuel would be a good thing.
..is whether the huge and insatiable agribusiness industry can be weaned off government subsidies for growing corn for ethanol.
And the answer is "no" until we can limit the money they're spreading around Washington like so much fertilizer.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I find it laughable when people say a reduction in will directly benefit oil companies. Most of those oil companies would be part of the renewable fuels market if they see a long term future in it. In America? unlikely. Brazil on the other hand uses E25 blends with many cars capable of much higher and for a while some even ran on neat ethanol.
As for oil companies, BP owns nearly 25% of the production capability of ethanol in Brazil as the market is so lucrative.
Face it, the US pushed ethanol to help the farmers, not the environment. Plain and Simple!
Answer: The ethanol requirements and subsidies still exist because the first presidential caucus is in Iowa. No political point in giving more than token "we believe in energy security" subsidies to algenol producers, who wield no political power.
Corn ethanol is a terrible deal for everyone except the corn industry. Getting rid of the requirement and subsidies should be a bipartisan no-brainer. "You mean I can do one thing that will free up a market, reduce the cost of gas at the pump, and benefit the environment and the poor, all in one shot? Sounds like an electoral success; send me the bill to sign!"
The *very* few presidential candidates who have said they don't support ethanol have been roundly trounced in Iowa and gone on to lose. Candidates who have the guts to stand up to the industry while in Congress routinely change their tune if they run for President (c.f. Bill Bradley, 2000). McCain stuck to his guns on the issue in 2000, leading to an embarrassing 4th-place Iowa caucus finish which robbed his campaign of early momentum and was a notable factor in GWB becoming the nominee. So McCain changed his tune to support ethanol when he ran in 2008.
The US amended the Constitution to get off ethanol once. That didn't last.
So the big reason for the EPA to suggest reducing ethanol gas is to protect the engines of cars? Yes they are a protection agency, yes they protect the environment but please tell me the reasoning behind protecting car engines? What next?
In Australia, Petrol (Gasoline) costs about $1.50/L(itre) and E10 costs about $1.46/L, so Gas costs 2.7% more than E10
CV of Ethanol is 29.7 MJ/Kg. CV of Gasoline (Petrol) is 47.3 MJ
so 1 Kg E10 has Calorific Value = 0.9 * 47.3 + 0.1 * 29.7 = 45.5 MJ/Kg
Calorific Value of E10 / E0 is 45.5 / 47.3 = 96.2%
So Gas has 3.8% more energy than E10
So buying gas for a 2.7% increase in cost we get a 3.8% increase in energy.
It's the Corn Lobby needs to be weaned off ethanol. Few others besides them care for the stuff.
This whole thread is really kind of hurting my feelings.
Good idea. Go do that.
Most modern cars can (or could if the manufacturer would have put in the effort) be made to run *better* on ethanol than on gasoline. While the ethanol production methods aren't really viable and older cars have serious trouble with ethanol because their fuel system simply disintegrates, in any car you buy new, you get more power and a cleaner burn from the E10 than from "premium" or "regular" classic fuel.
I agree that it would be good for owners of older cars to have the option to buy "pure" fuel so they don't have to deal with fuel hoses and pumps breaking on them. I agree that the current production methods don't actually make E10 a competitive fuel since they need government subsidies to make them affordable. However, I don't agree that E10 isn't "the good stuff" for most cars on the road, if you purely look at what your car runs best on.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Some facts:
According to quick research the US uses 370 million gallons of gas a day, so that's about 37 million gallons of booze at 10% additive.
Quick research show an adult population of about 250 million in the US
Some conjecture:
A number of that 250 million adults might not drink booze due to religious, medical or personal reasons, let's say 10% - so 225 million like a drink
Some of those people might not want to get drunk every day - let's say 20% - so 180 million might want daily booze
A gallon of booze would probabaly get 5 people drunk - so that's 185 million people that could be drunk every day
Some results:
Roughly every person who wanted to, could be drunk every day if the Government didn't make you burn booze in your car
Write to your Government NOW and stop this shameless waste of booze !
while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
This.^ Methanol is the elephant in the room. It's frustrating the so few people seem aware of it. Last I checked (last year) the price of methanol was about $1.50/gal. With 80% the energy density of gasoline, that works out to about $1.80/gal equivalent cost. And it can be made from any biomass, not just sugars, so it doesn't compete with food crops.
Seriously, this is a no-brainer. We need to pass the Open Fuel Standard Act and break the monopoly of petroleum in transportation fuels.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
You will always need a small about of Ethanol in the gas for oxygenation. MTBE was banned because of ground water contamination. Ethanol is relatively inexpensive and doesn't have the baggage of MTBE. It's here to stay because of the smog problems places like California have.
The gov't should have realigned subsidies for cellulosic ethanol, they also should have pushed a natural gas change over for heavy trucking.
"Matthew Wald reports in the NYT the the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed
reducing the amount of ethanol that is required to be mixed with the gasoline supply, the
first time it has taken steps to slow down the drive to replace fossil fuels with renewable
forms of energy.
Backing off ethanol and slowing down the drive to replace fossil fuels are not
clearly related. At best it is an acknowledgement that ethanol as we now use
it is a poor path to renewable fuel.
Any "energy" posting must/ should address the ugly truth that
we waste an astounding amount of energy where simple insulation
alone could reduce the loss by half or more. Heat capacity structures
and heat management could make homes and offices much more
comfortable if and only if we design for it.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
How did this thread accumulate hundreds of replies and leave this window open?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
No, corn is gasoline power since the amount of resources it takes to fertilize and harvest the corn (gasoline) and then refine it are almost all "fossil fuel" based.
I think the estimate is that something like 0.8 gallons of gasoline is needed to produce 1 effective gallon of ethanol. Putting aside the net economic loss there's the environmental factor on the soil to tear up the land in order to play gasoline conversion games.
If E10 is so good, why does my fuel consumption go up more then 10% when I use E10 vs pure gasoline? With E10 I actually use more petroleum gas per mile then with 100% gasoline. I track my mileage. A friend of mine reports the same problem and he also tracks his mileage.
I can see E85 saving petroleum fuel, but as best I can tell and anyone I know who tracks mileage, E10 INCREASES petroleum consumption.
The question I'd ask in response: Why should we be weaned off Ethanol completely?
Because corn ethanol is a disaster?
Corn ethanol is IMO a disaster, but that doesn't mean the CONCEPT of using plants to make fuel is a disaster, or that alternatives - algae, sugar cane, etc - for making ethanol cease to exist/stop being better alternatives to look at/explore/refine... something that REALLY pisses me off about the 'ditch Ethanol' crowd.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
I believe it's more like 60% the energy of gasoline. And, ethanol is not really toxic except in large quantities, whereas methanol is much more toxic. Methanol/gas mix could result in more poisoning incidents, potentially. That said, yes, methanol makes way more sense than ethanol. It's been pretty popular in racing circles. I used to play with model airplanes powered by tiny little .049 displacement engines. They used a fuel
which was mostly methanol and castor oil. I *LOVE* the smell of the exhaust they give off... but the
raw fuel is a bit nasty.