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.""
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.
Ethanol requirements are corporate welfare for Big Corn.
It has nothing to do with renewable fuels or dependance on imported oil. The second the US has large scale ethanol production not using corn, any requirements for ethanol use will disappear.
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 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.
Notice how consumers aren't given the choice of buying "pure" gas, as opposed to E10. I'm pretty sure that if we had the choice we'd be buying the good stuff, not the corn crap.
+1
I'd really like to find a place I could get pure gasoline. I don't care so much for my road vehicles (one of which is an EV anyway), but I really hate putting ethanol in my boat. The alcohol is terribly corrosive if it ends up sitting for an extended period of time. Cars and trucks generally get driven enough that's not a problem but recreational vehicles may go months -- or occasionally, years -- between uses. I had to spend $600 on a complete carburetor rebuild for my boat last year because it had sat unused for two years and the ethanol had really screwed up the carb.
The mechanic said that in the future if I'm going to use ethanol and might be leaving the boat to sit for more than about six months, that I should ensure that every drop of fuel is cleared out of the carburetor and fuel lines. Fuel stabilizer that keeps the gasoline from separating doesn't prevent the alcohol corrosion. His recommendation is not to use ethanol, but about the only places I can find pure gasoline are boat fuel stations on lakes (where the gas is $5+ per gallon).
I'm all for reducing petroleum consumption, but ethanol is the wrong way to do it, for all sorts of reasons.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
corn fields are cheap to operate
They also promote monoculture farming and depletion of soil, which in turn requires huge inputs of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and also makes GMO attractive.
The US corn policy is exceedingly damaging to the economy, the environment, and public health.
'pure' gas... 'corn crap'... 'good stuff'...
Humbug.
Corn is not a good stock for producing fuel ethanol, that much is true. Not that there is something wrong with the ethanol itself, it is just a rather inefficient way to get there.
'pure' gas and 'good stuff' is just what you'd expect to hear from someone who read a flyer written by a stakeholder to incite the masses. The product coming from the refinery is neither 'pure' - and a good thing that is as your engine would not run that well on 'pure' petrol - nor 'good stuff'.
Ethanol can be a good fuel for internal combustion engines. It burns clean, tolerates high compression ratios without problems and - in contrast to what many sources state - stores well. Its energy content per litre is lower than that of petrol, which in turn has a lower energy content per litre than diesel. This in itself is not a problem but it does lead to higher specific fuel consumption rates and with that more fuel for the petrol lobby.
Modern cars - at least those from Europe and Japan - have no problems with higher ethanol ratios. The real limit is often the maximum capacity for the fuel injection system: as ethanol has a lower energy content per litre, more fuel is needed for the same load. Injection systems in engines tuned for petrol simply can not supply enough fuel per combustion stroke for higher ethanol ratios. This can be adjusted though, eg. by raising the injection pressure. The often-heard problem with ethanol dissolving seals and gaskets might apply to old vehicles but it is unlikely to be a problem when talking about more recent (say, made in the last 20 years) engines. If the car has been running on petrol for many years the ethanol will dissolve the crud left behind so you'll want to change the fuel filter more often in the beginning.
As to my personal experience with this I can state that, other than the ethanol dissolving some coating from the inside of the fuel tank on my soviet-era Ural motorbike - which runs on E85 (85% ethanol) - I have yet to see a single problem caused by ethanol while we use it in various ratios - from 45% to 85%, depending on the application - in many engines, from a '92 B&S lawn mower to a 2003 Skoda. I've used it in 2-strokes as well but this has been less of a success as it is hard to keep the fuel and oil mixed. As soon as I find a good (and inexpensive) lubricant which stays mixed I'll use in the chain saws as the exhaust gases are less noxious than those from petrol.
--frank[at]unternet.org
Corn is only cheap because it is subsidized by my tax dollars. No one ever bothered to make a distinction between food crops and fuel crops, neither did they bother to subsidize nutritionally beneficial crops. This is why manufactured food is cheaper than anything in the produce aisle and why everything has corn syrup or some other corn based derivative in it. Ditch the damn agriculture subsidies and incentivize the actual goals of the public facing message, clean energy consumption and production. Our food supply and thus our health will improve and engineers can work towards solutions with technical rather than artificial merits.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Exactly and the E10 used can, by law, only be corn based ethanol. So those crying of other ethanol producers being hard is 100% propaganda. The whole ethanol thing was generated by the corn farmers lobby and it had nothing to do with environmental or geo-political oil industry factors.
I'm hoping ethanol gets dumped.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Is that why the republicans voted to stop obamacare which centrally manages 1/5 of the nations economy?
No, that's why they voted to approve it.
The reason why they voted to stop "Obamacare" in particular is because it was suggested by Obama, not because they actually have any ideological stances on economic freedom (Tea Party aside).
"If you fill a car with 100% gasoline and park it for 20 years, it'll start right up."
Bullshit!! You will be cleaning the varnish and other settled crud out of the jets/fuel bowl, injectors/lines, pumps, and the fuel tank. I've got a fifty year old combine out back that's been sitting for twenty years in 2014 with just such a problem along with two cars and a tractor that were in the same boat that had been sitting for even less time.
I think PBS Frontline is a fairly non-biased source of information:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/interviews/pollan.html
So most people think of a cow as something that's out grazing, and then is taken to the slaughterhouse. ... No, not true. Cows see very little grass nowadays in their lives. They get them on corn as fast as they can, which speeds up their lifespan, gets them really fat, and allows you to slaughter them within 14 months.
The problem with this system, or one of the problems with this system, is that cows are not evolved to digest corn. It creates all sorts of problems for them. The rumen is designed for grass. And corn is just too rich, too starchy. So as soon as you introduce corn, the animal is liable to get sick.
It creates a whole [host] of changes to the animal. So you have to essentially teach them how to eat corn. You teach their bodies to adjust. And this is done in something called the backgrounding pen at the ranch, which is kind of the prep school for the feedlot. Here's where you teach them how to eat corn.
You start giving them antibiotics, because as soon as you give them corn, you've disturbed their digestion, and they're apt to get sick, so you then have to give them drugs. That's how you get in this whole cycle of drugs and meat. By feeding them what they're not equipped to eat well, we then go down this path of technological fixes, and the first is the antibiotics. Once they start eating the [corn], they're more vulnerable. They're stressed, so they're more vulnerable to all the different diseases cows get. But specifically they get bloat, which is just a horrible thing to happen. They stop ruminating.
Only because they didn't get a chance to vote it back then. The evidence is clear that Republicans were perfectly okay with pretty much every single provision that makes up Obamacare, up until the point where it became known as Obamacare.
I honestly don't know why I'm ever bothering to argue with you, really, because anyone seriously claiming that Republicans are a "small government party" is either insane or blind - their track record for the last 30 years is anything but.