E15: Our View

There is an alternative view: This is simply a desperate play (some would say not the first) by a deeply unpopular administration in the run up to a very important election.

As energy policy it seems its main accomplishment, at this point, is to add complexity to everybody's lives. Hands up all those who'd like more complexity!

There would seem to be more obvious ways to increase ethanol consumption: One would be to encourage E85 consumption. And if you do it in the Midwest, at the point of production, perhaps you can save on fuel transportation, twice (no less): less oil to the Midwest, less ethanol out of the Midwest. Seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?

And if this was about reducing our exposure to Hugo (Diablo) Chavez, or some other bad guys, there is an easier way to do that too: scrap the tariff on Brazilian ethanol. More sources = less risk. So obviously, it is not about reducing risk, or the influence of our oil enablers.

Ethanol is not a great fuel: E100 burns with a clear (aka invisible) flame. So E100 (ouch! it's burning) is a no-go. Blending ethanol with gasoline (the current solution) introduces a bunch of other issues: increased vapor pressure (leading to higher emissions and more evaporative losses) and moisture absorption (leading to corrosion issues and, eventually, phasing out, with catastrophic consequences).

Human nature, being what it is, the green movement is looking for a Messianic Fuel to lead it to the Promised Land of General Acceptance. I'd submit that Ethanol is not it.

I'd further submit that the search for a messianic fuel is folly: existing liquid hydrocarbons are not easily going to be beat. I'd say that a better approach would be to find ways to produce green liquid hydrocarbon fuels: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

That way, you don't have to concern yourself with any blending walls (artificial or real). You also get to keep Uncle Sam, and his centuries old alcohol problems, out of your life. What's not to like?

I'm trying to figure out how a site that is for the promotion of renewable energy can seriously say that increasing ethanol production is a step forward. Seriously? Do you guys understand how ethanol is produced, especially here in the US? Mainly it comes from corn, which means that corn now will have increased competition from the energy sector for use of a widely depended upon crop source, which will shoot up the prices of it as a food (mainly of course for poor countries). The production of corn for food is already down. That aside, to turn corn into ethanol, it requires fossil fuels, a lot of them. Such a large amount that it negates any benefit of using them vs. oil or gas. Then, there is distributing the fuel, again dependent upon fossil fuels. Then there is the run off from production that pollutes the water. How any serious environmentalist can see this as a benefit to the earth is not seeing the glass as half full, they are only seeing half the glass.

Thanks foglifter!

As produced in the US, ethanol is mainly a scheme to convert natural gas (used for the production of fertilizer and as a source of distillation heat) into liquid vehicle fuel. At great cost to the US tax payer.

There is an easier way. Just use CNG directly in your car. At no cost to the tax payer. And leave the farmers to produce food, not fuel. Let the farmers do what they do best: Feed the world!

Of interest: until recently there were just as many CNG filling station pumps as E85 pumps, about 1,600(1). Yes Virginia, a home-grown alternative to oil. At no cost to the tax payer.

(1) http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2009/04/02/natural-gas-gaining-momentum/

The only things artificial about ethanol are the mandates and subsidies. Remove those and we would go to E0.

There are so many reasons that ethanol is not he answer that we could not list them all here. Number one being it takes as much or more energy to produce one gallon ethanol as you get out of it, WHERE DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE??? Not to mention that without massive injections of government money it is dead at the starting gate.

Hmmm, Thanks to some of the other posters. Ethanol now better knows it's enemys. One is clearly political. Another wants us to but it from another country like we do oil. And a few that must own stock in an oil company. Oh, and one that lies or or doesn't have two brain cells to rub together. Yes, I'm biased. There is and ethanol plant in my town. :-)

Thanks for the insults, Gary!
Your tone speaks volumes. I also note that you absolutely FAIL to address any of the issues raised by the other posters. I guess that is the best that ethanol supporters can do: wrap it in the flag and hope nobody minds the (ever-rising) costs.

As far as getting (cheap and more environment-friendly) ethanol from Brazil: they don't produce enough to hold us hostage. However, if OPEC gets any crazy ideas, we'll be very happy for every gallon we can get out of Brazil. Capiche?

Poor little, innocent ethanol now knows its enemies, eh? Shame. It must be SO hard being Uncle Sam's pet. Especially when there is no sign that he'll sober up.

OK, you have guarenteed market share. Now end the Corn subsidies to rich farming conglomerates and use the most efficient technologies to produce ethanol and diesel.

Is there still a real need for S.1589, H.R. 4070, which Extends the Biofuel Tax Credit for 5 Years? Is there a need to keep penalizing Brazil for it's 10 to 1 gasoline to ethanol production in favor of corn's 1.6 to 1 ratio?

Commercialized advanced Biofuels: Algae Ethanol and Cellulosic Biodiesels using less land to produce more Oil replacement liquid fuels:

* ALGENOL; the only algae to ethanol company (Cellulosic Biofuel production at under $2/gallon in 2011, producing 6000 gallons/acre compared to Corn's 400 gallons/acre)

http://www.eenews.net/tv/transcript/1176

* POET Corn and Cellulosic Ethanol ($2.35/gallon and going lower to $2/gallon by 2011)

http://www.eenews.net/tv/transcript/1066

ZeaChem CEO: Sound Cellulosic Biofuel Solutions Will Proceed Without U.S. Subsidies
http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20100804/zeachem-ceo-sound-cellulosic-biofuel-solutions-will-proceed-without-us-subsidies
Cellulosic ethanol technologies that are well developed and rival the cost of fossil fuels will thrive in the U.S., with or without long-term subsidies, ZeaChem CEO Jim Imbler said.

"There are two types of players in the [ethanol] industry," said Imbler, whose Colorado-based firm makes fuel and chemicals out of insect stomach bugs — those who "need" subsidies to be profitable and those who can compete without them.

"Look, we need to do this on our own," Imbler said in a telephone interview with SolveClimate News. "If the government helps us get going — or there are subsidies out there — we'll take them. But you're not going to base your whole business model on the benevolence of government."

ZeaChem broke ground on its first demonstration facility in Boardman, Ore. in June. The biorefinery will eventually produce 250,000 gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year.

coenraad--" Ethanol is not a great fuel: E100 burns with a clear (aka invisible) flame. So E100 (ouch! it's burning) is a no-go"--

Ethanol burning with a clear, smokeless flame.

Petroleum burns with massive clouds of thick, acrid black smoke and soot.

Pollution is caused by burning fuels in engines. So which fuel produces less pollution? Ethanol. That is why it has been required by law to be sold in the highest pollution market areas to reduce pollution for the last 20 to 25 years.

You can put out ethanol fires with water. You can't do that with petroleum. In most cases it just spreads the fire.

Spill ethanol in a river or in the ocean, and it simply dilutes in the water and washes away. No toxic dispersant needed. No massive wildlife kills. No toxic habitat damage.

Ethanol is so safe, that hospital workers wash their hands with it to prevent the spread of infections hundreds of times a day, day in and day out---it no ill effects---except to the bacteria. You can't do that with petroleum.

Ethanol is safe enough to drink. Everyday if you want to. Hundreds of millions of people do. And cook their food with it too. Would you like a nice tall glass of gasoline with your shrimp and crude oil sauce?

We don't have to import ethanol from people who want to kill us.

I commented on the other pro-ethanol blog above, but I can't help myself, so here it is again. Hasn't corn-ethanol been essentially debunked ? Like it takes 4 gal of water, oil-based fertilizers + chemicals, diesel fueled vehicles moving around, and lots of topsoil for each gallon of ethanol. You can't make ethanol (yet) without massive oil input. Not to mention the unfortunate competition with food. And how about those international food riots in 2008? Awesome!

Did the article mention that burning ethanol creates CO2. Ethanol is essentially a small hydrocarbon with an alcohol group attached to it. And if we want to push ethanol for all the right reasons, why aren't we more aggressively supporting cellulosic ethanol?

I'm all for getting off foreign oil, but come on. Don't we already know that corn-ethanol is bullshit?

I cannot understand why the West is married to E85.E100 can provide the same performance as Gasoline/E85. There is enough research done in your country to achieve that.

Second factor is why the west thinking of grains, sugar cane and grasses? Grains are food item, with high keeping quality. Grains, Grasses and Sugar cane( another grass )also cause environmental and ecological problems.- aquifers drying up. peak water ( peak oil ) etc.EIA estimated energy requirement by 2035 as 737.7 Quads BTU.Using three perishable agro products one could produce 1143 quads of BTU.Two limitations soil and climate Preferred climate Tropical. Why not invest in the tropics to produce the e100 you require.I can assure you that it will cost about 0.04 US cents per litre - ex factory.This is only the outline, more things are involved in arriving at that price.
You can contact me at spupalisw@yahoo.com or spuaplisw@hotmail.com

A further comment, howard-hull-16528 comments on energy involved in the production of ethanol is a US based mind boggler.

All your raw materials have short life cycles. There are tropical based feedstock with life cycles stretching on to 10 years or more, they require one capital investment per life cycle,the with reasonable canopies soil depletion stops and minimal soil improvements required ( fertilizer for one)soil water holding capacities improve.Most of the mechanized services in the US can be performed by labour (UK English). In the tropics labour is plenty and cheap.This will make feedstock supply to the factory much cheaper than your Corn etc.The distillation system can be adjusted to drastically reduce the cost of energy.E85 need sophisticated handling system which add to the cost.

Fred Linn ~ dude, strong argument. Righteously Good stuff.

Rojelio ~ also good stuff. That's why, now that the market has been expanded, the USA can end subsidies, and still grow an industry, and buy efficiently produced product from Brazil. The goal is to make it as efficiently as Brazil (and they still have to ship it here so just 85% as good would do it), instead of paying millions to Brazil in penalty because America subsidizes domestic manufacturers;

Americans borrow money from China, to pay Big/Rich Agriculture Companies, and then pay Tribute/Penalty to Brazil because this practice places all other Exports and Jobs at risk.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/02/AR2010060204228.html

"In short, the U.S. cotton industry's dependence on subsidies that violate international trade agreements turned it from a mere waste of taxpayer money into a threat to other American exporters and the jobs they support. As four House members, Democrats Ron Kind (Wis.) and Barney Frank (Mass.) and Republicans Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), put it in a recent letter to the president, the cotton program is "quickly becoming a liability for future trade growth. Instead of effectively reforming our programs, we are electing to pay $147.3 million annually to Brazilian agribusiness so that we can continue to pay around $3 billion a year to large U.S. (Cotton) agribusiness."

Nice little spin job, Fred!
Note that a clear colorless flame is DANGEROUS, because you don't see it burn. Between lower pollution and danger, guess which takes precedence?

So Upali,
There is actually a reason the West limits itself to E85.

"You can put out ethanol fires with water. You can't do that with petroleum. In most cases it just spreads the fire."
Nope, it's not quite that simple:
1. It takes a ton of water to put out an ethanol fire: "At 10 percent, ethanol is still combustible. That means that if you had a spill involving a 100,000 gallon tanker you could dilute it with as much as 900,000 gallons of water and still have a fire hazard. Good luck finding that kind of water."
2. You need foam. But not ANY old foam: "Dealing with ethanol on fire involves using an ATC (alcohol type concentrate) foam specifically designed for polar solvents. Straight AFFF and protein foam will not work. A fire department with an extensive stockpile of the wrong kind of foam would be on the same footing as the poorest rural VFD equipped with no more than fire axes and good intentions."
3. And even then an ethanol fire can persist: "Even with the right kind of foam, fighting a polar solvent fire is no cake walk. I remember a burning 160-foot diameter storage tank in Texas City. Even with a foam blanket six to eight feet deep, flames were still visible. It took four days to bring that one under control."
4. Add to that, you need a TON of the RIGHT king of foam: "How much ATC foam will you need in addition to your standard stockpile? Using ATC on an ethanol fire will require double to four times the amount of foam used to extinguish a gasoline fire of the same size."

Let's not forget that unlike petroleum products which is mostly shipped in pipelines, ethanol is shipped by truck or railcar, increasing the risk of fires, as many communities are finding out, to their cost.

Quotes from: http://www.fireworld.com/ifw_articles/ethanol_07.php

People ask yourselves why would some spend so much time trying to convince us that only petroleum is good for fuel? Why try to convince us that ethanol can only be made from food even though it has been stated many times that it can be made with reject cellulose, algae, and other plant materials? There is one reason to demonize alternative energies and that is protectionism for existing market share of liquid fuels by petroleum producers. Big oil companies want us to use only petroleum so that prices will continue to rise as supplies decrease and their profit margins will increase. They don't care that our water supplies are 85% polluted from petroleum use. They don't care that our oceans are unhealthy and fishing stocks are severely depleted. The more demonizing of alternative energy I see, the more I know oil companies fear that the public will learn how making fuel from renewable sources provides freedom from supply strangleholds of big oil companies and freedom from market manipulations, and the freedom for farmers to make their own fuels. The health effects from replacing petroleum alone is a worthy reason for alternative fuels. If ethanol production was not a worthy business pursuit then there would be no reason to pay for a costly campaign to attempt to demonize it as few business owners will spend money unless they expect to succeed.

Some further comments about the ethanol demonization from oil company shills. Notice how Chavez is singled out to be demonized as an exporter of fuel when no such venom is directed at Saudis or other OPEC producers, who are the source of Bin Laden and other extremists and terrorists. Chavez socialized the petroleum industry and drove out big oil, allowing the population of his country to benefit from their resources instead of allowing international pirates to steal the resources and leave pollution behind. That is why big oil hates Chavez the same way other criminals hate police. These deniers of alternative fuels are just criminals who care nothing for the needs or rights of the population, but only care about their own profits.

coenraad-pretorius-176946. My question was why is the west limiting itself to E85. E100 ( hydrous ethanol) can perform equally well. This had been studied in detail by many researchers in your country.I have a report which states that Los Alamos National laboratories got 49m.p.g.on E100.Hydrous ethanol does not need specialized handling, it can be transported via pipe lines.Does not cause damages to the installed system.If one select the proper feed stock one get fuel at the pump at about US $ 0.10 cents.with minimal or nil damage to the environment.

-----" Some further comments about the ethanol demonization from oil company shills. Notice how Chavez is singled out to be demonized as an exporter of fuel when no such venom is directed at Saudis or other OPEC producers, who are the source of Bin Laden and other extremists and terrorists. Chavez socialized the petroleum industry and drove out big oil, allowing the population of his country to benefit from their resources instead of allowing international pirates to steal the resources and leave pollution behind. That is why big oil hates Chavez the same way other criminals hate police. These deniers of alternative fuels are just criminals who care nothing for the needs or rights of the population, but only care about their own profits."-------

yup.

The Future of Biofuels', an article published by The Economist on October 28, 2010, criticizes the US biofuels industry for manufacturing corn ethanol, a product that nobody wants and that nobody can afford. Corn ethanol can't be used to fuel cars older than model year 2007 if the ethanol to gasoline blend is more than 10% without voiding the emissions warranty. Additionally, ethanol stores less energy, absorbs more water, and is more corrosive than gasoline. So, the US biofuels industry used their political influence to create demand by lobbying for mandatory ethanol blending requirements, to become profitable by lobbying for a $6 billion annual subsidy, and to eliminate competition by lobbying for import tariffs.

-------" corn ethanol, a product that nobody wants and that nobody can afford. Corn ethanol can't be used to fuel cars older than model year 2007 if the ethanol to gasoline blend is more than 10% without voiding the emissions warranty."--------

You need to make that, "I don't want"---you can only speak for yourself. "Nobody else" is completely false.

We have been using up to E85 in flex fuel cars for over 25 years without damage or voiding warranties. The reason that conventional cars can not use E85 is cheap shoddy parts---so the auto industry that makes the cars with cheap shoddy will not guarantee their products. So you want to blame consumers and the fuel they want to use because the automakers want to use cheap shoddy parts and will not honor their warranties?

If you as a consumer want a warranty---then you need to insist on a flex fuel car.

-----" ... absorbs more water, and is more corrosive than gasoline."-------

Yes, it does absorb water. That is why alcohol has to be put into fuel tanks that have been contaminated with condensation or water to get it out. Alcohol is added because it will dilute the water and carry it out. Gasoline won't.

"corrosive" = solvent. Gasoline is a very poor solvent. It leaves large amounts of sludges and varnishes. "oxygenates" are solvents because they contain an OH radical---oxygenates are alcohols. Gasoline HAS to contain oxygenates to remove deposits and increase octane rating. Oxygenate additives is the only selling point that gasolines have. "Platformate", "Textron" etc. etc. are made up names for advertising gasoline additives to disguise the fact that alcohols have to be added to gasoline or it will very quickly gum up the fuel lines, pump, valves, rings and injectors. You won't go anywhere in a car that does not have oxygenates added to the gasoline----just starting up the engine could cause preignition and destroy the engine.

Your article from Economist magazine is written by someone who is full of political opinion and rhetoric----but very short on basic chemistry.

Much like yourself---so I am not surprised at your choice of reading material.

However, it you want your car to drive properly, some knowledge of chemistry will go a lot further than political rhetoric.

from coenraad, comment #19-----" "You can put out ethanol fires with water. You can't do that with petroleum. In most cases it just spreads the fire."
Nope, it's not quite that simple:
1. It takes a ton of water to put out an ethanol fire: "At 10 percent, ethanol is still combustible. That means that if you had a spill involving a 100,000 gallon tanker you could dilute it with as much as 900,000 gallons of water and still have a fire hazard. Good luck finding that kind of water."------

This is completely, utterly false. ----" "At 10 percent, ethanol is still combustible."----- That is completely untrue---ethanol burns down to a concentration of 57.6%. Less than 57.6% concentration it will not burn.

This is not too surprising. Inventing "facts" out of thin air to support your dictates to the rest of us seems to be your forte.