Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

A Public Relations Strategy for Ethanol Fuel

By Jeffrey Goettemoeller
February 25, 2008   |   19 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

19 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 19
February 25, 2008
How wonderfully amusing it is to watch the gyrations of the ethanol industry as the public becomes aware of what a tremendous con this "alternative" fuel is. The entire premise of your article proves the case that ethanol is fool's gold, in that it requires a propagandistic PR campaign to get people to buy into it. Very soon, articles about ethanol and biodiesel won't be able to appear on this website. Because they are not renewable fuels.
Comment
2 of 19
February 26, 2008
The premise for my article is that, in addition to promoting the real advantages of ethanol, a switch to ethanol-optimized vehicles is the best way to gain the support of motorists. Many motorists are motivated by cost more than other factors. Optimization will also make ethanol more renewable. This is a good thing, and deserves to be publicized. That is what I call public relations. To call it propaganda implies deception is involved. Alex, I hope you don't believe I am trying to be deceptive or encourage deception. I am not an ethanol industry insider. It is possible to make ethanol in a non-sustainable way. Regulations and incentives governing the industry should be aimed at improving sustainability. Encouraging optimization for better fuel economy is one way to do this. Even ethanol skeptics should be able to agree that, as long as we are going to use fuel ethanol, we should use it as efficiently as possible. 
Comment
3 of 19
February 26, 2008
<p>Or even if we assume the standard NPK approach to fertilizers.<br />Where is that going to come from, pray tell? <br /><a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/13/64820/6921" target="_blank">http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/13/64820/6921<br /><br /></a>Doesn't sound &quot;Sustainable&quot; to me.&nbsp; Much less scalable to an extent where &quot;Energy Independance&quot; would be anything more than just political rhetoric. </p>
Comment
4 of 19
February 26, 2008
<p>Kind of sad how the term sustainable, is used in his writing. There's nothing sustainable about soil mining. Just as any other extraction process is not sustainable.</p><p>Does this book even highlight at all the fact that plants require more than just water, carbon, and nitrogen fertilizers to grow? <br /><br />Much less the land use impacts associated with biofuel production. Especially when you start to factor in the issues of displacement. For instance, a ton of soy taken of the US food market, popping up in the Brazilian Rainforrest to meet that demand.<br /><br />It's also kind of pathetic when people look at Brazil as a model. Brazil uses 7x less oil per capita, and 90% of their transport fuel is petroleum.<br /><br />Or how about the fact that Ethanol use often makes Air Quality worse, so much so that in 2005 California sought a federal waiver such that they could take it out of Gasoline.&nbsp; (Which was denied) </p>
Comment
5 of 19
February 27, 2008
<p>Will corn fuel ethanol policy increase oil use and oil profit?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;* Some folks think so</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;* Clean Air Performance Professionals&nbsp;</p>
Comment
6 of 19
February 27, 2008
<p>&quot; Ethanol does indeed have fewer BTU&rsquo;s per gallon as compared to gasoline. But a BTU is a measurement denoting heat energy.&quot; This is unscientific double talk. BTU/USG or BTU/lb are the standard measurements of the total energy content of fuels be it gasoline, aviation gasoline, jet fuels, diesel fuels, marine fuels or coal.&nbsp; Vehicles optimized to operate on gasoline will have better gas milage than those operating on ethanol as gasoline has 33% more total energy content than ethanol. Any comments on Scientific America's article &quot;Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat&quot;?&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </p>
Comment
7 of 19
February 27, 2008
Ethanol does indeed have fewer BTU&rsquo;s per gallon as compared to gasoline. But a BTU is a measurement denoting heat energy. Much of that energy is wasted in operating a vehicle. What if more of it could be harnessed to actually turn the wheels? Ethanol can do just that in a properly designed vehicle. Its higher octane allows for adjusted timing, a higher compression ratio, or turbo boosting which lets a vehicle go more miles on a gallon than would be expected from measuring heat energy alone. More of the available heat energy is channeled to actually turning the wheels. BTU does not tell the whole story. This is a little known but very important point. <br /><br />I agree that water use is a challenge for ethanol. I would just point out that crops such as sorghum, grasses,&nbsp;and&nbsp;some&nbsp;trees use much less water than typical row crops. Using municipal waste as a feedstock will help as well.
Comment
8 of 19
February 27, 2008
<p>&nbsp;</p><p>the article deserved a lot of the criticism. If ethanol wants to become legitimate it needs to sever its relationship to Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), and get off corn for ethanol and soy beans for biodiesel. There are lots of better feedstocks, such as the cited sweet sorghum or tropical maize. But the biggest problem in&nbsp;biofuel production is - where is the added water coming from? Twenty four states are already in drought, some of them in the nation's &quot;breadbasket.&quot; The second biggest problem is cost. When ethanol gets to $30/barrel it won't need any public relations.</p>
Comment
9 of 19
February 27, 2008
<p>Jeffrey, your article is so right.&nbsp; Especially when you can use simple sugars to reduce production costs. We are forming a company using a proprietary technology to place 1 million gallon per year plants on small farms. It is simple and the host farmer makes more money which will bring the farmer back to the farm. The words renewable and sustainable applies here. We have a biz plan and every VC wants it, although they also want 90%+ of the technology. I have been through this before with Solar for the US but it's too expensive and relies on incentives. There are 500,000 farmers which can use our small plants which can be assembled in 1 week. Don't let the oil industry put a damper on ethanol. Corn based ethanol is phase 1 and cellulosic is phase 3. We are there now.</p>
Comment
10 of 19
February 27, 2008
What is a Neocon?
Comment
11 of 19
February 27, 2008
<p>Mr. Goettemoeller should read the article in a recent Scientific American:</p><p>Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL February 8, 2008<br /> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=biofuels-bad-for-people-and-climate</p><p>Since the article is not PC and does not follow the current ideology that bio-fuels are the answer to energy independence has not received much attention by the media. &nbsp;</p><p>&quot;Encouraging optimization for better fuel economy&quot; is an oxymoron since ethanol&nbsp; has only 66% of the energy content of gasoline in BTUs/USG. Simply removing the 10% ethanol mandate would increase fuel economy immediately. &nbsp; </p>
Comment
12 of 19
February 27, 2008
The use of cellulosic biomass, especially current wastes, is a key to making biofuels sustainable and low carbon.&nbsp; It's scandalous that all new vehicles aren't already flex-fuel.<br />However, 2 major studies, one for CA and one by a national lab, found enough feedstock, even cellulosic, to power only 1/3 of our transportation energy needs without cutting into food production or forests.&nbsp; This is clearly insufficient, but plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) can use electricity for the first few miles each day, reducing liquid fuel consumption enough for biofuels to someday supply 100%! The electricity can come from increasingly renewable generation, especially because of nighttime charging, when wind energy peaks but electric load is at a minimum.<br />CalCars' goal is to get the auto manufacturers to build flex-fuel PHEVs. PHEVs and biofuels can accomplish a full change from fossil auto fuels to sustainable renewable energy that neither can alone.
Comment
13 of 19
February 27, 2008
Ethanol is a Neocon plot to drive up food costs as it is a net/net loss as fuel. And&nbsp;the&nbsp;Car&nbsp;makers&nbsp;are&nbsp;in&nbsp;on&nbsp;the&nbsp;scam.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;We have the answer to cleaner air and better mileage as seen in all our full page ads in Popular Science , Popular Mechanics, Newweek, US News and World Report ect. &nbsp;Our Hydro Assist Fuel Cell is showing 50% to over 300% increases in all types of vehicles and almost no pollution &lt;&gt;&lt; Fuel used &nbsp;Gasoline ! &nbsp;And Soon our PICC will be avaliable and it works on Diesel or Gasoline or Bio-Diesel and gives 400% to 700 Fuel Mileage increase and absolutly No Pollution &lt;&gt;&lt; &nbsp;See it 1st at WIREC 2008 SHow in Wash DC this March 4-6. &nbsp;picctv.com/better
Comment
14 of 19
February 28, 2008
<p>This is a strange set of comments that include:</p><p>Adding 0.1% more energy and preheating the fuel will double your gas milage.(Hydro Assist Fuel Cell )</p><p>Energy content BTU/gal is all that counts toward fuel efficiency.</p><p>Biofuels are good for GHG</p><p>Biofuels are Bad for GHG</p><p>The world is starving since we use corn for fuel in USA.</p><p>There is a Neocon Conspiracy, whatever a Neocon is.</p><p>In the end it will be the economics of the solutions that will determine what is done in the long term.&nbsp; That is measured in $/mile.&nbsp; The history of recycling paper and other materials has taught use this.</p><p>Doug</p>
Comment
15 of 19
February 28, 2008
<font size="2"><p>Time to wake up folks. America put 35,000 square miles of corn into it's gas tanks this year. That's 35,000 square miles of savanna and rainforest carbon sinks that will now be cleared to compensate for the gigantic hole ripped in the human food chain. Not to mention the latest three articles in Science magazine showing all crop based biofuels are far worse than fossil fuels.</p><p><a href="http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/biodiesel/page3.html" target="_blank"><font size="2">http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/biodiesel/page3.html</font></a><font size="2"> </font></p></font><p><font size="2"><a href="http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/biodiesel/bob.html%3Cimg" target="_blank">http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/biodiesel/bob.html&lt;img</a> </font></p><p><font size="2">src=&quot;http://gristmill.grist.org/images/admin/crayon2.JPG&quot;&gt;</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
Comment
16 of 19
March 1, 2008
&quot;In the end it will be the economics of the solutions that will determine what is done in the long term.&quot; Unfortunately while this view should be true government mandates on the use of bio-fuels combined with massive subsidies to agriculture and the bio-fuel industries forces a single solution, distorts the economic picture and makes real economic decisions impossible.&nbsp; &nbsp;
Comment
17 of 19
March 8, 2008
The differences of the past will do nothing to orient the future in a better light. It will only serve to introduce a new set of differences. How many enjoy the competitive games on TV which only serve to preserve the pissing contests of an adolescence not outgrown, while wondering why we cannot be given better solutions for now. Co-operation is the key.
Comment
18 of 19
March 11, 2008
<p>Jeff -</p><p>Ethanol cannot be distributed by existing pipeline infrastructure.&nbsp;&nbsp;Use of E10 means that 10% of total fuel product&nbsp;has to be transported separately, by train and/or truck.&nbsp;&nbsp;Clearly, if ethanol assumes a larger fraction of the fuel product, that becomes increasingly problematic.&nbsp; How does one factor in the challenges(cost, logistics)&nbsp;presented by other-than-pipeline transport of ethanol product to markets beyond the heartland?&nbsp; To what extent is the product's alleged&nbsp;benefit negated&nbsp;by this parallel logistics construct?&nbsp; </p><p>Are engines &quot;optimized&quot; for ethanol less than optimized for gasoline?&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>
Comment
19 of 19
December 29, 2008
"Unlike MTBE, little is known about the impacts of ethanol releases into groundwater or the environment. However, because ethanol is the primary ingredient of beverage alcohol, which is classified by the California Proposition 65 Committee and other cancer experts as a human carcinogen, many are concerned about the possibility that ethanol may pose a cancer risk. Additionally, independent researchers have determined that ethanol in groundwater can extend plumes of other more potent gasoline carcinogens (benzene, toluene, etc.) up to 25%. In addition, ethanol is less effective than MTBE at fighting air pollution, and due to transportation and supply problems, will likely increase gasoline prices."

Stella Sez, Hemmings Motor News, July 2000

http://clubs.hemmings.com/clubsites/capp/july.html
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

AltaTerra Research RevoluSun HelioSage Via Expo Brightergy Midwest Renewable Energy Association Prudent Living, Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters