Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

US Ethanol Industry Eyes Valero's Bid for VeraSun

By Jennifer Kho, Contributor
February 24, 2009   |   30 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"I think oil companies are definitely going to be players in alternative energy. They bring a lot to the table — money, global reach and, most importantly, distribution."

-- Michael Butler, CEO, Cascadia Capital
30 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 30
February 24, 2009
OF course Big Oil is going to take a major interest in renewable energy and biofuels - it is profit protection! They have the money - and the lobbyists - to make sure their interests are protected and no other business group gets the drop on them in future developments.

Big Oil has been the #1 enemy of anything other than oil, tight up there with the DOE. They are happiest when crude goes through the roof and then claim "reasonable" 14% profit margins. Well, case in point, now oil is under $40/bbl and falling and gasoline is increasing toward $2/gal again. How do you do that if you are "maintaining" your profit margin? They use a batch-mode cost model, like paint mfgrs, sugar producers, and others that can not identify a unit of production in their process stream. The higher their raw materials go the more money they make - especially if they "keep their reasonable profit margin" of 14%!

The "good old boy" network has yet to innovate anything. Let that be a warning to us.
Comment
2 of 30
February 24, 2009
Don't you think it is interesting that the ethanol-based biofuel people are crying poverty and shutting down operations while the cottage industry making "biodiesel" out of reprocessed cooking oil are going great? Entrepenourship (sp) wins again! Where do you think we should be putting our hopes - ethanol or fryer oil? Interesting question, isn't it - doesn't really require a "rocket scientist" to figure that one out! (In case it was necesary, I really AM one!)
Comment
3 of 30
February 25, 2009
Professors of strategic business planning, when emphasizing the importance of understanding the essential nature of one's business, offer examples such as how early railroads lost market share because they thought they were in the railroad business rather than the shipping and transportation business and how Eastman Kodak has survived because it realizes that it's in the picture and imaging business more than the film business. It would be naive to think that oil companies don't understand that they're in the transportation fuel business; they will want to control and own whatever makes the vehicle go. You can be sure that they have calculated the effects of an automotive fleet comprised mostly of FFVs that can burn E85 (as is the case now in Brazil) and electric cars with on-board generators fueled by high-blend fuel like E85. Surely, they will fight to keep market share of their refined product and keep their capital intensive infrastructure of refining and distribution facilities operating near full capacity, but as biofuel becomes a higher percentage of transport fuel, you can expect to see more ownership by traditional oil (aka "transport fuel") companies. Also, until ethanol producers become astute about the market dynamics and economics of commodity businesses, you can expect to see more of them become road kill for the oil vultures. Thanks to Ms. Kho for a good article.
Comment
4 of 30
February 25, 2009
Of course Big Oil Companies are going to invest in renewable energy efforts - money follows policy! These companies have the money to invest (and lose temporarily) while the policies change and subsequently markets stabilize.
The unfortunate thing for me is that the current companies trying to make a go of it most likely contain the entrepreneurs needed to revitalize the energy industry and provide example for recovery of private sector in this country.
Comment
5 of 30
February 25, 2009
Inertia---the tendency of an object at rest to stay at rest, or an object in motion to stay in motion or to resist a change in direction.

Inertia is what makes a small power boat faster and more maneuverable than a large ship. It can accelerate, decelerate and turn more quickly.

The same is true of human organizations.

The fact that large oil companies are beginning to accept biofuels and incorporate them into their business plans instead of trying to squash interest in RE means that RE is getting on course to replace oil as the primary source of energy.

This really only makes good business sense for the oil companies. Cheap oil is running out. The price of oil is down right now----good for oil sales, but bad for oil production. You can only sell oil so long as you can produce oil. With prices down, it is hard to come up with money to invest in new exploration and production. With oil getting harder to draw production investment---the blending abilities of biofuels will become more and more important as time goes on. As oil companies get more experience and infrastructure in the biofuel area----the importance of petroleum in their portfolios is going to decline. Why invest large sums of money in more petroleum when the same investment in biofuels will produce more product to sell? You'll find more and more oil companies, instead of promoting anti-propaganda trying to debunk global warming and environmental damage, and discredit the advantages of RE-doing an about face and jumping on the bandwagon.

I think in this case, the inertia of large organizations could be a good thing. For one thing, we are no longer hearing the constant shrill screaming to drill, drill, drill. Although, I think we'll still need oil and natural gas for a long time to come. We can't blend biofuels without petroleum or natural gas to blend them with.
Comment
6 of 30
February 25, 2009
--------"Also, until ethanol producers become astute about the market dynamics and economics of commodity businesses, you can expect to see more of them become road kill for the oil vultures. Thanks to Ms. Kho for a good article."----------

This is normal economic dynamics for recession/deflationary times. The "road kill"created by falling demand and rising prices creates economic benefits for those who are able to survive the recession and acquire the "road kills". Doom for one, creates opportunity for the other. Economic survival of the fittest. Hard times are the harbinger of change.
Comment
7 of 30
February 25, 2009
The motor octane of ethanol is 111.7 making it work as an octane enhancer as well as an oxygenate reducing air pollution. The disadvantage of ethanol is it's lower caloric value than gasoline reducing milage per gallon.

Ethanol can be used to make ETBE which has a motor octane rating of 101 and also functions as an oxygenate. ETBE is essentially 43% ethanol and has a higher caloric value than ethanol. ETBE is safer to the environment than MTBE.
Comment
8 of 30
February 25, 2009
Fred, if "fittest" means biggest, hard times can also mean "no change," as big old companies gobble up the little new ones which would bring incremental change. Change will happen, of course, but probably more catastrophically, no? (Hence market=good, monopoly=bad.)

Question for the economists concerning the Law of Supply and Demand: The Law of Supply and Demand applies to widgets and crops, things which have a limit on production due to factory or field size. But once an oil field is tapped, it's practically unlimited supply, limited only by refinery capacity. Is the Law of Supply and demand really in effect with a comodity like oil, do you economists think?

It just seems ridiculous to say that oil prices went from $4/gallon to $1.5/gallon in two months because of "supply and demand."

(And why isn't "supply and demand" invoked for houses, which can only be built so fast and so have a limited supply, and thus really are subject to this economic law?)
Comment
9 of 30
February 26, 2009
--------"Fred, if "fittest" means biggest, hard times can also mean "no change," as big old companies gobble up the little new ones which would bring incremental change. "-----------

LOL, in this case, "you are what you eat" might be a more appropriate. If "big oil" places itself into the biofuel business by buying up smaller companies, they are essentially placing themselves into the biofuel business, which by definition removes what I think has been the most major stumbling block of all at getting biofuels established and functioning in the market place----resistance from the cartel of oil companies which has been a virtual monopoly up to now. I'm assuming that the companies who buy the biofuel production facilities intend to produce biofuels---it would not appear to me to be a wise decision to pay the money to buy the facilities just to idle or dismantle them---why not simply stand back and let them go into bankruptcy if that is the goal, same result with no investment. This is mostly how they became "big oil" companies in the first place, I'm sure they are aware of how it works. The fact that biofuels can be fairly easily produced from a wide range of materials makes them anti monopolistic. Since there is no way to lock out competition by hoarding raw materials(as in the case of petroleum reserves)---competition will have to be on who has the process that produces the most product at the least cost.
Comment
10 of 30
February 26, 2009
Ron Peterson------"The motor octane of ethanol is 111.7 making it work as an octane enhancer as well as an oxygenate reducing air pollution. The disadvantage of ethanol is it's lower caloric value than gasoline reducing mileage per gallon."---------

The higher octane rating means that ethanol can be used in much higher compression ratio engines than gasoline without pre ignition. Flex Fuel engines need to be tuned down in order to run gasoline---with compression ratios of about 9:1---ethanol engines can easily be tuned to compression ratios of 18:1 or greater. This makes engines tuned to run on ethanol much more thermally efficient than gasoline engines. Ethanol engines can be made that easily get more than twice the effective work and power of gasoline engines. This is why most serious race cars now run on biofuels. Indy Racing Circuit and Grand Prix Formula One both run on biofuels---Indy cars on 100% ethanol, Formula One on E85, thermal efficiency is the reason.
With ethanol widely available so that cars can be tuned to run on blends of ethanol over 50%, we can easily run Hummers or Expeditions on 4 cylinder engines of about 2 to 2.5 Liters displacement, have power to spare, and still get better miles per gallon than we do now with gasoline. With no hybrid technology needed. Hybrid technology saves fuel mainly in stop and go city traffic----increasing thermal efficiency saves fuel across the board---city and highway driving.
It is true that gasoline has more potential energy per gallon than ethanol---however, the higher thermal efficiency that can be obtained with ethanol more than makes up for the difference.
Watch the Indy 500 on Memorial Day to see what ethanol as a fuel can do.
Comment
11 of 30
February 26, 2009
Some quotes from a recent New York Times article:

" ...plants are shutting down virtually every week ..."

"...The ethanol industry is on its back despite the billions of dollars they have gotten in taxpayer assistance, and a guaranteed market...."

Here's a blog post on a symposium given at the recent annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science titled

"Fill 'Er Up With Rainforest"

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/newsblog/2009/02/fill-er-up-with-rainforest.html

"...Here's the nexus with the Amazon: When farmers in the U.S. planted more corn and less soy in 2007, Brazilian farmers started planting more soy, an increase of 500,000 hectares. Often, they cut down and burned rainforest to plant more fields...."

"...It's not known how much of new farmland is being used for biofuels, but Gibbs estimates it could be anywhere from a third to two-thirds. Unless biofuels are planted in pastures or degraded lands, she said, "we're going to be burning rainforest in our gas tanks...."

I've always said that the biofuel industry will one day be owned by the oil industry, or corporations that look and act just like them. It's all about profit, regardless of fuel.
Comment
12 of 30
February 26, 2009
Fred said:

"...Cheap oil is running out...."

Yes, but biofuels will go up in price along with oil, as we just witnessed last summer. When demand exceeds supply, costs go up. Biofuels will always be expensive. They will never be a cheap fix.

Fred said:

"... Flex Fuel engines need to be tuned down in order to run gasoline---with compression ratios of about 9:1---ethanol engines can easily be tuned to compression ratios of 18:1 or greater..."

Tuned down? Easily tuned? It's not as simple as "tuning" an engine. To take advantage of a high octane fuel you need a high performance engine designed to take higher pressures. That's why 100 octane gasoline is available. High performance engines can get more power using it. Put a low octane gas in a high performance engine and it will knock (pre-ignite). You can't just "tune" an engine to accept high compressions. You have to have an engine designed for it. An engine designed for a very high octane fuel can't burn a low octane one and a low octane engine can't take advantage of the high octane properties of ethanol.

Fred said:

"...Ethanol engines can be made that easily get more than twice the effective work and power of gasoline engines...."

A company called Scania has what is essentially a diesel engine modified to burn ethanol. It gets roughly the same thermal efficiency as a diesel (43%) but burns about 70% more ethanol than diesel!

http://gas2.org/2008/04/15/scanias-ethanol-diesel-engine-runs-on-biodiesel-too/
Comment
13 of 30
February 26, 2009
Fred said:

"...This is why most serious race cars now run on biofuels. Indy Racing Circuit and Grand Prix Formula One both run on biofuels---Indy cars on 100% ethanol, Formula One on E85, thermal efficiency is the reason..

Until just recently they used methanol. They run on ethanol to promote ethanol. The Indy 500 is held in the epicenter of the corn belt. Since all of the cars must use the same fuel it does not matter which fuel is chosen for the engine design. It's a level playing field.
Comment
14 of 30
February 26, 2009
Oh, and NASCAR engines burn 110-octane leaded gasoline:

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit-eaton/technomix/nascar-team-clean-its-eco-cred-formula-1-still-wins-race

Formula 1 racing uses unleaded gasoline:

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/6852/default.html
Comment
15 of 30
February 27, 2009
-------"An engine designed for a very high octane fuel can't burn a low octane one and a low octane engine can't take advantage of the high octane properties of ethanol."---------

Exactly why engines designed for ethanol can't use gasoline. You can use ethanol in an engine designed to use gasoline(flex fuel)---but you can't use gasoline in an ethanol engine. Therefore, you can't get the advantages of ethanol from a flex fuel engine, it has to have a low compression ratio to use the gasoline.

------"A company called Scania has what is essentially a diesel engine modified to burn ethanol. It gets roughly the same thermal efficiency as a diesel (43%) but burns about 70% more ethanol than diesel!"---------

Petro-diesel = 130,500 Btu/gallon (36.4 MJ/liter or 42.8 GJ/t)
ethanol energy content (LHV) = 11,500 Btu/lb = 75,700 Btu/gallon

Ethanol is not as dense as petroleum diesel. Ethanol density is .79 g/ml-----petroleum diesel is .84 g/ml.
The key number is thermal efficiency---how much of the energy put into the engine is returned as actual work---at 43% efficiency it is the same----and about twice the thermal efficiency of typical gasoline engines that get about 20 to 25% thermal efficiency.
---------------------------------
-------"Several teams in the American Le Mans Series run on cellulosic E85, and the Audi R10 that Audi Sport Team Joest will race at the 24 Hours of Le Mans next weekend will be fueled in part by biodiesel."---------

http://www.autowirez.co.uk/blog/formula-1-green-ethanol-environment-friendly/

You are right---the rules only specific "commercially available" fuels. Many US teams run on E85---there used to be arguments about whether E85 was "commercially available"---the question now is, can 110 octane gasoline be considered "commercially available"---you can't buy 110 octane racing gasoline at any retail filling stations. E85 can be, although not in large numbers yet.
Comment
16 of 30
February 27, 2009
NASCAR set to use unleaded fuel in 2008

Who is doing the research? who is looking at old info am I? Did it not happen? I thought watching Daytona 500 that the reason the winner tryed and succeeded in driving the entire race on one tank of gas was to prove that the new fuel along with the design of the engine .. that the car could do just that..
Comment
17 of 30
February 27, 2009
---------"Until just recently they used methanol. They run on ethanol to promote ethanol."----------------

Methanol and ethanol are nearly identical in fuel characteristics. Ethanol was chosen as the standard fuel because it is much safer to handle than methanol. Methanol is a powerful neurotoxin---ethanol is safe enough that you can drink it(a lot of people do), and it is a standard hand disinfectant in hospitals where staff routinely use it on their hands many times per hour when doing patient care.
----------------------------------------------------------
-----"Methanol is extremely toxic. If ingested, as little as 10ml can cause permanent blindness and as little as 60ml can result in death. Because of its similarities to ethanol (the alcohol in beverages), it is often difficult, if not impossible to tell the difference between the two (such is the case with denatured alcohol). "---------
-------" Firstly, methanol (whether it enters the body by ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through the skin) can be fatal due to its CNS depressant properties....."--------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#Toxicity
Comment
18 of 30
February 27, 2009
Dale------NASCAR is way behind the times---they only stopped using leaded gas last year-------leaded gas has been prohibited from sale since about 1970.

Sonoco produces the new unleaded gas that NASCAR uses---which is still not street legal although I don't know why, I can't find anything about its formulation, but it is posted as being only for off road use.

I suppose you could run a 500 mile race on one tank of gas, but it would have to be a very big tank. NASCAR racers only average about 5 miles to a gallon.

I doubt if too many people will be running out to put Sonoco 260 gtx into their gas tanks. The most economical way to buy it is 55 gallon drums and the cost is $424---$7.70/gallon.

http://www.worldwideracingfuels.com/category.aspx?categoryID=159
Comment
19 of 30
February 27, 2009
Fred said:

"...Exactly why engines designed for ethanol can't use gasoline. You can use ethanol in an engine designed to use gasoline(flex fuel)---but you can't use gasoline in an ethanol engine. Therefore, you can't get the advantages of ethanol from a flex fuel engine, it has to have a low compression ratio to use the gasoline...."

You just repeated what I just said. Wierd.

You are confusing the terms "power" and "efficiency." Power is the ability to release a lot of energy quickly, which is important to race car drivers, young men in drift cars, and older men having mid-life crises. It comes at the expense of fuel economy. Efficiency is the ability to go places using the minimum amount of energy to do so. A Prius engine trades power for efficiency but thanks to electric assist it has far more torque available when needed than a 2009 deisel Jetta.

The "advantage" of ethanol you refer to is the ability to get more power with a higher compression ratio, but because ethanol still has less energy per gallon than gas you still get less mileage (efficiency):

Source: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/07/detroit-auto-show-saab-biopower-concept/

"... It runs on 100 percent ethanol [the Saab high-compression Biopower engine], and because of that it gets more power than its gasoline powered equivalent. However, the trade off, of course, is that because it uses ethanol only, the engine alone provides less fuel efficiency...."

About 12% less mileage in this case, which is better than the more typical 30% less mileage. So they have an engine that gets more power but worse gas mileage.

In theory, if you build an engine capable of jamming enough ethanol and oxygen into a chamber (high compression) you can get the same mileage as gas. Nobody has done that yet and doing so would force you to use ethanol because other fuels would pre-ignite.
Comment
20 of 30
February 27, 2009
Fred,

I posted the links to the NASCAR and Formula 1 sites only to highlight the fact that you can't be relied upon for true information. You are a one man disinformation machine. Your claims on this site are refuted time and time and time again but you keep coming back with more:

"...This is why most serious race cars now run on biofuels. Indy Racing Circuit and Grand Prix Formula One both run on biofuels---Indy cars on 100% ethanol, Formula One on E85, thermal efficiency is the reason..."

Not only do most serious race cars (including drag racing, which I did not mention) not use biofuels, but those who do don't do so because of thermal efficiency. If thermal efficiency was the reason they would have all used ethanol from the start becuase it has always been available.
Comment
21 of 30
February 27, 2009
Fred said:

"…Ethanol was chosen as the standard fuel because it is much safer to handle than methanol…."

Again, not true Fred.

Three big names in the ethanol industry drove the fuel switch. Tom Slunecka, executive director of the Ethanol Promotion and Information Council representing those ethanol interests said:

"…We could have put our name on the side of a car to promote ethanol, but instead we did it the hard way, so we arranged this fuel switch…."

The switch actually puts Indy drivers at risk. The decision to use methanol was made after the 1964 disaster that burned two racers alive:

"...Many of those fans, who were seated near the northwest turn, vowed never to return to the track after seeing Sachs burned alive and MacDonald fatally injured...."

Source: http://www2.indystar.com/cgi-bin/indy500/index.php?action=show_race&id=48

"…If an engine fire develops in a methanol-fueled Indy race car, the pit crew simply pours water on the fire to put it out. Normally, the car is able to get back in the race in a matter of seconds…."

Source: http://www.methanol.org/altfuel/press/pr970521.html

For safety reasons,

"…Pure methanol is required by rule to be used in Champcars, USAC sprint cars (as well as midgets, modifieds, etc.), and other dirt track series such as World of Outlaws, and Motorcycle Speedway …"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol

"…Ethanol presents firefighters with several unique challenges. For instance, ethanol fires cannot be put out with water; instead, they must be smothered with the careful application of alcohol-resistant foams…"

Source: http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/public-safety-and-transporting-ethanol

"... Lab tests show ethanol diluted to 500 percent still burns steadily. Results do not support fighting a polar solvent tank fire by flooding it with water...."

Source: http://www.fireworld.com/ifw_articles/e95_08_07.php
Comment
22 of 30
March 2, 2009
"... Lab tests show ethanol diluted to 500 percent still burns steadily. Results do not support fighting a polar solvent tank fire by flooding it with water...."

You can not dilute something to 500%. It is either 100% or something less. You could dilute it with water to 5%.
Here is a lab test for you. Most commercial beers are 5% ethanol. Pour a glass full of beer, light a match and stick it in the beer. It will go out.

Now pour 5% gasoline and 95% water into a glass and light a match and stick it in. It will burn. It doesn't matter how much water you put in, the gasoline will float to the top of the water and burn.

----"-----"Methanol is extremely toxic. If ingested, as little as 10ml can cause permanent blindness and as little as 60ml can result in death. Because of its similarities to ethanol (the alcohol in beverages), it is often difficult, if not impossible to tell the difference between the two (such is the case with denatured alcohol). "---------
-------" Firstly, methanol (whether it enters the body by ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through the skin) can be fatal due to its CNS depressant properties....."--------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#Toxicity

Like I said before---ethanol is safer to handle than methanol.

------"In theory, if you build an engine capable of jamming enough ethanol and oxygen into a chamber (high compression) you can get the same mileage as gas. Nobody has done that yet and doing so would force you to use ethanol because other fuels would pre-ignite."-----

We've been doing it for years. Indy car engines typically run 18 to 24:1 compression ratios. Ethanol and methanol can both be used--but ethanol is much safer to handle.
Comment
23 of 30
March 2, 2009
I read recently of a potential increase in sugar cane Ethanol from Africa, and in particular Mozambique. The private equity company concerned is siting the US African Growth and Opportunities Act (this allows for tax-free ethanol imports to the US from sub saharan Africa) as it's USP over Brazilian sugar cane Ethanol. The site should produce 225M litres in Dombe, Mozambique. Given Big Oil's propensity to cripple the domestic alcohol fuel market in the US, how would they tackle the challenge from Mozambique? Furthermore can the US do anything to protect the local market from tax free African competition?
Comment
24 of 30
March 3, 2009
Fred: people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You yourself make typographical and spelling mistakes from time to time, like all people. Yet you have a nasty habit of jumping on others' typos and blowing them all out of proportion. That shows a diminished sense of fair play.

Russ Finley was quoting the source document directly. It looks to me that the person who wrote that article in Fire World made a typo and meant to write "Lab tests show ethanol diluted to 50 percent still burns steadily." Do you refute that claim?

Here's another quote, from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol):

"Mixtures of ethanol and water that contain more than about 50% ethanol are flammable and easily ignited. An alcohol stove has been developed in India which runs on [a] 50% ethanol/water mixture."

You are right that ethanol is safer to handle (in terms of its toxicity) than methanol. But you should also acknowledge that an ethanol fire is more difficult to put out than a methanol fire.

You keep talking about building high-compression engines and running them on ethanol (or methanol). Any explanation why such engines are not being sold commercially for private vehicles in Brazil, where access to a large and steady supply of ethanol is not a problem?
Comment
25 of 30
March 7, 2009
-----------"Fred: people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."------

I didn't make the typo. I'm just trying to point out facts. Here are the facts. Ethanol will burn down to slightly over 50%---that is how the proof system started.
"In the 18th century and until 1 January 1980, Britain defined alcohol content in terms of "proof spirit," which was defined as the most dilute spirit that would sustain combustion of gunpowder.[1]The term originated in the 18th century, when payments to British sailors included rations of rum. To ensure that the rum had not been watered down, it was "proofed" by dousing gunpowder in it, then testing to see if the gunpowder would ignite. If it did not burn, the rum contained too much water—and was considered to be "under proof." A proven sample of rum was defined to be 100 degrees proof; this was later found to occur at 57.15% alcohol by volume, which is very close to a 4:7 ratio of alcohol to total amount of liquid. Thus, the definition amounted to declaring that (4÷7) × 175 = 100 degrees proof spirit.

From this it followed that pure, 100% alcohol had (7÷7) × 175 = 175 degrees proof spirit, and that 50% ABV had (3.5÷7) × 175 = 87.5 degrees proof spirit.

The basic idea was that the percentage of alcohol by volume was multiplied by 1.75, which then gave the number of degrees proof spirit."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_proof#United_States_of_America

Alcohol is hydrophilic. It attracts water. It is used to remove water from
petroleum tanks. If you pour water on an alcohol fire, it will go out when the alcohol by volume goes below 57.5%. If you have a 500 gallon tank of ethanol that catches fire---it can be put out with 500 gallons of water.(lower the alcohol by volume to less than 57.5%) The smallest fire hose nozzle on this page delivers 60 gpm-it would take less than 10 min. to deliver enough water to put out a fire in a 500 gallon tank. 60x10=600.
(cont.
Comment
26 of 30
March 7, 2009
(continued)
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/categories/safety/fire-protection/fire-hose-nozzles

If you have a fire in a 500 gallon tank of gasoline, it won't matter how much water you put on it. Gasoline floats. The gasoline floats to the top and continues to burn. Pour water on a gasoline fire, and all you will do is spread the fire because the gasoline will continue to burn and be washed to other locations by the pressure or outflow of the water.

Second point. Ethanol burns with a near nearly invisible blue flame. No smoke. Petroleum produces clouds of black smoke that obstructs vision in large fires. This was the problem with the 1964 Indy race that prompted the change alcohol----smoke from the petroleum fires obstructed the vision of following drivers leading to secondary crashes.

Ethanol is safer than gasoline or methanol.
Comment
27 of 30
March 7, 2009
-----"You keep talking about building high-compression engines and running them on ethanol (or methanol). Any explanation why such engines are not being sold commercially for private vehicles in Brazil, where access to a large and steady supply of ethanol is not a problem?"--------

You seem to think that the world works by snapping your fingers and magically making everything happen in the blink of an eye?

Since when does the fact that something isn't being done right now means it can't be done?

The fact is, it already IS being done---the only difference is transferring the technology from the race track to the streets. The same way that new technology has ALWAYS been tested and proven on the race track and then made its way into mainstream motor manufacturing.

You call me stupid for supporting the replacement of petroleum with biofuels. So, present one single shred of scientific evidence that petroleum causes less environmental damage, less economic damage, greater homeland security or is a better fuel than ethanol or biodiesel.
Comment
28 of 30
March 12, 2009
Fred,

Nothing you say makes any sense. The source had a meaningless typo. Big deal. Everything you claim has been repeatedly refuted with multiple sources, again and again. Go back and look at the refutations, and sources. I'm not going to repeat them over and over to a man with his hands clamper firmly over his ears.

I can't find where anyone called you stupid. You are making stuff up again. You have been handed reams of scientific evidence over and over again. You ignore it, pretend it has not been presented and a few posts later, demand to see the same science you ignored again, but what would be the point, you would ignore it.
Comment
29 of 30
March 12, 2009
Fred, I know you are capable of civil and logical discourse. We've seen it on other strings. How about taking the high road?

Thanks for the chemistry lesson, but you seem to have missed the hint, which is that it just looks snarky and bad mannered to pounce on a typo and blow the mistake all out of proportion. You could have simply said. "That must be a typo: there is no such thing as a 500% solution."

Russ's and my points were that an ethanol fire is more difficult to put out than a methanol fire. You've now changed the subject to whether an ethanol fire is more difficult to put out than a gasoline fire. But since you broached the subject ...

Even Ethanol Producer Magazine recognizes that ethanol fires are a serious matter. One has to ask, if large volumes of water are all one needs, why are these guys talking about the need to keep on hand sufficient quantities of alcohol-resistant foam for putting out ethanol fires?

www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3171&q=&page=1

[A]lcohol-resistant foam has been available for quite a while ... but most small fire departments would usually only keep limited amounts on hand for car and truck fires, not the massive quantities that may be needed to handle a blaze at an industrial-sized facility. "Here is the problem we perceive": if I see a car going down the street and it's a flex-fuel vehicle, what's in it? Today, the driver may have found a gas station that carries E85. Tomorrow, he can only find a station that carries 10 percent ethanol. We won't know what's in that fuel tank until we put the wrong foam on it."

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in this article, even goes as far as to say, flatly: "ethanol fires cannot be put out with water" and "Ethanol in 20- to 30-gallon fuel tanks still presents a fire-suppression problem greater than gasoline."

www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/public-safety-and-transporting-ethanol

Perhaps you were shooting from the hip once again, Fred?
Comment
30 of 30
March 15, 2009
Thank god!!!!! They will get to keep thier jobs!!!! With out the buyouts they wouldn't be working.
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

Jennifer Kho

View Jennifer Kho's Profile
About: Jennifer Kho is a freelance reporter and editor based in Oakland, Calif. Aside from RenewableEnergyWorld.com, her stories have appeared in The New York Times' G... more »

Advertise With Us

Solar FlexRack DHL Global Forwarding - Renewable Energy Sector Via Expo Solar Power International 2011 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP Florida Alliance for Renewable Energy    Motech Industries, Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America 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 Photovoltaics World Magazine 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