ETHANOL is stupid.

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by dd74
If true, that seals it for me.

Yeah, but to date, I don't see too many mid-western farmers blowing themselves and others up because of some religeous beef with their customers...

[MotoSook]

Same source:

The Congressional Research Service (CRS)/ Department of Energy (DOE) Report for Congress examined the carbon dioxide loading potential of corn ethanol versus gasoline and found that corn ethanol yields 37% as much CO2 as gasoline on an energy content basis. At first this number looks very encouraging but a closer examination of the report reveals key problems with this analysis. The main problems with the CRS/DOE report are:

1) - the most optimistic value for energy used in the conversion of corn to ethanol is used, 40,000 BTU/gallon (14,110,000 J/kg), 50,000 BTU/ gallon reflects a mean value for the industry.

2) - two different energy values are used for ethanol, 84,500 BTU/gallon ethanol (29,800,000 J/ kg ethanol) and 75,700 BTU/gallon ethanol in the calculations. A commonly used value is 80,000 BTU (28,200,000 J/ kg ethanol), the burning temperature at 25 C.

[Craig 930 RS]

Yeah, too close in concept to pure electric cars.......energy required to make the electricity made little sense. And both are inefficient - one in mileage, the other in capacity.

And we know how popular electricity-only cars are.

[Nathans_Dad]

To me, the real energy solutions are:

1). Solar- Truly unending source of energy (at least till the sun burns out and then WHO CARES). Problem is efficency of collection. Eventually I think we will have an array of huge solar satellites around the sun which send energy back to earth.

2). Wind- Only problem here is the huge turbines needed and the relatively small amount of energy produced. Plus it kills little birdies which pisses off the environmentalists.

3). Nucular- Certainly not without dangers, however I think if we truly begin to expand our Nucular capability we could eventually just start firing the stuff into space (plenty of radioactivity to go around in space). Of course the Borg might get pissed at us and invade...

P.S. Yes I know that isn't how you spell nucular. I'm strategerizing...

[dhoward]

Nuke the corn.

[Nathans_Dad]

Mmmm...popcorn...

[MotoSook]

I have to check the numbers. Craig's reduction in mileage seemed a bit high to me. What grade Ethanol fuel? E85?

[David]

From a previous post:

Here's an article I just read from Turbomachinery that sheds some light on the ethanol issue:

Somebody's been smoking switchgrass
INPUT-OUTPUT ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT MORE ENERGY FROM FOSSIL FUELS IS SPENT IN PRODUCING ETHANOL THAN CAN BE EXTRACTED FROM IT
I am intrigued by the recent endorse¬ment of ethanol as a vehicle fuel, both in the recent U.S. State of the Union address, and by General Motor's pro¬motion of its E85 vehicles. I have been aware of the concept for quite some time, and like others, believe that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it contains.
It does not take very long to realize that there are two sides to this discussion and that they have been going at each other in a variety of public and technical forums. On one side you have the corn industry companies and their associations along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, while on the other, a host of academic and research professionals.
There were a series of papers and reports in the 1999-2001 timeframe, fol¬lowed by a 2003 analysis by David Pimentel, a Cornell university professor, in which he declared ethanol produced from corn to be an "unsustainable subsi¬dized food burning."
This did not sit well with the corn industry or its advocates. No surprise here!
The industry responded with a series of critical analyses of its own, declaring that Pimentel's work was outdated, did not properly account for improvements in crop yield or process efficiencies, and included energy consumed by processes beyond the boundaries of normal analy¬ses. Their claims played to the national desire to reduce oil dependency, embrace renewable alternatives and the use of "readily available coal and natural gas." They dismiss the input-output analyses and their authors as "BTU counters."
I too am an avowed "BTU counter," and considering entering a 12-step pro¬gram to cure my own addiction.
In response, Pimentel and Tad Patzek, a Berkeley professor, revised their work in 2005, updating their original assump¬tions on agricultural yields and process efficiencies, but they did not alter their conclusions [1]. The paper is challenging to read, but conclusive in its assessment: • Ethanol production from corn grain requires 29% more fossil energy to pro¬duce than is contained in the ethanol fuel
• Ethanol production from switchgrass requires 50% more fossil energy to pro¬duce than is contained in the ethanol fuel Factoids influencing these negative outcomes:
• The fermentation process limits ethanol concentrations to 20% ethanol because the yeast cannot survive at higher con¬centrations
• Fractional distillation of this mixture yields a difficult-to-separate 96% ethanol, 4% water azeotrope
• 99.5% purity is required for blending E85, requiring further and more complex dehydration schemes involving interme¬diate compounds
• 1 liter of ethanol produces 13 liters of wastewater
• 30% of the energy input to grow corn is for natural gas-derived nitrogen fertilizer
• Corn production uses more nitrogen fer¬tilizer than any crop produced and is a major contributor to groundwater and river water pollution
• Natural gas accounts for 90% of the fer¬tilizer cost
• A reported 22% of the fertilizer capacity in the U.S. has been shut down and 50% of the nitrogen fertilizer is now imported
• Corn and soy crops cause topsoil loss that is 10 times the sustained rate
• Recovering corn stalks as it is called increases this by another factor of 10
Since natural gas is no longer consid¬ered "readily available" or affordable, the industry focus is now turning its empha¬sis toward the use of coal as its energy source and the feedstock for fertilizer, and the ethanol economics are now much more dependent on "co-products."
The theory on co-products is that we would be doing this anyway, so only the incremental costs need be included in the analysis. Ethanol is also "supported at the pump" through a variety of subsidies that mostly benefit the fuel producers, not the farmers.
We do not have a limitless supply of coal. We all talk about a 250-year supply, but this is at current consumption levels. This could easily be reduced to a 50-year supply if we implemented all the ideas
based upon the use of "inexpensive" coal.
I feel like we are running side-to-side on the Titanic! I don't think we want to turn coal into subsidized ethanol fuel. Rather than to pursue what seems to be special interests driven by the moment, we need to build fuel feedstock flexibility into our strategy. This is why the U.S. needs a real energy policy, divorced from short-term commercial interests and truly focused on long-term energy security and supply.
The various gasification and liquefac¬tion type processes (p. 8) seem to offer this ability, and at the same time, seem to be consistent with the technologies cur¬rently under development as part of the clean coal efforts.
I think we can all agree that security, energy and environment are the critical issues facing us today, but we need to be pragmatic in our analyses and conclu¬sions. The E85 seems to be driven more by special interest than science, whether derived from corn or switchgrass. CO
PS: The so-called Cape Town Convention has just become effective. This 10-year effort by the Aviation Working Group and led by archrivals Boeing and Airbus makes it easier for creditors to seize air¬planes from deadbeat carriers. I guess that legacy carriers worldwide will now feel the pressure of start-up competition on their routes (See column in p. 40, Nov./Dec.).
Reference
[1] Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2005
Author
Peter Baldwin is an industry consultant (www.base-e.net) and former executive of Ingersoll-Rand Company's Northern Research and Engineering Corp. (NREC) subsidiary. Reach him at pete_bald-win@base-e.net.

[David]

The company I work for is in process to get approval for a new nuclear unit at our South Texas plant. I just heard we're getting the model sent to our shop to make sure it's ready for the next board meeting. I wonder if we're going to need special security for the model?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by legion
When gas was $3.15, E85 was $0.50 cheaper. That's 84% of the price for 73% of the gas-mileage--so that's still a loser.

Now, gas is $2.35 a gallon and E85 is $2.30 a gallon. That's 98% of the price for 73% of the gas-mileage--an even bigger loser.

ADM is headquartered exactly 40 miles south of me. Nearly every station in town sells E85. This is probably the densest market for E85 in the country.

It's actually much worse than that. There are two hidden costs of ethanol. First, more petroleum is consumed in the manufacture of ethanol than it replaces; and two, it is tax subsidized in order to make it price competitive at the pump.

It is in fact way more expensive to use than petroleum fuel.

Edit: I just remembered two additional things. One, we don't need an alternative fuel source, since the globe is awash in oil right now. And second, since the new discovery of a huge oil field in the Gulf of Mexico will more than supply America with any deficit in oil created by a total cutoff of supply from the mideast, we simply should stop all government effort to force ethanol on us, and then stop all government funded research in alternative petroleum sources as well. Private industry will meet the need without the government interference with and in the market.

[Craig 930 RS]

I'd love to see ethanol work - but the deal breaker is the crappy mileage. Read........and weep:

[cegerer]

Government subsidies are not a legitimate argument when comparing petroleum fuel to ethanol or bio-diesel. One would need to factor in the enormous and on-going 'subsidies' of ‘keeping the relative peace’ in the Mideast over the past 40 years. That’s our sole interest in that part of the world – they’ve got the friggin’ oil that makes the wheels turn! How fun would it be to be completely free of Mideast oil dependancy - our military would have a literal field day over there without concerns of maintaining the flow of oil ....

Would it be too obvious then to suggest that a national energy policy be set to allow companies to drill for our own oil on our own land? We’ve got incredible reserves – more than we can use. OTOH, if our policy is to continue to rely on foreign oil and all the baggage that goes with that, then ethanol/bio is probably the way to go to get us through in the short term.

[74-911]

Ethanol is creating big problems in the gasoline powered boat world. Per an article in Boat/US magazine there are 2 problems with it:

1. Ethanol absorbs moisture from the air, ethanol is a solvent, and boat fuel systems must be vented. The ethanol is dissolving fuel varnish and other gunk in tanks and when combined with H2O it absorbs from the air forms a gelatinous gunk which clogs filters and fuel systems.

and the biggie:

2. Many high-end boats ( Bertrams and Hatteras' in particular)built in the 1960's thru 1990's were built with fiberglass fuel tanks. Many of these boats are considered classics and are still very valuable. The ethanol is dissolving the resin in these tanks and the resin / gasoline mixture is destroying very expensive engines as well as causing the fuel tanks to eventually weep gasoline (very bad news in a boat).

These particuclar issues may or may not ever apply to cars but ethanol has the potential to cause a lot of problems.

[kaisen]

Energy Dept.: E85 is an energy winner

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060911/SUB/60908061/1128/EDITORSPICKS&refsect=EDITORSPICKS
Harry Stoffer | | Automotive News / September 11, 2006 - 6:00 am

WASHINGTON -- Along with automakers, the Bush administration wants to end debate over whether ethanol made from corn yields more energy than does the fuel used to produce it.

The Energy Department's verdict: It does.

A new department brochure says that 740,000 British thermal units of fossil energy are consumed to make and deliver ethanol that contains 1 million Btu of energy. The latest version of the brochure, issued last month, is part of a broad department defense of ethanol.

The department cites an analysis by the Argonne National Laboratory, which identifies a big positive energy balance for corn ethanol. The calculation includes the natural gas, petroleum products, electricity and coal used to grow corn, distill it into alcohol and deliver ethanol. It does not count solar energy in the corn.

The analysis "has laid to rest some long-held misunderstandings about ethanol," the department says. Critics who call ethanol an energy loser don't account for the improving efficiency of ethanol plants or other benefits, the department adds.

When scientists perfect methods for making ethanol from plant debris -- so-called cellulosic ethanol -- the energy equation will look even better, the department says.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E85's bottom line
To power a vehicle the same distance as gasoline, E85 made from corn

Requires 24.3% more overall energy input

But consumes 32.9% less fossil energy

And expends 69.5% less petroleum energy

Source: Argonne National Laboratory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critic unbowed

"Every argument they make is bogus," says Tad Patzek, one of the leading critics of ethanol, of the administration's defense. Patzek, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, vows to keep fighting ethanol.

Even if the administration's optimistic assumptions are granted, Patzek says, ethanol at best breaks even. That is, the energy derived from ethanol would be no greater than the energy used to make it, he says.

The technology to produce cellulosic ethanol is far from proven, Patzek adds. And it would threaten tropical ecosystems where plants would be harvested for ethanol.

Automakers build hundreds of thousands of vehicles each year that can run on E85. Those manufacturers -- especially the Detroit 3 -- want to see the debate ended in ethanol's favor. E85 consists of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.

Beth Lowery, General Motors' vice president of environment and energy, says she knows of at least a dozen major studies of the energy balance of ethanol. Nine of them find ethanol to be an energy winner, she says. The Argonne study is the most important, she adds.

The disagreements among the studies reflect researchers' assumptions, Lowery says. Some analysts who declare ethanol an energy loser count the energy used to make trucks that haul corn, she says.

They also don't account for the value of ethanol byproducts, such as cattle feed that remains after the fuel is made, she adds. And ethanol critics rarely consider the amount of energy needed to deliver a gallon of gasoline to a service station, Lowery says.

Other hurdles

Ethanol faces other big obstacles. The fuel requires heavy government tax breaks to be economically competitive with gasoline. Fewer than 900 of the nation's 170,000 filling stations sell E85.

Ethanol got a big boost this year when President Bush, a former oil man, touted it as a way to break the nation's "addiction to oil."

The Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group, says ethanol made from corn offers limited environmental benefits and limited potential for large-scale replacement of petroleum. But it is a key to the transition to cellulosic ethanol, the group says.

Michael Wang, the Argonne analyst whose research model calculated ethanol's positive energy balance, believes the debate is overblown.

Wang says about two-thirds of the energy used to make electricity is lost before the current reaches consumers.

[Aurel]

To comment on the 27% gas mileage reduction with ethanol:
Who cares about gas mileage if the the gas is cheaper and polutes less than oil? Gas mileage is irrelevant, what matters is $/mile.

Just my .02 cents.

Aurel

[David]

I'm worried about ethanol, but I'm willing to give it a try. Maybe technology will make it viable.

My daily driver truck isn't very old and my 930 has all new fuel lines so I'm not too worried about corrosion with them. I am worried for others and I STRONGLY recommend all older Porsche owners replace their fuel lines.

With that said, it seems like I'll be able to make use of the E10 fuel in Houston when I program my new EFI. Of course I'll have to adjust my AFR's for the gas/alcohol mix.

Does anyone know if the octane rating on E10 is accurate or is it actually higher due to the ethanol?

[Craig 930 RS]

"To comment on the 27% gas mileage reduction with ethanol:
Who cares about gas mileage if the the gas is cheaper and polutes less than oil? Gas mileage is irrelevant, what matters is $/mile. "
------
Did you read the article.....it costs a hell of a lot more per mile than gas.

[kaisen]

Originally posted by 125shifter
Does anyone know if the octane rating on E10 is accurate or is it actually higher due to the ethanol?

E10 around here is typically 2-3 points higher than regular.

[David]

Do you know if the 93 octane super is higher too?

[pmajka]

more ethanol, higher octane rating?????
or is the size of the boom different than how fast it combusts???