Consumer Reports Tests Show That E85 Ethanol Offers Cleaner Emissions

[Omaha Steve]

We are looking very hard at getting an E-85 vehicle. My wife passes the only pump in town with it on her way to work. We like the politics, even at a higher price.




FULL story: http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71591

Consumer Reports Tests Show That E85 Ethanol Offers Cleaner Emissions -- But Poorer Fuel Economy; Photo Available

8/31/2006 6:03:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Douglas Love, 914-378-2437 or [e-mail]; C. Matt Fields, 914-378-2454 or [e-mail], both of Consumer Reports

YONKERS, N.Y., Aug. 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Tests and an investigation by Consumer Reports conclude that E85 ethanol will cost consumers more money than gasoline and that there are concerns about whether the government's support of flexible fuel vehicles is really helping the U.S. achieve energy independence.

Findings from CR's special report include:

-- E85, which is 85 percent ethanol, emits less smog-producing pollutants than gasoline, but provides fewer miles per gallon, costs more, and is hard to find outside the Midwest.

-- Government support for flexible-fuel vehicles, which can run on either E85 or gasoline, is indirectly causing more gasoline consumption rather than less.

-- Blended with gasoline, ethanol has the potential to fill a significant minority of future U.S. transportation fuel needs.

To see how E85 ethanol stacks up against gasoline, Consumer Reports put one of its test vehicles, a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe Flexible-Fuel Vehicle (FFV) through an array of fuel economy, acceleration, and emissions tests.

Overall fuel economy on the Tahoe dropped from an already low 14 mpg overall to 10. In highway driving, gas mileage decreased from 21 to 15 mpg; in city driving, it dropped from 9 mpg to 7. You could expect a similar decrease in gas mileage in any current flex fuel vehicle because ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline-75,670 British thermal units (BTUs) per gallon instead of 115,400 for gasoline, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. As a result, you have to burn more fuel to generate the same amount of energy.

[LTR]

1. It could be a good long-term investment

Once the U.S. ethanol infrastructure solidifies, E85 will be much more widely available. And the prices will come down.

Many people knock E85 (just visit the Energy forum and see for yourself), but even though ethanol's energy potency is not as good as petroleum (leading to lower MPG), the cost could eventually offset that factor greatly.

Plus, there are more and more vehicles that are E85 compatible. GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler all make lots of cars that run on it. And not just trucks. The new Chevy Impala and the Chrysler Sebring both have flex-fuel capabilities available.

I became enthusiastic about E85 when I read an article about the massive success Venezuela is having with it. Of course, having all that cane sugar crop helps, but paying $0.12 is not a bad thing.

E85 isn't perfect, but at least it's a quick and simple response to combatting the over-reliance on foreign oil.

Here's more about E85:

www.e85fuel.com

[elocs]

2. Corn ethanol is a net energy loser. This is not a simple, easy choice.

It's a mistake to get politically feel good about E85 corn ethanol. It has been estimated that corn ethanol has an energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) of as low as 1.3, meaning you get one unit of energy back for 3 units of energy invested. Corn is a fertilizer and energy intensive crop. It takes petroleum to make fertilizers and corn also depletes the topsoil. It takes energy to convert corn into ethanol and some ethanol plants burn tons of coal to do it. So much for saving pollution. E85 corn ethanol is a great deal for corn farmers because it gives them a better price. ADM also likes it because they make millions and millions of dollars from ethanol. E85 corn ethanol deceives you into believing you are doing something good for the environment when you really are not. As the above article mentioned, ethanol has less energy than gasoline, up to one third less which means you have to burn more E85 to go the same distance as you would with gasoline. The question is, does that extra ethanol that has to be burned to go the same distance as gasoline negate its pollution benefits? It is calculated that if we used our entire corn crop for ethanol it would only replace 15% of our gas use.
There is not enough land available in the U.S. for food production and an ethanol production that would be big enough to make a difference. Also, somewhere down the line you face the ethical question of when there are people in the world who are starving and need food do we devote millions of acres of farmland for crop production that will produce ethanol so we may drive our vehicles whenever we like and as far as we like?

You have probably heard about Brazil and the success of their sugar cane ethanol which does have a much better EROEI of up to 9.1. The trouble is that you cannot grow much sugar cane in this country and the point about the amount of land needed for significant ethanol production comes up again. Brazil also uses labor to harvest their sugar cane which is near slave labor--not many unions down there. And how appropriate is it to clear rain forest to produce a crop to make ethanol? Also, there are not a lot of motor vehicles in Brazil. And you thought this was going to be easy.

[Omaha Steve]

3. We have sugar beet farmers going broke

That would be a great plus on the scale.

[IrateCitizen]

4. Don't buy the distraction of E85...

First, the article you cited hits one of the problems with ethanol -- poorer fuel efficiency.

Second, ethanol is much, much more corrosive to an internal combustion engine than gasoline. One thing that GM doesn't tell you is that if you want your engine to last the same length of time running on ethanol, its interior has to be coated to withstand ethanol's corrosive effects. GM didn't bother providing this coating b/c they know that with so little ethanol infrastructure out there, people will purchase the vehicles thinking they're being more "environmentally friendly" while they won't every really run them on ethanol.

Third, the idea of devoting cropland to monoculture production of ethanol is frightening -- especially in a time in which our topsoil and fresh water supplies are already seriously overtaxed by industrialized agribusiness.

Personally, the more I read about ethanol the more I believe it's a bad idea. But check it out more yourself and come to your own conclusions.

[elocs]

5. You will find the biggest cheerleaders and supporters of ethanol

to be people who stand to make a buck from it. They have a financial interest in promoting the use of ethanol, particularly corn ethanol. Concerning the use of biofuels in general and the talk of making use of all parts of the crop, if you do not put something back into the soil you will deplete the soil. That is why a lot of fertilizer must be used for corn, fertilizer that is made from petroleum products. In the early history of this country much of the move westward was because farmers had depleted the soil in the east. Food crops should be for people to consume and to keep people alive and they should not be diverted to enable people with cars and trucks to be able to keep driving as much as they like.

[poopfuel]

6. spreading myths

"Concerning the use of biofuels in general and the talk of making use of all parts of the crop, if you do not put something back into the soil you will deplete the soil"

Keep in mind that the only portion of the feedstock used to make ethanol is the carbohydrate. Carbohydrates are carbon dioxide, water and sunlight. Not a gram of minerals from the soil ends up in the fuel. The spent mash can be put right back where you got the crop from and replenish all the nutrients temporarily borrowed by the fuel crop to capture the sunlight.

Sorry dont' have a financial interest here. Just a truth interest.

The mash can be used as fertilizer too.

[elocs]

7. So corn grows from the soil by magic? That sounds like a myth.

Regardless of whether minerals from the soil end up in the fuel, they are certainly taken in and used by the plant. No matter what you feed the mash, corn ethanol is a net energy loser and there's no way around it--no myth. Corn does not grow like a weed--it takes a lot of energy to produce in using fertilizers, as well as insecticides and herbicides, then there is the water needed for its growth.

From: http://www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/factsheet.html "Of all crops grown in the U.S., corn demands the most massive fixes of herbicides, insecticides, and natural gas-based fertilizers, while creating the most soil erosion.8 52% of U.S. corn is genetically engineered.9 Ethanol is increasingly derived from biotech corn varieties.10" Also: "Meeting the lifetime fuel requirements of just one year's worth of U.S. population growth with straight ethanol (assuming each baby lived 70 years), would cost 52,000 tons of insecticides, 735,000 tons of herbicides, 93 million tons of fertilizer, and the loss of 2 inches of soil from the 12.3 billion acres on which the corn was grown.13 The U.S. only has 2.263 billion acres of land and soil depletion is already a critical issue. Soil is being lost from corn plantations about 12 times faster than it is being rebuilt.14"

The article closes with: "Many billions of dollars go to subsidizing the corn industry and ethanol production. This money could go much further if invested in the transition to conservation, efficiency, wind and solar.

Increasing the average mileage of passenger cars and SUVs by 3-5 miles per gallon would dwarf the effects of all possible biofuel production from all sources of biomass available in the U.S. Inflating passenger car tires properly today will have more impact on the energy independence of U.S. than the 2012 ethanol production requirements.36"

The article from http://www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/factsheet.html is not just somebody's opinion, but is footnoted with links for the footnotes. E85 ethanol from corn is not the answer to this country's energy problems and is a myth itself. If you spend more money than you make in profit you will eventually go broke. Corn ethanol takes more energy to produce than it gives back as well as adding to our pollution problem. It is a loser and that is not a myth. Everybody may not have a financial interest in promoting corn ethanol, but just like with Watergate you won't go wrong if you follow the money.

[poopfuel]

9. 70 million acres of corn grown a year

and ONLY 2.6 billion acres of land!
And we seem to be feeding everyone on 70 million acres....
Hm... there's a disconnect here. Guess we got lots of land still left.
The subsidies reap a substantial economic return. No one gets that. Conservative groups have calculated a tax revenue increase as a result of ethanol subsidies. Here's some LECG numbers
Cost of tax incentives -$1.8 billion
Farm program savings +$3.2 billion
Increased tax revenue +$1.3 billion
Net impact on treasury +$2.7 billion

No one talks ab out oil company subsidies. No one on Oil Drum ever does. You can search their site for subsidies and all you get is ethanol. But when it comes to oil subsidies, nothing ever is written about. Center for Technology Assessment has written on oil company subsidies. Suggest your energyjustice group who is looking for strawmen focus their attacks here. That's where the many billions of dollars go. That's where the money should be followed. The money that leaves this country, that is not in vested in this country, unlike ethanol.

Not saying corn is the best way to go. Didn't say that. Agricultural system is a mess and should be changed. But don't sit and quote me statistics and footnotes from people who have a vested in terest in seeing oil continue. Go ahead, increase mileage in cars. Go ahead, inflate your tires. You're still enslaved by the oil companies.

Biofuels, if done right, can do a lot for making us energy independent. We can do it without herbicides, insecticides, etc. All it takes is a grassroots revolution.

[Omaha Steve]

8. If the tractor uses ethanol is there a plus on energy there then?

And why not use sugar beets or switch grass, or sugar cane, etc...????

Looking for discussion, not a fight.