Ethanol industry, automakers facing off

[jpak]

http://www.pe.com/lifestyles/driving/stories/PE_Fea_Driving_D_ethanolbattle0505.2a3bbb7.html

The boom in U.S. ethanol production that Detroit automakers and ethanol proponents have worked hand in hand for years to achieve could soon pit the two industries against each other over how much of the fuel in your vehicle's tank is too much.

With outlets for the alternative fuel growing slowly, the ethanol industry is considering asking federal officials to allow sales of gasoline with up to 20 percent ethanol, double the current limit, for use in all cars and trucks.

But U.S. automakers say outside of the 5 million vehicles they've sold that are capable of burning 85 percent ethanol, their cars and trucks weren't designed for such fuels.

General Motors Corp. Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, who touted ethanol's potential during last month's New York auto show, said he had asked GM's engineers about the effect E20 would have on its older vehicles.

<more>

[muntrv]

1. Maybe the automakers need to adjust.

[TheFarseer]

2. not a good idea

Putting fuel into your car which it was not designed for is bound to have consequences and I'd hate to see a full-scale backlash against Ethanol, as I believe it is part of the answer to our energy problems.

[razzleberry]

6. any car built since 1985 can use this stuff

any car with an oxygen sensor,
which is everything today,
can use this stuff

[Deja Q]

3. I once heard it takes 1.2 barrels of oil to make 1 barrel of ethanol.

In short, surely there are better solutions -- such as 'clean coal' plus light rail transit?

Hell, dump some of the government subsidy into the oil industry and divert that to coal + light rail and voila! Oil usage plummets, the net difference in pollution would be an astronomical improvement... it's WIN-WIN. The execs still have their patents and their ability to retire on money that could last them a thousand years and more if they used only $50,000/yr... a wage most corporations seem to think is too much for an American. :eyes:

[IDemo]

5. That may have been from one of Pimentel's earlier studies

Most current studies conclude that Ethanol has a positive energy balance, although by how much varies:

from the Department of Energy, and Argonne National Lab's GREET:

Ethanol : The Complete Energy Lifecycle Picture explains that by accounting for energy use of the whole cycle of ethanol production beginning with fertilizer manufacture, GREET determined that producing ethanol from corn requires 0.74 million Btu fossil energy input per million Btu of ethanol delivered to the pump — versus the 1.23 million Btu fossil energy cost per million Btu of delivered gasoline produced from petroleum. In addition, GREET showed that producing ethanol from corn reduces fossil energy use, petroleum energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions, whereas cellulosic ethanol can produce much greater fossil energy and greenhouse gas benefits.

[razzleberry]

9. then you heard completely wrong

the liquid fuel energy gain is more than ten to one.

I'll post a link to the Argonne National Lab
study, if anyone is interested

[Dogmudgeon]

11. These responses are apples-and-oranges

First of all, you are talking about oil-to-ethanol EROEI. Most of the studies are for the EROEI for all ethanol production. That figure has typically varied from 0.85 to 1.75, and there has been a major corporate push to discredit anyone who reports an EROEI less that 1.0.

For example, there are hundreds of near-identical hit pieces posted on blogs on David Pimentel and Tad Patzek, who have criticized the inefficiency of ethanol. I personally can't understand how these guys keep their jobs, since they are also critical of the Bush regime and factory farming.

My own conclusion about ethanol (and always subject to change) is that ethanol's biggest boon could be in freeing agriculture from reliance on petrochemical energy. Sadly, most ethanol production is controlled by oil companies; uses corn, not more efficient cellulosic sources; and is poured right into our gas tanks. Devil take the hindmost.

--p!

[IDemo]

12. Please explain - oil to ethanol?

The study I linked to from Argonne was for the EROEI for corn ethanol. It requires 0.74 million Btu of fossil energy to produce and deliver one million Btu at the pump, yielding a "well-to-tank" efficiency figure of 135%. They indicate that the numbers for cellulosic ethanol will be "much greater".

I'm not really an ethanol fan. I believe we cannot hope to increase production enough to offset by any real amount the decline in oil production, nor do I think we should. The damage to topsoil and groundwater from increased industrial agriculture isn't worth it to make ethanol a significant part of our transportation energy mix. I think, as you do, that its primary use should probably be for farming.

On who controls ethanol production, oil companies aren't heavily involved (yet). Ownership of the industry:

* Taken together, farmer- and locally-owned ethanol plants make up 40% of the nation's ethanol industry.
* Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) controls about 25% of the nation's ethanol production.
* Other companies (VeraSun, US BioEnergy, Cargill, and others) comprise 35%.

Although, how much of the output finds its way into the E20/E85 mix at the filling station is a combination of oil company wishes and state laws.

[Dogmudgeon]

13. It was from HypnoToad's post

HypnoToad related the EROEI as requiring 1.2 bbl of oil to produce 1 bbl of ethanol, though it could have been a simple error (HypnoToad is usually pretty astute about technical issues).

The EROEI of ethanol is low, but it is usually positive. If its use is concentrated locally in agriculture, the EROEI will increase, and the value of decoupling agriculture from oil is, as the Amex ads say, priceless.

We're in fundamental agreement. I was one of the first critics of Pimentel's 1991/1997 paper here, though I strongly support his work on agriculture sustainability science. I trust Hosein Shapouri's (USDA) analyses of ethanol's EROEI the most (3 of which are noted on your graphic), even with criticisms from Patzek (Pimentel's co-author in 1991/1997) taken into account. But I think it's the question of the ethanol production ownership chain is soon going to hit the fan.

The oil companies don't have much direct ownership (yet), but they are becoming the primary consumers. They can dictate the price and game the marketplace. In the past two or three years, they have become the prime players in the corn markets and are making strong gains in soy, the result of hasty and exploitative ethanol development. Switchgrass-based ethanol is unlikely ever to be economically feasable unless this is addressed.

Nearly all of the smallholders and individual farmers are contractually bound to their co-ops and, ergo, the big companies. Most of the business ADM/Cargill/etc. do is conducted in much the same way. GMO corn, soy, and other foodstuffs give companies like Monsanto a leg up, as well. But the small farmers are still counted separately, and the statistics are often used to paint a more ruggedly individualistic picture of farming than really exists. In many "farm industries," especially where GMOs dominate, a farmer might as well be a sharecropper.

Even pro-farmer activists like Willie Nelson have found themselves at a loss; Nelson has long been a promoter of democracy and biofuels, and has a brand called "Bio-Willie" -- a biodiesel, I believe. Yet today, ALL commodities are on track for soil-to-sale corporate control.

Biofuels are even becoming contentious in the "green" movement. Many people can not believe something they thought was so "good" could ever have been corrupted. But the moral value of objects and substances is purely of human origin. We in the "E&E" (energy and environment) movement need to get a lot more hard-headed about such things.

If anyone thinks that the world has turned upside down because, for example, nuclear energy is no longer satanic and biofuel is no longer angelic, the next decade or two may seem like a high-speed chase in a cement mixer.

--p!

[DawnIsis]

4. Ethanol is the Oil companies dream to keep us paying by the gallon instead of going electric

[razzleberry]

7. big oil hates ethanol

hundreds of small factories, producing a substitute for gasoline.

[Dogmudgeon]

10. Big Oil IS Ethanol

Right now, they control the entire production process, with the sole exception of local agriculture; THAT is owned by Cargill, ADM, and their captive "co-ops".

And all of it is coated with a sugary sweet layer of sparkly greenwash.

With respect to ethanol and similar liquid fuel solutions, there are TWO problems we must confront. The first is our ability to produce and manage the energy we use, and the second is to rein in the corporations in their abuse of civil and financial power.

Thinking that ethanol is a way to break out of this bind is exactly what "they" want. When your market hates you, and you control a product that your market thinks you don't, your (corporate) life is a dream.

Ethanol, as it is now being exploited, is a mind-boggling rip-off. The molecule may be blameless, but the business is not.

--p!

[Strelnikov_]

8. "We absolutely guarantee the destruction of the engine and the fuel injection system

. . . if we go the E20 route. It will not work."

Good to see GM is still offering guarantees.

[Sanctified]

14. My issues with Ethanol...

I love the idea of Ethanol however I do have several issues with it being called the wonder fuel of the future. Although Ethanol does allow us to snip the umbilical cord from the Middle East it does not burn cleaner than gas which means it does nothing for Greenhouse Emissions. Also Ethanol is not currently lowering the price of gas but is increasing the price of other commodities that use corn for production, such as chicken, pork and beef. And farmers who used to grow crops for human consumption are now opting to go with the cash crop of corn which will lower the supply of food on the market and increase your cost for basic groceries.

And finally Corn is an extremely destructive crop for our environment the fact that more farmers are going to be growing it is truly tragic. Organic Corn is great but the Corn that is being grown for Ethanol is loaded with chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides which is being absorbed by the earth and flushed into our water system.