Ethanol - Good or bad?

[Mass]

I noticed that the vote concerning the ethanol bill was mostly regional. I understand Schumer's arguments that ethanol is more expensive than oil for those states who do not produce ethanol.

What I have seen nowwhere is a discussion on whether ethanol is good or not for environmental reasons (which is basically the only thing I am interested in, apart from getting rid of our dependency on oil).

Can somebody explain here what are the arguments that pushed NE Senators to vote against the ethanol bill (other than those expressed by Schumer on the Senate floor).

[Carolab]

1. I know ethanol plants totally ruin the air around them.

People can't really breathe properly if they live nearby. There was one close to where I live in St. Paul and it finally got closed down for this reason, and the building (an old brewery) will be converted to condos.

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200210/02_losurem_ethanol2/

[bvar22]

31. We are close neighbors.

I hated that smell (sour fermenting yeast), but love the architecture of the old brewery.

[Carolab]

40. Hi, neighbor.

Score one for the neighborhood, huh?

Here's an interesting tidbit--my brother ran a microbrewery business and had his ale brewed in that brewery for a few years. So it's a bit of nostalgia for me that I can actually see from my family room window.

[Conservativesux]

2. Ethanol is a corn-based product that is added to gasoline to supposedly

..reduce emissions as an "Oxygenate" like MTBE was.

It reduces the amount of energy per gallon of gasoline causing a drop in gas mileage and power, dependant on the percentage used to blend it with gas, usually about 10% per gallon.

That equates to a 5 percent loss in economy as ethanol only has about half the BTU's (energy) as gasoline.

In my own vehicle I noticed a 2 MPG drop when ethanol was used instead of 100% gasoline, so its a real figure in my mind.

Remember that this product has to be shipped by rail-car to the refineries, boosting the cost in transporting it to non-corn growing states, and burning up locomotive diesel fuel in the process and polluting the air with unregulated diesel emmisions from the engines.

Its a lose-lose for the consumer and anyone who likes clean air,
but a huge boost in profits for corporate agri-businesses, like Bob Doles' owners' over at Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), who make this so-called fuel "additive".

[TheFarseer]

6. then why does it have a higher octane rating?

I admit, I'm biased. Ethanol is the only thing keeping corn from being completely worthless.

[Mass]

8. Because of GM and Ford.

They refuse to change their motors, and oppose anything that could make our cars more efficient.

[Conservativesux]

13. Octane and BTU (British Thermal Units) are two different things....

The BTU rating is the amount of energy in a given substance, usually a fuel of some sort.

For instance, Diesel has a higher BTU rating then gasoline, which is higher then Propane, and so on. Each of these fuels has more energy then the next, per the same amount, such as a standard US gallon.

Octane ratings apply only to gasoline and are the indicator of the propencity of a given gallon of gasolines "knock" or ping values, which happen when the fuel pre-ignites.

The higher the number, 89 vs 92, the less likely a gasoline stock will cause pre-ignition or knock in a given vehicle. In the past lead additives were used to increase the Octane ratings of gasoline, but no more as tetraethyl lead is a toxic substance.

There is no increase in BTU's with regular vs. premium gasoline no matter the octane rating. They will both have the same BTU rating precluding that they are made with the same type of gasoline mixture to begin with.

If you use high octane gasoline in an engine that doesnt need it you will not get better economy, but you will be paying more for something that is only needed in high performance motors, not the average car.

[rfkrfk]

38. there is no 'corn base', in ethanol

ethanol is 'grain' alcohol, and can be made from
numerous feedstocks.

The 'cornlike' nature of corn feedstock is
lost in distilling.

[punpirate]

3. From the standpoints of energy balance and...

... the environment, it doesn't make a lot of sense--unless we radically change the way we do agriculture. I read recently that before industrialized agriculture came about, it took about 0.8 calories to produce 1.0 calorie of food/fuel. Now, after the mechanization of agriculture with oil-burning equipment, it takes 1.4 calories of energy to produce 1.0 calorie of food/fuel.

That said, ethanol is already a fixture in the fuel supply chain--most refiners use some ethanol to raise octane. It does help some with fuel efficiency, since it's an oxygenated fuel--it helps with more complete burning of gasoline by increasing available oxygen in the cylinder.

Burning ethanol produces a different set of exhaust byproducts than petroleum fuel, and they're not much better--mostly aldehydes and formaldehydes--but these can be broken down through catalysis.

As for the ethanol plants themselves, the problems associated with those are the same as with breweries--the same process is going on.

The greatest problem with the legislation is that it favors big agribusiness--firms such as ADM--and provides these large manufacturers with subsidies and incentives not generally available to the small farmer. The legislation will also create more demand for corn, so farmers will plant more corn (and will be using more pesticides, herbicides, diesel fuel and GM seed), thus further depressing the already low prices farmers are getting for corn and simultaneously raising their expenses.

[Carolab]

4. It will also increase logging since cellulose can be used to produce it.

Hence, "Healthy Forests" and "Clear Skies" all in one!

[punpirate]

12. Well, sort of...

... cellulose is most commonly used to produce methanol (commonly known as wood alcohol), but not ethanol.

While it's possible to break down the starches in cellulose and hemicellulose (basically that's what cellulose is--a complex starch in a lignin framework) by fermentation, it requires more time and energy for adequate hydrolysis, it requires different yeasts and right now has a lower fuel output than, say, corn, so it's not the most advantageous of processes in terms of efficiency and cost.

There's also an additional waste stream produced--lignin (although that may be useful to the plastics and processed wood industries). With corn, all that's required to handle the major waste stream is to dry the mash and sell it as animal feed--something which can't be done with wood waste.

Cheers.

[Carolab]

30. Thanks for the information.

I had read about the cellulose on the web and was wondering about the efficacy. I recall the reference was to "byproducts" or "waste" from logging.

[Schema Thing]

5. It's a smashing success in Brazil

using sugarcane.

[Conservativesux]

19. Do they use ethanol to run thier tractors, trucks, locomotives and other..

...high output industrial engines?

[Mass]

21. Actually, in Europe, they do and it is a success.

I am asking the question because of the success it is both in Europe and in Brazil.

It is my understanding that the problem is linked with corn, and not ethanol by itself.
In addition, in both cases, they use ethanol nearly pure, and not the vague substitute this country uses.

[Conservativesux]

22. Are you indicating that they use ethanol as a substitute for gasoline

in heavy agricutural machinery that is usually powered by a diesel motor here in the US?

Using pure ethanol is indeed used in Brazil in many automobles,
but to run it the gasoline motors have to be modified to burn it and they are much less powerful then a gasoline motor.

The same thing occurs when Propane is substituted for gasoline, both power and mileage go down 20 to 25 percent compared to gasoline, when the switch is made.

You cant get something for nothing :)

[Mass]

23. You are talking about the US automobiles

that the US has been refusing to modify for years.

I had a propane car in europe for a few years and it runs with a much better mileage than European cars (who, using higher octane gasoline, have a much better mileage than US cars).

The rest is propaganda from GM and Ford, nothing else.

Obviously there are also the hybrid cars, that are great, but a lot of what I hear about ethanol here is totally incoherent with what I hear in other countries that care about importing less oil (Schumer's speech was a real prop to the oil industry).

[Conservativesux]

24. Poeple have been modifying cars for years here in the US, and

..very few of these modification improve gas milage to a significant degree.

Fuel injection helps with emissions a great deal and also boosts performance levels, but we have had FI engines from US automakers for over 20 years.

The only difference I see with European cars is that they tend to be much smaller/lighter and less powerful then US cars, and that would increase milage certainly.

The gasoline sold in Europe is much the same as is sold in most states here in the US, so I am having difficulty seeeing where you are coming from claiming that higher octane=higher gas mileage for europeans.

The Euros do use diesel cars to a much greater extent then in the US and diesel motors do get better mileage then gasoline motors.

Is that what you are referring to?

[OneTwentyoNine]

35. They've been running it in Brazil since about 1985..

Just like National healthcare Amercians are quick to poo-poo the idea that grown crops could make fuel.

[Lexingtonian]

7. it's not worth the trouble

It's a fuel additive that isn't viable in the long term. It means a bunch of subsidy money for the northern plains states (companies and farmers) that grow industrial quantities of corn.

The real meaning of the program is/was to help subsidize the demographic retreat from farming the land and easing the migration of labor to the cities and larger towns, into the industrial economy. The people in the region knew how to run fermenters, i.e. breweries, so it was a fairly logical choice- take excess corn (the major use is as cattle feed) and ferment the stuff in brewery vats, distill it, then try to sell it. Since there's too much of the stuff for chemical industry to use and it's low value, they had to find a way for average people to use a lot of ethanol, and the only uses people have for ethanol are (1) drink it, and (2), burn it. People can only drink a pint a day, it's pathetically bad and inefficient for heating (burning dried corn is far more cost efficient), so gasoline additive was what was left.

But the companies involved have discovered how to exploit the massive political protections and popular goodwill involved and corporate legal loopholes and the different marketing angles. Rather than being compliant and socially beneficial, it's been made into a faux growth industry out to force people who don't have reason or desire to to buy their product. It works well enough in places like Brazil, where it can be made cheaply enough that it doesn't increase the price of fuel and reduces foreign oil imports. But where American corporate profits and jobs are involved, that's not going to happen. (Oh, they'll pretend it's environmental compliance costs or something.)

[Mass]

9. SO are you t elling me that all the MW senators are wrong

or that oil is better than ethanol?

[Conservativesux]

16. Oil is better and cheaper to refine then making ethanol, yes.

Ethanol is a net loss at this moment in time compared to gasoline.

[Mass]

20. Is it too much to give me a reference

because I have read exactly the opposite by very serious people who are not linked to the farm industry.

I am looking for references to the opposite by recognized environmental groups or universities.

[OneTwentyoNine]

32. Sure....because there are few vehicles that run on it....

Look at the list of cars that can use E85 fuel--85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. You'd be shocked,there's only about 15 or 20. Flip it around and say there are only 15/20 cars that would run on gasoline,all the rest run on ethanol,how much do you think a gallon of gas would be?? $10.00 per gallon? $20.00 per gallon?

Bottom line is that ethanol is 100% renewable,it can be grown,not sucked out of a hole in the mid-east which will someday run out anyway.

I could care less if a gallon of ethanol is more expensive that a gallon of gas--which even right now in very low production E85 is less than a gallon of regular unleaded.

It would cut our dependency on Oil from the mid-east to ZERO and we could get the HELL OUT. Having Americans killed over this shit is ridiculous when we the answer is out in a farmers field.

[Conservativesux]

39. You cant run E85 in a diesel so we would still need oil for industrial use

I think we all forget that all of our heavy equipment that transports and grows food in the field use diesel, not gasoline.

That is because diesel engines have much more HP per pound of motor then any other powerplant, which is need for pulling heavy objects like trains, plows, trailers, ect.

[Mass]

10. dupe

[Mass]

11. Can somebody point me to an environmental site showing that

And why is it more polluting than oil, for those who push the pollution argument.

(if it is no more polluting than oil, is it not better to push ethanol for now, just to use less oil, while focusing on advancing other issues).

[chaska]

14. Michael Ruppert - "Crossing The Rubicon" (peak oil) says...

that it takes more oil to produce ethanol than it saves. It's good for farmers but bad for the environment.

We'd better get hip to peak oil, ya'll. Things are about to get real serious.

[chaska]

15. ETHANOL IS A HANDOUT TO ADM (Archer Daniels Midland).

Pure pork.

[Conservativesux]

18. Thanks in large part to Bob Dole, ADM's senator-in-the pocket.

Or former senator, I should say, when he isnt popping Viagra down the hatch :)

[Conservativesux]

17. Exactly well put !!! EOM

[bobbieinok]

25. when I lived in IA (15+ yrs ago), always heard it damages the engine

[Conservativesux]

29. Methanol certainly will. Ethanol in 10 percent or less per gallon

percentages may have detremental effects on older carburated motors, but not newer FI engines.

[OneTwentyoNine]

34. Sure,typical Oil company BS propaganda.....

No one even back in the mid-seventies said to run an engine on 100% alcohol,it was to be blended in about a 90/10 ratio. Hell..I ran the stuff in a 1973 Cutlass Supreme I had and NEVER had any trouble--then the fuel just disappeared under an avalanche of typical BIG OIL bullshit.

Those fucks saw their live threatened. If a old car could run on 10% alternative fuel how long would it be until there would be cars that would run on 50%/100%? So their campaign of lies and BS began and the sheep bought it hook line and sinker.

[CityDem]

26. It's corporate welfare for the midwest

The benefit of ethanol is outweighed by the cost. The only reason it exists is to line the pockets of the large agribusiness in the midwest. In turn, the corporate whores line the pockets of the reps and senators from the farm states.

[OneTwentyoNine]

36. Shit,your paying them ANYWAY,ever heard of farm subsidies?

Living here in Kansas we see this first hand. You get a check NOT to grow a crop,but growing a crop for ethanol would be corporate welfare?

What fuels would you suggest,or do we just wait until the last drop of Oil from the mid-east is pumped out to start planning??

[Massacure]

27. Ethanol will never replace gasoline.

One or two percent blends can be used to increase octane rating and make the engine run a little better, but E85 isn't such a great idea.

Algae based biodiesel is a much better idea. You get 15,000 gallons/acre instead of a coule hundred if even that with other land based crops. Plus all you need is a lot of sun, water, and cow shit to grow it.

Southern California or western Arizona wouldn't be a bad spot to grow algae.

[OneTwentyoNine]

37. Not right now,but it would reduce our dependency on foreign Oil...

To the point where we could tell the mid-east to fuck off,we don't need your Oil. Nah...better to be held by the nuts from these crooks in the Oil business saying NOTHING will work in your car except 100% of OUR OIL.

Bullshit.....

[Mass]

28. Thanks for all the explanations.

[OneTwentyoNine]

33. Here's a link to the E85 site

Now take a look at the vehicles that GM has that will run on E85. Hell,all it is is a bunch of pickups,what about all the PASSENGER cars? What about all the minivans? Somebody is buying somebody's ASS off to keep this ridiculous low amount of vehicles in GM's inventory from running on 85% ethanol.

Oil companies running just a bit scared over this?



http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/e85.php

[kerrygoddess]

41. The Renewable Fuels Standard, Energy Security, and Clean Air

The Renewable Fuels Standard, Energy Security, and Clean Air

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) supports eliminating the use of MTBE in gasoline, eliminating the oxygenate mandate, and expanding the role of biofuels in our transportation system. We believe that a sound and sustainable approach to biofuels has the potential to make a critical contribution to reducing U.S. oil dependence and global warming pollution from vehicles without interfering with attainment of critical air quality standards. Based on very productive discussions over the last several months with the Governor’s Ethanol Coalition, Renewable Fuels Association, the American Council for Ethanol, the American Lung Association and the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), we are convinced that it is possible to craft a broadly-embraced renewable fuels standard that ensures biofuels production from a variety of biomass resources and protects air quality. Such an approach has the potential to overcome regional tensions that have undermined past efforts to enact a renewable fuels standard and would merit overwhelming support in the Senate.

Ethanol produced from corn and other conventional crops contributes to reducing America’s oil dependence and results in a modest reduction in global warming pollution. The energy security, environmental, and economic development benefits of renewable fuels can be increased dramatically by producing fuels from a wider variety of biomass resources, including agricultural waste, wood waste, and energy crops such as switchgrass. Producing ethanol from such “cellulosic” materials turns waste streams into resources, allows renewable fuel to be produced with less than half as much fossil fuel input, and allows competitive ethanol production to occur in all regions of the United States. The Cantwell amendment adopted by the Energy Committee provides a strong foundation for stimulating the development of a commercially competitive cellulosic ethanol industry. It should be complemented with enhanced research and development on processes to convert cellulosic biomass into ethanol more cost-effectively and with deployment incentives for the first few commercial-scale production facilities.

MORE - http://www.saveourenvironment.org/factsheets/renewable-fuels-standard.html

[janx]

42. Ethanol is more expensive for the states that don't produce it, yes.

But what product isn't? I was not swayed by his argument. It sounded provincial and selfish.

Frankly, I don't know why ethanol hasn't been pursued. It was around in the seventies. I am learning, however, from some astute posts in this thread, that a couple of major auto manufacturers aren't exactly getting on the ethanol bandwagon. Why is that?