NY Times Looks at E85 Ethanol


And it’s not especially pretty. Among other things, it only has 75% of the energy density of gasoline, so you get 3/4 the mpg.

Which illustrates one of the big challenges of peak oil. There are few energy sources as cheap or convenient as petroleum-based fuels.

I won’t even get into the agricultural and environment issues around mono-culture corn production (yes, I know ethanol can come from other crops, but this was a corn-belt-focused story).

,

12 responses to “NY Times Looks at E85 Ethanol”

  1. …and that is why I have spent many a convesation asking why in the hell the stupid Federal Government is heavily subsidizing Ethanol but not other more efficient, powerful, and easier to implement fuels like biodiesal and or even electrical power (such as Seattle’ Trolley Busses – hint Tri-Met!)

  2. Adron why in the hell the stupid Federal Government is heavily subsidizing Ethanol.
    JK: Political influence. That is why government is not particularly good at doing most things and why government should butt out of many of the things that it does.

    Thanks
    JK

  3. Adron ask; “why in the hell the stupid Federal Government is heavily subsidizing Ethanol.”
    Archer Daniels Midland Corp. is a major contributor to politicians and also produces about 75% of the nation ethanol as I recall.
    Politicians+ campaign money = subsidy

  4. why in the hell the stupid Federal Government is heavily subsidizing Ethanol

    I would recommend the book “The Omnivore’s Dilema”. The author examines the change in policy under Nixon’s Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz. The policy changed from price supports to keep corn prices stable (so farmers had reliable income) to a structure of subsidies that keeps corn cheap, often at the expense of farmers.

    That’s why it’s so cheap for McDonalds to super-size your value-meal. Virtually every part of most fast-food meals is a primary or secondary corn product.

  5. What the supporters of ethanol continue to side step is the fact that it takes approximately one gallon of fuel (gasoline or diesel) to produce a gallon of corn derived ethanol and bring it to market. In addition ethanol reduces fuel economy for most vehicles including flex fuel vehicles. One of the major TV evening news programs ran a simple test using what I recall as Chevrolet flex fuel SUV. Using gasoline, the vehicle obtained far better miles per gallon then using E85 in both city and highway driving. I do not remember the exact figures, but the difference was several miles per gallon. The example given was that the vehicle could be driven from New York City to Washington DC on one tank of gasoline, but could only get as far as Philadelphia on a full tank of E85. Furthermore, the Portland requirement Commissioner Leonard pushed through will reduce miles per gallon up to 15% on many newer vehicles. If you don’t believe that, just ask your friendly service manager at any new car dealership. The fact is, the push to produce ethanol from corn is more hype than energy efficiency. If there is a buck to be made on it at the government’s expense, somebody will do it and take taxpayers for an expensive ride.

    I looked for about half an hour for the story I heard on the news earlier in the week, but I was unable to find it. Not remembering which news broadcast didn’t help. I did however come up with this piece which I found interesting: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/19/tech/main709983.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

  6. E10 does not reduce any vehicle’s mileage 15%. We have been using E10 in many parts of the country during the wintertime for years now.

    E10 does reduce mileage a few percent.

    As far as E85, it reduces your mileage as well. But if you use 85% less gasoline but get 20% less mileage – it is still a net gain in the consumption of fossil fuels.

    And as far as the one gallon of fuel to make one gallon of enthanol from Corn – that is a flawed number that came from a study done by Pimentel and Pitzak from Cornell university, and it has been debunked over and over as they used wrong numbers, left out details and information, and counted on outdated data.

    The real energy return is about a little better than 1.5 to one, meaning a 50% positive return on energy. That IS NOT GREAT by any means – but it is still a positive return.

    Ethanol is a good thing. It is NOT the one-size-fits-all solution, and it can be done poorly just like anything else. So we should not blindly rush to use Ethanol without making sure we are doing it right. I also think there are BETTER things than ethanol…

    Biodiesel has a much better energy yeild and is much easier to make. But it too is only a small part of a diverse energy strategy.

    But don’t just spout mis-information about biofuel because you heard it on conservative talk radio.

    There has been an awful lot of research and science that has gone into this stuff and it is easy to find and read. Read both sides…

    Remember, the oil industry is powerful and rich and they will spin lies to keep themselves that way.

  7. The viability of ethanol is very much in doubt, with smart sounding people making reasonable sounding claims in all directions.

    Try following this!
    http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/12/19536/5196

    The more I study the peak oil issue the clearer it becomes to me that we simply don’t know if the great decline is begining about now, or in five or 10 years. But it does seem that most of the proposed substitutes are not ready and that we will face difficult to horrendously difficult economic challenges. Those economic challenges will to some extent spur innovation… but also perhaps make scarce the capital needed for investment in new technologies.

    In other words I have no idea what will happen. But I’m extremely skeptical that anything good will come of using our diminishing soil and limited land and water to produce fuel to enable people to drive their SUVs around. It just doesn’t make sense tom me.

    Does it make sense to you? Farming for fuel? Farming to maintain this car crazy world pretty much as it is? Even if it is technologically possible to gather solar energy with plants (corn, switchgrass, whatever) and transform it into fuel… I just can’t imagine that the planet could survive an effort to do it on a scale that remotely approaches current energy consumption levels.

  8. valkraider Says: And as far as the one gallon of fuel to make one gallon of enthanol from Corn – that is a flawed number that came from a study done by Pimentel and Pitzak from Cornell university, and it has been debunked over and over as they used wrong numbers, left out details and information, and counted on outdated data.
    ….
    The real energy return is about a little better than 1.5 to one, meaning a 50% positive return on energy. That IS NOT GREAT by any means – but it is still a positive return.
    JK: Those two numbers probably don’t conflict when you consider the large errors inherent in doing that kind of work. One of the funniest examples appeared in the Sierra Club Magazine a few months ago where they claimed that 3 gallons of gas were used to produce a single pineapple. Pineapples are selling for about ONE DOLLAR each. So, is the article wrong? Or are pineapple growers, ag-chem makers & pineapple trucks getting gas for under $0.30/gal?

    valkraider Says: But don’t just spout mis-information about biofuel because you heard it on conservative talk radio.
    JK: OR on liberal blogs OR liberal talk radio (try KGO for a good example 10pm-5am.) For real science: KGO (810am) 10p-1am Sat & Sun nights.)

    valkraider Says: Remember, the oil industry is powerful and rich and they will spin lies to keep themselves that way.
    JK: Same for both political parties and all of the big money environmental groups.

    Thanks
    JK

  9. “E10 does not reduce any vehicle’s mileage 15%. We have been using E10 in many parts of the country during the wintertime for years now.”

    That is exactly where the “up to” 15% for some vehicles figure came from – the difference between gasoline and E10 in the same vehicle summer and winter.

    “And as far as the one gallon of fuel to make one gallon of ethanol from Corn – that is a flawed number that came from a study done by Pimentel and Pitzak from Cornell university”

    The figure is far closer to correct than proponents would have you believe, especially when transport costs are added in – as I stated “and bring it to market”. Ethanol can not be shipped through a pipeline like gasoline because it is too corrosive.

    “The real energy return is about a little better than 1.5 to one, meaning a 50% positive return on energy.”

    Actually it is a negative return when the fuel used to produce ethanol and transport is added in. It is definitely a negative return for consumers who get less miles per gallon.
    Furthermore, ethanol has the potential to do engine damage on some older vehicles because of its corrosive nature. Ethanol should be avoided when ever possible.

  10. JK, Chris, and Michael – thanks for the follow up, some of it I didn’t know, some of it I did. It was however a rhetorical question… :)

    I’m just hoping the market kills it somehow so we don’t have to deal with the monstrous affects and problems it will cause on a wide scale.

    …but I digress… back to reading about larger problems.

  11. So you mean to presume that regular petroleum fuel does not have to be transported or extracted? What is the energy return on that?

    I don’t know about you – but I see lots of tanker trucks carrying gasoline around, and lots of tanker ships carrying oil. I also see lots of pipelines being shut down because they are failing…

    So transporting fuel is a cost that has to be dealt with whether it is Ethanol or Gasoline or Hydrogen… At least with Ethanol we are not transporting it from the other side of the globe…

    And yes, Ethanol CAN be corrosive and damage older vehicles. That is why you are not supposed to burn more than 10% in anything that is NOT specifically a FlexFuelVehicle. The FlexFuelVehicles can use up to 85% ethanol as their engines are designed to adjust operating parameters according to the sensors detection of the blends. And the components are made to handle the more corrosive alcohol style of Ethanol. I could ruin my diesel engines by running them on Gasoline. Does that mean that Gasoline is a bad fuel? No. It means that I need to know what I can and can’t pour into my tank…

    You shound NOT avoid ethanol – but simply understand that it has its place in a balanced fuel supply, and that it is not for everyone.

    The “monstrous affects (effects?) and problems it will cause on a wide scale” is FUD spread by the oil industry.

    Again, Ethanol is not perfect. But it is not evil either.

    I have no ties to either industry. I have simply done TONS of reading for my own purposes, to use biofuels in my personal vehicles. There is plenty of information from both sides, and a little bit from neither side. When you take it all in it presents a bigger picture.

    When people consider the mileage difference between using 10% ethanol in the winter compared to none in the summer and say that Ethanol causes a mileage difference of up to 15% are not factoring in other conditions in the equation. Winter driving patterns consume more fuel. Winter typically comes with higher winds, affecting milage. Winter temperatures cause engines to adjust and are typically less efficient (although the same can be said about extreme heat). Winter also usually comes with more extended warm-up times and longer idling periods. When you take all of the above into account, the *actual* amount of mileage loss due to the ethanol 10% blend drops.

    This same argument comes up every year in diesel forums as most of the country switches to winterized diesel. Winter driving patterns are different, which affect fuel consumption AS WELL as the fuel blend…

    The thing about biofuels is that the “spin” can’t possibly be from any one place. Environmental groups? Sure biofuels are cleaner but they cause farming which environmental groups oppose. Farmers? Sure they can make money on biofuel crops if they are allowed by government regs. Transportation? They have not much to gain from biofuels except greenwashing. Government? Well depending on who you ask biofuels are good or bad – some like that they are renewable, some like that they are domestic, some like that they are clean. In the end you have tons of groups all claiming benefits from biofuels, and only the oil industry really against them…

  12. “I don’t know about you – but I see lots of tanker trucks carrying gasoline around.”

    Most if not all of the gasoline sold in the Portland area comes into Portland via a direct pipeline from Puget Sound refineries. Additives are then added for the various brands and grades, then the gasoline is trucked to gas stations. Ethanol must carried by tanker directly from the refinery. It is too corrosive for pipelines. If an ethanol refinery was constructed in Portland, then the corn then must be trucked from the outlying farmer’s fields to the refinery. Corn doesn’t go through a pipeline very well either. Therefore the use of fuel for the transport of ethanol and/or its raw materials which is much greater than for gasoline must be considered in total energy consumption when comparing gasoline to ethanol. Furthermore, the use of fuel by farmers to grow the corn must be also be tabulated on ethanol energy use side.

    With a considerable loss in fuel economy when using ethanol compared to gasoline, economically ethanol derived from corn just doesn’t make the grade and should be avoided by a cost conscious public.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *