Ethanol

[fullerene]

This probably should be a poll, but... meh. Anyway: my dad mentioned a pretty astute observation, today. He said that his car gets a little less than 90% of the mpg when using gasoline with 10% ethanol in it than it did when he used gas that had no ethanol. Now, I thought that one of the "benefits" of ethanol was that it burned cleaner and reduced carbon dioxide emissions. If you're traveling the same amount, and you need to go through even more gas/ethanol mix, don't you ened up burning the same amount of gas anyway?

Anyway, I wanted to ask whether any of the rest of you took note of you gas mileage. If you have, do you notice it being worse when you use the gas with ethanol mixed in, or is it just my dad being nutty?

 

[Decaf]

I wouldn't be too surprised. The benefit is definitely on the ecological side, not the economic, and I don't think the actually efficiency was ever widely published.

Two things. Ethanol is cheaper than processed gasoline, so that is considered in the price. Also processing has become a finer art than it used to be, so the gas that used to be put into your car had a higher percentage of impurities than what you have now.

Should that account for a 10% disparity? That seems awfully severe. There could easily be some difference, but I suspect its a problem with the engine not being designed to optimally use the gas at its new average burning temperature.

 

[Razare]

I did a college presentation on ethanol and it is a fact you have reduced mpg when using it. Even when it is blended in gasoline in a 10% ethanol mix, it should reduce your mpg by a small amount.

Ethanol significantly reduces carbon emissions if it is being manufactured from living plant material. Ethanol can also be produced from crude oil, and I doubt there would be much carbon benefit burning ethanol drilled from the ground.

The reason there is a benefit to burning ethanol from plants is that plants build themselves out of carbon. Plants reduce the % of carbon in the air and you burn those plants which releases the carbon they trapped, so instead of releasing carbon trapped below the earth, you're re-using carbon already in the biosphere.

The problems with ethanol are numerous and are often not discussed enough, from what I recall of my presentation I'll give you a rundown of them...

- Slightly less mpg

- Brazil is often cited as a model of what the USA should do with ethanol, the problem with that is in Brazil they can grow sugar cane. Sugar cane is extremely more efficient for producing ethanol than corn. I'm not talking about some measly 10%, according to wikipedia sugar cane ethanol reduces C02 about 90% compared to petrol. Corn ethanol reduces C02 about 15% compared to petrol.

- Ethanol has difficulties being pipped like oil and gasoline products. It corrodes pipping and has water inside its chemical structure. With gasoline, water just sinks to the bottom, with ethanol it is absorbed into it. Some water inside ethanol is not a big deal, but if too much is absorbed it becomes worthless as a fuel.

- Dependence on corn ethanol increases grain prices globally, making the food we buy more expensive here, but even worse, making it more expensive for people in other countries that can barely afford it.

- While Ethanol fuel does decrease C02 emissions, it actually increases ozone emissions which is more hazardous to human health. Ozone is responsible for smog in cities. If our nation switched to purely ethanol, we should expect more air pollution.

-------------------------------------

Summation

The ethanol movement in the USA is a carefully planned idea developed by the agriculture industry to increase demand for their products. They are using the public's interest in "going green" to increase sales of primarily corn.

That said, cellulosic ethanol may be a significant improvement over corn ethanol. Recently a plant was built in the south to test the feasibility of producing cellulosic ethanol. Once that is running, perhaps the feasibility of ethanol in the US will change and similar plants will be built.

 

[Android]

I don't drive... hitchhiking and trains are more fun, but my personal problem with ethanol is that it takes away from food production. I think there was a report in National Geographic recently about our potential food crisis too. We are currently consuming more food than we produce. Ethanol just seems like a useless idea in general to me.. arguable effect on mpg, and loss of food for a hungry world.

 

[fullerene]

nice summary, razare! thanks. Given the same pros and cons, I'd probably have to suspect the same conclusion as your summation. Or, well... first I'd see whether people from other countries are seeing the shifts to ethanol. So... people from other countries...are you?

 

[walfin]

No such things here, only hybrid electric cars.

Palm oil. There are plans in the works for a giant biodiesel plant where I live. I think it's great. We should have more biodiesel-electric hybrids.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

This got me looking into something I heard a few years ago about whether or not ethenol produces more energy than is required to make it. I had heard that it did and went looking for proof. Instead I found that there is varying opinions on the matter. I think this site will be of interest to you Cryp.

http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=1261

 

[Razare]

Honestly, I like the Pickens Plan because it is something that the USA could implement NOW. Not 10 or 20 years from now. Yes, the guy is pushing it partially for his own financial gain because he's a major shareholder in a natural gas company. The thing is, if you evaluate the plan on its merits, it's a good plan. Liberals generally don't like it because it's burning natural gas for semi-trucks, which still releases C02 emissions trapped below the Earth... but you know what? It's cleaner than burning diesel, which is being attributed to health side effects. We don't have the current technology to use some sort of emission-free engine for large trucks that is feasible or cost effective, except natural gas burning engines.

But let me tell you why the argument against natural gas is wrong, people who argue against it are being idealists waiting for some future technology that isn't yet here. If some great alternative technology comes along, great let's switch to that, but in the mean time why not transition to something that works?

This is the problem with the USA, we don't have a long-term plan. The sort of energy plan we need is one that transitions us to cleaner energy sources over a 50 year period, using bridge fuels like natural gas with the understanding it is a temporary fix while new technology is developed and made cost effective.

If taxes are left alone, the free market will eventually switch to something else, but that something else may not be cleaner. Yet when the government interferes, it doesn't necessarily interfere constructively. Often the pro-environmentalists throw out the idea of gas taxes, which is just detrimental to the economy and completely uninventive. Yes, a significant tax on fossil fuels would eventually achieve the desired result, but it'd also piss-off constituents, damage the economy, and be repealed before it was effective.

Interference by the government could result in something like ethanol use because it's marginally better and would please many lobbyists while appeasing most constituents.

So I think his plan is something doable that's better than a gas tax, and better than just letting the free-market do it's thing.

I'll summarize the Pickens Plan as I understand it:
--------------------------------------------------

- Light duty and heavy duty trucks are switched to natural gas burning engines, which eliminates dependence on foreign oil. We can produce all the natural gas we need domestically.

- Personal vehicle transportation can be maintained on a hodgepodge of technologies, but slowly move away from gasoline. Also, because natural gas stations would be built for the semi-trucks it would make sense that people could start driving natural gas burning vehicles, but as said before, a hodgepodge is probably best here. (One of Honda's Natural Gas burning cars is the cleanest internal combustion car on Earth apparently. It has 90% cleaner emissions than the average gasoline powered car. It beats corn ethanol hands down. If we setup supply stations for natural gas for the truckers, then it makes sense that some people would drive natural gas burning cars.)

- Build wind power stations on the east side of the rocky mountains along the wind corridor, generating up to 22% of our power needs there. Building this infrastructure will create jobs.

- Transporting wind power from the center of the country will require new, state of the art grid lines transporting that power both East and West.

- Provide tax incentives for people to insulate their homes and businesses.

- Finally, we should do more nuclear plants. While not part of his plan on his website, I've heard him state he likes nuclear. It should be part of any realistic plan to clean things up. (Notice the words "realistic", I'm tired of hearing idealistic arguments conjured up by academics who have no understanding of the practicalities of distributing energy to citizens across a grid.)


Essentially, what needs to happen is that our government should adopt a practical, long-term plan for the next decade or two and ruthlessly implement it. They should claim eminent domain, reject lawsuits that arise on the grounds of national security, and shove this energy plan down our throats.

Any plan is better than doing nothing, but that's exactly what congress is doing.

 

[Devercia]

Heresay, I heard that nuclear tech has allowed for safer, less waistful reactors over the develoments of the past couple of decades, but because of laws, cannot implement them, not even to replace the old ones.

Essentially, what needs to happen is that our government should adopt a practical, long-term plan for the next decade or two and ruthlessly implement it. They should claim eminent domain, reject lawsuits that arise on the grounds of national security, and shove this energy plan down our throats.

Nah, they shouldn't, simply because they would do it with ethenol or some other stupid idea. Eminent domain also pisses me off to no end, however national security is a cop out excuse.

I am actually surprised, I go to Oklahoma State University and have yet to have the Pickens Plan shoved down my throat. I honestly think that it would be so much better recieved if it were not propsed by a cowboy hat wearing oil tycoon from Oklahoma with the unfortunately comical name of T. Boone Pickens.

 

[Razare]

Yeah, he's a poor spokesperson unless you want country hicks as supporters.

You're right about government shoving the wrong option down our throats, but even if it accomplished a few goals it could be worth it. Yeah, they might pick ethanol, but that would allow for energy independence and well, America wouldn't suffer all that much with the food price issue. Is there a worse option than using oil harvested from moderately hostile governments because it's cheap in the short term? I suppose coal combustion automobiles would be worse...

Perhaps government shouldn't pick a winner, but even then you could subsidize everything that is not oil derived. Plenty of ways to subsidize too... though this assumes the government could afford to subsidize the transition, lol... it can't so this is all theoretical.

 

[Devercia]

The thought of corn be subsidized more than it is already irks me. It makes we wonder if lettace, if it received any subsidy at all, would have some sort of fuel made out of it by now.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Slightly off topic...

There was a post above about the Pickens Plan. And, I agree, doing something now is a good idea.

But, that diverted my mind to something I'd seen the other day by Ray Kurzweil. This is from one of his talks at TED.

He mentions the rate at which solar technology is doubling and indicates that it's not too far away before solar power will be able to address our energy needs. I have no idea whether his claims (which are presently prophecy, since, after all, they're about the future) will come true, but, he does know a thing or two about the exponential growth in technology so I figured it was worth sharing.

Dave

 

[motrhead]

E85 sucks. I read a great real-world comparison test, and the reduction in fuel mileage was huge, enough to negate any possible reduction in emissions.
The test by Edmunds is here.
The stoichiometric fuel to air ratio of gasoline is twice what ethanol is (you need twice as much of the ethanol), and as someone else stated, the ethanol absorbs water, which exists in shockingly large amounts in gas station fuel tanks, further contributing to the loss of performance.
Most non-agricultural sponsored studies seem to suggest there may be a net loss of energy producing alcohol, although apparently production methods are improving.

I'm not a big believer in Ray Kurzweil myself. His predictions are looking further and further from coming true anytime soon. Maybe eventually, but not at the exponential rates he has been predicting. He's a dreamer, and a great speaker, but I don't think those pretty curves on his charts can go on forever...

 

[Razare]

I agree with Ray Kurzweil's point of view when applied to technology as a whole, but not when applied to specific technologies in a short window of time. A specific hurtle in development can delay development for years if not decades.

He talks about when one paradigm ends, another begins. This is true, but just because one ends does not mean we have the right knowledge to reach the next paradigm in time to fit into a nice little graph.

In other words, you can use his ideas to make long-term predictions about humanity's development as a whole, you cannot make individual predictions about a technology's future when a paradigm ends. The free market will look for solutions, but who knows when the solution will come.

 

[Razare]

Haha, I just got to the end of it..... hahahahahah

Why am I still using a desktop? I want one of these nano-computers in my clothing that has a virtual reality interface... oh wait, developing the hardware for that would take 5 years, and the software another 2 years, after the technology gets there. So his prediction was impossible when he made it.

He pointed out a lot of cool stuff I didn't know about, though. I didn't realize we were so far along with nano-technology in medicine.

 

[Invoke Ninja's True Power]

ethanol is bad for cars hands down, it reduces the life of the car, reduces gas mileage, uses up valuable food crops, overall it is not a good solution

 

[Ghost1986]

ethanol is a great form of fuel when your engine is built for it. putting any amount in a gasoline engine, not so great an idea.

there are also a lot of other alcohol yielding sources.

last time i checked we ate corn...

 

[Invoke Ninja's True Power]

MTBE is a nice fuel additive but its been banned from most states because of its high water solubility which makes it more prone to cause environmental contamination....I noticed a good 5 extra mpg with gas that has it

 

[Tyria]

Ethanol is a great fuel for people though XD

 

[walfin]

I say we should have cars powered by fusion (if it can be safe).

 

[Morel Panic]

ethanol is bad for cars hands down, it reduces the life of the car, reduces gas mileage, uses up valuable food crops, overall it is not a good solution

I found that our 2003 mini-van needs to burn more gasoline(not just E10 mix) to go the same distance when filled with E10 than with 100% gas. I do understand that more modern cars can handle ethanol much more efficiently, I'm still not impressed E10 mandates.

I say we should have cars powered by fusion (if it can be safe).

The internal combustion engine will not last long once a viable car-sized energy storage medium is developed. Unlike the ICE, power plants don't have to optimize their equipment for weight and size. Fusion would be a monstrous advance in energy technology, but until we can make car-sized reactors, electric/(fuel cell) cars are still the answer.
...someday...
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/chevy-volt-230/929