Isn't ethanol a type of hidden subsidy from the government. It benefits the farmers and it cost more energy to produce than it yields. This is what I read, but I can't believe it is true. Wouldn't make sense.
I'm not convinced of ethanol as a solution either. It can, however, provide some relief from total reliance on crude oil. To obtain ethanol, one must ferment corn or some other sugar-containing material. Fermentation releases CO2. The amount of CO2 released must be considered when selling ethanol as a fuel.
At the vehicular level, and assuming that the energy of ethanol and (as an example) iso-octane are equivalent, the amount of CO2 released by the complete combustion of an equivalent weight of ethanol will be about .67 that of iso-octane (the burning of any chemical with a lower overall carbon content will release less CO2). However, with ethanol, the CO2 released from fermentation must be included. With MTBE, there is no indication that the emissions are cleaner (ie less unburned hydrocarbons) than gasoline, however, there is clearly less CO2 being generated because the starting chemical has less carbon.
I believe that the reason that the Silverado in your example gets worse mileage on E85 is because is actualy a dual-fuel design. That is, it isn't designed to use ethanol, it is designed to be able to use ethanol. If it was actually designed to use ethanol (or E85), with the higher compression and the advanced timing, it wouldn't be able to use gasoline. Your second statement, comparing ethanol and biodiesel for their environmental advantages, is of considerable interest to me as well; especially since a biodiesel mix (up to 100%) can be used in any diesel engine without modification.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
"I'm not convinced of ethanol as a solution either. It can, however, provide some relief from total reliance on crude oil. To obtain ethanol, one must ferment corn or some other sugar-containing material. Fermentation releases CO2. The amount of CO2 released must be considered when selling ethanol as a fuel." John That is one of the things that make Ethanol production more efficient now - The CO2 is captured during the fermentation process and used to make Dry Ice or the carbonation that goes into the Soda.
bhill2 is right, The Silverado is designed to run on both fuels, therefore compromising the motors effeciency on Ethanol. The motor must be able to run on 87 Octane of Pump fuel and 106 Octane of E85. Manufactures are experimenting with Turbo's and SuperChargers on newer multi-fuel applications. Adding Boost when running E85 and turning the Boost off when running regular pump fuel. Adding Boost when running E85 takes advantage of the Higher Octane rating of the E85 resulting in more power and effeciency. This then would be an engine built to run E85 that is capable of running regular gas instead of an engine built to run regular gas that is capable of running E85.
Here's the just of it: Liquor Does It Quicker Saab’s BioPower engine gives ethanol a kick in the pants With all the buzz about hybrids, it’s easy to ignore our homegrown alternative fuel: ethanol. Clean-burning and infinitely renewable—we’re talking grain alcohol—ethanol is dear to environmentalists and economists alike. The standard 85/15-percent ethanol/gasoline blend (E85) is widely used in Sweden, but there are only 313 E85 fueling stations in the U.S. And motorheads aren’t clamoring for more, because E85 typically delivers inferior fuel economy; it has about 75 percent of the potential energy of gasoline, so it takes up to 20 percent more hooch to keep horsepower on par. But E85 also has a high octane rating (around 110), and Saab realized that a turbocharger could harness it. Turbos push extra air into the cylinder, and higher octane allows a fuel to better endure the increased pressure. So Saab cranked up its fans and created the BioPower engine, the first commercially available ethanol turbo. A computer samples the fuel mixture and adjusts boost pressure—from 5.8 psi for pure gasoline to 13.8 psi for E85. Running straight gasoline, the engine produces 148 horsepower, but E85 jacks it up to 184, with no penalty in fuel economy. SAAB 9-5 2.OT Biopower Sedan
SPECS GASOLINE E85 POWER 148 hp 184 hp TORQUE 177 lb.-ft 207 lb.-ft MAX. BOOST 5.8 psi 13.8 psi 0-62 MPH 9.8 sec 8.5 sec TOP SPEED 134 mph 140 mph PRICE $35,000 $35,000 *based on exchange rates at press time
Average price per gallon in the U.S.* Biodiesel $2.27 Diesel $2.24 Gasoline $2.11 (I believe the average cost is higher now $2.50 ish?) Ethanol $1.86 Natural Gas $1.47
Anyone run across info as to how energy is used to produce unleaded vs E85? Google gave me way too many, I'd be there til I die. It's not all that economcial producing unleaded, but quantity produced now days makes it profitable and the commodity market traders.
$1.85 in Rockford, IL. Unleaded still $3.39 according to my eldest son. Too bad the manufacture's didn't make more engines with E85 capable. His 2002 S-15 only offered with 2.2L 4. I think it's a good idea in the corn belt areas to be pushing this. Work out bugs and see if it can be viable for wider use, but looks like manufacture bottom line got in the way. Why not a multi-fuel hybrid? That new Saab engine design sounds promising, any multi-fuel capability hopefully will increase, be it spark ignition or compression.
Hopefully some battery technology break thru will come along, hybrids are not cost effective but we have to start somewhere. Hopefully those who can afford to will get the bug? My many retired electrical engineer friends all refuse to even think about such a vehicle. I guess it's something similar to "been there done that----technology's not ready". Not to mention the service folks, scary!
Just got a e-mail from the Project Director for the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition that the recently signed Energy Bill allocated grant programs specifically for Flexible Fuel Hybrids. Without quoting, He made special note towards Ford and GM. From what he said Honda and Toyota are not to eager to offer Flexible Fuel. Nissan Titan truck will be E 85 capable. Now have to see if this grant programs includes Flexible Fuel Diesels?
Live on C-span last night gave a very good report "Peaking Oil". If you interested on finds it can be found on his web site. Briefly the part about ethanol was enlightening. Even though the net energy benefit is just negative or just postive, depending on which authority his committee was interviewing at the time, the effect on the land and food production is a concern. However we need all the alternatives now no more affordable oil has been found since 1980 and the scared Alaskan find is not near enough. http://www.bartlett.house.gov/default.asp I'm just so glad to see the concern and efforts taking place. I love horsepower and torque BUT the era of cheap energy is over and the sooner all on the planet gets the message sooner all can get serious. Paul
Ethanol made from surplus biomass can be beneficial for the environment.
Our forests are overstocked with small trees and trees that can't be sold for timber because they are the wrong species or have poor form. Harvesting these trees and using them for biomass has these benefits:
(1) Reduced wildfire risk because dense, small trees are much more flammable than larger, older trees in the early stages of wildfire. Uncontrolled open-air burning is horribly polluting. Combustion is incomplete so everything from carbon monoxide to methane and formaldeyde are vented into the atmosphere, along with particulates in the most unhealthy sizes. The energy content of the burnt matter is utterly wasted, and burnt-over land will have problems like hardened soil, humus depletion and years of erosion until groundcover is re-established.
(2) forests become more productive by channeling their finite potential to grow biomass into the most valuable trees, according to management goals for the forest which could be anything from supporting wildlife or growing timber to improving soil chemistry.
Agricultural and municipal waste are other major potential sources of biomass. Currently waste is burned (with the same air pollution problems as with forest fires) or put in landfills (where some of it decomposes to methane which is a powerful greenhouse gas). Although there are natural processes for decomposing biomass, they work at finite rates. Waste buried in landfills decomposes very slowly and will be with us for centuries. Using these waste streams as biomass energy sources turns a huge problem into a resource that will be used up to provide useful products.
Energy plantations of perennial plants such as fast-growing trees or switchgrass can be located immediately downstream from tilled fields to absorb silt and excess fertilizer runoff instead of these ending up in the Gulf of Mexico etc.
In short, it is often better to harvest surplus biomass and use it for energy than to dispose of it through open air burning or by dumping it into the environment. Also we can use biological processes to clean up certain types of pollution and then harvest biomass. This will be greenhouse-neutral energy that can replace fossil fuels.
Energy pathways that convert biomass into ethanol are valuable because biomass is mostly cellulose, and cellulose is a carbohydrate that can be broken down into fermentable starches and sugars, or possibly fermented directly with the development of suitable microbial organisms. It is difficult to find good substitutes for liquid hydrocarbons, particularly for intercity or longer transportation. The opportunity to convert waste biomass into such a valuable product is a rare opportunity.
I agree with everything that you say, but I have a question that you may be able to answer. You speak of 'biomass ethanol' made from small trees and such. The name that used to be applied to methanol was 'wood alcohol'. Was that a misnomer? Can you derive either form from wood? This is more than idle curiosity, because all of the discussion of this alternative fuel is around ethanol. I wondered why methanol was not considered, for exactly the reasons that you state; there is a whole bunch of scrub wood out there for the taking. I wondered whether the absence of methanol in the alcohol discussion was because methanol was poisonous or whether it was just that there was a lot more money to be made by pushing ethanol. Any insight?
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
Methanol can be made from wood by "destructive distillation". This means heating wood until it decomposes into carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas. By catalytically manipulated this mixture and and possibly adding steam for the sake of its hydrogen and oxygen content, methanol emerges. If you want to learn more about the chemistry, just google on wood and methanol.
As a fuel, methanol is slightly less energy-dense than ethanol, but perfectly viable; in fact some race cars burn it. It is *not* true that they produce fewer horsepower, in fact both fuels are higher octane than gasolene and can be burned with ignition further advanced and higher compression ratios. Also with more fuel per pound of air, so the net result is more horsepower output for a given engine size and RPM.
Methanol's biggest drawbacks are (1) it can decompose into methane, a powerful greenhouse gas and (2) it is more bio-toxic than ethanol. Ethanol occurs naturally whenever yeast cells meet carbohydrates, so most organisms have evolved tolerance to ethanol in moderate doses. Nevertheless methanol is less toxic than gasolene, so it can't be dismissed out of hand on grounds of toxicity.
Ethanol has certainly been a good thing for farmers who grow corn, but we can't possibly grow enough corn to stop importing oil. If we are going to convert biomass into liquid fuels, the choice between ethanol and methanol should be based on cost, efficiency, and the two environmental issues just mentioned.
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but USDOE and USDA released a major report on biomass supply back in April. It is online at
feedstockreview.ornl.gov/billion_ton_vision.pdf
The gist is that between waste (forest, agricultural and municipal) and energy crops, the USA could produce over a billion dry tons of biomass annually. The cellulose in biomass is basically sugar molecules joined into long chains, so technology is under development to change cellulose back into sugar. Throw in some yeast and set up a still, and say sayonara to the Saudis.
With forseeable efficiency improvements, a billion dry tons should yield about 100 billion gallons of ethanol, nearly one gallon per capita per day. The gross energy content of a billion dry tons is about 20% of current energy consumption, including coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydro, wind, etc. etc.
"The ALA [American Lung Association] and many environmental groups supported a 2% oxygen requirement for RFG [reformulated gasoline] in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 based on the assumption at the time such requirement would guarantee reductions of VOCs, and toxics. We now know we were wrong. .... The volatility increases that ethanol causes in summertime can overwhelm any benefit it provides in reducing CO tailpipe emissions, sulfur dilution or aromatics dilution. That is why the ethanol industry only talks about tailpipe emissions benefit from ethanol in RFG. The ethanol industry often quotes last year's National Research Council study of reformulated gasoline as finding that CO reduction credit should be included for ethanol in EPA's complex model for RFG because CO tailpipe emissions contribute to ozone formation. But they fail to acknowledge what we believe to be a more important finding. The NRC report stated, '...the increase in the evaporative emissions from the ethanol-containing fuels was significantly larger than the slight benefit obtained from the lowering of the CO exhaust emissions using the ethanol-containing fuel.' .... The bottom line: the reduction in CO tailpipe emissions obtained by using ethanol in summertime gasoline are not worth the increase in evaporation and the increases in NOX emissions from a smog contribution point of view. Incidentally, the increases in evaporation do not just contribute to ozone formation. Since the gasoline also contains toxic aromatics, such as benzene, these will evaporate more readily along with the ethanol. While ethanol may dilute the amount of benzene in a gallon of gasoline, the amount of benzene that ends up in the ambient air due to increase evaporation from the fuel may be greater than if the ethanol were not added at all."
The National Research Council study referred to above is regarded as the definitive scientific study of ethanol. The title of their news release says it all "Commonly Available Ethanol and MTBE Gasoline Blends Do Little to Reduce Smog". Even the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, who tries as hard as possible to put a happy face on their state's aggressive ethanol policy, admits "we think the NRC report is currently the most independent, authoritative document available to policy makers."
Very recent evidence suggests even more serious cause for alarm regarding ethanol use. Professor James Garvey of SUNY-Buffalo has discovered that nitric oxide, a common air pollutant, combines readily with ethanol to form highly reactive gas-phase clusters. The implication of this discovery is that the sum of NO and ethanol emissions is more dangerous than its parts.
Of course the EPA is well aware of the pollution problems caused by ethanol, especially the fact that it increases serious hydrocarbon evaporative emissions during warm weather.
Ethanol, a fuel that's backed by state and federal governments and viewed as a boon to corn farmers in the Midwest and South, may make it harder to breathe in Louisville this summer.
While governors in more than 25 states, including Kentucky and Indiana, tout it as a way to make gasoline burn cleaner, there's new evidence ethanol can worsen some types of pollution linked to damaging health effects -- namely ozone and fine particles.
And that could make it harder for cities like Louisville, where it already is being used, to meet air standards.
"There is growing evidence that when used in the summer with reformulated gasoline, ethanol actually creates more smog and fine-particle soot," said Frank O'Donnell, a longtime clean air advocate in Washington, D.C.
"The bottom line is that both the motor vehicle industry and the refining industry have evolved since the early 1990s, when these requirements went into effect," remarks Frank O'Donnell, director of the Clean Air Trust, an air-quality-defense group put together nine years ago by former U.S. senators Edmund Muskie of Maine and Robert Stafford of Vermont. "Oxygenates aren't necessary anymore. Modern cars have oxygen sensors that adjust the air-to-fuel ratio, which is one of the things that oxygenates were supposed to do. And we have better fuels."
In 1979, 2 university professors said that ethanol yields lesser output than input and still today some critics are holding on to that older research.
If ethanol is bad for health, then how much will the gasolene / diesel will be with so much toxic substances in them. Just compare between the 2 and ethanol will be much safer.
Currently Flex-Fuel vehicles which Ethanol are the powerful alternative to Gasolene and hence the oil lobby is crying about it.
2005 started with Oil Prices at $43 and ended at $61. If this is the way, Ethanol will continue with its Forward March.
Just compare between the 2 and ethanol will be much safer.
That is what they said about MTBE and look how that turned out. The EPA knows the truth, they are hog tied by greedy politicians. No different than the oil companies mind you. Just a different bunch of corporate thugs. Looking at Brazil and their insistence on Ethanol, is interesting. According to most environmental groups that is an ecological disaster of epic proportions playing out. Check out where they get their ethanol.
:surprise: In 1908, the Ford Model T was designed with a carburetor adjustment that could allow the vehicle to run on ethanol fuel produced by American farmers.
* :surprise: Since it was first launched in 1975, the Brazilian Ethanol Program remains to date the largest commercial application of biomass for energy production and use in the world. By the mid-'80s, most cars coming off the production line ran on pure ethanol. From the 1970s to the late '90s, ethanol yields per acre had risen from 242 to 593 gallons.
:surprise: Indústria Aeronáutica Neiva, a wholly owned Embraer subsidiary, has received type certification for its ethanol-fueled Ipanema cropdusting aircraft from Brazilian aviation regulating agency Centro Técnico Aeroespacial (CTA). The Ipanema is the first series production aircraft in the world coming out of the factory certified for flying with ethanol.
These 3 examples just show that Ethanol is around for a long time, but actually just got acceptance in the last few years. In these days with record high oil prices, more and more governments are promoting the production and usage of ethanol. Didn't the corn growers in the US already appreciate rising corn prices? Why would Bill Gates invest $84 Million in an Ethanol company, if he wouldn't see the potential of this alternative fuel? Willie Nelson is doing well with his sell of Biodiesel, as I understand. So in our perspective, the doors are wide open for this renewable energy source and it will be the future in the energy sector.
You seem to have a vested interest and more than average knowledge of the subject. I have a few questions. 1st. How do you propose overcoming the well documented transportation problems? 2nd. How can additional land be used for corn or sugar cane production, with the known environmental degradation? 3rd. Are any other crops such as Switchgrass capable of making significant inroads into the use of corn for ethanol? 4th. What is being done to clean up the ethanol production facilities?
I read so many posts here about how people just can't stand to have something new. Most of the problems for E85 are similar if not the same for any other fuel. Other than the obvious and most important ones. Which are 1. it's not foriegn oil dependant (or at least doesn't have to be.) 2. better for the air, if at least 10% better, that's at least a move in the right direction. 3. can be cheaper in the long run.
All of that is more than enough for me to consider E85, what's you're excuse for not trying it? My only excuse right now is I don't own the vehicle that uses it yet, and it's not readily available. Once those are solved, I'm an E85 customer.
Why does it need to be subsidized and mandated by the government? If it is a viable fuel it should be able to compete in the market with gasoline at some point. Has there been anything to indicate that this will ever be the case?
Mandating or subsidizing ethanol is just providing corporate welfare to ADM, IMO.
According to this analysis: http://zfacts.com/p/60.html the production of 6 gallons of ethanol saves only 1 gallon of gasoline. The cost of saving this one gallon of gasoline comes to almost $8, according to that link.
E85 is just a marketing ploy, so one can pretend to be saving the world while driving a fuel guzzling SUV.
All of that is more than enough for me to consider E85, what's you're excuse for not trying it?
I had a Caravan once that was a FFV. I put in E85 for a while, my 25 MPG dropped to almost 16 MPG. Sorry but seeing I lost 1/3 of my mileage with E85 I will never go back.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
In Brazil, sugar cane provides ethanol in such huge quantities that the country imports no more oil. Brazilian vehicles are dually fuelled with only minor engine adjustments and consumers buy the mix they want at every 'gas' station using separate 'pure' pumps. Brazil now exports both their excess ethanol and their technology.
Canada is into the ethanol experiment. China, the country that promises to absorb all oil production if you believe the prognosticators, built 100 ethanol production facilities only lately. They use corn, not sugar cane as the base product. Don't think we'll run out of oil any time soon.
Found this forum while looking for info on e85-it seems bad news for the environment. I have a list of trucks that have flexifuel engines. I am considering a used flexi truck-now not so sure. I could see a day when perhaps there would only be e85 available because of shortage or boycott or war or who knows why--then at least you could drive. That was one of my reasons-- all the others--cleaner air--economy-and thinking progressive--just fell by the wayside. In the 70's Mother Earth News used to discuss how to build an alcohol still-- use corn mash to make it and how to modify a carburator to run on it. Its pathetic it took so long to consider this alternative--lots of wasted time to solve pollution & mpg. issues. Its always about who has the influence. The oil lobby will smile once they get their investments in place. I can hope some of the business decision makers researching these environmental issues will provide solutions. I dont want to make the air worse then it is!! As I recover from all this bad news--Three questions remain- 1. do flexifuel engines have any special problems or defects 2. how healthy is the air in Brazil? and 3. does Bill Gates concern himself w/the environment?
Okay it looks like the government is about to force Ethanol upon us at an increase in cost of 25 cents a gallon.
What worries would we have about Ethanol prematurely deteriorating petroleum derivative connections along the fuel path, i.e. isn't; Ethanol hard on rubber, plastic and other petroleum derivative products, significantly shortening their lives.
Have never cars provided additives to prevent this deterioration. What about older cars? How old is a problem?
I don't believe there will be a mass transformation of vehicles over to E85. It is not a big deal to convert. As you already know it is higher octane and a lot less energy per dollar spent. I also think it will be concentrated in the Midwest where the corn grows best. Until they figure out how to get ethanol out of sawgrass cheaply, corn will be THE crop. That in itself is very destructive to the environment. Lots of nasty chemicals dumped on the watershed. Another case of corporate welfare that we will pay for. If it ain't ethanol it is hydrogen or hybrids. Always someone stealing are tax dollars for that "Pie in the Sky" scheme.
The main problem with mass transformation of vehicles to E85 is that it is very land intensive to grow the crops to turn into ethanol. Using corn it takes almost an acre of land to produce the ethanol that an average car will use in a year.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That sounds pretty good to me. If it only takes 1 acre of corn to produce a whole years worth of ethanol for the average vehicle, that is not much considering how many millions of acres are available to grow it. This would be a huge asset to our country being able to produce our own fuel (ethanol) vs. importing from unreliable 3rd world countries.
The problem is that to switch every vehicle to E85 we would starve to death as it would use up 60-65% of the countries farmland growing the corn for it. While it will work with a very small percentage of the country using it, it will not work on a large scale.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That is exactly correct. The midwest is ideal. They can grow the corn and process it close to the market. Ethanol has a real problem with transporting. As you know corn is not the best crop to grow environmentally either. Takes lots of nasty chemicals. Brazil with their sugar ethanol will pay the price in the long haul. Sugar is very environmentally damaging. Using the excess corn for ethanol is fine. Otherwise it is a two edged sword.
I work in an air quality program and some of the info here is not quite correct. Currently I'm trying to find what the VOC emissions are for E85 fuel.
Don't confuse this with commonly available E10, sometimes referred to as "gasahol" or just ethanol. This fuel does make gasoline more evaporative and therefore can lead to increase levels of ground-level ozone. A big study by the state of Wisconsin has shown this to be the case. The press commonly refers to ALL ethanol-gasoline blends as just "ethanol" when everything I have read is that E85 shows a decrease in ozone precursors. also a big reduction in CO2 so it has greenhouse benefits.
There is a lot of discussion regarding the amount of energy it takes to produce a gallon of ethanol. The agriculture community usually says it takes less energy to produce one gallon of fuel. The detractors say it takes more, but you do have to look at how they account for this. One study included the energy used to produce the tractors that farm the fields and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. IT would only work if you did the same things for crude oil production. A petroleum geologist I know says it takes about 1 barrel of crude to produce two barrels (roughly). With the ethanol I'm basically looking at a 1-to- ratio for ethanol, basically splitting the difference at least at this point.
You can't switch every car to E85. it's extremely difficult and expensive. even the ethanol proponents will tell you that. Only factory-made vehicles should try & use it. Ford Taurus from the 1998 model year on can use it; no changes necessary. burn E85 one tank, gasoline the next.
A petroleum geologist I know says it takes about 1 barrel of crude to produce two barrels (roughly).
Sorry, but I don't see how that helps the case for ethanol. If I have one barrel of oil I can "invest" that energy in producing two barrels of oil, leaving me with a net energy gain of one barrel of oil. Alternatively I can convert it to its energy equivalent in ethanol which leaves me with a net energy gain of about zero.
As a comparison. They claim it takes 1 barrel of oil to produce 3.2 barrels of biodiesel. You wonder why the lack of interest in biodiesel. It is too easy for common folk to get involved using waste cooking oil. Ethanol production is a very high tech operation, that companies like ADM have a huge investment in. Biodiesel is more grass roots. Very little money spent researching it. Too easy for people to make and use.
Interesting discussion, as all ethanol discussions are. Besides the perceived negatives or positives concerning ethanol's mileage, pollution benefits, smog/ozone factors, availability, production, transportation, etc., etc., we are forgetting a critical piece of the puzzle: It takes monster amounts of water to grow the corn, which is subsidized by the government, and tons of water in the ethanol-making process, which is also subsidized through tax incentives and property tax breaks. Our groundwater reserves, which we'll need in the future, are precipitously falling. Then there's yet another subsidy for ethanol at the pump. Corn is the most environmentally destructive crop our farmers grow, and we're dishing out millions every year so they can continue to overproduce it, which keeps the price down (which is actually good for ethanol plants, but not for farmers). Until ethanol technology develops to accept switchgrass, woody materials, landfill waste, etc., as fuelstuffs, there is little benefit except for corporate agribusiness and the corn lobby. I think ethanol does have a future, however -- we just need to get off this corn habit ASAP.
I was watching "Washington Journal" on C-SPAN a few Saturdays ago. The governor of Montana (I think) was sponsoring a state run program into biodiesel. He was complaining about the lack of interest from the federal government and decided to take matters into his own hands. All of the information that I have seen passed by me (including the information from petroleum companies) does indicate that biodiesel is currently the best "alternative" fuel with regard to energy returned on energy invested (the only real parameter of interest). The drawback, of course, it that there is not enough capacity for biodiesel to replace petroleum. It would have to be used as a blending agent. The corruption and incompetence at the federal government level (ie favortism government contracts to Archer Daniels and the like without concrete calculations demonstrating the benefit to the public) is changing the landscape of politics.
federal government level (ie favoritism government contracts to Archer Daniels and the like
It is pretty simple really. As long as it takes approximately a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of ethanol, a balance is maintained. Actually a better balance for the oil companies. It only takes a barrel of oil to produce two barrels of fossil oil. So ADM and Exxon share in the double cost of ethanol. A win, win for big oil and big ag companies.
Now throw in biodiesel. It only takes a barrel of oil to produce 3.2 barrels of biodiesel. Plus that barrel of oil could be in the form of biodiesel. There is not much chance that tractors will run on gas or ethanol. They will run just fine on biodiesel. A self perpetuating fuel source. Don't let that out onto the market.
I know we will give the lemmings a gas hybrid that runs on ethanol. That should shut them up for a while.
3 cheers for the governor of Montana for thinking outside the Washington lobby.
A self perpetuating fuel source. Don't let that out onto the market.
Actually its not, where are you going to get the biodiesel? We don't have enough land to the crops for it and those deep friers at McDonalds won't give enough waste cooking oil to power the trucks that supply McDonalds.
Biodiesel is good on a small scale, but not on a large scale.
Kudos for Washington for not chasing a pipe dream.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Biodiesel is good on a small scale, but not on a large scale.
You are only thinking of cooking oil. That is many times less costly than biodiesel from soy or rapeseed. That 1/3.2 cost figure is to produce biodiesel from soy beans or rape. Crops that are not as invasive as growing corn or sugar for ethanol. Plus the production cost of producing biodiesel from soy is much lower than ethanol from corn.
The only reason ethanol is gaining so much ground is political. Pure and simple. Biodiesel is practical for many uses that ethanol cannot hope to attain.
It would be very difficult to produce enough biodiesel to power as many vehicles as we have today. That would also require a change to diesel engines that would run on biodiesel. It is not IN with mainstream America because it is not as easy for big corporations to maintain control.
No one is trying to say we can all hang out at McDonald's and fuel up our diesel cars. And the latest energy bill does have a buck per gallon incentive for biodiesel. So it is moving in the right direction. Just not as fast as I think it is needed.
That 1/3.2 cost figure is to produce biodiesel from soy beans or rape. Crops that are not as invasive as growing corn or sugar for ethanol.
There is not enough farmland in the US to grow enough soybeans to create the biodiesel to replace the diesel we use. Thats why biodiesel is only workable on a small scale.
Plus the production cost of producing biodiesel from soy is much lower than ethanol from corn.
My main concern is land use. Since land can produce far more corn than soybeans and a bushel of corn can produce more ethanol that a bushel of soybeans can produce biodiesel producing the ethanol might be a better use of the land.
It would be very difficult to produce enough biodiesel to power as many vehicles as we have today.
Not difficult, it would be impossible to do it. There just isn't enough land to grow the crops.
It is not IN with mainstream America because it is not as easy for big corporations to maintain control.
One thing to consider, if we took the entire US production of soybeans and convert it to biodiesel we would have about 6.5% of our diesel needs. If we put every last square inch of farmland to producing soybeans for biodiesel we still wouldn't make enough. Its simple, biodiesel is not a solution, only a small stop gap until the true solution comes along.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I haven't been on the boards lately due to work so its good to see you and others are still around.
Yes, three cheers to the governor.
Now, the hard truth, the reason that biodiesel will be an additive is because it costs +/-$2.90 per gallon to create it.
Now I'm all for. I've got it in my tank outside.
I know that there are a few people that lurk on these boards creating BD through waste oil for MUCH less. However, to get the ASTM certifications and other quality seals to pump it through our vehicles AND to get the auto manufacturers to stand behind it is another thing altogether. Until the auto manufacturers approve it, the oil companies are not going to let you pump it out of their gas nozzles.
I know that some have claimed to make it for less than $1/gallon...but you can't make 5 million gallons of it. If you could, you couldn't sell it to anyone. If you can, let me know, I can set you up with some people willing to invest.
Comments
At the vehicular level, and assuming that the energy of ethanol and (as an example) iso-octane are equivalent, the amount of CO2 released by the complete combustion of an equivalent weight of ethanol will be about .67 that of iso-octane (the burning of any chemical with a lower overall carbon content will release less CO2). However, with ethanol, the CO2 released from fermentation must be included. With MTBE, there is no indication that the emissions are cleaner (ie less unburned hydrocarbons) than gasoline, however, there is clearly less CO2 being generated because the starting chemical has less carbon.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
John
That is one of the things that make Ethanol production more efficient now - The CO2 is captured during the fermentation process and used to make Dry Ice or the carbonation that goes into the Soda.
bhill2 is right, The Silverado is designed to run on both fuels, therefore compromising the motors effeciency on Ethanol. The motor must be able to run on 87 Octane of Pump fuel and 106 Octane of E85. Manufactures are experimenting with Turbo's and SuperChargers on newer multi-fuel applications. Adding Boost when running E85 and turning the Boost off when running regular pump fuel. Adding Boost when running E85 takes advantage of the Higher Octane rating of the E85 resulting in more power and effeciency. This then would be an engine built to run E85 that is capable of running regular gas instead of an engine built to run regular gas that is capable of running E85.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
Here's the just of it:
Liquor Does It Quicker
Saab’s BioPower engine gives ethanol a kick in the pants
With all the buzz about hybrids, it’s easy to ignore our homegrown alternative fuel: ethanol. Clean-burning and infinitely renewable—we’re talking grain alcohol—ethanol is dear to environmentalists and economists alike. The standard 85/15-percent ethanol/gasoline blend (E85) is widely used in Sweden, but there are only 313 E85 fueling stations in the U.S. And motorheads aren’t clamoring for more, because E85 typically delivers inferior fuel economy; it has about 75 percent of the potential energy of gasoline, so it takes up to 20 percent more hooch to keep horsepower on par. But E85 also has a high octane rating (around 110), and Saab realized that a turbocharger could harness it. Turbos push extra air into the cylinder, and higher octane allows a fuel to better endure the increased pressure. So Saab cranked up its fans and created the BioPower engine, the first commercially available ethanol turbo. A computer samples the fuel mixture and adjusts boost pressure—from 5.8 psi for pure gasoline to 13.8 psi for E85. Running straight gasoline, the engine produces 148 horsepower, but E85 jacks it up to 184, with no penalty in fuel economy.
SAAB 9-5 2.OT Biopower Sedan
SPECS GASOLINE E85
POWER 148 hp 184 hp
TORQUE 177 lb.-ft 207 lb.-ft
MAX. BOOST 5.8 psi 13.8 psi
0-62 MPH 9.8 sec 8.5 sec
TOP SPEED 134 mph 140 mph
PRICE $35,000 $35,000
*based on exchange rates at press time
Average price per gallon in the U.S.*
Biodiesel $2.27
Diesel $2.24
Gasoline $2.11 (I believe the average cost is higher now $2.50 ish?)
Ethanol $1.86
Natural Gas $1.47
It's not all that economcial producing unleaded, but quantity produced now days makes it profitable and the commodity market traders.
$1.85 in Rockford, IL. Unleaded still $3.39 according to my eldest son. Too bad the manufacture's didn't make more engines with E85 capable. His 2002 S-15 only offered with 2.2L 4.
I think it's a good idea in the corn belt areas to be pushing this. Work out bugs and see if it can be viable for wider use, but looks like manufacture bottom line got in the way. Why not a multi-fuel hybrid?
That new Saab engine design sounds promising, any multi-fuel capability hopefully will increase, be it spark ignition or compression.
Hopefully some battery technology break thru will come along, hybrids are not cost effective but we have to start somewhere. Hopefully those who can afford to will get the bug? My many retired electrical engineer friends all refuse to even think about such a vehicle. I guess it's something similar to "been there done that----technology's not ready". Not to mention the service folks, scary!
Paul
From what he said Honda and Toyota are not to eager to offer Flexible Fuel. Nissan Titan truck will be E 85 capable.
Now have to see if this grant programs includes Flexible Fuel Diesels?
Paul
Even though the net energy benefit is just negative or just postive, depending on which authority his committee was interviewing at the time, the effect on the land and food production is a concern. However we need all the alternatives now no more affordable oil has been found since 1980 and the scared Alaskan find is not near enough.
http://www.bartlett.house.gov/default.asp I'm just so glad to see the concern and efforts taking place. I love horsepower and torque BUT the era of cheap energy is over and the sooner all on the planet gets the message sooner all can get serious.
Paul
TNX
Paul
Why is there Air?
Our forests are overstocked with small trees and trees that can't be sold for timber because they are the wrong species or have poor form. Harvesting these trees and using them for biomass has these benefits:
(1) Reduced wildfire risk because dense, small trees are much more flammable than larger, older trees in the early stages of wildfire. Uncontrolled open-air burning is horribly polluting. Combustion is incomplete so everything from carbon monoxide to methane and formaldeyde are vented into the atmosphere, along with particulates in the most unhealthy sizes. The energy content of the burnt matter is utterly wasted, and burnt-over land will have problems like hardened soil, humus depletion and years of erosion until groundcover is re-established.
(2) forests become more productive by channeling their finite potential to grow biomass into the most valuable trees, according to management goals for the forest which could be anything from supporting wildlife or growing timber to improving soil chemistry.
Agricultural and municipal waste are other major potential sources of biomass. Currently waste is burned (with the same air pollution problems as with forest fires) or put in landfills (where some of it decomposes to methane which is a powerful greenhouse gas). Although there are natural processes for decomposing biomass, they work at finite rates. Waste buried in landfills decomposes very slowly and will be with us for centuries. Using these waste streams as biomass energy sources turns a huge problem into a resource that will be used up to provide useful products.
Energy plantations of perennial plants such as fast-growing trees or switchgrass can be located immediately downstream from tilled fields to absorb silt and excess fertilizer runoff instead of these ending up in the Gulf of Mexico etc.
In short, it is often better to harvest surplus biomass and use it for energy than to dispose of it through open air burning or by dumping it into the environment. Also we can use biological processes to clean up certain types of pollution and then harvest biomass. This will be greenhouse-neutral energy that can replace fossil fuels.
Energy pathways that convert biomass into ethanol are valuable because biomass is mostly cellulose, and cellulose is a carbohydrate that can be broken down into fermentable starches and sugars, or possibly fermented directly with the development of suitable microbial organisms. It is difficult to find good substitutes for liquid hydrocarbons, particularly for intercity or longer transportation. The opportunity to convert waste biomass into such a valuable product is a rare opportunity.
I agree with everything that you say, but I have a question that you may be able to answer. You speak of 'biomass ethanol' made from small trees and such. The name that used to be applied to methanol was 'wood alcohol'. Was that a misnomer? Can you derive either form from wood? This is more than idle curiosity, because all of the discussion of this alternative fuel is around ethanol. I wondered why methanol was not considered, for exactly the reasons that you state; there is a whole bunch of scrub wood out there for the taking. I wondered whether the absence of methanol in the alcohol discussion was because methanol was poisonous or whether it was just that there was a lot more money to be made by pushing ethanol. Any insight?
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
As a fuel, methanol is slightly less energy-dense than ethanol, but perfectly viable; in fact some race cars burn it. It is *not* true that they produce fewer horsepower, in fact both fuels are higher octane than gasolene and can be burned with ignition further advanced and higher compression ratios. Also with more fuel per pound of air, so the net result is more horsepower output for a given engine size and RPM.
Methanol's biggest drawbacks are (1) it can decompose into methane, a powerful greenhouse gas and (2) it is more bio-toxic than ethanol. Ethanol occurs naturally whenever yeast cells meet carbohydrates, so most organisms have evolved tolerance to ethanol in moderate doses. Nevertheless methanol is less toxic than gasolene, so it can't be dismissed out of hand on grounds of toxicity.
Ethanol has certainly been a good thing for farmers who grow corn, but we can't possibly grow enough corn to stop importing oil. If we are going to convert biomass into liquid fuels, the choice between ethanol and methanol should be based on cost, efficiency, and the two environmental issues just mentioned.
feedstockreview.ornl.gov/billion_ton_vision.pdf
The gist is that between waste (forest, agricultural and municipal) and energy crops, the USA could produce over a billion dry tons of biomass annually. The cellulose in biomass is basically sugar molecules joined into long chains, so technology is under development to change cellulose back into sugar. Throw in some yeast and set up a still, and say sayonara to the Saudis.
With forseeable efficiency improvements, a billion dry tons should yield about 100 billion gallons of ethanol, nearly one gallon per capita per day. The gross energy content of a billion dry tons is about 20% of current energy consumption, including coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydro, wind, etc. etc.
http://www.camd.lsu.edu/msds/e/ethanol.htm#Health
....
The volatility increases that ethanol causes in summertime can overwhelm any benefit it provides in reducing CO tailpipe emissions, sulfur dilution or aromatics dilution. That is why the ethanol industry only talks about tailpipe emissions benefit from ethanol in RFG. The ethanol industry often quotes last year's National Research Council study of reformulated gasoline as finding that CO reduction credit should be included for ethanol in EPA's complex model for RFG because CO tailpipe emissions contribute to ozone formation. But they fail to acknowledge what we believe to be a more important finding. The NRC report stated, '...the increase in the evaporative emissions from the ethanol-containing fuels was significantly larger than the slight benefit obtained from the lowering of the CO exhaust emissions using the ethanol-containing fuel.'
....
The bottom line: the reduction in CO tailpipe emissions obtained by using ethanol in summertime gasoline are not worth the increase in evaporation and the increases in NOX emissions from a smog contribution point of view. Incidentally, the increases in evaporation do not just contribute to ozone formation. Since the gasoline also contains toxic aromatics, such as benzene, these will evaporate more readily along with the ethanol. While ethanol may dilute the amount of benzene in a gallon of gasoline, the amount of benzene that ends up in the ambient air due to increase evaporation from the fuel may be greater than if the ethanol were not added at all."
The National Research Council study referred to above is regarded as the definitive scientific study of ethanol. The title of their news release says it all "Commonly Available Ethanol and MTBE Gasoline Blends Do Little to Reduce Smog".
Even the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, who tries as hard as possible to put a happy face on their state's aggressive ethanol policy, admits "we think the NRC report is currently the most independent, authoritative document available to policy makers."
Very recent evidence suggests even more serious cause for alarm regarding ethanol use. Professor James Garvey of SUNY-Buffalo has discovered that nitric oxide, a common air pollutant, combines readily with ethanol to form highly reactive gas-phase clusters. The implication of this discovery is that the sum of NO and ethanol emissions is more dangerous than its parts.
Of course the EPA is well aware of the pollution problems caused by ethanol, especially the fact that it increases serious hydrocarbon evaporative emissions during warm weather.
http://www.powerweb.net/heisey/dirtyair.htm
This year, more Flex fuel vehicles than Gasolene vehicles were sold in Brazil.
In Nov, 71 % of the vehicles sold were FFV.
Brazil is expecte to export the fuel to other countries as well.
While governors in more than 25 states, including Kentucky and Indiana, tout it as a way to make gasoline burn cleaner, there's new evidence ethanol can worsen some types of pollution linked to damaging health effects -- namely ozone and fine particles.
And that could make it harder for cities like Louisville, where it already is being used, to meet air standards.
"There is growing evidence that when used in the summer with reformulated gasoline, ethanol actually creates more smog and fine-particle soot," said Frank O'Donnell, a longtime clean air advocate in Washington, D.C.
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050421/NEWS01/504210- 377/1008
Ethanol Not so good
If ethanol is bad for health, then how much will the gasolene / diesel will be with so much toxic substances in them. Just compare between the 2 and ethanol will be much safer.
Currently Flex-Fuel vehicles which Ethanol are the powerful alternative to Gasolene and hence the oil lobby is crying about it.
2005 started with Oil Prices at $43 and ended at $61.
If this is the way, Ethanol will continue with its Forward March.
That is what they said about MTBE and look how that turned out. The EPA knows the truth, they are hog tied by greedy politicians. No different than the oil companies mind you. Just a different bunch of corporate thugs. Looking at Brazil and their insistence on Ethanol, is interesting. According to most environmental groups that is an ecological disaster of epic proportions playing out. Check out where they get their ethanol.
* :surprise: Since it was first launched in 1975, the Brazilian Ethanol Program remains to date the largest commercial application of biomass for energy production and use in the world.
By the mid-'80s, most cars coming off the production line ran on pure ethanol. From the 1970s to the late '90s, ethanol yields per acre had risen from 242 to 593 gallons.
:surprise: Indústria Aeronáutica Neiva, a wholly owned Embraer subsidiary, has received type certification for its ethanol-fueled Ipanema cropdusting aircraft from Brazilian aviation regulating agency Centro Técnico Aeroespacial (CTA). The Ipanema is the first series production aircraft in the world coming out of the factory certified for flying with ethanol.
These 3 examples just show that Ethanol is around for a long time, but actually just got acceptance in the last few years. In these days with record high oil prices, more and more governments are promoting the production and usage of ethanol. Didn't the corn growers in the US already appreciate rising corn prices?
Why would Bill Gates invest $84 Million in an Ethanol company, if he wouldn't see the potential of this alternative fuel?
Willie Nelson is doing well with his sell of Biodiesel, as I understand.
So in our perspective, the doors are wide open for this renewable energy source and it will be the future in the energy sector.
1st. How do you propose overcoming the well documented transportation problems?
2nd. How can additional land be used for corn or sugar cane production, with the known environmental degradation?
3rd. Are any other crops such as Switchgrass capable of making significant inroads into the use of corn for ethanol?
4th. What is being done to clean up the ethanol production facilities?
Brazil improved upon this Flex-Fuel technology and these vehicles captured
2003 - 6 %
2004 - 17 %
2005 - 53 %.
Awesome growth.
Also in 2005 Brazil sold 4.4 billion gallons of Ethanol and USA sold
4.0 billion gallons. That may be roughly equal to 32 million tons.
Last year 3,700 million tons of Oil is sold. So Ethanol sales have
are nearly 1.0 % of Oil sales.
Also last year, oil consumption increased only 1.5 %, but Ethanol
is growing by leaps and bounds as many countries are looking forward
to it.
All of that is more than enough for me to consider E85, what's you're excuse for not trying it? My only excuse right now is I don't own the vehicle that uses it yet, and it's not readily available. Once those are solved, I'm an E85 customer.
Why does it need to be subsidized and mandated by the government? If it is a viable fuel it should be able to compete in the market with gasoline at some point. Has there been anything to indicate that this will ever be the case?
Mandating or subsidizing ethanol is just providing corporate welfare to ADM, IMO.
According to this analysis: http://zfacts.com/p/60.html the production of 6 gallons of ethanol saves only 1 gallon of gasoline. The cost of saving this one gallon of gasoline comes to almost $8, according to that link.
E85 is just a marketing ploy, so one can pretend to be saving the world while driving a fuel guzzling SUV.
I had a Caravan once that was a FFV. I put in E85 for a while, my 25 MPG dropped to almost 16 MPG. Sorry but seeing I lost 1/3 of my mileage with E85 I will never go back.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Canada is into the ethanol experiment. China, the country that promises to absorb all oil production if you believe the prognosticators, built 100 ethanol production facilities only lately. They use corn, not sugar cane as the base product. Don't think we'll run out of oil any time soon.
Commodities market watch
What worries would we have about Ethanol prematurely deteriorating petroleum derivative connections along the fuel path, i.e. isn't; Ethanol hard on rubber, plastic and other petroleum derivative products, significantly shortening their lives.
Have never cars provided additives to prevent this deterioration. What about older cars? How old is a problem?
Thanks,
MidCow
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Don't confuse this with commonly available E10, sometimes referred to as "gasahol" or just ethanol. This fuel does make gasoline more evaporative and therefore can lead to increase levels of ground-level ozone. A big study by the state of Wisconsin has shown this to be the case. The press commonly refers to ALL ethanol-gasoline blends as just "ethanol" when everything I have read is that E85 shows a decrease in ozone precursors. also a big reduction in CO2 so it has greenhouse benefits.
There is a lot of discussion regarding the amount of energy it takes to produce a gallon of ethanol. The agriculture community usually says it takes less energy to produce one gallon of fuel. The detractors say it takes more, but you do have to look at how they account for this. One study included the energy used to produce the tractors that farm the fields and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. IT would only work if you did the same things for crude oil production. A petroleum geologist I know says it takes about 1 barrel of crude to produce two barrels (roughly). With the ethanol I'm basically looking at a 1-to- ratio for ethanol, basically splitting the difference at least at this point.
Assuming, of course, you can find an E85 station.
As for E10, pretty much any car can use it.
I know, I was using that to show that widespread use of E85 is impractable.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Sorry, but I don't see how that helps the case for ethanol. If I have one barrel of oil I can "invest" that energy in producing two barrels of oil, leaving me with a net energy gain of one barrel of oil. Alternatively I can convert it to its energy equivalent in ethanol which leaves me with a net energy gain of about zero.
That begs the question of how many order of fries do you have to fry to get enough biodiesel to get you around for a week?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It is pretty simple really. As long as it takes approximately a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of ethanol, a balance is maintained. Actually a better balance for the oil companies. It only takes a barrel of oil to produce two barrels of fossil oil. So ADM and Exxon share in the double cost of ethanol. A win, win for big oil and big ag companies.
Now throw in biodiesel. It only takes a barrel of oil to produce 3.2 barrels of biodiesel. Plus that barrel of oil could be in the form of biodiesel. There is not much chance that tractors will run on gas or ethanol. They will run just fine on biodiesel. A self perpetuating fuel source. Don't let that out onto the market.
I know we will give the lemmings a gas hybrid that runs on ethanol. That should shut them up for a while.
3 cheers for the governor of Montana for thinking outside the Washington lobby.
Actually its not, where are you going to get the biodiesel? We don't have enough land to the crops for it and those deep friers at McDonalds won't give enough waste cooking oil to power the trucks that supply McDonalds.
Biodiesel is good on a small scale, but not on a large scale.
Kudos for Washington for not chasing a pipe dream.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You are only thinking of cooking oil. That is many times less costly than biodiesel from soy or rapeseed. That 1/3.2 cost figure is to produce biodiesel from soy beans or rape. Crops that are not as invasive as growing corn or sugar for ethanol. Plus the production cost of producing biodiesel from soy is much lower than ethanol from corn.
The only reason ethanol is gaining so much ground is political. Pure and simple. Biodiesel is practical for many uses that ethanol cannot hope to attain.
It would be very difficult to produce enough biodiesel to power as many vehicles as we have today. That would also require a change to diesel engines that would run on biodiesel. It is not IN with mainstream America because it is not as easy for big corporations to maintain control.
No one is trying to say we can all hang out at McDonald's and fuel up our diesel cars. And the latest energy bill does have a buck per gallon incentive for biodiesel. So it is moving in the right direction. Just not as fast as I think it is needed.
You mean like the billions wasted in the 1990s on Electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells.
No I am thinking about all sources.
That 1/3.2 cost figure is to produce biodiesel from soy beans or rape. Crops that are not as invasive as growing corn or sugar for ethanol.
There is not enough farmland in the US to grow enough soybeans to create the biodiesel to replace the diesel we use. Thats why biodiesel is only workable on a small scale.
Plus the production cost of producing biodiesel from soy is much lower than ethanol from corn.
My main concern is land use. Since land can produce far more corn than soybeans and a bushel of corn can produce more ethanol that a bushel of soybeans can produce biodiesel producing the ethanol might be a better use of the land.
It would be very difficult to produce enough biodiesel to power as many vehicles as we have today.
Not difficult, it would be impossible to do it. There just isn't enough land to grow the crops.
It is not IN with mainstream America because it is not as easy for big corporations to maintain control.
One thing to consider, if we took the entire US production of soybeans and convert it to biodiesel we would have about 6.5% of our diesel needs. If we put every last square inch of farmland to producing soybeans for biodiesel we still wouldn't make enough. Its simple, biodiesel is not a solution, only a small stop gap until the true solution comes along.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I haven't been on the boards lately due to work so its good to see you and others are still around.
Yes, three cheers to the governor.
Now, the hard truth, the reason that biodiesel will be an additive is because it costs +/-$2.90 per gallon to create it.
Now I'm all for. I've got it in my tank outside.
I know that there are a few people that lurk on these boards creating BD through waste oil for MUCH less. However, to get the ASTM certifications and other quality seals to pump it through our vehicles AND to get the auto manufacturers to stand behind it is another thing altogether. Until the auto manufacturers approve it, the oil companies are not going to let you pump it out of their gas nozzles.
I know that some have claimed to make it for less than $1/gallon...but you can't make 5 million gallons of it. If you could, you couldn't sell it to anyone. If you can, let me know, I can set you up with some people willing to invest.
Boiler