maybe does "sunoco ultra 93" have more ethanol than sunoco 87? how about mobil/exxon , does their 91 octane have more than their 87? (those are the grades that are sold in northeast). there are a lot of gearhead racers here in the northeast who are willing to pay extra for uber-octane fuel - some stations sell it. maybe ethanol is used already to make such race fuel? all the arguing is getting sort of boring but is a bit funny. diesel geeks vs E10 geeks are small time compared to biodiesel vs E85 geeks! let ethanol sink or swim in the market on its own. no subsidies! it's bizarre how we got to this mandated ethanol point - first with the oxygenate requirement - and much MTBE - and then we all feel lucky when MTBE is replaced with ethanol.
Whenever the little sign on the pump says "may contain. . .up to 10%," I assume it means what it says.
That is, regardless: regular, mid, premuim "gas" can be E10. 90% petroleum gasoline and 10% ethanol. I guess the "up to" is based on the possibility that the target dilution is 10%, and apparently all cars imported to or made in the USA can safely and successfully burn E10.
I don't know if they could burn E12, though. So, when the mix is brewed, so to speak, the amount of E that is put into the G is based on a metering system that is probably very precise, but perhaps not perfect.
This way, if you sampled some Mobil or Shell or whatever brand E10, you might find some that were E8.5 and some that made it dead on to E10.
Now, I made everything I just said up, off the top of my head. But that is not to say my intention is to tell a lie -- I took known information and applied it to the blending of "gasoline."
My guess is, if I put E50 (were such offered) into my car there would be some negative consequences immediately or eventually. The FFV vehicles can probably tolerate E100 but need the 15% gasoline to ensure successful ignition when cold (or even first thing in the moring.) E is just plain NOT as volatile as the dino-gas.
Of couse, I could be wrong, since, as I freely admit I made my response up from "whole cloth" so to speak.
My best guess is that the spirit of my answer, however, is not too far off reality.
The number simply means how much is ethanol, not how much the rating of the fuel has been effected by the ethanol.
Perhaps someday, there will be a further classifcicaiton E10/91 E10/89 and so on.
Fueled by ethanol, California is coming from behind By Betsy Mason CONTRA COSTA TIMES With only one public ethanol fuel station, California lags behind other states. But the stage is set for it to reclaim its customary leading role when it comes to green fuels and emission standards.
The governor has recommended sharp reductions in emissions, a goal that could be met in part by replacing gas with ethanol. A November ballot initiative could provide subsidies for ethanol stations. And state use of a 6 percent ethanol gasoline additive has spurred construction of local ethanol production plants.
On the research side, San Francisco could become home to one of two new Department of Energy institutes for researching bioenergy, such as ethanol. Bay Area universities and companies, the Joint Genome Institute and Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore national labs are joining forces for a bid.
In the absence of a federal policy to curb greenhouse gasses, many Californians say they hope the state can blaze a trail others will follow. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan calls for cutting emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, down to 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below that by 2050. Ethanol is likely to be part of any plan to meet those goals.
"California may be the leader in this, but we will influence other Western states and then the other coast and eventually the middle of the country," said UC Berkeley's Dan Kammen, one of the authors of the alternative energy ballot initiative.
That measure calls for a state oil production tax of 1.5 to 6 percent, depending on oil prices. It would generate $4 billion toward cutting fossil fuel use by 25 percent over the next decade. Some of that could be used as subsidies to offset the cost of converting gas pumps to ethanol.
"The only thing that's really holding us back is infrastructure," Kammen said.
The middle of the country is ahead of the curve with ethanol infrastructure.The majority of the nation's 730 public ethanol stations are in the Midwest, as are many of the 6 million flex-fuel vehicles that can run on gas or gas blended with up to 85 percent ethanol, known as E85.
Lawrence Berkeley is home to one of the state's two government ethanol stations. The lab's 73 vehicles that run on E85 are part of a strategy to meet a presidential order for government agencies to cut fossil fuel use by 20 percent by this year.
San Diego is home to the state's sole public ethanol fuel station where ethanol now costs about $3.06 per gallon. This is a bit below the break-even point with gas, which is about the same price, since cars can't go quite as far on a gallon of ethanol.
Some in the ethanol business believe a dearth of ethanol-ready cars is holding up infrastructure growth.
"It's kind of hard to put a pump or two in if the majority of cars can't take it," said Tom Koehler of Fresno-based Pacific Ethanol, which is building California's first major ethanol production plant in Madera. The plant will come on line later this year at a rate of 40 million gallons a year, making it the largest producer on the West Coast. And several more plants are planned.
About 300,000 flex-fuel vehicles are cruising the state, though the vast majority likely has never tasted ethanol. More of these will soon hit California roads if General Motors has anything to do with it. Several of its 2007 models come ethanol-ready, including SUVs like the Suburban and Tahoe.
At Groth Brothers Chevrolet in Livermore, salesman Barry Katofsky believes a lack of ethanol pumps has stifled interest in the vehicles. But some customers are starting to ask about ethanol. "We're trying to educate them at this point," he said. "They like the idea that we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil."
WASHINGTON - The booming ethanol industry will consume 20 percent of this year's US corn crop, the government forecast on Friday, and soy-based biodiesel also is taking off.
Biofuels will bolster corn and soybean prices, the Agriculture Department said in its first look at this year's crop harvest. Voracious demand for corn from ethanol makers will help cut the corn (maize) surplus in half by fall 2007, or 1.14 billion bushels. "Renewable energy is making a difference" in the corn and soybean markets, said USDA chief economist Keith Collins.
Some 2.15 billion bushels (54 million tonnes) of this year's corn crop was projected to go to ethanol plants, up 34 percent from the 1.6 billion bushels (40.6 million tonnes) now being used yearly.
USDA projected 2.3 billion lbs (1 billion kg) of soyoil would be used in biodiesel in the year beginning Sept. 1, up 1.1 billion lbs (500 million kg) from this year.
"We may get US$3 (a bushel) corn on the farm this year," said private consultant John Schnittker, because of ethanol and a big demand for exports. It has been a decade since the season-average farmgate price was that high.
Corn and wheat futures prices shot upward at the Chicago Board of Trade, based on USDA's forecasts of smaller crops than last year and tightening supplies. At mid-day, corn for July delivery sold for US$2.57-1/2, up 10-1/4 cents a bushel. July wheat was up 11-1/2 cents, to US$4.03-1/2 a bushel. July soybeans were US$6.13-1/2, up one-half cent.
There are nearly 97 ethanol plants in the United States with a capacity of 4.5 billion gallons (17 billion liters) a year. There are 44 projects under way that will add 1.4 billion gallons of capacity this year, says an industry trade group. Production in 2005 totaled 3.9 billion gallons (14.8 billion liters).
"We believe that by early 2007, we're going to be producing at a rate of 6.5 billion gallons (24.6 billion liters) a year," said Collins, requiring 2.15 billion bushels of corn.
Based on surveys of 14,800 wheat farmers and examination of wheat fields, USDA forecast a winter wheat crop of 1.323 billion bushels (35 million tonnes), down 12 percent from last year and the smallest crop since 2002 due to drought in the southern Plains.
Hard red winter wheat, the major flour class, would total 715 million bushels (19.5 million tonnes), down 23 percent from 2005 and smallest since 2002. Schnittker said tight supplies would boost prices.
With the planting season well under way, USDA projected a corn crop of 10.550 billion bushels (268 million tonnes), soybeans at a near-record 3.080 billion bushels (84 million tonnes), an overall wheat harvest of 1.873 billion bushels (51 million tonnes) and a cotton crop of 20.70 million bales weighing 480 lbs (218 kg).
The soybean stockpile would climb to a record 650 million bushels (17.7 million tonnes) by Sept. 1, 2007, despite near-record exports.
What percent of fossil imports does ethanol save? 3,904,000,000 gallons of ethanol produced in 2005 667,350,427 GGs net imported energy saved 8.35x10^13 Btu net imported energy saved 2.96x10^16 Btu total imported energy in 2005 Dividing the last two numbers gives 0.282% of total imported energy saved by ethanol. That's just over 1/4 of 1%. Calculation: How much land would it take to be energy independent? Ethanol production per acre = 385 in 2004. Use a high estimate of 400 for 2005. Total acreage used for ethanol in 2005 = 9,760,000.
Convert acres to square miles by dividing by 640. Current ethanol acreage = 15,250 square miles. For energy independence = 5,411,832 square miles. Area of the US+Alaska = 3,537,438 square miles
Using figures from the University of New Hampshire study we could produce enough biodiesel to satisfy our current 140 billion gallon per year usage on 15,000 square miles of desert. A much wiser use of land than growing corn for only 1/4 or 1% of our fossil fuel usage.
NREL's research showed that one quad (7.5 billion gallons) of biodiesel could be produced from 200,000 hectares of desert land (200,000 hectares is equivalent to 780 square miles, roughly 500,000 acres), if the remaining challenges are solved (as they will be, with several research groups and companies working towards it, including ours at UNH). In the previous section, we found that to replace all transportation fuels in the US, we would need 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel, or roughly 19 quads (one quad is roughly 7.5 billion gallons of biodiesel). To produce that amount would require a land mass of almost 15,000 square miles. To put that in perspective, consider that the Sonora desert in the southwestern US comprises 120,000 square miles. Enough biodiesel to replace all petroleum transportation fuels could be grown in 15,000 square miles, or roughly 12.5 percent of the area of the Sonora desert
Using figures from the University of New Hampshire study we could produce enough biodiesel to satisfy our current 140 billion gallon per year usage on 15,000 square miles of desert.
The proof is in the puddung, give them an acre of land and see if they can produce 14,585 gallons of biodiesel from it in a year.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
see if they can produce 14,585 gallons of biodiesel from it in a year.
As far as I know there is not any real life projects like that going on. I was thinking of the algae that is produced in the Mississippi Delta by all the nitrates washed down from producing corn. I'm not sure how you would harvest algae to use it either. It is definetly a good time to be a bio chemical engineer. The opportunities seem endless. I know I will donate the algae growing in my pond for research. It looks like this is not a new line of research. I think much of it revolves around the cost of oil vs any alternative. Oil is still cheap compared to the alternatives.
The Office of Fuels Development, a division of the Department of Energy, funded a program from 1978 through 1996 under the National Renewable Energy Laboratory known as the "Aquatic Species Program". The focus of this program was to investigate high oil yield algaes that could be grown specifically for the purpose of wide scale biodiesel production1. Some species of algae are ideally suited to biodiesel production due to their high oil content (some as much as 50% oil), and extremely fast growth rates. From the results of the Aquatic Species Program2, algae farms would let us supply enough biodiesel to completely replace petroleum as a transportation fuel in the US (as well as its other main use - home heating oil).
One of the important concerns about wide scale development of biodiesel is if it would displace croplands currently used for food crops. With algae, that concern is completely eliminated, as algae grows ideally in either hot desert climates or off of waste streams. NREL's research focused on the development of algae farms in desert regions, using shallow salt water pools for growing the algae. Another nice benefit of using algae as a food stock is that in addition to using considerably less water than traditional oilseed crops, algae also grows best in salt water, so farms could be built near the ocean with no need to desalinate the seawater as it is used to fill the ponds.
I don't see how you can rationalize a fuel that costs more to make than the energy it provides vis a vis gasoline. If ethanol were in a free market situation, nobody would buy a drop of it. Basically ethanol is just a hidden tax on citizens near as I can tell, and a farm subsidy. It's relationship to an "energy policy" is rather vague.
Of course, if gasoline gets more expensive (maybe double what it is now), or scarce, then the whole picture changes for ethanol.
Edmunds Forum official HOST ignores United States policies and scientific facts. I guess Edmunds official position is just another excellant example of the drive-by media...must be Edmunds is owned by one or more of the oil cartel dictators. Very interesting!
I know I will donate the algae growing in my pond for research.
Heck whats growing in our 55 gallon fish tank could run a small fleet of Mack trucks. I am definetly fighting a losing battle there.
NREL's research focused on the development of algae farms in desert regions, using shallow salt water pools for growing the algae.
Since shallow pools of water dry up rather quickly in the desert I would suspect that this would be a rather water intensive way to produce biodiesel. This may not be to effective.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Edmunds Forum official HOST ignores United States policies and scientific facts.
Mighty harsh words my friend. I believe it is You that are ignoring the facts on ethanol. I understand Congress and the President's position on Ethanol. It is BIG money in the campaign coffers. What is your hope of gain from ethanol? You seem to be one of the few in this country that have been fooled into thinking ethanol is good for the USA. I will say if the industry ever evolves into a reasonable source of fuel via some less invasive weed or waste product, it may be a good supplement to gasoline. It will Never be a viable alternative using corn as its feedstock.
Just because he doesn't have the same opinion that you have doesn't mean he is ignoring scientific facts. Many studies do support his position on this. Now instead of making personal attacks present some counter arguments to his statement that it costs more energy to make than you get out of it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
If I were a betting man I would bet that he either works for a corporation that benefits from ethanol (like ADM) or has an investment in them or another venture that will profit from ethanol usage.
I will say if the industry ever evolves into a reasonable source of fuel via some less invasive weed or waste product, it may be a good supplement to gasoline.
It would be a supplement but never a replacement, I really can't see ethanol reducing our oil consumption by anything more than 20-25%, and thats at current levels of usage.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I am appreciating your posts of late. They are making my case against Mandated Ethanol. All the mandates will do is raise the price to where no one will want to buy E85. Those that are stuck with E10 or some other mixture will just have to pay the higher price for gas.
You really do not get it, I try to post informative articles that list the pros and cons of Ethanol, Biodiesel and Diesel autos.
However, the arguement against Ethanol and Biodiesel fuels is over. The laws of the United States reflect the importance of renewable fuels to get rid of some dependency on dictator oil cartels...there is NO turning back the clock to even listen to your arguements...the party is over and the American people have spoken through their representatives...democracy is a majority rules type of government.
MTBF replacement is the first goal of Ethanol, E10 is the second and E85 is the third. Biodiesel is the fuel goal for our trucking industry, not the goal of a tiny and miniscule, unproven diesel technology from Europe (turbo replacement costs about $3,000 and engine replacements cost about $8,000, and these replacements are for the failures of the ineptly designed VW TDI). Biodiesel is a contributor to NOx (smog) fumes and turns rancid after two weeks unless it contains some high priced additive from Europe.
Ethanol (alcohol) is a go...NOW and Biodiesel may be next, if they can figure out how to modify the truck engines.
The insanely funny arguements about our nation's starving pigs laid at Ethanol's door as well as every other environmental problem is hilarious and has given us a healthy laugh.
I know of several backwater sloughs that are constant level fed by saltwater along the coast here in San Diego. I imagine like all projects we would run into environmental issues that would keep it from going forward. I really think that with the research that has gone on the government has a plan on where to implement these tidewater pools. I believe the oil situation will have to get a lot worse before we do anything along those lines.
Right now the Ethanol smoke screen has every Tom, Dick and Jose panting to get in on the money tree. It is reminiscent of the Dot.Com fever. I sure as anything am not putting my winnings on Ethanol. It looks like Enron and MCI all rolled into one big package. I guess when the Ethanol bubble bursts we could convert those stills over to making Vodka as an export to Russia in exchange for some of their oil.
Replying to my own message, with question unanswered, the "ethanol will NOT" school of thought seems to be more confident and louder than ever (since June 24th when I posted the following statement):
"To me E85 may not technically be one of the most unlikely approaches to solve a problem ever devised by the human mind, but, damn, it at least deserves thoughtful consideration as a nominee."
Where is the data/information coming from on this subject that point by point explains and justifies the sagacity behind the pro-ethanol school of thought?
The con-ethanol school is well represented and presented, I think. The pro-ethanol school is, apprarently, not well represetned.
there is NO turning back the clock to even listen to your arguements...the party is over and the American people have spoken through their representatives...democracy is a majority rules type of government
Actually we are a Republic but I imagine that is not even taught in our Public Schools.
I assume you were not around for the last ethanol boondoggle. Half of the ethanol plants were shut down for lack of need. Ethanol cannot compete against cheap oil. It is not even a break even situation at $70 a barrel oil. If it were not for nearly a buck a gallon in subsidies it would not be in production. It is a giant scam by companies like ADM and Verasun and we are stuck paying the higher gas bills.
I think the figure may end up closer to 5% by 2012. It will probably be less than that if the current mandates are thrown out over bad science and cooked books. Once the election is past those contributions may not have paid off the right candidates. Though I am sure ADM has both parties in the bag.
...there is NO turning back the clock to even listen to your arguements..
OK how about just listen to the arguments and producing an energy plan that actually makes sense and works not one doomed to failure that lines the pockets of ADM.
Biodiesel is the fuel goal for our trucking industry, not the goal of a tiny and miniscule, unproven diesel technology from Europe
Its a proven technology and not only from Europe.
Ethanol (alcohol) is a go...
Ethanol is a bust, we cant even make enough for the poorly thought out 10% ethanol mandate. Even when (if?) we make the switch to ethanol from biomass it is doubtful that it would replace even 25% of our current oil needs (and ethanol from biomass is years away).
It is time to take a stand and stop wasting taxpayers money on making ADM and like corporations rich in a scheme that will not work. It is time to start looking at other alternatives to oil and developing them. If we keep on the current track we will one day find out that it is to late to do anything at all.
Tell me do you work for ADM?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I know of several backwater sloughs that are constant level fed by saltwater along the coast here in San Diego.
Yes but how big are they and can they produce enough algae? also are they truly in the desert or are they near some water source. 15,000 square miles is a lot of and to keep as a shallow pool (about 2 billion gallons per inch in depth), and in the desert its going to be difficult to keep it as such.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It may be closer to that, I was basing my 20-25% based on current levels of consumption and how much biomass that we can realistically harvest on a yearly basis.
Though I am sure ADM has both parties in the bag.
IIRC ADM did give hefty contributions to both parties in the past.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Just because he doesn't have the same opinion that you have doesn't mean he is ignoring scientific facts. Many studies do support his position on this. Now instead of making personal attacks present some counter arguments to his statement that it costs more energy to make than you get out of it.
I really do not care to discuss the personal attacks by some ***CENSORED*** on this forum, they are not worth the time nor effort. I have posted the scientific data from labs and the US government in many of my posts to where people complain about the redundancy of my posts. I do not chose to denigrate or answer the cheap shots against the American farmer, the rule of the majority in a democracy, the "cheap" oil prices at $70 a barrel, public companies, conspiracies against among other things "pigs," and other assorted myths and falsehoods written by some respondents in this forum.
The forum is set up by Edmunds to denigrate Ethanol, however, Ethanol is here NOW and is rolling out big time. Corn is just one of the renewable fuels that will be used to create ethanol and some states may choose to ignore any ethanol beyond the MTBF replacement ethanol...so what, that is their choice. E10 and E85 may only be a viable renewable fuel west of the rockies, however, that is the choice the nation may have to take.
The arguments against Ethanol have been in the main, sometimes very informative, but mainly highly emotional, agenda suspect and sometimes just plain hilarious. However, denigrating all of the American people who are working to try to solve our oil problem is just a cheap shot by a ***CENSORED***.
I really do not see any positive steps being done by most people who want no action on renewable fuels...they just want to cover up ANY solution to the world's oil problems because they "can't see any problem" with gas prices being dictated to by oil cartel dictators, "What's $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon gas between friends, I don't care!"
Maybe I get sick and tired of the mind set of the small minority of do-nothings, know-nothings, hate-everything in this country...the problems that focused on our nation that were illuminated by 911 will not go away because we wish them to.
By Bill Wilson Wichita Business Journal Updated: 7:00 p.m. CT June 25, 2006
Kansas' ethanol production capacity will more than double in the next year, when plants at Phillipsburg, Garden City and Liberal go on line. The state produces 170 million gallons of ethanol each year from seven operating plants. When those three go on line, they are projected to add 205 million gallons of capacity, bringing the state total to an estimated 375 million gallons each year.
In addition, three more plants are on the drawing board, says Sue Schulte, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Association of Corn Growers, in Pratt, Goodland and a Stafford County project spearheaded by former Kansas Senate President Dave Kerr.
Jennings says Kansas' growth exceeds the national pace, from 90 plants in late 2005 to between 115 and 125 by the end of this year.
"But the difference is capacity," he says. "We're not building a lot of new 40-million-gallon plants. We're building 100-million-gallon plants."
Dave Vander Griend, president and CEO of ICM, says Trammell's Kansas plant -- potentially the 14th in a state with seven currently operating -- could complete the saturation of the Kansas market.
"We can definitely grow enough corn for 14 plants," he says. "Right now, we've got the livestock to handle the byproducts we produce, and that's the variable. This number will load the state up pretty quickly."
Lee Reeve, who operates Reeve Agri-Energy near Garden City, agrees.
"Depends where the new plants are," he says. "We're pretty well concentrated out here in western Kansas."
Demand for ethanol, Jennings says, is what attracts entrepreneurs like Trammell.
"They understand that demand is incredibly strong," he says. "The price of crude and the price of gasoline are the leading factors. MTBE is replaced by ethanol in the gasoline supply.
Ethanol is a cost-effective octane enhancer. And the law of the land, the energy bill, requires a minimum amount of ethanol to be used. The expectation in the short- and mid-term is that demand is going to remain strong.
Corn Surplus Reduced acreage and increased demand are giving corn prices hope. On June 9, 2006, the USDA estimated 2006-2007 U.S. ending stocks at 1.091 billion bushels, down from 2.176 billion bushles in 2005-2006. Production is expected to total 10.550 billion bushels with 11.645 billion bushels of total use. This drops the ending stocks to use ratio down to 9%, matching the lowest ratio of the past 10 years. On the world scene, the USDA is looking for the 2006-2007 ending stocks to drop from 130 to 92 million tons, or 13% of total use. In 2005-2006, exports are expected to increase 14% and so far, they are up 13% from a year ago. As of June 18th, the USDA said that 68% of the corn crop was rated good to excellent, the same as a year ago.
(Ron) Lamberty (executive director of the American Coalition for Ethanol) also rejected the criticism that ethanol should be rethought because it has to be subsidized, saying that oil is also subsidized. "We don't apologize for the fact that ethanol is taxed lower," Lamberty said. "We're not over in the Middle East because were trying to get Persian rugs. We've got a large Defense Department present in the Persian Gulf so we can bring fuel back at a low price."
Corn Surplus Reduced acreage and increased demand are giving corn prices hope. On June 9, 2006, the USDA estimated 2006-2007 U.S. ending stocks (surplus) at 1.091 billion bushels, down from 2.176 billion bushles in 2005-2006. Production is expected to total 10.550 billion bushels with 11.645 billion bushels of total use. This drops the ending stocks to use ratio down to 9%, matching the lowest ratio of the past 10 years. On the world scene, the USDA is looking for the 2006-2007 ending stocks to drop from 130 to 92 million tons, or 13% of total use. In 2005-2006, exports are expected to increase 14% and so far, they are up 13% from a year ago. As of June 18th, the USDA said that 68% of the corn crop was rated good to excellent, the same as a year ago.
(Ron) Lamberty (executive director of the American Coalition for Ethanol) also rejected the criticism that ethanol should be rethought because it has to be subsidized, saying that oil is also subsidized. "We don't apologize for the fact that ethanol is taxed lower," Lamberty said. "We're not over in the Middle East because were trying to get Persian rugs. We've got a large Defense Department present in the Persian Gulf so we can bring fuel back at a low price."
Soybeans Surplus
On June 9, 2006, the USDA estimated 2006-2007 U.S. ending stocks at 655 million bushels, up from 570 million bushels in 2005-2006. Production was estimated at 3.080 billion bushels with total use of 2.999 billion bushels. The resulting ending stocks (surplus) to use ratio is 22%, the most in 21 years. Worldwide, the USDA estimated 2006-2007 ending stocks at 58 million tons or 26% of annual use, up from 55.5 millon tons in the previous year. Brazil and Argentina increased production by 5% in 2005-2006, but are only expected to increase production by 1% in 2006-2007.
In 2005-2006, the USDA is expecting exports to fall 18% and so far, they are down 21%. As of June 18th, 67% of the U.S. soybean crop was rated good to excellent, up from 63% a year ago. New formula replaces Biodiesel
Petrobras said the new fuel, called H-Bio, was developed over 18 months by mixing refinery petroleum with oil from soy, sunflower seeds, cotton and castor beans. The new H-Bio fuel is different from bio-diesel, which is also produced with vegetable oils but is blended into regular diesel by fuel distributors, not at the refinery level.
Petrobras predicted that three refineries would produce the new fuel by 2007. The company declined to reveal its investment or expected production but said diesel fuel imports would decline "initially by 250 million liters (66 million gallons) a year."
Vivian Sequera, Associated Press. June 21, 2006.
Three years ago, it appeared Brazil would eventually overtake the U.S. as the world's top soybean supplier. Multinational companies invested millions in Brazilian production and analysts were projecting a 58 million metric-ton soy crop by 2005. The declining dollar has lowered expectations. Brazil will plant a smaller 2006-07 soy crop -- at least 5% less acreage -- after harvesting about 53.2 million tons from the 2005-06 crop. The U.S. harvested 84 million tons in 2005-06.
Kenneth Rapoza, Barron's. June 5, 2006.
"Soybean oil is really leading the whole complex right now, and that's related to biofuels," said Dave Lehman, managing director of commodities at the Chicago Board of Trade. Demand for biodiesel rose from about 25 million gallons in 2004 to between 75 million and 90 million gallons in 2005, with growth to some 150 million gallons this year, according to Leland Tong, an adviser to the National Biodiesel Board.
I really do not care to discuss the personal attacks by some ***CENSORED*** on this forum, they are not worth the time nor effort.
You do realize that you are the "***CENSORED***" that I was talking about making the personal attacks.
I have posted the scientific data from labs and the US government in many of my posts to where people complain about the redundancy of my posts.
You have cherry picked your scientific data and ignored scientific data that goes against your agenda. You have posted lies myths and misinformation about ethanol then had the chutzpah to complain that others do it.
You post propaganda, nothing more, nothing less.
I do not chose to denigrate...
Yet to those that disagree with you you call anti-American and tools of "oil cartel dictators".
The forum is set up by Edmunds to denigrate Ethanol
No this forum was set up to discuss ethanol.
Ethanol is here NOW and is rolling out big time.
Yes ethanol is here now, but its going to go nowhere awfully slowly. You see we cant produce enough of it to make much of a dent in our oil usage.
Corn is just one of the renewable fuels that will be used to create ethanol
It has been pointed out many times that corn is not a good source of ethanol and most likely consumes more oil than it saves. Yet you completely ignore that fact.
The arguments against Ethanol have been in the main, sometimes very informative, but mainly highly emotional, agenda suspect and sometimes just plain hilarious.
As are your pro ethanol arguments.
However, denigrating all of the American people who are working to try to solve our oil problem is just a cheap shot by a ***CENSORED***.
Again you are the "***CENSORED***" that has taken the cheap shot.
...they just want to cover up ANY solution to the world's oil problems because they "can't see any problem"
I don't see anyone here trying to cover up any problems, I do not see anyone here who cannot see a problem. Those you have bashed here are those who looked at ethanol and said "nope this will not work lets stop this madness and look at other alternatives". Unlike you who are blinded by their own agenda that they cannot see the forest because of the trees, many here seem to have look at this objectively and see that it cannot work.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
A Research Report on Ethanol Investment: Golden Opportunity or Fool’s Gold?”
By Russell Hasan
Altenews.com
Introduction: The Ethanol Boom
We are strong advocates of alternative energy, and we are happy to see the American ethanol industry growing. But we are also advocates of informed investments and not “irrational exuberance” manufactured by hyperactive investment bankers and a media that goes with the flow. This report is a cautionary note for investors interested in American companies producing ethanol from corn, pointing out various factors and data to consider before risking losses in ethanol investments.
The investment banks who led us to the golden pastures of dotcom before 2000 and the subsequent burst bubble are the same that are now leading the charge for corn ethanol. Corn ethanol is projected to be a sure bet for investors, just as dotcom was at one time. We believe that a near-term boom and bust in corn ethanol is possible if the individual investors are not careful. In this report we examine eight points of caution for ethanol investors, after which is a conclusion focusing on the long-term potential of ethanol.
1. Supply and Demand: Ethanol use in gasoline, as a replacement for the toxic gasoline additive MTBE, has been mandated by the government. Several states have also passed ethanol mandates or are considering mandates. Ethanol producers are blessed with extremely generous financial incentives, including a $0.51 of tax exemption on federal excise tax per gallon of ethanol blended with gasoline, a $.10/gal tax credit for “small” producers making less than 60 million gallons, and a $0.54/gal import tariff on ethanol. We have the capacity to produce 4.7 billion gallons annually, with capacity of 2 billion additional gallons under construction, according to the Renewable Fuels Association. By 2012, mandatory ethanol consumption will rise to 7.5 billion gallons per year, required by President Bush’s Energy Policy Act of 2005. If U.S. corn ethanol capacity exceeds 7.5 billion gallons in 2012, prices may decline sharply. If corn ethanol capacity in the near future exceeds the mandatory ethanol consumption levels for the near future, then there will be pressure on ethanol prices much sooner. If the current rate of capacity increase continues, then this scenario will definitely take place.
2. Government Support: The use of ethanol for powering vehicles is not new. Henry Ford designed and built ethanol-powered vehicles almost a hundred years ago. But it did not catch on, and there was little attention paid to ethanol in the middle of the 20th century, when gasoline prices were acceptable. Following the OPEC oil crisis of the 1970s, President Carter offered a $0.40 per gallon tax incentive and engineered the first ethanol boom. The ethanol industry unfortunately fell apart with the collapse of crude oil prices in 1986. It can be argued that high oil prices are driving the recent interest in ethanol, and if oil prices go down significantly, due to factors involving oil producers and beyond the control of the ethanol industry, political support for mandates, tax cuts and tariffs may dissipate. If this government support were removed it would put a major damper on ethanol profit margins. Much of Carter’s rhetoric about the need for energy independence is similar to recent speeches by President Bush. If the political concern for alternative energy of the Carter era could fade away, it is conceivable for current political interest to fade as well.
3. Competition from Gasoline: Ethanol offers the promise of domestic energy independence, but it must be able to compete with gasoline to have long-term profitability. It must also be mentioned that ethanol is at a disadvantage compared to gasoline in mile-per-gallon fuel efficiency. According to fueleconomy.gov, a car that gets 16 miles-per-gallon on gas will get only 12 miles on E85. It was also recently reported that the wholesale price of ethanol “was around $3 per gallon compared with about $2.28 for gasoline (before being mixed with ethanol).” Even with GM and Ford having made announcements about producing more flex-fuel cars capable of running on E85, and with more gas stations offering E85, it is questionable whether motorists will find E85 economically justifiable.
4. South American Imports: Brazil, a major player in ethanol, now accounts for more than 50% of the 20,000 barrels/day of U.S. ethanol imports. Brazilian production costs have been 40-50% lower than the U.S., according to a Congressional Research Service Report for Congress of 2005. It may be as low as 20% now. Even with the supposedly prohibitive tariff, which violates WTO rules, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is competitive with domestic corn ethanol. Brazilian exports to the U.S. are limited only by its capacity constraints. Japan plans to invest $1.29 billion in Brazil towards the production of sugarcane ethanol and biodiesel, which will increase Brazilian ethanol capacity significantly before the end of the decade. Caribbean and CAFTA countries, because of the duty free access provided by the Caribbean Basin Initiative and CAFTA, have been long time exporters of ethanol to the U.S. CBI and CAFTA allow Caribbean and Central American countries to purchase ethanol from other countries such as Brazil, reprocess it, and export to the U.S. without paying the import tariff.
It is questionable whether America can champion globalization and keep the ethanol import tariff indefinitely. It is also a matter of time before Brazilian ethanol finds its way to the U.S. via the Caribbean. Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is more energy efficient than American corn ethanol and cheaper than gasoline. By 2010, Brazil will export 2.5 billion gallons of ethanol, which is likely to put enormous pressure on domestic ethanol. Thus, competition from Brazil and the Caribbean may lower the price of ethanol in America in five years.
5. Corn Supply: Corn, a perennial surplus commodity, is now in tight supply because of ethanol. As with all agricultural commodities, corn prices are affected by weather conditions. Ten years ago, for example, corn prices had reached $4.70/bushel, approximately twice the price today. That year had seen a 25% drop in the production of ethanol.
The secular long-term tightness of corn is expected to continue for some time. China, a traditional exporter of corn, has now become a net importer. No one knows how severely China will impact corn prices. Of the 11.1 billion bushels produced in the U.S., the ethanol industry consumed an estimated 1.6 billion bushels or 14% in 2005. Corn production is estimated to be 10.5 billion bushels this year with ethanol industry usage projected to rise above 20%. Export markets, poultry and livestock industries will be adversely affected. Poultry prices may rise sharply. The corn ethanol industry will be vulnerable to long-term supply of its raw material, corn.
The near term outlook of corn supply does not appear to be assured. USDA reported corn stocks of 3.8 billion bushels as of March 1st. During the Dec-Feb quarter, consumption of corn did not go down as much as was expected due to the higher prices. Worldwatch Institute cautions that “if U.S. corn use and exports were to continue at the same rate in the months ahead as during the December-February period, U.S. corn stocks would be totally depleted by July 28th – roughly 2 months before the next harvest begins.” The demand for corn ethanol is inelastic at present and hence the ethanol industry will be able to cope with likely higher prices. However, lower margins and complaints about possible higher poultry and livestock prices may bring the corn ethanol enthusiasts down to Earth before fall this year. Alan Greenspan recently testified before Congress saying that he has doubts about corn supplies being sufficient for corn ethanol to replace gasoline. If he is right, and the above factors affect corn supplies, then there will not be enough corn to make large-scale ethanol production viable.
Ethanol cannot be shipped by pipeline. It has to be barged and trucked. As such, bigger producers may not have an inherent advantage over smaller ones. Many small producers are owned by corn producers’ co-ops. During periods of tight corn supply, small co-ops may do better than larger companies without captive corn supply. There is also a tax break that benefits only small ethanol producers, further making smaller producers preferable to larger ones.
6. Cellulosic Ethanol: Cellulosic ethanol, whose large-scale commercial production is probably at least five years away, will dominate ethanol in the future. There is a Canadian company already producing 260,000 gallons per year of cellulosic ethanol. Several companies working to perfect enzymes for cellulosic ethanol production claim to be close to perfection. Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from straw, switch-grass, short maturity super trees, and biowaste. Curiously, cellulosic ethanol has been unfairly criticized recently as requiring more energy to produce than it yields. Only one process, acid hydrolysis, requires more energy. Current research is concentrated on several other processes which are expected to be the least energy consuming of all kinds of ethanol production. (Corn ethanol has also been criticized as requiring more energy than it yields, but a majority of studies dispute this claim.)
The Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) office claims that “in terms of key energy and environmental benefits, cornstarch ethanol clearly outpaces petroleum-based fuels, and that tomorrow’s cellulose-based ethanol would do even better.” They also say that while “corn ethanol reduces (greenhouse gas) emissions by 18% to 29%; cellulosic ethanol offers an even greater benefit, with an 85% reduction in GHG emissions.” A Natural Resources Defense Council-commissioned paper in “Environmental Science and Technology” claims that 1 unit of fossil fuel energy produces 1.3 units of ethanol energy, while 1 unit of fossil fuel may create 6 units of cellulosic ethanol energy, meaning that cellulosic ethanol might be almost six times more efficient. Nathan Glasgow and Lena Hansen of Rocky Mountain Institute report that “while corn-based ethanol reduces carbon emissions by about 20 percent below gasoline, cellulosic ethanol is predicted to be carbon-neutral, or possibly even net-carbon-negative.” In his Congressional testimony Greenspan claimed that cellulosic ethanol held more promise than corn ethanol. It has also been claimed that the byproducts of the process of creating cellulosic ethanol can be burned to power the process, making it more oil-independent than corn ethanol. The previously mentioned Canadian company is seeking loan guarantees from the Department of Energy to help build a cellulosic ethanol production facility in the United States, specifically in Idaho. Still, for the time being the vast majority of American ethanol producers are making corn-based ethanol, which will not compete favorably with cellulosic ethanol in the long term. The ability of U.S. producers to make the switch from corn to cellulose in the future is hard to predict.
As a renewable fuel butanol might be a better alternative. BP fact sheet (http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloa- ds/B/Bio_biobutanol_fact_sheet_jun06.pdf) Food stocks will probably never get feedstock cost to levels that make sense. Transportation needs to remain a relatively fixed cost in both personal and business budgets for this country to grow. Algal & cellulosic biomass should be developed as full replacement for oil - not just to reduce imports. Efficiency should continue to be a focus so that per mile fuel costs are in the 1 or 2 cent range - not the 2 bits we through out the window now.
While ethanol from biomass will be more plentiful than it is now there is still a big doubt that it would produce more than 25% of our current oil needs.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Ok, I read this and will, by default, assume that this article, in part, is at least a small portion of the "defense of ethanol" argument I requested two days ago; but, I must say, that reading the article did not make me feel the case for CORN-based ethanol is anything but shaky.
I guess a point by point "refutation" of the con-ethanol statements made in Car and Driver magazine this month just isn't in the cards.
I'll take what I can get.
But, the net of all the stuff written does seem to be that the Car and Driver article is, at the very least, not an inaccurate or deliberately negatively spun presentation.
The arguments seem to be repeated over and over -- and I know repetition (with evolution of the argument being put forth) is important to make a point "stick."
I want to be pro-ethanol, I want to be pro-anything that has merit with respect to solving a problem. I know that we may have to invest in a few dry-holes to "strike oil" so to speak (literally and figuratively in this case) -- but even the pro-articles are either AT BEST cautious and/or leave out the severe hit on MPG and the current and near term (and possibly mid-term, too) financial paradox of ethanol.
Once the dust settles, so to speak (i.e., the subsidies end or we rob corn for food/feed production to support corn for fuel production and subsequently food prices rise) even THE most optimistic folks don't outline how we have actually done much at all to help the situation.
The pro-ethanol folks don't seem to address the increased costs to the actual consumer. Even when the costs are discussed they are discussed in a vacuum -- that is, I have read the concession statements regarding the cost per gallon (before and after the government dole subsides) and they generally talk about the price of ethanol (E85) as having little (if any) financial incentive to buy. The statements sometimes say "Regular Gas $3.00; E85 $3.00," or sometimes a bit less or a bit more but they fail to mention the implied price due to the MPG that will be associated with using 85% ethanol; and, often the price per gallon is stated as the price including a $.51 per gallon incentive which makes no sense whatsoever in the long run.
Or, if the mileage is mentioned, usually other factors that when coupled with that information are included in the discussion that WOULD exacerbate the situation, well, seemingly, they too are not included.
In other words, it seems like the folks who present the "E85 is not ready for prime time" will present both the costs and fuel efficiency data and cite sources (over and over again to -- successfully I think -- substantiate the point that E85 gets at least 25% poorer milage and even with subsidies in rarely significantly less money per gallon than oil-based gasoline); but, the folks who swear E85 is ready for the masses seem, to me at least, to leave out either fuel efficiency data and implications OR cost per gallon information and its (easier to understand) consequences.
We've NOT advanced the case for E85 in the past three days, as far as I can tell. But we seem to have irked "each other" and come "this close" to ad hominem arguments.
I've got to agree with most of what you say, EXCEPT:
"We've NOT advanced the case for E85 in the past three days, as far as I can tell. But we seem to have irked "each other" and come "this close" to ad hominem arguments."
Change "three days" to "two weeks" and I think you're just about right.... :sick:
I'm in full agreement with the C&D article. I posted that article more for those that might be thinking about investing in ethanol. It is a shaky investment at best. I love the way Bill Gates Jumped into the fray. He gets special stock pricing with his millions.
The pro-ethanol folks don't seem to address the increased costs to the actual consumer.
That point assumes a few points that may be flawed:
-That scale economies would not lead to lower ethanol prices -That the eventual use of other biomass will not prove to be more efficient resources, also allowing for lower prices -That increased competition in the market as supplies increase could not also lower ethanol prices -That gasoline prices won't increase from current levels to an extent that wouldn't make ethanol more attractive in relative terms.
It's not a good or fair analysis to judge the prospects of any technology strictly by the status quo if the status quo is changing or may change. While it is reasonable to point out that ethanol is costly and in limited supply today, that alone is not enough reason to claim that it has no potential in the marketplace.
Jefferson City, MO – H-E-B, a 100 year old company offering food goods, will begin selling the clean burning alternative – E85 – at five locations throughout the Lonestar State. The stations are to be located along IH-35 and should open by the end of August.
“We have deep Texas roots and an unwavering commitment to doing what’s right for our customers, and they’ve made it clear they want an alternative to foreign oil,” said James Aulds, Vice President of H-E-B Fuels. “Our customers will also appreciate the fact that E85 is less expensive and cleaner burning than traditional gasoline.”
The stations will be strategically located along IH-35; placed close to fleet operations and U.S. Army’s Fort Hood and Raldolph Air Force Base.
“We are pleased to see H-E-B as a provider for this renewable fuel,” said Curtis Donaldson, Chairman of the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition. “This is good for their business, good for Texas drivers and good for the environment. The NEVC has been working with H-E-B for several months and have established an excellent partnership. In fact, because of the growth of E85 fueling in Texas, the NEVC is upgrading our office phone system to be able to serve the needs of Spanish speaking E85 customers.”
H-E-B has also announced that they will be organizing an educational and promotional campaign to inform their customers on the benefits of the clean burning alternative fuel.
H-E-B plans to make E85 available at the following locations in a couple short months:
H-E-B 17460 IH-35 North Schertz, Texas 78154 (Exit 3009, NE corner of IH-35 and 3009)
H-E-B 500 Canyon Ridge Drive Austin, Texas 78753 (IH-35 and Parmer at Tech Ridge)
H-E-B 2511 Trimmier Road, Suite 100 Killeen, Texas 76542 (Near gates of Fort Hood)
H-E-B Buda #477 15300 South IH-35 Buda, Texas 78610 (Southbound frontage of IH-35)
H-E-B 801 IH-35 North Waco, Texas 76705 (IH-35 and 84)
According to Phillip Lampert, Executive Director of the NEVC, “The Alliance of Automobile Manufactures Association new alternative fuel web site, www.discoveralternatives.com, shows that there are more flexible fuel vehicles located in the state of Texas than any other state in the nation. For E85 to be a truly national form of alternative transportation fuel, it was critical for us to assist in this Texas effort. We are very pleased that H-E-B has joined the NEVC as a full member and partner in our efforts to advance E85.”
Shortly, Texas will have seventeen stations in the state, a total up from one in January of 2006. For a complete listing, go to www.E85Fuel.com.
You are correct, but based on what we know today, is in large measure the spirit of my question(s). And that is, where are the sources that counter -- without name calling (and without simple contradiction) these points, succinctly summarized by Patrick Bedard in the July C&D magazine:
o Ethanol will insignificantly reduce our dependence upon oil o Ethanol seems unlikely to reduce our dependence on foreign oil o Ethanol will not, indeed cannot, protect us from price fluctuations o Ethanol reduces CO2 by a very small single digit percentage and raises total hydrocarbon emissions by over 40% o Ethanol has a functionally zero percent chance of slowing or reversing global warming o Ethanol achieves insignificantly better performance (as E85) than plain gasoline or E10 o Ethanol achieves significantly worse miles per gallon (30% worse) than plain gasoline or E10 o Ethanol cannot be pumped through the same pipes that currently move petroleum gas o Ethanol production from food (corn) in any meaningful quantity will impact the cost of food negatively and essentially require us to cease exporting corn.
I use this secondary resource (edmunds, this blog, that is) as part (not a major part, but not one that I can ignore, either) of my overall education pertaining to the viability of ethanol. Folks who seem in favor of it, seem to not include many or all of the cons in their arguments.
Is the litany of points (for the sake of easy identification, Bedard's Litany of Points) able to be countered without name calling, without simple contradiction and without relying entirely on a "what might be" argument?
I am willing to grant that several factors that are not yet in play might occur that will mitigate the negatives pertaining to E and E85. But, it is also possible that a breakthrough in cooking the oil shale and tapping into hundreds of trillions of bbl's of oil right here in North America is at least possible.
We seem to be willing to argue -- skillfully -- the points that we wish to present.
I am looking, as if I were a debate team participant, to take up the cause of the pro-E85 crowd for a time. Thus far, I am having about as much luck building a case for E85 as I would for making the case for the earth being flat (and I said that for effect, and ask to be allowed to make a point with a hint of drama.)
Where is the info to refute Bedard? And, is Bedard so biased, so close minded that he wrote an article, apparently with research behind it, that deliberately was written to support a conclusion made in advance? And, therefore, that Bedard deliberately turned a blind-eye to data points, information and studies that contradicted his foregone conclusion?
In other words, is Bedard's piece just a puff piece or a paid political announcement, so to speak?
Many of the folks who write these pieces (including but not limited to another popular piece found in Popular Mechanics) seem to write with "intellectual honesty."
But, perhaps they all have an agenda to argue against anything that is NOT derived from oil.
I can't find any supporting info, however.
That is why I keep asking "where to look." When I do look, it often seems (thus far) that E85 is "the emperor's new clothes."
I'm just too dumb to know I'm not supposed to cry out in recognition of the emperor's underwear. :surprise:
Since I'm not particularly pro-anything-in-particular, I may not be the best person to address this. But I'll toss in a few cents, anyway:
o Ethanol will insignificantly reduce our dependence upon oil o Ethanol seems unlikely to reduce our dependence on foreign oil
The truth or falseness of this will be based upon the level of ethanol production, and changes in demand for energy. These statements assume minimal increases in production, which may well prove to be false, particularly if other biomasses are used to produce it.
o Ethanol will not, indeed cannot, protect us from price fluctuations
Again, that will prove to be true or false based upon supply levels, as noted above.
In any case, that isn't the only purpose of an energy, so this may not offer much of a yardstick. For one, the main purpose of energy is to provide fuel, so if ethanol accomplishes that task, it has done enough.
For another, the main benefit of any alternative fuel may not be to reduce prices per se, but to reduce risk by diversifying the breadth our energy portfolio. It's not particularly smart to manage US energy policy while ignoring the nastiness of the regimes that provide much of it.
o Ethanol reduces CO2 by a very small single digit percentage and raises total hydrocarbon emissions by over 40%
Most energy consumption creates some sort of pollution. Without comparing this to the alternatives that would be used instead and gaining some context, this information isn't very helpful.
o Ethanol has a functionally zero percent chance of slowing or reversing global warming
I can't think of any energy source that does. Again, compare ethanol to the alternatives, rather than to a utopian vision in which energy can be consumed without negative consequences.
o Ethanol achieves insignificantly better performance (as E85) than plain gasoline or E10 o Ethanol achieves significantly worse miles per gallon (30% worse) than plain gasoline or E10
Again, the purpose of an energy source is to provide fuel, not necessarily to provide it at a level based upon an arbitrary benchmark.
If prices and fuel tank capacities are suitable to provide sufficient range to please the average customer, then the mileage loss largely won't matter. As we can see, the higher mileage available from diesel is not a particularly important value proposition to most consumers, just so long as the range is "good enough".
o Ethanol cannot be pumped through the same pipes that currently move petroleum gas
Then factor in the infrastructure costs into the analysis. Again, every solution has expenses associated with it; focusing on ethanol's costs doesn't eliminate the expenses of the others.
o Ethanol production from food (corn) in any meaningful quantity will impact the cost of food negatively and essentially require us to cease exporting corn.
Once again, this assumes that corn is the only suitable biomass, and that exporting corn is a better choice than using it domestically.
Ethanol may be the worst thing on earth, for all we know, but these arguments above are not compelling. They're largely based on faux benchmarks and applying arguments to this product while failing to compare them to the alternatives.
And as much as I enjoy reading the enthusiast press, they do fine work in testing car dynamics and tossing cars around tracks, but their scientific credentials are lacking. I'll give that a thorough read to see if it has some merit, but when I think of Bedard, I think of Cannonball Run, not Scientific American.
Information. Knowledge. The power of choice. For 30 years ethanol has been used as a gasoline additive (10% blends) and alternative fuel (85% blends) in nearly every state. Yet, its detractors have created a path of myths and disinformation to help keep the 100-year-old gasoline-only status quo marketplace. Learn about the energy, environmental and economic benefits ethanol provides you — and make your own choice.
Every American is a consumer and should have choices in a "free market." Ethanol Across America provides drivers with a wide range of information sources to help them make an educated decision. This decision will help build support for programs to help increase ethanol production and use and create a choice in the marketplace.
1The Ethanol Minute 2Educational Publications 3The Ethanol Fact Book 4Flexible Fuel Vehicle Fact Book 5Fuel Ethanol Curriculum Guide 6Clean Fuels: Paving the Way For America's Future 7Oxygenate Fact Book 8ETBE Fact Book 9Frequently Asked Questions
TAKE ACTION Ethanol Across America and the Clean Fuels Development Coalition recently designed a new E-10 Unleaded brochure to show car owners the endorsements car manufacturers have given ethanol. Gain more in-depth knowledge about the issues being debated about ethanol production and use.
The Dual Fuel Vehicle Incentive Program of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988 helps stimulate ethanol use
Issue Brief: Net Energy Balance of Ethanol Production The Ethanol Minute is a national radio show broadcasting interviews with experts from all walks of life including elected officials, celebrities, energy and environmental experts, and businessmen and women.
The Ethanol Minute is coming to a radio station near you soon. Keep and ear out for us. An estimated 400 stations throughout the country will be carrying the broadcasts.
For more information about shows or suggestions please contact: EthanolMinute@ethanolacrossamerica.net
Educational Publications
We have several Fact Books and Issue Briefs available that will provide you with first hand research information on the use, production, benefits, technical performance and impact of fuel ethanol and ethanol fueled vehicles.
The Ethanol Fact Book Over 100 references and numerous brief issue overviews are available in the Ethanol Fact Book to answer your questions about environmental impacts, performance, energy security, legislative history and benefits.
Flexible Fuel Vehicle Fact Book Over 100 years ago Henry Ford stirred the imagination of the world by making the first Model T to run on any combination of gasoline or alcohol. Henry Ford's visionary concerns about urban air quality and the economic impact of high oil imports have become a reality - and so did his first dream to have cars run on renewable, clean burning, domestic ethanol. Ford, General Motors, Chrysler-Daimler and Toyota have manufactured millions of flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) that are NOW available though their dealership networks. Learn more about their availability and technical performance.
Fuel Ethanol Curriculum Guide Similar to the efforts to teach school children about the environmental benefits or recycling, Ethanol Across America is supporting the mass distribution of a guide prepared for educators to teach a course on ethanol, and harness perhaps the greatest power we have, America's youth.
Clean Fuels: Paving the Way For America's FutureThis publication provides general information on a wide range of alternative transportation fuels, helping the reader understand the different characteristics and applications of these fuels.
Oxygenate Fact Book Air quality remains an important issue. Additives to gasoline called oxygenates, including fuel ethanol, have played a significant role in reducing emissions through improved fuel quality. The Oxygenate Fact Book provides information on how these components have been so effective in reducing pollution while extending fuel supplies.
ETBE Fact Book The Ethanol based ether ETBE offers a host of benefits in the areas of fuel quality, transportation, and performance. Characteristics of water, air, and soil life appear to be significantly better than methanol based ethers and there may be a role for this promising fuel in the future.
Frequently Asked Questions: Do you have a question? We will help you find the answer. What is Ethanol? How is ethanol used as an alterative fuel? What is an E-85 Vehicle?
Can't find the answer? Send us an email at questions@ethanolacrossamerica.net
May 16, 2006 A Canadian company has developed a new, more efficient process to make the alternative fuel ethanol from farm waste.
With today's high oil prices, experts hope the new technology could reduce demand on fossil fuels and increase energy security.
RELATED "Addicted to Oil": How Can U.S. Fulfill Bush Pledge? Ethanol More Energy Efficient Than Thought, Study Says "The End of Cheap Oil" in National Geographic Magazine
(Read "Powering the Future" in National Geographic magazine.)
"In the past, ethanol fuel use has been limited, because the cost of production was too high," said Jim Easterly, a Washington, D.C.-based bioenergy consultant.
"Ethanol produced from corn kernels and wheat grain has historically been more expensive than gasoline produced from oil."
Producing corn-based ethanol, for example, uses energy from oil and electricity for everything from growing the corn to powering the boilers in the ethanol plant.
Often the amount of ethanol created is equal to or less than the amount of fossil fuels needed to run the facility.
Enzyme Action Now Ottawa-based Iogen Corporation might have solved these production problems.
Their researchers looked at a variety of enzymes and how they break down different plant fibers.
The innovative process they developed uses leftovers from crops grown for food, such as the straw left after wheat is harvested, to produce ethanol.
"The process is very similar to the way a brewery works," said Mandy Chepeka, an Iogen spokesperson.
There's no reason to artificially prop up energy prices. May 22, 2006 - Los Angeles times Editorial
MORE THAN JUST OIL PRICES have been rising lately. Ethanol, which in the United States is largely made from corn and added to gasoline, has also gotten a lot more expensive. And therein lies a short lesson in economics — but not necessarily of the free-market variety.
Ethanol isn't significantly more expensive to produce than it was a year ago. But ethanol prices tend to rise and fall with gasoline prices; producers charge whatever the market will bear. In addition, refiners stopped using the environmentally disastrous additive MTBE this spring. Since refiners are required to oxygenate fuel, and MTBE and ethanol both serve that purpose, the demand for ethanol has risen dramatically, while supply hasn't and — well, the rest is Economics 101.
Actually, maybe it's Econ 102. Because there's more than the free market at work here. U.S. taxpayers subsidize the domestic ethanol industry with billions of dollars a year. The producers, meanwhile, are protected from competition by a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on less-expensive Brazilian ethanol, which is made from sugar. The government is also providing ethanol makers with a guaranteed growth market; the 2005 energy bill requires that ethanol production almost double by 2012.
Even though public outcry over gas prices has Washington scrambling, no one is talking about ending the billions of dollars in corn subsidies each year. The corn lobby is too powerful for that. But there is talk, amazingly enough, about ending the tariff on imported ethanol. President Bush has proposed dropping it, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has joined with two Republicans to introduce legislation to do so. Opening the U.S. market to imports would increase supply and also give domestic ethanol producers a taste of free-market price competition.
With politicians from both the left and right supporting such a sane policy, the problem is the people in the middle — the middle of the country, that is. Representatives of corn-growing states, and the formidable corn lobby, are putting up a fight. And there are signs that the pressure of politics is overcoming the logic of economics. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), who initially supported dropping the tariff, switched positions last week. Other Farm Belt representatives need to decide which is more important: the free market or the corn lobby.
John German, manager of Honda's Environmental and Energy Analysis, made the following statement to a Senate subcommittee last month.
"The primary effect of technology-specific mandates is to divert precious resources from other development programs that likely are much more promising," German commented. "If there are to be mandates, they should be stated in terms of performance requirements, with incentives and supported by research and development." For example, going all out to fund ethanol production that would have a limited impact at the expense of other promising technologies would be, in the long term, counter-productive.
I think that is the length of time that was spent by Congressional leaders studying Ethanol. There are Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle that know this whole Ethanol push is wrong. If they were not so indebted to big Ag and the Corn Lobby they would vote what is right for America, not what looks good at the polls.
Because you are a johnny come lately to the Ethanol debate I think you should go back and read some of the articles I posted 2 years ago when this whole thing was still in the debate level. Ethanol made from corn is no better today that it was 30 years ago. Once the truth is known that it takes more oil to make ethanol than just using the oil to begin with, people will come to their senses. There is no free lunch as ADM would have you believe.
It was not Edmund's, whom you harshly criticized for starting this debate. Check this thread from 2 years ago. My position has not changed. And it is unlikely that it will as long as the Ethanol community is trying to destroy the environment growing corn in the fashion they currently use.
Note: Your comments about Bedard are dead - on; but Bedard's article does appear to track the writings of others who would not be questioned, would not be Cannon Ball run types, that is. The reason to use Bedard is not for his credentials, but for the summarization his "research" offers. If you have not read his article nor the Popular Mechanics article, I do think you would not be wasting your time. But, as usual, I could be wrong, just not uncertain.
While I appreciate the energy, time and thought that went into constructing the responses you offered, I am hoping to uncover a "ying" to Bedard's "yang" (and while I generally have nothing to counter or argue with in your responses, well I pretty much could have made those arguments unaided.) The fact that you articulated them and wrote them down is of no little benefit to all of us -- but it doesn't quite address the point.
As an IT consultant, I have to be aware that I may have not asked the question properly. Often, my clients will ask me a question, sincerely looking for an answer. My answers to "wrong" questions, then, usually are forced to be:
#1 "It all depends. . . ."
#2 "Almost anything is possible if the stack of hundred dollar bills is high enough. . . ."
Of course, if I know my client well and for a long time or have a certain rapport with them, I can get away with these answers. For about 1 minute, then I need to attempt to extract the question from them that I think they were trying to ask until we both agree on the question -- then I can address their issue.
Perhaps by summarizing Bedard's article, I "did his points and him a disservice." I am not suggesting his points are mine -- even though I must admit it is difficult to argue against his points within the context of the article and when supported by nothing more than the Popular Mechanics articles and the dozens of URL's that have been posted here, even -- pointing to secondary resources.
As a means to "the next" if not the end (too soon, for that, methinks), I am attempting to take a point (mentally) that is the opposite of what appears to be substantial evidence that ethanol "isn't" the solution it is currently touted to be.
In effect, I am deliberately attempting to find ways to contradict then argue convincingly against what appears to be the popular (here) notion that E85 won't AND can't work given the constraints that are here and now. The article here, for example, E85 Fool's Gold or Golden Opportunity being a good starting point for one looking for a least an attempt at balance.
So, I am looking for a similar article (to Bedard's) that takes the point of view that instead of being full of false promises, ethanol truly is full of true promises.
Hell, I'd even take true lies, at this point. :confuse:
Enzyme Action Now Ottawa-based Iogen Corporation might have solved these production problems.
Are you jumping off the Corn wagon? You realize if companies like Iogen are successful that all the corn stills will be worthless or near worthless. Same goes if Congress lifts the 54 cent tariff off of foreign ethanol. You may as well kiss the Iowa farm good-bye.
I am in full agreement with making ethanol from feedstocks that are not detrimental to the environment. So I am fully behind companies like Iogen of Canada. Once when I mentioned Iogen you came back with "we don't care how they do things in Canada or Mexico". Glad to see you are coming around to the only logical way to pursue ethanol production.
Ethanol (E85) contributes to improving CAFE requirements by a technicality. That is, only the gasoline portion of E85 counts in the calculation of CAFE -- since gasoline is only 15% of E85, CAFE gets a shot in the gas tank.
This technicality were it removed (and shouldn't it be to allow the customer to make a fully informed decision?) would actually demonstrate a degradation of the CAFE numbers since E85 gets substantially poorer mileage than pure oil based gasoline or even E10.
Is this true?
If this is true, it isn't any wonder car mfgr's would support the use of ethanol, for it allows them to claim improvements in the CAFE numbers "from a certain point of view." A point of view that, frankly, seem deceptive.
What is the truth pertaining to this point?
Why would mfgr's be in favor of a product that will actually make their vehicles get poorer miles per gallon, effectively raising the cost of operation and the frequency of going to the gas station?
As I read this, it sounds like a brochure put out by the IRS to convince the reader that they should LIKE being taxed (or as some folks think, over taxed.)
The arguments seem, that is, to be "specious," i.e., having a false look of truth or genuineness.
Where's the accountability, to say it plainly? :confuse:
so let's assume that sugar cane based ethanol can be produced in some significant quantities (that would make a difference) in Brazil and other South/Central American countries and all that cane based ethanol can be sold in the US at some price proportionate to its fuel economy loss (20-30% below regular petro). Is this reliance on let's say Brazil's sugar crop any different than being at the mercies and moods of our Arab 'friends'. If ethanol can not be produced competitively from corn, soybeans or some 'US' crop without heavy government subsidies then, why push it - because the net effect is the same - reliance on other countries for our energy needs.
Brazil is a trading partner. They currently sell us ethanol. It is tariffed at 54 cents per gallon from a very old law. If as the Brazilians say it costs them about 20% of what it costs us to produce ethanol from corn, it makes sense that they can sell us ethanol cheaper than a farm co-op in Iowa. We make a lot of fuss over where we buy oil. Our number one and two importers are Canada and Mexico. Both of which we have decent relations. I don't see that buying ethanol from Brazil as much different as buying oil from Canada.
Here comes the problem. We are trying to become independent from outside sources of energy. If we cannot produce ethanol as cheap as other countries how can we stop the gasoline refineries that need the ethanol from buying from the lowest price sellers?
I tell you this whole mandate is going to be a mess. You will hear some real screaming when no one wants $5 per gallon corn ethanol when they can buy sugar cane ethanol for a buck a gallon.
From an East Coast port it would be cheaper to ship in ethanol from Brazil than truck it from Iowa. Unless of course NY starts making ethanol from grapes.
Comments
how about mobil/exxon , does their 91 octane have more than their 87? (those are the grades that are sold in northeast).
there are a lot of gearhead racers here in the northeast who are willing to pay extra for uber-octane fuel - some stations sell it. maybe ethanol is used already to make such race fuel?
all the arguing is getting sort of boring but is a bit funny. diesel geeks vs E10 geeks are small time compared to biodiesel vs E85 geeks!
let ethanol sink or swim in the market on its own. no subsidies! it's bizarre how we got to this mandated ethanol point - first with the oxygenate requirement - and much MTBE - and then we all feel lucky when MTBE is replaced with ethanol.
That is, regardless: regular, mid, premuim "gas" can be E10. 90% petroleum gasoline and 10% ethanol. I guess the "up to" is based on the possibility that the target dilution is 10%, and apparently all cars imported to or made in the USA can safely and successfully burn E10.
I don't know if they could burn E12, though. So, when the mix is brewed, so to speak, the amount of E that is put into the G is based on a metering system that is probably very precise, but perhaps not perfect.
This way, if you sampled some Mobil or Shell or whatever brand E10, you might find some that were E8.5 and some that made it dead on to E10.
Now, I made everything I just said up, off the top of my head. But that is not to say my intention is to tell a lie -- I took known information and applied it to the blending of "gasoline."
My guess is, if I put E50 (were such offered) into my car there would be some negative consequences immediately or eventually. The FFV vehicles can probably tolerate E100 but need the 15% gasoline to ensure successful ignition when cold (or even first thing in the moring.) E is just plain NOT as volatile as the dino-gas.
Of couse, I could be wrong, since, as I freely admit I made my response up from "whole cloth" so to speak.
My best guess is that the spirit of my answer, however, is not too far off reality.
The number simply means how much is ethanol, not how much the rating of the fuel has been effected by the ethanol.
Perhaps someday, there will be a further classifcicaiton E10/91 E10/89 and so on.
We're not there yet.
By Betsy Mason
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
With only one public ethanol fuel station, California lags behind other states. But the stage is set for it to reclaim its customary leading role when it comes to green fuels and emission standards.
The governor has recommended sharp reductions in emissions, a goal that could be met in part by replacing gas with ethanol. A November ballot initiative could provide subsidies for ethanol stations. And state use of a 6 percent ethanol gasoline additive has spurred construction of local ethanol production plants.
On the research side, San Francisco could become home to one of two new Department of Energy institutes for researching bioenergy, such as ethanol. Bay Area universities and companies, the Joint Genome Institute and Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore national labs are joining forces for a bid.
In the absence of a federal policy to curb greenhouse gasses, many Californians say they hope the state can blaze a trail others will follow. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan calls for cutting emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, down to 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below that by 2050. Ethanol is likely to be part of any plan to meet those goals.
"California may be the leader in this, but we will influence other Western states and then the other coast and eventually the middle of the country," said UC Berkeley's Dan Kammen, one of the authors of the alternative energy ballot initiative.
That measure calls for a state oil production tax of 1.5 to 6 percent, depending on oil prices. It would generate $4 billion toward cutting fossil fuel use by 25 percent over the next decade. Some of that could be used as subsidies to offset the cost of converting gas pumps to ethanol.
"The only thing that's really holding us back is infrastructure," Kammen said.
The middle of the country is ahead of the curve with ethanol infrastructure. The majority of the nation's 730 public ethanol stations are in the Midwest, as are many of the 6 million flex-fuel vehicles that can run on gas or gas blended with up to 85 percent ethanol, known as E85.
Lawrence Berkeley is home to one of the state's two government ethanol stations. The lab's 73 vehicles that run on E85 are part of a strategy to meet a presidential order for government agencies to cut fossil fuel use by 20 percent by this year.
San Diego is home to the state's sole public ethanol fuel station where ethanol now costs about $3.06 per gallon. This is a bit below the break-even point with gas, which is about the same price, since cars can't go quite as far on a gallon of ethanol.
Some in the ethanol business believe a dearth of ethanol-ready cars is holding up infrastructure growth.
"It's kind of hard to put a pump or two in if the majority of cars can't take it," said Tom Koehler of Fresno-based Pacific Ethanol, which is building California's first major ethanol production plant in Madera. The plant will come on line later this year at a rate of 40 million gallons a year, making it the largest producer on the West Coast. And several more plants are planned.
About 300,000 flex-fuel vehicles are cruising the state, though the vast majority likely has never tasted ethanol. More of these will soon hit California roads if General Motors has anything to do with it. Several of its 2007 models come ethanol-ready, including SUVs like the Suburban and Tahoe.
At Groth Brothers Chevrolet in Livermore, salesman Barry Katofsky believes a lack of ethanol pumps has stifled interest in the vehicles. But some customers are starting to ask about ethanol. "We're trying to educate them at this point," he said. "They like the idea that we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil."
WASHINGTON - The booming ethanol industry will consume 20 percent of this year's US corn crop, the government forecast on Friday, and soy-based biodiesel also is taking off.
Biofuels will bolster corn and soybean prices, the Agriculture Department said in its first look at this year's crop harvest. Voracious demand for corn from ethanol makers will help cut the corn (maize) surplus in half by fall 2007, or 1.14 billion bushels.
"Renewable energy is making a difference" in the corn and soybean markets, said USDA chief economist Keith Collins.
Some 2.15 billion bushels (54 million tonnes) of this year's corn crop was projected to go to ethanol plants, up 34 percent from the 1.6 billion bushels (40.6 million tonnes) now being used yearly.
USDA projected 2.3 billion lbs (1 billion kg) of soyoil would be used in biodiesel in the year beginning Sept. 1, up 1.1 billion lbs (500 million kg) from this year.
"We may get US$3 (a bushel) corn on the farm this year," said private consultant John Schnittker, because of ethanol and a big demand for exports. It has been a decade since the season-average farmgate price was that high.
Corn and wheat futures prices shot upward at the Chicago Board of Trade, based on USDA's forecasts of smaller crops than last year and tightening supplies. At mid-day, corn for July delivery sold for US$2.57-1/2, up 10-1/4 cents a bushel. July wheat was up 11-1/2 cents, to US$4.03-1/2 a bushel. July soybeans were US$6.13-1/2, up one-half cent.
There are nearly 97 ethanol plants in the United States with a capacity of 4.5 billion gallons (17 billion liters) a year. There are 44 projects under way that will add 1.4 billion gallons of capacity this year, says an industry trade group. Production in 2005 totaled 3.9 billion gallons (14.8 billion liters).
"We believe that by early 2007, we're going to be producing at a rate of 6.5 billion gallons (24.6 billion liters) a year," said Collins, requiring 2.15 billion bushels of corn.
Based on surveys of 14,800 wheat farmers and examination of wheat fields, USDA forecast a winter wheat crop of 1.323 billion bushels (35 million tonnes), down 12 percent from last year and the smallest crop since 2002 due to drought in the southern Plains.
Hard red winter wheat, the major flour class, would total 715 million bushels (19.5 million tonnes), down 23 percent from 2005 and smallest since 2002. Schnittker said tight supplies would boost prices.
With the planting season well under way, USDA projected a corn crop of 10.550 billion bushels (268 million tonnes), soybeans at a near-record 3.080 billion bushels (84 million tonnes), an overall wheat harvest of 1.873 billion bushels (51 million tonnes) and a cotton crop of 20.70 million bales weighing 480 lbs (218 kg).
The soybean stockpile would climb to a record 650 million bushels (17.7 million tonnes) by Sept. 1, 2007, despite near-record exports.
3,904,000,000 gallons of ethanol produced in 2005
667,350,427 GGs net imported energy saved
8.35x10^13 Btu net imported energy saved
2.96x10^16 Btu total imported energy in 2005
Dividing the last two numbers gives 0.282% of total imported energy saved by ethanol. That's just over 1/4 of 1%.
Calculation: How much land would it take to be energy independent?
Ethanol production per acre = 385 in 2004.
Use a high estimate of 400 for 2005.
Total acreage used for ethanol in 2005 = 9,760,000.
Convert acres to square miles by dividing by 640.
Current ethanol acreage = 15,250 square miles.
For energy independence = 5,411,832 square miles.
Area of the US+Alaska = 3,537,438 square miles
Using figures from the University of New Hampshire study we could produce enough biodiesel to satisfy our current 140 billion gallon per year usage on 15,000 square miles of desert. A much wiser use of land than growing corn for only 1/4 or 1% of our fossil fuel usage.
NREL's research showed that one quad (7.5 billion gallons) of biodiesel could be produced from 200,000 hectares of desert land (200,000 hectares is equivalent to 780 square miles, roughly 500,000 acres), if the remaining challenges are solved (as they will be, with several research groups and companies working towards it, including ours at UNH). In the previous section, we found that to replace all transportation fuels in the US, we would need 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel, or roughly 19 quads (one quad is roughly 7.5 billion gallons of biodiesel). To produce that amount would require a land mass of almost 15,000 square miles. To put that in perspective, consider that the Sonora desert in the southwestern US comprises 120,000 square miles. Enough biodiesel to replace all petroleum transportation fuels could be grown in 15,000 square miles, or roughly 12.5 percent of the area of the Sonora desert
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
The proof is in the puddung, give them an acre of land and see if they can produce 14,585 gallons of biodiesel from it in a year.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
As far as I know there is not any real life projects like that going on. I was thinking of the algae that is produced in the Mississippi Delta by all the nitrates washed down from producing corn. I'm not sure how you would harvest algae to use it either. It is definetly a good time to be a bio chemical engineer. The opportunities seem endless. I know I will donate the algae growing in my pond for research. It looks like this is not a new line of research. I think much of it revolves around the cost of oil vs any alternative. Oil is still cheap compared to the alternatives.
The Office of Fuels Development, a division of the Department of Energy, funded a program from 1978 through 1996 under the National Renewable Energy Laboratory known as the "Aquatic Species Program". The focus of this program was to investigate high oil yield algaes that could be grown specifically for the purpose of wide scale biodiesel production1. Some species of algae are ideally suited to biodiesel production due to their high oil content (some as much as 50% oil), and extremely fast growth rates. From the results of the Aquatic Species Program2, algae farms would let us supply enough biodiesel to completely replace petroleum as a transportation fuel in the US (as well as its other main use - home heating oil).
One of the important concerns about wide scale development of biodiesel is if it would displace croplands currently used for food crops. With algae, that concern is completely eliminated, as algae grows ideally in either hot desert climates or off of waste streams. NREL's research focused on the development of algae farms in desert regions, using shallow salt water pools for growing the algae. Another nice benefit of using algae as a food stock is that in addition to using considerably less water than traditional oilseed crops, algae also grows best in salt water, so farms could be built near the ocean with no need to desalinate the seawater as it is used to fill the ponds.
http://www.green-trust.org/biodiesel.htm
Of course, if gasoline gets more expensive (maybe double what it is now), or scarce, then the whole picture changes for ethanol.
Edmunds Forum official HOST ignores United States policies and scientific facts. I guess Edmunds official position is just another excellant example of the drive-by media...must be Edmunds is owned by one or more of the oil cartel dictators. Very interesting!
Heck whats growing in our 55 gallon fish tank could run a small fleet of Mack trucks. I am definetly fighting a losing battle there.
NREL's research focused on the development of algae farms in desert regions, using shallow salt water pools for growing the algae.
Since shallow pools of water dry up rather quickly in the desert I would suspect that this would be a rather water intensive way to produce biodiesel. This may not be to effective.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Mighty harsh words my friend. I believe it is You that are ignoring the facts on ethanol. I understand Congress and the President's position on Ethanol. It is BIG money in the campaign coffers. What is your hope of gain from ethanol? You seem to be one of the few in this country that have been fooled into thinking ethanol is good for the USA. I will say if the industry ever evolves into a reasonable source of fuel via some less invasive weed or waste product, it may be a good supplement to gasoline. It will Never be a viable alternative using corn as its feedstock.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I will say if the industry ever evolves into a reasonable source of fuel via some less invasive weed or waste product, it may be a good supplement to gasoline.
It would be a supplement but never a replacement, I really can't see ethanol reducing our oil consumption by anything more than 20-25%, and thats at current levels of usage.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You really do not get it, I try to post informative articles that list the pros and cons of Ethanol, Biodiesel and Diesel autos.
However, the arguement against Ethanol and Biodiesel fuels is over. The laws of the United States reflect the importance of renewable fuels to get rid of some dependency on dictator oil cartels...there is NO turning back the clock to even listen to your arguements...the party is over and the American people have spoken through their representatives...democracy is a majority rules type of government.
MTBF replacement is the first goal of Ethanol, E10 is the second and E85 is the third. Biodiesel is the fuel goal for our trucking industry, not the goal of a tiny and miniscule, unproven diesel technology from Europe (turbo replacement costs about $3,000 and engine replacements cost about $8,000, and these replacements are for the failures of the ineptly designed VW TDI). Biodiesel is a contributor to NOx (smog) fumes and turns rancid after two weeks unless it contains some high priced additive from Europe.
Ethanol (alcohol) is a go...NOW and Biodiesel may be next, if they can figure out how to modify the truck engines.
The insanely funny arguements about our nation's starving pigs laid at Ethanol's door as well as every other environmental problem is hilarious and has given us a healthy laugh.
I know of several backwater sloughs that are constant level fed by saltwater along the coast here in San Diego. I imagine like all projects we would run into environmental issues that would keep it from going forward. I really think that with the research that has gone on the government has a plan on where to implement these tidewater pools. I believe the oil situation will have to get a lot worse before we do anything along those lines.
Right now the Ethanol smoke screen has every Tom, Dick and Jose panting to get in on the money tree. It is reminiscent of the Dot.Com fever. I sure as anything am not putting my winnings on Ethanol. It looks like Enron and MCI all rolled into one big package. I guess when the Ethanol bubble bursts we could convert those stills over to making Vodka as an export to Russia in exchange for some of their oil.
"To me E85 may not technically be one of the most unlikely approaches to solve a problem ever devised by the human mind, but, damn, it at least deserves thoughtful consideration as a nominee."
Where is the data/information coming from on this subject that point by point explains and justifies the sagacity behind the pro-ethanol school of thought?
The con-ethanol school is well represented and presented, I think. The pro-ethanol school is, apprarently, not well represetned.
Anyone, anyone?
Actually we are a Republic but I imagine that is not even taught in our Public Schools.
I assume you were not around for the last ethanol boondoggle. Half of the ethanol plants were shut down for lack of need. Ethanol cannot compete against cheap oil. It is not even a break even situation at $70 a barrel oil. If it were not for nearly a buck a gallon in subsidies it would not be in production. It is a giant scam by companies like ADM and Verasun and we are stuck paying the higher gas bills.
I think the figure may end up closer to 5% by 2012. It will probably be less than that if the current mandates are thrown out over bad science and cooked books. Once the election is past those contributions may not have paid off the right candidates. Though I am sure ADM has both parties in the bag.
OK how about just listen to the arguments and producing an energy plan that actually makes sense and works not one doomed to failure that lines the pockets of ADM.
Biodiesel is the fuel goal for our trucking industry, not the goal of a tiny and miniscule, unproven diesel technology from Europe
Its a proven technology and not only from Europe.
Ethanol (alcohol) is a go...
Ethanol is a bust, we cant even make enough for the poorly thought out 10% ethanol mandate. Even when (if?) we make the switch to ethanol from biomass it is doubtful that it would replace even 25% of our current oil needs (and ethanol from biomass is years away).
It is time to take a stand and stop wasting taxpayers money on making ADM and like corporations rich in a scheme that will not work. It is time to start looking at other alternatives to oil and developing them. If we keep on the current track we will one day find out that it is to late to do anything at all.
Tell me do you work for ADM?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yes but how big are they and can they produce enough algae? also are they truly in the desert or are they near some water source. 15,000 square miles is a lot of and to keep as a shallow pool (about 2 billion gallons per inch in depth), and in the desert its going to be difficult to keep it as such.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Though I am sure ADM has both parties in the bag.
IIRC ADM did give hefty contributions to both parties in the past.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I really do not care to discuss the personal attacks by some ***CENSORED*** on this forum, they are not worth the time nor effort. I have posted the scientific data from labs and the US government in many of my posts to where people complain about the redundancy of my posts. I do not chose to denigrate or answer the cheap shots against the American farmer, the rule of the majority in a democracy, the "cheap" oil prices at $70 a barrel, public companies, conspiracies against among other things "pigs," and other assorted myths and falsehoods written by some respondents in this forum.
The forum is set up by Edmunds to denigrate Ethanol, however, Ethanol is here NOW and is rolling out big time.
Corn is just one of the renewable fuels that will be used to create ethanol and some states may choose to ignore any ethanol beyond the MTBF replacement ethanol...so what, that is their choice. E10 and E85 may only be a viable renewable fuel west of the rockies, however, that is the choice the nation may have to take.
The arguments against Ethanol have been in the main, sometimes very informative, but mainly highly emotional, agenda suspect and sometimes just plain hilarious. However, denigrating all of the American people who are working to try to solve our oil problem is just a cheap shot by a ***CENSORED***.
I really do not see any positive steps being done by most people who want no action on renewable fuels...they just want to cover up ANY solution to the world's oil problems because they "can't see any problem" with gas prices being dictated to by oil cartel dictators, "What's $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon gas between friends, I don't care!"
Maybe I get sick and tired of the mind set of the small minority of do-nothings, know-nothings, hate-everything in this country...the problems that focused on our nation that were illuminated by 911 will not go away because we wish them to.
Wichita Business Journal
Updated: 7:00 p.m. CT June 25, 2006
Kansas' ethanol production capacity will more than double in the next year, when plants at Phillipsburg, Garden City and Liberal go on line. The state produces 170 million gallons of ethanol each year from seven operating plants. When those three go on line, they are projected to add 205 million gallons of capacity, bringing the state total to an estimated 375 million gallons each year.
In addition, three more plants are on the drawing board, says Sue Schulte, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Association of Corn Growers, in Pratt, Goodland and a Stafford County project spearheaded by former Kansas Senate President Dave Kerr.
Jennings says Kansas' growth exceeds the national pace, from 90 plants in late 2005 to between 115 and 125 by the end of this year.
"But the difference is capacity," he says. "We're not building a lot of new 40-million-gallon plants. We're building 100-million-gallon plants."
Dave Vander Griend, president and CEO of ICM, says Trammell's Kansas plant -- potentially the 14th in a state with seven currently operating -- could complete the saturation of the Kansas market.
"We can definitely grow enough corn for 14 plants," he says. "Right now, we've got the livestock to handle the byproducts we produce, and that's the variable. This number will load the state up pretty quickly."
Lee Reeve, who operates Reeve Agri-Energy near Garden City, agrees.
"Depends where the new plants are," he says. "We're pretty well concentrated out here in western Kansas."
Demand for ethanol, Jennings says, is what attracts entrepreneurs like Trammell.
"They understand that demand is incredibly strong," he says. "The price of crude and the price of gasoline are the leading factors. MTBE is replaced by ethanol in the gasoline supply.
Ethanol is a cost-effective octane enhancer. And the law of the land, the energy bill, requires a minimum amount of ethanol to be used. The expectation in the short- and mid-term is that demand is going to remain strong.
Reduced acreage and increased demand are giving corn prices hope. On June 9, 2006, the USDA estimated 2006-2007 U.S. ending stocks at 1.091 billion bushels, down from 2.176 billion bushles in 2005-2006. Production is expected to total 10.550 billion bushels with 11.645 billion bushels of total use. This drops the ending stocks to use ratio down to 9%, matching the lowest ratio of the past 10 years. On the world scene, the USDA is looking for the 2006-2007 ending stocks to drop from 130 to 92 million tons, or 13% of total use. In 2005-2006, exports are expected to increase 14% and so far, they are up 13% from a year ago. As of June 18th, the USDA said that 68% of the corn crop was rated good to excellent, the same as a year ago.
(Ron) Lamberty (executive director of the American Coalition for Ethanol) also rejected the criticism that ethanol should be rethought because it has to be subsidized, saying that oil is also subsidized.
"We don't apologize for the fact that ethanol is taxed lower," Lamberty said. "We're not over in the Middle East because were trying to get Persian rugs. We've got a large Defense Department present in the Persian Gulf so we can bring fuel back at a low price."
Reduced acreage and increased demand are giving corn prices hope. On June 9, 2006, the USDA estimated 2006-2007 U.S. ending stocks (surplus) at 1.091 billion bushels, down from 2.176 billion bushles in 2005-2006. Production is expected to total 10.550 billion bushels with 11.645 billion bushels of total use. This drops the ending stocks to use ratio down to 9%, matching the lowest ratio of the past 10 years. On the world scene, the USDA is looking for the 2006-2007 ending stocks to drop from 130 to 92 million tons, or 13% of total use. In 2005-2006, exports are expected to increase 14% and so far, they are up 13% from a year ago. As of June 18th, the USDA said that 68% of the corn crop was rated good to excellent, the same as a year ago.
(Ron) Lamberty (executive director of the American Coalition for Ethanol) also rejected the criticism that ethanol should be rethought because it has to be subsidized, saying that oil is also subsidized.
"We don't apologize for the fact that ethanol is taxed lower," Lamberty said. "We're not over in the Middle East because were trying to get Persian rugs. We've got a large Defense Department present in the Persian Gulf so we can bring fuel back at a low price."
Soybeans Surplus
On June 9, 2006, the USDA estimated 2006-2007 U.S. ending stocks at 655 million bushels, up from 570 million bushels in 2005-2006. Production was estimated at 3.080 billion bushels with total use of 2.999 billion bushels. The resulting ending stocks (surplus) to use ratio is 22%, the most in 21 years. Worldwide, the USDA estimated 2006-2007 ending stocks at 58 million tons or 26% of annual use, up from 55.5 millon tons in the previous year. Brazil and Argentina increased production by 5% in 2005-2006, but are only expected to increase production by 1% in 2006-2007.
In 2005-2006, the USDA is expecting exports to fall 18% and so far, they are down 21%. As of June 18th, 67% of the U.S. soybean crop was rated good to excellent, up from 63% a year ago.
New formula replaces Biodiesel
Petrobras said the new fuel, called H-Bio, was developed over 18 months by mixing refinery petroleum with oil from soy, sunflower seeds, cotton and castor beans.
The new H-Bio fuel is different from bio-diesel, which is also produced with vegetable oils but is blended into regular diesel by fuel distributors, not at the refinery level.
Petrobras predicted that three refineries would produce the new fuel by 2007. The company declined to reveal its investment or expected production but said diesel fuel imports would decline "initially by 250 million liters (66 million gallons) a year."
Vivian Sequera, Associated Press. June 21, 2006.
Three years ago, it appeared Brazil would eventually overtake the U.S. as the world's top soybean supplier. Multinational companies invested millions in Brazilian production and analysts were projecting a 58 million metric-ton soy crop by 2005. The declining dollar has lowered expectations. Brazil will plant a smaller 2006-07 soy crop -- at least 5% less acreage -- after harvesting about 53.2 million tons from the 2005-06 crop. The U.S. harvested 84 million tons in 2005-06.
Kenneth Rapoza, Barron's. June 5, 2006.
"Soybean oil is really leading the whole complex right now, and that's related to biofuels," said Dave Lehman, managing director of commodities at the Chicago Board of Trade.
Demand for biodiesel rose from about 25 million gallons in 2004 to between 75 million and 90 million gallons in 2005, with growth to some 150 million gallons this year, according to Leland Tong, an adviser to the National Biodiesel Board.
Lauren Villagran, Associated Press. May 1, 2006.
...rolling, rolling, rolling...keep those doggies rolling...Rawhide...!
WalMart, Edgewood Avenue, Cedar Rapids, Iowa yesterday 26 June, 2006:
Regular 89 Octane E10 - $2.65
Midddle 91 Octane E10 - $2.75
Super 93 Octane E10 - $2.85
Walmart public policy says that they want 10% of the gasoline business within the next few years and they want to aggressively market E10 and E85.
You do realize that you are the "***CENSORED***" that I was talking about making the personal attacks.
I have posted the scientific data from labs and the US government in many of my posts to where people complain about the redundancy of my posts.
You have cherry picked your scientific data and ignored scientific data that goes against your agenda. You have posted lies myths and misinformation about ethanol then had the chutzpah to complain that others do it.
You post propaganda, nothing more, nothing less.
I do not chose to denigrate...
Yet to those that disagree with you you call anti-American and tools of "oil cartel dictators".
The forum is set up by Edmunds to denigrate Ethanol
No this forum was set up to discuss ethanol.
Ethanol is here NOW and is rolling out big time.
Yes ethanol is here now, but its going to go nowhere awfully slowly. You see we cant produce enough of it to make much of a dent in our oil usage.
Corn is just one of the renewable fuels that will be used to create ethanol
It has been pointed out many times that corn is not a good source of ethanol and most likely consumes more oil than it saves. Yet you completely ignore that fact.
The arguments against Ethanol have been in the main, sometimes very informative, but mainly highly emotional, agenda suspect and sometimes just plain hilarious.
As are your pro ethanol arguments.
However, denigrating all of the American people who are working to try to solve our oil problem is just a cheap shot by a ***CENSORED***.
Again you are the "***CENSORED***" that has taken the cheap shot.
...they just want to cover up ANY solution to the world's oil problems because they "can't see any problem"
I don't see anyone here trying to cover up any problems, I do not see anyone here who cannot see a problem. Those you have bashed here are those who looked at ethanol and said "nope this will not work lets stop this madness and look at other alternatives". Unlike you who are blinded by their own agenda that they cannot see the forest because of the trees, many here seem to have look at this objectively and see that it cannot work.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
By Russell Hasan
Altenews.com
Introduction: The Ethanol Boom
We are strong advocates of alternative energy, and we are happy to see the American ethanol industry growing. But we are also advocates of informed investments and not “irrational exuberance” manufactured by hyperactive investment bankers and a media that goes with the flow. This report is a cautionary note for investors interested in American companies producing ethanol from corn, pointing out various factors and data to consider before risking losses in ethanol investments.
The investment banks who led us to the golden pastures of dotcom before 2000 and the subsequent burst bubble are the same that are now leading the charge for corn ethanol. Corn ethanol is projected to be a sure bet for investors, just as dotcom was at one time. We believe that a near-term boom and bust in corn ethanol is possible if the individual investors are not careful. In this report we examine eight points of caution for ethanol investors, after which is a conclusion focusing on the long-term potential of ethanol.
to be Continued;
2. Government Support: The use of ethanol for powering vehicles is not new. Henry Ford designed and built ethanol-powered vehicles almost a hundred years ago. But it did not catch on, and there was little attention paid to ethanol in the middle of the 20th century, when gasoline prices were acceptable. Following the OPEC oil crisis of the 1970s, President Carter offered a $0.40 per gallon tax incentive and engineered the first ethanol boom. The ethanol industry unfortunately fell apart with the collapse of crude oil prices in 1986. It can be argued that high oil prices are driving the recent interest in ethanol, and if oil prices go down significantly, due to factors involving oil producers and beyond the control of the ethanol industry, political support for mandates, tax cuts and tariffs may dissipate. If this government support were removed it would put a major damper on ethanol profit margins. Much of Carter’s rhetoric about the need for energy independence is similar to recent speeches by President Bush. If the political concern for alternative energy of the Carter era could fade away, it is conceivable for current political interest to fade as well.
3. Competition from Gasoline: Ethanol offers the promise of domestic energy independence, but it must be able to compete with gasoline to have long-term profitability. It must also be mentioned that ethanol is at a disadvantage compared to gasoline in mile-per-gallon fuel efficiency. According to fueleconomy.gov, a car that gets 16 miles-per-gallon on gas will get only 12 miles on E85. It was also recently reported that the wholesale price of ethanol “was around $3 per gallon compared with about $2.28 for gasoline (before being mixed with ethanol).” Even with GM and Ford having made announcements about producing more flex-fuel cars capable of running on E85, and with more gas stations offering E85, it is questionable whether motorists will find E85 economically justifiable.
It is questionable whether America can champion globalization and keep the ethanol import tariff indefinitely. It is also a matter of time before Brazilian ethanol finds its way to the U.S. via the Caribbean. Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is more energy efficient than American corn ethanol and cheaper than gasoline. By 2010, Brazil will export 2.5 billion gallons of ethanol, which is likely to put enormous pressure on domestic ethanol. Thus, competition from Brazil and the Caribbean may lower the price of ethanol in America in five years.
The secular long-term tightness of corn is expected to continue for some time. China, a traditional exporter of corn, has now become a net importer. No one knows how severely China will impact corn prices. Of the 11.1 billion bushels produced in the U.S., the ethanol industry consumed an estimated 1.6 billion bushels or 14% in 2005. Corn production is estimated to be 10.5 billion bushels this year with ethanol industry usage projected to rise above 20%. Export markets, poultry and livestock industries will be adversely affected. Poultry prices may rise sharply. The corn ethanol industry will be vulnerable to long-term supply of its raw material, corn.
The near term outlook of corn supply does not appear to be assured. USDA reported corn stocks of 3.8 billion bushels as of March 1st. During the Dec-Feb quarter, consumption of corn did not go down as much as was expected due to the higher prices. Worldwatch Institute cautions that “if U.S. corn use and exports were to continue at the same rate in the months ahead as during the December-February period, U.S. corn stocks would be totally depleted by July 28th – roughly 2 months before the next harvest begins.” The demand for corn ethanol is inelastic at present and hence the ethanol industry will be able to cope with likely higher prices. However, lower margins and complaints about possible higher poultry and livestock prices may bring the corn ethanol enthusiasts down to Earth before fall this year. Alan Greenspan recently testified before Congress saying that he has doubts about corn supplies being sufficient for corn ethanol to replace gasoline. If he is right, and the above factors affect corn supplies, then there will not be enough corn to make large-scale ethanol production viable.
Ethanol cannot be shipped by pipeline. It has to be barged and trucked. As such, bigger producers may not have an inherent advantage over smaller ones. Many small producers are owned by corn producers’ co-ops. During periods of tight corn supply, small co-ops may do better than larger companies without captive corn supply. There is also a tax break that benefits only small ethanol producers, further making smaller producers preferable to larger ones.
The Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) office claims that “in terms of key energy and environmental benefits, cornstarch ethanol clearly outpaces petroleum-based fuels, and that tomorrow’s cellulose-based ethanol would do even better.” They also say that while “corn ethanol reduces (greenhouse gas) emissions by 18% to 29%; cellulosic ethanol offers an even greater benefit, with an 85% reduction in GHG emissions.” A Natural Resources Defense Council-commissioned paper in “Environmental Science and Technology” claims that 1 unit of fossil fuel energy produces 1.3 units of ethanol energy, while 1 unit of fossil fuel may create 6 units of cellulosic ethanol energy, meaning that cellulosic ethanol might be almost six times more efficient. Nathan Glasgow and Lena Hansen of Rocky Mountain Institute report that “while corn-based ethanol reduces carbon emissions by about 20 percent below gasoline, cellulosic ethanol is predicted to be carbon-neutral, or possibly even net-carbon-negative.” In his Congressional testimony Greenspan claimed that cellulosic ethanol held more promise than corn ethanol. It has also been claimed that the byproducts of the process of creating cellulosic ethanol can be burned to power the process, making it more oil-independent than corn ethanol. The previously mentioned Canadian company is seeking loan guarantees from the Department of Energy to help build a cellulosic ethanol production facility in the United States, specifically in Idaho. Still, for the time being the vast majority of American ethanol producers are making corn-based ethanol, which will not compete favorably with cellulosic ethanol in the long term. The ability of U.S. producers to make the switch from corn to cellulose in the future is hard to predict.
For the rest of the article:
http://www.altenews.com/researchreports.htm
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I guess a point by point "refutation" of the con-ethanol statements made in Car and Driver magazine this month just isn't in the cards.
I'll take what I can get.
But, the net of all the stuff written does seem to be that the Car and Driver article is, at the very least, not an inaccurate or deliberately negatively spun presentation.
The arguments seem to be repeated over and over -- and I know repetition (with evolution of the argument being put forth) is important to make a point "stick."
I want to be pro-ethanol, I want to be pro-anything that has merit with respect to solving a problem. I know that we may have to invest in a few dry-holes to "strike oil" so to speak (literally and figuratively in this case) -- but even the pro-articles are either AT BEST cautious and/or leave out the severe hit on MPG and the current and near term (and possibly mid-term, too) financial paradox of ethanol.
Once the dust settles, so to speak (i.e., the subsidies end or we rob corn for food/feed production to support corn for fuel production and subsequently food prices rise) even THE most optimistic folks don't outline how we have actually done much at all to help the situation.
The pro-ethanol folks don't seem to address the increased costs to the actual consumer. Even when the costs are discussed they are discussed in a vacuum -- that is, I have read the concession statements regarding the cost per gallon (before and after the government dole subsides) and they generally talk about the price of ethanol (E85) as having little (if any) financial incentive to buy. The statements sometimes say "Regular Gas $3.00; E85 $3.00," or sometimes a bit less or a bit more but they fail to mention the implied price due to the MPG that will be associated with using 85% ethanol; and, often the price per gallon is stated as the price including a $.51 per gallon incentive which makes no sense whatsoever in the long run.
Or, if the mileage is mentioned, usually other factors that when coupled with that information are included in the discussion that WOULD exacerbate the situation, well, seemingly, they too are not included.
In other words, it seems like the folks who present the "E85 is not ready for prime time" will present both the costs and fuel efficiency data and cite sources (over and over again to -- successfully I think -- substantiate the point that E85 gets at least 25% poorer milage and even with subsidies in rarely significantly less money per gallon than oil-based gasoline); but, the folks who swear E85 is ready for the masses seem, to me at least, to leave out either fuel efficiency data and implications OR cost per gallon information and its (easier to understand) consequences.
We've NOT advanced the case for E85 in the past three days, as far as I can tell. But we seem to have irked "each other" and come "this close" to ad hominem arguments.
"And, you're ugly!"
"Oh yea?"
"Yea, and your mother dresses you funny, too!"
:surprise:
"We've NOT advanced the case for E85 in the past three days, as far as I can tell. But we seem to have irked "each other" and come "this close" to ad hominem arguments."
Change "three days" to "two weeks" and I think you're just about right.... :sick:
I'm in full agreement with the C&D article. I posted that article more for those that might be thinking about investing in ethanol. It is a shaky investment at best. I love the way Bill Gates Jumped into the fray. He gets special stock pricing with his millions.
That point assumes a few points that may be flawed:
-That scale economies would not lead to lower ethanol prices
-That the eventual use of other biomass will not prove to be more efficient resources, also allowing for lower prices
-That increased competition in the market as supplies increase could not also lower ethanol prices
-That gasoline prices won't increase from current levels to an extent that wouldn't make ethanol more attractive in relative terms.
It's not a good or fair analysis to judge the prospects of any technology strictly by the status quo if the status quo is changing or may change. While it is reasonable to point out that ethanol is costly and in limited supply today, that alone is not enough reason to claim that it has no potential in the marketplace.
“We have deep Texas roots and an unwavering commitment to doing what’s right for our customers, and they’ve made it clear they want an alternative to foreign oil,” said James Aulds, Vice President of H-E-B Fuels. “Our customers will also appreciate the fact that E85 is less expensive and cleaner burning than traditional gasoline.”
The stations will be strategically located along IH-35; placed close to fleet operations and U.S. Army’s Fort Hood and Raldolph Air Force Base.
“We are pleased to see H-E-B as a provider for this renewable fuel,” said Curtis Donaldson, Chairman of the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition. “This is good for their business, good for Texas drivers and good for the environment. The NEVC has been working with H-E-B for several months and have established an excellent partnership. In fact, because of the growth of E85 fueling in Texas, the NEVC is upgrading our office phone system to be able to serve the needs of Spanish speaking E85 customers.”
H-E-B has also announced that they will be organizing an educational and promotional campaign to inform their customers on the benefits of the clean burning alternative fuel.
H-E-B plans to make E85 available at the following locations in a couple short months:
H-E-B
17460 IH-35 North
Schertz, Texas 78154
(Exit 3009, NE corner of IH-35 and 3009)
H-E-B
500 Canyon Ridge Drive
Austin, Texas 78753
(IH-35 and Parmer at Tech Ridge)
H-E-B
2511 Trimmier Road, Suite 100
Killeen, Texas 76542
(Near gates of Fort Hood)
H-E-B Buda #477
15300 South IH-35
Buda, Texas 78610
(Southbound frontage of IH-35)
H-E-B
801 IH-35 North
Waco, Texas 76705
(IH-35 and 84)
According to Phillip Lampert, Executive Director of the NEVC, “The Alliance of Automobile Manufactures Association new alternative fuel web site, www.discoveralternatives.com, shows that there are more flexible fuel vehicles located in the state of Texas than any other state in the nation. For E85 to be a truly national form of alternative transportation fuel, it was critical for us to assist in this Texas effort. We are very pleased that H-E-B has joined the NEVC as a full member and partner in our efforts to advance E85.”
Shortly, Texas will have seventeen stations in the state, a total up from one in January of 2006. For a complete listing, go to www.E85Fuel.com.
o Ethanol will insignificantly reduce our dependence upon oil
o Ethanol seems unlikely to reduce our dependence on foreign oil
o Ethanol will not, indeed cannot, protect us from price fluctuations
o Ethanol reduces CO2 by a very small single digit percentage and raises total hydrocarbon emissions by over 40%
o Ethanol has a functionally zero percent chance of slowing or reversing global warming
o Ethanol achieves insignificantly better performance (as E85) than plain gasoline or E10
o Ethanol achieves significantly worse miles per gallon (30% worse) than plain gasoline or E10
o Ethanol cannot be pumped through the same pipes that currently move petroleum gas
o Ethanol production from food (corn) in any meaningful quantity will impact the cost of food negatively and essentially require us to cease exporting corn.
I use this secondary resource (edmunds, this blog, that is) as part (not a major part, but not one that I can ignore, either) of my overall education pertaining to the viability of ethanol. Folks who seem in favor of it, seem to not include many or all of the cons in their arguments.
Is the litany of points (for the sake of easy identification, Bedard's Litany of Points) able to be countered without name calling, without simple contradiction and without relying entirely on a "what might be" argument?
I am willing to grant that several factors that are not yet in play might occur that will mitigate the negatives pertaining to E and E85. But, it is also possible that a breakthrough in cooking the oil shale and tapping into hundreds of trillions of bbl's of oil right here in North America is at least possible.
We seem to be willing to argue -- skillfully -- the points that we wish to present.
I am looking, as if I were a debate team participant, to take up the cause of the pro-E85 crowd for a time. Thus far, I am having about as much luck building a case for E85 as I would for making the case for the earth being flat (and I said that for effect, and ask to be allowed to make a point with a hint of drama.)
Where is the info to refute Bedard? And, is Bedard so biased, so close minded that he wrote an article, apparently with research behind it, that deliberately was written to support a conclusion made in advance? And, therefore, that Bedard deliberately turned a blind-eye to data points, information and studies that contradicted his foregone conclusion?
In other words, is Bedard's piece just a puff piece or a paid political announcement, so to speak?
Many of the folks who write these pieces (including but not limited to another popular piece found in Popular Mechanics) seem to write with "intellectual honesty."
But, perhaps they all have an agenda to argue against anything that is NOT derived from oil.
I can't find any supporting info, however.
That is why I keep asking "where to look." When I do look, it often seems (thus far) that E85 is "the emperor's new clothes."
I'm just too dumb to know I'm not supposed to cry out in recognition of the emperor's underwear. :surprise:
o Ethanol will insignificantly reduce our dependence upon oil
o Ethanol seems unlikely to reduce our dependence on foreign oil
The truth or falseness of this will be based upon the level of ethanol production, and changes in demand for energy. These statements assume minimal increases in production, which may well prove to be false, particularly if other biomasses are used to produce it.
o Ethanol will not, indeed cannot, protect us from price fluctuations
Again, that will prove to be true or false based upon supply levels, as noted above.
In any case, that isn't the only purpose of an energy, so this may not offer much of a yardstick. For one, the main purpose of energy is to provide fuel, so if ethanol accomplishes that task, it has done enough.
For another, the main benefit of any alternative fuel may not be to reduce prices per se, but to reduce risk by diversifying the breadth our energy portfolio. It's not particularly smart to manage US energy policy while ignoring the nastiness of the regimes that provide much of it.
o Ethanol reduces CO2 by a very small single digit percentage and raises total hydrocarbon emissions by over 40%
Most energy consumption creates some sort of pollution. Without comparing this to the alternatives that would be used instead and gaining some context, this information isn't very helpful.
o Ethanol has a functionally zero percent chance of slowing or reversing global warming
I can't think of any energy source that does. Again, compare ethanol to the alternatives, rather than to a utopian vision in which energy can be consumed without negative consequences.
o Ethanol achieves insignificantly better performance (as E85) than plain gasoline or E10
o Ethanol achieves significantly worse miles per gallon (30% worse) than plain gasoline or E10
Again, the purpose of an energy source is to provide fuel, not necessarily to provide it at a level based upon an arbitrary benchmark.
If prices and fuel tank capacities are suitable to provide sufficient range to please the average customer, then the mileage loss largely won't matter. As we can see, the higher mileage available from diesel is not a particularly important value proposition to most consumers, just so long as the range is "good enough".
o Ethanol cannot be pumped through the same pipes that currently move petroleum gas
Then factor in the infrastructure costs into the analysis. Again, every solution has expenses associated with it; focusing on ethanol's costs doesn't eliminate the expenses of the others.
o Ethanol production from food (corn) in any meaningful quantity will impact the cost of food negatively and essentially require us to cease exporting corn.
Once again, this assumes that corn is the only suitable biomass, and that exporting corn is a better choice than using it domestically.
Ethanol may be the worst thing on earth, for all we know, but these arguments above are not compelling. They're largely based on faux benchmarks and applying arguments to this product while failing to compare them to the alternatives.
And as much as I enjoy reading the enthusiast press, they do fine work in testing car dynamics and tossing cars around tracks, but their scientific credentials are lacking. I'll give that a thorough read to see if it has some merit, but when I think of Bedard, I think of Cannonball Run, not Scientific American.
Information. Knowledge. The power of choice. For 30 years ethanol has been used as a gasoline additive (10% blends) and alternative fuel (85% blends) in nearly every state. Yet, its detractors have created a path of myths and disinformation to help keep the 100-year-old gasoline-only status quo marketplace. Learn about the energy, environmental and economic benefits ethanol provides you — and make your own choice.
Every American is a consumer and should have choices in a "free market." Ethanol Across America provides drivers with a wide range of information sources to help them make an educated decision. This decision will help build support for programs to help increase ethanol production and use and create a choice in the marketplace.
1The Ethanol Minute
2Educational Publications
3The Ethanol Fact Book
4Flexible Fuel Vehicle Fact Book
5Fuel Ethanol Curriculum Guide
6Clean Fuels: Paving the Way For America's Future
7Oxygenate Fact Book
8ETBE Fact Book
9Frequently Asked Questions
TAKE ACTION
Ethanol Across America and the Clean Fuels Development Coalition recently designed a new E-10 Unleaded brochure to show car owners the endorsements car manufacturers have given ethanol. Gain more in-depth knowledge about the issues being debated about ethanol production and use.
The Dual Fuel Vehicle Incentive Program of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988 helps stimulate ethanol use
Issue Brief: Net Energy Balance of Ethanol Production
The Ethanol Minute is a national radio show broadcasting interviews with experts from all walks of life including elected officials, celebrities, energy and environmental experts, and businessmen and women.
The Ethanol Minute is coming to a radio station near you soon. Keep and ear out for us. An estimated 400 stations throughout the country will be carrying the broadcasts.
For more information about shows or suggestions please contact: EthanolMinute@ethanolacrossamerica.net
Educational Publications
We have several Fact Books and Issue Briefs available that will provide you with first hand research information on the use, production, benefits, technical performance and impact of fuel ethanol and ethanol fueled vehicles.
The Ethanol Fact Book
Over 100 references and numerous brief issue overviews are available in the Ethanol Fact Book to answer your questions about environmental impacts, performance, energy security, legislative history and benefits.
Flexible Fuel Vehicle Fact Book
Over 100 years ago Henry Ford stirred the imagination of the world by making the first Model T to run on any combination of gasoline or alcohol. Henry Ford's visionary concerns about urban air quality and the economic impact of high oil imports have become a reality - and so did his first dream to have cars run on renewable, clean burning, domestic ethanol. Ford, General Motors, Chrysler-Daimler and Toyota have manufactured millions of flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) that are NOW available though their dealership networks. Learn more about their availability and technical performance.
Fuel Ethanol Curriculum Guide
Similar to the efforts to teach school children about the environmental benefits or recycling, Ethanol Across America is supporting the mass distribution of a guide prepared for educators to teach a course on ethanol, and harness perhaps the greatest power we have, America's youth.
Clean Fuels: Paving the Way For America's FutureThis publication provides general information on a wide range of alternative transportation fuels, helping the reader understand the different characteristics and applications of these fuels.
Oxygenate Fact Book
Air quality remains an important issue. Additives to gasoline called oxygenates, including fuel ethanol, have played a significant role in reducing emissions through improved fuel quality. The Oxygenate Fact Book provides information on how these components have been so effective in reducing pollution while extending fuel supplies.
ETBE Fact Book
The Ethanol based ether ETBE offers a host of benefits in the areas of fuel quality, transportation, and performance. Characteristics of water, air, and soil life appear to be significantly better than methanol based ethers and there may be a role for this promising fuel in the future.
Frequently Asked Questions:
Do you have a question? We will help you find the answer. What is Ethanol? How is ethanol used as an alterative fuel? What is an E-85 Vehicle?
Can't find the answer? Send us an email at questions@ethanolacrossamerica.net
for National Geographic News
May 16, 2006
A Canadian company has developed a new, more efficient process to make the alternative fuel ethanol from farm waste.
With today's high oil prices, experts hope the new technology could reduce demand on fossil fuels and increase energy security.
RELATED
"Addicted to Oil": How Can U.S. Fulfill Bush Pledge?
Ethanol More Energy Efficient Than Thought, Study Says
"The End of Cheap Oil" in National Geographic Magazine
(Read "Powering the Future" in National Geographic magazine.)
"In the past, ethanol fuel use has been limited, because the cost of production was too high," said Jim Easterly, a Washington, D.C.-based bioenergy consultant.
"Ethanol produced from corn kernels and wheat grain has historically been more expensive than gasoline produced from oil."
Producing corn-based ethanol, for example, uses energy from oil and electricity for everything from growing the corn to powering the boilers in the ethanol plant.
Often the amount of ethanol created is equal to or less than the amount of fossil fuels needed to run the facility.
Enzyme Action
Now Ottawa-based Iogen Corporation might have solved these production problems.
Their researchers looked at a variety of enzymes and how they break down different plant fibers.
The innovative process they developed uses leftovers from crops grown for food, such as the straw left after wheat is harvested, to produce ethanol.
"The process is very similar to the way a brewery works," said Mandy Chepeka, an Iogen spokesperson.
May 22, 2006 - Los Angeles times Editorial
MORE THAN JUST OIL PRICES have been rising lately. Ethanol, which in the United States is largely made from corn and added to gasoline, has also gotten a lot more expensive. And therein lies a short lesson in economics — but not necessarily of the free-market variety.
Ethanol isn't significantly more expensive to produce than it was a year ago. But ethanol prices tend to rise and fall with gasoline prices; producers charge whatever the market will bear. In addition, refiners stopped using the environmentally disastrous additive MTBE this spring. Since refiners are required to oxygenate fuel, and MTBE and ethanol both serve that purpose, the demand for ethanol has risen dramatically, while supply hasn't and — well, the rest is Economics 101.
Actually, maybe it's Econ 102. Because there's more than the free market at work here. U.S. taxpayers subsidize the domestic ethanol industry with billions of dollars a year. The producers, meanwhile, are protected from competition by a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on less-expensive Brazilian ethanol, which is made from sugar. The government is also providing ethanol makers with a guaranteed growth market; the 2005 energy bill requires that ethanol production almost double by 2012.
Even though public outcry over gas prices has Washington scrambling, no one is talking about ending the billions of dollars in corn subsidies each year. The corn lobby is too powerful for that. But there is talk, amazingly enough, about ending the tariff on imported ethanol. President Bush has proposed dropping it, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has joined with two Republicans to introduce legislation to do so. Opening the U.S. market to imports would increase supply and also give domestic ethanol producers a taste of free-market price competition.
With politicians from both the left and right supporting such a sane policy, the problem is the people in the middle — the middle of the country, that is. Representatives of corn-growing states, and the formidable corn lobby, are putting up a fight. And there are signs that the pressure of politics is overcoming the logic of economics. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), who initially supported dropping the tariff, switched positions last week. Other Farm Belt representatives need to decide which is more important: the free market or the corn lobby.
"The primary effect of technology-specific mandates is to divert precious resources from other development programs that likely are much more promising," German commented. "If there are to be mandates, they should be stated in terms of performance requirements, with incentives and supported by research and development." For example, going all out to fund ethanol production that would have a limited impact at the expense of other promising technologies would be, in the long term, counter-productive.
I think that is the length of time that was spent by Congressional leaders studying Ethanol. There are Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle that know this whole Ethanol push is wrong. If they were not so indebted to big Ag and the Corn Lobby they would vote what is right for America, not what looks good at the polls.
Because you are a johnny come lately to the Ethanol debate I think you should go back and read some of the articles I posted 2 years ago when this whole thing was still in the debate level. Ethanol made from corn is no better today that it was 30 years ago. Once the truth is known that it takes more oil to make ethanol than just using the oil to begin with, people will come to their senses. There is no free lunch as ADM would have you believe.
It was not Edmund's, whom you harshly criticized for starting this debate. Check this thread from 2 years ago. My position has not changed. And it is unlikely that it will as long as the Ethanol community is trying to destroy the environment growing corn in the fashion they currently use.
gagrice, "Is Ethanol good for the environment?" #1, 28 Jul 2004 11:01 pm
While I appreciate the energy, time and thought that went into constructing the responses you offered, I am hoping to uncover a "ying" to Bedard's "yang" (and while I generally have nothing to counter or argue with in your responses, well I pretty much could have made those arguments unaided.) The fact that you articulated them and wrote them down is of no little benefit to all of us -- but it doesn't quite address the point.
As an IT consultant, I have to be aware that I may have not asked the question properly. Often, my clients will ask me a question, sincerely looking for an answer. My answers to "wrong" questions, then, usually are forced to be:
#1 "It all depends. . . ."
#2 "Almost anything is possible if the stack of hundred dollar bills is high enough. . . ."
Of course, if I know my client well and for a long time or have a certain rapport with them, I can get away with these answers. For about 1 minute, then I need to attempt to extract the question from them that I think they were trying to ask until we both agree on the question -- then I can address their issue.
Perhaps by summarizing Bedard's article, I "did his points and him a disservice." I am not suggesting his points are mine -- even though I must admit it is difficult to argue against his points within the context of the article and when supported by nothing more than the Popular Mechanics articles and the dozens of URL's that have been posted here, even -- pointing to secondary resources.
As a means to "the next" if not the end (too soon, for that, methinks), I am attempting to take a point (mentally) that is the opposite of what appears to be substantial evidence that ethanol "isn't" the solution it is currently touted to be.
In effect, I am deliberately attempting to find ways to contradict then argue convincingly against what appears to be the popular (here) notion that E85 won't AND can't work given the constraints that are here and now. The article here, for example, E85 Fool's Gold or Golden Opportunity being a good starting point for one looking for a least an attempt at balance.
So, I am looking for a similar article (to Bedard's) that takes the point of view that instead of being full of false promises, ethanol truly is full of true promises.
Hell, I'd even take true lies, at this point. :confuse:
"Robots are stealing my luggage."
Now Ottawa-based Iogen Corporation might have solved these production problems.
Are you jumping off the Corn wagon? You realize if companies like Iogen are successful that all the corn stills will be worthless or near worthless. Same goes if Congress lifts the 54 cent tariff off of foreign ethanol. You may as well kiss the Iowa farm good-bye.
I am in full agreement with making ethanol from feedstocks that are not detrimental to the environment. So I am fully behind companies like Iogen of Canada. Once when I mentioned Iogen you came back with "we don't care how they do things in Canada or Mexico". Glad to see you are coming around to the only logical way to pursue ethanol production.
Ethanol (E85) contributes to improving CAFE requirements by a technicality. That is, only the gasoline portion of E85 counts in the calculation of CAFE -- since gasoline is only 15% of E85, CAFE gets a shot in the gas tank.
This technicality were it removed (and shouldn't it be to allow the customer to make a fully informed decision?) would actually demonstrate a degradation of the CAFE numbers since E85 gets substantially poorer mileage than pure oil based gasoline or even E10.
Is this true?
If this is true, it isn't any wonder car mfgr's would support the use of ethanol, for it allows them to claim improvements in the CAFE numbers "from a certain point of view." A point of view that, frankly, seem deceptive.
What is the truth pertaining to this point?
Why would mfgr's be in favor of a product that will actually make their vehicles get poorer miles per gallon, effectively raising the cost of operation and the frequency of going to the gas station?
As I read this, it sounds like a brochure put out by the IRS to convince the reader that they should LIKE being taxed (or as some folks think, over taxed.)
The arguments seem, that is, to be "specious," i.e., having a false look of truth or genuineness.
Where's the accountability, to say it plainly? :confuse:
Is this reliance on let's say Brazil's sugar crop any different than being at the mercies and moods of our Arab 'friends'. If ethanol can not be produced competitively from corn, soybeans or some 'US' crop without heavy government subsidies then, why push it - because the net effect is the same - reliance on other countries for our energy needs.
Here comes the problem. We are trying to become independent from outside sources of energy. If we cannot produce ethanol as cheap as other countries how can we stop the gasoline refineries that need the ethanol from buying from the lowest price sellers?
I tell you this whole mandate is going to be a mess. You will hear some real screaming when no one wants $5 per gallon corn ethanol when they can buy sugar cane ethanol for a buck a gallon.
From an East Coast port it would be cheaper to ship in ethanol from Brazil than truck it from Iowa. Unless of course NY starts making ethanol from grapes.