with the price of gas, it's no wonder that European have chosen diesels
but they suffer from significantly impacted air quality - Europe STINKS (literally, not figuratively), which is a real shame
I wonder how they do vis a vis lost workdays and the like (air pollution-caused health effects)
Americans would not accept the stench that comes from all those diesels. Almost every American who travels to Europe remarks on (a) the percentage of small cars and (b) how the air stinks of diesel
Good point, maybe like Jack Daniels. Until they overcome the problems of clean production and transport, we will not know in CA what it smells like.
As far as diesels in the EU. Only Germany has had ULSD for more than a couple years, from what I have read. Not all the EU countries have adopted the ULSD mandate. I would expect with 50% of the cars being diesel and not all clean burning as the current crop, there would be pollution. Just like here before we mandated clean gasoline and catalytic convertors. Not all the states have converted to low sulfur gasoline or diesel yet. It is one thing to mandate and another to enforce. high sulfur gas is the reason that cars get a different rating in the CARB states vs the non-CARB states.
Biodiesel fouls the environment like no other fuel does. it is creating extremely large fish kills in the midwest near where new Biodiesel plants are located. Local and state governments are examining the permitting process as what kills fish will surely kill people as it pervades our ground water and food chain. There is talk that Biodiesel plants may be shut down if they are anywhere near elements in our food chain. Meanwhile, Ethanol production, new plants and newer technologies have proven to be non-destructive to the environment and cheaper to produce every day. Except for the ***CENSORED*** I can think of no basically educated person who understands science and modern renewable fuels who would object to Ethanol. We will not be a country that stinks like the befouled counries of Europe...especially with diesels that are just junk now, ask any European...besides who cares what the socialist Europeans do? No reliable and low-cost diesel engine is produced in Europe yet...maybe in another 100 years!
Biodiesel fouls the environment like no other fuel does.
Link please.
Meanwhile, Ethanol production, new plants and new technologies have proven to be non-destructive to the environment.
While the production of ethanol may be "non destructive" the growing of the corn (mostly used in producing ethanol) is anything but.
I can think of no basically educated person who understands science and modern renewable fuels who would object to Ethanol.
Name calling again? I can think of many educated people who find what is going on with ethanol a bit unnerving. FWIW most people I know who actually get the facts and have no agenda don't see ethanol as a solution.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I have a (fairly) straight forward question regarding ethanol production.
Obviously, it takes a fair amount of energy to produce ethanol (though it's been reported numerous times that the amount of energy produced is greater than the amount of energy consumed). My question is: how much of the energy CONSUMED to produced ethanol can be (or is) SUPPLIED by ethanol?
In other words, if a fair amount of the energy being consumed to produce ethanol is in the form of oil, then does the production of ethanol REALLY reduce our demand for oil?
Ethanol is nothing more than politcal payoff to a few farmers and in return they pay off members of congress. Same ole dishonest game. Both parties and both houses.
"Europe stinks?" Wow. Now that is such a broad statement, I am wondering what parts of Europe you are talking about.
I have been to many countries in Europe (including eastern Europe) and only one of them had much smell of "fumes" -- and that was the first time I visited the country. In later visits, years later that is, I am certain the air quality was better than many American cities.
When I first visited Poland, I went from Berlin to Poznan via train. This was in the early 1990's -- the wall had come down, of course, but the contrast between east and west so to speak was darn near stark. Almost like taking the drive from central Chicago to Gary (Indiana) -- or from Manhattan to Newark.
As about 5 years passed, I made a second visit, this time to Warsaw. Hmmm, I thought, at first -- "kinda seems like Detroit, a bit smoggy, but a huge improvement and I actually saw western cars on this trip."
Time Passes:
Another 5 years, back to Warsaw and to Crackow, on to Prague and to cities including Amsterdam, the Hague, Brussles, Luxembourg City, London, Paris, Vienna, Triere, Munich, Ingolstadt, Frankfurt, Innsbruck, Verona, Milan, Rome, Venice (really smelly, but not diesel) and on and on and on from 1993 to 2005 (some years 6 trips in one year.)
In 2005, I visited again, Munich, Innsbruck, Verona and Venice (these cities may not demonstrate the case for or against Europe Stinks, but they are in Europe.)
In many respects, Europe (from the above perspective) has cleaned itself up -- America, by comparison has dirtied itself down. The number of smog alert days here in Cincinnati has gone up -- our busses stink and we are constantly told "not to mow our lawns or fill our gas tanks before 6PM."
My impression is the Ultra Low Emissions diesels have been a huge success in the EU (and beyond since some of the countries I have been to weren't able to join the EU from the get go) as far as stinkyness is concerned.
I say, bring on the UL diesels -- bring 'em here, bring 'em now, and bring plenty of 'em.
At least if the criteria is smell -- for, from my perspective, Europe (as broad as that may seem) smells cleaner than America (and I will narrow those characterizations by saying I am generally speaking of the urban areas.)
Thank you for a first hand report on the EU. I need to travel to Europe. I think they are dabbling in ethanol. I find it interesting that in 2001 we were one of the largest exporters of ethanol along with France and the UK. Now we are importers of ethanol. In 2001 Brazil was importing ethanol now they are exporting it. Will we exchange importing oil for ethanol?
in most European cities you have a higher percentage of nicer cars - the poor in cities can not afford cars and they rely on mass transit, and the rich have new cars
get out of the cities and you see what the middle class and poor drive. You don't see as many nice cars. And it stinks.
But I am only talking France and Germany.
When I was in Paris I saw all sorts of new Renaults and other EU brands. Then in Provence all the cars are very middle of the road. And they stink. Granted, the cars are older out there, so that has a lot to do with it. Far more newer cars in Paris than outside of Paris. All driven by demographics, really. It's not the cars, it's the cars people can afford. If everyone drove a NEW diesel, I'm sure it would smell better.
The False Hope of Biofuels For Energy and Environmental Reasons, Ethanol Will Never Replace Gasoline
Biofuels such as ethanol made from corn, sugar cane, switchgrass and other crops are being touted as a "green" solution for a large part of America's transportation problem. Auto manufacturers, Midwest corn farmers and politicians are excited about ethanol. Initially, we, too, were excited about biofuels: no net carbon dioxide emissions, reduction of oil imports. Who wouldn't be enthusiastic?
But as we've looked at biofuels more closely, we've concluded that they're not a practical long-term solution to our need for transport fuels. Even if all of the 300 million acres (500,000 square miles) of currently harvested U.S. cropland produced ethanol, it wouldn't supply all of the gasoline and diesel fuel we now burn for transport, and it would supply only about half of the needs for the year 2025. And the effects on land and agriculture would be devastating.
It's difficult to understand how advocates of biofuels can believe they are a real solution to kicking our oil addiction. Agriculture Department studies of ethanol production from corn -- the present U.S. process for ethanol fuel -- find that an acre of corn yields about 139 bushels. At an average of about 2.5 gallons per bushel, the acre then will yield about 350 gallons of ethanol. But the fuel value of ethanol is only about two-thirds that of gasoline -- 1.5 gallons of ethanol in the tank equals 1 gallon of gasoline in terms of energy output.
Moreover, it takes a lot of input energy to produce ethanol: for fertilizer, harvesting, transport, corn processing, etc. After subtracting this input, the net positive energy available is less than half of the figure cited above. Some researchers even claim that the net energy of ethanol is actually negative when all inputs are included -- it takes more energy to make ethanol than one gets out of it.
But allowing a net positive energy output of 30,000 British thermal units (Btu) per gallon, it would still take four gallons of ethanol from corn to equal one gallon of gasoline. The United States has 73 million acres of corn cropland. At 350 gallons per acre, the entire U.S. corn crop would make 25.5 billion gallons, equivalent to about 6.3 billion gallons of gasoline. The United States consumes 170 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn crop would supply only 3.7 percent of our auto and truck transport demands. Using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol production would meet about 15 percent of the demand.
It is argued that rather than using corn to make ethanol, we can use agricultural wastes. But the amounts are still a drop in the bucket. Using the crop residues (called corn stover) from corn production could provide about 10 billion gallons per year of ethanol, according to a recent study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The net energy available would be greater than with ethanol from corn -- about 60,000 Btu per gallon, equivalent to a half-gallon of gasoline. Still, all of the U.S. corn wastes would produce only the equivalent of 5 billion gallons of gasoline. Another factor to be considered: Not plowing wastes back into the land hurts soil fertility.
Similar limitations and problems apply to growing any crop for biofuels, whether switchgrass, hybrid willow, hybrid poplar or whatever. Optimistically, assuming that switchgrass or some other crop could produce 1,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, over twice as much as we can get from corn plus stover, and that its net energy was 60,000 Btu per gallon, ethanol from 300 million acres of switchgrass still could not supply our present gasoline and diesel consumption, which is projected to double by 2025. The ethanol would meet less than half of our needs by that date.
Perhaps more important: The agricultural effects of such a large-scale program would be devastating.
Recently, there has been lots of excitement and media coverage about how Brazil produces ethanol for its automobile fuel and talk that America should follow its lead. But Brazil consumes only 10 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually, compared with America's 170 billion. There are almost 4 million miles of paved roads in America -- Brazil has 60,000. And Brazil is the leading producer of sugar cane -- more than 300 million tons annually -- so it has lots of agricultural waste to make ethanol.
Finally, considering projected population growth in the United States and the world, the humanitarian policy would be to maintain cropland for growing food -- not fuel. Every day more than 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes -- one child every five seconds. The situation will only get worse. It would be morally wrong to divert cropland needed for human food supply to powering automobiles. It would also deplete soil fertility and the long-term capability to maintain food production. We would destroy the farmland that our grandchildren and their grandchildren will need to live.
I have spent more time in Germany than any European country, period.
However, most of the time in Germany has been spent in Bavaria -- towns like Fussen, Garmisch, Frieburg (sp?) and even medium sized towns like Ingolstadt (which of course is the Holy Land for Audi lovers like me.)
Germany second only to Switzerland, strikes me as the cleanest country in Europe -- there don't even seem to be any butts on the street, if you get my drift.
Just as a contrarian, I respectfully disagree -- insofar as Germany is concerned. I would gladly breathe deep in Germany, at least where I have been (which is mostly the southern half of Germany, Frankfurt a few times and Berlin twice. Were we to be as clean as the Germany I know, we would not have been such a big part of Al's Inconvenient Truth.
To me, you wanna talk smelly, talk Philadelphia -- only Venice, Italy can smell worse from my experience.
Of course, as the song goes, no matter how bad it is, it could only be worse in Milwaukee.
In the same vein, our local newspapers here in Cincinnati are running ever more articles (3 in the last 10 days alone) about Corn for Fuel, etc etc. We have a Congresswoman who is buying a Tahoe FFV and making a big deal about it. The Ethanol drumbeat is being pounded now regularly and frequently.
The stories told, however, are true as far as I can tell -- but they are incomplete. Why in the wide wide world of sports do we only see the great and wonderful economic things that will happen to a few corn producers -- NEVER is there any mention of the impact on the consumer.
In response to yet another Front Page Corn for Fuel Article, I wrote the editor:
Dear Cincinnati Enquirer Editor,
A few months ago, I became interested in Ethanol (E85) fuel. My primary interest was economic. I, like perhaps most Americans, would prefer to have less expensive "gasoline" and less dependency on "Persian Gulf" oil. Additionally, I did see "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Who Killed the Electric Car" and would also like to be able to have a fuel that would "pollute less," if possible.
The first thing I noticed was the relative lack of Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFV's) on the market. Many of the FFV's seem to be fairly large and thirsty vehicles, like the Chevy Tahoe for 2007, for instance. The next thing I noticed was the lack of fueling stations (there will soon be but 10 for the entire state of Ohio.)
Recently, I happened to pick up a copy of Popular Mechanics, noting that it had a feature article on alternative fuels. Subsequently, I found articles in Business Week and Car and Driver that presented a side of Ethanol that I had not heard. Indeed, in the "mass media" I have, to this day, not heard, read or seen much about Ethanol that gives what I would characterize as complete and "practical" information and data.
It is somewhat confusing to read the Thursday, August 10th edition of the Cincinnati Enquirer ("Schmidt's new SUV can use Ethanol") and the Sunday, August 20th edition ("The Case For Corn") -- to say nothing of at least one article in the Business Courier (August 18th, "Inventor tends field of dreams") -- and essentially be informed of the positive aspects of growing corn for Ethanol (to make E85.) Nowhere do these articles present what using E85 will mean to the retail consumer.
After reading the articles in the newspapers and magazines mentioned above, I began additional on-line information gathering on the subjects of Ethanol, Diesel and Bio-diesel. I found many websites and blogs on these subjects -- 4,270,000 of them with one Google search for "E85" alone.
I have been able to find two "apparently believable" types of information. Proponents of E85 need only know that the "National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition" can be found at http://www.e85fuel.com. Likewise, the American Lung Association has a pro-Ethanol site, "Clean Air Choice" at http://www.cleanairchoice.org. Interestingly, this site has a section that does post pump prices for E85 and regular dino-gasoline at http://www.cleanairchoice.org/outdoor/PriceForum.asp. Considering that it is easy to find E85, when compared to regular gasoline, is often more expensive, I conclude this site is at least attempting to tell more of the "Ethanol from Corn -- for Fuel" story than most sources of information on the subject.
For example, today in Annapolis, Maryland E85 is $4.10 per gallon and Regular Unleaded is $3.04 at West Street Citgo. Another price posting on Friday, August 18th, had E85 at $2.95 and Regular Unleaded at $3.15 at the Kwik Trip in Mosinee, Wisconsin. Generally, if you take the time to review the prices that can be found posted on this site and elsewhere, you will find that Regular Unleaded and E85 are generally close in price. There are exceptions, of course, but typically the exceptions will be that E85 will be one dollar or more higher than Regular Unleaded and sometimes E85 will be up to one dollar less. Throwing out such differences, however, gives an impression of the current pump prices for E85 and Regular Unleaded as being "similar" (within 10% or less.) Some sites do seem to publish only the cases where E85 is more expensive -- most folks, would, I assume view such sites claims with a skeptical eye.
Initially, it would seem that using E85 would be a good thing -- or at least ought to be. It is, after all, 85% renewable, costs about the same or a little more than regular gasoline and is "coming on line," making it more and more likely to be widely available. Moreover, according to Bill Ford and the TV commercials most of us have been exposed to, Detroit is making a commitment to produce more and more FFV's for the American public's consumption. We're on our way to energy independence is the message here.
Yet, here is some of the additional information that I have been able to find (from numerous sources) about E85:
- E85 at today's price reflects a $.51 per gallon US government subsidy, meaning that the "true cost" per gallon is higher than the pump price.
- A gallon of E85 will only go about 70% as far as a gallon of gasoline, meaning that the true cost per mile when using E85 is significantly higher than when using gasoline.
- As the per gallon subsidy for Ethanol fuel is phased out, the cost per mile to drive using E85 will be about 50% more than using gasoline. Even with the subsidy, the cost to drive using E85 is about 30% more than using gasoline.
- Ethanol cannot be transported through the distribution infrastructure (pipelines) already in place, instead it must be trucked which increases its cost and decreases its efficiency (since it takes more energy to truck it than it would to pump it.) New pipelines can be built designed to transport Ethanol fuel -- this too would add expense, increasing the pump price while the costs were recouped.
- E85 is "unlikely to have any material effect" global warming (at most 4% according to university studies) -- detailed explanations can be found in several articles, some from prestigious universities, some citing these studies can be found in Popular Mechanics, Car and Driver and Road and Track magazines, too.
Yes, the $2.26 should have read $3.26. This station has always been about $.05 ~ $.10 higher than the surrounding stations. The prices have been dropping since last week at the local stations.
The Warrenville station is the closest E85 station that I know of around me, that is convenient (on my way to/from work & school).
But I don't think the $.30 price difference is enough to justify using it if my vehicle was so-equipped to do so. I'm like the rest in I haven't seem any real-world mileage statements from people using FFV vehicles, whether personal or governmental/fleet. The only FFVs I've seen are Taurus fleet vehicles.
- The quantity of E85 required to reduce our dependence on "foreign" oil is staggering -- at least based on the quantities we are contemplating producing in the near term:
“According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 95 ethanol refineries produced more than 4.3 billion gal. of ethanol in 2005. An additional 40 new or expanded refineries slated to come on line in the next 18 months will increase that to 6.3 billion gal. That sounds like a lot – and it is – but it represents just over 3 percent of our annual consumption of more than 200 billion gal. of gasoline and diesel.One acre of corn can produce 300 gal. of ethanol per growing season. So, in order to replace that 200 billion gal. of petroleum products, American farmers would need to dedicate 675 million acres, or 71 percent of the nation's 938 million acres of farmland, to growing feedstock. Clearly, ethanol alone won't kick our fossil fuel dependence–unless we want to replace our oil imports with food imports. Too often, discussions of alternative energy take place in an alternative universe where prices do not matter.”
– “Crunching the Numbers on Alternative Fuels,” Popular Mechanics, April, 2006
The "sum and substance" of E85 then seems to be:
- It could work as the equivalent of hamburger helper -- it has the ability, that is, to stretch our dwindling supply of crude oil.
- The pump price for E85 currently is about the same as regular gasoline or a little more (and sometimes a little less.)
- The pump price "eventually" for E85 could remain the same as gasoline if we are not constrained by the supply of Ethanol (as we are today and apparently will be for years to come.)
- The cost per mile, however, to use E85 is significantly higher than the cost to use gasoline.
- Most of the stories written about Corn for Ethanol production do not discuss the higher costs of using E85 in an FFV.
It would seem to be the case, that when the consumer discovers the higher costs of using E85 -- i.e., 30% to 50% or more -- that even the most altruistic among us will not want to buy it or will not be able to afford it.
For example:
If your family has a mini van and an SUV and you fill them both once per week, it is likely that your current weekly fuel costs are about $120 based on a 20 gallon tank in each vehicle and $3.00 per gallon gasoline. Were you to use E85, today, your fuel costs to fill up would likely be about $132 (10% more) for the two tankfuls, but each tankful would only go about 70% as far, meaning that your weekly fuel cost would really be about $188. Your monthly cost, assuming a 4 week month, then would rise from $480 to $752, an increase of $272.
Few American consumers would pay $272 per month more for fuel than they have to -- even if they want to kick the Persian Gulf habit. The case against Ethanol is hardly trivial in financial terms for the consumer, that is.
Another solution does exist, however, that does receive some slight coverage -- but considering the economic and practical case against Ethanol, the coverage of the alternative solution seems disproportionately small, especially considering that the case for the alternative seems compelling.
Moreover, thus far, our government is, apparently, also virtually ignoring or at least de-emphasizing this currently available, mature, and immediately adoptable lower-cost, immediate benefit technologies. Yet, the EPA, of all places is, apparently fully aware of an alternative to Ethanol.
For example, according to Margo Oge, head of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation & Air Quality, as quoted in the February 20, 2006, issue of Business Week:
“The U.S. could save up to 1.4 million barrels of oil per day – roughly the amount it imports from Saudi Arabia – if a third of U.S. vehicles ran on diesel.”
Although, Oge did not differentiate between petroleum based diesel and biodiesel, in this remark, current diesel engine technology “sees” biodiesel and petroleum based clean diesel as equivalent fuels. This means that a diesel engine performs the same on either kind of diesel (petrol or bio based or blended) – of course the strategic draw for biodiesel or bio-blend is that, like Ethanol, it is renewable. Unlike Ethanol, however, diesel (bio or dino) will go between 20-40% further per gallon than gasoline and currently costs about the same as E85. E85 goes about 70% as far as gasoline. Diesel goes about 130% as far as gasoline.
A vehicle that can go 30 miles on a gallon of gasoline will:
- go 21 miles on a gallon of E85;
- go 39 miles on a gallon of diesel -- and if that diesel is bio-diesel, it is renewable in the same sense that Ethanol is renewable (unless the fuel is B100, which then suggest the fuel is 100% renewable.)
A car equipped with a diesel engine will travel almost 90% further on a gallon of fuel than the same car if it were equipped with a similarly powerful engine capable of using E85.
The United States and Europe are taking very different approaches to the use of clean diesel technology to improve fuel economy in passenger cars and light-duty trucks, according to a report released by the Washington, DC based Diesel Technology Forum (DTF). According to Allen Schaeffer, DTF’s executive director:
"We can learn a great deal here in the US from the European experience with clean automotive diesels, and this report profiles the experiences and policies that have led to these successes."
The contrast in diesel usage between the U.S. and Europe is stark. In Europe one of every three new cars sold today is powered by clean diesel technology and in the premium and luxury categories, over 70 percent are clean diesels. But in the US – light-duty diesels account for only about 0.26 percent of all new cars sold, with only slightly higher figures in the light-duty truck markets.
DTF’s Schaeffer continues:
"What we've found is that the Europeans are able to reap the rewards of clean diesel technology – efficiency and environmental benefits – while the US has mostly regulatory roadblocks. It's completely understandable why clean diesel technology has such a high acceptance in Europe – the engines provide more power, are more fuel efficient, are more durable, are extremely responsive with low-end torque, and have 30-60 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions."
The case, today, favors diesel over Ethanol both from a cost perspective and from the perspective that using Ethanol won't matter much, because the possibility of any significant reduction in the total amount of oil used if we substitute fuel derived from corn is tiny, single-digit tiny for years to come.
Further, as several studies, including “The Great Alternative Fuel Rally” sponsored by Popular Mechanics have underscored, the number of gallons required to drive an economy car equipped with a gasoline engine from New York to California would be about 90 - 100 gallons. If the average price of gasoline was $3.00 the cost would be about $300.00. To drive the same distance with a similar FFV using E85 would cost about $450.00. The main reason is that E85 "gasoline" will not "go as far" as conventional "gasoline.” Moreover, without subsidies, ethanol is likely to be more expensive than gasoline for some time (years) to come.
At this point, the only way to make E85 attractive appears to be to subsidize it with taxpayer’s money. Some taxpayers feel we should not subsidize E85. That is, Ethanol should be viable without spending our tax dollars – period. If it is not, focus on other alternatives, such as clean diesel, until E85 becomes viable economically and environmentally.
The quantities of articles (a flashback to "Megatrends") published in our daily newspapers, weekly magazine and the broadcast news features seem thus far to focus on the benefits of being an Ethanol maker or corn for fuel farmer-- and those benefits, apparently, ARE REAL. Yet, many of these benefits will be lost on most consumers when they discover that using E85 carries a hefty cost in miles per gallon.
Conversely, the roll out of clean diesel that commenced earlier this year positions us to begin the evolution from gasoline engines to diesel engines (until a superior technology is developed or matures.) Over time, diesel if it attains a 30% market penetration would significantly lower our costs to fuel our vehicles, reduce or eliminate our need for "Middle Eastern" oil and offer a reduction in greenhouse emissions.
The question stands, why are the Ethanol articles -- growing in frequency, regularity and depth -- not telling more of the story?
Thank you.
== The Response:
Mark,
Thanks for writing -- and reading. I can't answer the question at the end of your letter. Ethanol coverage is spotty at best at most American newspapers. All I can say is that I embarked to examine solely the production side of ethanol and see where, if at all, it fell in Ohio's Third Frontier and economic development programs. I found it ironic that we have all this corn in Ohio, but hadn't joined the bandwagon of ethanol producing states. That's happening now, of course, no thanks to Third Frontier. How everything plays out on the retail and automobile-production side of the equation I don't know. I can't imagine that there will be any shortage of stories on those angles.
(Or by the water treatment facility at the intersection of routes 38 (Roosevelt Road) and 59.) Can you say RIPE!!
All the times I have been by that intersection I never noticed anything. Now if you want ripe try Hillside at Mannheim Rd and the Ike (Eisenhower Expressway).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Mannheim Rd and the Ike Ah, yes, another goody!! I think it's all the sweaty armpits from everyone that gets caught in the Hillside Strangler.
SW, you're lucky you've never been exposed to the, shall I say, "fragrant aroma" of the 38/59 intersection. Come through there at the wrong time and oh boy!! I should bottle it as a new form of smelling salts.
Anyway, the 111th/59 station is a little too south of me, but nice to know. I make all trips as short & sweet and direct as possible, saving as much fuel as I can.
CR has a great article about the ethanol scam this month and how it substantially increases gasoline usage in USA. you won't exactly find the word 'scam' in the article but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it be a duck. that's what i'm talkin about. mallard style.
Your series of posts on the subject of fuel ethanol are really excellent--to my mind professional quality. It seems to me that you could collect these and send them to the energy/economics editor of a newspaper or magazine. I suggest sending them to Chemical & Engineering News, an influential publication of the American Chemical Society.
Right now the neither US citizenry nor their elected leaders (as the replies from your congressional representative show) are willing to face the hard truths about our fossil fuel consumption. President Bush could only do so in the petulant "...addicted to oil..." crack in his State of the Union speech which insulted our Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil suppliers. The idea is that to recognize limitations is negative thinking. One of our national myths is that Americans have reached the level of prosperity we have because of our "can do" attitude. We have a habit of getting things done because we don't listen to effete intellectuals who counsel accepting the status quo. Like most useful myths it has an element of truth, but it is being pushed into a refusal to accept real limitations.
These real limitations are called "externalities" in the field of economics, a term which to me is revealing of a worldview in which we humans can decide what world we want, except for those pesky "externalities."
Seemingly most Americans do not want the matter of our consumption of fossil fuel for transportation really explained because they want a climate of uncertainty so that they can tell themselves that there is some easy fix (like ethanol) which will allow them or somebody to save enough oil so that they themselves can just continue on like they have been.
Would you believe that I actually found a device that is 100% guaranteed to save you gas?
Its very simple, just attach one end to the front of your car. At any given stoplight attach the other end to the back of the car in front of you. Put your car in neutral and bingo instant gas savings.
What is this wonderful invention?
well wait no more
Here it is
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Well, you might be saving a bit on your gas consumption, but your hay/oats bill might a bit high. (not to mention the hassle of trying to push horse bisquits through a catalytic converter).
But the solution pictured above just MIGHT actually be more efficient than ethanol..... :surprise:
Of course, even with 'only' two hp, I'm sure the torque figures are nothing to sneeze at. Problem is, the engine probably doesn't breathe too good at high rpm.
And I don't think a 4" exhaust tip would help things one iota.... :surprise:
Honda has at least figured out the production problem. Converting corn and sugarcane into ethanol yielded little fuel given the amount of raw material used, and it also saps food stocks. The new method uses inedible and discarded plant material and is vastly more efficient. Honda is planning to produce an ethanol-capable vehicle for the Brazilian market, but major U.S. automakers like Ford and General Motors already have hundreds of thousands of flex-fuel vehicles on the road now that can run on either ethanol or gasoline.
It will be interesting to see if they can make it work. So far the only company with such a plant is in Canada. Sounds like they have figured out how to squeeze some money from the Jaapanese government.
Honda will set up an experiment plant to further develop the basic technology over the next few year, said Tomohiko Kawanabe, a Senior Managing Director at Honda R&D Co. RITE was established in 1990 as a joint venture by the Japanese government and private firms to conduct fundamental research on technology to fight global warming.
Just drove past the only station in CA that sells E85. It was $3.30 per gallon. B20 biodiesel was $2.99. Unleaded regular is $2.59. Good thing they are Flex Fuel vehicles or you would be in trouble if you had an ethanol only car like many were during the last ethanol boom in Brazil.
According to usa today, there are 6 million Flex fuel vehicles with 970 stations across the country. In the beginning of the year, there were only 600.
First, if you want to save the world, stop driving, turn off your lights, use as little energy as possible. This means you! Not taht guy over there, you! no fuel is going to be the magic answer get over it.
That is too bad about the prices in CA, in St. Cloud MN, gas is $2.15 and E85 was $1.64. Even with a 17% reduction in mileage on my Taurus when using e85, e85 is cheaper.
But California is probably the worst example you could give if you are looking for fair and balanced information on this topic. Likewise Iowa and MN are problably the worst example on the cheap end. The Oct 06 futures price of e85 is currently 1.765, and gas is 1.55 for oct delivery.
Besides Califoria's gov't is going to push the low and mid-income folks into oblivion with the new do-not-exhale CO2 "tax".. Suing the auto makers for building cars like like suing Farmers for raising cattle that cause people to get fat. You cannot reduce CO2 emissions from the tailpipe in any economical way with a gasoline engine technology. California should sue the state of California for building roads. Studies prove if you build roads, the public will fill them with cars which in turn burn gas.
The local Gas City by me that sells E85 is usually only $0.20 ~ $0.30 cheaper than regular. And with their regular higher than a few stations mid-grade it doesn't really make economical sense to purchase E85.
Scanning through the E85 website the best price I found was $1.62 in Sioux Falls. Unleaded can be had for $2.04. That is the best price for ethanol. It still is a loser for the guy buying a flex fuel vehicle.
For Dan Norte, deciding where to fuel up his Ford F150 pickup is not always as simple as scanning pump prices. When he heads to Iowa to see family, the synthetic-oil dealer from Owatonna, Minn., burns an 87-octane Minnesota-mandated gasoline blend that is 10 percent corn-based ethanol. It costs about the same as comparable-grade gasoline. For the trip back he has a 15-percent option, an Iowa blend rated at 89 octane that can be up to a nickel a gallon cheaper. But Mr. Norte has figured out that his savings would probably be erased by lost m.p.g. from the faster-burning fuel.
I love how the car manufacturers and mid america has duped US consumers into even considering ethenol. Yeah let's spend Billions into useless crap when we have the next generation energy source under our nose. That's right, u fools. It's called electricity. We already have the distribution network. We already have the battery technology. We already have the cars. What we need to do is make the d*mn lazy car manufacturer's into building a plug-in hybrids and add little more battery into the car. If a enough battery can be used to make the car run 40-50 miles per charge, we would eliminate 90% of oil use for cars today. Oil engine will be used mostly for longer travel, and would kick in when battery dies. If the govt instead gave tax credits for extra batteries, we would be there tomorrow.
But, it'll never happen. Why? Because US consumers are stupid. We can't think outside of the box. How can we live without gas stations? Plug the car in at home or at work? No way! Here's more CO into the air until we learn the hard lesson.
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Corn futures closed higher for a third session in a row Friday, with their benchmark contract reaching a fresh record level and gaining 16% for the week as traders fretted over tighter supplies of the commodity. Corn for December delivery closed up 16 1/4 cents at $3.145 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade after reaching a high of $3.17. The contract has never closed or traded at levels this high before. The contract finished the day over 43 cents above last Friday's close of $2.71.
1.62 for E85 sounds ok compared to the 2.49 i'm paying for diesel. but diesel is still a win with 44 mpg. what would that 1.62 be if there were no subsidies? one of my ethanol-stooge midwestern aggie pals says the subsidies have expired. anyhoo: 1.62/2.49 * 44 = 28 mpg for the equivalent cost/mile with E85. maybe a scooter could get 28 mpg on E85 but not a real car!
I don't think that many people have been duped. Ethanol becomes a viable, if limited, option as oil prices rise.
Plug-in hybrids will be an option as the tech gets more mainstream. The manufacturers are still getting comfortable with the hybrid tech. These things take time.
I really don't think we will be there tomorrow or next year for that matter. Where are you going to get the raw material needed for 1 million, 10 million or 20 million sets of batteries a year? You just don't go down to the local wally-mart to order a few million batteries. Toyota has already said that lack of batteries is holding back sales of their hybrids.
Cold weather is a battery killer. Up here in the North Country you are going to have a hard time convincing people to use a battery based vehicle when the temp drops to the point where your nose hairs freeze and the snow makes a cool crunching sound when you walk on it. It takes a lot of energy to keep the windows frost free, the car toasty warm and the 300 watt stereo cranking
I also wonder what kind of strain all those battery powered cars will put on the power grid. I suspect that some electric grids (California) are at or near capacity on hot days. Maybe someone out there can do the math to see what the additional load would be on the power grid?
E85, and ethanol production in general, is making a big difference in the midwest. Jobs, Jobs and Jobs!
I suspect that some electric grids (California) are at or near capacity on hot days.
I think the general consensus is most cars with plug in capability will be plugged in at night when the demand is the lowest. Kind of balance out the usage.
I am sure the ethanol boondoggle has created jobs in the Midwest. At the expense of the rest of us. Little or no redeeming value to ethanol. PLUS it is pushing us to a much bigger environmental mess with the added corn production.
"Ethanol might be a good deal if your a futures trader, maybe not so good if you like to eat. "
Actually, things are not that simple. The bulk of corn production is used for feed/residual (56%) and export (18%). Not that much percentage wise is used in food products.
"Distiller’s grains plus solubles (DGS) is a feed co-product produced in wet and dry forms as a result of ethanol production. ... Beef cattle are typically maintained on forage diets, which may require protein, energy and phosphorus supplementation. Most forage protein is degraded in the rumen therefore cattle also require undegraded protein supplementation. Distiller’s grains plus solubles provides undegraded protein and phosphorus in a high-energy supplement that will not depress forage digestion due to its low starch content."
Since a lot of the anti-E85 people do not want to see corn used for fuel, should we also convert the tobacco farms to food crops? That would lower food prices, right?
Comments
but they suffer from significantly impacted air quality - Europe STINKS (literally, not figuratively), which is a real shame
I wonder how they do vis a vis lost workdays and the like (air pollution-caused health effects)
Americans would not accept the stench that comes from all those diesels. Almost every American who travels to Europe remarks on (a) the percentage of small cars and (b) how the air stinks of diesel
How does ethanol smell?
Good point, maybe like Jack Daniels. Until they overcome the problems of clean production and transport, we will not know in CA what it smells like.
As far as diesels in the EU. Only Germany has had ULSD for more than a couple years, from what I have read. Not all the EU countries have adopted the ULSD mandate. I would expect with 50% of the cars being diesel and not all clean burning as the current crop, there would be pollution. Just like here before we mandated clean gasoline and catalytic convertors. Not all the states have converted to low sulfur gasoline or diesel yet. It is one thing to mandate and another to enforce. high sulfur gas is the reason that cars get a different rating in the CARB states vs the non-CARB states.
Link please.
Meanwhile, Ethanol production, new plants and new technologies have proven to be non-destructive to the environment.
While the production of ethanol may be "non destructive" the growing of the corn (mostly used in producing ethanol) is anything but.
I can think of no basically educated person who understands science and modern renewable fuels who would object to Ethanol.
Name calling again? I can think of many educated people who find what is going on with ethanol a bit unnerving. FWIW most people I know who actually get the facts and have no agenda don't see ethanol as a solution.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Obviously, it takes a fair amount of energy to produce ethanol (though it's been reported numerous times that the amount of energy produced is greater than the amount of energy consumed). My question is: how much of the energy CONSUMED to produced ethanol can be (or is) SUPPLIED by ethanol?
In other words, if a fair amount of the energy being consumed to produce ethanol is in the form of oil, then does the production of ethanol REALLY reduce our demand for oil?
I have been to many countries in Europe (including eastern Europe) and only one of them had much smell of "fumes" -- and that was the first time I visited the country. In later visits, years later that is, I am certain the air quality was better than many American cities.
When I first visited Poland, I went from Berlin to Poznan via train. This was in the early 1990's -- the wall had come down, of course, but the contrast between east and west so to speak was darn near stark. Almost like taking the drive from central Chicago to Gary (Indiana) -- or from Manhattan to Newark.
As about 5 years passed, I made a second visit, this time to Warsaw. Hmmm, I thought, at first -- "kinda seems like Detroit, a bit smoggy, but a huge improvement and I actually saw western cars on this trip."
Time Passes:
Another 5 years, back to Warsaw and to Crackow, on to Prague and to cities including Amsterdam, the Hague, Brussles, Luxembourg City, London, Paris, Vienna, Triere, Munich, Ingolstadt, Frankfurt, Innsbruck, Verona, Milan, Rome, Venice (really smelly, but not diesel) and on and on and on from 1993 to 2005 (some years 6 trips in one year.)
In 2005, I visited again, Munich, Innsbruck, Verona and Venice (these cities may not demonstrate the case for or against Europe Stinks, but they are in Europe.)
In many respects, Europe (from the above perspective) has cleaned itself up -- America, by comparison has dirtied itself down. The number of smog alert days here in Cincinnati has gone up -- our busses stink and we are constantly told "not to mow our lawns or fill our gas tanks before 6PM."
My impression is the Ultra Low Emissions diesels have been a huge success in the EU (and beyond since some of the countries I have been to weren't able to join the EU from the get go) as far as stinkyness is concerned.
I say, bring on the UL diesels -- bring 'em here, bring 'em now, and bring plenty of 'em.
At least if the criteria is smell -- for, from my perspective, Europe (as broad as that may seem) smells cleaner than America (and I will narrow those characterizations by saying I am generally speaking of the urban areas.)
It is, I drove by that station this morning regular unleaded was $3.199 and E-85 was $2.899.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
get out of the cities and you see what the middle class and poor drive. You don't see as many nice cars. And it stinks.
But I am only talking France and Germany.
When I was in Paris I saw all sorts of new Renaults and other EU brands. Then in Provence all the cars are very middle of the road. And they stink. Granted, the cars are older out there, so that has a lot to do with it. Far more newer cars in Paris than outside of Paris. All driven by demographics, really. It's not the cars, it's the cars people can afford. If everyone drove a NEW diesel, I'm sure it would smell better.
The False Hope of Biofuels
For Energy and Environmental Reasons, Ethanol Will Never Replace
Gasoline
Biofuels such as ethanol made from corn, sugar cane, switchgrass and
other crops are being touted as a "green" solution for a large part of
America's transportation problem. Auto manufacturers, Midwest corn
farmers and politicians are excited about ethanol. Initially, we, too,
were excited about biofuels: no net carbon dioxide emissions, reduction
of oil imports.
Who wouldn't be enthusiastic?
But as we've looked at biofuels more closely, we've concluded that
they're not a practical long-term solution to our need for transport
fuels. Even if all of the 300 million acres (500,000 square miles) of
currently harvested U.S. cropland produced ethanol, it wouldn't supply
all of the gasoline and diesel fuel we now burn for transport, and it
would supply only about half of the needs for the year 2025. And the
effects on land and agriculture would be devastating.
It's difficult to understand how advocates of biofuels can believe they
are a real solution to kicking our oil addiction. Agriculture Department
studies of ethanol production from corn -- the present U.S. process for
ethanol fuel -- find that an acre of corn yields about 139 bushels. At
an average of about 2.5 gallons per bushel, the acre then will yield
about 350 gallons of ethanol. But the fuel value of ethanol is only
about two-thirds that of gasoline -- 1.5 gallons of ethanol in the tank
equals 1 gallon of gasoline in terms of energy output.
Moreover, it takes a lot of input energy to produce ethanol: for
fertilizer, harvesting, transport, corn processing, etc. After
subtracting this input, the net positive energy available is less than
half of the figure cited above. Some researchers even claim that the net
energy of ethanol is actually negative when all inputs are included --
it takes more energy to make ethanol than one gets out of it.
But allowing a net positive energy output of 30,000 British thermal
units
(Btu) per gallon, it would still take four gallons of ethanol from corn
to equal one gallon of gasoline. The United States has 73 million acres
of corn cropland. At 350 gallons per acre, the entire U.S. corn crop
would make 25.5 billion gallons, equivalent to about 6.3 billion gallons
of gasoline. The United States consumes 170 billion gallons of gasoline
and diesel fuel annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn crop would supply
only 3.7 percent of our auto and truck transport demands. Using the
entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol
production would meet about 15 percent of the demand.
It is argued that rather than using corn to make ethanol, we can use
agricultural wastes. But the amounts are still a drop in the bucket.
Using the crop residues (called corn stover) from corn production could
provide about 10 billion gallons per year of ethanol, according to a
recent study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The net
energy available would be greater than with ethanol from corn -- about
60,000 Btu per gallon, equivalent to a half-gallon of gasoline. Still,
all of the U.S.
corn wastes would produce only the equivalent of 5 billion gallons of
gasoline. Another factor to be considered: Not plowing wastes back into
the land hurts soil fertility.
Similar limitations and problems apply to growing any crop for biofuels,
whether switchgrass, hybrid willow, hybrid poplar or whatever.
Optimistically, assuming that switchgrass or some other crop could
produce 1,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, over twice as much as we can
get from corn plus stover, and that its net energy was 60,000 Btu per
gallon, ethanol from 300 million acres of switchgrass still could not
supply our present gasoline and diesel consumption, which is projected
to double by 2025. The ethanol would meet less than half of our needs by
that date.
Perhaps more important: The agricultural effects of such a large-scale
program would be devastating.
Recently, there has been lots of excitement and media coverage about how
Brazil produces ethanol for its automobile fuel and talk that America
should follow its lead. But Brazil consumes only 10 billion gallons of
gasoline and diesel fuel annually, compared with America's 170 billion.
There are almost 4 million miles of paved roads in America -- Brazil has
60,000. And Brazil is the leading producer of sugar cane -- more than
300 million tons annually -- so it has lots of agricultural waste to
make ethanol.
Finally, considering projected population growth in the United States
and the world, the humanitarian policy would be to maintain cropland for
growing food -- not fuel. Every day more than 16,000 children die from
hunger-related causes -- one child every five seconds. The situation
will only get worse. It would be morally wrong to divert cropland needed
for human food supply to powering automobiles. It would also deplete
soil fertility and the long-term capability to maintain food production.
We would destroy the farmland that our grandchildren and their
grandchildren will need to live.
And that is why it won't catch on.
However, most of the time in Germany has been spent in Bavaria -- towns like Fussen, Garmisch, Frieburg (sp?) and even medium sized towns like Ingolstadt (which of course is the Holy Land for Audi lovers like me.)
Germany second only to Switzerland, strikes me as the cleanest country in Europe -- there don't even seem to be any butts on the street, if you get my drift.
Just as a contrarian, I respectfully disagree -- insofar as Germany is concerned. I would gladly breathe deep in Germany, at least where I have been (which is mostly the southern half of Germany, Frankfurt a few times and Berlin twice. Were we to be as clean as the Germany I know, we would not have been such a big part of Al's Inconvenient Truth.
To me, you wanna talk smelly, talk Philadelphia -- only Venice, Italy can smell worse from my experience.
Of course, as the song goes, no matter how bad it is, it could only be worse in Milwaukee.
The stories told, however, are true as far as I can tell -- but they are incomplete. Why in the wide wide world of sports do we only see the great and wonderful economic things that will happen to a few corn producers -- NEVER is there any mention of the impact on the consumer.
In response to yet another Front Page Corn for Fuel Article, I wrote the editor:
Dear Cincinnati Enquirer Editor,
A few months ago, I became interested in Ethanol (E85) fuel. My primary interest was economic. I, like perhaps most Americans, would prefer to have less expensive "gasoline" and less dependency on "Persian Gulf" oil. Additionally, I did see "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Who Killed the Electric Car" and would also like to be able to have a fuel that would "pollute less," if possible.
The first thing I noticed was the relative lack of Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFV's) on the market. Many of the FFV's seem to be fairly large and thirsty vehicles, like the Chevy Tahoe for 2007, for instance. The next thing I noticed was the lack of fueling stations (there will soon be but 10 for the entire state of Ohio.)
Recently, I happened to pick up a copy of Popular Mechanics, noting that it had a feature article on alternative fuels. Subsequently, I found articles in Business Week and Car and Driver that presented a side of Ethanol that I had not heard. Indeed, in the "mass media" I have, to this day, not heard, read or seen much about Ethanol that gives what I would characterize as complete and "practical" information and data.
It is somewhat confusing to read the Thursday, August 10th edition of the Cincinnati Enquirer ("Schmidt's new SUV can use Ethanol") and the Sunday, August 20th edition ("The Case For Corn") -- to say nothing of at least one article in the Business Courier (August 18th, "Inventor tends field of dreams") -- and essentially be informed of the positive aspects of growing corn for Ethanol (to make E85.) Nowhere do these articles present what using E85 will mean to the retail consumer.
After reading the articles in the newspapers and magazines mentioned above, I began additional on-line information gathering on the subjects of Ethanol, Diesel and Bio-diesel. I found many websites and blogs on these subjects -- 4,270,000 of them with one Google search for "E85" alone.
I have been able to find two "apparently believable" types of information. Proponents of E85 need only know that the "National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition" can be found at http://www.e85fuel.com. Likewise, the American Lung Association has a pro-Ethanol site, "Clean Air Choice" at http://www.cleanairchoice.org. Interestingly, this site has a section that does post pump prices for E85 and regular dino-gasoline at http://www.cleanairchoice.org/outdoor/PriceForum.asp. Considering that it is easy to find E85, when compared to regular gasoline, is often more expensive, I conclude this site is at least attempting to tell more of the "Ethanol from Corn -- for Fuel" story than most sources of information on the subject.
For example, today in Annapolis, Maryland E85 is $4.10 per gallon and Regular Unleaded is $3.04 at West Street Citgo. Another price posting on Friday, August 18th, had E85 at $2.95 and Regular Unleaded at $3.15 at the Kwik Trip in Mosinee, Wisconsin. Generally, if you take the time to review the prices that can be found posted on this site and elsewhere, you will find that Regular Unleaded and E85 are generally close in price. There are exceptions, of course, but typically the exceptions will be that E85 will be one dollar or more higher than Regular Unleaded and sometimes E85 will be up to one dollar less. Throwing out such differences, however, gives an impression of the current pump prices for E85 and Regular Unleaded as being "similar" (within 10% or less.) Some sites do seem to publish only the cases where E85 is more expensive -- most folks, would, I assume view such sites claims with a skeptical eye.
Initially, it would seem that using E85 would be a good thing -- or at least ought to be. It is, after all, 85% renewable, costs about the same or a little more than regular gasoline and is "coming on line," making it more and more likely to be widely available. Moreover, according to Bill Ford and the TV commercials most of us have been exposed to, Detroit is making a commitment to produce more and more FFV's for the American public's consumption. We're on our way to energy independence is the message here.
Yet, here is some of the additional information that I have been able to find (from numerous sources) about E85:
- E85 at today's price reflects a $.51 per gallon US government subsidy, meaning that the "true cost" per gallon is higher than the pump price.
- A gallon of E85 will only go about 70% as far as a gallon of gasoline, meaning that the true cost per mile when using E85 is significantly higher than when using gasoline.
- As the per gallon subsidy for Ethanol fuel is phased out, the cost per mile to drive using E85 will be about 50% more than using gasoline. Even with the subsidy, the cost to drive using E85 is about 30% more than using gasoline.
- Ethanol cannot be transported through the distribution infrastructure (pipelines) already in place, instead it must be trucked which increases its cost and decreases its efficiency (since it takes more energy to truck it than it would to pump it.) New pipelines can be built designed to transport Ethanol fuel -- this too would add expense, increasing the pump price while the costs were recouped.
- E85 is "unlikely to have any material effect" global warming (at most 4% according to university studies) -- detailed explanations can be found in several articles, some from prestigious universities, some citing these studies can be found in Popular Mechanics, Car and Driver and Road and Track magazines, too.
= continued #2038
Spoken (or in this case typed) like someone who has never been to Gary, IN.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The Warrenville station is the closest E85 station that I know of around me, that is convenient (on my way to/from work & school).
But I don't think the $.30 price difference is enough to justify using it if my vehicle was so-equipped to do so. I'm like the rest in I haven't seem any real-world mileage statements from people using FFV vehicles, whether personal or governmental/fleet. The only FFVs I've seen are Taurus fleet vehicles.
- The quantity of E85 required to reduce our dependence on "foreign" oil is staggering -- at least based on the quantities we are contemplating producing in the near term:
“According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 95 ethanol refineries produced more than 4.3 billion gal. of ethanol in 2005. An additional 40 new or expanded refineries slated to come on line in the next 18 months will increase that to 6.3 billion gal. That sounds like a lot – and it is – but it represents just over 3 percent of our annual consumption of more than 200 billion gal. of gasoline and diesel.One acre of corn can produce 300 gal. of ethanol per growing season. So, in order to replace that 200 billion gal. of petroleum products, American farmers would need to dedicate 675 million acres, or 71 percent of the nation's 938 million acres of farmland, to growing feedstock. Clearly, ethanol alone won't kick our fossil fuel dependence–unless we want to replace our oil imports with food imports.
Too often, discussions of alternative energy take place in an alternative universe where prices do not matter.”
– “Crunching the Numbers on Alternative Fuels,” Popular Mechanics, April, 2006
The "sum and substance" of E85 then seems to be:
- It could work as the equivalent of hamburger helper -- it has the ability, that is, to stretch our dwindling supply of crude oil.
- The pump price for E85 currently is about the same as regular gasoline or a little more (and sometimes a little less.)
- The pump price "eventually" for E85 could remain the same as gasoline if we are not constrained by the supply of Ethanol (as we are today and apparently will be for years to come.)
- The cost per mile, however, to use E85 is significantly higher than the cost to use gasoline.
- Most of the stories written about Corn for Ethanol production do not discuss the higher costs of using E85 in an FFV.
It would seem to be the case, that when the consumer discovers the higher costs of using E85 -- i.e., 30% to 50% or more -- that even the most altruistic among us will not want to buy it or will not be able to afford it.
For example:
If your family has a mini van and an SUV and you fill them both once per week, it is likely that your current weekly fuel costs are about $120 based on a 20 gallon tank in each vehicle and $3.00 per gallon gasoline. Were you to use E85, today, your fuel costs to fill up would likely be about $132 (10% more) for the two tankfuls, but each tankful would only go about 70% as far, meaning that your weekly fuel cost would really be about $188. Your monthly cost, assuming a 4 week month, then would rise from $480 to $752, an increase of $272.
Few American consumers would pay $272 per month more for fuel than they have to -- even if they want to kick the Persian Gulf habit. The case against Ethanol is hardly trivial in financial terms for the consumer, that is.
Another solution does exist, however, that does receive some slight coverage -- but considering the economic and practical case against Ethanol, the coverage of the alternative solution seems disproportionately small, especially considering that the case for the alternative seems compelling.
Moreover, thus far, our government is, apparently, also virtually ignoring or at least de-emphasizing this currently available, mature, and immediately adoptable lower-cost, immediate benefit technologies. Yet, the EPA, of all places is, apparently fully aware of an alternative to Ethanol.
For example, according to Margo Oge, head of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation & Air Quality, as quoted in the February 20, 2006, issue of Business Week:
“The U.S. could save up to 1.4 million barrels of oil per day – roughly the amount it imports from Saudi Arabia – if a third of U.S. vehicles ran on diesel.”
Although, Oge did not differentiate between petroleum based diesel and biodiesel, in this remark, current diesel engine technology “sees” biodiesel and petroleum based clean diesel as equivalent fuels. This means that a diesel engine performs the same on either kind of diesel (petrol or bio based or blended) – of course the strategic draw for biodiesel or bio-blend is that, like Ethanol, it is renewable. Unlike Ethanol, however, diesel (bio or dino) will go between 20-40% further per gallon than gasoline and currently costs about the same as E85. E85 goes about 70% as far as gasoline. Diesel goes about 130% as far as gasoline.
A vehicle that can go 30 miles on a gallon of gasoline will:
- go 21 miles on a gallon of E85;
- go 39 miles on a gallon of diesel -- and if that diesel is bio-diesel, it is renewable in the same sense that Ethanol is renewable (unless the fuel is B100, which then suggest the fuel is 100% renewable.)
A car equipped with a diesel engine will travel almost 90% further on a gallon of fuel than the same car if it were equipped with a similarly powerful engine capable of using E85.
The United States and Europe are taking very different approaches to the use of clean diesel technology to improve fuel economy in passenger cars and light-duty trucks, according to a report released by the Washington, DC based Diesel Technology Forum (DTF). According to Allen Schaeffer, DTF’s executive director:
"We can learn a great deal here in the US from the European experience with clean automotive diesels, and this report profiles the experiences and policies that have led to these successes."
The contrast in diesel usage between the U.S. and Europe is stark. In Europe one of every three new cars sold today is powered by clean diesel technology and in the premium and luxury categories, over 70 percent are clean diesels. But in the US – light-duty diesels account for only about 0.26 percent of all new cars sold, with only slightly higher figures in the light-duty truck markets.
DTF’s Schaeffer continues:
"What we've found is that the Europeans are able to reap the rewards of clean diesel technology – efficiency and environmental benefits – while the US has mostly regulatory roadblocks. It's completely understandable why clean diesel technology has such a high acceptance in Europe – the engines provide more power, are more fuel efficient, are more durable, are extremely responsive with low-end torque, and have 30-60 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions."
The case, today, favors diesel over Ethanol both from a cost perspective and from the perspective that using Ethanol won't matter much, because the possibility of any significant reduction in the total amount of oil used if we substitute fuel derived from corn is tiny, single-digit tiny for years to come.
== continued
Further, as several studies, including “The Great Alternative Fuel Rally” sponsored by Popular Mechanics have underscored, the number of gallons required to drive an economy car equipped with a gasoline engine from New York to California would be about 90 - 100 gallons. If the average price of gasoline was $3.00 the cost would be about $300.00. To drive the same distance with a similar FFV using E85 would cost about $450.00. The main reason is that E85 "gasoline" will not "go as far" as conventional "gasoline.” Moreover, without subsidies, ethanol is likely to be more expensive than gasoline for some time (years) to come.
At this point, the only way to make E85 attractive appears to be to subsidize it with taxpayer’s money. Some taxpayers feel we should not subsidize E85. That is, Ethanol should be viable without spending our tax dollars – period. If it is not, focus on other alternatives, such as clean diesel, until E85 becomes viable economically and environmentally.
The quantities of articles (a flashback to "Megatrends") published in our daily newspapers, weekly magazine and the broadcast news features seem thus far to focus on the benefits of being an Ethanol maker or corn for fuel farmer-- and those benefits, apparently, ARE REAL. Yet, many of these benefits will be lost on most consumers when they discover that using E85 carries a hefty cost in miles per gallon.
Conversely, the roll out of clean diesel that commenced earlier this year positions us to begin the evolution from gasoline engines to diesel engines (until a superior technology is developed or matures.) Over time, diesel if it attains a 30% market penetration would significantly lower our costs to fuel our vehicles, reduce or eliminate our need for "Middle Eastern" oil and offer a reduction in greenhouse emissions.
The question stands, why are the Ethanol articles -- growing in frequency, regularity and depth -- not telling more of the story?
Thank you.
== The Response:
Mark,
Thanks for writing -- and reading. I can't answer the question at the end of your letter. Ethanol coverage is spotty at best at most American newspapers. All I can say is that I embarked to examine solely the production side of ethanol and see where, if at all, it fell in Ohio's Third Frontier and economic development programs. I found it ironic that we have all this corn in Ohio, but hadn't joined the bandwagon of ethanol producing states. That's happening now, of course, no thanks to Third Frontier. How everything plays out on the retail and automobile-production side of the equation I don't know. I can't imagine that there will be any shortage of stories on those angles.
Senior business writer
Cincinnati Enquirer
:confuse:
Enuff said.
(Or by the water treatment facility at the intersection of routes 38 (Roosevelt Road) and 59.) Can you say RIPE!!
Or back in the day at the Chi-town stockyards!! :surprise:
When I first moved out here about 10 years ago that was one of the least expensive around, times change I guess.
The Warrenville station is the closest E85 station that I know of around me, that is convenient
There is one several miles to the south on RT 59 and (I believe) 111th that sells E-85, not sure if that would work for you.
The only FFVs I've seen are Taurus fleet vehicles.
I used to have a Caravan that was FFV, I used E-85 once and my city mileage went from about 21 MPG to about 15 MPG.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
All the times I have been by that intersection I never noticed anything. Now if you want ripe try Hillside at Mannheim Rd and the Ike (Eisenhower Expressway).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Ah, yes, another goody!! I think it's all the sweaty armpits from everyone that gets caught in the Hillside Strangler.
SW, you're lucky you've never been exposed to the, shall I say, "fragrant aroma" of the 38/59 intersection. Come through there at the wrong time and oh boy!! I should bottle it as a new form of smelling salts.
Anyway, the 111th/59 station is a little too south of me, but nice to know. I make all trips as short & sweet and direct as possible, saving as much fuel as I can.
Your series of posts on the subject of fuel ethanol are really excellent--to my mind professional quality. It seems to me that you could collect these and send them to the energy/economics editor of a newspaper or magazine. I suggest sending them to Chemical & Engineering News, an influential publication of the American Chemical Society.
Right now the neither US citizenry nor their elected leaders (as the replies from your congressional representative show) are willing to face the hard truths about our fossil fuel consumption. President Bush could only do so in the petulant "...addicted to oil..." crack in his State of the Union speech which insulted our Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil suppliers. The idea is that to recognize limitations is negative thinking. One of our national myths is that Americans have reached the level of prosperity we have because of our "can do" attitude. We have a habit of getting things done because we don't listen to effete intellectuals who counsel accepting the status quo. Like most useful myths it has an element of truth, but it is being pushed into a refusal to accept real limitations.
These real limitations are called "externalities" in the field of economics, a term which to me is revealing of a worldview in which we humans can decide what world we want, except for those pesky "externalities."
Seemingly most Americans do not want the matter of our consumption of fossil fuel for transportation really explained because they want a climate of uncertainty so that they can tell themselves that there is some easy fix (like ethanol) which will allow them or somebody to save enough oil so that they themselves can just continue on like they have been.
Yes and a Prince from Nigeria will give me millions just for helping him get money out of his country.
And that I can make $5,000 a month part time from my home.
And that by forwarding a simple e-mail Bill gates will send me money.
And that Elvis is alive.
And that Pluto is still a planet.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Actually, Pluto is a dog.
And Mickey is a mouse and Donald is a duck. What I'm trying to figure out is, what the heck is Goofy?
Ans: bozos trying to sell bogus 'gas saving' doodads on the internet.....
Its very simple, just attach one end to the front of your car. At any given stoplight attach the other end to the back of the car in front of you. Put your car in neutral and bingo instant gas savings.
What is this wonderful invention?
well wait no more
Here it is
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Probably the most effective device I've seen yet....
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Of course, those horses might come with methane :P
But the solution pictured above just MIGHT actually be more efficient than ethanol..... :surprise:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Of course, even with 'only' two hp, I'm sure the torque figures are nothing to sneeze at. Problem is, the engine probably doesn't breathe too good at high rpm.
And I don't think a 4" exhaust tip would help things one iota.... :surprise:
Honda has at least figured out the production problem. Converting corn and sugarcane into ethanol yielded little fuel given the amount of raw material used, and it also saps food stocks. The new method uses inedible and discarded plant material and is vastly more efficient. Honda is planning to produce an ethanol-capable vehicle for the Brazilian market, but major U.S. automakers like Ford and General Motors already have hundreds of thousands of flex-fuel vehicles on the road now that can run on either ethanol or gasoline.
Honda will set up an experiment plant to further develop the basic technology over the next few year, said Tomohiko Kawanabe, a Senior Managing Director at Honda R&D Co.
RITE was established in 1990 as a joint venture by the Japanese government and private firms to conduct fundamental research on technology to fight global warming.
Honda experiments with ethanol
Reaching 1000 stations will be a big milestone.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That is too bad about the prices in CA, in St. Cloud MN, gas is $2.15 and E85 was $1.64. Even with a 17% reduction in mileage on my Taurus when using e85, e85 is cheaper.
But California is probably the worst example you could give if you are looking for fair and balanced information on this topic. Likewise Iowa and MN are problably the worst example on the cheap end. The Oct 06 futures price of e85 is currently 1.765, and gas is 1.55 for oct delivery.
Besides Califoria's gov't is going to push the low and mid-income folks into oblivion with the new do-not-exhale CO2 "tax".. Suing the auto makers for building cars like like suing Farmers for raising cattle that cause people to get fat. You cannot reduce CO2 emissions from the tailpipe in any economical way with a gasoline engine technology. California should sue the state of California for building roads. Studies prove if you build roads, the public will fill them with cars which in turn burn gas.
The local Gas City by me that sells E85 is usually only $0.20 ~ $0.30 cheaper than regular. And with their regular higher than a few stations mid-grade it doesn't really make economical sense to purchase E85.
According to the EPA it is a 26% reduction in mileage.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
For the trip back he has a 15-percent option, an Iowa blend rated at 89 octane that can be up to a nickel a gallon cheaper. But Mr. Norte has figured out that his savings would probably be erased by lost m.p.g. from the faster-burning fuel.
But, it'll never happen. Why? Because US consumers are stupid. We can't think outside of the box. How can we live without gas stations? Plug the car in at home or at work? No way! Here's more CO into the air until we learn the hard lesson.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BF067B08F%2DC329%2D44C3%- 2DA668%2D58D3A4B83605%7D&siteid=&print=true&dist=printTop
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Corn futures closed higher for a third session in a row Friday, with their benchmark contract reaching a fresh record level and gaining 16% for the week as traders fretted over tighter supplies of the commodity.
Corn for December delivery closed up 16 1/4 cents at $3.145 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade after reaching a high of $3.17. The contract has never closed or traded at levels this high before.
The contract finished the day over 43 cents above last Friday's close of $2.71.
1.62/2.49 * 44 = 28 mpg for the equivalent cost/mile with E85. maybe a scooter could get 28 mpg on E85 but not a real car!
Plug-in hybrids will be an option as the tech gets more mainstream. The manufacturers are still getting comfortable with the hybrid tech. These things take time.
I really don't think we will be there tomorrow or next year for that matter. Where are you going to get the raw material needed for 1 million, 10 million or 20 million sets of batteries a year? You just don't go down to the local wally-mart to order a few million batteries. Toyota has already said that lack of batteries is holding back sales of their hybrids.
"Explosive growth in the number of hybrid gas/electric vehicles manufactured and sold in coming years may strain makers of the expensive battery packs that help power them."
http://www.auto-careers.org/hybrids%20Newspape%20%20artr.htm
Cold weather is a battery killer. Up here in the North Country you are going to have a hard time convincing people to use a battery based vehicle when the temp drops to the point where your nose hairs freeze and the snow makes a cool crunching sound when you walk on it. It takes a lot of energy to keep the windows frost free, the car toasty warm and the 300 watt stereo cranking
I also wonder what kind of strain all those battery powered cars will put on the power grid. I suspect that some electric grids (California) are at or near capacity on hot days. Maybe someone out there can do the math to see what the additional load would be on the power grid?
E85, and ethanol production in general, is making a big difference in the midwest. Jobs, Jobs and Jobs!
I think the general consensus is most cars with plug in capability will be plugged in at night when the demand is the lowest. Kind of balance out the usage.
I am sure the ethanol boondoggle has created jobs in the Midwest. At the expense of the rest of us. Little or no redeeming value to ethanol. PLUS it is pushing us to a much bigger environmental mess with the added corn production.
Actually, things are not that simple. The bulk of corn production is used for feed/residual (56%) and export (18%). Not that much percentage wise is used in food products.
http://www.ncga.com/WorldOfCorn/main/consumptionData.htm
"Distiller’s grains plus solubles (DGS) is a feed co-product produced in wet and dry forms as a result of ethanol production. ...
Beef cattle are typically maintained on forage diets, which may require protein, energy and phosphorus supplementation. Most forage protein is degraded in the rumen therefore cattle also require undegraded protein supplementation. Distiller’s grains plus solubles provides undegraded protein and phosphorus in a high-energy supplement that will not depress forage digestion due to its low starch content."
http://www.traill.uiuc.edu/beefnet/paperDisplay?ContentID=8575
Since a lot of the anti-E85 people do not want to see corn used for fuel, should we also convert the tobacco farms to food crops? That would lower food prices, right?