Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol

1…1314161819…21

Comments

  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,705
    Ethanol from sugar cane is much more efficient than our ethanol from corn. This, of course, ignores the 'minor' issue of clearing rainforests to plant sugar cane. Of course it works, a correctly set-up car can use it. Are you wanting to use E100? Not available here.
  • galongagalonga Member Posts: 50
    " This, of course, ignores the 'minor' issue of clearing rainforests to plant sugar cane"

    I´ve read these days a recent article on The Economist that debunks that.

    But thanks anyways. :)
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,705
    "I´ve read these days a recent article on The Economist that debunks that."

    Do you have a link? I couldn't find that on their web site.
  • galongagalonga Member Posts: 50
    I tried to find it on my bookmarks but I @#$@#$ lost it!

    But believe me I´m not making this stuff up: it was an excellent article.

    Either way, there are a lot of recent GOOD studies that prove that theory is old: you won´t have trouble finding them. :)
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Brazil has NOT used ONLY ethanol for 30 years. They gave up production when sugar prices went up and oil prices dropped. They left 1000s of vehicle owners in the lurch with cars that would only run on ethanol. A lot of the vehicles sold in Brazil now will run on anything from unleaded gas to 100% ethanol. It is also somewhat misleading that Brazil is energy independent using ethanol. They get about 20% from ethanol and the rest from new oil discoveries in Brazil. Lastly sugar ethanol is so much cheaper than corn ethanol that will still buy millions of barrels from Brazil with the 53 cent tariff for less than it costs US to produce with corn.

    Corn ethanol is a boondoggle to appease the Midwest. Problem is the only ones making money are the big conglomerate growers and producers. It will fail again just as it did in the 1980s.

    There are many vehicles for FlexFuel and have been for more than 10 years. Just be ready to refuel a lot more often as the mileage stinks.

    Brazil uses ethanol for political reasons not environmental. A short history of Brazil and ethanol will give you a bit of perspective.

    Under the Pro-Alcohol programme, farmers were paid generous subsidies to grow sugar-cane, from which ethanol was produced.

    The price at the pump was also subsidised to make the new fuel cheaper than petrol, while the motor industry turned out increasing numbers of vehicles adapted to burn pure ethanol.

    As a result, in 1985 and 1986, more than 75% of all motor vehicles produced in Brazil - and more than 90% of cars - were designed for alcohol consumption.

    But then it all went wrong.

    But despite ethanol's green credentials, Brazilian enthusiasm for the fuel reached its lowest ebb in 1997, just as the world was marking five years since Rio de Janeiro hosted the United Nations Earth Summit.

    That year, just 1,075 motor vehicles built to run on alcohol rolled off the country's production lines - a mere 0.06% of the total output.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4581955.stm
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,705
    I've looked, and the studies I've found say the opposite, that corn (especially) and cane based ethanol are net negative for the environment.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    I was gone all day, but looks like your question was answered.

    Corn mash alcohol is for drinking, if you want good mileage; buy a diesel or a hybrid if your driving is all city.

    Driving a car with E10 gasoline (10% ethanol) seems to produce a reported 8% to 10% loss in MPG over pure gasoline because ethanol has less energy than gasoline. Diesel contains about 40% more energy than gasoline so you get about 35% to 40% increase in MPG.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    These answers all point in one direction and that is that ethanol is not the answer and that is why the thread is called "The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol".
  • yerth10yerth10 Member Posts: 431
    BP has released their Energy Statistics-2009.

    Ethanol has increased from 26.5 Million Tons Oil Equivalent to 34.8 MTOE which is a growth of 30 % +. In the year 1998 only 9.7 MTOE was produced. So in the last 10 years, its grown nearly 4 fold, especially with much of the increase from 2002.

    As the oil prices continue to increase, we have to move further into Ethanol.
    Also the Cellulose Ethanol has come to the market. Hope the Ethanol production may grow even faster when the E15 standard is allowed.

    Also the Ethanol from Sugar Beet is still an unexplored one. Hope that too joins.

    Dear gagrice - dont keep posting old articles.
    Ever since Brazil introduced the flexfuel E100 vehicles in the year 2003, their Ethanol is a Big Success story.

    In
    2003 - 6% of their new vehicles are Flexfule
    2004 - 17%
    2005 - 51%
    2006 - 73%
    2007 & 2008 - 80% +
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I think you are grasping at straws. I have not seen anybody that is against ethanol as a fuel source. It is corn ethanol that is a joke. And the joke is on you and the rest of US tax payers. Yes Brazil has lots of flexfuel vehicles that will run on E100. or RUG. Using Sugar cane to make ethanol makes much more sense than our wasteful use of corn. And the latest studies question ANY gain on fossil fuel as a result of corn ethanol. Add to that many of the new stills are powered by coal. You know that stuff people think is dirty to burn. I see absolutely no good reason to use Corn Ethanol. Show us the proof it is not depleting the Ogallala Aquifer at an alarming rate.

    Environmental Defense released a report yesterday that tries to calculate the impact that biofuel plants (ones that produce corn ethanol) might have on the massive water source. The report, called "Potential Impacts of Biofuels Expansion on Natural Resources: A Case Study of the Ogallala Aquifer Region," says that pumping too much more water out of the ground for ethanol "could cause Depression-style dust bowls." New ethanol plants in the area would use up an extra 2.6 billion gallons of water a year and another 120 billion gallons would be needed to grow the corn.

    http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/09/21/ogallala-aquifer-and-ethanol-the-potenti- al-for-another-dust-bo/

    How about the destruction of the fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico? My concerns for the environment are just as important as your need for alternative fuels. Corn ethanol is now and has always been a knee jerk reaction to the high price of oil. With little or NO concerns for the environment that is being destroyed raising crops for fuel all around the World.
  • yerth10yerth10 Member Posts: 431
    Hi gagrice

    You may be right that Corn Ethanol is a kneejerk reaction to rising
    oil prices. But we dont have any other alternative other than CNG vehicles
    which is also expensive (vehicle costs 5K more).

    Given this scenario, the Ethanol is promoted.
    But Corn Ethanol is just the initial part, soon its cousins will join.

    Already Cellulose Ethanol has hit the market
    Cellulose Ethanol
    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/06/shell-e10.html#more

    Sugarbeet Ethanol
    http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/10/30/european-council-revises-sugarbee- t-ethanol-gges-qualifying-it-for-eu-biofuel-targets/

    Algae Biofuels
    http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/06/is-the-future-of-bi- ofuels-in-algae
    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/belgian-biofuel-secret-algae-development- .php

    Pretty soon, all these put together will be able to generate 30 billion +
    gallons of Bio-fuels.

    Meanwhile the Bio-electricity concept is also gathering steam with some European utilities using
    Wood for generating power.

    We should also point out the pollution from Oil and also the wars & civil wars fought for this fuel. Its really bad.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    When an ethanol proponent can answer this one, maybe I'll jump on the "ethanol is great" bandwagon...

    First - I have no idea what percentage of ethanol is in the gas I've been forced to use for the last year since at most of the stations I've used the decal on the pump says, "Contains up to 10% ethanol".

    Second - What I DO know is that the mileage on both my cars has dropped a solid 10% and even further in the winter. One time in the last year we were at a location where I was able to go through two fillups with non-ethanol-laced gas and my mileage instantly went back up to the numbers I had been getting. As soon as we returned home to fuel with ethanol, the mileage dropped back down 10%

    So riddle me this... Looking at the same number of miles driven, my use of gasoline has not been reduced at all, and has probably increased since the reduced mileage I'm getting requires more fillups to drive the same amount.

    Why should I be excited about ANY form of ethanol being added being added to my fuel? :sick:
  • galongagalonga Member Posts: 50
    If the ONLY reason you see for using ethanol is getting a better mileage (that´s at least what´s being inferred from your post) then you did not understand a thing about the benefits of ethanol.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    The thing about CNG vehicles is that we have the domestic resources to support a significant number of them. And there are already some vehicles that burn them. Honda even came up with a home fueling device for CNG vehicles (something many companies REALLY hate, because no one will stop at fueling stations, cutting into their profits). And CNG burns a lot cleaner than petro-gas.

    Biofuels are also a decent idea to run in parallel, yes. Sending so much money to the Middle East (among others) and being so dependent on them is a bad idea in general. But corn ethanol was and is a bad idea: it drives our food prices up, uses up too much water to create, and in fact uses about a gallon of petroleum-based fuel to create a gallon of corn ethanol. Considering that said gallon of corn ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of petro ethanol, that's a net loss of energy. 10% I think, wasted, put to no purpose.

    The key is efficiency here. Simply because something isn't petroleum based doesn't make it good. It's also important to not be wasteful. That's why I like the idea of trying to chase ethanol based on plant waste. Now, from the article you mentioned, it sounds like there's been some success in creating it, which is an important step. But now we have to look at how many energy units it takes to create an energy unit of cellulosic ethanol...ideally it would be a 0.9:1 or better ratio...I'd settle for 1:1 for now.

    Sugar beets, like corn, are a bad idea. Brazil may have been successful with sugar cane, but I'm not sure it was a wise move. Converting any potential food source from food to fuel eventually runs you into the problem of having to decide between one or the other when you run short of one or both.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Your use of gasoline has been reduced up to 10% some would say. :shades: Unfortunately, they'd be lying...this blend stuff is a dodge. Why? Wait for it...

    BECAUSE IT STILL REQUIRES PETROLEUM-BASED GASOLINE!!

    What we should really be doing is asking why we're chasing these technologies that require us to continue using imported gasoline in the near future? Yeah, maybe it reduces the amount we need infinitesimally...but then some goofball goes and burns more of it, or probably his kid with his brand new V8 whatever it is going joyriding and so we import the same amount of barrels anyway. We don't save anything doing those blends, and they're not a midway "step" to anything that actually gets us OFF of dino-fuel.

    CNG would. Bio-diesel would. E100 wouldn't. If nothing else, there will be a backlash by the Alcoholics Association of America claiming we're depleting their supply of hard liquor. And then we'd have people drinking out of our gas tanks.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    If the ONLY reason you see for using ethanol is getting a better mileage (that´s at least what´s being inferred from your post) then you did not understand a thing about the benefits of ethanol.

    I think you are not understanding the concept of net gain. The idea was to replace a gallon of gas with a gallon of ethanol. Or at least some gain. There is NO gain. If I put 10 gallons of regular gas in my car and go 200 miles, then put 10 gallons of E10 in my car and only go 180 miles, the ethanol has gained me nothing. It has only been a source of revenue for those involved in the growing of corn and production of the ethanol.

    In the meantime it is destroying the fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. The Dead Zone is a well documented result of the excessive use of anhydrous ammonia in the growing of corn. It is depleting the ground water at an alarming rate.

    The US government is not interested in ethanol as an alternative fuel or they would not put a tariff on ethanol from Brazil. Most of the $2+ per gallon subsidy goes to buying the fossil fuel required to produce Corn for ethanol. It is not a stepping stone. It is political pandering to the Midwest where Corn Ethanol is produced. Nothing more.

    It is a giant con game. We pay with higher taxes and at the pump. Corporate welfare pure and simple.
  • yerth10yerth10 Member Posts: 431
    Yes, there is a 50 cent subsidy for American Ethanol, but there is also a 50 cent import duty on Brazilian Ethanol. Both should be phased out slowly.

    To produce Ethanol that generates 100 units, the input is
    Electricity (50 units) - For Refining
    Diesel (30 units) - For Tractors & Trucks

    and the remaining 20 units comes from Sun & Earth.

    So we are able to save 70 units of Diesel (Petro fuel).
    Its true that Ethanol has 25 % less energy, but gasolene is now becoming a luxury and we have to settle with Ethanol.

    As per BP Stats 2009,
    Ethanol increases 30 % over prevoius year
    Wind - 30 %
    Geothermal - 4 %
    Solar - 69 %

    So all renewables are growing rapidly and fossil fuels are growing slowly.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    To produce Ethanol that generates 100 units, the input is
    Electricity (50 units) - For Refining
    Diesel (30 units) - For Tractors & Trucks

    That's only half the story. You're forgetting the petro-derived chemicals for fertilizer (and mechanisms for spreading it), and you're forgetting transport after refining: you'll use a lot more than 30 units of Diesel energy, since that includes planting, harvesting, transporting corn, and then transporting the ethanol (it can't be pipelined like natural gas).

    Where exactly are you getting your figures? They're only giving you half-truths.

    Notice I'm not even bothering to get into the whole part where we're reducing our food supply.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    ...Biodiesel takes even less energy to create in some cases. You can use waste cooking oil as biodiesel, which means you don't need any energy to grow it (that goes toward first-use). You just need to put energy in to filter and transport it. Biodiesel in general requires little to no refining, and we can use processes already in place when dealing with the natural oils that come from our existing foodstuffs. Devise a collection system for waste oil (which we generate TONS of) and you have a very easy and quick solution.

    But agribusiness can't justify a handout over it, so no one's going there. In fact, diesels have all but disappeared from most cars...why? To keep down any possibilities for a biodiesel solution. And so instead we toss out all of our waste oils...a potential energy source, going right into the trash.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    And so instead we toss out all of our waste oils...a potential energy source, going right into the trash.

    That is the stuff that Pacific Biodiesel is using in Hawaii. A great success story that inspired Willie Nelson to start the Bio-WIllie company. It sells biodiesel all over the Western USA. Mostly used as B20 in trucks.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,705
    Using waste oil is fine, but the palm oil is an ecological disaster, losing rain forests.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Those are more warnings of the limitations of biodiesel. Most of US that advocate the use of biodiesel are well aware of the gelling issues. If Biodiesel had been mandated at 20% as ethanol has we would have seen some serious savings of fossil fuel. In spite of a few misguided souls including those in the Federal Government, ethanol is mostly a negative as it does NOT save enough fossil fuel to even measure. And causes irreparable damage to the environment with the way corn is grown on the mega farms.

    For those that are so gungho on corn ethanol. Try to find any data that backs up your claims of saving US from imported oil. Make sure it is by an independent source. Not the Ethanol counsel or even the oil companies. Ever wonder why the oil companies don't put out propaganda against Corn ethanol? Duh, they make a fortune off the growing of corn and processing.


    Corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol. That's $1.45 per gallon of ethanol (and $2.21 per gal of gas replaced).
    Even with high gas prices in 2006, producing a gallon of ethanol cost 38¢ more than making gasoline with the same energy, so ethanol did need part of that subsidy. But what about the other $1.12. Not needed! So all of that became, $5.4 billion windfall of profits paid to real farmers, corporate farmers, and ethanol makers like multinational ADM.

    http://zfacts.com/p/63.html

    Ethanol is all about corporate welfare, not saving fossil fuel.

    The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I agree that the growing of palm for biodiesel is another corn ethanol disaster in the making. It is becoming more widespread around the World.

    Palm oil production is the leading cause of deforestation in Southeast Asia; the clearance and burning of rainforests and peatlands for oil palm plantations releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide. As a result, Indonesia is now the third largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world.(2) This rampant deforestation is also pushing species like the orang-utan and the Sumatran tiger to the brink of extinction.

    http://www.teatronaturale.com/article/536.html
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    Notice I'm not even bothering to get into the whole part where we're reducing our food supply.

    Let's also ask a few other questions:

    1 - Where is the arable land being used for this corn, and what does that do for food production?
    2 - What water sources are used to grow the corn? What energy sources are needed to move the water? What affect does that have on food crops?
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    All of which makes converting food into fuel an even dumber idea. But hey, who cares what the peons eat, so long as the powerful can drive around in their 5 mpg SUVs right?

    Converting food into fuel is a bad idea and always will be. Waste is a different story. If they can convert plant waste into ethanol and get as much energy out of it as they put in, that's fine (we still get a benefit, as the waste is disposed of). Getting more out of it would be better of course. But it seems like a lot of people, when given the choice of fueling their SUV or feeding their kids would go the direction of fueling their SUV. And that's insane.

    Come on, beet ethanol now? What's next, taking our milk supply and converting the lipids into burnable fuel? Not to mention converting all of our grains: why stop at corn? Let's convert all the wheat to ethanol too and get rid of bread, bagels, rolls, pizza crusts, etc. not to mention half the breakfast cereal out there (the other half, being all sugar, is already gone as all the sugar cane and sugar beets are being used for ethanol).

    Is it just me or is this a REALLY wacko derivation of the whole "let them eat cake!" scenario?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Up until last year I do not remember ever seeing corn raised in the Imperial Valley. It is the Nations Salad bowl. What happens when Corn is the cash crop and we don't have any lettuce or tomatoes for our salads? The CA and AZ deserts account for 97% of the nations leaf lettuce. I would rather enjoy a good salad as run my car on Corn ethanol. Not to mention the fact that Mexico is replacing Agave crops with Corn, as ours is too expensive to import. No more tequila because of Stinking Corn Ethanol. Time for a revolution. Cinco de Mayo or for you Obama fans Quatro de Mayo.

    PS
    I saw a brand new G55 AMG with new dealer tags in the window. It seems some folks are not concerned about high gas prices.
  • yerth10yerth10 Member Posts: 431
    Here is the link which shows the net energy balance from US Govt.
    Corn Ethanol has a net gain of 1 (input) : 1.24 (output)

    http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AER721/

    Cane Ethanol has even bigger gain.

    Energy balance of Palm Biodiesel
    http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/4/4/2/2/p244221_in- dex.html
    Its 1 (input) : 6.5 (output)
    We can talk about the food to fuel, but we need fuel as well, otherwise, we have to dump our used SUV's in countries with cheap gas like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela. Is this acceptable.

    Even after using 9 billion gallons of Ethanol last year, the gas prices hit a high of $4.11 / gallon, without this Ethanol, it should have gone past $5 / gallon.

    In the short run, we have to use Ethanol from Corn, Biodiesel from Palm and so on.
    Yes the subsidies on Ethanol should be phased out, but what about the subsidies on Oil.

    Every year we spend $ 600 billion on Defense, on this, even if $60 billion is spent on policing the Persian gulf, that works out to 30 cents / gallon on petro-fuels.
    ( $ 60 billion / 200 billion gallons of Gasolene/Diesel sold).

    It seems all the energy sources (Fossil fuels, nuclear, wind, solar, biofuels) are getting subsidies. Slowly we have to get rid of subsidies on all the energy sources, this will lead to increase in energy prices, which will also improve the energy efficiency.

    FYI : By year 2012, we have to phase out incandescent bulbs with Fluorescent / LED bulbs. Start doing this right away.

    If anyone has a old SUV and plans to buy a new vehicle, then buy a small vehicle.
    Thats the only way to reduce energy consumption. The other alternative is to buy Flexfuelled vehicle.
  • pafromflpafromfl Member Posts: 47
    Ethanol fuel fans should be complaining the loudest about E10 because it is giving ethanol gas a bad name. People are starting to notice that when you use E10 in many modern cars, your mileage decreases by about 10%. It appears that manufacturing and using E10 actually winds up wasting oil. At some point, ethanol will be associated with greedy corn lobbyists, crooked politicians, third world starvation, and the depletion of our Midwest aquifers. If you want ethanol fuel to succeed, the E10 nonsense must stop.
  • yerth10yerth10 Member Posts: 431
    Oil consumption (including biofuels) in the year 2008, dropped by 0.6 % while the production increased by 0.4 %. Why should it increase by just 0.4 % while there is such a heavy demand.

    Answer : Oil is becoming harder to find, parallelly in many countries, the production is declining. Also on energy basis, the energy content of NGL, Sands Oil and Bio-fuels are lesser. All the production info is posted only on volume basis, so if you consider energy basis, the production may have declined.

    Also earlier it took 1.9 units of energy to get Oil which can give 100 units of energy
    Now it takes 3.7 units of energy to get Oil which can give 100 units.

    Message : Oil prices will certainly rise in the coming years and also input energy will start to increase.

    Solutions
    Replace Oil-fired power plants and heating systems with other alternatives like natgas, electricity and so on.
    Buy smaller vehicles that fits your need (a small Wagon has more cargo space than big Sedan)
    Buy Hybrid or Flexfuelled or Bifuelled vehicles.

    Lets prepare ourself for the future, otherwise, we may face another recession before even this recession is ending.
  • nortsr1nortsr1 Member Posts: 1,060
    Well, I have to agree with your "message" part:"Oil prices will certainly rise" . Oil prices have already started "upward".
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Ahh, so in addition we have to give up salad (which I don't care about) and tequila (umm, different story). All of this while we have ready-made energy sources available to us like waste vegetable oil and compressed natural gas (not even counting coal...leave that for the electrical grid until we can get more and safer nuclear plants out there).

    Renewable energy is a good idea, mind you, but sacrificing our food supply for it is NOT.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Solutions
    Replace Oil-fired power plants and heating systems with other alternatives like natgas, electricity and so on.
    Buy smaller vehicles that fits your need (a small Wagon has more cargo space than big Sedan)
    Buy Hybrid or Flexfuelled or Bifuelled vehicles.

    Electrically powered heating systems are much less efficient than other methods like propane and oil heat, and not really that popular outside of urban areas. This shouldn't be a problem: oil heat is very popular but the oil is so close to diesel as to make zero difference: you could fill your tank from a diesel pump and it would work. This is a great target for converting to biodiesel.

    Another popular heating product is propane, which is also used to fuel gas stoves. It's currently made when processing oil, but can ALSO be made from processing Natural Gas, so there's zero reason to even touch that infrastructure for now: just cut over to creating it from CNG until we can convert those systems to use CNG directly.

    Smaller vehicles, yeah. Me, I'm a hatchback convert: I think a lot of others are too, but they're used to calling them SUVs. Chevy had the Malibu Maxx a while back that was a moderate success: I wonder why they didn't continue it. More smaller vehicles are coming in a hatch format though (Yaris, Aveo, Fiesta, even the Corolla as the Matrix). Unfortunately, midsizers haven't followed the trend yet: have to see what happens, but a compact SUV is pretty close to a midsize sedan in space and price. It's just that for some reason the US is mentally allergic to a hatch unless it's jacked up off the ground; they'd rather have a trunk.

    Flex fuel = ethanol. Ethanol is currently bad: we're robbing Peter to pay Paul, in that we're sacrificing our food supply to fuel our vehicles. That's dumb for many reasons, including the next crop blight or food riots threatening our fuel supply. Hybrids seem to stretch our gas supply better, but they're only a stopgap. Biodiesel combined with CNG may be our best shot.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Biodiesel combined with CNG may be our best shot.

    I agree. I think the best option is to use Algae production for biodiesel. I don't believe it should be mandated as they have ethanol. And I agree with the poster that E10 is giving ethanol a bad name. There is no need for additives with modern engines. Sell E100 and build flexfuel vehicles that will run on either pure ethanol or regular unleaded. VW builds just such vehicles for Brazil. Remove the tariff from sugar cane ethanol and buy from Brazil. Cut back corn production by using less fossil fuel fertilizers. Go back to crop rotation to protect the environment. Share the crop land with Corn, so we do not cause shortages of wheat and soybeans. Common sense needs to prevail and Congress needs to Butt out. They do nothing but screw up the works.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,705
    "Another popular heating product is propane, which is also used to fuel gas stoves. It's currently made when processing oil, but can ALSO be made from processing Natural Gas, so there's zero reason to even touch that infrastructure for now: just cut over to creating it from CNG until we can convert those systems to use CNG directly"

    Well, propane is not 'made', it is extracted from oil and natural gas. You don't convert it from natural gas, not and have it make any economic sense. Conversion of methane to diesel is being done now, makes more sense.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Methane to diesel is just in its infancy. There are untold Trillions of cubic feet of methane frozen at both poles. Extracting that before it melts and escapes as GHG is an alternative that needs some research.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    You can extract Propane from CNG. That works until you get more heating and cooking systems out there that can use CNG directly (save the processing step). That's what I was trying to get at. There's no need to import oil from which to extract propane (though we do get some as a by-product of the distillation process anyway). I think you got what I meant, no need to get hyper-technical. :shades: The point is that we have other sources from which to obtain propane, and can cut over equipment that uses propane to using natural gas in the interim, until we no longer need very much propane if any.

    That just leaves oil heat. And you just mentioned another way of getting diesel fuel, which is just another way of describing heating oil (seriously, they're both referred to technically as "heavy fuel oil" and are pretty much interchangeable). So that's a way to get much of our heating systems (if not all) off of imported petroleum, yes?
  • pafromflpafromfl Member Posts: 47
    I don't think running out of oil and natural gas will happen for decades (if not centuries). By then we (or most of world) will probably use a combination of solar (more efficient by then) and nuclear (safer and more economical by then) power to generate electricity for transportation. It is likely that battery energy to weight ratios will radically improve so that most vehicles will be electric. If not, solar and nuclear power could be converted to liquid fuel (hydrogen storage may not ever be practical). At some point, our descendants will wonder how we put up with noisy, smelly, explosive fossil fuels, like we wonder how our ancestors put up with all that horse manure and wild horse nonsense.
  • morin2morin2 Member Posts: 399
    Am I the only one out there testing gas for the ethanol %? You can buy ethanol testers in Briggs & Stratton packages (maybe called gasohol tester) or aviation sales (ethanol in fuel is not allowed in any plane - for all the obvious reasons) . They are basically calibrated test tubes in which you put exact volumes of water and gas and then read the new meniscus formed by the ethanol & water mixture against a scale.
    I've been checking different stations and at least I haven't found any gas over 10% ethanol. And the lowest I've found is one station at 6-7% ethanol.

    Anybody else do this? Care to compare/share results? Anybody find pure gas at a marina (I have yet to test)?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I am going to get one. I thought it was some expensive device you were using. Several on the market for about $6. It will be worth it to find who is ripping us off with the most of that crap in our gas. The mandate is only about 3% ethanol. You can tell they are going for the 50 cent subsidy at the distributor level.
  • morin2morin2 Member Posts: 399
    I've seen directions on the internet to make a homemade one, but to save just $10, it didn't seem worth the trouble. The opening on the B&S test tube I have is less than 1/2", so I generally spill a bit of gasoline on my hands while filling it. Its possible that the more expensive aviation fuel testers with the yellow caps are better. My usual practice now is to use an approved 1 gal red plastic gas can and pump a bit of gas in it after I fill my car. Then I mix the water & gas in the test tube at home - where its easier to wash off spilled gas.

    I have only tested regular 87 octane gas so far. The best has been a BP at Edgewater MD at 6-7%. There is a rumor among boaters that BP 93 has no ethanol - and I want to test it; unfortunately, the results won't help me if its ethanol-free, as my boat motor specifically advises against 93 octane.
  • pafromflpafromfl Member Posts: 47
    have only tested regular 87 octane gas so far. The best has been a BP at Edgewater MD at 6-7%.
    I've noticed my gas mileage decrease has recently varied between 3-10% rather than the usual constant 10%. Any ideas why they might be mixing in less ethanol?

    my boat motor specifically advises against 93 octane
    Any idea why?
  • morin2morin2 Member Posts: 399
    my boat motor specifically advises against 93 octane
    Any idea why?

    Apparently it doesn't detonate at same compression as the 87 octane the motor was tuned for. I learned this the hard way in actual practice. I replaced a 2-stroke 130 hp Yamaha - in which I'd always used 93 octane, with a new 4-stroke 115 Yamaha. Without thinking, I used the same fuel. When I took it in for service, it had low compression due to carbon build-up & had to be de-carboned. I was advised to use only 87 octane and to run at high rpms for a few minutes at the end of the day.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,705
    "That just leaves oil heat. And you just mentioned another way of getting diesel fuel, which is just another way of describing heating oil (seriously, they're both referred to technically as "heavy fuel oil" and are pretty much interchangeable). So that's a way to get much of our heating systems (if not all) off of imported petroleum, yes? "

    Well, diesel's a lighter cut than the heavy fuel oil, you can't put fuel oil in your car/truck, but this would increase supplies, certainly. And sorry for getting technical on propane, just wanted to make sure folks understand how that works. That brings up another news item - seems that some domestic natural gas producers are worried about being swamped with LNG imports. Qatar may be able to bring in lots of their LNG on tankers, extract the propane, etc, and make money even if they sell the natural gas for a loss.
  • yerth10yerth10 Member Posts: 431
    30 years ago, 25 % of World's Electricity came from Oil, in 2006, it was just around 6%. Many of them were moved to Coal, Gas, Nuclear, Wind etc.

    Similarly many homes using Oil fired heaters were moved to other sources.
    Its not a big deal.

    A geothermal system can cut down oil consumption for heat by atleast 30 %.
    Also when we go to bed, we can reduce the thermostat in living room to 60 degrees and have portable heater for just the bedroom. This will cut down the consumption by another 20 - 30 %

    Where natgas is available, we can use that for heating, otherwise propane or biodiesel or wood or electricity can be used to replace fuel oil.

    With nearly 10 million vehicles hitting the world's roads every year, its high time that Oil is replaced wherever possible.

    BTW, US has become independent in natgas with the discovery of Shale-gas.
    We dont need Qatar gas, it can be shipped to Japan & Korea where there are too many Oil-fired power plants.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    We dont need Qatar gas, it can be shipped to Japan & Korea where there are too many Oil-fired power plants.

    It would be nice for Hawaii to get some Qatar LNG, as they produce most of their electricity with diesel generators. Qatar is also on the leading edge of GTL (gas to liquids). The diesel produced from natural gas is super clean and NO sulfur. Great fuel for all the diesel cars that are being sold.
  • avalon02whavalon02wh Member Posts: 785
    "BTW, US has become independent in natgas with the discovery of Shale-gas. "

    At the present time we are importing natural gas (Canada & Mexico), so we are really not independent nor will we be anytime soon.
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/natural_gas_mon- - thly/current/pdf/figure_01.pdf

    Energy independence is a pipe dream. The only way the U.S. will be energy independent is if we cut our consumption by about 2/3.

    "With nearly 10 million vehicles hitting the world's roads every year, its high time that Oil is replaced wherever possible. "

    Actually I think the net increase in vehicles is higher than that. This site
    http://www.serendipity.li/fe/car_fact_sheet.htm
    suggests that the actual number is closer to 55 million new vehicles a year.

    And as to replacing oil wherever possible, every fuel has issues be it ethanol, natural gas, diesel, hydrogen or cooking grease. I do not see any one fuel taking over 99% of the market. We are likely to have a broad range of fuels available for decades to come.
  • yerth10yerth10 Member Posts: 431
    This website has got it wrong
    http://www.serendipity.li/fe/car_fact_sheet.htm

    70 million vehicles were sold every year. They mentioned that 15 million old vehicles were scrapped. In USA alone 14 million old vehicles were scrapped, if you include Europe, Japan and rest of the world the figure should be somewhere between 50-55 million old vehicles beind scrapped.

    That means some 10-15 million new vehicles are sold.

    gagrice : Yes, Qatar-gas can certainly go to Hawaii. Meanwhile Hawaii has 62 MW of wind energy, it can easily be increased and combined with natgas to replace the Diesel fired power generation.
    Yes, no fuel will be able to take 99 % of the market. If Biofuels can capture 10 % with CNG another 10 %, atleast 20 % of the Oil consumption can be reduced.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    And as to replacing oil wherever possible, every fuel has issues be it ethanol, natural gas, diesel, hydrogen or cooking grease. I do not see any one fuel taking over 99% of the market. We are likely to have a broad range of fuels available for decades to come.

    Of course we will....to be honest, that's the natural order of things. The oil producers don't want that, of course, they want the current oil-universal-cureall status-quo that they helped manufacture instead, and it's gotten people used to the idea of one energy source having to make a big splash and replace oil in all ways. Hence all the hot air about ethanol as a new cure-all.

    Real life isn't going to work that way. We'll see a lot more like the following instead:

    Electric: Wind, Solar, Nuclear. Hydroelectric where water flow is available.

    Heat: Geothermal (heat pump), natural gas, possibly direct solar. Biodiesel for the oil fired heaters until they can switch over to something else.

    Transportation: Natural gas, biodiesel, possibly combined with some hybrid tech. Maybe some ethanol, but it's going to be regional because of the problems transporting E100.

    Oh, and by the way:

    At the present time we are importing natural gas (Canada & Mexico), so we are really not independent nor will we be anytime soon.

    I'll settle for getting us independent of the regimes that hate us first, like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia (well, maybe not hate us but they don't really like us either), etc.
  • avalon02whavalon02wh Member Posts: 785
    I would agree that 55 million new vehicles a year is a bit high but only 10 to 15 new vehicles to the market is a bit low. If you just look at China, of their 10 million vehicles sold a year most are new to the market. If you add in India, Eastern European and the Middle East countries the total number of new cars to the market is probably 20 to 30 million depending on the years you look at.

    "...motor vehicle ownership will increase from about 800 million vehicles today to more than 2 billion in 2030."
    http://www.hart-isee.com/index.php?page=world-transport-growth

    2,000 million - 800 million = 1,200 million
    1,200 million/20 years = 60 million/year new to the market vehicles

    The above is just an estimate. I do not think the world has the resources (ethanol,oil,steel,rare earth metals) to maintain more than 1.5 billion vehicles.

    Vehicles are lasting longer. (Tables 3.9 & 3.10)
    http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb27/Edition27_Full_Doc.pdf
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    (CNN) -- At least one person is dead after a cargo train derailment and fire in Rockford, Illinois on Friday, officials said.

    Winnebago County Coroner Sue Fiduccia said the fatality was a woman. The cause of death had not been determined, because Fiduccia had not been able to get close enough to examine the body.

    Fiduccia said she did not know whether there were other fatalities.

    Crews were still fighting the blaze early Saturday from the derailment of the 114-car Canadian National Railway train.

    Officers were called to the scene at around 8:30 p.m., a city police spokeswoman said. The derailment involved automobiles, but it was unclear whether they were on the tracks, the spokeswoman said.

    Three motorists who were stopped at a train crossing were burned, one severely, said Rockford Fire Chief Derek Bergsten.

    One victim who tried to run from the blaze suffered second-degree burns on his hand while trying to shield his neck from flames, Bergsten said.

    Seventy cars on the train were carrying ethanol, a colorless, highly flammable liquid, fire officials said.

    The derailment and subsequent fire forced the evacuation of about 600 nearby homes, authorities said.

    We don't want your ethanol on the West Coast. Keep it in the Midwest. We have enough fire problems without trainloads of ethanol burning down our towns.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles