The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol

kipk · September 2009

Yep!

Considering:

tractors tilling the ground and planting the seed

Power to irrigate the fields

Tractors harvesting the crop

transporting the crop by truck

energy to convert the crop into ethanol

trucking the ethanol to a facility to "mix" the ethanol with dino fuel

poorer mileage from the finished product

A lot of dino fuel is burned just to get 10% ready for our fuel tanks.

gagrice · September 2009

Forbes Magazine dated September 07, 2009
If the U.S. insists on getting motor fuel from crops, it should think about putting them closer to the equator.

Corn ethanol swallows tax subsidies, jacks up food prices and doesn't do much to reduce the world's carbon footprint. So what does one say about the newest contender in the biofuels industry, sweet sorghum? Perhaps the most compelling sales pitch that can be offered about it is this: It's no worse than the alternative.

Federal law mandates that by 2012 gasoline refiners use at least 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel a year. If agribusiness executive Vikram Shroff has his way, sorghum will get a significant share of this market. Shroff runs United Phosphorus, an Indian firm founded by his father that sells sorghum seeds, as well as fertilizers, pesticides and industrial chemicals. He says many American farmers looking for a piece of the biofuels market should try growing sorghum along with sugarcane on their land.

A sorghum-sugarcane mix, says Shroff, can yield double the ethanol per acre of land as corn, uses less fertilizer and doesn't raise food prices (not directly, anyway). Persuading farmers in the southern U.S. to give his fuel-producing plant a try would give his firm a nice boost but not have a huge impact.

How much will spend to save on foreign oil?

gogogodzilla · October 2009

What I don't understand is that if the only reason we're using ethanol is to rid ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil...

...then why aren't we building coal-gasification plants. Both the US and China have the world's largest supplies of coal. So if we convert it to gasoline, then we have rid ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil...

...saved the midwest aquifer, saved the Gulf of Mexico from the deadly algae plumes caused by the nitrogen-based fertilizer runoff coming out the Mississippi, reduced the chances of global famine, etc, etc, etc.

Well, I guess environmentalists would say that it's good for the earth to kill off the sealife in the Gulf of Mexico, plow under wildlands for corn, and starve the poorest people on earth.

Oh happy day!

kipk · October 2009

>"What I don't understand is that if the only reason we're using ethanol is to rid ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil... "

During the 2nd world war, a great deal of Germany's war machinery ran on "Liquified Coal". The technology has been around for quite a while.
As you pointed out, we have plenty of it.

We have huge deposits of light crude under the north mid-western states. Supposably larger than several of the "Oil Producing" countries combined. Also huge deposits of Natural gas in this region.

Another huge deposit of crude and NG under ANWR.

Huge deposits of oil shale in the Rocky Mountains.
NOTE: FWIW, we get a lot of our oil from Canada. The main source of that oil is from OIL SHALE.

That $700 billion, we are sending out of the country every year could supply a lot of good jobs here. Also stimulate the economy in a big way. Why can't the unions see and understand that and back someone that would actually help them

Before he left office, President Bush lifted the Ban on California's offshore drilling. California is in serious financial trouble, and could probably drill their way out of debt. Yet they don't. WHY!

I believe there is something going on bigger than we understand. Something to do with the ONE WORLD ORDER.

President Obama promised the UAW that their jobs would return if he was elected, but they have not and most likely will not.

Oldsmobile division of GM went away. Then Pontiac, and Hummer, and now recently announced Saturn. How many UAW jobs has that cost? No telling what type of death grip the FEDS have on GM and Chrysler. "Cap and Trade" will punish companies and force many out of business or out of country and raise the cost of living as even more jobs go away.

In spite of all the promises that were made, It seems our government is setting this country up to fail. WHY?

If we are honest in our thinking, we will realize that 535 people are responsible for the mess this country is in. They are the members of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the US Supreme Court. Any President can do little without the support of those 535. The corruption and greed and entitlement mind set is running rampant. Every time the administration changes, the other side has all kind of good ideas of how things could be made better. WELL?
Why didn't they make them better when they were in control?

"WE THE PEOPLE" keep those 535 in office and on the bench. So we share a great deal of the blame. Just as many believe the UAW is responsible for the D3 failures, "We the People" have our share of greed also, contributing to the failure of this country.

Kip

berri · October 2009

My fear is that Wsashington ups the ethanol content in regualr gasoline to 15 or 20% as a payoff to the midwest agricultural lobby in exchange for cap and trade although ironically that will hurt the midwest and east the most. If ethanol is going to work its got to stop being a poltical game and dump expensive corn (including the collateral effects of upping the cost of food) and start using grasses and sugar cane like Brazil (but the sugar lobby will not allow that). As for cap and trade, if Warren Buffet says its a dumb idea, I'll take his opinion over 535 baffoons in the capitol.

oldfarmer50 · October 2009

I usually buy whatever brand of gas that's cheaper but recently something happened to change my mind.

When I bought the "no-name" brand I got 23mpg but when I bought a name brand (Mobil) I got 25mpg. Both stations have the sign that says "contains 10% ethanol". Someone suggested that the name brand had less ethanol and thus the milage was better.

Is there any way to find out if different brands of gas contain less than the permitted 10%?

gagrice · October 2009

I would love to know which has the least ethanol. I am traveling the USA right now. When I gassed up in Nevada at Shell my mileage on the Sequoia went up just over 3 MPG from the crap gas we get in CA. I ran gas from Utah, Wyoming and South Dakota all with better mileage. The first tank I got in Minnesota the mileage dropped back to 15 MPG. In South Dakota they charge a few cents more for unleaded without ethanol. It was only 85 octane and gave my best mileage on the trip so far at 19.73 MPG. So ethanol is the product that steals from US in so many ways.

setamericafree · October 2009

Germany's WW II machinery was dependent upon liquefied fuels from coal for transportation. Germany had neither sufficient oil reserves nor sufficiently advanced alternatives to petroleum to wage a prolonged war. Once the Allies destroyed Germanys oil infrastructure, Germany lost the war.

During WW II America was the worlds largest oil producer. Today America is at a strategic disadvantage, which off shore drilling and oil shale reserves cannot reverse. North America has just 3% of the worlds oil reserves, yet America alone has grown to use 25% of the world's annual oil production, 70% of which must be imported from other countries.

80% of the world's oils supply is controlled by OPEC, Russia, African Nations and Venezuela. The interests of these nations do not align with America or democracies in general. Our NATIONAL SECURITY and ECONOMY have more to fear from these countries controlling our energy future than we do from Midwestern farmers, ethanol producers, alternative fuels or even the gang on Capitol Hill.

Dr. Robert Zubrin, an aerospace engineer , Senior Scholar to the www.setamericafree.org coalition and author of ENERGY VICTORY www.energyvictory.net/ sees alternative fuels such as alcohol as part of a plan to break the economic stranglehold the OPEC cartel has over America and the world. Alcohol fuels does not mean only ethanol. Ethanol does not mean only ethanol derived solely from corn.

Dr. Zubrin explains "Coal can easily be made into methanol, which is why we need the FLEX FUEL MANDATE to include compatibility with methanol as well as ethanol and gasoline as part of the capability of the flex fuel engine.

Making coal into gasoline is more involved. First you turn it into methanol, then you turn the methanol into dimethyl ether (DME), then you turn the DME into propylene which you can turn into gasoline. It can be done, but it is expensive. 

That's why we need a methanol-inclusive flex-fuel mandate, as it will make it possible for us to readily use our coal to make vehicle fuel. In China right now they are making methanol compatible Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFV), and they are producing methanol from coal at a cost of $0.50/gallon, and selling it for $1/gallon. Methanol has about 55% the energy/gallon as gasoline, so that is equivalent to selling gasoline at about $1.90/gallon.

The OPEN FUEL STANDARD BILL (S.835 & HR.1476) now before Congress puts America on a path toward FUEL CHOICE similar to what Brazil has accomplished. The establishment of specific percentage of new cars by target dates offering flex fuel compatibility does not mean any individual MUST RUN the car on anything other than gasoline (as so many people on this blog worry about), it just means you could if you want to use a fuel less expensive than gasoline or American transportation would be able to continue in the event of another oil embargo, Irans threatened closing of the Strait of Hormuz, hurricanes closing oil facilities in Louisiana or Texas as has repeatedly happened or an act of terror at the Saudi oil facilities or American pipelines.

Its time to END CONGRESSS MANDATE AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION RUN ON 70% FOREIGN OIL.

morin2 · October 2009

I think the only thing you can do is to test the gas yourself. I have done this and found that nearly all are very close to the 10%. So far, I haven't found one over 10%. I found one BP station that was about 7%, so I stop there when I can. I used a Chevron station not on my usual route last night and the mileage appears to be the best I've ever gotten, but I didn't have my fuel tester with me.

The ethanol testers I see are less than $10-15. I got mine on ebay, but I think you might find them for sale at small airports too - as the FAA does not allow ethanol in aviation fuel. The main disadvantage of these test tube testers is that the opening is so narrow that its easy to spill gasoline all over your hands. You have to improvise a way to pour the gas into the tube without going over the fill line and spilling gas all over yourself.

kipk · October 2009

I filled with Shell 87 octane a few months ago and noticed a 2-3 mpg increase in mileage on that tank. Thought it might be a fluke so did it again with the same result. I've been using Shell ever since and the better MPG is staying there.

The tank says "Up to 10% ethanol with regular grade gas". Don't know exactly how to take that, but mileage is definitely UP with the Shell.

The Shell cost $0.05 a gallon more than what we have been using for years, But the 8%-10% increase in mileage results in less cost to use the Shell. I've also heard of better mileage with Chevron and BP, but haven't tried them.

Kip

gagrice · October 2009

I am in Evansville Indiana all this week. Found a Shell selling RUG for $2.29. With the Shell card you get 5% discount on gas. So at $2.18 per gallon that is the cheapest gas on this trip thus far. The pump does have the up to 10% ethanol sticker. My best mileage is still with Conoco No ethanol added 85 octane. Only available in So Dakota so far. It is still hard to believe that people can be persuaded that we are saving any money on foreign oil using ethanol. What a scam ADM has pulled on Congress and the tax payers.

morin2 · October 2009

The presence or absence of a sticker on the pump may not mean much in some states. Here in MD, the stations are not required to label their pumps with the ethanol content. Most do, and the most common is the one reading "may contain up to 10% ethanol" - but I have found 10% ethanol from pumps with no ethanol content sticker on them.

gagrice · October 2009

In South Dakota they sell 85 octane unleaded for more than their 87 octane ethanol laced unleaded. The claim by the gas station attendant is unleaded without ethanol is more expensive. Which I believe as there is more than a dollar per gallon subsidy on ethanol.

morin2 · October 2009

In addition to the subsidy, I think the market would allow a higher price for undiluted fuel. I would certainly pay more for it. My only concern would be the low octane rating. Ethanol-free fuel is a boon for boaters in particular - but many marine outboard manufacturers specify 87 octane. I'd still try it in my car and boat, regardless of the lower octane, and wish it was available here.

gagrice · October 2009

I don't think the 85 octane makes much difference. I still cruised along at 75-80 MPH across the state and got 19.73 MPG for 256 miles on that tank of gas. Driving mostly 60-65 MPH in MN on their nasty E10 my mileage dropped to 15.47 MPG. No one will convince me that ethanol is a viable alternative to fossil fuel. Corn is for making Tortillas not gas.

morin2 · October 2009

I just checked the Conoco/Phillips site and there are no stations in MD. But their station finder could be potentially useful to ethanol-free trip planning:

http://www.drivesavvy.com/sitelocator/usstorelocator.aspx

I have an upcoming road trip to TN to visit colleges for my youngest, so I'll be looking for ethanol-free for that trip. Anyone know of ethanol-free around Knoxville and Nashville?

gogogodzilla · October 2009

Shell also puts detergents into their gasoline, so it helps clean out the engine.

Maybe that tank of Shell gasoline scrubbed some sludge out of your engine?

basspro · October 2009

The big issue I have is Phase separation with the added ethanol and having to add additive to protect my fuel system. Hopefully before it is used nation wide and at even higher percentages,the corrosion issue can be addressed. It is a serious issue and especially for boats and long storage of fuel.

soberguyjaguar · October 2009

Gasoline with detergent can't scrub sludge out of an engine's oiling system, but it can melt carbon deposits on the valve stems and reduce carbon clogging in injectors and the combustion chamber. Both improve ignition. Particularly with lower octane fuels.
When the carbon builds up in the combustion chamber it increases the effective
compression ratio and reduces the strength of the power stroke, thus reducing
horsepower and MPG.
Sludge is coked oil that is reducing the lubricating abilities of you oiling system
which also causes loss of horsepower and/or gas mileage due to friction.
Soberguy.
P.S. What exactly does ethanol do to an engine. Why is it bad?
P.P.S. I also use Shell gasoline when I can get it. On rare occasions I can find
Sinclair 93 octane. Which seems to kick [non-permissible content removed].

gogogodzilla · October 2009

Well, there you go!

I knew the detergent cleaned the engine, but wasn't too sure how it was done.

Thanks for the information.

basspro · October 2009

On your PS.. I cannot tell you exactly what ethanol does to an engine but I can tell you what I have read on many sites Auto/Truck/Marine. Mixed with fuel and NO moisture,there is no real issue.

Of course the ethanol as we all know has less BTU's of work per cc or % of the fuel mixture and therefore produces less power per stroke of the engine unless the engine is a flex fuel and it will adjust the timing and other computer controlled items such as the duration of the injector cycle (longer open for the ethanol) to help keep the HP up.

The real problem is when the fuel mixture is exposed to moisture in the refinery storage tank,during the blending process, moisture in the transport truck,moisture in the gas station tank,or moisture in your gas tank.

The ethanol will mix with any moisture and settle with the water in the bottom of the tank. In the tank, depending on the contaminates, you could end up with a milky substance or an acid that will rust and corrode the tank, fuel lines, injector. If your fuel system corrodes the injectors and the raw fuel could leak by and just set on top of the engine until the next startup and corrode the piston top and cylinder walls. Problems can be slight and gradual or get bad quick.

All that said many companies are scrambling to make products to keep the blend from separating up to bonding with the separated moisture/ethanol with varying degrees of success.

The boating world is the worst of course,but it is an issue in the automotive world.

That is my limited knowledge and two cents. Put a dollar with it and you can get a cup of coffee!!!!!!!!

gagrice · October 2009

That sounds like a decent explanation to me. And you can still get a nickel cup of coffee at at Wall Drug in South Dakota.

My 99 Ford Ranger is a Flex Fuel V6. It gets horrible mileage on our CA crap ethanol gas. Best ever is 16 MPG.

It is also wasteful. I have to drain my wood chipper and weed eater in the fall or it messes up the the carb.

kipk · October 2009

"When I bought the "no-name" brand I got 23mpg but when I bought a name brand (Mobil) I got 25mpg."

Some of this is a repeat of my above post, just trying to drive home a thought. Quality may seem initially to cost more, but may actually be the least expensive in the long run.

A while back a local Gas station, changed from Texaco to Shell and lowered the price to just a little more than the local "Flash Foods" station.

FWIW: I've seen Marathon,Flash Foods and Exxon tankers filling the tanks at Flash Foods.

Thought I would give Shell a try as they have always advertised superior mileage and now are advertising that they clean fuel systems and valves better than the others.

Yeah, I know advertising is advertising, but thought I would prove them wrong. As it turned out my Pilot increased mileage about 10%, Went from 18-19 mpg local driving to 20-21 mpg. Hyway driving increased about the same.

Now, the Shell is a nickel or so higher than the "FF" brands. Therefore it cost about 2.5% more for Shell but we get 10% better mileage. Plus the Shell just might run a bit cleaner in the engine. Seems to me like a win-win situation.

I've run 6-8 tanks of the Shell and the mileage is holding. With that in mind, the Shell would have to go to 23 cents higher than the FF for break even cost vs mileage of the two..
Kip

galonga · October 2009

They use ethanol because it´s CHEAP, not because of "political" reasons as you point out.

And NOTHING went wrong!

In fact, the country rid itself of oil imports because of that, something we americans try and can´t achieve!

And now 85% of all cars are flex and they STILL make ethanol only cars.

Don´t believe me? I lived in Brazil, you obviously did not even visit the country!

So please don´t write stuff like that: it really makes you look really uninformed.

kipk · October 2009

"In fact, the country rid itself of oil imports because of that, ..."

Are they not using any dino fuels now?

"And now 85% of all cars are flex and they STILL make ethanol only cars."

What about the 15% that are not "Flex" ? Are they just abandoned because they are not set up to burn Ethanol?

Thanks,
Kip

texases · October 2009

Brazil is consuming over 2 million barrels of oil per day, has been for years, and it's increasing. The reason they're no longer importing oil is the amazing string of large offshore oil discoveries made over the last two decades. That's a very different way to become 'energy independent'!
read more here

fezo · October 2009

Thank you. That is correct.

Brazil is set up to make use of whatever is cheapest to run at the time. Their ethanol costs way less that ours because they make it from sugar cane which is a far superior source than corn.

And of course they don't have to pay a 56 cent tariff to themselves...

gagrice · October 2009

For correcting our uninformed friend from Brazil.

With sugar prices going up, look for Brazil to abandon ethanol as they have done in the past.

galonga · April 2010

1 - Brazil NEVER abandoned ethanol
2 - Prices did go up last year because most of the sugar was sold to India, but now is actually 10% LOWER

Please don´t write unbelievable dumb things like that, please!

galonga · April 2010

The large offshore discoveries you mention (locally known as "pre-sal") are NOT OPERATIONAL as of now and they were discovered only last year.

In fact, it will still take more than 5 years to start drilling, for they are over 7Km below the surface of the sea (and btw Brazil´s Petrobras is the ONLY company in the world with the deep sea technology to do it)

I´ll tell you why america can´t become energy independent. It´s because of wishful thinkers like yourself that think america can develop other means and keep discussing the obvious, when it would be so easy just to copy the brazilian model.

galonga · April 2010

Yes, that is quite correct.

And Brazil just dropped all tariffs on ethanol imports. However, the corn producers said they would not follow suit, claiming Brazil has internal subsidies: a LIE considering they were all dropped in 1996.

Thank you for your knowledgeable post

gagrice · April 2010

when it would be so easy just to copy the brazilian model.

Which countries in So America would you like US to take over and plant Sugar Cane? We do not have the capacity to grow very much sugar cane in the USA. We use the much less efficient crop, Corn for ethanol.

And Brazil did abandon the use of E100 ethanol fuel when the price of sugar went up and oil prices fell during the late 1980s. Leaving many car owners in Brazil with no fuel for the ethanol only vehicles.

Ethanol is not the great savior you are being led to believe.

But an unregulated biofuels boom in Brazil could mean bust for the Amazon rain forest and a vast savanna ecosystem known as the Cerrado, environmentalists warn.

Expanding large-scale agriculture to grow sugarcane, critics say, will worsen the loss of species diversity, water-quality problems, and habitat fragmentation in some of the world's most biologically diverse regions.

"The primary concern is that the biofuels push will directly or indirectly increase the loss to Brazil's remaining natural high biodiversity areas, such as the Cerrado," said John Buchanan, a senior director for the U.S.-based nonprofit Conservation International.

Sugar Farming Not So Sweet?

The 740,100-square-mile (1.9-million-square-kilometer) Cerrado region is South America's largest savannaone of the richest in the world, in terms of bird, reptile, fish, and insect species.

According to a study published last year in the journal Conservation Biology, more than 50 percent of the Cerrado has already been transformed into pastureland, causing soil erosion, biodiversity loss, fragmentation, and the spread of nonnative grasses.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070208-ethanol.html

gagrice · April 2010

By the way. Welcome back to the Forum.

Good to have a perspective from other countries. I hope your vehicle is getting better mileage with ethanol laced gas than ours is.

texases · April 2010

Those 'pre-salt discoveries are just the latest of what is one of the longest-running strings of outstanding oil discoveries in the world, second only to (maybe) offshore Africa. Here's a recent plot of production and consumption, including a forecast. Nothing but up, on both (just about doubled production in 10 years, amazing):

gagrice · April 2010

Thank you for setting the record straight. My understanding is ethanol is about 20% of Brazil's fuel consumption. It makes a good story for the eco crowd to throw around. Actually the US produces more ethanol from Corn than Brazil does from sugar cane.

The US produces more ethanol than Brazil by a long shot. And it has not cut our consumption of oil at all.

http://www.marketresearchanalyst.com/2008/01/26/world-ethanol-production-forecas- t-2008-2012/

galonga · April 2010

Brazil did NOT abandon the model in the 80´s: there was a short shortage of ethanol due to a freeze, and that was that.

And I can tell you for a fact because I LIVED there.

So, unless you can provide this kind of proof you can´t really discuss here. Sorry.

As for growing sugarcane, in the US it is done around the lake okeechobee in Florida, which has plenty of land to spare. Also, it was grown in Hawaii but they chose other crops. And finally it requires much less space than corn.

So, it is PERFECTLY feasible. And without "having to take over" any country like the US unfortunately has had to do lately to keep its gaz guzzlers up and running (AKA Iraq)

Do more reading or better GO TO BRAZIL and stop talking about what you can´t prove beyond some silly links.

galonga · April 2010

No, there are actually MORE cars running on ethanol than in gasoline in Brazil. That was announced by Petrobras a year ago.

And the US does NOT produce more ethanol than Brazil "by a long shot": it just surpassed Brazil last year as well.

And finally most of the ethanol produced is actually used by the industry to manufacture chemical products.

In fact, it is not with the mere 10% that is mixed with gasoline of the 1200 fuel pumps that sell E85 that the US will cut its dependence on oil: so trying to say it hasn´t helped it´s just silly.

PF_Flyer · April 2010

"Up to 10%" ethanol blended fuel has cut the mileage on my cars by 10%, so I'm buying 10% more fuel and using the same amount (or more since it's "up to 10%") of oil/gas to operate my vehicles.

It's reducing our oil consumption by ZERO, and some people want to UP the percentage of ethanol in our gas??

And if you think there's some "magic ratio" that increases mileage performance, I have a bridge and HHO kit to sell you. :P

kyfdx · April 2010

Yeah... but, if the percentage of ethanol was 100%, would your car get 100% less fuel mileage?

At some point, and with cars designed to run on ethanol, there is the possibility for saving a huge amount of oil.. and, reducing our dependence. It isn't all about your pocketbook...

PF_Flyer · April 2010

Since we don't have anywhere near the capacity to create that much ethanol (even if it were a good idea to turn food into fuel) that's kind of a straw man argument

And I wasn't talking about MY pocketbook. I'm not using any less oil because of ethanol.

Facts are annoying things

kipk · April 2010

There is a lot to be said about living somewhere and experiencing , first hand, things that are going on. However.....!

>"And I can tell you for a fact because I LIVED there."

Living there alone doesn't make someone an "Expert", or even knowledgeable on a subject. Only what they observed. Our present administration and congress are examples of sheeple blindly believing what they are told.

>"So, unless you can provide this kind of proof you can´t really discuss here. Sorry."

What kind of proof have you provided? You say you lived there, and you say you have the facts.

Then you say: "Do more reading or better GO TO BRAZIL and stop talking about what you can´t prove beyond some silly links."

Traditionally, links are how we back up statements. Other than that we are only presenting our own opinions.

>"So, unless you can provide this kind of proof you can´t really discuss here. Sorry."

Really?

Kip

gagrice · April 2010

Thank you.

Our friend from Brazil would like Ethanol to be something it is not. He does not understand our culture of blocking huge tracts of land from any kind of use but recreation. The amount of sugar cane we could grow would be insignificant. He also does not have the facts on how much ethanol is used in Brazil. I posted facts with links. As you have mentioned he has not posted any links to back up his opinions.

Ethanol from sugar cane may be economically good for Brazil. It is ecologically damaging. The GHG from burning far exceeds the CO2 the sugar cane absorbs in growing. Each time the cane field is burnt it takes 90+ years to mitigate the GHG damage to the environment. Brazil needs to ban the burning now not in 2017.

(Reuters) - Almost 100 sugar and ethanol mills in Brazil's main sugar cane state Sao Paulo have agreed to stop the practice of burning cane fields by 2017, the Sugar Cane Industry Union (Unica) said on Monday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2245768620071022

More issues with sugar cane production:

Cutting sugar cane is a physical exhausting task that demands a high level of muscular strenght and resistance. Vigorous men - and women - take this job under stressful conditions and use their force to the level of exhaustion, as they are paid by production - not by earning fixed wages. An average man can cut 8 tons of burnt cane stalks per day. Some push themselves much more and reach 12 tons/day. This extreme effort has leaded some of them to sudden death (12 cases reported in 2005).

When the sugar cane field is not submited to fire, an average man can only cut 3 tons/day and record holders barely surpass 6 ton/day. Burning cane also serve to kill or remove poisonous animals, as snakes. Because they get more tons/day and are free from snakes and the cutting edges of dry leaves of the plants, cutters prefer to operate in burnt cane fields.

At the present state-of-art, 28% of all sugar cane is already harvested mechanically, by combo harvesters.

These harvesting machines bring two kind of problems. First, as already mentioned, is unemployment - but that is finding solution. Second is that combos are large machines, running on diesel oil and so, oil dependent.

So the question will be? When sugar cane is all harvested and processed by machines, how much fossil fuel will it take to produce a gallon of ethanol? My guess is very similar to producing ethanol using corn.

http://www.oilcrisis.com/BR/SugarCaneWorkers.htm

Brazil will be subsidizing the ethanol industry the same as we do in the USA.

gagrice · April 2010

Brazil: sugar cane plantations devastate vital Cerrado region.

Sugar cane plantations and mills are rapidly expanding for bioethanol production and already having devastating effects in the biologically diverse area of Brazil's Cerrado, the savannah region, which supplies Brazil's main hydrological basins. MARIA LUISA MENDONCA in interviews with affected people, finds rivers are being diverted, huge amounts of water are being used by sugar mill companies, and sugar cane plantations, contrary to Brazil's President Lula's claims, are replacing areas of food production, and destroying forest reserves. The mills are bringing human rights abuses, poison to the land, water, people and animals and local agriculture is disappearing. Food can only become scarcer and more costly and sugar cane for biofuel use is supposed to double in the region.

The Brazilian Cerrado: A biodiversity hotspot on the high, flat, central plateau of Brazil, covers over 2 million square kilometres: three times the size of Texas. Portions extend into Bolivia and Paraguay, making it the largest woodland-savannah in South America, and the richest savannah for biodiversity the entire world.

Brazilians destroying their land for fuel

texases · April 2010

"As for growing sugarcane, in the US it is done around the lake okeechobee in Florida, which has plenty of land to spare"

See the post above, about the ecological damage from cane production. Florida is the last place I'd want to see more 'land to spare' converted to farming, it has major problems as it is with over-farming and damage to the ecosystems that exist in no other state.

gagrice · April 2010

I would far rather drill for oil off the coast of Florida than to drain the Okeechobee swamp to raise sugar cane for ethanol. It will not be long before those in Key West will see oil platforms producing oil for Cuba. Oil we could have claimed. Oh well.

Hopefully Brazil wakes up before they end up destroying their most valuable assets. Not everyone in Brazil agrees with Galonga. My guess he is one of the ones making big money off of ethanol from sugar cane.

fezo · April 2010

Ding! You win the contest. First prize is an accelerating Camry and all the ethanol to run it!

galonga · April 2010

The biggest proof that I´ve lived there is that so far I´ve debunked every single argument you threw.

And those were facts, not "opinions" as you point out.

And yes, the fact that someone lived in a place DOES make him an EXPERT when COMPARED to people who´ve NEVER BEEN THERE.

But of course you would never reckon that all your arguments were disproved, and prefer now to attack the other party instead of focusing on the issue.

And, as usual, you will try to keep your head straight by saying "suit yourself" and quitting this conversation, instead of DISPROVING the facts I told you.

May I suggest you GO THERE and then discuss. Otherwise any discussion you have with ANYONE will just be based on wikipedia-type links.

elias · April 2010

galonga, I think that many readers recognize the significant successes of ethanol in Brazil - especially when they are compared to the scam which ethanol-in-fuel continues to be here in USA.

Just because something makes economic sense in Brazil does not mean it makes sense in USA. But oversimplify and compare apples to oranges if that's what you gotta do, man!

For USA I recommend a reduction in ethanol-in-fuel and a gender-specific tax-credit for Brazil-waxing taxpayers.

galonga · April 2010

Brazil just hasn´t had any subsidy for ethanol ever since 1996.

And it just now dumped an import subsidy, therefore any country can sell ethanol to Brazil without any surcharge.

The US however refused to do the same.

Need links?
http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2010/04/09/today-in-biofuels-opinion-i-have-ne- ver-seen-a-more-ridiculous-statement-than-his-claim-that-brazilian-ethanol-enjoy- s-generous-subsidies-from-the-brazilian-government/

and

http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2010/04/07/today-in-biofuels-opinion-unica-bel- ieves-that-free-trade-is-a-two-way-street/

The more you speak, the worse you look man. You better just throw the towel and do some reading.

galonga · April 2010

You have spoken very well my friend.

The fact that it worked in Brazil doesn´t necessarily mean it will work in the US indeed.

However, with people like this other fellow claiming stuff about a country they obviously do not know, and blindly refusing to even try the technology, America will never rid itself of its oil dependency.

Brazil achieved it in part because of a military regime that did not ask the people if they wanted ethanol or not: it just took the steps to implement it, and it WORKED.

America´s democracy allows people to speak about things they do not even bother to comprehend, and therefore makes it very difficult to take the required measures to implement ANYTHING, not just ethanol.

The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles