Ethanol in Gasoline: Not a Good Deal for the Consumers

Hawaii Reporter ^ | 2Jul 06 | Michael R. Fox Ph.D.,

[xzins]

Ethanol in Gasoline: Not a Good Deal for the Consumers By Michael R. Fox Ph.D., 7/2/2006 11:14:32 PM People buying into the myth that Ethanol is our energy ace have simply got to beware.

In Hawaii, that includes The Honolulu Advertiser pushing it (June 20, 2006), and in recent weeks Hawaiian Electric Co. spokespeople, Governor Linda Lingle, and local radio talk show hosts. We had the Bill O'Reilly/Sen. John Kerry love fest on June 29 asserting the ethanol option is the right one. Even President George W. Bush has been swayed by the rhetoric.

These politically correct solutions to our energy supply problems, if allowed to persist, are beyond silly and quite dangerous. Too few understand what energy is and does; too few know what goes on upstream of the gas pumps and behind the electrical switches.

There are many good handbooks of chemistry and engineering which can add considerable information to all. There are all too few engineers involved with these debates as well. Thus, according to American Automobile Manufacturers Association, the energy content in a gallon of Ethanol is well known to be about 76,000 Btu/gallon of ethanol. Gasoline by contrast contains about 50 percent more energy at 114,000 Btu/gal. (The British thermal unit, Btu, is one of many commonly used units of energy)

As Ethanol is mixed with gasoline, the energy per gallon of the mixed fuel drops, being diluted with the less energetic ethanol. The E85 mixture (85 percent Ethanol) contains 83,260 Btu/gal. Obviously, this is less energy than is in the gasoline itself, and as a result, the mileage will therefore drop.

A major reason why Ethanol is so popular in the United States is the presence of huge subsidies throughout, not because of any magical energy sources.

There are subsidies for growing the corn, for building the distilleries, and a 51 cent subsidy for every gallon of ethanol produced. This is to say that the taxpayers are paying much of the Ethanol tab. Whatever the consumers pay at the pump is so much the better for the ethanol lobby.

This excludes state tax credits and other subsidies.

For the record according to Patzek, in the 10 years from 1995 to 2004, taxpayers spent $41.9 billion in corn subsidies.

Currently, according to Patzek (UC Berkeley The Real Biofuel Cycles April 17, 2006), there is an estimated total ethanol tax credit of 57cents per gallon.

This is collected by the Ethanol lobby, too. Just to make things sweeter, the U.S. has erected import tariffs on imported ethanol of more than 50 cents/gallon to defend against lower cost imports of that Brazilian ethanol. This helps to inflate the price of ethanol to the consumers, quite similar to the tariffs erected to protect the US sugar lobby.

According to Tad Patzek, the true costs of corn ethanol to the taxpayers are $3.12 per gallon of ethanol, or $4.74 per gallon of gasoline equivalent GGE—to adjust for the energy difference in the two fuels).

This sleight of hands bears studying. If ethanol at the pump shows a price of say $2.75/gallon, and that for gasoline is $3.00/gallon some would conclude that the ethanol is the cheaper energy. It’s not. Since the gallon of ethanol contains only 65% of the energy of the gallon of gasoline, the price for the ethanol per gallon of gasoline equivalent (GGE), is $2.75 / 0.65 = $4.23/gallon. This is not a good deal for the consumers.

A closer look is needed at the “great Ethanol successes” in Brazil claimed by television host Bill Oreilly, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, and others. It’s a completely different situation.

First, Brazilian Ethanol is made from sugar cane, not corn, and is a much more suitable source of ethanol. Furthermore, the sugar cane grows all year around.

We can’t grow corn year round in the US, nor is it very well suited for ethanol, nor can we grow sugar cane in the Midwest climates. Brazil is in many ways a 3rd world country certainly not fully developed and not nearly as productive and energy intensive as the U.S.

Many families do not own any cars and the cars which do exist are much smaller. The population is smaller, 62 percent of the US at 186 million. Brazil also has vast tracts of very cheap land available for agriculture.

Ethanol has a great number of engineering problems to be a serious energy source for the future, not the least of which is its relatively low energy density 76,000 Btu/gal. For our leaders to be throwing out these superficial one-line energy solutions for uninformed Americans is as dangerous as it is misleading. There are many long range cost and performance uncertainties in comparing sugar cane, sugar beets, and corn infrastructures needed in the manufacture of ethanol.

In all cases the crops require long term agricultural operations, infrastructure, and investment including water, land, and energy, nutrients (fertilizers) of millions of acres of land.

In spite of the exaggerations the word is getting out about the dubious nature of Ethanol. The Salt Lake Tribune wrote (June 29, 2006):

“We don't make ethanol from corn because it is efficient..... And we don't use corn because it is environmentally friendly. Growing it sucks up huge amounts of energy and water and leaves tons of chemicals adrift in the ecosystem. We make ethanol mostly out of corn because it is astoundingly plentiful, thanks to decades of heavy federal subsidies.”

We’d do well to remember what John Fitzgerald Kennedy said: “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.”

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is the energy and science writer for Hawaii Reporter. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mailto:foxm011@hawaii.rr.com

[BurbankKarl]

But when gasoline reached $4 a gallon, will it make more sense?

[xzins]

Another perspective on the ethanol issue.

Is independence or efficiency more important? I believe I've read elsewhere that there's not enough ethanol that CAN be produced in the US to replace gasoline. There'll have to be other alternatives as well.

[Danae]

Woah.

Back to the drawing board.

[xzins]

In the article it explains that ethanol has less BTUs than gasoline. Therefore, a $3 gallon of gasoline has the same energy as a $4+ gallon of ethanol.

[LetsRok]

If I am paying $3.19/gal for 93 octane, am I getting 93? If not, I want a refund from the vendor. The pumps at my local 7-Eleven say "Contains 10% Ethanyl"

[xzins]

Let me restate that last by using the article. I stated it poorly (wrongly):

According to Tad Patzek, the true costs of corn ethanol to the taxpayers are $3.12 per gallon of ethanol, or $4.74 per gallon of gasoline equivalent GGE—to adjust for the energy difference in the two fuels).

[ozzymandus]

So how much energy does diesel have compared to gasoline?

[xzins]

I don't think Octane equates to BTU.

Octane, by definition, is the resistance to burn or detonation. The higher the rating, the slower the burn when ignited during the compression burn cycle of the piston. The higher octane allows for better control of burning for high compression engines. So we want to match the correct octane rating of the gasoline to the engine design to ensure complete burning of the gasoline by the engine for maximum fuel economy and clean emissions. http://theserviceadvisor.com/octane.htm

[stylin19a]

with the push of e-85 shouldn't the headline read:
"Gasoline in Ethanol not a good deal...."

[Yo-Yo]

Octane rating is the resistance to detonation under compression, it is not a measure of the amount of energy per unit volume.

93 Octane gasoline must be used in a higher compression engine to prevent knocking. 93 Octane gasoline used in an engine rated for 87 Octane is a pure waste of money.

[John Valentine]

But when gasoline reached $4 a gallon, will it make more sense?

No, because the energy input in preparing the land, sowing the seed, nurturing the crop, harvesting it, processing it into ethanol will be more expensive, driving the cost of ethanol similarly higher.

The only way consumers will ever buy into ethanol is if they don't realize they are getting substantially less energy (i.e. milage) and that they are paying far more thn the pump price in federal subsidies.

The desire for energy independence makes us all want to find a way to cut loose from foreign oil, but ethanol is a singularly poor way of accomplishing that goal.

We'd be better advised to let our own energy producers find and develop domestic oil sources with less hostility and blame.

[xzins]

I don't know for sure, but I believe that diesel has more.

[phoenix0468]

Not only that, putting ethanol into gasoline actually increases the cost of the gasoline since ethanol is more expensive. It's expense comes from the fact that it is very expensive to produce, and the resulting product from original source is far less than gasoline from crude. No, ethanol is not the answer. Hydrogen is probably a far better, albeit more expensive, solution. And, yes, I am aware that as the new fuels become more prevalent the costs of production will decrease.

[taxcontrol]

Also of issue here, the continued belief that only CORN ethanol is the solution. Just as the Brazilians use a different source for their ethanol (sugar cane) the US is developing other sources (cellulose) for ethanol.

This will also change the cost picture if it comes to fruition. There are many "waste" cellulose sources that could be turned into production by this process.

I will agree that ethanol may not be the end all, be all as hyped by the media. However, I do believe it has a place in our future and likely a greater place than the current industry mix.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

You're getting the 93 octane. If your fuel is 10 percent alcohol, the base gas is probably 89 or 90 octane and the remainder comes from the alcohol.
When 10 percent ethanol gasoline first became popular, the oil company I worked for developed a subgrade, 85 octane straight gas to accomodate the alcohol and not exceed 87 octane at the pump.

[Mase]

Just to make things sweeter, the U.S. has erected import tariffs on imported ethanol of more than 50 cents/gallon to defend against lower cost imports of that Brazilian ethanol. This helps to inflate the price of ethanol to the consumers, quite similar to the tariffs erected to protect the US sugar lobby.

Proving once again that it's not about energy independence at all. Instead, it's all about providing benefits to special interest groups at the expense of taxpayers. Ain't protectionism grand?

[spinestein]

[...the energy content in a gallon of Ethanol is well known to be about 76,000 Btu/gallon of ethanol. Gasoline by contrast contains about 50 percent more energy at 114,000 Btu/gal. ... As Ethanol is mixed with gasoline, the energy per gallon of the mixed fuel drops, being diluted with the less energetic ethanol. The E85 mixture (85 percent Ethanol) contains 83,260 Btu/gal. Obviously, this is less energy than is in the gasoline itself, and as a result, the mileage will therefore drop.]



This is a red herring argument. We don't care how much energy is contained PER VOLUME if we can just add more to the tank (and we can). What IS important is the cost/benefit PER UNIT OF ENERGY of our fuel.

Ethanol is not the magic solution that some people are hyping it to be, but it does have numerous advantages in many applications (such as in powering our personal transportation) where it's better to have a renewable fuel which burns cleanly and takes CO2 out of the air as it's being produced to balance the CO2 emitted when burned. This it certainly does better than fossil fuels

Beware of partisan hacks engaging in zealous propaganda FOR or AGAINST particular energy sources.

[xzins]

Excellent post.

Ethanol should be part of the ultimate independence solution. Research should continue.

We should think in terms of "mix."

Thanks.

[phoenix0468]

Or put the cost of developing new fuels, or more efficient automobiles on the auto industry. I realize this is a bold statement, but they would be the ones to benefit from any new technologies in the market. Why should the United States government be burdened with the cost of research and development that will eventually be used around the world? The auto industry, regardless of financial news, is flush with capital and could easily make new tech or much higher efficiencies happen. The U.S. government should put penalties on automakers that do not meet certain benchmnarks. For example, every vehicle must acheive at least 30 mpg by 2010, an alternate energy source must be available on all cars, either hybrid or compete, by 2015. Hydrogen vehicles should be considered very heavily in this equation. The fact is that production of Hydrogen will become more efficient and less expensive as more cars add it as a fuel source.