Posted on 03/11/2009 12:45:49 PM PDT by AT7Saluki
“The ethanol mandates that have been foisted on American taxpayers are not just fiscal insanity, they are immoral. Congress has created a system of subsidies and mandates that requires the U.S. to burn food to make motor fuel, at a time when there is a global shortage of food and no global shortage of motor fuel.”
....and drumroll please.....
(snip of above below)
“So, where did the claim that ethanol is more energy efficient originate? I believe it originates with researchers from Argonne National Laboratory, who developed a model (GREET) that is used to determine the energy inputs to turn crude oil into products (4). Since it will take some amount of energy to refine a barrel of crude oil, by definition the efficiency is less than 100% in the way they measured it. For example, if I have 1 BTU of energy, but it took .2 BTUs to turn it into a useable form, then the efficiency is 80%. This is the kind of calculation people use to show that the gasoline efficiency is less than 100%. However, ethanol is not measured in the same way. Look again at the example from the USDA paper, and lets do the equivalent calculation for ethanol. In that case, we got 98,333 BTUs out of the process, but we had to input 77,228 to get it out. In this case, comparing apples to apples, the efficiency of producing ethanol is just 21%. Again, gasoline is about 4 times higher.
OK, so Argonne originated the calculation. But are they really at fault here? Yes, they are. Not only did they promote the efficiency calculation for petroleum products with their GREET model, but they have proceeded to make apples and oranges comparisons in order to show ethanol in a positive light. They have themselves muddied the waters. Michael Wang, from Argonne, (and author of the GREET model) made a remarkable claim last September at The 15th Annual Symposium on Alcohol Fuels in San Diego (5). On his 4th slide , he claimed that it takes 0.74 MMBTU to make 1 MMBTU of ethanol, but 1.23 MMBTU to make 1 MMBTU of gasoline. That simply can’t be correct, as the calculations in the preceding paragraphs have shown.
Not only is his claim incorrect, but it is terribly irresponsible for someone from a government agency to make such a claim. I don’t know whether he is being intentionally misleading, but it certainly looks that way. Wang is also the co-author of the earlier USDA studies that I have critiqued and shown to be full of errors and misleading arguments. These people are publishing articles that bypass the peer review process designed to ferret out these kinds of blatant errors. I suspect a politically driven agenda in which they are putting out intentionally misleading information.
One of the reasons I haven’t written this up already, is that 2 weeks ago I sent an e-mail to Wang bringing this error to his attention. I immediately got an auto-reply saying that he was out of the office until March 31st. I have given him a week to reply and explain himself, but he has not done so. Therefore, at this time I must conclude that he knows the calculation is in error, but does not wish to address it. In the interim, ethanol proponents everywhere are pushing this false information in an effort to boost support for ethanol.
Look at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture claim again: "the energy yield of ethanol is (1.34/0.74) or 81 percent greater than the comparable yield for gasoline". If the energy balance was really this good for ethanol and that bad for gasoline, why would anyone ever make gasoline? Where would the economics be? Why would ethanol need subsidies to compete? It should be clear that the proponents in this case are promoting false information.”
highnoon asks rhetorically
I would estimate 80 percent of ethanol is manufacturered by using natural gas to cook the corn. Why not skip this process and use the gas in our cars ?
don't forget lower fuel economy and poor engine performance
bfl
So says Sybeck1 rhetorically.
I thought more than 10% would start to destroy engines.
This is what happens when government employees get a tax payer funded personal car.
Your car?
I don’t want it in my chainsaws, generators, tractor, or cars...especially not the vintage VW.
I already had to have the heads replaced once to accomodate unleaded.
Then there is the diesel pickup, which they want to screw the fuel of, too.
And the lightbulbs.
And the water temperature ranges on the washing machines.
And I’m on my third iteration of propane tanks, because they keep adding new requirements, or else they can’t be refilled...though in 50+ years of using it I never had a problem with a tank, valve, or regulator. Funny thing; it costs the same to replace a valve as it does to replace the entire tank.
Newer, lower-flow yet toilets.
The list goes on.
There, fixed it.
Ethanol Use in Motorcycles
http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-news/motorcycles-ethanol.htm
But now, the state of Minnesota is seeking permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to allow the sale of fuel that includes 20 percent ethanol. And that has led to concerns about the effects on motorcycle engines, which manufacturers say are only certified to run on fuels containing the current 10 percent blend.
...and guv T-Paw here favors this silliness.
We’re in a symbolism driven, post-factual emotionally enriching world.
Stop making sense with logic and science.
Facts are so 20th Century.
Try twittering instead.
If you mean Sybel-aholus, it was Kanasas that she ran into the ground; not Iowa.
Now that I ponder it, I wonder if she would have approved, rather than killing, the expanssion of the coal-fired power plant in Kansas, if Sunflower Electric Power Corp had agreed to burn corncogbs instead of coal?
BINGO
Not to be confused with "family-owned and operated farms".
Newer, lower-flow yet toilets.
I really hate those. I call them clogets.
So, I wonder if the new CAFE standards for MPG are based on burning gasoline ? or gasoline with 10% ethanol ? in any case, the auto makers will be hard pressed to meet the standard if an increased amount of ethanol is allowed.
Sounds right.
If they get their way with electricity & fuels, we'll all be back to zero-flow toilets. I still have a vintage one of those on this here ranch.
Upside, it never leaks, drips, or clogs.
Downside would be 50 yard 3 AM walks in 6" of snow at -30F, and a correspondingly cold seat.
I live in the midst of cornland, so this is loved by all. Sigh.
This must be a typo. He really meant he wants more ethanol in (his) glass. Waiter!
More ethanol? I am already getting crappy gas mileage since I moved to Ohio and later found out they were selling ethanol gas without putting a sticker on it.
With regular gas I was getting 28 mpg, but now average only 24.
Ethanol in gasoline is complete crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.