—Turning corn into ethanol requires vast amounts of land, fertilizers, pesticides, tractor and truck fuel, and natural gas for distillation. It enriches some farmers but raises animal feed prices and thus the cost of beef, pork, chicken, eggs, fish and international food aid—
I can’t think of a better example of the idiocy of a government run by envirowackos and just plain stupid people.
The ramifications of doing this spans far and wide. We sent a majority to Congress to bring some sanity into government.
This is near the top of the list of what makes my blood boil.
Ethanol is the devil. It eats fuel hoses, is horrible for engines, and it’s an environmental catastrophe, especially since the government is subsidizng corn farmers, it’s the only way the whole scheme works.
The companies who make additives, such as Sta-Bil love it. They are experiencing an economic boon.
As you can tell, I hate the stuff and it really makes me mad that our government is behind this sham. Don’t get me started on the “environmentally friendly” gas cans
alcohol was meant to be drunk, not wasted as fuel. As for biodiesel, its not so bad so long as its made from waste oil.
It takes 2.2 times as much methanol as gasoline to get the correct air/fuel ratio. This statement is pure BS. Also, methanol is so corrosive, race cars that run methanol are drained at the end of the day. The stuff eats away aluminum.
Methanol powered race cars have special spark plugs for starting and warmup. Then the race plugs are installed for the race.
I'm not sure the author understands basic science
First rule of life. Don’t burn your food!
I lost about 4 mpg when they added ethanol vice MTBE around here...
Scum in DC and CA just keep finding new ways to screw with Americans...
Here is a sort paper I wrote on the subject of Alt fuels for a MS in Environmental Mgmt a while back...
Abstract
Alternative Fueled Vehicles (AFVs), or those that use fuels other than 100% petroleum products, are on the scene using technologies designed primarily for gasoline and diesel internal combustion engines (ICE). These fuels are touted to offer reductions in emissions, increased sustainability and other advantages over petroleum fueled vehicles. While all of these fuels certainly have some merit and utility, they also present technological issues that makes gasoline and diesel fuels premier. None of these fuels equal the cost/benefit ratio of petroleum fuels in terms of energy per unit volume or cost of production. Some approach or equal petroleum fuels in ease and safety in storage and transport (ethanol, biodiesel), but others pose significant risks to the public due to the nature of the on-board storage requirements, namely compressed natural gas (CNG) and propane. Still, even though some of these alternative fuels are known to be exceptionally harsh on engine components, all of them are reported to produce reduced emissions compared to petroleum fuels. Lastly, some concerns remain considering that some alternative fuels actually cost more in terms of energy expended to produce an equivalent unit of fuel and that some of the feedstocks required compete for food. We will see where alternative fuels and technologies lead-but barring a significant breakthrough in how we convert energy to work in vehicles, alternative fuels are at best a costly and less efficient means of powering vehicles.
Keywords: AFV, ICE, efficiency, feedstocks, ethanol, CNG, propane, biodiesel, hydrogen, electrolysis
According to the US government, the definition of Alternative Fuels are any fuels other than refined petroleum products (fueleconomy.gov). Alternative Fueled Vehicles (AFVs) are thought to be the near ideal solution to the problem of current petroleum fueled versions of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles of today. However, whether that is true is yet to be seen. AFVs, or vehicles fueled by Ethanol, Propane, Biodiesel, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or Hydrogen, are seen primarily in urban areas where usage can be centered around refueling stations. Alternative fuel usage falls into three distinct categories, those that use mature technologies such as CNG or propane (where a modified ICE burns other than gasoline); novel fuels that either use emerging technologies and low volumes of available boutique fuels (biodiesel, hydrogen) and finally, ethanol/ethanol enhanced fuels (E100, 85, 15, 10 etc) used in FlexFuel vehicles in conjunction with a ratio of gasoline. Actually, virtually all modern gasoline powered vehicles use ethanol diluted fuels, also called oxygenated fuels to reduce emissions. We will explore briefly these categories and attempt to address the common technological issues that each type displays.
Technological Issues
CNG and Propane
Compressed natural gas and propane fuels are mobile uses of a normally fixed-location fuel source. We think of these two fuels as fuels used to generate electricity, heat homes and businesses and power production line heating systems. However, since the late 1960s, modified ICEs have been used to run vehicles on pressurized tanks of CNG and propane. Often these are most widely seen in the form of forklifts in warehouses or garbage trucks and mass transit buses in major metropolitan areas. There is a reason for the limited use of compressed hydrocarbon fueled vehicles. They burn a large volume of fuel for the energy stored and therefore need to be refueled often. Secondly, when was the last time you drove past a CNG or Propane filling station during a drive on the interstate? Also, while these hydrocarbon fuels burn rather cleanly, they still produce volumes of CO and CO2, along with associated ICE emissions simply from use in such a technology (Fueleconomy.gov). Two other minor but real issues exist as well:
The risk of explosion of the fairly large, pressurized and exposed fuel tank during a high-speed collision or vehicle fires.
Reduction in Cargo capacity due to the large volume and weight of the fuel tanks, which unlike gas or diesel fuel tanks, are pressure vessels, not just plastic or steel cans.
Boutique Fuels (BioDiesel, Vegetable Oils and Hydrogen)
Biodiesel and Vegetable Oils
Biodiesel, or diesel fuels produced from non-petroleum based hydrocarbons (such as vegetable oils) have several technological issues that can degrade the utility of use in some circumstances. First, biodiesel thickens in cold weather, requiring additives of petroleum-based diesel fuel or similar compounds, effectively reducing the low emissions touted as the big reason for biodiesel in the first place; secondly, biodiesel contains less energy per unit volume than petroleum-based diesel, requiring the use of more fuel to obtain the same performance or work output, again, effectively offsetting emissions savings as well as increasing costs to perform the same work (Fueleconomy.gov). Finally, manufactures of most diesel engine equipped vehicles recommend use of only B2, B5 or B20 (2, 5 or 20% bio-diesel mix). Use of B100 requires extensive fuel system upgrades to protect critical seals and hoses from the corrosive effects of the fuel while the use of straight or waste vegetable oils (SVO, WVO) requires heating systems and secondary pumps to reduce the viscosity of vegetable oils adequately to enable it to be moved from tank to engine and injected at approximately 160 F (WVO Designs).
Hydrogen; Gas or Liquid.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the earth (McDonough), comprising up to 75% of all mass. It is a colorless, odorless gas in its natural state and is readily combustible with oxygen, producing water. It normally is found in a diatomic state, H2. Refining atmospheric hydrogen requires complicated pumps and compressors, as well as large amounts of energy inputs to separate and compress the gas into useable form. Additionally, hydrogen can be harvested from water by a process call electrolysis. Again, the process requires the use of heat or electricity to break apart water molecules to separate the hydrogen. Note that the amount of effort required to isolate and compress hydrogen into useable form exceeds its work output in both cases. It is obvious that equipment must be fabricated (energy input), harvesting conducted via compression or electrolysis (energy input) storage and transport (input) before the hydrogen fuel can be burned (output) therefore regardless of what else is said about how clean it is or how available it is, it still requires copious amounts of energy input to obtain any output. Therefore hydrogen cannot be a productive fuel. However, hydrogen, when burned, produces water, and in an ICE, maybe some residual NOx or SOx due to blow-by of lubricating oils into the combustion and exhaust stream. Finally, compared to gasoline, Hydrogen contains approximately the same energy per unit volume (Hydrogen Analysis Resource Center).
Ethanol/Ethanol Enhanced Fuels
Ethanol is an alcohol manufactured from feedstocks of vegetable materials ideally containing large percentages of starches and sugars. It is produced by fermentation of the sugars by yeasts which then excrete alcohol as a waste. Ethanol is highly flammable, has a high burn temperature and burns cleanly leaving only water and CO and CO2 as emissions. Ethanol has a higher relative octane equivalency than gasoline, which plays a part in its usefulness as an ICE fuel.
Ethanol Enhanced Gasoline (E10, E15, E85)
Normally gasoline in the US is found mixed with up to 15% ethanol as an oxygenator to reduce emissions. Some vehicles are rated to burn up to 85% (E85) ethanol. There are trade-offs however, when ethanol enhanced (or degraded?) fuels are used compared to gasoline:
Lower BTU output compared to 100% gasoline
Less mileage and performance with E10, E15 and E85 (up to 25% less!)
Corrosive effects on seals and components of fuel systems
There is one performance advantage of high ratio ethanol fuels over gasoline, however; a higher octane rating produces more horsepower and torque compared to gasoline (Fueleconomy.gov).
Using ethanol enhanced fuels reduces NOx and SOx emissions to some degree by increasing the burn temperature and completeness due to increased oxygen content of the fuel/air mixture, and is thus the most relevant reason for using ethanol in gasoline (US DOE).
Once again, like hydrogen, ethanol production requires inputs of energy far greater than that of petroleum production, where the energy input of the fuel already exists in near-useable form. Therefore the BTU cost of ethanol, like that of hydrogen, makes the equation either a losing proposition or at best, with taxpayer subsidy, a lucrative business endeavor. Some research indicates that ethanol requires up 46% more energy input to make than it produces as a fuel, and that one tank of ethanol in a SUV would be the equivalent of 660 pounds of corn, enough to feed two people for a year (Pimentel, 2009)!
Finally, issues remain that make ethanol fuels suspect for the consumer. First, some research indicates that ethanol production competes with food production in the US, as the most useful feedstock is corn. Removing amounts of corn from food production naturally impacts the availability of land for food production, especially when ethanol subsidies make it more lucrative to sell corn for fuel rather than for food. These arguments are often more political and economic than technologic, and therefore are mentioned only in passing.
Summary and Conclusion
While AFVs have merit as fuel sources, it seems that as long as these fuels are being used in conventional ICEs, there will be no significant breakthroughs in cost/benefit, efficiency or emissions for transportation or power production. Gasoline ICEs by design limitation and friction losses are only about 20-30% efficient, while direct injection diesel ICEs approach 40% efficiency (wisegeek.com). Conventional gasoline and diesel fuels are the most viable cost-efficient fuels for this technology, but even with advances in ICE design and operation, we need a significant breakthrough in new technology for converting fuels to work to reduce costs and emissions. Until such a breakthrough is realized, petro-fuels (gasoline and diesel) remain the most cost effective, efficient and useful fuel. Where is Serendipity when you need her?
Authors Note:
Maybe petroleum is indeed the fuel of the future, and that it is formed in a natural geologic, abiotic renewable process deep within the earths outer core as some scientists state? Petro=rock or mineral, Oleo= oil or fat; did the Greeks know something we dont?
Sorry for the formatting though.
This would probably be of little significance as an energy source for the economy; but if it makes stuff like yard waste a valuable enough commodity that it is worth going around to collect it, it would be a boon for weed abatement.
I don’t support the ethanol mandate. In fact, I ran for governor last year, here in Iowa of all places, as an opponent of that bit of crony capitalism.
However, this piece is really little more than propaganda.
There’s two ditches on every road. The crony capitalist statists are in one ditch, and the anti-ethanol propagandists are in the other.
Throw windmills, solar panels, electric cars into the mix and you have completed an episode of how to send staggering amounts of taxpayer money into a few greedy hands of profiteers, all out in the open under the guise of ‘renewables’
I lifted this sentence ‘Since the biofuel mandate was imposed in 2005 and expanded in 2007 under the Renewable Fuel Standard,’
This was during George W, Bush’s term.
All those Jeb supporters better brace for even more leftists policies if he gets into WH.
I pay $10 a gallon for 98 octane gas to run my chainsaws and other small power equipment.
The corn converted into biofuel each year is enough to feed 412 million malnourished people in African and other countries.
When are those in gov’t. going to be brought to justice for this scam?