Ethanol's Dirty Little Secrets

Today's politicians try to justify ethanol's upward pressure on gasoline prices by touting it as a "clean fuel," but that claim is dubious. In fact, ethanol was on the verge of being outlawed by clean air laws in October, 1992, when President George Bush called for exempting ethanol from the Clean Air Act.

In the summer of 1991 an eclectic group from the petroleum industry, the ethanol industry, government agencies, and environmental groups all sat down to hammer out new regulations required by the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, setting stricter standards for automobile emissions of Carbon Monoxide and two types of emissions that cause smog: nitrogen oxide (NOx) and hydrocarbons. When the EPA implemented it in April of 1992, the ethanol industry, which had signed on to the agreement, immediately raised a cry -- the clean air rules might outlaw ethanol.

It turns out that, despite all the claims that ethanol is good for the environment, ethanol may be a net polluter in many ways. Ethanol does reduce carbon monoxide emissions because it is an "oxygenate," which means it adds oxygen to the fuel, converting the CO into CO2, carbon dioxide. (Seeing how CO is not greenhouse gas, our ethanol policies result in making more CO2; what would Al Gore say?) But on the question of hydrocarbons, ethanol appears to make things worse.

Alcohol's hydrogen bonds are weaker than those of water or even gasoline, making alcohol more likely to evaporate, both under high heat, and under normal temperatures. In scientific terms, this means ethanol and other alcohols have greater "volatility" than gasoline.

More volatile fuels send more hydrocarbons into the air, because less of the hydrocarbons will be burnt up in combustion, and more will simply evaporate and float into the air. Adding 10 percent of ethanol to a fuel mixture increases the volatility, sending more smog-causing hydrocarbons into the air.

The 1991 rules had a strict cap on volatility, and ethanol didn't meet the cap. This sent ethanol's supporters into a frenzy. As President Bush sagged in the polls, including in the corn-belt, he knew he had to act. In August, Bush went to the Illinois State Fair ready to propose an increase in the already generous subsidy for ethanol. The Republican Governor, Jim Edgar, convinced him that would not go far enough, and so the president ripped that proposal out of his speech until he could craft a more appealing promise.[i]

Earlier that year, Dwayne Andreas, CEO of Archer Daniels Midland (the country's top ethanol producer), had co-chaired a fundraiser for the Republican Party, himself contributing $400,000 to the cause of reelecting George Bush.[ii] On October 1st, Bush announced that he would grant the special exemption the ethanol industry hoped for: ethanol would be held to lower pollution standards than gasoline.

After Bush lost reelection, his proposed exemption entered limbo. A less skilled businessman than Dwayne Andreas might have been left out in the cold. But two months after the election, Andreas was at President Clinton's inauguration. Andreas contributed heavily to the inauguration, but he told reporters that although his business was directly affected by the government in many ways, his contributions or his closeness to the Clintons had nothing to do with ADM. "I'm here because I was invited," he told one reporter. "It has nothing to do with business. My business isn't affected."[iii]

But his business was affected. Clinton ended up not following Bush's proposal to exempt ethanol from volatility standards, but instead, in the name of reducing carbon monoxide, mandated increased use of ethanol rather than other oxygenate fuels. Clinton issued this rule not long after Andreas made a $100,000 contribution to the Democratic Party. A federal court later ruled that mandate was improper.[iv]

The ethanol subsidies may harm the ground as well as the air. Subsidizing ethanol in myriad ways creates incentives for farmers to plant far more corn than can be consumed by humans and cattle. This encourages farmers to rely solely on one crop -- corn, because the government is propping up its demand and supporting its price.

Farmers have long known that rotating crops -- planting something different in a given field from year to year -- is crucial to maintaining the health of soils. Planting corn year after year exacerbates erosion and depletes soil nutrients. David Pimentel, the Cornell scientist, maintains that corn is particularly destructive to soil health when it is planted exclusively.

If cars burning gasohol pollute the air, and farms growing only corn ruin the soil, it is only fitting that the middle stage -- converting the corn into ethanol -- would damage the environment, as well.

It turns out that ethanol distilleries can be criminal polluters. In 2002, 12 ethanol plants entered into a settlement with the Department of Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the State of Minnesota. The plants lacked pollution controls mandated by the Clean Air Act, and so had to pay small civil penalties and install the controls immediately.[v] Two days earlier, the Sierra Club had sued two Midwestern ethanol plants for emitting illegal amounts of hydrocarbons.[vi]

While some scientists find that making ethanol uses more energy than it yields, scientist Marcelo Dias de Oliveira, disagrees. But looking at the full "ecological footprint," taking into account cropland used, water consumed, and other secondary factors to the ethanol process, Oliveira found that ethanol is a net drag on the planet. "The use of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline proved to be neither a sustainable nor an environmentally friendly option," he wrote "considering ecological footprint values, and both net energy and CO2 offset considerations seemed relatively unimportant compared to the ecological footprint."[vii]

On all these scores -- its contribution to smog and soil erosion, and its "ecological footprint" -- ethanol is almost as costly to the environment as it is to American drivers and taxpayers.

[i] Michael Arndt, "Bush Wrestles with Ethanol Issue; His Dilemma: Farm Vote vs. Clean Air Rule," Chicago Tribune, September 9, 1992. [ii] Arndt.

[iii] "An Avalanche of Faith, Hope and Sincerity; Dinners Fit for a Republican: What's a Few Furs Among Friends?" Washington Post, January 19, 1993.

[iv] Maureen Lorenzetti, "U.S. Appeals Court Rejects EPA Ethanol Mandate," Platts Oilgram Price Report, May 1, 1995.

[v] "Ethanol Firms to Reduce Pollution," Energy Conservation News, October, 2002.

[vi] Gerald Karey, "Sierra Club to Sue Two U.S. Midwest Ethanol Plants," Platts Oilgram News, September 30, 2002.

Regarding a previous threat on FR... Researchers Identify Energy Gains And Environmental Impacts Of Corn Ethanol And Soybean Biodiesel

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1664319/posts/^http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060710180310.htm >br>

for your consideration...my dad, responded to me:

...begin response from Dad

There have been several studies re the net efficiency of production/use of corn-ethanol as a source of energy; this is the only one to my knowledge that suggests there is a net gain even though small. And considering the environmental byproducts it is a terrible idea, e.g. surface and underground water etc. Ditto "bio-diesel"

Now this is something you need to read and understand. One of the problems in many studies relates to "taking the difference between two large numbers". In the case of all these studies, the "net gain" is computed as a difference between two relatively larger numbers, and thus a small error in computing either of the large numbers results in a large swing in the "difference". You need to understand this phenomena because many many studies which show "dramatic gains or losses or changes" are because of this "difference of large numbers phenomena".

For example suppose the net energy gain in ethanol is the difference in "energy in = 10" and "energy out = 11", then the net gain is 1. But suppose that there is a very small error in computing "energy in" and it is equal to 10.5 rather than 10, an error of only 5 percent in this parameter" but look at the effect of this small error on the net energy gain: from 1 to 0.5 -- a 100 percent change for an error of only 5 percent in one of the "large numbers".

So much for this study which shows a 25 percent net gain; which of the several are correct? Who knows, but it is really immaterial.

I dwell on this as most of the dramatic prognoses are a result of the difference between two large numbers -- even profit/loss suffers from this.

More broadly, there have been a number of studies in the past decade to determine what are feasible sources of energy to meet our growing needs. Bottom line, wind power, water power, geothermal power, bio source power and similar, that are large in the hearts and minds of the libs/greens, cannot be major contributors (even the study referred to below states that if ALL the corn were used for ethanol it would not make a major contribution).

Bottom line: only petroleum (not a good idea because of dependence and emissions), coal (emissions unless it can be "converted underground"), or nuclear (fission or fusion) can meet the bulk of our energy needs; we must do nuclear soon and have a major tax supported effort to use hydrogen for autos/trucks and nuclear to make hydrogen-electricity. But my view is not really due to greenhouse concerns, but due to economic and national security issues because of our dependence on foreign oil. Note that we are funding our enemies.

Believe this!!!!

And snicker at the greens/libs, but show them no mercy as they are simply stupid. Incidentally, the educated well read energy-libs know all this but they want to undermine this country and/or Bush. This nation is wasting big resources because of the dead ends in bio-fuels, wind power etc. but the public debate will continue ad nauseam.

*******************************

And a little more: A poll just published today shows that only 41 percent of scientists believe that there is global warming and it is due to human contributions to greenhouse gases; 59 percent believe either that there is no global warming or it is not human induced.

What do I believe: There is global warming, perhaps one of many up-down cycles, but it is largely natural; and the greenhouse effect is relatively smaller and is "logarithmic" meaning its effect will level off.

...end response from Dad

He's got it goin' on...

"The real cost of production is about $5.00/gallon. Remember, you need 1.5 gallons of oil to produce just one gallon of 85%. And 85% has only about half the energy content of gasoline, and about half the mileage."

None of that is true. As far as energy balance goes, there are plenty of competing studies but the current studies all seem to show a positive energy balance. For instance, the University of Minnosota just released their results from a comprehensive study where researchers found that ethanol "produces a modest 25 percent more energy than is consumed -- including from fossil fuels -- in growing the corn, converting it into ethanol and shipping it for use in gasoline." They found biodiesel to be much better as far as energy balance goes, but still found that these fuels could never supply more than but a small percentage of our transportation energy needs, although they thought prospects were better for cellulosic ethanol.
I believe they said that even if every acre of corn currently grown were used for ethanol it would supply only about 12% of our current transportation fuel needs.

As for production costs, they aren't much more than a dollar a gallon with subsidies. There are subsidies on the corn and state and federal and in many cases state subsidies on the ethanol, but not several dollars per gallon as you suggest. If you have a still, you can buy bushels of corn yourself and make it at home for about $1.40 a gallon, not including your labor. It's less if if sell the eighteen pounds of animal feed you have left per bushel of corn after producing the ethanol. Modern ethanol plants are getting about 2.8 gallons of ethanol per bushel. I don't know what the exact production costs are without subsidies, but they are nowhere close to $5 a gallon. I'd love to see you try and prove that figure.

Lastly, you said E85 only has about half the energy content of straight gasoline. That's just plain false. Go to www.fueleconomy.gov and check the mileage comparisons for E85 and straight gasoline. You will find that most vehicles get about 25% fewer miles per gallon on E85. There is some variations with some vehicles being better optimized for its use for others, but none get anywhere close to 50% fewer miles per gallon on E85. Some actually only take a little more than a 20% hit with E85. The conventional wisdom is that if you can get E85 for 70% of the price of straight gasoline, you are probably breaking even or saving money at the pump.

Ethanol certainly has its drawbacks. It will never come close to replacing gasoline. The best we could ever hope for with ethanol is that it supplements or fuel supply some. If cellulosic ethanol pans out lives up to expectations, ethanol could act as a bigger supplement, but still probably won't ever fulfill more than maybe fifteen or twenty percent of our automotive fuel needs. Every little bit helps though and I like the idea of keeping our money here rather than paying it over to dictators and crazy Arabs. We need to drill more for our own oil and work on developing technology for things like fuel from oil shale and tar sands, liquified coal, and so on. As time goes on there will be more and more need for alternative fuels. Ethanol will probably be part of this for a long time because it is here and now technology, and with gas prices high like they are with no real relief in sight ethanol works out to be a fairly cheap alternative fuel. Current high prices for ethanol are only temporary, caused by mostly government created spikes in demand. Prices ought to go down in the near future as more production capabilities come on line.

One thing I can say studying history is that "experts" are almost always wrong. The number of quotes from "experts" such as yourself about new technology that turned out wrong fills pages.

I respect your knowledge and the critics of Ethanol has some valid points. Still the amount of crap that has been put out for and against it but mainly against has got my goat.

Even at it's best Ethanol will only meet 5% or 10% of our needs if that. It might be a failure or else maybe not. It might help tied us over until we can change coal into gasoline which is the real potential energy source.

Now there is going to be about 5 ethanol plants in Missouri. There is hundreds of power plants and/or industrial plants in the corn growing area of this state. Several of those plants already use waste heat for other purposes such as selling steam to nearby buildings. Many of the plants was built years ago and don't have the most efficient systems anyway. I for one believes and thinks it can be done.

Now I don't know if you was hit on the head by a corn farmer or work for the oil companies. I am all for more drilling and for nuclear power (even though I think the environmentalists will prevent that from being a feasible alternative in our near future). But no matter how I slice and dice the alternatives I think of this fact.

If we knew that next month would be the end of oil imports what would we do? We could try to drill but there is no way the new oil fields could come on line soon enough. Coal can be used to power our power plants but not to run our cars right now. The only thing I can think of in the near future to help any would be to use biofuels. They wouldn't meet all our needs but they would help.

The government wastes our money anyway. The farm subsidies will happen anyway. We will know in the next five to ten years if biofuels was another boondoggle. I want us to try before we say it can't be done.

At the least I know that the next 9/11 attack won't be financed by corn farmers in Iowa unlike the petrodollars that currently finance terrorism.

I don't care if the "replacement ration" was 10 gallons of ethanol to 1 liter of petroleum. The ethanol is renewable, domestic, and benefits America instead of some filthy sand warehouse.

I suspect your hostility toward ethanol comes from some connection to the oil industry. There is enough demand for ethanol that at least 7 new plants are in the planning stages in Nebraska, another half a dozen in Missouri, 8 to 10 in Iowa, and dozens in other agricultural states. Whatever the downside of ethanol, Archer Daniels and a lot of smaller players are putting some big bucks into its development, so I have to believe it will be with us for a while.

And your concern over channeling money into the pockets of mega corporations is laughable, considering that every drop of oil we consume goes to enrich the robber barons of Exxon, Shell, and the like.

One thing I can say studying history is that "experts" are almost always wrong.

You really believe this sh!t don't you?

The number of quotes from "experts" such as yourself about new technology that turned out wrong fills pages.

Although I never claimed to be an expert, I do know something about thermodynamics. Actually the experts usually have it right - it's the idiots who pine for something without a clue as to the fundamental nature of the problem that usually get it wrong, and of course the government types who have sold out get it wrong too - it's just that no one criticizes them.

the amount of crap that has been put out for and against it but mainly against has got my goat.

The reason for so much against it is that it really is not a very good idea.

Now I don't know if you was hit on the head by a corn farmer or work for the oil companies. I am all for more drilling and for nuclear power (even

Now I don't know if you're a corn farmer, a stockholder in ADM or pacific ethanol or some other sort who will profit from the tax largesse, but no matter how you slice it ethanol, at least ethanol from corn, is not a good alternative to gasoline.

The government wastes our money anyway.

All too true, but this doesn't excuse wasting even more.

I want us to try before we say it can't be done.

It has been and is being tried. I would hate to see tens of billions in capital that could be used to do something worthwhile being wasted on the ethanol boondoogle.

"I can tell you with absolute certainty that state-of-the-art plants make fuel ethanol for less than $1.35 per gallon."

I don't doubt that. I heard it was actually closer to a dollar a gallon though. But, the feedstock they use, corn, is subsidized. I want to say I read somewhere that the subsidy only works out to something like fourteen cents a bushel though, and they they are able to get 2.8 gallons of ethanol plus eighteen pounds of animal feed from each bushel of corn. If it is only something like fourteen cents a bushel, then the initial subsidies on ethanol at the point of production are not that great, less then ten cents a gallon. Additional subsidies from the feds and states come in after that, amounting to just under sixty cents a gallon or so on average if my memory serves me correctly. I don't really know all the figures, but production costs are not all that high when you consider gas prices today.

even small amounts of fertilization would cause at least a localized plankton bloom, a plankton bloom would cause an envirowacko bloom, and an envirowacko bloom usually leads to an ignorant federal law bloom which always kills the jobs/economy/technology bloom.

The nice thing about 200 miles offshore is these are totally international waters. The envirowacko's have no legal authority. They can and will pass Luddite laws against progress in the US but there will always be some foreign flagged vessel that can seed and fertilize the ocean with impunity. If the US doesn't want to buy this biodiesel, fine, but it will be sold on the open market somewhere, driving down the price of oil for all.

Before the days of oil drilling, believe it or not whales were the primary source of fuel oil. Whales eat either plankton directly or indirectly via other fish. If we grow a lot of whale food, there will be a great increase in whales, and the days of whaling for fuel oil may return.

There's a strange special protection given the ocean by the envirowackos. We can farm our land and furry animals but any use the ocean for human purposes causes the envirowackos to go off the deep end.

Ok I will bite, what should the government spend that money on?

How about not collecting it in taxes and letting the market determine what a viable alternative fuel would be? Anything done by government mandate wil be subject to political decisions (ie who will get the most votes) rather than what's good for the economy.

Coal synfuel (good for diesel only I know) died on the vine several years ago because the cost of crude wasn't high enough to make the research profitable. I suspect that this is getting dusted off as we speak. Economic extraction of oil for tar shales is another possiblity. Even (ug some research on the h2 fueled cars), but of course this would require building another hundred or so nuclear power stations - not a likely scenario. I like the coal idea the best because we have vast reserves of coal and an economical conversion of this to motor fuel would provide resources for centuries.

Why is it that you just cannot believe that it is possible that ethanol has a positive energy balance? That's what all the recent comprehensive studies seem to conclude. I don't know about using waste heat from factories, but ethanol production has become more efficient over the years and will probably continue to become more efficient. We're able to consistently get more bushels of corn per acre than we could decades ago. Yeats and enzymes for aiding in fermentation have improved and per bushel ethanol yields have improved. The ethanol plants have become more efficient. And as time goes on efficiency is likely to continue to improve. Do you have such little faith in American ingenuity?

I have a friend who produces ethanol on his farm to run his smaller tractors. He's kind of a mad scientist type, one of these genius types who has a farm for fun but for money he writes software for the government and corporate clients that use artificial intelligence to sort through massive amounts of data and solve problems. He has an ATF permit for his still, which he built out of parts he scrounged. It's pretty neat set up that controls temperatures precisely and provides him a product he can use right after the first run through the still without any additional processing. His runs on pulp wood that he couldn't sell anyway because it costs him more to have it hauled off than he could get for it. He's built a still for his neighbor that runs mostly on solar power. He uses these satellite dish looking parabolic reflectors to concentrate heat on a still suspended in the air, with a complex system set up for them to move automatically to catch the sun. They were having problems though keeping the temperatures exact, so they added natural gas burners that are controlled by a thermostat. Most of the heat still comes from the sun though and what little electricity is required is provided by a solar panel. He's working on another still for himself that will use a vacuum to lower the temperature required to distill alcohol considerably below the 172 degrees mark and he's going to use solar power for this one too. He thinks he'll bring the boiler temperature requirement down to about 125 degrees with a little negative pressure and he's devised a vacuum setup using a heavy weight and a bunch of pulleys that he'll have his mule crank up and use the stored energy for his vacuum setup. He's working on some way to heat fluids that will be pumped around the still to provide even temperatures and he's using a different type of solar reflectors and collectors. He doesn't have this one working yet and I'm not sure I grasp exactly what he has in mind but he's a smart guy and he generally sets out whatever it is he tries to accomplish. He's wanting this still to provide constant temperatures and be completely solar and mule powered and he's smart enough to do it. How practical it will be, I don't know, but he's having fun.

Solar and mule power may not be practical on a large scale operation that is up and going year around, but that's not really the point I'm trying to make. The point is that there are a lot of different ways to skin a cat and we're smart enough to figure out the best way. We really are already to the point where we can produce more energy stored in ethanol than we have to expend to get it, and we're going to improve on that positive energy balance. Production costs are coming down, yields are improving, and that trend will likely continue.

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.