Everyone seems to think that ethanol is a good way to make cars greener. Everyone is wrong

SOMETIMES you do things simply because you know how to. People have known how to make ethanol since the dawn of civilisation, if not before. Take some sugary liquid. Add yeast. Wait. They have also known for a thousand years how to get that ethanol out of the formerly sugary liquid and into a more or less pure form. You heat it up, catch the vapour that emanates, and cool that vapour down until it liquefies.

The result burns. And when Henry Ford was experimenting with car engines a century ago, he tried ethanol out as a fuel. But he rejected it—and for good reason. The amount of heat you get from burning a litre of ethanol is a third less than that from a litre of petrol. What is more, it absorbs water from the atmosphere. Unless it is mixed with some other fuel, such as petrol, the result is corrosion that can wreck an engine's seals in a couple of years. So why is ethanol suddenly back in fashion? That is the question many biotechnologists in America have recently asked themselves.

[snip]

These firms, however, have one other competitor. His name is Craig Venter. Dr Venter, a veteran of biotechnological scraps ranging from gene patenting to the private human-genome project, has been interested in bioenergy for a long time. To start with, it was hydrogen that caught his eye, then methane—both of which are natural bacterial products. But now that eye is shifting towards liquid fuels. His company, modestly named Synthetic Genomics (and based, unlike the others, on the east side of America, in Rockville, Maryland), is reluctant to discuss details, but Dr Venter, too, is taken with the pharmaceutical analogy. Indeed, he goes as far as to posit the idea of clinical trials for biofuels—presumably pitting one against another, perhaps with petroleum-based products acting as the control, and without the drivers knowing which was which.

Whether biofuels will ever be competitive with fossil fuels remains to be seen. That will depend on a mixture of economics and politics. But the political rush to back ethanol, just because it is green and people have heard of it, is a mistake. Let a thousand flowers bloom, and see which one wins Dr Venter's Grand Prix.
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9861379


[Edited on October 1, 2007 at 9:13 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/1/2007 9:12:45 AM

haha, craig venter uses our tissue culture hood.

he's as much of a douchebag as everybody says.

10/1/2007 10:00:38 AM

i've heard one good idea for potentially employing ethanol as an automotive fuel, but it was only to supplement gasoline fueled cars. basically, it would allow them to use small engines running a LOT of turbocharger boost, with ethanol injection when under heavy load to prevent detonation.

basically he was talking about using the ethanol as an on-demand octane booster, rather than an a fuel.

technically, this would work pretty well i think (with a couple of issues that could potentially need to be resolved). the problems, i believe, would be logistical.

[Edited on October 1, 2007 at 10:01 AM. Reason : i'll explain in more detail later...gotta go to work now]

10/1/2007 10:01:12 AM

Dr. Venter is nothing. What we really need is...

DR. VENTURE!

10/1/2007 11:41:39 AM

Dr. Orpheus: Did you say... an ORPHAN?
Dr. Venture: Yeah, a little orphan boy.
Dr. Orpheus: It's powered by a forsaken child?
Dr. Venture: Might be, kind of - I mean I didn't use the whole thing!

10/1/2007 12:13:13 PM

Like I said in: message_topic.aspx?topic=413170

The combustion of ethanol produces precursors for PAN. Gas produces the precursors for ozone and various nasty NOx compounds. All combustion produces COx. Switching to ethonol from a pollution standpoint just trades one set of emissions for another. Google can give you all the details of the impacts of these various chemicals.

10/1/2007 4:04:21 PM

i dont like ethanol because it raises corn prices and corn is used to feed a lot of animals i like to eat therefore raising the prices of the foods i like to eat, not to mention high fructose corn syrup

10/1/2007 4:10:25 PM

Quote :

"he's as much of a douchebag as everybody says."

i've met him, and i can see how he comes off as arrogant and too cool for school. however, i think he's entitled because he's a badass. he pretty much split from the government, finished the human genome ahead of time (using the blast approach), and then gave the information away. i agree with his idea on this too.

10/2/2007 3:48:04 PM

I don't like ethanol b/c my car gets shittier gas mileage as a result.

10/4/2007 1:52:55 PM

UN Expert Decries Turning Food Into Fuel

Quote :

"UNITED NATIONS (AP) — A U.N. expert on Friday called the growing practice of converting food crops into biofuel 'a crime against humanity,' saying it is creating food shortages and price jumps that cause millions of poor people to go hungry. Jean Ziegler, who has been the United Nations' independent expert on the right to food since the position was established in 2000, called for a five-year moratorium on biofuel production to halt what he called a growing 'catastrophe' for the poor. Scientific research is progressing very quickly, he said, 'and in five years it will be possible to make biofuel and biodiesel from agricultural waste' rather than wheat, corn, sugar cane and other food crops. Using biofuel instead of gasoline in cars is generally considered to cut carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming, although some scientists say greenhouse gases released during the production of biofuel could offset those gains."

Quote :

"'So it's a crime against humanity' to devote agricultural land to biofuel production, Ziegler said a news conference. 'What has to be stopped is ... the growing catastrophe of the massacre (by) hunger in the world,' he said [emphasis added]. As an example, he said, it takes 510 pounds of corn to produce 13 gallons of ethanol. That much corn could feed a child in Zambia or Mexico for a year, he said."

Quote :

"Ziegler, a sociology professor at the University of Geneva and the University of the Sorbonne in Paris, presented a report Thursday to the U.N. General Assembly's human rights committee saying a five-year moratorium on biofuel production would allow time for new technologies for using agricultural byproducts instead of food itself. Researchers are looking at crop residues such as corn cobs, rice husks and banana leaves, he said. 'The cultivation of Jatropha Curcas, a shrub that produces large oil-bearing seeds, appears to offer a good solution as it can be grown in arid lands that are not normally suitable for food crops,' he said."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hsKdpZFn7ywQD3LuJAru-L3FapQAD8SH66C02

Some of you greenies are apparently advocating "crimes against humanity." Aren't you ashamed?

11/1/2007 12:48:39 PM

I'm sure all the greenies planned this from the start. Sweet, we get off the oil resource AND kill poor people while we are at it?!

SIGN ME UP!

11/1/2007 1:03:57 PM

^ The path to hell is littered with good intentions.

11/1/2007 1:09:28 PM

the "greenies" aren't pushing ethanol nearly as much as the corn farmer lobby

11/1/2007 1:09:30 PM

^

Quote :

"'For years, corn ethanol booster had many fans, including farm state constituents, environmentalists, oil companies pursuing a green image and corn conversion companies,' Simmons said. 'It was heresy to question ethanol's value. Then, ethanol finally took off.' The problems with ethanol then became evident, including the real energy intensity required to produce ethanol, soaring corn prices that angered the farm lobby, warnings of higher grocery prices, storage and transportation constraints, and evidence of ethanol's highly corrosive and potentially explosive nature."

http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php?id=3&storyid=6130

Politics does make strange bedfellows. But make no mistake: The environmentalists were enthusiastically in the ethanol bed from the beginning, despite their more recent attempts to distance themselves from ethanol and muddy the waters by speaking less of corn-derived fuel and more of biofuels obtained from other resources.

11/1/2007 1:20:12 PM

Was this food crisis known ahead of time? You keep trying to paint them as bad people, but you really aren't doing it in any way that is supportive of your cause.

Find some evidence they KNEW they would be killing people because of food shortages, then I'll buy into your argument.

11/1/2007 1:31:18 PM

BUT I THOUGHT CONVERTING TO A NEW ENERGY SOURCE WOULD BE PAINLESS

11/1/2007 1:36:41 PM

I don't have a link, but I've heard it said for years by every Ethanol detractor that even if we converted America's entire corn crop into Ethanol it would only displace X percent of America's oil consumption. The implication being two fold: it is a dead end for replacement and if we did that we would all starve.

11/1/2007 11:17:00 PM

Quote :

"I don't have a link, but I've heard it said for years by every Ethanol detractor that even if we converted America's entire corn crop into Ethanol it would only displace X percent of America's oil consumption. The implication being two fold: it is a dead end for replacement and if we did that we would all starve."

A) Who ever said ethanol was a total solution to our energy problems? If we're going to wait around for a magic bullet we're doomed.

B) You're assuming ethanol will only come from corn. While corn only offers a 1:1.3 energy input to output ratio, sugar is at 1:8, and perennial prairie grasses are at 1:2-36, depending on whether or not we can develop better ways of distilling them. Switchgrass growing exclusively on land unfit for other crops could replace 13% of our oil consumption alone.

Add to that biodiesel, which is sorta related, and is at 1:2.5

Quote :

"The combustion of ethanol produces precursors for PAN. Gas produces the precursors for ozone and various nasty NOx compounds. All combustion produces COx. Switching to ethonol from a pollution standpoint just trades one set of emissions for another. Google can give you all the details of the impacts of these various chemicals."

A) Someone correctly rebutted that in the same thread:

"Ethanol keeps the carbon cycle neutral. Instead of burning up hydrocarbons of buried plant matter from millions of years ago, ethanol is made from atmospheric CO2 and sunlight. So there is no net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere."

B) Even ignoring where the carbon comes from, biofuels still release less of it than petroleum. Taking into account production and use, corn ethanol produces 22% less greenhouse gas than petroleum, sugarcane 56% less, biodiesels 68% less, and prairie grass 91% (potentially, I think) less.


*I'm getting all of these statistics out of the October issue of National Geographic sitting on my lap. The article is unfortunately not posted on their website.



[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:10 AM. Reason : don't forget biodiesel]

11/2/2007 12:00:52 AM

^^ It's true. I think the figure might possibly be as high as like 10%. Pretty shitty if you ask me. Ethanol sucks just as bad as oil if not worse.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:01 AM. Reason : grr]

11/2/2007 12:01:24 AM

If it gets high fructose corn syrup out of our diet, I'm for it.

11/2/2007 1:23:34 AM

Let me give you guys the quick and dirty about why Ethanol is the new buzzword.


Flashback to the 70's, when the mass overproduction of corn began thanks to our federal government farm subsidies. It deflated the price of corn far below sugar, making corn syrup ultra cheap.

Flash forward to today, where the backlash against corn-syrup has finally taken hold. What's the result? Too much corn production again, and no product for it. Then the corn lobby finds this magical thing called ethanol that they can make massively higher yield on.

Is it any suprise that ethanol is now the biofuel of the future?

Not only is it not a mass-market alternative, not only does it cost a MASSIVE amount more than gasoline or other bio-fuel sources, but we PAY 20 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR IN TAXES just to let the corn farmers keep making it.

So the MORE ethanol that hits the market, the MORE we pay in tax to support it and the MORE we pay at the pump to put it in our tanks? Feel cheated yet?

11/2/2007 3:14:58 AM

Cool, a conspiracy theory related to ethanol.

11/2/2007 7:03:26 AM

Is there even enough land in the U.S. to grow the amount of corn that would be needed to supply the country with ethanol as a main energy source?

11/2/2007 9:34:59 AM

i think corn-based ethanol is a bad stop-gap solution that's only being pushed heavily because of the corn and (you guessed it) our fucked-up primary system that has a corn state as one of the first states with a primary.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 10:00 AM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 10:00:23 AM

This "food crisis" is a crock of shit.

If the US pushes corn-based ethanol, suddenly we're raising the price of food and starving people in 3rd world countries.

If the US subsidizes big agriculture, suddenly we are artificially lowering the price of food and screwing over poor farmers in 3rd world countries.

Basically, anything the US does, some 3rd world country is gonna bitch about and claim that we are killing people.

Thats fine, but don't use it as an argument against corn-based ethanol and then turn around and take the exact opposite stance for agriculture subsidies.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 10:09 AM. Reason : 2]

11/2/2007 10:06:53 AM

Didn't LoneSnark also make the argument at one point (in another thread), that if the price of the corn goes up so much, these third world countries could grow it, sell it, and buy MUCH rice or some other food crop instead?

11/2/2007 1:42:39 PM

1) There will be a time when biofuels will have to over take fossil fuels, because fossil fuels are a limited resource.

2) Ethanol can be made out of all sorts of things, such as switchgrass. Switchgrass can be grown on marginal soils, meaning there could be a whole agricultural revolution in areas with little other chance of economic development. Thus, we can guarantee prime agricultural land continues to be used for food production.

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switgrs.html

Quote :

"Looking down the road, McLaughlin believes switchgrass offers important advantages as an energy crop. "Producing ethanol from corn requires almost as much energy to produce as it yields," he explains, "while ethanol from switchgrass can produce about five times more energy than you put in. When you factor in the energy required to make tractors, transport farm equipment, plant and harvest, and so on, the net energy output of switchgrass is about 20 times better than corn's." Switchgrass also does a far better job of protecting soil, virtually eliminating erosion. And it removes considerably more CO2 from the air, packing it away in soils and roots."

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 3:35 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 3:30:14 PM

^1) Wrong. Even if we switched EVERY acre of available land in the US into the most fuel-rich plant, it would still only hit like 10-15% of our petrol needs.

The future is distributed grid energy (AKA electric vehicles). MAYBE in several more generations we might see fuel cells go mass market, but i highly doubt it.

11/2/2007 9:25:06 PM

if we'd just fucking take iraqs oil we would have enough energy to last many generations

11/2/2007 9:35:08 PM

Yeah, the only thing holding back electric vehicles is battery price and storage capacity. Electric motors can be much smaller, more efficient and more reliable than an internal combustion engine, they just need an onboard electrical storage unit (ie battery, ultracapacitor, flywheel, fuel cell, compressed gas, etc) that approaches the energy-to-weight ratio of fossil fuels.

Give it 10 years and the majority of vehicles sold will be plug-in electrics with advanced battery-and-capacitor combinations. The added grid demands will likely be met by a combination of renewable power plants and nuclear plants. By the time "peak oil" really becomes an issue, we'll be well past the point where it could cripple our economy.

11/2/2007 9:42:26 PM

Quote :

"^1) Wrong. Even if we switched EVERY acre of available land in the US into the most fuel-rich plant, it would still only hit like 10-15% of our petrol needs. The future is distributed grid energy (AKA electric vehicles). MAYBE in several more generations we might see fuel cells go mass market, but i highly doubt it."

I would have to see some statistics quoted somewhere. I remember hearing that if our current agricultural output was converted to ethanol, it would only produce 1/6th of our demands. The "every available acre of land would comprise 10-15%" doesn't seem reasonable in light of that. Produce a source plz.

[Edited on November 3, 2007 at 6:21 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2007 6:21:03 PM

^1/6th still isnt anywhere near enough, and still isnt economically viable. And 1/6 = 17%. So not far off of the figures Ive heard.

11/3/2007 8:10:09 PM

15% is about right we were forced to calculate this in CH415 and got this number.

11/4/2007 12:48:32 PM

Sure, ethanol will decrease dependancy on oil. But it still produces CO2 upon burning, and that won't help the underlying issue at all.

11/4/2007 12:56:22 PM

Already been addressed. The Carbon released into the atmosphere is recycled carbon and does not add to the carbon cycle. Petroleum carbon is a net increase.

11/4/2007 3:12:14 PM

Already been addressed. The Carbon released into the atmosphere is recycled carbon and does not add to the carbon cycle. Petroleum carbon is a net increase.

11/4/2007 5:46:31 PM

My bust.

11/5/2007 4:27:02 PM

Isn't there some problem with transporting ethanol in a pipeline? ie, wouldnt there be additional costs to transport ethanol, like transporting it by a truck or boat, which would emit petro co2?

Also what is the energy difference in gasoline and ethanol? Like if 10 gallons of gasoline could take you 200 miles, 10 gallons of ethanol could take you ___ miles

Also a gallon of ethanol is slightly more expensive than a gallon of gasoline, correct?

11/5/2007 4:50:19 PM

Cellulitic ethanol is about $1.25 to produce, less than gasoline. Plus, with ethanol, the plan is to produce it around the country, that way shipping does not become a huge problem. The major difference between biofuels and petrol is that petrol is geographically isolated on where it can be produced, biofuels are not.

11/5/2007 5:02:43 PM

Quote :

"Isn't there some problem with transporting ethanol in a pipeline? ie, wouldnt there be additional costs to transport ethanol, like transporting it by a truck or boat, which would emit petro co2?"

yeah if it comes in contact with jet fuel (kerosene), good luck trying to fly that plane when the engines wont work

11/5/2007 5:05:04 PM

Quote :

"Cellulitic ethanol is about $1.25 to produce"

Then no subsidy is needed, greedy investors will race to increase production as fast as their money will carry it. As this is not taking place then I suspect your dollar figure to be incorrect.

11/5/2007 5:30:39 PM

I know right, since there is such a massive market for ethanol powered cars!!

11/5/2007 6:48:21 PM

fuck you ethanol is good.

(for horsepower atleast)

ethanol is TOO EASY to make thats why oil companies and investors don't like it. once cars start running on it jo bob and jimbo can buy grain and start their own fuel company.

[Edited on November 5, 2007 at 7:05 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2007 7:02:34 PM

so 15 years from now when we have ethanol pumps, all the kids will have to do to get drunk on the weekend will be to buy "gas for the lawnmower"

11/5/2007 8:21:54 PM

they get around that in Brazil by putting in an additive that makes you really really sick

youll pretty much throw up your insides

see family guy

11/5/2007 8:23:22 PM

THEY DELIBERATELY POISON THEIR CHILDREN IN BRAZIL???? SHAME ON THEM!!! shame.

11/5/2007 8:26:06 PM

perhaps you fucking retards missed the fact that its NOT COMMERCIALLY VIABLE.

gasoline right now COSTS about 2 bucks a gallon.

ethanols REAL COST is above that. Saying it costs $1.25 to produce is not true, because it doesn't account for the billions in sudsidies and incentives for it's production that we pay in taxes.

it will not work on a large scale, you cant produce enough of it.

it DOES have a significant negative micro-environmental impact in certain regions of the country

its not a solution long term or short term. it's a way to keep corner manufacturers propped up a little longer.

You are substituting one carbon fuel for another that is more expensive in real cost. Even if it were cheaper, electric is still the only viable option we have for large scale commercial change.

11/6/2007 2:31:59 AM

Quote :

"I know right, since there is such a massive market for ethanol powered cars!!"

Any car whenever made will burn a mixture of 85% gasoline and 15% ethanol without issue. As such, there is no need for ethanol vehicles, we already own them. Changes would only be warranted after 15% of all gasoline sold was Ethanol, which it is not close to being.

11/6/2007 9:24:15 AM

Quote :

"You are substituting one carbon fuel for another "

not true. ethanol does release CO2 when it burns, but the corn gets it's CO2 from the atmosphere. Therefore, it is fairly carbon neutral. (of course there are things like transportation, production, etc. that use fossil fuels, but it is still a MAJOR reduction in net atmospheric carbon over fossil fuels)

11/6/2007 9:53:25 AM

Quote :

"Any car whenever made will burn a mixture of 85% gasoline and 15% ethanol without issue. As such, there is no need for ethanol vehicles, we already own them."

Huh, are you saying that any car made now will burn E85, because this isn't true?

Furthermore, it's just the slow effect of capitalism. Car makers aren't making E85d cars because the price difference isn't big enough for consumers to demand it (yet). Since the demand isn't there, you don't have capitalist running in droves to supply ethanol. Since it's hard to get and the price difference isn't enough, consumers don't want it. Etc.

Even if it literally only costs $1.25 to make, the capitalists don't get to make their tons of money until the network to supply it is built out, until the car makers get fully on board with every car made, and so on and so forth.

I figure for someone with your knowledge of econ, something this simple should be easy to understand.

11/6/2007 10:41:01 AM