Filed under: Ethanol, Flex-Fuel, Legislation and Policy
Ethanol: Burn It or Drink It?
The New York Times editorial page went after corn from ethanol last month. It landed some well placed punches. Corn for fuel means less corn for animal feed and human food products. Lopsided US tax policies (incentives for US farmers, tariffs for Brazilian farmers) are blamed for getting us into this situation. The result: higher prices all around, distorted world markets, and minimal overall environmental benefit. This is important because ethanol production is on the increase in Europe and Asia and it is already a major factor in Brazil.
My view is a bit more moderate. I think it is good to have vehicles on the road than can use large amounts of ethanol - up to the 85 percent ethanol blend in E85. (Most cars can already tolerate up to 10 percent ethanol in gasoline.) Why? Let's just say "In case of an emergency." Remember we have ~240 million vehicles in this country and less than 10 million can use E85. Another reason: As long as the ethanol-capable vehicles are out there, investors in ethanol-not-from-corn will keep pushing to bring down production costs and make their product available.
What it comes down to, I fear, is the idea that we still expect to have more energy - more fuel - for our vehicles each year. That doesn't lower greenhouse gases. So far, green efforts have only lowered the rate of increase of greenhouse gases. While the rest of the world is clamoring to get their first and only car and want to use it, most Americans have two or three vehicles on the driveway. Can we use them less?
Whether it is by hybrids or public transit or EVs or biodiesel or ethanol, the sad fact is that we are supposed to burn less fuel if we want to slow global warming, pollution problems and traffic congestion. We have to go on an energy diet. As for ethanol, I would use some for a hybrid vehicle, and then drink the rest. In moderation, of course.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Phil L. 11:43AM (10/26/2007)
Your post raises far more issues than the title suggests.
Can the human race as a whole go on an "energy diet" in a manner doesn't result in massive upheaval? Note that humans have long resolved large-scale concerns by waging war; something we'd like to avoid this time.
Industrialized nations will want to maintain their lifestyle; developing nations will want to grow. How do we decide who gets what? The American suburban/urban residence/work model is predicated on cheap, readily available energy and convenient personal transportation. Significantly changing this approach would itself require lots of energy. What is the best direction to head?
Personally, I can live with driving my ethanol share: I'm only an occasional drinker. But I'd really love a decent, affordable commuter EV; I'd be willing to give up one of the gas-burners in my driveway to get one. But I've nearly given up: Currently, they're either unaffordable, or eBay basket case projects I don't have time to complete.
Reply
Evan 2:50PM (10/26/2007)
Finally someone sees it my way, to bad I missed the original article in the NYT. I love E85 but I hate ethanol from corn. It takes 1 unit of energy (typically from natural gas) to make 1.1 units of energy in ethanol. So honestly it does not lower carbon production that much though the ethanol itself is carbon neutral. Secondly we need to eat and corn is a major part of that so the more ethanol we can get from a acre means less acres taken from corn and soybean production. If engines are designed to run on E85 or even E98 the can be made MORE efficient than gasoline engines with the use of current turbo/supercharger technology. But until the government subsidizes infrastructure for E85 , engines will not be designed to run solely on it. And the pace of adoption of it will be slow.
Reply
Bob Moffitt (Bob from ALAMN) 3:04PM (10/26/2007)
We are doing what we can to build the E85 infrastructure in the upper Midwest, where a lot of corn is grown, we have ethanol plants, oil refineries and blending racks, and a lot of people who drive flex fuel vehicles. It's a pretty efficient system -- and people WILL buy E85 when they have a choice. We have proven this.
Those say they like E85 but hate corn are going to have to get used to the idea that corn-based E85 will build the market and demand for cellulosic ethanol. Without the market (many more E85 pumps and FFVs), cellulosic ethanol will NEVER become a reality.
So think of corn as the pioneer feedstock that cuts the trail and builds the market for ethanol made from grass or wood. The first cellulosic ethanol plants will likely be "add ons" to existing corn ethanol plants. It makes sense, as the fuel produced from either source is chemically identical, and burns the same way in an FFV.
As always, see more on E85 (and Biodiesel!) at www.CleanAirChoice.org
Reply
Stéphane Dumas 4:44PM (10/26/2007)
perhaps someone already mentionned it on AutoblogGreen, there an article from Car & Driver from July 2007 http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/13101/a-smarter-way-to-use-ethanol-to-reduce-gasoline-consumption.html:
Here the exterpt:"... the idea is Ethanol Boosting Systems, or EBS. The idea is to take advantage of ethanol’s naturally high octane number and excellent cooling ability to employ high boost pressure in a supercharged gasoline engine. Such an engine would develop huge power and torque, allowing it to then be downsized to improve fuel economy without sacrificing performance....", maybe we find a way to bypass some of the ethanol inconviences.
And as Bob Moffitt mentionned, the corn ethanol had paved the way for cellulosic ethanol.
Reply
MikeW 1:29AM (10/27/2007)
Flaming Moe's?
The EBS is a red herring. Gasoline direct injection already gives all the advantage today. The Audi 3.1V6 has a 12.5:1 compression ratio. (They may have raised it a smidge for the new A4/5)
Ethanol fueled engines are not more efficient than gasoline engines now-a-days. (maybe in five years with HCCI this will all be moot) Such an engine now would need a 15:1 compression ratio (naturally aspirated) and 12.5:1 for a turbo engine. (Audi's current 2.0T is 10.5:1)
This would pigeon hole you. If you couldn't find E70+ you'd be in trouble, because some places like Cali only have 91AKI premium, and you would have no spark advance at all.
I am still waiting for the E10 gasoline to raise the AKI.
If we (the US) want better mileage, we need better fuel.
Toyota already sells the Camry V6 that takes 95RON fuel, and for the mid-cycle refresh Toyota would love to sell the camry (or at least the ES350) with a 300hp transverse 2gr-fse (direct injection V6) which takes 98RON.
We need an 'ethanol octane boost', now.
Reply