Days of Promise Fade for Ethanol http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/us/17ethanol.html This quote has several points of interest. Note the drop in gasoline fuel demand, which sounds about right. I mention this because the question comes up often on PriusChat, so hopefully these are solid numbers. The glut in ethanol could cause gaso prices to rise (having to do with EPA ethanol rules). Also refiners may have to pay for their failure to also use non-corn based ethanol, a commodity which does not yet exist (Congress had hoped it would exist by now). http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/business/energy-environment/ethanol-glut-threatens-a-rise-in-gasoline-prices.html
Unfortunately, retail ethanol is not priced by relative energy cost. Rather at the pump, it shadows E10 price. Just watch what happens during the twice per year, price changes. In late winter Jan-Feb, gasoline based fuels go up . . . and so too does E85 ethanol. During late fall Oct-Nov, gasoline based fuels go down . . . and so too does E85 ethanol. If ethanol were priced relative to the energy content, a lot more would be sold. But like selling straight gas, it is a seller's market and the buyers have no leverage. I can find no technical 'show stoppers' against ethanol in temperate climates and the cold-weather starting problem is solvable. Just from an economic standpoint, E85 makes no sense. The cost-per-mile is significantly higher than E10. One might as well run straight gas as ethanol as neither is energy content priced. Bob Wilson
First E15 gas station gets warning from ConocoPhillips, might have to stop ethanol sales Ethanol advocates poke fun at Big Oil with "Century of Subsidies" party
I am no fan of E15, but I would prefer to see it fail in the marketplace to being the target of a a monopoly.
Having 'done the experiment': E50 works - there may be sub-freezing starting problems but these can be mitigated E85 works with nuisances - may need a can of 'cold start' in freezing weather and an ignorable 'check engine' code. Both can probably be resolved using an injector spoof. E10 tested - no problem (or alternative) E15 not yet available - if energy content priced, no problem Ethanol, gasoline, and diesel are not energy content priced Solve the cost per mile or cost per BTU problem and consumers will choose the lower cost per mile fuel. Bob Wilson
Ethanol lobby of course would like to see E15 mandated. But the Renewable Fuel Standard, I am thinking, mandates that the oil companies blend in biomass derived fuels starting soon. One problem is these biomass fuels are not successfully made yet, so refineries may have to pay a fine for not blending in the non-existent biomass-derived fuels. However, at some point these plants will hopefully start making biomass-derived fuels. Obvioulsy there is a lot of pressure to mandate biofuels and ethanol inclusion into fuels. Not very eloquent, I know. PS- thanks Bob for saving this thread from extinction
Absolutely, but.... that graph is wrong. Gas has about 34.2 MJ/L (average blend, wide variance summer/winter regional) E10 33.2 Ethanol 24 (73% of the energy in E10) So E15 should have 32.7 or 98.5% as much energy as E10. The problem for us consumers is not that 1.5% that probably goes right into the pockets of ADM and the congresscritters they bribe. The problem is it may cause problems with our cars. I have no idea about the prius, but everyone tested to E10 now the government wants it to be E15. That certainly won't make the air cleaner or do a bit to stop global warming, but it may make cars break down sooner and food prices go up. I would like a open fuel standard where New cars could burn up to E85 or M85, and it really won't cost much more. Then if we get a real oil price spike we could deal with pumps with cheaper methanol or ethanol blends. If its mandated to go E15 its not going to lower prices at all.
Eventually human transportation and industrial processes are going to be solar based: photosynthesis - carbon capture to biofuels including alcohols photovoltaic - to electrons solar concentrators - high temperature heat for thermal reduction and heat engines Fossil fuels will become too expensive to recover and planet warming will force changes even in the absence of public policy. Bob Wilson
E10 decreased usage is a good thing. The acreage used for corn derived E10 needs to be used for FOOD production, not going into gas tanks. E15, which ADM is pushing = bad idea for consumers. Manufacturer warranty states E10 max to be used in my '08 Prius. Not only are car manufacturers against E15, boating, outdoor power equipment, and others are anti E85. Mechanics are busy with correcting water issues in fuel systems in fuel systems of todays' engines, be it FI or TBI. MBTE was not the way to go, so ethanol was used as a replacement. I have yet to see definitive polution reduction in vehicle emissions directly asa result of E10 usage. DBCassidy
^^^$64,000 question when is that? I agree with your sentiment. Oxygenates really never showed reduced emissions on cars equipped with catalytic converters. The real reason for ethanol is the corn lobby, and I suppose we *might* say some reduced use of petroleum. We should probably hold the line at 10% as far as EPA mandate, of course if 15% is marketable on its own merits that's fine. But there are only so many gas pump flavors. Sunoco used to have user dial in the blend, that might work.
We have a number of conflicting goals here. Car manufacturers did not design or test their engines/fuel systems for E15, and that is bad on systems not designed for it. E15 and Engines - Can Ethanol Damage my Engine - Popular Mechanics If you think that the government wouldn't do anything to force you to damage your car, think again. CARB has done two different programs without adequate testing - reformulated diesel that damaged many engines and forced mbte that polluted ground water. As discussed in that article with modern fuel injection and electronics the pollution from less than 10% ethanol won't go up. If you include land use, corn based ethanol does not reduce ghg in any significant way, but may increase water pollution. Environmentally it is a fail. Which leaves only reduced oil use, as the one thing more ethanol can help with. I have no problem with more ethanol for cars designed for it, but cost should be a consideration. If we do mandate cars to be designed to burn higher ethanol, and the reason is to decrease oil use, they should also be designed for higher methanol. Gore has admitted to making a mistake when he cast the tie breaking vote as vice president, to encapsule this ethanol mandate into law. Bush took a bad idea and made it worse. I think the current administration could get a lot of energy credit by backing away from the bad policies, or at least reducing the mandate. Obama isn't going to run again, so there should not be the fear that dropping the mandate will lose him farm votes, the real impetus of the bad policy making. At least the subsidy is gone, but the mandate needs to be changed. I have nothing against substituting alcohol for oil, in fact I support it. If that is the policy though lets not pretend it will help the environment, and we should also make sure we don't damage cars. The easiest way to make sure cars work for future government alcohol policies is to pass the open fuel standards bill. Then at least vehicles will be ready, and costs are not high. Then if you tax oil, instead of mandate alcohol, the market can move. If say we doubled the federal fuel taxes, which we need on roads projects anyway, and ethanol or methanol got taxed at a lower rate, a great deal of methanol would be added to gasoline at current prices. The fleet needs to be able to burn the alcohol blends first though.
The legal/ liability side is perhaps the largest part of the issue concerning increased use of ethanol in current engines being used. Not only are OTR vehicles, but all gas engines in use today. Manufacturers limit (majority) to a max of E10. If a mandate of E15 is forced upon us, then your current warranty is probabily null and void. Engine manufacturers have a written contract with the end users. They do not want to see an uptick in warrenteed fuel system issues. DBCassidy
Are you saying Gore made the deciding vote on the 1990 Clean Air amendments, ethanol provisions? Bush apparently was convinced oil supply was locked in the hands of Venezuela and Iran etc and so he passed the expansion of ethanol to 10% and supported dems with their EV/PHEV rebate law (later extended by Obama) and the ongoing biomass conversion projects for renewable fuels. Today the energy situation looks totally different of course. I don't know if Bush was just being complacent at the will of the democrat congress or if he really was worried. I opposed that act but my demo Congressman in VA wrote me to say I was wrong because switchgrass was going to save VA economy, first time I heard of switchgrass.
No he cast the tie breaking vote in the senate as vice president to create the ethanol mandate. Its a position that he has publicly spoken about with regret. He has said he thought it would help him in iowa in 2000. Obviously after losing the presidential election he is free to admit the corruptions of the primary season. Bush took many photo ops with plug-ins so I don't think he was simply complicit, he was a driver. He might have been complicit on in the ethanol standards, but again I think he helped drive the law. I would give him at least part of the credit or blaim depending on your viewpoint. IMHO there is credit for plug-ins and blaime on ethanol. Switchgrass may turn into a wonderful thing, or a dud. I have no problem helping switchgrass/ethanol R&D, my problem i mandating that we use the alcohol even when no one can produce it economocially.
I don't spend time following the ethanol debate so I don't have a lot to add, except I am very familiar with switchgrass as a source of biomass. There have been studies and testing of switchgrass going on in Southern Iowa for a long time (10+ years?). Mostly as a fuel source to replace coal, but some related to distilling. At various times I've been involved with planting, maintaining (prescribed fire), and seed harvest. Switchgrass is a tall native prairie grass, native to most "prairie" ecosystems in the midwest. It has a small seed and is easily established (easy to plant/drill/broadcast) successfully, does not require fertilizer/lime/soil amendments, does not require the use of herbicides, is relatively cheap to buy/grow, thrives on poor soils, and can be maintained indefinitely without replanting. It produces a very high tonnage of organic material per acre, which is why it has been studied. It's basically a plant that was in North America when Europeans settled here, but was mostly wiped out when everything was plowed up to make farms. Many of the strains of switchgrass that are known to exist were obtained originally from small prairie remnants (like prairie homestead cemetaries) that escaped the plow back in the 1800's. Of course, humans have since carried out breeding/genetic alterations to where many varieties are available today. It's makes excellent wildlife habitat. I've shot many Pheasants out of switchgrass patches. Not uncommon to grow over 6' tall and gives wildlife great winter cover. Whitetail deer love to bed down and hide in it.
But I am confused, the decisive ethanol mandate battle was part of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The compromise at that time was Ethanol+MTBE. Later there were adjustments, but by then ethanol/oxygenates was already mandated.
Here is the information from an editorial popped up with a quick google. I'm sure you can find more information if you want about the circumstance and later gore speaches about the vote Review & Outlook: Al Gore's Ethanol Epiphany - WSJ.com The senate sought to end the de fato mandate as the piece put it, that was an accidental problem caused by epa saying oxygenates could only be ethanol. We can't leave the blaim with just gore though. 1994, 2005, and 2005 democrats then republicans expanded ethanol's mandate.
