Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

E85 Still Not Worth It

With gas prices around $3.50/gallon even here in North Dakota (usually we’re a bit cheaper on gas than the rest of the nation) I was tempted to stop in and fill up with the ethanol fuel blend E85 (my Yukon is a flex fuel vehicle) when I saw that it was being sold at $2.89/gallon.

Before I did, however, I went back and reviewed an article I wrote last year about using E85 in my dad’s GMC Yukon, which is the same year and model of vehicle that I drive:

The Yukon has a 31 gallon tank. Driving until the gas gauge was pointing directly at “E” the miles per gallon calculator indicated that [my dad] had gotten 19.1 miles to the gallon using 87 octane which he purchased for $3.09/gallon. That works out to about 6.18 miles for every one dollar of purchased gasoline.

Next he filled up with E-85, which cost him $2.45/gallon. He again drove until the gas gauge was pointing directly at “E” and according to the gas gauge calculator (which he’d reset upon re-filling the tank) he had gotten 13.1 miles to the gallon. That works out to about 5.34 miles for every one dollar of purchased E-85 fuel.

At that time there was a $0.64/gallon price differential between the regular 85 octane gasoline and E85.  Using the ethanol blend cost my dad a little less than one mile of mileage per dollar of fuel purchased.  Meaning that using E85 one would actually have to spend more on fuel, even at the starkly cheaper price, to travel the same distance.

Right now the price differential between E85 and regular 85 octane fuel is $0.61/gallon, so going with the ethanol blend still isn’t worth it.  Especially when one considers that the only reason E85 is so much cheaper than the regular fuel is because our tax dollars are being used to both subsidize its production and buy down its price at the pump.  Of course, I have to pay those tax dollars whether I use E85 or not, so maybe it’s a moot point, but still.  Even with all these politicians trying to cram ethanol fuels down my throat, and even with gas prices sky-high, I’m still better off buying regular gasoline.

The only thing that could help the ethanol situation is for our government to drop its $0.54/gallon tariff on imported ethanol from places like Brazil.  That would make E85 fuel a lot cheaper at the pump, perhaps even making it a truly cheaper alternative to gasoline, but it isn’t going to happen any time soon.  Because all this rhetoric from politicians about “renewable energy” and “ending our dependence on middle eastern oil” isn’t really about those things as its about making big agriculture and big biofuel companies really, really rich.

Comments

Avatar for Robert Perry

I dunno how much cheaper it would be.  Probably you’d get an equilibrium price about 20 cents per gallon cheaper, and you’d still end up behind with ethanol.

Robert Perry on May 22, 2007 at 09:10 am
Avatar for Will

man, now we gotta do math :(

They need to get those stickers they have at the grocery store that tell you what the price per ounce is.

Will on May 22, 2007 at 10:08 am
Rob
Rob
19492 comments
Send a private message

Well, they do put the price per gallon on the sign wink

I’d be a little hard for them to tell you how much it’ll cost to drive a mile as fuel efficiency varies from vehicle to vehicle.

Robert, I don’t know how much cheaper ethanol would be at the pump either were Brazilian ethanol allowed into the country.  We have to remember that Brazil isn’t the only source for ethanol, and that were we to drop the tariff a lot more foreign farmers might start growing the crop, thus flooding the market with ethanol.

What’s ridiculous is that our government has artifically inflated the price of foreign ethanol while simultaneously deflating the price (though not really as it still costs us tax dollars) of domestic ethanol.

That makes absolutely no sense, unless you’re a politician more worried about protecting your contributors than what’s best for the country.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 22, 2007 at 10:37 am

Here’s a calculator that let’s you compare the prices with different assumptions about number of miles highway vs city.  It has the mpg city/hwy for both E85 and pure gasoline.

Comparing his numbers to the sticker number, it appears he drove the Yukon in city traffic more when he was using E85.

Based on current numbers, it is a break even to use E85 over the summer.

Carrick on May 22, 2007 at 10:46 am
Avatar for Robert Perry

That makes absolutely no sense, unless you’re a politician more worried about protecting your contributors than what’s best for the country.

Our gracious host nails it.  I think the politicians also don’t like shrimp.  (runoff from cornfields created a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico that reduces seafood harvests)

Robert Perry on May 22, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Avatar for Bob from ALAMN

There are many other reasons to us E85 instead of gas other than price. E85 is cleaner-burning than gasoline, and a FFV that uses E85 will emmit four tons less greenhouse gas pollutants in every year. Some use E85 because that want to help local farmers make a mostly renewable, American-made fuel. Some do it out of simple patriotism. If YOU are ready to use E85, see our website:

http://www.CleanAirChoice.org

Bob from ALAMN on May 22, 2007 at 01:01 pm

There are many other reasons to us E85 instead of gas other than price.

We can help the poor, starving inhabitants of central American nations starve faster, raise the price of beef and chicken… a whole lot of good things come from E85!!!!!

/sarcasm

Seth Yantiss on May 22, 2007 at 01:20 pm

Bob, and I use the moniker with reservation, what do you suggest people eat? Dirt? Turn all ag output to ethanol production and you will replace about 2/5 of petroleum refined fuels. Are you really willing to starve a large number of people in order to make low-grade fuel? Is that actually your position?


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on May 22, 2007 at 01:25 pm

Hey, “Bob”, clean air = Nuclear Power.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on May 22, 2007 at 01:29 pm
Avatar for Biofuelsimon

I think you’re wide of the mark blaming Big Biofuel, for a couple of reasons, firstly compared to big oil, big biofuel is like a flea on the back of a rhino and secondly biofuel companies are usually squeezed between the consumer, and the farm companies that dominate the US corn market

If I was going to blame anyone, and I’m not into the blame game as a rule, I’d blame the shareholders/owners of firms like ADM and Cargill first before the biofuel people. The sharholders and owners are addicted to money from the government in the form of the farm bill.

Fundamentally, if you’re only getting 19 mpg from your motor, maybe you should buy Japanese or something. Unless you have to haul building materials/farm animals around.

Otherwise taking the tariff off imported biofuels (you’re right Bob, that should happen) will only fuel the US’ addiction to unnecessarily large and unnecessarily uneconomic cars.

Biofuelsimon on May 23, 2007 at 02:50 am
Avatar for Bill Wolski

Lifting the tariffs will help E85 availability, but not affect pump price much, as demand will quickly absorb the product (and Brazil will quickly make a windfall profit on their export). We have a long way to go to make ethanol even price competitive with gasoline without subsidies. The rack price (distributor price before taxes) of E85 is about $2.30/gal in the U.S. Gasoline rack prices are about half that. The difference at the pump for E85 is from tax savings and subsidies.

The only favorable economic model is in Brazil where Ethanol gasoline is sold at half the price of its petroleum counterpart and the engines sold in new cars are built for ethanol as a primary fuel source, so you actually get 10-15 percent better mpg.

At this time, E85 usage in the U.S. is a national security issue. Pay the few cents per gallon more. Support the fledgling industry. You already are through your tax dollars. One large ship sunk in the Straits of Hormuz could disrupt half of the world’s oil supply. Forget about gas at $4.00/gallon. Think $20/gallon.E85, a homegrown U.S. industry, is THE only answer. Let’s support it by buying it whenever we can.

The economics will change as new enzymes are developed for conversion of corn and cellulosic plants to ethanol. There are billions being spent for enzyme R&D right now. Brazilians are blessed with sugarcane which has the highest conversion factors for plant materials to ethanol obtainable today. Their industry is heavily subsidized by the Brazilian government.

Bill Wolski on May 23, 2007 at 02:58 am
Avatar for eric

FFV s aren’t optimized to run e85 by the way. They are gasoline biased...You can get better fuel economy and more power if increase compression ratio’s but thats another story. America seems hooked onto gasoline. Alot of people dont like change. They would rather support the guy in the middle east than their own farmers.

eric on May 23, 2007 at 03:22 am

Y’all have clearly stated your position. Starvation for millions of people instead of drilling and refining our own petroleum. Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot would be proud.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on May 23, 2007 at 04:04 am

Ethanol is stupid.  It’s driving the cost of food in America through the roof and it will only get worse as goverment interferes more. Way to go Bush!


I think Rob hates me… I mean, just look at the pic he took of me!

Sphagnum on May 23, 2007 at 05:01 am

Spaghetti, love the new avatar, is that the grandson? Or the neighbor kid that won’t leave you alone?


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on May 23, 2007 at 05:09 am
Avatar for mark c r UK

The price will come down when cellulosic ethanol goes commercial plus ... with the introduction of biobutanol that rediculously small MPG… (really you Americans need to start looking at the vehicles you buy! I say that in a friendly way.)..... will come back up significantly due to the higher BTU content of butanol.

I must also add. Its alarming how many misconceptions are around on Ethanol. Particuarly the public non-understanding of the difference between that and the existing technology. A factor of 30 difference in terms of the energy (therefore cost) balance on existing ethanol.

Additionally, biobutanol will make consumers like you happier, plus “big oil & biofuel” will behappier since it resists water contamination better than EtOH and can be pipelined easier.

("big biofuel” - you mean a big business made up of thousands of small players… relative to petrochems!!! NB* I’m currently acting as a consultant organic chemist - to biodiesel manufacturers using waste vegetable oils and virgin biomass to create fuel for commercial vehicle fleets… i.e. waste-to-fuel)…

mark c r UK on May 23, 2007 at 07:07 am

mark:

The price will come down when cellulosic ethanol goes commercial

I’ve said the same ... the problem is that they are artificially pushing ethanol from corn kernels through subsidies, and frankly this is a gamble.

If it turns out that the cellulosic ethanol is a viable commercial technology, no doubt having an available market will kick start it.  But there aren’t any guarantees that cellulosic ethanol will ever be a commercially viable technology. Since the current corn-kernel based fuel simply isn’t scalable, in that case we will just have a royal cluster [beep] on our hands.

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 07:17 am
Avatar for mark c r UK

"I must also add. Its alarming how many misconceptions are around on Ethanol. Particuarly the public non-understanding of the difference between that and the existing technology. A factor of 30 difference in terms of the energy (therefore cost) balance on existing ethanol.”

Here I am refering to the difference between existing ethanol processes and cellulosic ethanol.

People need to start getting into the “nitty gritty” and minutae detail (as we say here in Britain") before going off on one regarding this.

People need to keep tabs on new developments in this area. They are happening weekly… these are global issues also… look to whats happening (here) in the EU… like I am interested in whats happening over the pond in the US. This area is linked.

mark c r UK on May 23, 2007 at 07:17 am

2Hotel9:

Y’all have clearly stated your position. Starvation for millions of people instead of drilling and refining our own petroleum.

Well, now, that’s a bit of an overstatement!

Even at its worst, this program won’t create any starvation.  It could make food expensive, create a spiral of inflation followed by a tanking of our economy.  Not great, but nothing for Pol Pot to fantasize about.

I’m personally 100% for domestic drilling and for new refinery investment.  Both of these are blocked by the same dweebs who are pushing the ethanol fuel so hard.  I’m also 100% for nuclear power technology investment.  There have been some really great reactor design ideas in the last 30 years that would make new reactors much safer than previous generations (not that American reactors have exactly had a troubled history in any case).

Bill Wolski is correct.  We need to ween ourselves entirely from mideastern oil That oil money frankly is the main reason we have islamic terrorism.  Wealthy individuals and nations are underwriting pathological organizations like Hamas, al Qaeda and Hezbullah.  Cut the oil money off, and you’ll cut off the pump fueling these terrorist thugs.

And finally, Bill makes a good point about Brazil subsidizing their industry.  It’s tough to say no tariffs or sanctions when the other guy isn’t playing fair.

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 07:29 am
Avatar for mark c r UK

"If it turns out that the cellulosic ethanol is a viable commercial technology, no doubt having an available market will kick start it.  But there aren’t any guarantees that cellulosic ethanol will ever be a commercially viable technology.”

My money right now (in my pocket) is for the likes of Novozymes and others to be successful in this area. They’ve already won a Presidential Award for Green Chemistry previously using their supported enzyme technology in the chemical industry. Additionally the US has numerous (Novozymes are EU based originally), home grown organisations.

Then there are the spin offs - with environmental benefits to the chemical industry. Look up “integrated biorefinery” - on Google - look for use of succinic acid.... and other “PLATFORM MOLECULES” - you’ll see that academia is on this project too.... - related to “sustainable chemistry”. Also check out “Green Chemistry” - ideas been around for over 10 years. With developments here in Europe and in Asia. For some reason its been alittle slower in the US?!?

People. I don’t know if many US citizens noticed the Queen’s recent trip to the US?!? - In one speech alongside the US President - she mentioned “technological developments” specifically being of importance between the US and UK (stroke EU). This to me was blatant references to this area (amongst others). Shows that the Queen obviously keeps in touch with many many areas! And understands much. Big respect for that!
BP one of the UK’s biggest companies is working in this very area with one of the US’s biggest companies also - DuPont.

What I am saying is that - US consumers need to be patient. Technologically developments are happening.

In terms of the Corn kernel issues and subsidies - these are ECONOMIC arguments.

People may wish to check out Tim Habb and John Whitehead’s entertaining blog on ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS (environmental-economics.net) - both US based.
http://www.env-econ.net/

mark c r UK on May 23, 2007 at 07:31 am
Avatar for Robert Perry

Mark in UK, I’d like to believe that you’re 100% correct, but until someone demonstrates an economically feasible (profitable) process, “cellulosistic ethanol” remains in the realm of “ifs and buts, if they were candy and nuts, boy what a party we’d have!”

In other words, one can get any number of “Presidential awards” and still have a completely worthless technology.  I hope that you’re right and this becomes feasible.  However, it isn’t there yet, and you should be honest enough to admit it.

Robert Perry on May 23, 2007 at 07:34 am

If e85 is that much less efficient, it must be causing much more pollution per mile and per gallon. Also, if the experiment is old, perhaps they have tweaked the stuff in the interim. Just a thought. Can’t get that stuff around here… I generally buy 89 anyway. In the midwest y’all can get 84 octane eh? One time, on a roadtrip from Vermont to Colorado (28 hours, beat that) to go skiing in ‘98 or ‘99 one of my buddies filled up with 84 in Nebraska right before we got to Colorado b/c it was 75 cents a gallon, it was his turn to fill up, and everyone else was asleep. You should have seen us trying to climb the rockies. We were going about 20-25mph due to the low elevation oxygen intake settings and the 84 octane. I wanted to strangle my buddy. It was my car too. Cheapskate.


Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie Arbuckle on May 23, 2007 at 08:02 am
Avatar for mark c r UK

"Mark in UK, I’d like to believe that you’re 100% correct, but until someone demonstrates an economically feasible (profitable) process, “cellulosistic ethanol” remains in the realm of “ifs and buts, if they were candy and nuts, boy what a party we’d have!” “

Companies of interest include Abengoa, Iogen (linked with SHELL), Sunopta, Genencor, Diversa, Syngenta, DuPont (linked with BP), and Novozymes amongst others.

Maybe people would like to look some of these examples up for commercial announcements (Google?).

I’m on GMT and pushed for time until this evening - but I’ll try and provide some URLS of these (cellulosic ethanol intentions or plant constructions).... plus some of the chemical spin-offs of companies intent on using byproducts (of fuel processing as “platform molecules” ALSO some of the research in chemistry in converting these molecules to value added products - i.e. those with commercial use).- (if those interested reading this?) .... note this is my academic background before consultancy - so I apologise if I bore people.

You can see the spin off is one related to a sustainable chemical industry based on renewable feedstocks? Especially promising if using clean technologies and applying the ideas of Green Chemistry. Take not just my word for that - more eminent academics beleive this is true also...!

mark c r UK on May 23, 2007 at 08:26 am
Avatar for Robert Perry

Sparkie; probably that 25mph was not just due to 85 octane (all you need in thin air with a carbeuretor), but rather the fact that you had 20% less oxygen to burn and hence 20% less horsepower.  Until about 1995, most new cars really didn’t have the horsepower to go up to Eisenhower Tunnel at the speed limit.  (thanks, CAFE limits!)

And pollution?  Remember that ethanol burns differently than gasoline, producing different pollutants.  Comparing the emissions is difficult at best.

And Mark, yes there are research programs, both in government and industry, for this.  However, 90%+ of the things done in research never make it to market.  There are demonstrations of principle (we can make alcohol out of most anything) and demonstrations of economic feasibility.  In this case, we have the former but not the latter, and we shouldn’t forget this fact.

Robert Perry on May 23, 2007 at 08:46 am
Avatar for mark c r UK

"If e85 is that much less efficient, it must be causing much more pollution per mile and per gallon.”

This is where Ford’s $100bn loss (biggest in 100 years) and GM’s problems come in. Toyota and Honda were already ahead (strategic global market place… not just US market)… to the point that responses by them would come too late…

Big (heavy and over powered - or not “intelligently powered") SUV’s and the like… and their very low efficiencies are as much the problem. Something the US has had a fixation on....... compare the average MPGs for European, Asian and American vehicles.

Also compare efficiencies of motors using gasoline (30% for internal combustion engine - but up to 60% for electric via fuel cell powered....) Then imagine fuel cell using ETHANOL via - reformed technology on board… or even better not requiring it - using it directly i.e. next generation SOFC or similar)…

What I am trying to say that is fuel cell technology is as much part to play here too.

Readers need to be bringing multiple different clean technologies together if Global warming, Hubberts Peak.. and if civilisation is to adapt to the ending of the era of cheap oil. (i.e. that is readily extracted and refined - plus geopolitical problems driving supply problems - i.e. middle east etc).

People can see a convergance of ideas and solutions here. Plus the references to the spin-offs I mentioned previously.

This is why the US and UK (rest of EU) cannot afford not to be at the front of these innovations.

Just as a side issue. In the UK - the knowledge economy - 30% of the population generate 60% of the wealth. As much a consequence of much manufacturing moving to Asia as the US has seen also happen.

These sorts of innovations - hi technology help bring a balance in the global economy..... but on this - I’ll let people think further....

mark c r UK on May 23, 2007 at 08:49 am
Avatar for mark c r UK

"Remember that ethanol burns differently than gasoline, producing different pollutants.  Comparing the emissions is difficult at best.”

It is easy - SHELL have a facility here in the UK they do these tests to ensure regulations are met with - only 20 miles from me right now.

- Adaption of the auto cats to alcohol combustion within a plug flow micro reactor was a project I did my masters in funnily enough! smile (i.e. was in catalysis).

Yes the pollutants are different - a computer model recently from someone at Berkley found this to be suggested. The major pollutant being Ozone (not at massively increased levels as today - actually. Also some potential carcinogens were reduced. The geographical area was the Eastern US ALSO NOTE that the model is still under academic debate!).
Also readers should note that this model didnt take account of changes in the autocats (such as what I researched as a Masters student) - plus factor in when people replace them or get newer vehicles.

Also - fuel cell technology (via reforming onboard ethanol) should eliminate this problem almost entirely. (see last comment)

mark c r UK on May 23, 2007 at 09:00 am

mark c r UK
I’ve read that Hubbert’s Peak book. Its really good. Informative and its like an intro class in petrology.

most new cars really didn’t have the horsepower to go up to Eisenhower Tunnel at the speed limit

robert perry
we drove up there in an unplowed blizzard. it was just like driving into pure white. my friends couldn’t look, but i grew up in the hills of vermont so gimme some Nokians, front wheel drive, and a 5 speed and i can drive through anything unless its deep enough to come over the hood/windshield. at any rate, i knew if we stopped someone would hit me from behind, so i kept going and prayed that we wouldn’t run into anyone that had stopped. it was so dangerous its not even funny. finally we made it to the Eisenhower… at the far end, coming out, we had to plow through a five or six foot drift. insane. the skiing was amazing though.


Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie Arbuckle on May 23, 2007 at 09:04 am

While I would agree with Robert Perry that there are differences in the pollutants, it is a fact that the complex molecules produces by burning petroleum based fuels is much more hazardous. 

Ethanol only produces CO2 and H2O during combustion. 

Gasoline produces over 500 different hydrocarbons, many of them detrimental to human health.  Pollution and its effects on environment and health is the one place that gasoline comes out looking much worse than fuels based primary on ethanol and other “simple” organic molecules.

(The other fact is that complex hydrocarbons have a plethora of chemical engineering applications… too bad we’re wasting this resource by burning it up.)

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 09:11 am

Sparkie:

i can drive through anything unless its deep enough to come over the hood/windshield.

Unless the snow sprays up on your engine block and chokes out the carburetor.  That happened to me once.

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 09:12 am
Avatar for Robert Perry

Actually, burning ethanol also produces CO.  The difficulty here, as Carrick makes clear, is that it’s not exactly clear to me what the sum of 3 grams of ozone, 42 grams of carbon monoxide, and 1 gram of complex hydrocarbons might be.  Exactly what units do we use here?

And no, Mark, Shell does NOT have an unequivocal comparison chart that everyone agrees on.  They will tell you that they measured 3 grams of ozone (+/- gauge capability), 42 grams of CO, and 1 gram of complex hydrocarbons with one mix, and 5 grams of ozone, 35 grams of CO, and 2 grams of complex hydrocarbons with another mix.

One must then understand what each component does biologically and ecologically, and the implications of each.  It’s fiercely debated, and the statistical confidence ranges are huge.

Robert Perry on May 23, 2007 at 09:16 am

Unless the snow sprays up on your engine block and chokes out the carburetor.  That happened to me once.

That happened to me once too, but it was someone else’s car and it was a dodge. I wrote it off as just having to do with the dodge. Fluffy snow doesn’t do that… or so I’ve found.


Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie Arbuckle on May 23, 2007 at 09:24 am
Avatar for mark c r UK

Carrick - ethanal can be produced (incomplete oxidation) and some reformed hydrocarbons - IF the auto cats arn’t working (poisoned or what ever). Plus some fuel additives will improve combustion efficiency.

Robert - as a chemist I’d assume they’d use molar or stoichiometric equivalents and work from there into masses - from “fuel burnt”? In terms of emissions data - surely some will be in ppm (wt/wt)?

Thats the approach I’d take (although I’m not an atmospheric chemist… plus I don’t specialise in emissions data in vehicles - rather my experience in this area has been over model catalyst beds) - then monitor products from various fuel blends using a control automotive vehicle.

- I’ll be finding this sort of thing out soon as I’m working with a new biodiesel plant as we speak (consulting). So no doubt on blending issues I’ll be finding out in the next month even though mine will be within biodiesel....

mark c r UK on May 23, 2007 at 09:30 am

Robert Perry, the combustion equation for ethanol is

C2H5OH + 3 O2 → 2 CO2 +3 H2O

Why would you think it produces CO?

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 10:46 am

Why would you think it produces CO?

Less than perfect combustion.  Do the combustion equation for gasoline.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on May 23, 2007 at 11:08 am

Robert108:

Less than perfect combustion.  Do the combustion equation for gasoline.

Gasoline is a mixture, so you are talking about an extremely complete series of reactions.  But I think it requires carbon and heat.  It’s my understanding that partly because the chemistry is simpler and partly because it burns cooler, ethanol produces far less nasty stuff even with incomplete combustion.

What I remember from reading is adding ethanol to gasoline reduces CO, hydrocarbons and particulates.  For example, a 10% ethanol blend achieves more than a 75% reduction in particulates and a 50% reduction in CO. 

I’ll see if I can dig up some sources.

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 11:33 am
Avatar for Robert Perry

Carrick, any combustion of carbon with insufficient oxygen releases CO.  You’re correct that adding ethanol tends to reduce CO significantly in exhaust due to the oxygen found in ethanol itself.  This is especially the case in cars built before fuel injection, oxygen sensors, and so on.  However, any carbon fuel (wood, gas, ethanol, whatever) will yield CO when the combustion balance is incorrect.

Robert Perry on May 23, 2007 at 11:37 am
Rob
Rob
19492 comments
Send a private message

This is where Ford’s $100bn loss (biggest in 100 years) and GM’s problems come in. Toyota and Honda were already ahead (strategic global market place… not just US market)… to the point that responses by them would come too late…

Ford and GM’s financial woes have little to do with competition from hybrid vehicles and a lot to do with their inability to be flexible in their business model because of labor unions.  Something most foreign automakers don’t have to deal with.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 23, 2007 at 12:13 pm

For example, a 10% ethanol blend achieves
more than a 75% reduction in particulates and a 50% reduction in CO.

Of course, particulates are only a problem with diesel.  My point was that perfect combustion of any hydrocarbon generally yields CO2 and H20, but in the real world of automobile engines, ideal conditions don’t obtain, and CO is produced.  You should know that, Carrick.  While ethanol may reduce CO in gasoline engines, it is still not perfectly combusted, and CO will be produced in an ethanol engine.  It is misleading to claim that it will lead to any significant reduction in CO, if widely used as a motor fuel.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on May 23, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Robert Perry, thanks for the explanation.

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 01:01 pm

Robert108:

It is misleading to claim that it will lead to any significant reduction in CO, if widely used as a motor fuel.

That is certainly factually incorrect.

There are gobs of data to the contrary.

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 01:02 pm

I’ve mostly only been able to find measurements for ethanol-gasoline blends.  The 50% reduction in CO is from a real-world measurement of different blends (0-15%) on the same gasoline engine for example.

Does anybody know of a link to CO/HC/particulate emissions from a pure ethanol burning engine?

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 01:04 pm
Avatar for Robert Perry

At your service.  Another way of explaining it is that seldom is there truly one “correct” equation for any chemical reaction due to the difficulty of achieving a well controlled “laboratory” situation. 

For example, the ordinary “combustion” of sugar in the body generates carbon dioxide and water.  Do it without enough oxygen (say when running hard), and you get lactic acid.  Another example is yeast.  Yeast makes alcohol without oxygen, but vinegar with.

Robert Perry on May 23, 2007 at 01:05 pm
Avatar for Robert Perry

Carrick, here are the limits used in the Denver area to get the “blue smoke” vehicle off the road there.

http://www.aircarecolorado.com/passenge.htm

In short, eliminating the carbeuretor and introducing fuel injection reduces pollution by about 99%.  You can literally breathe the exhaust from most late model cars without injury once the engine warms up.  (except for the fact that it’s coming out really hot!  don’t try this at home, kids!)

Robert Perry on May 23, 2007 at 01:30 pm

Carrick: You might find this article interesting: It claims a 30% CO reduction(down from your claim of 50%) for gasoline/ethanol blend, but doesn’t address the overall pollution generated in the real world from ethanol as a primary fuel.  It does say that there is little overall difference at the tailpipe.  My personal opinion is that the claims for ethanol are largely fanciful, and the real world consequences of using it as a primary fuel will be negative, compared to gasoline.  If it weren’t being forced on us by the enviros, it wouldn’t even be a blip on the radar screen.  Remember the Carter “gasohol” fiasco?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2007/03/30/ethanol-emissions.html


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on May 23, 2007 at 01:39 pm

We have to remember that Brazil isn’t the only source for ethanol, and that were we to drop the tariff a lot more foreign farmers might start growing the crop, thus flooding the market with ethanol.

Rob: The key is the demand, not the supply.  Even with the subsidies to artificially reduce the pump price, it’s still an inferior motor fuel.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on May 23, 2007 at 01:42 pm

Robert108, thanks for the comments.  My immediate thoughts are that the data I found were for a “real world” application, and that these data were peer reviewed, whereas your source is not (it’s an UNPUBLISHED study, which means it hasn’t undergone ANY review).

Other than that, it probably depends on the vehicle and on usage what percentage you get.  (Neither fuel seems to give much CO emissions when idling for example.)

For example, I was looking around a bit further, and found an example of a Ford Taurus where there was basically no difference, but for Lumina you got CO emissions that ranged from 30-50% reductions.

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 02:18 pm

Carrick: Thanks for the response.  To me, the “peer-reviewed” issue is irrelevant; only the truth matters.  I do appreciate your position, though.  I’m not sure that reducing CO emissions is sufficient to make the cost/benefit work out, but generally hold that the subsidies should be removed in order to make a level playing field, and to let the people decide on a real world basis.  While I am personally satisfied that ethanol is not a suitable motor fuel for us, I respect the market(an unrigged one, of course).


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on May 23, 2007 at 02:32 pm
Rob
Rob
19492 comments
Send a private message

Lifting the tariffs will help E85 availability, but not affect pump price much, as demand will quickly absorb the product (and Brazil will quickly make a windfall profit on their export).

Yeah, but you assume that Brazilian ethanol production would remain static.  If Brazilian ethanol producers make a “windfall profit” (and I don’t see that sort of profit as a bad thing) then more companies and entrepreneurs will get in the game to cash in.  That’ll mean more ethanol produced.

Would it be able to keep up with demand?  I don’t know, but let’s not pretend that ethanol production would remain static were the tariff dropped.

Heck, more countries than Brazil would get in on the deal.  Dropping the imported ethanol tariff would be a boon for farmers, much of them in the “third world,” all over the globe.

The only question is why aren’t we doing it?  OTher than to needlessly protect American farmers?


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 23, 2007 at 02:40 pm

Here’s the summary from that last example:

Free Image Hosting at allyoucanupload.com

Taurus (which has much better emissions to start with) isn’t benefited by using E85. 

I’d like to see this for E10, since what happens is that the fuel efficiency doesn’t suffer by as much as the emissions are benefited for lower mixtures.  So there is probably an optimal ratio of ethanol/gasoline…

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 02:40 pm
Rob
Rob
19492 comments
Send a private message

You guys getting into the chemistry are going way over my head.  I’m dumb when it comes to science, but we should all remember that ultimately your average consumer is going to make his/her fuel choice based on price and price alone.

Ethanol isn’t going to cut it until it can cut it on price.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 23, 2007 at 02:42 pm

Robert108:

To me, the “peer-reviewed” issue is irrelevant; only the truth matters.

Well, I certainly agree with that.  But I wouldn’t cherry pick an unpublished and unreviewed manuscript that supports my conclusions over much more numerous ones that contradict it.  Nor I suspect, would you.

In any case, it’s hard to respond to a media characterization of a manuscript that is not available in a format where we can make any kind of conclusions.  Firstly I don’t trust the media to accurately characterize today’s weather let alone anything more complex than that, secondly claims that are absent accompanying data have zero probative scientific value.

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 02:45 pm

I’d like to see this for E10, since what happens is that the fuel efficiency doesn’t suffer by as much as the emissions are benefited for lower mixtures

My personal experience with my Prius which is easy to see since the cars computer constantly measure mpg is an approximate decrease of 10% with E10.


You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

docdave on May 23, 2007 at 02:57 pm

Rob: I repeat; the supply is irrelevant if there is little or no demand.  Price is also relative to quality, and ethanol is a lower quality fuel, so the price would have to be a lot lower to make it competitive.

Carrick: I only give credence to that study because it goes against the MSM “template” about the virtues of “alternative fuels”.  If the MSM were a level playing field, I would be just as suspicious as you are, but in this case, not so much.  I assume that this one study is probably only a small fraction of such articles, which are generally not reported in today’s MSM.  Not unlike the “Global Warming” non-debate in the MSM.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on May 23, 2007 at 02:57 pm

Rob, it’s important to remember that group behavior impacts and influences all of our lives.  CO emissions in urban areas is big thing, and should be and is regulated by the government.  One person with a heavy CO emitter is a small thing, everybody doing it is a big thing.

Since ethanol/gasoline blends can in principle affect how much CO gets polluted, this is something that will affect you, if only because our government will make regulator decisions based on which technologies benefit us, and which are ultimately of greater harm.

While most of us would generally agree government interference isn’t a good thing, I suspect nobody here complains about the FDA approving which drugs can be sold and which can’t.  Anybody who thinks we would be better off without government regulation of drugs… well, I think you’re crazy, but that’s me.

The EPA, done right, performs a valuable function in protecting us from industries and products that are potentially deleterious when used en masse.  (Second hand tobacco smoke restrictions is an example of that.  If you’re only exposed to second hand smoke once a week, the predicted negative health effects are nada.)

There are plenty of problems, politicization, misuse of science, conflict of interest, blah blah blah… but over all the benefits to society as a whole outweigh the cost of freedom to individuals for industrial regulation as a means of protecting society in cases like this.

So ... you may personally only make decisions based on price at the pump etc., but which products you will have access to ultimately is determined by the outcome of debates like the ones RP, R108 and I are having now.

Being informed of these other slightly more technical issues is still important for an informed citizenry.  Because thats the only way ultimately we can keep organizations like the FDA and the EPA from over-reaching and going from sensible guidelines to overly zealous nanny staters.

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 03:00 pm

Carrick:  What you called a “cherry pick” was, in reality, an attempt to find something other than the “party line” on the “virtues” of ethanol as a fuel.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on May 23, 2007 at 03:00 pm

Robert108, I wasn’t accusing you of cherry picking… But the sources I have found aren’t “party line” nor about “virtues”. 

They are simply reports of measurements based upon an agreed set of procedures.

I can’t judge the Canadian report because it is unpublished, so I not only don’t know how they did their measurements, I don’t even know whether the CBC report even accurately characterizes their results.

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 03:06 pm
Avatar for mark c r uk

"Ford and GM’s financial woes have little to do with competition from hybrid vehicles and a lot to do with their inability to be flexible in their business model because of labor unions.  Something most foreign automakers don’t have to deal with.”

Come to the EU - if you want to talk about unions - particuarly in France.

That response was ideological nonsense.

Ford and GM were technologically caught out with their available models (low MPG) - due to the rises in the price of oil causing a downturn in the US automarket. Thats a fact. I don’t know how certain groups in the US are spinning it - but that is what has happened!

mark c r uk on May 23, 2007 at 03:15 pm

Carrick: I generally agree that some regulation in certain areas is necessary, but the real debate isn’t about “all or nothing at all”, but the degree to which regulation is beneficial.  I see this as an ongoing process, never to be finally resolved.  The FDA, IMO, is the epitome of overregulation; it is necessary, but the degree to which it prevents good remedies from reaching the market is definitely detrimental.  The way it plays out now, after the lengthy and costly FDA process, huge profits need to be made to justify it, which skews the process quite a bit, and not necessarily to our benefit.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on May 23, 2007 at 03:15 pm

Ford and GM were technologically caught out with their available models (low MPG) - due to the rises in the price of oil causing a downturn in the US automarket. Thats a fact. I don’t know how certain groups in the US are spinning it - but that is what has happened!

mark: The actuality is that US auto companies have so much of their capital tied up in “benefits” to retired workers that it isn’t possible for them to make the production upgrades necessary to change their product mix.  Besides, Americans have different standards for vehicle ownership than do Europeans.  You seem to think the markets are identical, and you are wrong in that respect.  Our gas prices are much lower than those in Europe, we have larger streets and more highways, and Americans generally prefer larger vehicles.  Look at the newest crop of Toyota pickup trucks if you haven’t realized the truth of what I say.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on May 23, 2007 at 03:19 pm
Rob
Rob
19492 comments
Send a private message

Come to the EU - if you want to talk about unions - particuarly in France.

That response was ideological nonsense.

I’m not aware of any EU automakers that are dominating the global markets the way Toyota, Honda, etc. are.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 23, 2007 at 03:28 pm
Rob
Rob
19492 comments
Send a private message

Carrick,

...you may personally only make decisions based on price at the pump etc., but which products you will have access to ultimately is determined by the outcome of debates like the ones RP, R108 and I are having now.

Well, maybe so maybe no.  The great scientific minds may be able to come up with a fuel that’s perfect in every respect...but how are you going to get the average American to use it when there’s a less-than-perfect product out there that will do and is cheaper?

Anything you come up with is going to have to be marketable.  That’s just the way a free economy works.  Right now, I don’t see ethanol as being marketable.  It could become so with technological advancement and market tweaks, but not right now.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 23, 2007 at 03:30 pm

Robert108, we both agree there are serious problems with the FDA.  There are places where overly restrictive regulations prevent good drugs from coming to the market, and other places, including conflict-of-interest issues, where flawed studies allow dangerous products to reach the market (then get yanked within a year).

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 03:32 pm

Rob, my real point was that the government makes mandates, these mandates are generally based on calculations of the “common good”, and those mandates influence which fuel choices you have.

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 03:34 pm

Carrick: I see we agree on the FDA.  I just don’t want any regulation to become “established” and no longer subject to constant review.  Unfortunately, that’s the way govt seeks to operate: they just want their cut of our earnings, and we should just shut up and pay for what they dictate to us.  Not good.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on May 23, 2007 at 03:35 pm
Rob
Rob
19492 comments
Send a private message

Carrick,

Rob, my real point was that the government makes mandates, these mandates are generally based on calculations of the “common good”

I guess I’m a big confused on the use of the word “mandate.” If you’re talking about the government creating laws and regulations in general then yes they’re generally for the common good.  But if you’re talking about the government mandating the use of something like ethanol...is that really for the common good?  Who is it good for, ultimately?  Me, or the ethanol producers?

I guess I’ll be more willing to believe that ethanol mandates are for the common good with the tariff on imported ethanol is dropped.  Until then, I can’t help but feel that ethanol is being shoved down my throat by politicians pandering to big-money contributors.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 23, 2007 at 03:47 pm

Rob, note I said when “ the government makes mandates, these mandates are generally based on calculations of the ‘common good’”.

Sometimes their calculations are wrong, and sometimes the calculations that are used by the policy makers have nothing to do with the “common good”.

I think in the case of ethanol the prevailing reasons are pollution reduction and the switch to a sustainable energy source.  Both are reasonable, but we have the usual issues with conflict of interest here. 

People may be persuaded more easily towards a particular outcome, if they have something to gain from that outcome....

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 04:11 pm
Rob
Rob
19492 comments
Send a private message

People may be persuaded more easily towards a particular outcome, if they have something to gain from that outcome....

Which is exactly my point.  If you can show me that ethanol saves me money or provides me with some other benefit that justifies spending more money on it than regular gasoline I’ll but it.

But probably not until then, because when it comes to priorities my little family’s budget is #1.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 23, 2007 at 04:22 pm
Rob
Rob
19492 comments
Send a private message

I’ll but it

I’ll buy it, that is.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 23, 2007 at 04:26 pm

Sometimes their calculations are wrong, and sometimes the calculations that are used by the policy makers have nothing to do with the “common good”.

It’s all bound up in who gets to decide what the “common good” is.  In govt, it’s usually a politician.
BTW, the entire concept of centrally determining “the common good” is one of the facets of Marxism.  We decide what the majority wants, without any overlay of claiming it is “the common good”.  Humans are a highly diverse and varied lot.  Most of the time, there is no “common good”.
IMO, the whole “alternative fuel” scheme is about who get to control the fuel; thus the subsidies distorting the market through artificially lowering the price.
The so-called “addiction” and “dependency” on petrofuel is actually what the population wants.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on May 23, 2007 at 04:31 pm

...my real point was that the government makes mandates, these mandates are generally based on calculations of the “common good”, and those mandates influence which fuel choices you have.

Strongly disagree.  In fact, the govt has no incentive to give us what they promise, because then the money flow stops, and we become self-sufficient again.  Instead, they need to keep up the level of promise, so that the money keeps flowng.  In fact, they need to continue to create new promises, in order to maintain that flow.  It’s always going to be better in the future, unless we don’t fund them to do what they want, then they promise it will get worse.  Think about it.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on May 23, 2007 at 04:36 pm

Carrick, me and you been this round a few times. From all I have read on the subject ethanol just ain’t going to supplant petroleum. An additive to other fuels? Yes. Stand up and walk around on its own, no. And there have already been disturbances caused by a precipitous rise on corn/grain prices in Mexico, Central America and South America. In Brazil there has been a marked increase in illegal slash&burn clearing. An activity they had down to a low roar until recently. Does anyone honestly believe there will be less of these problems with an increased demand which in turn increases volume of production. Plus the entirely different and large amounts of pollutants created in manufacturing ethanol?

And are the environazis and various EPAs, State and Federal, going to allow the construction and operation of a large and polluting new industry? Hell! We can not replace aged refineries or nuke plants, much less build a sufficient number of ethanol stills.

Mark, welcome to sayanything! Guess it is my turn to be Mr Manners. I appreciate your ardor for biofuels, kind of pressed right now, going to check out your blog later or in the morning. I must take issue with your comments concerning vehicles. American auto manufacturers have been in a death spiral for years. And MPG ain’t got much to do with it. They are, simply, inferior machines. I have owned Fords and Doges and Chevys and AMC and Jeep. I own a Toyota, its 11 years old. It will be replaced by another Toyota product. And the beauty part of it is that my 4Runner is, and the new one will be, made in America.

No, American auto companies have a plethora of problems.

As for hybrid vehicles, show me one that can replace my 4Runner and a 3/4 ton pickup/dumptruck and I’ll buy it. I will be there with bells on! The Conestoga of hybrids. That is what the world needs. Not a vehicle whose maximum load capacity is 300 kilograms. That ain’t gonna cut it.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on May 23, 2007 at 06:36 pm

2H9, you and I basically agree than corn-kernel based ethanol isn’t going to supplant gasoline.  If cellulosic ethanol comes online, that outcome is likely to change.  As I’ve pointed out before, the corn stover has as much biomass as the corn kernels themselves, and there are chemical based methods that promise to allow the conversion to ethanol as cheaply as the kernels are being converted now… (Still an IF thou...)

Regarding Brazil, I’ve looked into that since this was first brought up.  It turns out that most of the ethanol produced in Brazil comes from the southern grasslands, the Campos, and not from the rain forrest regions.  In addition, there is currently a moratorium on the use of crops produced in the rain forests for biofuel.  So this isn’t quite as dire as you make out.

Finally, ethanol is a fuel that can efficiently be produced from sugar in almost all tropical and semitropical countries around the world.

So if they replace some of the market from the Middle East, who loses besides middle east warlords are their terrorist cronies?

Carrick on May 23, 2007 at 09:25 pm
Rob
Rob
19492 comments
Send a private message

Finally, ethanol is a fuel that can efficiently be produced from sugar in almost all tropical and semitropical countries around the world.

So if they replace some of the market from the Middle East, who loses besides middle east warlords are their terrorist cronies?

More importantly, who gains?  Lots of impoverished nations would find themselves suddenly rich energy exporters.

That’s not a bad thing.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 23, 2007 at 09:33 pm