Political Thread: Ethanol 85%

[Trackhead]

Why aren't we diving into this 100%?

I'm moving to Brazil. Hotter women, no foreign oil, and ethanol at the pumps.

Ethanol at the pumps.

[Tippster]

Because we have about 100x the cars on the road compared to the Brazilians. They're working on it, but due to the 50 different emissions standards in the US (e85 cars aren't cleared yet for CA emissions, I believe) the auto makers won't make these engines ubiquitous.

There was a step made last summer toward greater use of ethanol - Congress mandated 10% ethanol content in gasoline, but that was mainly a gift to ADM and is also one of the reasons I'm paying $3.40/gallon for 93 octane fuel.

[Platinum Pete]

My understanding is that ethanol could help with our nations challenges in procuring enough fuel for our cars, but I don't think it is any nicer to the air. I am a fan of any progress that doesn't hinder further progress, but I'd rather see us shoot for a highter standard than what e85 can accomplish.

[Trackhead]

I was under the impression that it was "greener".

[skiing-in-jackson]

I wish we could get it together. The US has plenty of domestic energy that's clean and safe, and ethanol is at the top of the list. I was under the understanding that the emissions problem could be solved by reengineering- and that reengineering would translate into a loss of power- no-no for American drivers.

[Spats]

It takes more energy to make ethanol from corn in the USA (fertilizer, harvesting, transportation, processing) than you get by burning the ethanol.

Ethanol is not a solution to any environmental problems -- it's a big fat gift of billions from all of us to ADM, courtesy of the federal government.

Ethanol works in Brazil because Brazil is a lot hotter, wetter, and more efficient for growing plants, they can make their ethanol out of sugarcane, and there are a lot less cars in Brazil per capita.

[uglymoney]

My opionion is that ethanol from corn is a bad idea that costs consumers a lot of money at the pump, robs our highways of badly needed tax dollars, does not reduce greenhouse gas emmisions, and many argue that it takes more energy to produce than what it contains.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5173420

We have ethanol in its current form only because of the incredibly stong lobbying power of farm interests and producers like ADM.

I support further research and development of things like switchgrass, etc, that are more efficient producers of ethanol, less dependent on massive applications of nitrogen to the soil, and less damaging to the soil.

Living in and waterskiing in Iowa like I do, I see first hand the muddy river system that is a direct result of over tillage, over planting, tiling, lack of buffer zones, and all the other bad land use practices that are a direct result of a government gone mad when it comes to subsidizing corn products.

The gulf coast can thank ethanol in part for the huge dead zone and polluted waters that are sent down the mighty Mississippi each year by our farmers. I'd rather see all the tax exemptions given to the ethanol industry redirected to solar, wind, and more efficient biomass research.

[dirtybryan]

It takes more energy to make ethanol from corn in the USA (fertilizer, harvesting, transportation, processing) than you get by burning the ethanol.

Ethanol is not a solution to any environmental problems -- it's a big fat gift of billions from all of us to ADM, courtesy of the federal government.

Ethanol works in Brazil because Brazil is a lot hotter, wetter, and more efficient for growing plants, they can make their ethanol out of sugarcane, and there are a lot less cars in Brazil per capita.

Correct, I've had a chemical engineer tell me this. We'll use more energy producing ethanol then we will get burning it. Anyways this energy needed to produce ethanol, its obviously not gonna come from "clean ethanol" its probably gonna come from coal.

[summit]

brazilians use sugar cane-> ethanol. much much much more efficient than corn to ethanol.... also they drive smaller and fewer cars.

however there is no reason we shouldnt be aiming for E25 or something...

[Kya]

Yeah, but America could figure out all those issues if cleaner energy was a priority to those whom we elect as our leaders. Clearly it aint a priority

[uglymoney]

The amazing thing is that wind power can actually help farmers out, just like ethanol has always promised, but not always delivered. For a long time, ethanol did little to boost crop prices, the only people benefiting were those producing it, and selling it for a profit because of all the tax exemptions.

Today, farmers who own land are now leasing plots to energy producers, or building windmills and selling the electricity.



CALIFORNIA: 2,150 megawatts
TEXAS: 1,995
IOWA: 836
MINNESOTA: 744
OKLAHOMA: 475

[Trackhead]

It takes more energy to make ethanol from corn in the USA (fertilizer, harvesting, transportation, processing) than you get by burning the ethanol.

From this site. Perhaps special interest, I don't know.

Does it take more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy we get out of it?

Response:

No. This has been a common misconception of the ethanol industry, that it takes more energy to make ethanol than is available to the final consumer. Remember, ethanol is produced from plant matter, today dominated by corn, wheat, potatoes, sorgum, etc. Plants grow through the use of energy provided by the sun and are a renewable resources. In the future, ethanol will be produced from waste products or "energy crops." In fact, a partner of the NEVC, BC International (BCI), is currently constructing an ethanol production plant in Louisiana that will use sugar cane waste to produce ethanol. Additionally, BCI is considering the establishment of ethanol production facilities in California that would use the waste hulls from rice growers and wood waste from the forrest industry to produce ethanol. Energy crops such as perennial switch grasses, timothy, and other high-output/low-input crops will be used in the future.

Current research prepared by Argonne National Laboratory (a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory), indicates a 38% gain in the overall energy input/output equation for the corn-to-ethanol process. That is, if 100 BTUs of energy is used to plant corn, harvest the crop, transport it, etc., 138 BTUs of energy is available in the fuel ethanol. Corn yields and processing technologies have improved significantly over the past 20 years and they continue to do so, making ethanol production less and less energy intensive.

[MOHSHSIHd]

windmills are great, and need to be used more...


but alot of dumb people with 5000 acres complain that they are too loud....

[uglymoney]

From this site. Perhaps special interest, I don't know.

This is a quote from the article that I provided a link to. Apparently, it depends on who you ask, because different folks add or subtract inputs to suit their viewpoint. Clearly though, our current system of ethanol from corn could be vastly improved upon. It makes no sense to me that we are subsidizing corn ethanol.

"

We found unequivocally that it does not take more energy than you get out of the amount of ethanol. So it's a net good if you grow ethanol and use it," says Kammen.

David Pimentel, an agriculture scientist at Cornell University, disagrees. He is skeptical of the Berkeley team's research, which directly challenges his own conclusion that making ethanol takes much more energy than it produces.

"They criticize us for including the energy for the labor -- that is the farm laborer who is working on the farm," he says. "They deleted that. They also deleted another major input, that is the farm machinery."

Pimentel says when all of the important sources of energy needed to grow the corn and make the ethanol -- he lists 14 -- are included, it takes 70 percent more energy to make gallon of ethanol than it gives off. Since much of that energy comes from oil or coal, he says it's not a good alternative. Pimentel adds that ethanol does make considerable money for companies that grow corn.

Kammen disagrees with Pimentel's numbers, but acknowledges that the positive energy benefit he sees in corn-based ethanol is modest.

"It is not a massive savings, not like putting in 10 percent energy and getting out 100 percent. We find it is somewhat better than gasoline, but it's not a home run," Kammen says.

And in fact making and using ethanol does almost nothing to lessen the amount of greenhouse gases that warm the atmosphere.

The Berkeley and Cornell groups do agree on one thing -- corn isn't the best way to make ethanol. Plants with higher cellulose content like switchgrass or sugar cane are much better. Kammen says high cellulose plants are the future of ethanol, not corn.

[Trackhead]

It makes no sense to me that we are subsidizing corn ethanol.

"

I see your point about corn. But it seems there are so many other alternatives to corn.

I like harvesting corn, but only the white kind, found at elevations above 8k in Utah currently. But harvesting it does produce large amounts of methane from my intestinal tract, as I must fuel myself with high carbohydrate foods, that promote methane gas.

[awf170]

Awsome. More ski areas should be doing this. If your wondering it is Mt. Miller in the Gaspe pensisula Quebec.

[pointedem]

little rant:

WTF is up with the NIMBY vermonters, and cape coders?

Wind power is great, there is no denying the facts-- sure a birds might perish, but shit, not putting them in because people don't want to look at them?
How lame and selfish is that. Espically in Vermont, the king "green" state-
http://www.dmkdmk.com/articles/wind.html
visual smisual.... sack up and do it, greater good

I haven't done much personal research, but I heard that it takes tremendous energy to produce ethanol- almost prohibitive- Growing corn, then processing it... It must be better then oil, however

iceland is the shit on this frontier:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12601052/

[Plakespear]

little rant:

WTF is up with the NIMBY vermonters, and cape coders?

Wind power is great, there is no denying the facts-- sure a birds might perish, but shit, not putting them in because people don't want to look at them?
How lame and selfish is that. Espically in Vermont, the king "green" state-
http://www.dmkdmk.com/articles/wind.html
visual smisual.... sack up and do it, greater good

Agreed. There is a nearby town here in upstate NY that wants to erect some windmills. Apparently there is some opposition, complaining about the visuals. I'll bet that the opponents are not the locals, but second home owners from NYC.

My neighbor, who is about a redneck conservative republican you could meet, told me that a study revealed that the valley we live in is the third windiest valley in NY. He wonders why the ridges aren't lined with turbines. When peole like that feel alternative energy is a critical issue, it is proof that Bush is not only out of touch with the country, but even his own voting, if not financial, base.

[Big E]

Interesting, as 60 Minutes just had a story on this tonight. And Dateline too, apparently.

Ignoring the debate over current ethanol-producing methods, it sounds like there are a lot of promising methods on the horizon that could make producing it that much more efficient. I was honestly stunned when they said in the 60 Minutes piece that Brazil no longer needs foreign oil and is almost entirely running on ethanol. I guess I should be paying closer attention. Even with some of the negatives stated above, hard for me to explain why it would be better for us to be throwing our money at the middle east for oil when we could give it to farmers in our own heartland. I'm sure the bureacracy's take would be about even, regardless.

[Plakespear]

I saw the 60 minutes piece too. How much of the US has a climate suitable for growing sugarcane? Or some other plant that produces ethanol more efficiently than corn? Something that could be grown in the Carolinas, perhaps, so that all the tobacco farmers could stop lobbying to keep cancer sticks on the market and grow something more profitable? Or perhaps invest in sugar plantations in Africa, and kickstart the economy on that continent? This is the stuff I think about when I'm taking a dump and forget to bring a magazine.

[dbp]

Some heartening news on the wind power front...
from here

Wind Power Becoming Cheaper Than Conventional Power
March 27, 2006 10:37 AM - Justin Thomas, Virginia

A newly published report from the Earth Policy Institute says that wind power is now cheaper than conventional sources in at least two areas: Austin, Texas and Colorado. The report also says that this trend is will likely be seen in other parts of the U.S. It was during the fall of 2005 that climbing natural gas prices pulled conventional electricity costs above those of wind-generated electricity. Austin Energy, the publicly owned utility in Austin, Texas, buys wind-generated electricity under 10-year, fixed-price contracts and passes this stable price on to its GreenChoice subscribers.

This fixed-price energy product is quite attractive to Austin’s 388 corporate GreenChoice customers, including Advanced Micro Devices, Dell, IBM, Samsung, and 3M. Advanced Micro Devices expects to save $4 million over the next decade through this arrangement. School districts are also signing up. Round Rock School District, for example, projects 10-year savings to local taxpayers at $2 million. The full report can be found here.

[bio-smear]

My airplane can run on 87 octane unleaded, as long as it's ethanol-free. Standard aviation fuel, or "avgas" is 100 octane with lead additive to lube the valves. No ethanol. The only place I know of in my microcosm to get ethanol free fuel during summer is the state of WA.

Ethanol erodes many of the fuel system compents in these 50's technology aircraft engines, and can cause corrosion as it carries embedded water easily.

This is just my selfish concern about a switch to ethanol. I think a pure-ethanol engine supported by an ethanol industry would be great.

[bdog]

I like harvesting corn, but only the white kind, found at elevations above 8k in Utah currently. But harvesting it does produce large amounts of methane from my intestinal tract, as I must fuel myself with high carbohydrate foods, that promote methane gas.

Heh. I saw the same article on Dateline and had the same thoughts as you: Brazil eh? Hot women, cheap fuel ... and not all so far from Las Lenas.

[slippy]

Man, if the wind blew uphill you'd never make it down those slopes.

[Bum Z]

Two words: plug-in hybrid. Google it. I'm a lazy American and won't give you links. The gist: plug in so your car uses electricity for the first 100 or so miles you drive it, then the gasoline hybrid kicks in for longer driving. Solves the issue of short range for electrics, while greatly increasing MPG for those that typically commute short distances. You do plug it in, but the electricity off the grid is and can be much cleaner than just burning gasoline.