10% Ethanol, Heads Up!

[Duffster]

I really don't want in this fight, but ethanol is burning part of our food supply, not good.

I also have seen studies, not media comments, that say that ethanol costs more to produce than it supplies. In fact gas mileage goes down around 10% when using it. This does need to be figured into the equation.

This I see in PA when it begins showing up in the spring at all service stations, my mileage drops somewhat due to the alcohol content.

I have never had an engine problem because of it though.

My Chevelle may feel differently some day though.

Most studies that show an energy loss do not allow for the feed that is left over.

I believe 10% is an exaggeration. 2-3% is more realistic and studies have shown this. A 10% reduction would mean the ethanol is adding nothing, energy wise, to the blend.

 

[beppington]

This has been prove wrong by pretty legitimate studies. Several of them in fact.

. .. ... ....

 

[MossRoad]

Read this article from the October 2007 National Geographic on biofuels. Its a long one, but a good one.

Biofuels - National Geographic Magazine

After reading it any sensible person will conclude that ethanol from corn is a loser.

 

[California]

Read this article from the October 2007 National Geographic on biofuels. Its a long one, but a good one.

Biofuels - National Geographic Magazine

After reading it any sensible person will conclude that ethanol from corn is a loser.

Looks like some farmers got took subsequent to that article. The state-of-the-art biofuels plant praised on page 3 of the NG article, was going bankrupt simultaneous with when they were telling all that amazing stuff to National Geographic. The farmers can attempt to get paid by filing claims with the bankruptcy court. Good luck with that.

E3 BioFuels auction set for December
By Craig A. Johnson

Report posted Nov. 18, 2009, at 2:49 p.m. CST

The E3 Biofuels LLC ethanol production facility in Mead, Neb., will be auctioned off on an as-is, where-is basis according to court documents released November 9. The auction will be held Dec. 11, with bids due on Dec. 2.

E3 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in late 2007 and began seeking investors for the 25 Mmgy facility. Unfortunately, E3 was forced to seek investors during 2008, when corn prices were at their peak and investors were scarce and the company was unable to secure the capital it needed to continue operating.

According to the company's bankruptcy filing, E3 listed $10 million in assets and $73 million in unfunded liabilities. No one knows how the much the plant will fetch, ... been some market values established for ethanol plants from some recent sales with other entities that have gone bankrupt

Does anybody think corn ethanol is economically rational and would stand on its own feet without heavy government subsidies paid to the producers? This plant didn't make it, with the subsidies. Why should the rest of us continue to pay for this foolishness?

And the obvious question is, then what should we do. IMHO - I think energy conservation through conversions to more efficient designs is what we should try next. Take the same subsidy dollars from these producers and subsidize retrofitting state-of-the-art home insulation and lightweight cars, say 40mpg and up. Surely there are many more opportunities that would be a better choice to spend money on, compared to corn ethanol.

 

[California]

Biodiesel:

The focus in this thread has been on corn ethanol.

It is my impression that biodiesel is a lot more efficient, as an industry has a rational chance to get on its feet, and might be a better place to spend the subsidy dollars in developing. Anybody know enough about this to make a persuasive case for biodiesel? Or is it a boondoggle too?

 

[mmurphy]

Biodiesel:

The focus in this thread has been on corn ethanol.

It is my impression that biodiesel is a lot more efficient, as an industry has a rational chance to get on its feet, and might be a better place to spend the subsidy dollars in developing. Anybody know enough about this to make a persuasive case for biodiesel? Or is it a boondoggle too?

California, they just shut a biodiesel down in my area because subsidies wasn't there to help. Biodiesel from beans give some where in neighborhood of 1 galon or so to a bushel of beans. Beans are quite a bit higher to a bushel of corn. Corn will give aprox 2.7 galons alcohol per bushel.
Like corn , biodiesel from beans does not starve the children in forein countrys. (We will make sure we feed them so they can hate us to!! That was not pointed at you California. )
There is so many other options out there for alcohol but plants would be ran sporadicaly cause of ways to store the products to be used. That is why corn is still the main focus on use. Duffster I think pointed out that the energy use to make it is getting less, and it is. Poet, once was named Broin is always working on efficiency, and can guarantee these boys are making great progress.
I am sorry about this but, I still have to laugh every time some one says ethanol is using up food.
Here is a link to POET. I am sure we will still have 2 camps after everyone is done posting. POET - Inspiration - Who is POET?

 

[keegs]

I agree that conservation (or to use an Amory Lovins term, "negawatts") is a great idea. In my book it's the first order of business. But I also think that government subsidies to develop a domestic bio fuels industry, if done right, is still a good idea.

My understanding of this is that corn was never considered a viable long term feedstock but rather a substitute for the development of a process to use cellulose or other more practical input to ethanol production. In fact if I recall the EPA mandate defines what can be used as feedstock and by what ratio.

Certainly there's going to be failures and adjustments along the way to any alternative to what's been in place for almost a century. Isn't that what this thread is about really...perceptions, observations, adjustments ....to the impact of ethanol at these levels in our motor fuels? And who doesnt' think politics will always be a part of anything like this where so many special interests (some with very deep pockets I might add) are at stake? But a federal mandate is still in effect and I hope it stays there.

And remember, there's the example of Brazil where bio fuels have proven to be a viable replacement for much of that country's motor fuels. :thumbsup:

 

[Duffster]

Read this article from the October 2007 National Geographic on biofuels. Its a long one, but a good one.

Biofuels - National Geographic Magazine

After reading it any sensible person will conclude that ethanol from corn is a loser.

I asked for a study that proves your earlier statement.

This is just another article that is basically opinion.

 

[Duffster]

Does anybody think corn ethanol is economically rational and would stand on its own feet without heavy government subsidies paid to the producers?

I do. If the the gov't wasn't subsidizing oil then they would be on a much more even playing field.

 

[dmccarty]

Dan,

I'm pretty sure that in most cases where MTBE contamination impacts a water supply managed by a government entity, that that entity would seek redress in court on behalf of the taxpayers.

The water supply was home owners wells. Nothing managed by a government entity.

The G'ment only slight responsibility was in the failure to properly regulate the underground fuel tanks AND the requirement to use MTBE which is highly water soluble. The station with the leaking fuel tank was the entity that was mostly at fault but the problem with fuel tank leaks like this is that many times the company has long gone out of business and there are no funds available from the company to fix the problem.

In this case the county brought in water lines to the effect houses. I cannot remember if they home owners had to pay.

Later,
Dan