Those getting excited about Ethanol should probably read the excellent piece in the Ocotober 2007 issue of National Geographic called "Growing Fuel".

Most of the ethanol in this country is made with corn.... frankly its a crappy way to make ethanol, until other methods are used in this country its not very viable, nor is it particularly good for the environment.

From the article the production and use of 1 gallon of ethanol creates 16.2 lbs of greenhouse gases... compared to 20.4 for gasoline (p. 44). Thats an improvement of 22%, but unfortuantely it does not equal a negative greenhouse gas emmission... you are still producing greenhouse gases.

And frankly we all still need to eat and you can convert all our corn to ethanol only make a dent in our gas use. Basically IN THIS COUNTRY its more to prop up the Farmers than anything else. Incidentally most of my family owns farms, so if anything I'm reverse biased in that respect.

That being said... the 10% ethanol is supposed to be in there to reduce smog isn't it? So to me the question is... do we drive our FEH to get the maximum MPG... or minimum pollution? And which kind of fuel gives us each result?

 

Fermenting the ethanol makes CO2. Just like the bubbles in your beer.

Some, not all companies scrub, compress, and bottle this CO2 and send it to coke and Pespi. Other ethanol companies compress the CO2 from fermentation into dry ice. So at least those few million tons of CO2 are getting "recycled".

BURNING ethanol in your tank puts 22% less CO2 directly out your tailpipe.

However, for every 10 pounds of ethanol produced, there is 100 pounds of carbon, in the form of leaves, and stalks, and roots, and corn cobs, that gets tilled back into the soil, never reaching the atmosphere at all. MOST people, and most journalists alike do not consider this.

Ethanol Production is most DEFINATELY carbon NEGATIVE, and not by a little, but by A LOT. Like by a factor of 10. It actually scrubs the atmosphere. Some people call this "Carbon Sequestration". ( did I spell that last word right? ) Plus you move the corn from MAYBE 200 miles away to the distillery. How far do you move the crude to get it to the refinery?

I've heard, taking transporation into account, it takes 1 gallon of gas to get 1 gallon into your tank. That means 50% of all oil we are fighting for never makes it into the hands of Americans.

For ethanol, it takes 3 gallons of petrolem ( or equivalent energy from Natural Gas & Coal ) to put 5 gallons into your tank.

With ethanol, pay 300 today, get 500 tomorrow. ( well, 2 days... it takes 48 hours to go from corn kernal to your gas tank...)
Ethanol would need to be 40% worse in energy content to make this a bad deal. 50% worse, if you consider it is clean and home grown.

And did you know for every 100 pounds of corn that goes into an ethanol plant, 70 pounds comes out the back end? Ethanol only takes the sugars out of the corn. The rest makes it to animal feed, and soon (2008) human food will come out of the newest ethanol plants. Talk about effieciency!

In round numbers,
For 100 pounds of corn you will get 5 gallons of ethanol,
50 pounds of corn chips,
and enough CO2 for a few cases of soda pop.

And all for $8 worth of corn at today's record high prices.
( All for $5 at 2005's price of corn )
And I've actally audited some ethanol plants and watched the meters spin.
Each gallon requires 0.4 kWh of electricity, and 19,000 btu of natural gas* to produce. You could easily get that 0.4 kWh from windmills, and make "portable" energy you can take with you. Hard to take the windmill on the road with you!

*( the plants that only make fuel and wetcake animal feed. Plants that start making food-grade products will take more energy, but also will produce more useful products. )

 

Got any references for that? I was pretty sure NatGeo INCLUDED the effects of growing the corn as well. You use fertilizer (produced from oil) herbicide, pesitcide (produced from oil), etc.

I've seen information that shows both sides some say corn ethanol is great some don't... Most of the ones I've read/heard say that the only time it will actually be very beneficial is when you move to cane based or celluose based production. Corn takes too many resources to grow in their estimation.

 

You will... unfortunately... have to find something other than corn syrup to sweeten your pop.

 

From GPSMAN: "Ethanol Production is most DEFINATELY carbon NEGATIVE, and not by a little, but by A LOT. Like by a factor of 10. It actually scrubs the atmosphere. Some people call this "Carbon Sequestration". ( did I spell that last word right? ) Plus you move the corn from MAYBE 200 miles away to the distillery. How far do you move the crude to get it to the refinery?"
Carbon sequestration is the process by which carbon dioxide is removed from the air and stored underground by plant life. The carbon stays in the root system until, obviously, the plant is torn up. Ethanol production is NOT carbon negative because you need to account transportation of the seed/herbicides/pesticides, emissions from tractor and other farm equipment used to plant, tend, harvest, and till, emissions from transportation of corn to market, transportation from market to refinery, and transportation of final product from ethanol refinery to oil refinery. While it is true that all plants store carbon dioxixde, they cannot store enough. Corn is the least efficient source for ethanol, and if the government were to take 1/10th the money used for subsidizing the corn ethanol industry and put it into researching other forms, we'd be able to use switchgrass, prairie grasses and algae before you could say "Boo." All those sources provide significantly more energy per pound than the corn (ethanol will always produce the same energy, but you'd have to put less raw product in). One aspect of ethanol production that is never, ever discussed is the massive water usage. One large ethanol refinery can suck an good-sized aquifer dry in less than a year. Most ethanol refineries use milions upon millions of gallons of water for production and that water cannot be reused because of all the toxins and pollutants left in it after production. The water has to be treated like wastewater, which adds another cost to the whole production.
I believe that all people who think ethanol is the answer, or even an answer, are allowing themselves to be snookered by the industry. Ethanol will never be able to replace gasoline, and we can never produce enough to keep up with demand. Remember when gas prices spiked this summer? It wasn't because we'd hit summer driving season or because of problems overseas, it was because several states started their ethanol requirements and there wasn't enough ethanol to go around. E-85 is rarely significantly cheaper than gasoline because the ethanol is still so expensive even with all the subsidies. One of my coworkers purchased an E-85 vehicle and determined that in order for it to be worthwhile to use E-85, there would have to be nearly a $1 difference in price. That's how inefficent ethanol is.
I'm sorry I went on like that but it really frosts my cookies that ethanol is presented as this silver bullet which will solve all our problems when in actuality it is a product driven by the farmer unions and organizations.

 

Ditto, queenfan. Nice post and I COMPLETELY agree.

Water. It's not just for drinking anymore. It does indeed support life on this planet, whether to hydrate you or your fuel. Water wars...look for them soon.

So MANY hidden things the ethanolizers (new term, use it at will!) just won't admit.

Why can't we just get on with solar and wind charging a battery to run a car? Is it just too simple? Too few getting kickbacks? Limitations to EVs, sure, but, hey, there are limitations to how much I want to breathe clean air and drink water.

 

Good & accurate information and worth the time to read, IMO. Also, it's worth noting that there are no savings for most drivers when it comes to flex fuel. At least with a hybrid you might get something back if you keep it long enough.

To financially break even, E85 must cost about 2/3 the cost of gas. It doesn't, at least not in Colorado. Of course YMMV and some report less than a 20% penalty. But in the "real world" and for most people E85 is currently a bust. The big winner is still agribusiness for now.

It's worth noting that E85 vehicles consume less actual gasoline thus saving petroleum. And there is a reduction in greenhouse gases, too, but costs are steep and spread over other markets like food.

 

E85 was $2.39 in Greeley recently ( this Month ).
Don't know where you can get it in Denver.

And I must say that nearly all of the post by Mary ( queenfan ) is false and mis-leading.

If you want the facts, ask and I will share.
I have insider information most do not have.

I wrote a 4 page reply to Mary, and lost it before hitting send.
And my audienece here is too small for me to put that much effort into it again ulness there is sincere interest.

 

To avoid ethanol I was told to use 93 octane, the manual just says use at least 87 octane. Any reason I can't just use 93?

 

At a BP station last year, I accidentally grabbed the 93 octane nozzle and filled my tank. It dropped my mileage almost as much as E10. I had thought I read that 93 octane was a mixture of ethanol also to increase octane, so I thought that was the problem. What is being posted in this thread is not the case. If this is true, it may have been the the change in my KAM long term fuel maps. This was the tank of gas I ran dry on I-95 to get it out of my tank. I had brought a full gas can of 87 octane in case I ran out, but I didn't think it would happen on that short moment on I-95. I do remember my mileage going back to normal much quicker than the E10 tanks in the past.

MARY (Queenfan), don't feel bad that GPSman1 insulted you because he does that to everyone that disagrees with him. I thought your post and the others have been a good assessment of real world concerns. GOOD POST!

GaryG